http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/pelosi-warns-of-violence_n_289999.html
William1950 I'm a Fan of William1950 I'm a fan of this user 22 fans permalink
"i am all for protest... all for disagreement... i do not trust the government... but i know without a doubt that big insurance corporations are stealing money and health and lives.. they distort they lie they take away ... they do anything to further their profit margin... And I know that the republicans in the senate and congress are in the insurance companies pockets and hollering socialism to the ignorant and .... hmmmm "...mentally challenged" segments of our society that already hate our president.. those that would look to palin as some sort of leader.. these are the people that make me want to stay armed.. they are the people who want violence.. these are the people who claim the mantle of christ and relegion. If they were muslim they would be the ones strapping bombs to their chests.. The republicans are doing this only to make obama look bad, they don't care at all who gets hurt, and some democrats if not most are in the same pockets.Protest is fine... but one must have a true cause, you cannot protest that the sky is not really blue." Read more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/pelosi-warns-of-violence_n_289999.html
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Maureen Dowd Reminds Joe Wilson to say 'boy' Next Time
yep, Joe Wilson and Rush Limbaugh show us the treasonous face of the Republican Party in these dire times.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
"what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring “You lie!” bumper stickers and T-shirts.
The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
15.
Mandy
Folsom, CA
September 13th, 2009
8:43 am
"These are ominous times. The healthcare ‘debate’ has gone far beyond the topic of healthcare, exposing the troubling division in our country. New code words for racism emerging nightly. DeMint this morning telling the crowd that Obama would 'call out' anyone who disagreed with him. I heard Obama's speech. He said anyone who 'lied.' Mr. DeMint appears to be one of those liars. He along with Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are setting us on a dangerous path. I wonder has the revolution started? I think it is too late for America. The right has gone too far, forgetting the very notion of loyal opposition.Change has come quickly to the uneducated and the undereducated who know only that things don't feel right in their world. They feel so threatened in our evolving world they can't even see how they are being used. Prisoners of their own prejudice. They seem unaware that they are working against their own self interest. They cannot ask how the rest of the world manages to provide healthcare for their citizens. They do no research preferring instead to believe fantastic tales of death panels hoping to catch the infirm, posted on the websites of their leaders and bellowed on hate radio. I read a sign that said ‘Youth in Asia wants to kill Grandma.’ It took me a minute to decode the meaning.I find myself thinking of these mobs as 'other' people. They are ‘others’, the first step in objectifying people and I am sure they think of me in the same terms. We are becoming the Hutus and the Tutsies of the US. I don’t know that we can have any rational discourse, as Joe Wilson proved on Wednesday night, or make a difference using our system of government. I have called my representatives but found them uninterested and see them as purchased by big pharma and insurance companies, a new sort of corporate slave.They reinforce my perceptions and prejudice about corporate rule and plutocracy. This leaves little possibility for change. The question is how do we stop this madness? I fear we cannot persuade the anti-reformists with reason nor even confront them about their own fear and racism. I read the comments of the 'others' hitting back angry, paranoid, racist, yes racist, and defensive. I watch their aggression grow on the nightly news. Is their fear really about the changing demographics in our country? Is healthcare merely the symbol of this change?I hope our path is not to revolution. Revolutions are living entities with a life of their own, not at all controllable and revolutions start with one small act. In the meantime we squabble with each other, divisive and angry, while the plutocrats and corporations make off with the wealth. Ominous times indeed."
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
"what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring “You lie!” bumper stickers and T-shirts.
The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
15.
Mandy
Folsom, CA
September 13th, 2009
8:43 am
"These are ominous times. The healthcare ‘debate’ has gone far beyond the topic of healthcare, exposing the troubling division in our country. New code words for racism emerging nightly. DeMint this morning telling the crowd that Obama would 'call out' anyone who disagreed with him. I heard Obama's speech. He said anyone who 'lied.' Mr. DeMint appears to be one of those liars. He along with Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are setting us on a dangerous path. I wonder has the revolution started? I think it is too late for America. The right has gone too far, forgetting the very notion of loyal opposition.Change has come quickly to the uneducated and the undereducated who know only that things don't feel right in their world. They feel so threatened in our evolving world they can't even see how they are being used. Prisoners of their own prejudice. They seem unaware that they are working against their own self interest. They cannot ask how the rest of the world manages to provide healthcare for their citizens. They do no research preferring instead to believe fantastic tales of death panels hoping to catch the infirm, posted on the websites of their leaders and bellowed on hate radio. I read a sign that said ‘Youth in Asia wants to kill Grandma.’ It took me a minute to decode the meaning.I find myself thinking of these mobs as 'other' people. They are ‘others’, the first step in objectifying people and I am sure they think of me in the same terms. We are becoming the Hutus and the Tutsies of the US. I don’t know that we can have any rational discourse, as Joe Wilson proved on Wednesday night, or make a difference using our system of government. I have called my representatives but found them uninterested and see them as purchased by big pharma and insurance companies, a new sort of corporate slave.They reinforce my perceptions and prejudice about corporate rule and plutocracy. This leaves little possibility for change. The question is how do we stop this madness? I fear we cannot persuade the anti-reformists with reason nor even confront them about their own fear and racism. I read the comments of the 'others' hitting back angry, paranoid, racist, yes racist, and defensive. I watch their aggression grow on the nightly news. Is their fear really about the changing demographics in our country? Is healthcare merely the symbol of this change?I hope our path is not to revolution. Revolutions are living entities with a life of their own, not at all controllable and revolutions start with one small act. In the meantime we squabble with each other, divisive and angry, while the plutocrats and corporations make off with the wealth. Ominous times indeed."
Monday, September 14, 2009
CEO Sociopaths in High Demand, 100 Million $ Salaries!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/profiling-ceos-and-their_b_245373.html
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that "Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the US. Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total US pay in 2007, the latest figures available."
One of the questions often asked when the subject of CEO pay comes up is, "What could a person such as William McGuire or Lee Raymond (the former CEOs of UnitedHealth and ExxonMobil, respectively) possibly do to justify a $1.7 billion paycheck or a $400 million retirement bonus?"
It's an interesting question. If there is a "free market" of labor for CEOs, then you'd think there would be a lot of competition for the jobs. And a lot of people competing for the positions would drive down the pay. All UnitedHealth's stockholders would have to do to avoid paying more than $1 billion to McGuire is find somebody to do the same CEO job for half a billion. And all they'd have to do to save even more is find somebody to do the job for a mere $100 million. Or maybe even somebody who'd work the necessary sixty-hour weeks for only $1 million.
So why is executive pay so high?
I've examined this with both my psychotherapist hat on and my amateur economist hat on, and only one rational answer presents itself: CEOs in America make as much money as they do because there really is a shortage of people with their skill set. And it's such a serious shortage that some companies have to pay as much as $1 million a day to have somebody successfully do the job.
But what part of being a CEO could be so difficult -- so impossible for mere mortals -- that it would mean that there are only a few hundred individuals in the United States capable of performing it?
In my humble opinion, it's the sociopath part.
CEOs of community-based businesses are typically responsive to their communities and decent people. But the CEOs of most of the world's largest corporations daily make decisions that destroy the lives of many other human beings.
Only about 1 to 3 percent of us are sociopaths -- people who don't have normal human feelings and can easily go to sleep at night after having done horrific things. And of that 1 percent of sociopaths, there's probably only a fraction of a percent with a college education. And of that tiny fraction, there's an even tinier fraction that understands how business works, particularly within any specific industry.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that "Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the US. Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total US pay in 2007, the latest figures available."
One of the questions often asked when the subject of CEO pay comes up is, "What could a person such as William McGuire or Lee Raymond (the former CEOs of UnitedHealth and ExxonMobil, respectively) possibly do to justify a $1.7 billion paycheck or a $400 million retirement bonus?"
It's an interesting question. If there is a "free market" of labor for CEOs, then you'd think there would be a lot of competition for the jobs. And a lot of people competing for the positions would drive down the pay. All UnitedHealth's stockholders would have to do to avoid paying more than $1 billion to McGuire is find somebody to do the same CEO job for half a billion. And all they'd have to do to save even more is find somebody to do the job for a mere $100 million. Or maybe even somebody who'd work the necessary sixty-hour weeks for only $1 million.
So why is executive pay so high?
I've examined this with both my psychotherapist hat on and my amateur economist hat on, and only one rational answer presents itself: CEOs in America make as much money as they do because there really is a shortage of people with their skill set. And it's such a serious shortage that some companies have to pay as much as $1 million a day to have somebody successfully do the job.
But what part of being a CEO could be so difficult -- so impossible for mere mortals -- that it would mean that there are only a few hundred individuals in the United States capable of performing it?
In my humble opinion, it's the sociopath part.
CEOs of community-based businesses are typically responsive to their communities and decent people. But the CEOs of most of the world's largest corporations daily make decisions that destroy the lives of many other human beings.
Only about 1 to 3 percent of us are sociopaths -- people who don't have normal human feelings and can easily go to sleep at night after having done horrific things. And of that 1 percent of sociopaths, there's probably only a fraction of a percent with a college education. And of that tiny fraction, there's an even tinier fraction that understands how business works, particularly within any specific industry.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Matt Taibbi on Health Care Reform
yep, the system is broken, from public apathy to corporate media spin to politicians in bed with lobbyist prostitutes to etc etc - the Decline and Fall continues apace
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/
"The cost of all of this to society, in illness and death and lost productivity and a soaring federal deficit and plain old anxiety and anger, is incalculable — and that's the good news. The bad news is our failed health care system won't get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.
Just as we have a medical system that is not really designed to care for the sick, we have a government that is not equipped to fix actual crises. What our government is good at is something else entirely: effecting the appearance of action, while leaving the actual reform behind in a diabolical labyrinth of ingenious legislative maneuvers.
Over the course of this summer, those two failed systems have collided in a spectacular crossroads moment in American history. "
"Getting movement on a public option — or any other meaningful reform — will now require the support of one of the three Republicans in the group: Grassley (who has received $2,034,000 from the health sector), Snowe ($756,000) or Enzi ($627,000).
This is what the prospects for real health care reform come down to — whether one of three Republicans from tiny states with no major urban populations decides, out of the goodness of his or her cash-fattened heart, to forsake forever any contributions from the health-insurance industry (and, probably, aid for their re-election efforts from the Republican National Committee).
This, of course, is the hugest of long shots. But just to hedge its bets even further and ensure that no real reforms pass, Congress has made sure to cover itself, sabotaging the bill long before it even got to Baucus' committee."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/
"The cost of all of this to society, in illness and death and lost productivity and a soaring federal deficit and plain old anxiety and anger, is incalculable — and that's the good news. The bad news is our failed health care system won't get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.
Just as we have a medical system that is not really designed to care for the sick, we have a government that is not equipped to fix actual crises. What our government is good at is something else entirely: effecting the appearance of action, while leaving the actual reform behind in a diabolical labyrinth of ingenious legislative maneuvers.
Over the course of this summer, those two failed systems have collided in a spectacular crossroads moment in American history. "
"Getting movement on a public option — or any other meaningful reform — will now require the support of one of the three Republicans in the group: Grassley (who has received $2,034,000 from the health sector), Snowe ($756,000) or Enzi ($627,000).
This is what the prospects for real health care reform come down to — whether one of three Republicans from tiny states with no major urban populations decides, out of the goodness of his or her cash-fattened heart, to forsake forever any contributions from the health-insurance industry (and, probably, aid for their re-election efforts from the Republican National Committee).
This, of course, is the hugest of long shots. But just to hedge its bets even further and ensure that no real reforms pass, Congress has made sure to cover itself, sabotaging the bill long before it even got to Baucus' committee."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Max Baucus Working Hard to Keep the Insurance Lobby Happy
thank god for Max Baucus, the insurance lobby's profits are secure!
-------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-dayen/max-baucus-plan-what-do-w_b_278737.html
"The real problem is that Washington is choking on the cost of providing health coverage to those who needed it. They don't want to use any external taxes or mechanisms, and they don't want to cut into industry profits to pay for the bill inside the system. So we get an ever-reducing price tag, now around $700 billion over ten years. Ezra Klein notes that these same fiscal conservatives all voted to eliminate the estate tax on ridiculously wealthy Americans, to the tune of $750 billion over ten years. That money would have entirely accrued to the deficit, while Democrats are consumed with being responsible and paying for this health care bill. It's really all a matter of priorities -- help millions of uninsured people get the critical care they need, or give Paris Hilton a tax cut. George Bush financed practically every new program he brought into being by borrowing from China and adding to the debt. But the deficit only matters when there's a Democrat in the White House.
The Baucus plan gives new meaning to the term "aiming low." We'll know by Wednesday if the President agrees.
-------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-dayen/max-baucus-plan-what-do-w_b_278737.html
"The real problem is that Washington is choking on the cost of providing health coverage to those who needed it. They don't want to use any external taxes or mechanisms, and they don't want to cut into industry profits to pay for the bill inside the system. So we get an ever-reducing price tag, now around $700 billion over ten years. Ezra Klein notes that these same fiscal conservatives all voted to eliminate the estate tax on ridiculously wealthy Americans, to the tune of $750 billion over ten years. That money would have entirely accrued to the deficit, while Democrats are consumed with being responsible and paying for this health care bill. It's really all a matter of priorities -- help millions of uninsured people get the critical care they need, or give Paris Hilton a tax cut. George Bush financed practically every new program he brought into being by borrowing from China and adding to the debt. But the deficit only matters when there's a Democrat in the White House.
The Baucus plan gives new meaning to the term "aiming low." We'll know by Wednesday if the President agrees.
Another Republican Family Values Sex Pervert Bites the Dust
these repug 'family values' pervs have a real sense of humor: "please respect the privacy of those involved", the perv begs, after being recorded bragging about sex with a lobbyist, violating her privacy, not to mention giving us all a lesson in how lobbyists and politicians are truly bedfellows.
So, she's an energy lobbyist and he's on an energy comittee, both intent on doing the people's business night or day, no doubt.
http://www.zimbio.com/Heidi+DeJong+Barsuglia/articles/9zsjD2GhZMZ/Heidi+DeJong+Barsuglia+Mike+Duvall+Affair
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/gop_lawmakers_graphic_sex-bragging_caught_on_tape.php
--------------------------
"In a recording of a legislative hearing, Duvall can be heard talking about a recent sexual escapade with a woman he says is 18 years younger.
"I'm getting into spanking her," Duvall is heard to say on the videotape.
The other man asks if she likes it, too. Duvall responds: "She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah, that's 'cause you're such a bad girl.'"
The conversation was first reported by KCAL-TV in Los Angeles and the newspaper OC Weekly. The Associated Press later obtained a copy of the videotaped hearing.
Duvall, an Orange County lawmaker, said it would not be fair to his family, constituents or friends to remain in office.
"I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction for my colleagues in the Assembly, who are working hard on the very serious problems facing our state," he said. "Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately, so that the Assembly can get back to work."
The 54-year-old lawmaker made the comments about the affairs to another lawmaker during a break in a committee meeting at the Capitol over the summer, and they were caught on a microphone at his desk.
Duvall also discusses the woman's "eye-patch underwear" and the age difference between himself and the lobbyist, who is not named on the videotape. He tells the other lawmaker, whose identity was not immediately clear, that the woman's birthday was two days before the committee hearing.
Duvall said he joked with the lobbyist that she was getting old after turning 36 and told her, "I am going to have to trade you in."
The lawmaker then brags about an affair he is having with another woman.
"Oh, she is hot! I talked to her yesterday. She goes, 'So are we finished?' I go, 'No, we're not finished.' I go, 'You know about the other one, but she doesn't know about you!'" Duvall can be heard saying in an apparent reference to his affair with the lobbyist.
Duvall received a 100 percent rating from Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative advocacy group, for his votes on legislation considered pro-family during the 2007-08 legislative session. The institute did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Before resigning, Duvall apologized for the comments on his campaign Web site and said he made a mistake.
"I deeply regret the comments I made in what I believed to be a private conversation," he said. "This is a private matter and I ask that everyone respect the privacy of all involved."
So, she's an energy lobbyist and he's on an energy comittee, both intent on doing the people's business night or day, no doubt.
http://www.zimbio.com/Heidi+DeJong+Barsuglia/articles/9zsjD2GhZMZ/Heidi+DeJong+Barsuglia+Mike+Duvall+Affair
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/gop_lawmakers_graphic_sex-bragging_caught_on_tape.php
--------------------------
"In a recording of a legislative hearing, Duvall can be heard talking about a recent sexual escapade with a woman he says is 18 years younger.
"I'm getting into spanking her," Duvall is heard to say on the videotape.
The other man asks if she likes it, too. Duvall responds: "She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah, that's 'cause you're such a bad girl.'"
The conversation was first reported by KCAL-TV in Los Angeles and the newspaper OC Weekly. The Associated Press later obtained a copy of the videotaped hearing.
Duvall, an Orange County lawmaker, said it would not be fair to his family, constituents or friends to remain in office.
"I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction for my colleagues in the Assembly, who are working hard on the very serious problems facing our state," he said. "Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately, so that the Assembly can get back to work."
The 54-year-old lawmaker made the comments about the affairs to another lawmaker during a break in a committee meeting at the Capitol over the summer, and they were caught on a microphone at his desk.
Duvall also discusses the woman's "eye-patch underwear" and the age difference between himself and the lobbyist, who is not named on the videotape. He tells the other lawmaker, whose identity was not immediately clear, that the woman's birthday was two days before the committee hearing.
Duvall said he joked with the lobbyist that she was getting old after turning 36 and told her, "I am going to have to trade you in."
The lawmaker then brags about an affair he is having with another woman.
"Oh, she is hot! I talked to her yesterday. She goes, 'So are we finished?' I go, 'No, we're not finished.' I go, 'You know about the other one, but she doesn't know about you!'" Duvall can be heard saying in an apparent reference to his affair with the lobbyist.
Duvall received a 100 percent rating from Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative advocacy group, for his votes on legislation considered pro-family during the 2007-08 legislative session. The institute did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Before resigning, Duvall apologized for the comments on his campaign Web site and said he made a mistake.
"I deeply regret the comments I made in what I believed to be a private conversation," he said. "This is a private matter and I ask that everyone respect the privacy of all involved."
Monday, September 7, 2009
America Land of the Salesman
http://www.amazon.com/Salesman-Criterion-Collection-Paul-Brennan/dp/B00005KHJY/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252346969&sr=8-8
if I was to give some new immigrant one movie with which to understand the American psyche, it would be this one, exquisitely full of existential despair and sad characters trapped in hellish roles where they are compelled to exploit the ignorant pushed on by an ignorant arrogant boob of a boss.
if I was to give some new immigrant one movie with which to understand the American psyche, it would be this one, exquisitely full of existential despair and sad characters trapped in hellish roles where they are compelled to exploit the ignorant pushed on by an ignorant arrogant boob of a boss.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Van Jones Pilloried for Calling Repugs Assholes???
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?entry_id=47007
so finally they mention the actual horrible epithet that ejected Van Jones from the hallowed halls, he dared, DARED to call Republicans ... gasp ... I can hardly bear it ... assholes ... ASSHOLES!!!!
gawd, it is to laugh. It seems like stating the obvious, to me.
I cant imagine that 99% of incumbent dems or repugs hasnt also used that term in describing their opposite party.
But given that most repugs are so obviously total congenital assholes, one has to wonder why no one can state the obvious?
so finally they mention the actual horrible epithet that ejected Van Jones from the hallowed halls, he dared, DARED to call Republicans ... gasp ... I can hardly bear it ... assholes ... ASSHOLES!!!!
gawd, it is to laugh. It seems like stating the obvious, to me.
I cant imagine that 99% of incumbent dems or repugs hasnt also used that term in describing their opposite party.
But given that most repugs are so obviously total congenital assholes, one has to wonder why no one can state the obvious?
More Moore Movie Comments
comments seem to be biased 10 to 1 against Michael Moore, which is more than I would have thought for the LA Times.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/09/director-michael-moore-now-wants-nothing-less-than-the-complete-overthrow-of-the-modern-capitalist-system--from-reuters-in/comments/page/2/#comments
Twenty years ago I would have blasted Moore's comments to high heaven. How dare he criticize the engine that makes American great! Ten years before that I was avidly reading Ayn Rand with her glowing praise of private enterprise and her vision of the geniuses who create wealth though sheer intellect and hard work.
But now I've had a lot of experience in America's capitalistic heaven, and I know it's all a damn lie. In fact, capitalism works best for the manipulators and liars. Honest hard work and good ideas may occasional work for startups, but big business is all about cold, ruthless greed, pure and simple.
I'm starting to think Gene Roddenbury's ideas about the future may contain a grain of hope. In his vision, money doesn't exist. Greed is impossible and good is measured in qualities like usefulness, intellect, intelligence. Crime is virtually non-existent because poverty doesn't exist. Everyone is born with a basic right to exist in comfort and good health, and no one can take that away from you. Every man, woman, and child is free to be the best person he or she can be, and that is the only measure.
Think about a world in which the measure of a man or woman is their usefulness to society rather than the balance in their bank account. Isn't that a world you'd want to live in?
Posted by: Henry Harris September 06, 2009 at 11:05 PM
------------------------
It is shocking how quickly those who agree with the status quo, and ruling elite, resort to name calling and with crys for those who don't agree with them to get out of dodge.
Even as they trumpet freedom and its benefits they loudly shout that those who don't agree with them need to leave. Does anyone else see the contradiction here? Are they really so afraid of a different point of view? It would be laughable if it were not so sad.
I lived in a Socialist country as an exchange student in high school, and I highly recommend it. It gives you another perspective and allows one to see that things are not always as they seem.
Before any of you facists tell me to go live there, let me tell you that I would love to, but also remind you that these countries have something called immigration controls that they actually enforce. They do it for national security reasons, and to protect and provide domestic jobs and opportunities for their own citizens. (Imagine that!) It's kind of cool really, because it keeps the labor market from becoming flooded and hyper competitive, and avoids the destructive race to the bottom that this country seems to be all about.
Why the hate towards socialism? To some of the flag wavers on here, it seems to be the equivalent of the boogey man on steroids.
Google "Worlds Happiest People" and you will find that Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands make the top of the list. It doesn't seem as though socialism has made these people miserable. It's also worth noting that the US didn't make the top 10.
Maybe they're happier because they get 5 weeks vacation. Maybe it's because they have health care that they can afford. They could be happier because they have generous government sponsored pensions. Could it be because they have labor laws that protect their jobs and allow them a bit of security?
I can't imagine what it would be like to enjoy adequate vacation time, not worry on a daily basis about the financial consequences of a serious illness, to believe that my job was stable and secure, or that I'd have a way to take care of myself after a lifetime of working my fingers to the bone.
I can't imagine what this would feel like, but I think it would make me happier.
Posted by: Steve Howard | September 06, 2009 at 10:56 PM
--------------------
There is a lot of truth in all Michael Moore's documentaries. Capitalism is certainly not a perfect system and unchecked it leads to recessions and depressions as we have all seen recently. During these times the poor suffer disproportionately. It is all about short term profit at the expense of everything else. It can be a pretty good system if it is regulated properly but it has been allowed to run rampant with disastrous results. For those who think Socialism is such a monster, consider all the good that has been done with socialistic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the highway system, public education, national parks, police and fire departments, the EPA, FDA and many more.
How nice it might be if we could drop all these labels and simply govern for the good of all.
Posted by: mybagwell September 06, 2009 at 02:46 PM
------------------
Moore isn't criticizing basic enterprise/commerce; he's criticizing laissez-faire capitalism -- the kind that brought us Enron and the fleecing of at least one state (California), the housing bubble, Wall St's trillion-dollar side bets on the housing bubble, the credit-card debt-enslavement of practically the entire United States, the military-industrial complex, the offshoring of America's manufacturing golden goose to the cheapest labor markets possible.
If someone can't grasp the difference, then FOX News, CNBC, John Stossel, and Rush Limbaugh have done their jobs.
Posted by: The Beagle September 06, 2009 at 08:11 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/09/director-michael-moore-now-wants-nothing-less-than-the-complete-overthrow-of-the-modern-capitalist-system--from-reuters-in/comments/page/2/#comments
Twenty years ago I would have blasted Moore's comments to high heaven. How dare he criticize the engine that makes American great! Ten years before that I was avidly reading Ayn Rand with her glowing praise of private enterprise and her vision of the geniuses who create wealth though sheer intellect and hard work.
But now I've had a lot of experience in America's capitalistic heaven, and I know it's all a damn lie. In fact, capitalism works best for the manipulators and liars. Honest hard work and good ideas may occasional work for startups, but big business is all about cold, ruthless greed, pure and simple.
I'm starting to think Gene Roddenbury's ideas about the future may contain a grain of hope. In his vision, money doesn't exist. Greed is impossible and good is measured in qualities like usefulness, intellect, intelligence. Crime is virtually non-existent because poverty doesn't exist. Everyone is born with a basic right to exist in comfort and good health, and no one can take that away from you. Every man, woman, and child is free to be the best person he or she can be, and that is the only measure.
Think about a world in which the measure of a man or woman is their usefulness to society rather than the balance in their bank account. Isn't that a world you'd want to live in?
Posted by: Henry Harris September 06, 2009 at 11:05 PM
------------------------
It is shocking how quickly those who agree with the status quo, and ruling elite, resort to name calling and with crys for those who don't agree with them to get out of dodge.
Even as they trumpet freedom and its benefits they loudly shout that those who don't agree with them need to leave. Does anyone else see the contradiction here? Are they really so afraid of a different point of view? It would be laughable if it were not so sad.
I lived in a Socialist country as an exchange student in high school, and I highly recommend it. It gives you another perspective and allows one to see that things are not always as they seem.
Before any of you facists tell me to go live there, let me tell you that I would love to, but also remind you that these countries have something called immigration controls that they actually enforce. They do it for national security reasons, and to protect and provide domestic jobs and opportunities for their own citizens. (Imagine that!) It's kind of cool really, because it keeps the labor market from becoming flooded and hyper competitive, and avoids the destructive race to the bottom that this country seems to be all about.
Why the hate towards socialism? To some of the flag wavers on here, it seems to be the equivalent of the boogey man on steroids.
Google "Worlds Happiest People" and you will find that Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands make the top of the list. It doesn't seem as though socialism has made these people miserable. It's also worth noting that the US didn't make the top 10.
Maybe they're happier because they get 5 weeks vacation. Maybe it's because they have health care that they can afford. They could be happier because they have generous government sponsored pensions. Could it be because they have labor laws that protect their jobs and allow them a bit of security?
I can't imagine what it would be like to enjoy adequate vacation time, not worry on a daily basis about the financial consequences of a serious illness, to believe that my job was stable and secure, or that I'd have a way to take care of myself after a lifetime of working my fingers to the bone.
I can't imagine what this would feel like, but I think it would make me happier.
Posted by: Steve Howard | September 06, 2009 at 10:56 PM
--------------------
There is a lot of truth in all Michael Moore's documentaries. Capitalism is certainly not a perfect system and unchecked it leads to recessions and depressions as we have all seen recently. During these times the poor suffer disproportionately. It is all about short term profit at the expense of everything else. It can be a pretty good system if it is regulated properly but it has been allowed to run rampant with disastrous results. For those who think Socialism is such a monster, consider all the good that has been done with socialistic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the highway system, public education, national parks, police and fire departments, the EPA, FDA and many more.
How nice it might be if we could drop all these labels and simply govern for the good of all.
Posted by: mybagwell September 06, 2009 at 02:46 PM
------------------
Moore isn't criticizing basic enterprise/commerce; he's criticizing laissez-faire capitalism -- the kind that brought us Enron and the fleecing of at least one state (California), the housing bubble, Wall St's trillion-dollar side bets on the housing bubble, the credit-card debt-enslavement of practically the entire United States, the military-industrial complex, the offshoring of America's manufacturing golden goose to the cheapest labor markets possible.
If someone can't grasp the difference, then FOX News, CNBC, John Stossel, and Rush Limbaugh have done their jobs.
Posted by: The Beagle September 06, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Michael Moore Volunteers yet again to be the Whipping Boy
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/09/director-michael-moore-now-wants-nothing-less-than-the-complete-overthrow-of-the-modern-capitalist-system--from-reuters-in.html
Typical corporate media spin of Moore's latest movie describes it as calling for communist takeover and abolishment of capitalism. Moore is just describing how we're all being screwed royally by this 'system' which is designed soley for the benefit of the top 1%, which is more properly called a 'plutocracy' not a democracy.
It is quite amusing though sad, to see how Americans get so mad at someone telling them how they're being screwed. Probably because the corporate media likes to portray Moore as calling them fools, when he is actually just describing their situation to them. Every idiot who passed Econ 101 should know that 'unfettered' capitalism naturally results in worker exploitation and monopolies and the reduction in competition. Capitalism without regulation is tyranny. Marx's analysis of capitalism's flaws was proved correct yet again in the latest debacle of Sept 18 2008, even though his prescription of a remedy has been demonstrated to be worse than the illness.
-------------------------
Pure capitalism is a corrupt system under which the rich inevitably get richer and the poor get poorer over time, as history shows. Only in periods of strong regulation which reign in its excesses and through some redistribution of wealth for the common good does capitalism work well for average people. Capitalism thrives on the exploitation of others, such as cheap foreign labor and market hegenomy, and does not really work otherwise, as the US will find out in future generations when the Chinese and Indians over take our ecomomy. Capitalism has its usual knee jerk defenders here who got the usual brainwashing in US history 101 class but who never broke the code. That does not mean pure socialism works either, but adaption of many socialist ideas is what makes western democracies stable. Anybody want to go back to the capitalism of the 1920s? I didn't think so....
Posted by: Ed S September 06, 2009 at 02:16 PM
----------------------------------
It is not at all clear what "capitalism" now means.
What is clear is that the old style national-investment capitalism is dead, and has been largely replaced by some combination of "international crony capitalism," "financial engineering capitalism" and "casino capitalism," where the all cards are marked, all the dice are loaded and all the wheels are rigged.
What is truly amazing is that the politicians, banksters, brokers, and company executives are still able to say the words "free market" and not burst out laughing.
Posted by: George McDuffee September 06, 2009 at 01:46 PM
---------------------
Only one comment here is reasonable. Watch it, then judge. The rest of you are so up the butts of your corporate masters you can't and dare not conceive there might be another economic system where the actual producers of real wealth (labor, not capital) are benefitted. Your predelection to trash those that don't share your narrow views sickens us in the majority.
Posted by: Conservative Patriot September 06, 2009 at 02:26 PM
------------------------
Capitalism may not be the kindest, most gentle form of economics, however it is the Darwinism of buisness.The strong survive, the weak.... get a bailout .(yeah, I know that last part is not Capitalist, its... socialist.) Enjoy!
In answer to your question, No! Governments purpose is not to provide for your needs. It is not your mother or father or big-brother. Government is your weird uncle who nobody in your family would let be alone with you. It is not to be trusted, it will try to do something inappropriate with you. It always has, it always will.
QUOTE BELOW"--------Am I the only one who agrees with Mike on this one? Capitalism has always favored the rich over the poor and inspires greed and corruption. Socialism isn't a bad system, I can't see why so many Americans are afraid of a government that provides for it's citizens' needs. Isn't that why we have government?
Posted by: David M. September 06, 2009 at 02:01 PM-END QUOTE
Posted by: William Sanderson September 06, 2009 at 02:33 PM
----------------
Michael Moore would better spend his time chugging down a huge load of Ben & Jerry's ice cream than make any more movies. I started to watch one of them (who remembers which? They all look and sound alike), and nearly cracked up from the bad acting and horrific dialogue.
For entertainment, one is better off playing doobee-in-the-toilet than watching this tripe. Michael Moore is a moore-on.
Posted by: Anthony Riviera September 06, 2009 at 02:34 PM
--------------------
Perhaps people should closely examine the former Soviet Union. When their system that was supposed to take care of everyone collapsed, the government elite and their cronies, took the vast assets that belonged to the people and claimed ownership of them. Then they let millions starve. The same people hold those assets and have a fake democracy where positions of power are bought, while people live in tiny apartments and struggle to survive. My wife is Ukrainian and lived through this. She loves America and it's opportunities. America is the only country on earth with fat poor people.
The flaws in US capitalism lie in the actions of politicians (of both parties) who allow themselves to be bought. The mortgage industry debacle was brought about by the socialistic mentality (under Clinton and Bush) that forced banks to lend to people who weren't qualified. In order to spread risk, derivitatives were born. It was an unregulated house of cards that Washington created.
Why don't we stop playing partisan cowboys and indians and blame the guilty regardless of their party affiliation. Lets create policy that regulates capitalism without taking away our freedom to be as successful as we can. Let's become an energy independent nation with minimal environmental impact. Let's defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, let's stop the unground movement toward this fantasy of socialism. That is not America!!!
Posted by: Jethro September 06, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Typical corporate media spin of Moore's latest movie describes it as calling for communist takeover and abolishment of capitalism. Moore is just describing how we're all being screwed royally by this 'system' which is designed soley for the benefit of the top 1%, which is more properly called a 'plutocracy' not a democracy.
It is quite amusing though sad, to see how Americans get so mad at someone telling them how they're being screwed. Probably because the corporate media likes to portray Moore as calling them fools, when he is actually just describing their situation to them. Every idiot who passed Econ 101 should know that 'unfettered' capitalism naturally results in worker exploitation and monopolies and the reduction in competition. Capitalism without regulation is tyranny. Marx's analysis of capitalism's flaws was proved correct yet again in the latest debacle of Sept 18 2008, even though his prescription of a remedy has been demonstrated to be worse than the illness.
-------------------------
Pure capitalism is a corrupt system under which the rich inevitably get richer and the poor get poorer over time, as history shows. Only in periods of strong regulation which reign in its excesses and through some redistribution of wealth for the common good does capitalism work well for average people. Capitalism thrives on the exploitation of others, such as cheap foreign labor and market hegenomy, and does not really work otherwise, as the US will find out in future generations when the Chinese and Indians over take our ecomomy. Capitalism has its usual knee jerk defenders here who got the usual brainwashing in US history 101 class but who never broke the code. That does not mean pure socialism works either, but adaption of many socialist ideas is what makes western democracies stable. Anybody want to go back to the capitalism of the 1920s? I didn't think so....
Posted by: Ed S September 06, 2009 at 02:16 PM
----------------------------------
It is not at all clear what "capitalism" now means.
What is clear is that the old style national-investment capitalism is dead, and has been largely replaced by some combination of "international crony capitalism," "financial engineering capitalism" and "casino capitalism," where the all cards are marked, all the dice are loaded and all the wheels are rigged.
What is truly amazing is that the politicians, banksters, brokers, and company executives are still able to say the words "free market" and not burst out laughing.
Posted by: George McDuffee September 06, 2009 at 01:46 PM
---------------------
Only one comment here is reasonable. Watch it, then judge. The rest of you are so up the butts of your corporate masters you can't and dare not conceive there might be another economic system where the actual producers of real wealth (labor, not capital) are benefitted. Your predelection to trash those that don't share your narrow views sickens us in the majority.
Posted by: Conservative Patriot September 06, 2009 at 02:26 PM
------------------------
Capitalism may not be the kindest, most gentle form of economics, however it is the Darwinism of buisness.The strong survive, the weak.... get a bailout .(yeah, I know that last part is not Capitalist, its... socialist.) Enjoy!
In answer to your question, No! Governments purpose is not to provide for your needs. It is not your mother or father or big-brother. Government is your weird uncle who nobody in your family would let be alone with you. It is not to be trusted, it will try to do something inappropriate with you. It always has, it always will.
QUOTE BELOW"--------Am I the only one who agrees with Mike on this one? Capitalism has always favored the rich over the poor and inspires greed and corruption. Socialism isn't a bad system, I can't see why so many Americans are afraid of a government that provides for it's citizens' needs. Isn't that why we have government?
Posted by: David M. September 06, 2009 at 02:01 PM-END QUOTE
Posted by: William Sanderson September 06, 2009 at 02:33 PM
----------------
Michael Moore would better spend his time chugging down a huge load of Ben & Jerry's ice cream than make any more movies. I started to watch one of them (who remembers which? They all look and sound alike), and nearly cracked up from the bad acting and horrific dialogue.
For entertainment, one is better off playing doobee-in-the-toilet than watching this tripe. Michael Moore is a moore-on.
Posted by: Anthony Riviera September 06, 2009 at 02:34 PM
--------------------
Perhaps people should closely examine the former Soviet Union. When their system that was supposed to take care of everyone collapsed, the government elite and their cronies, took the vast assets that belonged to the people and claimed ownership of them. Then they let millions starve. The same people hold those assets and have a fake democracy where positions of power are bought, while people live in tiny apartments and struggle to survive. My wife is Ukrainian and lived through this. She loves America and it's opportunities. America is the only country on earth with fat poor people.
The flaws in US capitalism lie in the actions of politicians (of both parties) who allow themselves to be bought. The mortgage industry debacle was brought about by the socialistic mentality (under Clinton and Bush) that forced banks to lend to people who weren't qualified. In order to spread risk, derivitatives were born. It was an unregulated house of cards that Washington created.
Why don't we stop playing partisan cowboys and indians and blame the guilty regardless of their party affiliation. Lets create policy that regulates capitalism without taking away our freedom to be as successful as we can. Let's become an energy independent nation with minimal environmental impact. Let's defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, let's stop the unground movement toward this fantasy of socialism. That is not America!!!
Posted by: Jethro September 06, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Van Jones Resigns due to Right Wing Fascist Attack
interesting, Van Jones was involved in Glenn Beck advertiser retreat, so the psycho Glenn Beck fought back, and guess who lost? Right wing fascists rejoice.
I saw Van Jones on CSPAN once talking to a high school class about his effort to get into law school, it was pretty inspiring. He seems like a really good guy.
---------------------
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html
The real reason Van Jones got in trouble.
He is behind the campaign that has cost Glenn Beck 57 advertisers and will may well cost him his job at Faux News.
That's it, more or less. Oh, and that the White House is inhabited by invertebrates.
-Wexler
Posted by: WWWexler September 6, 2009 10:28 AM
I saw Van Jones on CSPAN once talking to a high school class about his effort to get into law school, it was pretty inspiring. He seems like a really good guy.
---------------------
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html
The real reason Van Jones got in trouble.
He is behind the campaign that has cost Glenn Beck 57 advertisers and will may well cost him his job at Faux News.
That's it, more or less. Oh, and that the White House is inhabited by invertebrates.
-Wexler
Posted by: WWWexler September 6, 2009 10:28 AM
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Taking Woodstock - Myth and Reality
The movie 'Taking Woodstock' was a little disappointing, though one should be glad it was made at all, I suppose. It had a humorous angle and succeeded in reminding us of the ridiculous hippies and rampant bigotry of those days, and highlighted the one or two enlightened beings who drifted through, like Michael Lang.
The real story is actually much more interesting, as shown by the History Channel special, Woodstock Then and Now, if the movie had followed the story lines of the Hog Farm, or Santana's appearance, or Richie Haven's appearance, the story would have been much more interesting.
That the reality at the time was special only for a minority, and that three days of mud and crowds and noise were too much for most, is shown by the small crowd who stuck around for the star of the show's performance, Jimi Hendrix. How many of those who idolize the memory and the myth of Woodstock actually stuck around for or would have stuck around for Hendrix?
It is a good lesson in human nature and how memories fade and myths grow. All religion is a case in point. How many True Believer scripture-thumping fundamentalists now, if displaced to the time of their prophet of choice, would actually reccognize him/her let alone to drop everything and come follow and be a disciple? Rather, wouldn't most of them find themselves in the camp of the jeering Pharisees, ridiculing and persecuting the ragged outcastes who are challenging their comfortable status quo?
The reality of the prophets lives was no doubt a lot more mundane and offensive to the perpetual establishment Pharisee morals that we always find ourselves in no matter what historical epoch we happen to be born in.
The real story is actually much more interesting, as shown by the History Channel special, Woodstock Then and Now, if the movie had followed the story lines of the Hog Farm, or Santana's appearance, or Richie Haven's appearance, the story would have been much more interesting.
That the reality at the time was special only for a minority, and that three days of mud and crowds and noise were too much for most, is shown by the small crowd who stuck around for the star of the show's performance, Jimi Hendrix. How many of those who idolize the memory and the myth of Woodstock actually stuck around for or would have stuck around for Hendrix?
It is a good lesson in human nature and how memories fade and myths grow. All religion is a case in point. How many True Believer scripture-thumping fundamentalists now, if displaced to the time of their prophet of choice, would actually reccognize him/her let alone to drop everything and come follow and be a disciple? Rather, wouldn't most of them find themselves in the camp of the jeering Pharisees, ridiculing and persecuting the ragged outcastes who are challenging their comfortable status quo?
The reality of the prophets lives was no doubt a lot more mundane and offensive to the perpetual establishment Pharisee morals that we always find ourselves in no matter what historical epoch we happen to be born in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)