Simply Left Behind

You LIKE Me! You really LIKE Me!

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:08:13 PST

Spiked at the top until 11/20

*AHEM*

The annual exercise in futility, otherwise known as the Weblog Awards, has opened nominations for this year's contest.

I have the distinction of being a finalist for the past two years, and a winner two years ago. I'd like to continue my unprecedented string of three straight finalist nods.

Won't you please nominate me?

Best Up And Coming Blog

Best Large Blog (What? When the fuck did THAT happen???)

Best Liberal Blog

And of course, if you want to name me in some other category...well, let's just say I can feel the love.

Thanks all!

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:11:14 PST

1) I want to make sure I understand this: the city is closing 25 firehouses in working and middle class neighborhoods. We've cut thousands of jobs that provide assistance to the weakest and poorest among us. We're confronted with massive tax hikes just to close this year's shortfall. But HEY! Spend tens of millions of dollars to honor a billion-dollar corporation and its multimillionaire staff, who could post the money with just the bonuses earned in the World Series AND who has repeatedly stiffed us for even the pittance in taxes the city has asked them to pay? Hell, yes, we can do that!

2) Weird, man. Just fucking weird.

3) Perhaps one good thing to come out of yesterday shooting rampage at Fort Hood is that the mental health of military personnel is actually being talked about in the mainstream media.

4) Years too late, of course.

5) Keep in mind when the right wing idiots clamor about this that Obama's job losses have been at a far lower rate than Goerge W Bush's.

6) Because you know Obama still looks out for us.

7) When you lose one of your biggest financial supporters, you ought to think twice about being the Party of No. Of course, this is not all good news for healthcare reform.

8) I wonder if the French have a word for "entrepreneur"? This guy's picture should be in the dictionary next to it.

9) Yesterday was Guy Fawkes' Day. My suspicion is Michelle Bachmann thought that meant be MORE fascistic and tyrannical. And weren't they just all up in arms over the movie "V for Vendetta"?

10) Finally, apparently, the Beatles really ARE bigger than Jesus...

Throwing Bad Money After Worse

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:43:24 PST

You'd think investors would have learned a harsh lesson. Let's talk about that after the break:

Concerns are mounting that efforts by governments and central banks to stoke a recovery will create a nasty side effect: asset bubbles in real-estate, stock and currency markets, especially in Asia.

The World Bank warned Tuesday that the sudden reappearance of billions of dollars in investment capital in East Asia is "raising concerns about asset price bubbles" in equity markets across Asia and in real estate in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam. Also Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund cited "a risk" that surging Hong Kong asset prices are being driven by a flood of capital "divorced from fundamental forces of supply and demand."

Behind the trend are measures such as cutting interest rates and pumping money into the financial system, which have left parts of the world awash in cash and at risk of bubbles, or run-ups in asset prices beyond what economic fundamentals suggest are reasonable.

Prices are surging across a host of markets. Gold, up about 44% this year, soared to a record high Tuesday. Copper is up about 50% in the past year. In the U.S., risky assets are rising rapidly in price: The risk spreads, or interest-rate premiums, on low-rated junk bonds have narrowed to about where they were in February 2008, before Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers fell, according to Barclays Capital.

Before I start talking about the "why", let me sum up what you just read because, in truth, my eyes glazed over the first four times I read it, and I'm supposed to be interested in this stuff for a living.

In short, there's a lot of free capital out there that is not being reinvested in companies, or infrastructure, but in speculative investments. The laws of supply and demand, while imperfect, do apply here: opportunities are created when there is more money available than can reasonably be invested/spent.

Those bonuses at Goldman Sachs, that could be lent to struggling shopkeepers or small manufacturers are only the top of the iceberg of available cash that is being used creatively to whip up yet another frenzy.

Why?

Fair question, and a simple answer: addiction.

Greed is a drug. It is like alcohol or heroin, only greed destroys more lives than either of those.

When you've spent the past thirty years receiving double digit percent returns on your invested capital (yes, we've been in an overheated market for that long, despite the occasional bump and drop), you're not going to suddenly accept money market rates of 1 or 1.5% on your money.

You're going to force higher returns. You're going to look for pockets where the worldwide recession has not hit yet, and cycle your money in and out quickly.

How do I know this is what is happening? Personal experience.

Over the past three weeks, I have seen no fewer than three investment funds offer investors refunds on their invested capital. They've called for too much and were unable to complete investments they believed they could close on at an appropriate return.

They were, in other words, outbid by people willing to accept a lower-but-still-healthy return.

How does that work? Here's a thought experiment.

I'm willing to accept a 5% return so I bid to invest one dollar, expecting to get back $1.05.

I do this knowing that I'm faring better than the bank, who would give me a $1.01.

Someone else realizes they'd be willing to accept a 4% return, and so offer to invest $1.01, to get back the same $1.05.

The investment would be foolish to accept less money to pay back more in interest. After all, they get to keep an extra penny themselves.

Greed.

Basically, this is one step up from a Ponzi scheme. And it signals that we are far from out of the woods in this economy.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of me would like to see stronger oversight of the markets, but that might stifle true innovation. After all, green energy ain't gonna be financed at the prime rate for the foreseeable future. Neither is stem cell research.

On the other hand, the anarchist in me would like to see the entire capitalist system go cold turkey on stupidity. But that would destroy us in the process, and that kind of violent change only begets more violence.

This is not going to be pretty.

Not A Bad Day At All

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:46 PST

What to make of the off-year elections that people were focusing on?

Well, on balance, while not a stellar performance, one has to believe Obama actually gained a little ground yesterday.

Huh? Wha?

You heard me. Here's why:

1) Governor of Virginia - Virginia went 53-46 for Obama last year. However, of the last five elected governors (including McDonnell now) three were Republicans, all elected with a Democrat in the White House. Add to that fact that Creigh Deeds was a nearly unknown state senator and ran a campaign so egregiously bad that even the White House wrote him off weeks before the election, a landslide was all but inevitable.

2) Governor of New Jersey - Chris Christie barely held onto a lead going into the voting booth, and many polls had this as a toss-up. Over the past thirty years, there have been six elected governors: three Republicans, three Democrats. To call New Jersey a Democratic stronghold at the state-wide level is ludicrous. Now, Obama did put in some energy into campaigning for Corzine, but the billionaire lost to the multimillionaire largely because of outside assistance from the right wing of the Republican party.

This was no slam dunk election that was Corzine's to lose, in other words. The entrance of Chris Dagget probably hurt Corzine more than Christie, altho his vote total probably would not have changed the outcome.

IN NEITHER OF THESE TWO ELECTIONS WAS OBAMA A FACTOR! Voters chose based almost strictly on local and statewide issues, not the national scene and in no way should either of these elections be considered as part of a larger "Republican Rescusitation"

3) The key race for Obama's fortunes, however, was NY State's 23rd. There, in a stunning reversal of Republican fortunes, Democrat Bill Owens stunned the right wing of America by kicking the ass of Neoconservative darling, Doug Hoffman.

Hoffman held a significant four point lead in polling over the weekend, so he lost seven points in support in the blink of an eye.

Hoffman was heavily touted by Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fucking Republican Loons. This has to strike terror into Sarah Palin's heart, because she so closely tied her Presidential fortunes to the outcome here. It makes her look like a loser who can't even get a Congressman elected in a heavily Republican, very conservative district that is filled with military types!

Pawlenty at least had the smarts to be a little on the QT when he endorsed Hoffman! But Palin?

Ooo-la-la! She shot her chances in the foot with this boo-boo! She pissed off the Republican leadership and still lost the fucking election!

Too bad, so sad, it's ours, Mooseburger...

It's Always About The Money With Them

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:39:49 PST

Nevermind that the long term costs of global warming are staggering. Nevermind that even the short term costs of global warming are staggeringly high.

No, it's all about the pennies we might save by doing nothing:

WASHINGTON — Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, protesting that the bill's costs have not been fully examined. The action put a spotlight on the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session for 15 minutes to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He insisted the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but concern that its widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided "a full blown economic analysis" and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted "we're not rushing we are taking our time."

HOW MUCH HANDHOLDING DO THESE NIMRODS REQUIRE?

Reid, Pelosi, and Boxer ought to just run roughshod over the Republicans in Congress, just the way the Republicans ran roughshod over the Democrats under the Bush administration.

Eff em, if they can't take a joke. Elections have consequences, deficits don't matter (Cheney), and Go Fuck Yourself (Cheney redux).

Progress cannot come from cons, neo or otherwise. They aren't "pro", they're "con" for a reason.

Probably because the future is now, for them. Today matters more than tomorrow, except when it's a Democrat buying the drinks.

Then somehow yesterday matters more than today, but not as much as tomorrow, which matters less than today anyway.

Re-read that again. It made sense when I put on my Republican hat.

There's this weird dynamic in the Republican party that it seems one can never get a cogent answer on any issue they disagree with. It's one thing to be the loyal opposition, to oppose things on principle, to say that this is wrong because it specifically opposes a parameter that is generally believed to be good for the nation.

It's another thing to throw a five year old's tantrum and say "No! No! No!"

When I was in college, serving on the student council, I made arguably the stupidest speech of my entire life. I said, in effect, "this is wrong because I think it's wrong," with respect to a proposal offered up by the minority party.

Now, I'm a wise man, brilliant at times, but even as the words left my mouth, I realized how stupid it was for me to say that and not have a very specific objection. It made me look stupid, but worse, it made opposition to the proposal look stupid.

You can see where I'm going with this: to knee-jerk reactively say that even discussing solutions to global warming is wrong simply because they might cost us a few bucks makes any legitimate concerns about the solutions involved seem petty.

Say they'll be ineffective (be specific) and you might have my ear. Say they'll be inefficient, and you'll have my ear.

Tell me they'll cost too much, and I'll tune you out nearly as fast as I tune out climate change deniers.

Republicans have become Johnny One-Notes, and they're taking up the kazoo.

Roll The Dice

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:03:20 PST

Tomorrow could conceivably be the biggest off-year election for the next decade, at least.

It is in this spirit that I believe Barack Obama needs to roll the dice or go all-in:

Democrats and Republicans in three states entered their final full day of campaigning ahead of Tuesday's elections, with the White House carefully targeting its resources in a bid to head off Republican victories.

Vice President Biden plans to join Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who is running against a third-party conservative candidate in an upstate New York congressional election, at a rally Monday morning.

Owens is fighting head-to-head against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, after GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava dropped out over the weekend. Scozzafava, who was criticized as too moderate by members of her own party, endorsed Owens on Sunday. But it's unclear how much of an impact that endorsement will have, as many of her supporters are expected to drift toward Hoffman's candidacy.

Meanwhile, President Obama headlined two rallies for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine Sunday, pushing to drive up turnout as Republican challenger Chris Christie did the same.

Having written off the incompetent campaign of Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Obama has put a lot of effort into Corzine's campaign in New Jersey.

The most recent non-partisan polls, like Quinnipiac College, show Corzine with a small lead, but within the margin of error. Obama has made two visits to the state in the past week, with another set for today.

While he's there, however, he might want to consider shoring up White House support in New York's 23rd District.

Yes, Joe Biden will appear there, and yes, that's a high profile appearance, but neither Governor's race will reflect as much on Obama's administration as a race to replace his Secretary of the Army, Republican John McHugh.

As I mentioned in the earlier post I linked to, McHugh's seat is a long-time moderate Republican stronghold, but there's been a twist: the Republican moderate has dropped out of the race...and thrown her support to the Democrat against a conservative insurgent candidate!

This is a situation that cries out for Obama's special attention and a last minute surprise appearance could make that endorsement of Scozzafava not only brilliant, but pave the way for her advancement in politics.

In other words, the New York State Republican party would owe Obama a favor, albeit a minor one, and one he might parlay into something useful to both himself and the nation at large.

Like, perhaps, passing a bill that allows NYS to be a testing ground for a public healthcare option. This would not be inconsistent with former Governor George Pataki's expansion of the Child Health Plus program to cover families, and would be a shot in the arm to retaining businesses in the state.

Win-win, as it were.

Imagine Joe Biden, standing there at the rally in Watertown. Thousands of curious upstaters come out, cheering, and suddenly Joe Biden announces Barack Obama.

Talk about a breaking news story! Talk about a game-changing appearance!

It could happen. It should happen. I hope it does.

UPDATE Looks like I'm in some good company about getting on the President's back.

Nobody Asked Me, But....

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:35:07 PDT

1) I'm reminded of the fact that the September 11th attackers practiced on Windows Flight Simulator.

2) It only FEELS this old...

3) The question is, will Facebook turn around and pay its members? After all, we had to suffer through this.

4) Git 'em, Hillary!

5) Some people probably have too much time on their hands.

6) Mmmm, demon candy....guhhhhhhhuhuhuhhhhhhhh....

7) A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

8) Dumbass of the day. Money quote: "Asked if she's ever heard of birth control, Hasselbeck replied, "Yeah, I have. It takes a while to kick in once you start one. But in the meantime, I just find him incredibly attractive. So, it's not like I'm that disciplined, so right now, my strategy is dressing in a way that will not get me pregnant."

Cuz ugly women never get pregnant...

9) FOX News: Pirate Sympathisers...

10) Finally, the annual reminder to cut off the top three inches of your sheets, and sew them onto the bottom. Yes, it's the end of Daylight Savings Time again!

Obama Does The Right Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:33:38 PDT

Here we have a President who paid attention these past eight years:

President Obama traveled to Dover Air Force Base early Thursday morning, where he met with family members and paid his respects as the bodies of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were returned to the United States.

It was the president’s first trip to the Delaware air base, the main point of entry for the nation’s war dead to return home. The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama — intended to convey the gravity of his decision as he moves closer to announcing whether he will send more troops to Afghanistan.

The overnight trip was not announced in advance. The president, wearing a dark suit and long overcoat, left the White House at 11:44 p.m. A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.

(emphasis added, for reasons shortly to be clear)
A simple, dignified, and low-key acknowledgement of one of the most terrible days to befall US combat troops since Vietnam.

You'd think the entire nation, as one, would stand beside Obama for this one moment and acknowledge he did the right thing.

Um, well, you'd be wrong.

Nevermind "support the troops". Nevermind the quiet dignity afforded a group of courageous men and women who lay their lives on the line in defense of this great nation. Nevermind that, in symbolism, we see the toll these wars are taking upon us all.

(Side note: I wonder how bad this economic downturn would have been had we not spent ourselves silly fighting, as Vizzini put it, "involved in a land war in Asia"? Just a thought to chew on.)

It's not enough. There's some dark mystery, a hidden meaning, a shade lingering, over each and every action of President Barack Hussein Obama.

A "black shadow" administration, as it were.

Now, it's true: every President has to be conscious of the impact and meaning of his gestures. Presidents are, like it or not, role models and trendsetters.

Imagine, if you will, George W Bush actually successfully riding the Segway. Undoubtedly, it would have been given a marketing boost (and no doubt, Segway had hopes for that).

Unfortunately he fell off, thus propagating the myth that the Segway is difficult to master and putting a crimp in its acceptance and certainly losing the chance to market is as "so simple a moron can use it".

Presidents acknowledging the loss of soldiers, however, is hardly a political novelty, and is often accompanied by frills and ceremony when he does it (as in laying the wreaths on Memorial Day in Arlington).

One has to question the...patriotism...of those who question this gesture.

Smart Power

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:46:13 PDT

The television show, The Six Million Dollar Man, used this as an opening monologue:

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.

That program was about a test pilot crippled in a horrendous crash, rebuilt using the (then) latest technology.

So it goes with our electrical grid, if only in fits and starts and drips and drabs.

Winners in the Obama administration's $3.4 billion smart grid sweepstakes were exultant. Some losers sounded bitter. But there seemed to be no quarrel that yesterday's Energy Department grants will accelerate revolutionary changes in the ways electricity is generated and managed by utilities and their consumers.

"The grid has to evolve to support where policy is driving us," said Chris Baker, senior vice president and chief information officer of San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which won a $28.1 million federal smart grid grant yesterday. It will help to fund a $60 million futuristic information management system that ties key elements of its smart grid together.

As events of August 2003, as well as events early in the Bush administration demonstrated, we are running a 21st Century economy on bearskins and bone knives, in terms of electrical power.

The grid as it stands is basically a series of local nodes inadequately joined to create large regional swaths of interconnected power feeds. If one plant goes off line, another can shunt electricity to that region and draw on others down the line. This all happens incredibly fast with incredible amounts of power being rerouted chaotically, without function or form.

Not good, particularly as the ultimate oversight is a guy with a button or switch, in case things get hairy. As 2003 demonstrated, many times that guy ain't fast enough.

Current monitoring of power flow takes places in whole seconds, when milliseconds have proven to be critical in determining how to route power. That's going to change. This means that routing will not take place in chunks of power but in fine-tuned streaming.

That's going to save a lot in terms of efficiency, repairs, and load on the grid.

Ultimately, I would hope the goal for energy in America is tons of small, renewable energy plants sprinkled across the landscape, and a power grid that can fine tune the low-power generation that renewable sources will create into plentiful electricity for the nation.

It's just smarter that way.

A Walk In The Park

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:52:59 PDT

Leave it to Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot:

Reporting from Washington - Silvan Johnson adores Sarah Palin, belongs to a conservative discussion group and fumes at President Obama's spending policies. But when it comes to picking a new congressional representative for her upstate New York district, she is in no mood to help the Republican Party.

In fact, Johnson and many other conservatives want to use a Nov. 3 special election to teach the GOP a lesson about sticking to conservative values -- even though that lesson could mean the party loses a House seat it has held for decades. The conservatives are backing a third-party candidate, splitting the Republican vote and giving the Democrat a lead in some recent opinion polls.

"Both parties seem to be more for big government," said Johnson, a probation clerk in Fulton, N.Y. "The Republicans need to learn that the people they are running [for office] do not represent the views of the people."

Clueless Silvan Johnson might want to consider these words of Newt Gingrich:

"We have to decide which business we are in," Gingrich said on his website after conservatives derided his endorsement of[Republican party candidate in NY's 23rd Dede] Scozzafava. "If we are in the business of feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision."

The independent candidate, Doug Hoffman, is a rock-ribbed conservative. Lest you think New York as a blue state, it is based on overall population (meaning we have a lot of urban areas here) but swaths of the state make Alabama look progressive and modern, in political outlook.

This election is to fill the seat vacated by Army Secretary John M. McHugh. The last Democrat to win and hold the seat, Peter Peyser, won in 1980. Obama captured 52% of the vote in 2008, with third party candidates drawing an anomalous 2% of the vote. Clearly, some anger at Republicans exists.

While the district is Republican, it tends to elect moderates like McHugh and Sherwood Boehlert. This is what makes Hoffman's entrance into the race, as well as the bizarre divide of the Republican zodiac, so intriguing.

Scozzafava is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, which has angered an awful lot of the more strident factions in the Republican party, and has Sarah Palin, among others on the list of Fucking Republican Loons, hitching her horse up to pull this wagon.

Sarah Palin, who's about as risk averse as the man wearing a belt and suspenders, is risking a lot to back an insurgency. The party machine in the district hand-picked Scozzafava over Hoffman and others. This cannot be viewed with anything but concern back at RNC HQ.

Should Hoffman win, Palin can count coup and run as an outsider in 2012 despite having burrowed her way deeply into the pile of piglets sucking at National's teat.

Should she lose, it could conceivably mean the end of her fairly sturdy Presidential nomination hopes.

Hoffman has been drawing large sums of money from outside of New York state and is currently out-raising Scozzafava.

But not the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens.

The polling in the district is all over the map: conservative polls tend to push Hoffman, liberal polls tend to push Owens and Siena College polls indicate a whipsaw race, with both Owens and Scozzafava grabbing leads. The most recent and most unreliable poll, taken Oct. 25 and published by the archconservative, Randian Club For Growth, shows Hoffman with a small lead, but I have no doubt this is incorrect, if only for degree not result.

Hm.

I'll say this much: this race is making the Republican nominating process suddenly relevant again. Not because Barack Obama can lose the 2012 election, but because we may be witnessing an historic event.

The complete collapse of a major political party under the weight of its own wrong-headed, heartless ideology. It has been said you can't be too vicious to be a Republican, but it's starting to look like you can!

At Loggerheads

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:40:13 PDT

There's an interesting dynamic at work in a nation where nearly 8 in 10 people agree on something: a public healthcare option.

It may not even come to a vote, despite the fact that it has more than enough votes for it to pass.

You know, that stupid "60 votes to avoid a filibuster" rule that has clogged up legislation for hundreds of years (OK, the vote total has come down in that time, but still...):

The Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid - and a majority of Members of the Senate - support the inclusion of public health insurance option in the Senate's health care reform bill. The debate over where the Senate of the United States stands on this question is now settled. The Senate - like the American people, the House of Representatives and the President - supports a public option.

What is not settled is whether the majority will be allowed to have an up or down vote on a health care bill that includes a public option.

The question is: will any of the Democratic Senators join with the Republicans to prevent an up or down vote on a bill containing a public option - one that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people?

Two words for ya, Bob: Joe Lieberman (I-Insurance Company Stooge)

It ain't happenin', Bob. Simple as that. Lieberman represents Connecticut and as insurers go, so goes Connecticut. He'd be cutting his nose to spite his face and rather than retire somewhat gracefully, Joe is hellbent-for-leather to show he still has stroke in this new Senate.

His ego is too big to write the check you want him to, Bob. I'm sorry.

This requires now that Olympia Snowe step up and vote her conscience, just like she (sort of) did in committee.

Even if every other Democratic Senator, plus Bernie Sanders (who will), voted for any form of public option in even this limited fashion, Lieberman wouldn't admit an up or down vote if you held a gun to his head.

Even his colleague from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, is sweating bullets over this issue, and while Dodd will likely have the cojones to vote this forward to burnish his populist credentials (his only announced opponent for his 2010 re-election, Linda McMahon, has been hammering him mercilessly for being yoked to big government), he has to be very careful and find whatever political cover he can.

The realpolitik of the situation is this: 80% of Americans want some form of public health insurance coverage. Nearly 60% of Senators want it.

Somehow, we on the ground here have to get thru to Senators we might be able to sway from the Republican party. That's precious few, to be certain. Perhaps Susan Collins of Maine, maybe George Voinovich in Ohio (based on job losses, Ohio has an unemployment rate inching up towards 11%) could be arm-twisted, but even then, every single Democrat besides Lieberman would have to be cracked into line.

That's going to be hard. Support for a public option in the Blue Dog Democrat states is only 54%.

So close, yet so far...

Free Speech Link(TV)ed

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:19:58 PDT

(post pinned to top of blog until 10/26)

First, I have to badger you: if you don't have DISH Network, you are overpaying a corporatist titan who is determined to keep you from finding out the truth.

I urge you to toss out your cable box, get rid of Rupert Murdoch's DirecTV with its hidden fees and open agenda, and get thee to DISH!

Why? Well, in addition to LinkTV, which I featured twice on my blog last week, you get Free Speech TV.

Even better, if you're too mind-numbingly zombified by the blinking lights on your cable box, you can now watch it streaming on-line.

For free.

Oh. But they are holding a fund raising drive, so please give a few bucks to keep them going.

But I digress...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:59:59 PDT

1) This makes me very sad. Where I grew up, I knew most of the big timers: Sonny Fox, Sandy Becker, was on Bozo The Clown, even dated Bob McAllister's daughter once or twice...but I never met Soupy Sales, even tho he lived a few blocks away from me. I loved his show most of all. Think Pee Wee's Playhouse, but with a LOT more edge to it.

2) Were they sleeping, or drunk?

3) Like Clinton in the Baltic, Obama now has NATO cover for the troops.

4) Why Axelrod bothered meeting with someone who clearly has an agenda that includes lying to the American people under the false heading "news" is beyond me.

5) Interesting. Sarah Palin just gave the 23rd District in NYS to the Democrats.

6) If Patterson pulls this off, either it will save his re-election bid or will be the final graceful act of a lame duck governor.

7) It's ironic that one childhood hero, Soupy Sales, dies as another is brought back to life.

8) Like putting out fire with gasoline (bonus points for identifying the singer)

9) The Ten Worst Food Developments of the past ten years. I dunno...blooming onions are pretty cool. Too bad I can't eat them.

10) Some guys will never learn...

Republicans Ain't Got Balls

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:22:05 PDT

This comes as no surprise to liberal men:

Republican men nationwide may have experienced a drop in testosterone levels the night Barack Obama was elected president, according to the results of a small study that found another link between testosterone and men's moods.

I've long known that Republican men have no balls.

But let's take a closer look at this phenomenon. After eight years of balls-to-the-wall international violence, aggression, and bullying, in one night of repudiation, we find that aggressive men have lost a few feet off their fastball (pun intended).

Which raises an interesting question: is man, as a gender, inherently and genetically predisposed to violence?

Perhaps. Testosterone is associated with fear and stress: there seems to be a correlation between aggression and testosterone (so the old wive's tale appears intact). Since testosterone is also closely linked to the genetic drive to reproduce, and since our cave ancestors often had to fight for the right to deposit their seed in a woman, there seems to be some anecdotal association that allows for the equation "violence=sex".

Certainly the crime of rape is about violence, possession, aggression and control, and yet it is undeniable that somewhere in there is an element of sexuality.

Too, it has been demonstrated that the observation of violence and aggression can trigger violence and aggression in men (and women). How else can one explain how a bar fight turns into a brawl?

Now, our friends on the right will come up with reams of anecdotal evidence to contradict...something...here, but the simple fact is, cause and effect: they lost, their testosterone dropped. If they had won, their testosterone levels would have remained the same.

This is, of course, good news for John McCain's campaign. All he has to do is just win the 2008 election, and his followers will get erections. He'll be like political Viagra if he can just beat Senator Obama!

Why Americans Are Woefully Uninformed

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:18:00 PDT

With all that's going on in the world, with Afghanistan and healthcare reform and wars and famine and global warming, this is the headline of the second largest selling general newspaper in New York City.

And it's owned by FOX, no surprise there!

Day Of Rage

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:54:51 PDT

I'm in a real pissy mood, and my attention span is for crap, mostly because I've not slept much these past few weeks, last night being a sort of final straw for my equanimity.

So I'm going to break from my traditional analytic posts and head off into the Eschaton-like world of slam-dunking shit and letting you folks hash it out in comments:

Item 1 -- Skinny baby denied health insurance by company that advised sterilization to woman

Item 2 -- 17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat

Item 3 -- Why are some middle-class women denied health insurance coverage if they had C-Sections?

Item 4 -- Rape Survivor Denied Coverage for "Pre-existing Condition" Shares Her Story

Pretty disgusting, isn't it? Private insurers prey on the most vulnerable among us, denying coverage to sick people.

Funny, because I thought the whole point of health insurance was to try to prevent you from getting even sicker...

Surviving And Thriving

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:48:09 PDT

Not that I thought there was any danger in the brush, but...

It's increasingly possible that we will look back and see that August 2009 was this election cycle's height of Republicans' optimism over their political fortunes, and the depth of Democrats' despair.

By the time the midterm elections reach a fever pitch next year, President Obama may well have passed health-care reform, his signature domestic initiative, if not with overwhelming public support then at least with the backing of a solid majority of voters. The now common criticism that he hasn't accomplished anything will have been blunted. And while a high joblessness rate may persist, the narrative will have taken hold that the economy has either recovered or is well on its way.

The scenario above represents Democrats' best-case scenario, and no element of it is assured. But the new Washington Post-ABC News poll makes it appear a bit more likely. The survey found "that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public." While ratings for Obama's handling of health care and the overall reform plans remained roughly the same, the president has regained the support of some Independents. The Fix points out that the poll also contained bad news for Republicans, giving the party low marks for its ability to make good decisions and handing Democrats a 12-point lead on the generic Congressional ballot.

And thus the curious silence of the Obama administration in August makes itself apparent.

He figured to ride out the storm as no one was paying attention, with only the lasting echoes being the outrageous behavior of teabaggers at the "town halls" Congresscritters held.

Once September came along, with its swine flu warnings and seasonal flu warnings and just, well, cold weather forcing people inside to watch the news, Obama and his staff could take to the airwaves to promote the sensible options with respect to healthcare reform.

Let the anger flow, the thinking was. It will peter out and exhaust itself long before anything comes to a vote.

Precisely the right course to take, once it became apparent that Democrats needed time to absorb the astroturfed outcry and realize it wasn't going to translate into votes.

By not doing anything, in other words, Obama won the fight. Sort of. It's not perfect, healthcare reform, but its a start.

Likewise on Afghanistan: now that Karzai has been forced to admit that the election was, well, not on the level, Obama has been given a bit of political cover for his Hamlet-like stance on troop increases. If you can't be sure of the palyers going forward, you can afford to wait the play out until the conscience of the king is known.

Indeed, Karzai's admission opens the door to a more palatable environment into which Obama may introduce more troops than many would like to see there. One wonders how much pressure ol' Hamid there was under from State.

There are other obstacles on the horizon, like the banksta bonuses that are about to be announced from banks and investment houses that just ten months ago were hat-in-hand at Obama's door, asking for a bailout. That one could turn ugly, but the sense I get is that people understand how important it was to bail the banks out and oh, yeah...they won't be angry at Obama, but I'm not sure I'd go out and buy a new car if I was president of JP Morgan Chase right now. it might get keyed pretty badly in the parking lot of the "Stop n Shop".

In addition, through the entire summer, the Republicans reveled in the label "The Party of No," taking to it like a drunk frat brother to a keg.

And now that's coming back to haunt them, as people want...no, need...answers to the economy, to jobs, to healthcare, and to their future.

They called Reagan the Teflon ~~Don~~ President. We need to come up with a moniker that covers a guy who slips in shit and comes up smelling like a rose.

The Image Dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:28:31 PDT

Lately, I've been giving much thought to old friends and new ones.

Sometimes friendships work out, and sometimes they do not. Now, I'm the first to admit that, as a friend, I'm a handful. I can be irascible, pretty obnoxious, definitely outspoken while remaining reseved and introspective, but not one to keep the peace merely for the sake of keeping the peace.

But I can also be warm, giving to the point of generosity, compassionate and heartfelt once you've gained my trust.

In other words, human. You'll never know which parts of me you'll get, anymore than I'll know which bits of you you'll give me.

Which leads me to this bizarre column: I've been thinking about psychology and jigsaw puzzles.

Each of us has a self-image that is at once clear and muddled. Some of us are clearer than others, but we all have blindspots. Into those blindspots, we seek friends to help us interpret and understand them.

Some friends, a few, fit smoothly like the right jigaw piece. Pretty quickly, you come to the realization that this friend is one who can help nurture you, and help you comprehend yourself.

Some do not. Those friends you keep at arm's length, if you keep them at all. Like the jigsaw piece that is interlocking and you need a tessellating piece, you quickly come to the realization that this relationship is not as vaulable as you had hoped.

Most friends fall in between, on a spectrum of good friends who develop over time to friends you might run into from time to time.

Some of these friends, like some jigsaw pieces, look like they should fit easily, but you discover the puzzle is more complex than you thought. You rotate them around and still, they just don't fit easily where you thought they might.

You have two alternatives: you can put it aside, and hope it fits someplace else when the puzzle of your self-image is further along, or you can take a hammer and try to bang it into place.

Most people have tried the hammer at least once or twice in their lives. It never works.

See, the piece, the friend, looks like it should be a good fit. Maybe it has the right shape, but not exactly. Maybe it has some really bright colours that help offset a dark and dreary, lonely corner of the puzzle and you really really want that piece to fit.

Rather than perhaps admit the piece is wrong, you try to reshape the piece. Worse, maybe the admission you have to make is that the puzzle, your self-image, itself is wrong.

We hang dearly onto our images. We have illusions of who people are, and how they fit in with us. We believe things we have no business believing about someone, or worse, we don't believe in someone when maybe all it takes is a little adjustment of attitude on our part, and then suddenly, the piece fits.

After all, there was some reason we were attracted enough to that piece to even try to fit it in.

The old saw, about experience being the course in which the tests come before the lessons, holds particularly true when it comes to our self-image.

We all want to believe we are something more than we already are, and some of us actually are. For most of us, though, we are already enough to do the things we need to do to survive and thrive. Our self-image is neither complete or unfinished. It really just needs a little filling in.

Like any good puzzle strategy, most of us have laid the framework for filling in the spaces. We just need to hunt down the right pieces.

Saturday Comedy Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:46:01 PDT

There's a Rep for that!

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:52:21 PDT

1) I want you to ponder this: Tens of millions of people around the world watched an empty balloon flying. For two hours!!!!!

2) What is WRONG with these people???????? I don't mean the Heenes, whom I believe were not staging a hoax, but with this fucking nation of mindless moronic yahoos watching a bag of fucking gas????

3) On to more prosaic topics...Mr President, the time has come: you MUST, this weekend, come out in support of the public option. Period. End of discussion. You are our last hope, our last stand.

4) Failing that, I would like to see Congress revoke the anti-trust exemption that insurance companies enjoy. Japan has private health care, 3,000 insurance companies vying for business, and caps costs. Here, an insurance company can revoke coverage from an entire class of patient simply because one gets too sick to be profitable. Odd that the only newspaper covering this story is the Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times.

5) Did you know space has weather? Well, sort of. Weather on earth and other planets with an atmosphere is largely due to differences in atmospheric pressure. Guess what space has?

6) This might be one of those useless bits of trivia you never needed to know, but that some scientist was paid to uncover. Funny thing is, it will likely affect you in the near future.

7) Think the bailout solved our banking problems? Guess again!

8) Serial goat blower Mickey Kaus visited Albany, NY yesterday. At least he knows how to show a goat a good time.

9) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't laws against miscegenation illegal? I'm thinking the judge is up for re-election in his parrish and probably wanted to be on the safe side of this issue. Solution? Disbar him.

10) Fort Lupton, CO, even now I can remember 'Cause the Colorado River, Goes smokin' through my dreams

Respectfully, I Disagree...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:14:50 PDT

Anyone who has known me for any length of time ought to know two things about me:

1) I oppose nearly every war in all its facets, and

2) I am a lifelong liberal Democrat, but I do not take marching orders.

In fact, my favorite T-shirt says "I Don't Fetch And I Don't Beg".

That said, today I read a troubling piece from one of the limelight A-list bloggers for the Progressive movement, Arianna Huffington. I distrust Ms Huffington, who was stridently conservative before she was stridently liberal (as was David Brock, among others). I find that over the past five years or so she has become more trustworthy, but being paranoid like I am, I still take her with a grain of salt.

But I digress....sort of.

Here's what she had to say today:

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan -- an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

[...]It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there -- the New York Times reported last month that he has "deep reservations" about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

This is a fair position to take, like Colin Powell's, of leaving a group who clearly hold strong opinions in opposition to yours.

The unfortunate thing is, Biden is right. Further, he's not being furtive in his opposition, as the Newsweek article makes clear.

Undoubtedly, this article was sanctioned by the Oval Office, and so Biden's opinion being on display for all to see is both comforting to me as a liberal Libertarian and as a fan of good government.

Here's Biden's position, as noted in Newsweek and quoted by Ms Huffington:

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.

Indeed, why are we wasting our time in Afghanistan if we are fighting Al Qaeda? Now, there may be plenty of other reasons to engage the Taliban and its ally Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

A show of faith in the battle waged by the Pakistani government springs to mind, and that the Taliban, recently the focused of renewed energy by the Obama administration (I'll get to that in a second) is less influential in Pakistan than in Afghanistan also must be considered.

What Biden is pointing out is the thuddingly simple rationale that any average American can understand. Al Qaeda cross the Afghan-Pakistan border with impunity, and the way we are battling them is kind of like duct taping one side of a leak in a boat. It'll work, sort of, but eventually you're going to sink.

This is good. This is the sort of advice a President needs to hear. Cogent, simple, and not lock-step voicing of conventional wisdom.

Ms Huffington, THAT'S what got us into this mess in the first place! By forcing Colin Powell (or any number of military advisers)and the "Pottery Barn" doctrine out, the Bush administration guaranteed themselves insulation from bad news. Insulation from bad news guarantees bad results.

By raising this issue, it appears Biden has already forced the administration to alter course, even if a little: by repurposing the efforts in Afghanistan (and justifying the increase in troops) as a fight against the Taliban. This does provide some political cover to pressure Pakistan to accept US help.

That Biden is whispering in Obama's ear "Sic Transit Gloria" is a good thing, Ms Huffington.

That Popping Sound You Hear...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:29:45 PDT

...is the sound of right wing skulls exploding across America:

BOSTON--Commissioner Roger Goodell said here Tuesday that it would be inappropriate for the owner of an NFL franchise to make the sort of controversial statements attributed in the past to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"I've said many times before we're all held to a high standard here, and I think divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about," Goodell said at an NFL owners' meeting. "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, absolutely not."

Limbaugh has acknowledged being part of a group bidding for the St. Louis Rams.

Goodell and several owners said Tuesday that the Rams' sale process is in its early stages and the league is far from considering a potential bid by Limbaugh and Dave Checketts, the chairman of hockey's St. Louis Blues.

But any proposed franchise sale would have to be approved by three-quarters of the owners, and Goodell's comments signaled that it perhaps would be unlikely that Limbaugh's bid would be ratified by the other teams.

Now, no big deal, right? It's not the first time someone has made a complete ass of themselves and been prevented from joining the cool kids club.

Except...well, Rush is held in (for reasons that remain unclear) some high esteem among the more neanderthalic limbic-systemites of this nation. You know, the more reptilian-brained Americans? They tend to get a little vicious when one of their own is threatened with anything mildly close to a sanction against their behavior or idols.

Take the Tea Baggers. Or the the unimaginative, idiotic, and ultimately ineffectual protest created on the fly against Senator Olympia Snowe, whose vote yesterday in committee to approve the Baucus healthcare plan was the sole Republican one, on a bill that is about as friendly to the insurance industry which is Astroturfing the TeaBaggers as they're going to get in this era of poverty. Or, indeed, the fluffernutter reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize.

It must be frustrating to be a right-winger these days, but I digress...

Look, Rush has said some remarkably ignorant and moronic things, and that alone should not keep him from being an NFL owner. Al Davis has said many moronic and idiotic things, and he's not only kept his franchise but has been allowed to move it up and down the California coast like a Hell's Angel on the PCH.

And Rush is a truly controversial figure and even that should not keep him from owning an NFL team. After all, Jerry Johnson of the Dallas Cowboys just opened a multibillion dollar football stadium in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression that replaces...well, a multibillion dollar stadium that was in perfectly good shape, and no one is taking his franchise away from him.

What SHOULD keep him from being locked out of owning a franchise is the fact that a large enough percentage of the owners simply don't like the thought of being associated with an idiotic, nonsensical, foul-mouthed bigot who will own a team that no one will want to play for. In their opinion, it demeans the game and will weaken the product.

This isn't the public domain of America. There is no First Amendment right in the domain of the private enterprise that is the NFL, and Rush is getting a first-hand lesson in what the average worker has to endure on a day-to-day basis: at-will employment, albeit in Rush's case at the executive level.

And here's where the explosion is happening in the skulls, thick as they are, of the right wing: they're watching a wealthy businessman (there really is no other way to describe someone who exploits everyone around him, including himself, for his own profit) being treated like one of them by a sport they all love deeply.

Who to root for? After all, the NFL provides them with (subjectively speaking) "quality" entertainment to remove them from the mundanities of miserable proletaria for most of the day on Sunday (and Monday night and sometimes Saturday and Thursday), gives them a rooting interest in millionaires. Rush provides them with lightning rods to exhaust their anger and rage at their own miserable mundanity, blaming the liberals or the gays or the women for their own inadequacies.

And now they're being reminded over and over just how miserably mundane their lives are, how pathetic the American male existence is, all that privilege and power having been pooled not amongst the majority of white men, but among an elite, including Rush and the owners of the very club that would not have him as a member.

See, this is why the whole "anti-anti-affirmative action" effort falls apart. Yes, white men in this country generally have it better than minorities, women, and gays. No doubt about it. But here's the thing: the white men we make that argument to are not in much better shape than the minorities and groups that they fear will take even more away from them.

This is the case we need to make to them, that this equal rights initiative is not aimed at them, that the gay marriage movement won't make them gay, but is an attempt, ultimately successful (because it must be) to garner the privilege of the economically more privileged, which is largely older, whiter, and male.

So we see the assault on the average American male: on the one hand, he sees a threat from us on the left, on the other, he sees there are limits to even the avatars he has created to live vicariously thru (you don't think Rush has been married four times because he likes being married? He does it because of the image of power and potency it portrays to his audience. As I said, he exploits even himself.)

And he can't very well reconcile the two groups by painting the NFL owners as liberal stooges! He is experiencing a deep cognitive dissonance, one that will make for interesting observation in the months and years to come.

Useful Idiots

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:59:58 PDT

You may have missed this, it may have been deliberately timed for a slow news weekend on a semi-national holiday (in that the markets were open Monday despite Columbus Day), but an interesting front was opened up by the Obama administration on Sunday: FOX News

The White House is now fighting a three-front war: Iraq, Afghanistan and Fox News.

I found myself in the middle of that conflict on Sunday when my interview with Anita Dunn aired on CNN's "Reliable Sources." Within hours the thing went viral; stories and video of the White House communications director's remarks spread to the Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Media Bistro, Politico, Mediaite, Hot Air and many other sites.

I had thought Dunn might try to smooth things over with the country's highest-rated cable news network, as guests often do in front of a television camera, but instead she was determined to ratchet things up: "The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. . . . Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

I'm going to ignore the sucking up aspect of Dunn's statement for a moment to take the narrow case with respect to FOX News.

It's no secret that FOX News takes its marching orders in large part from the Republican leadership, if not directly from the party itself.

"Party itself"...sounds so...Soviet...don't you think?

Kurtz goes on to point out that, indeed, MSNBC offers some refuge for the progressive wing of the country in the evening in its opinion round-up: Ed Schulz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow make no attempt to hide their biases, but misses the point that the daytime coverage of the news on MSNBC is nothing but what FOX claims it is: fair and balanced.

FOX is, in effect, what Lenin used to call the far-left wing of America and the west: "Useful idiots".

I'd add Rush Limbaugh and all the other B-list opinionators who are either too scared or too insignificant to land a gig with FOX television (I mean, my God, Glenn Beck has a show on FOX!), but hasten to add that, in Rush's case, he's the most useful idiot the party has: one who thinks he's in charge!

So what Dunn describes is not only fair, but true: FOX is an organ for the right wing of this nation to hang their idiocies on.

Is that a bad thing?

No. It is true that FOX is the highest rated cable "news" network in the country, but there are many reasons for that, not least of which is the almost single-minded devotion its viewers have to being deluded.

They can't get enough crystal meth, I suppose, so FOX is the next best thing.

That other real "news" networks don't do as well doesn't mean that FOX is better or more informative or accurate. It just means it attracts a larger number of idiots, much like a bug zapper attracts dumb moths.

There's plenty of room on the cable spectrum to support both FOX News and MSNBC's progressive opinion makers (in their own right, useful idiots) and CNN's attempts to ride the middle as far as it can. We've entered an era where if you get your news from one source or one side, you really are playing the idiot, given the choices available to you. You deserve the pablum you get.

"News" has been redefined, in other words, not as the facts carefully compiled to relate a story, but as opposing opinions, often unfairly juxtaposed and imbalanced, and spoonfed to the waiting throngs of yes-people.

"News" has become infotainment, a smear of fact and a little truth, encased in a rich chocolate coating, sprinkled with sugar, then served in a plate of ice cream. Somewhere in their is some mental nutrition, but you'd be hard pressed to find it.

Like chocolate cake has milk, flour and eggs in it.

When the Today Show does twenty minutes with an Afghani widow, instead of Kate Gosselin, I'll start to believe in the news divisions of America's networks again.

We Will All Be Marxists, One Day

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:27:24 PDT

Did you know we live in a Marxist society and have for some time?

I didn't either, until I watched this fascinating lecture given by Professor Richard Wolff called Capitalism Hits The Fan (side note: Link is in the middle of a fundraising drive, so please give. LinkTV is only available 24/7 on DISH and DirecTV, and Link in conjunction with Free Speech TV is ONLY available on DISH Network, so drop your cable, skip Murdoch's DirecTV hegemony and get a DISH!)

Capitalism in America worked pretty well for the first two hundred years of our nation's existence, even if for a large swath of that it was poised in large part on the backs of slaves. Around 1970, something happened.

Four things, actually. Production continued to rise, while the traditional tie-in to real wage growth (which occurred in this nation in every decade, including the 1930s) was severed, and wages became stagnant and even declined.

Wolff explores these four reasons-- automation and computers, global competition, immigration, the expanding role of women in the workplace-- and comes to the logical conclusion with respect to the recent mortgage meltdown (and the coming consumer credit crisis): it was inevitable that in order to "keep up with the Joneses" we'd all have to borrow our asses off.

Indeed, General Motors makes less money now off its automobiles than it does lending money to Americans to buy them (and houses, and in credit cards).

In fact, as Wolff discovered, companies realized that they could freeze wages, make enormous profits off the gap between rising productivity and frozen wages, and then make even more money lending those profits back to the working classes and earn interest on the money they rightly should have been paying in wages!

Meanwhile, Americans began working more hours to compensate for frozen wages, because, you know, you have to keep spending and paying off your credit cards and putting food on the table and, oh yea, buying a car for the wife who now works and getting her work clothes and lunches and...

Hours worked per annum in America rose 20% in the period since 1970.

For every European nation, they dropped, on average, 20% over the same period! We're exhausted here!

Wolff goes on to examine the various solutions proposed for this current and (what he feels will be) extended recession, and finds fault with all of them.

Why? Because they don't address the structural inequity of American capitalism: you can't turn the clock back to the 1970s and forgo global competition or automation or women in the workplace or increased immigration (mind you, he doesn't mean illegal immigration, which actually helps prop up the wage structure). You have to move forward, and giving money to ease the pain is putting a bandage on it.

His solution is both elegant and capitalistic, but reminds us that Marx has been distorted beyond parody.

Marxism is in America, right now, and right now, you are looking at its products, if you have an HP computer or printer or an Apple iMac or Macbook, or any countless number of "entreprenurial" products that arose in conjunction with the computer revolution.

But go watch his lecture on LinkTV to find out the real answer...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:08:27 PDT

Let's get right to it, it's a busy day...

1) Congratulations President Obama!

2) Of course, this poor soul can't even win the single most prestigious prize on the planet without being savaged for it. And that's before we consider the right-wing noise machine!

3) "Not done anything"? He stood in the mouth of the enemy and reassured him that America stands ready to move the world forward, got Israel and Palestinians leaders to sit down in the same room and talk, he's dismantling the nuclear arsenal pointed at Russia's heart, and he's opened top level dialogue with Iran, all in eight months. WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU WANT HIM TO DO, especially considering the motherfucking mess the Bushies left him???????

4) I've seen the trope that NASA was "bombing" the moon. Not true. They crash-landed two space craft on it this morning, in an effort to study the plume of debris to determine if there is ice on the satellite. This is important stuff and may determine the course of space exploration for the next thousand years.

5) While I'm not defending his actions, I can understand why Anthony Marshall did what he did. You watch your mom linger on, and you are yourself getting up there in age, and she still has your inheritance. You don't want to kill her, because that would immediately be investigated, so you siphon off the fortune under the guise of her declining mental condition. He's 85. He faces 25 years in prison and cannot be comforted by the fact that Brooke Astor lived to 105.

6) Here's some good news about the swine flu vaccine.

7) Did the Rapture happen and nobody noticed?

8) Y'know? It is what it is. Whatevarrrrrrrrrr! Anyway...

9) Yesterday was National Poetry Day in the UK. (reread that in iambic pentameter)

10) This cries out for Photoshopping...it makes Thomas Kinkade's NASCAR series look like fine art!