Justice Clarence Thomas - the Bush gift that keeps on giving

I had hopes that Justic Clarence Thomas would break with Scalia just for once to prove he is capable of thinking on his own, and vote to support ObamaCare.  But he maintains his perfect record of doing what Scalia tells him to do.  Wow, I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance required to live such a life and to leave such a record, to have squandered such an opportunity.


Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 06:45 AM PDT
Two decades later, Clarence Thomas is still a (relatively) young justice
20 years ago this month, President George H.W. Bush introduced America to Clarence Thomas
By Eleanor Clift
Most Americans had never heard of Clarence Thomas when President George H.W. Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court 20 years ago this month. Bush, who announced his pick in Kennebunkport, Maine on July 1, 1991, called the thinly credentialed Thomas the “best qualified” person for the seat vacated by retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall, a giant of the law who had argued the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case and was the Court’s first African-American justice.
Thomas had only been a federal judge for a year when Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court, and the gap in stature compared to Marshall, the man he would replace, set the terms for the rancorous fight that followed. Democrats charged the White House with playing racial politics with an unqualified candidate on the assumption that they wouldn’t dare oppose an African-American.
The media covered Thomas as though Bush had plucked the 43-year-old from obscurity, but Washington’s legal community was not surprised by the nomination. “Everyone assumed when Thurgood Marshall resigned, the seat had to be filled by an African-American,” said Nan Aron, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice. “When Thomas went up for the DC Circuit, we knew it was a done deal. He was groomed for the seat.”
Republicans saw a political opening, thinking they could win over some voters with what Bush viewed as an historic appointment. Thomas’ race mattered, but he was chosen as much for his reliable conservative ideology as the color of his skin. The rallying cry then was “No More Souters,” recalled Aron, referring to Justice David Souter, who Bush had appointed to the Court the previous year, and whose voting record was looking very liberal and angering the GOP’s conservative base.
With Thomas, the White House felt they had a conservative they could count on. His work as a political appointee at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Education was antagonistic to civil-rights, and he had no legal track record of consequence, no writings that the opposition could pick apart, and no known opinions about Roe v Wade that could trip him up.

He rarely speaks in oral arguments, which his critics interpret as a sign of inferior legal acuity. Danforth says that Thomas told him that he thinks that time belongs to the lawyers arguing their case before the Court. For many, it’s the high point of their career, and he doesn’t like to interrupt. He has offered other explanations, including insecurity about his Pin Point, Ga. accent dating back to when he navigated the elite environs of Yale and the East Coast governing class.
Thomas’ confirmation, painful as it was for both him and his principal accuser, generated enough outrage among women to elect a record number of women to Congress the following year. A lot has changed in 20 years, and Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall, which is exactly what Bush intended. For conservatives, Thomas is the gift that keeps on giving. Having just turned 63, he could well be there harboring his resentments as an anchor on the right for another 20 years.

 Eleanor Clift is a contributor to Newsweek and the Daily Beast, and a panelist on "The McLaughlin Group." More Eleanor Clift.


Slackie Onassis
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 03:39 AM PDT

Right Crossed
The reactionaries in this country have completely politicized and successfully commandeered the Judicial Branch. Between the Federalist Society goose-steppers as their farm team, to the clerks, to the GOP's stonewalling of any judicial appointments during Democratic administrations, to Democratic Party supine negotiating stances with regard to nominations, justices like Thomas, who seemed like an outlier back then, are the "new normal" of the politicized, reactionary judiciary the GOP likes. And, sadly, it'll be sticking with this country for generations after the GOP is reduced to a minority party by changing demographics and looney-tunes ideology.

The Democrats have been completely outflanked by the Republicans on this. Thomas will be the Thurgood Marshall of the reactionary judiciary, their patron saint, embodying the strict adherence to reactionary ideology that the Right loves in their judges. And by the time Thomas is elevated to that position of prominence, the Right's takeover of the Judicial Branch should be nearly complete.


Trainman
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 03:56 AM PDT

We Can Save Some Money
by assigning two votes to either Scalia or Thomas and by removing one or the other from the Court.

They vote in lock-step on every issue.


Sheri Lynn
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 03:59 AM PDT

You make this comment...
"...after the GOP is reduced to a minority party by changing demographics and looney-tunes ideology..."

—Slackie Onassis

..as though it implies the GOP will not be in power, even as a minority. You gravely underestimate them; their intent is to hold on to power regardless of circumstance or position; after all, they represent the ultimate in entitled elitists.

The Republicans worship power and they will make every effort to retain it, the Constitution be damned. Count on it as you would count on Democrats remaining the resident doormats, forever whining about trivialities and enabling the right-wing to turn the United States into a fascist nation.
Sheri Lynn
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 04:02 AM PDT

I've always enjoyed...
We Can Save Some Money

by assigning two votes to either Scalia or Thomas and by removing one or the other from the Court.

They vote in lock-step on every issue.

—Trainman

...watching Thomas play the lap dog to Scalia. You'd think Thomas would be embarrassed to play the lawn jockey to some dribbling right-wing liar, but there it is; you can't argue it any other way.


ParkerNY
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 04:22 AM PDT

the gift that keeps on giving
It's good to know that a bush held America in such high esteem to bequeath such a noble and accomplished individual to us for decades of tireless service on behalf of those without a voice, those in pain, the wrongly convicted, etc., and let's not forget the crowning achievement of his tenure his steadfast participation in finding the heretofore unknown rights of a wrongly declared winner to keep such a win.

No, seriously, two comments - posterchild against lifetime appointments; and one of the only blots on a Senator with otherwise unimpeachable character and judgment.


Lawndart
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 04:44 AM PDT

Scalia and Thomas...
...also known as the worst interracial buddy comedy ever.

It's a common assumption that Thomas is just a second vote for Scalia, but the truth is much scarier.

There are times where Thomas comes up with a legal opinion that is so batshit insane that even Antonin Scalia thinks he's gone too far.

Let that sink in for a moment.

If you want proof of this, check out Scalia's bitter and bitchy take down of Thomas' bizarre Dominionist rantings in the recent Brown V. Entertainment Merchants Association ruling.

Bill B.
Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 04:58 AM PDT

He's also what conservatives always claim they hate.
Thomas is one of the most aggressive judicial activists in the history of the court. Nobody has argued for overturning more legislative precedent. He's a living testament to the hypocrisy of the right. Any time a conservative starts quacking about states' rights or judicial activism, there are just two words to utter in response: Clarence Thomas.

NewsFlash: $250k Income is the new $100k

Inflation Makes Big Incomes Smaller
$100,000 income: No big deal anymore
By Craig Guillot | Bankrate.com – Mon, Jun 25, 2012 10:18 AM EDT..

One hundred thousand dollars. Since the 1980s, the magical "six-figure" salary has been a benchmark for financial success. Not too long ago, that income often meant two nice cars in the garage of a large house, fun family vacations and plenty of money left over to save for retirement and college tuition.

But times have changed. Not only has standard inflation steadily eroded the real value of a $100,000 income, but the cost, of housing, health insurance and college tuition have risen dramatically in recent years. Consider the rising costs of food, energy and the necessities of a middle class life, and that six-figure luxury quickly turns to six-figure mediocrity.
Less than 20 percent of American households even break the six figures. But many who earn incomes near the mark find that their prized incomes don't take them as far as the hype. Many say that while breaking the $100,000 annual income mark may still be an impressive milestone, it doesn't exactly roll out the red carpet.

Costs eat away at benchmark

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 6.03 percent of individual over 18 and only 19.9 percent of households had incomes of $100,000 or more in 2010. In fact, the median annual household income for 2010 was $50,046, just more than half of the six-figure benchmark. The overwhelming majority of Americans still look up to a $100,000 income, but the expectations of what comes with that income are rapidly slumping.

“Without a doubt, the housing situation is the biggest thing that eats into our income.” -- Brian Neale, investment manager

According to Labor Department statistics, the average inflation rate for 2011 was the worst since 2008, with consumer prices rising 3.1 percent, compared to an average of 1.6 percent in 2010. Much of this was fueled by energy costs (up 15.2 percent for the year) and food costs (up 3.7 percent for the year). Just to keep up with standard inflation, a $100,000 salary in 1990 would have to be $172,103.29 in 2011.

"What would have cost you $100,000 in 1976 would cost you $381,000 today. That's just the inflation, and there are so many other things that have grown very expensive," says Mari Adam, Certified Financial Planner and president of Adam Financial Associates in Boca Raton, Fla.

Adam points to health care as a major expense that has grown almost twice the rate of inflation. The Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks the costs of health insurance, found in 2011 that insurance costs had increased by a whopping 134 percent since 2000. The total cost of health insurance now averages $5,429 per year for individuals and $15,079 for families. Adam says college costs have also grown tremendously in recent years. According to the College Board's annual "Trends in College Pricing" report from last year, published tuitions at four-year public universities are up 42 percent in five years, the largest increase of any five-year period since the 2007-09 school year.

"These are things that everyone spent money on 30 years ago, but the percentage of what was going out of their paycheck is a lot higher now. More of the income is being taken away to pay for a lot of these things," says Adam.

The cost of housing has also played a major role in diminishing the power of a six-figure income. In many parts of the country housing prices have outpaced wage growth for almost a decade. The Housing Affordability Index, which compares the cost of housing against median family income, dropped considerably between 2000 and 2007. In 2000, the median family income was $50,732, and the median home price was $139,000. While median income grew to $60,831 in 2011, median home prices skyrocketed to $229,299 in 2007 before leveling off at $166,200 in 2011. In those 11 years, median home prices had risen 19.6 percent while median incomes had risen 16.6 percent.
"Without a doubt, the housing situation is the biggest thing that eats into our income," says Brian Neale, an investment manager from Westminster, Md.

Money doesn't go far

Neale, 33, says he surpassed the $100,000 mark last year but says that between mortgage payments, the high price of heating fuel, gas, food and everyday items in life, his salary doesn't go as far as he thought it would. Neale is married with three children and says that his extracurricular real estate and investment activities help them buy the extras in life.

"Now that I've made (a $100,000 salary), it's not all it's cracked up to be. We make sacrifices. It's not like I tell my kids we're going to have to eat peanut butter and jelly every night. We live well, but I wouldn't consider it anything extravagant," says Neale.

Many now consider $250,000 the new $100,000 income. Adam says that level of income is typically required to provide what many have before expected of a six-figure salary. Adam also points to other expenses that are not necessities but are considered part of a middle class lifestyle -- things like cellphones, high-speed internet access, vacations, karate lessons, iPods, laptops and digital cameras.

"What you might think people deserve for a person that has a reasonable income is excessively high. Add in all the other expenses, and there just isn't anything left and that's part of the reason why a $100,000 income isn't going that far," says Adam.

Geography and lifestyle factors

With the cost of housing typically the largest expense for a family, location is one of the most important factors in dictating the power of a $100,000 income. While that level may not go far on the coasts, it may still provide a fairly comfortable lifestyle in much of Middle America. Jeff Eschman of Brazos Financial Advisors in Houston, says that in much of that state $100,000 income earners can enjoy very comfortable lifestyles.

"I don't see many families who are at the $100,000 income level currently making a lot of sacrifices. Families at that income level should be able to afford a very nice lifestyle in this area," says Eschman.

“There is still only a small percentage of people making this income. It points out that for your average person in your average job, this is becoming an increasingly hard country to live in.” -- Mari Adam, certified financial planner

In cities like San Francisco; Manhattan, N.Y.; Los Angeles; San Jose, Calif.; and Washington, D.C., the cost of housing alone can take a major bite out of a $100,000 income.
[Related: How Couples Sabotage Their Finances]

The Council for Community and Economic Research's Cost of Living Index, which compares typical family and individual expenses across hundreds of cities shows that. According to the Index, for 2012 Q1, a typical family earning $100,000 per year would need to earn around $228,300 in New York City and $166,500 in San Francisco to maintain that same lifestyle

In low-cost areas, Eschman says that people at that income level tend to run into financial problems when their lifestyle outpaces their income. While this is a problem for many Americans in all income levels, top figure earners are not immune from it. Adam says she has even seen people with incomes of up to $300,000 having trouble covering their expenses.

Choice is yours

Bryce Danley, a Certified Financial Planner and advanced financial adviser with Ameriprise Financial, says the real power of any income is all about perspective and choices. He says buying too much house, spending too much on automobiles and having too much debt is commonplace with families in the $100,000 income level and largely responsible for the six-figure pinch. In one example Danley uses a household that earns $100,000 a year, owns a $375,000 home, leases 2 vehicles for $450 each per month and pays $250 per month on credit cards. After that household pays the mortgage, car notes, debt and takes out social security and federal income taxes, it has spent 75 percent of its income.

"This is a very typical situation for someone in that income range. And we wonder why average Americans don't save any money -- it's because of the decisions they made in housing, cars and debt," says Danley.

While the real power of a $100,000 income has been drastically diminished, it highlights that the burden of increasing costs on those making less is even more profound. Danley says that regardless of income level, Americans' penchant for debt, consumerism and outspending themselves is what ultimately causes financial disappointment or stress.

"There is still only a small percentage of people making this income. It points out that for your average person in your average job, this is becoming an increasingly hard country to live in," says Adam.
. . .

NewsFlash: Gorillas lose on penile endowment with only 1.5 Inches, and Chimps Win Testicular Fortitude Contest!

hey, how come high school bio never covered this?

 

http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/SpermWars.htm

 

Sperm Wars

As was noted in the previous section, although a dominant chimpanzee may try to monopolize time with a female in estrous, most of the competition in this species is carried out at the level of the sperm. The reproductive tract inside a female chimpanzee becomes the battleground for a sperm war that takes place over the course of several days. Only one sperm among all of the billions within her vaginal tract and uterus can win the prize of fertilizing the egg. In fact, only a very small percentage of sperm, possibly as little as 1%, are even capable of fertilization; the rest of the sperm have an entirely different function. This other 99% of sperm consists of what are called blockers, or kamikaze sperm. Their function is to prevent the sperm of other males from reaching the egg. There appear to be at least two types of kamikaze sperm (Baker, 1996). Type A sperm block the passage of sperm that enter the female after they do. Type B sperm actually attack sperm that have been delivered prior to themselves. This sperm competition in chimpanzees has necessitated the evolution of testicles large enough to produce adequate amounts of sperm. This is why the testicles of chimpanzees are much larger than those of men.

The testicles of gorillas are relatively tiny compared to those of chimpanzees. This is because of the sexual monopoly that is obtained by a single silverback male gorilla over his harem of females. In this type of mating system sperm competition is almost non-existent. Human testicle size is somewhat proportionally larger than that of the gorilla. Nevertheless, the general similarity suggests that early hominid mating systems were of a polygynous nature similar to that of the gorilla, where you have a single sexually active male (Hrdy, 1988). Conversely, humans display a greatly reduced sexual dimorphism for body size as compared to the gorilla, suggesting that humans trended toward a greater degree of monogamy in the latter stages of our evolution. Because this shift toward monogamy occurred within the context of a larger social group, evolved behavior and physiology aimed at combating infidelity is part of our legacy as modern humans.

Baker (1996) discovered evidence that human male sexual psychology has evolved to respond to the prospect that his mate has been inseminated by another man during his absence. He found that the volume of sperm a man ejaculates while having sex with his partner is unrelated to how long it has been since he last had an ejaculation; the important variable is the length of time that has passed since he last had sex with his wife. The volume of sperm may be as much as three times that of normal if the man has been separated from his wife for a long period of time. If the men were in proximity of their wives during a similar period and were sexually abstinent, their subsequent ejaculate did not show the same rise in volume. Baker & Bellis (1993, 1995) also found that female orgasm plays a role in sperm competition. When a woman has an orgasm the uterus starts to contract rhythmically, causing sperm to be drawn into the cervix; a kind of vacuuming effect. If a woman has had intercourse with several men within a short period of time, the sperm of the man associated with her orgasm has a much higher probability of fertilizing her ovum than that of men whose copulation did not result in orgasm. When we couple this finding with Thornhill’s data, showing that women have more orgasms with symmetrical men than with less symmetrical men, and with the findings of Gangestad and Thornhill (1998), showing that women during the time of their ovulation show a preference for the scent from symmetrical men, we can see a connection between sperm competition and female mate choice.

Both sperm competition and female mate choice have been evoked to explain the unique anatomical distinction of the human species. Although among our closest living primate relatives, chimpanzees have the largest testicles, humans have the largest penis in terms of length and thickness (see Figure 5.4). Diamond (1992) provides the following anatomical data: In the gorilla the length of the erect penis measures 1 ¼ inches, in the orangutan it averages 1 ½ inches, in the chimpanzee it averages 3 inches, and in man it averages 5 inches in length. Advocates of the sperm competition theory argue that a longer penis provides sperm delivery closer to the cervix and gives sperm a head start in their competition with rivals. Advocates of the female choice theory would argue that ancestral hominid females, at least in part, selected males who could provide more vaginal and clitoral stimulation. In all probability, there is some interaction between both of these processes such that a thicker penis provides more clitoral stimulation and, hence, increases the likelihood of an orgasm that would facilitate delivery of sperm into the cervix. Post coital uterine examinations of women show that sperm retention is positively correlated with the women’s self-reported sexual satisfaction (Graham-Rowe, 1998). Phylogenetic comparisons also suggest that the breasts of human females have evolved as a result of sexual selection pressures

WooHoo - I'm Google #1 for a day! "There are Only Two Kinds of Republicans"

 there are only two kinds of republicans

Google the phrase "There are only two kinds of republicans" and I hit #1 for a day at least.  Still up there also for "Ray Dalio Ponzi Hedge Fund Apocalypse".

Finally, my life has meaning.

Search Results
There are only Two Kinds of Republicans - The Freedom to Get Paid ...
a1b5jj.blogspot.com/.../there-are-only-two-kinds-of-republicans.html
Jan 17, 2012 – There are two kinds of Republicans: Rich Republicans and Stupid Republicans: The Rich Republicans keep the Stupid Republicans Stupid.

There are two types of Republicans: Millionaires and
store.progressivebumperstickers.com/product.php?xProd=38
"There are two types of Republicans: Millionaires and Suckers". There are two types of Republicans: Millionaires and Suckers. All stickers approximately 3x11 ...

O'Reilly: There Are Two Kinds Of Republicans: Values Voters ...
www.realclearpolitics.com/.../oreilly_there_are_two_kinds_of_republ...
Jan 31, 2012 – Bill O'Reilly looks at the latest polling in the Florida primary. He discusses the different kinds of Republican voters.

Governor Perry discovers there's two kinds of Republicans ...
www.prometheus6.org › Blogs › Prometheus 6's blog
Governor Perry discovers there's two kinds of Republicans. September 13, 2011 — Prometheus 6. Politics. His constituency is stupid. His competition is not.

Ratbang Diary: There are Two Kinds of Republicans.
ratbangdiary.blogspot.com/.../there-are-two-kinds-of-republicans.ht...
Mar 6, 2012 – The two kinds of Republicans are: 1) the kind that is thinking, intelligent, wealthy and willing to do anything to get a Republican elected ...

Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free

The Rules of POLITICAL TALK RADIO as practiced by Limbaugh Beck Hannity and Savage-Weiner
 *Never Be Dull  (if you cant be funny, be angry, whatever you do just DONT be calm and reasonable)

*Embrace willfully ignorant simplicity and claim it is a patriotic virtue (c.f. Orwell: "Ignorance is Strength")

*The American public are stupid, even profoundly stupid, more stupid than you can even imagine, stupid to the BONE; so treat them that way and they will love you for it. (Limbaugh's patented schtick is to take it one step further and even praise and flatter them for being stupid)

*Always ignore facts, history, and the public record (Fox news: the more you watch, the less you know)


http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t

Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
by Charles P. Pierce

Question: Is there a voice or leader of Idiot America?

Charles P. Pierce: The leaders of Idiot America are those people who abandoned their obligations to the above. There are lots of people making an awful lot of money selling their ideas and their wares to Idiot America. Idiot America is an act of collective will, a product of lassitude and sloth.
Question: What is the difference between stupidity and glorifying ignorance?
Charles P. Pierce: Stupidity is as stupidity does, to quote a uniquely stupid movie. It has been with us always and always will be. But we moved into an era in which stupidity was celebrated if it managed to sell itself well, if it succeeded, if it made people money. That is “glorifying ignorance.” We moved into an era in which the reflexive instincts of the Gut were celebrated at the expense of reasoned, informed opinion. To this day, we have a political party—the Republicans—who, because it embraced a “movement of Conservatism” that celebrated anti-intellectualism is now incapable of conducting itself in any other way. That has profound political and cultural consequences, and the truly foul part about it was that so many people engaged in it knowing full well they were peddling poison.
Question: While writing Idiot America, what story or incident made you the most incensed?
Charles P. Pierce: Without question, it was talking to the people at Woodside Hospice, who shared with me what it was like to be inside the whirlwind stirred up by people who used the prolonged death of Terri Schiavo as a political and social volleyball to advance their own unpopular and reckless agenda. There are people—Sean Hannity comes to mind—who, if there is a just god in heaven, should be locked in a room for 20 minutes with Annie Santa Maria, the indomitable woman who works with the patients at the hospice. Only one of them would come out, and it wouldn't be him.
Question: With the election of President Obama, is Idiot America coming to an end? Or, will there always be a place for idiocy in America?
Charles P. Pierce: Look at the political opposition to President Obama. “Socialist!” “Fascist!” “Coming to get your guns.” Hysteria from the hucksters of Idiot America is still at high-tide. People are killing other people and specifically attributing their action to imaginary oppression stoked by radio talk-show stars and television pundits. That Glenn Beck has achieved the prominence he has makes me wonder if there is a just god in heaven.

705 of 750 people found the following review helpful
 It's True: We See This Everyday, July 2, 2009
By K. JohnsonAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

 "Idiot America" is great, informative book about concepts we see everyday. Also, many of the 1-star reviews are likely biased because of some of the political and religious topics noted. I think this book is definitely a full, 5-star book.
The Following comments aren't meant to be particularly negative towards the United States and the concepts in this book aren't exclusive to the USA. The concepts in "idiot America" exist all over the entire world. "Idiot America" is a superbly covered account of something that's very prevalent in the US.
Charles Pierce provides the history of "cranks" (con artists and showmen) from the founding of the nation to current examples today in contemporary America. I focused on TV and Radio because of it's widespread impact on the populace today (even in the age of the growing Internet, which is becoming dominant).

Much of TV and Talk Radio promote misinformation based on emotion, histrionics, shock, being loud, and over-the-top attempts to get ratings.

The author notes "The 3 Great Premises: and applies them to many instances in this book:
1. Any theory is valid if it moves units (rating, and making money).
2. Anything can be true if it is said loudly enough.
3. Fact is what enough people believe (the Truth is what you believe).

There are many examples in this book. Here are just a few:
The NAFTA Superhighway, that never was:
Even in the year 2003, a completely false rumor can end up being debated by Congressman, and end up on Lou Dobb's TV show. In 2003, the Texas legislature approved the the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) to improve road and rail lines to facilitate the movement of good within the state of Texas. Due to modern day mass communication (mostly the Internet) the TTC very quickly turned into a fictitious NAFTA Superhighway. The Superhighway was to be 400 yards wide and stretch from El Paso, TX to Saskatoon, Canada. North to South, East to West. The NAFTA superhighway would be the trade corridor for the newly united states of Canada, US, and Mexico. Congressman were asked their position on the highway by reporters in DC, and many cited their opposition to it and the erosion of America's Sovereignty. Lou Dobbs ran the story on his show on a major American news network. Viewers were "outraged." Silly as this may seem, it reinforces the point that we
cannot automatically trust nor believe the mainstream media.

Intelligent Design:

Religion and politics have merged, and both use the characteristic tactics of brand marketing in the modern marketplace. Church consultant George Barna in 1988 stated that the church has failed "to embrace a marketing orientation in what has become a market-driven environment" (page 131).
After failing to sneak religion into classrooms to get Creationism taught in biology classes, in addition to nation-wide prayer in schools, a new brand was carefully and methodically invented: intelligent design. ID was funded among many, including the owner of Domino's Pizza through a right-wing legal foundation.
A school board tried to sneak ID into the Dover, Delaware school system not by Constitutionality but by marketing. The Intelligent Designers tried to remove a science textbook and replace it with one advocating Intelligent Design. The scientific basis for the ID movement was by the term "irreducible complexity." Under this, if you cannot remove one element with demolishing the system, it proves creationism works. The ID legal strategy in court under 'irreducible complexity' was, bacterial Flagellum. But the micro bacterial flagellum fell apart in court, and a judge ruled that ID was not sufficiently proven to be taught in public science classes in Delaware. Later this judge, who was given the case, was called a "fascist" by Tim O'Reilly on TV, with Pat Robertson calling him "absurd."

POLITICAL TALK RADIO rules noted by a professor studying radio discourse:
*Never Be Dull
*Embrace willfully ignorant simplicity
*The American public is stupid; treat them that way
*Always ignore the fact and the public record when it's convenient

TELEVISION: "Television is an emotional medium. It's entertainment, not analysis or reasoned discourse."
In spite of the massive growth of those getting their information from the Internet in recent years (which I think is good if people check the source appropriately) many folks still get their information from TV.
I think TV has devolved so much and become so bad, that instead of becoming more informed on issues, people are actually becoming less informed. When I visit the US, instantly notice how bad television news is, not only on reporting the issues to the public but by its inclusion of tabloid stories. .
How many people do you know, that simply regurgitate the ideas, positions and arguments they see on radio & television? I know and witness this plenty, and yes I sometimes do it myself.
"Idiot America: How Stupidity Became Virtue in the Land of the Free," by Charles Pierce, is an excellent book. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?   Report abuse | Permalink
 Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free 0767926145 Charles P. Pierce Doubleday Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free Books It's True: We See This Everyday "Idiot America" is great, informative book about concepts we see everyday. Also, many of the 1-star reviews are likely biased because of some of the political and religious topics noted. I think this book is definitely a full, 5-star book.
The Following comments aren't meant to be particularly negative towards the United States and the concepts in this book aren't exclusive to the USA. The concepts in "idiot America" exist all over the entire world. "Idiot America" is a superbly covered account of something that's very prevalent in the US.
Charles Pierce provides the history of "cranks" (con artists and showmen) from the founding of the nation to current examples today in contemporary America. I focused on TV and Radio because of it's widespread impact on the populace today (even in the age of the growing Internet, which is becoming dominant). Much of TV and Talk Radio promote misinformation based on emotion, histrionics, shock, being loud, and over-the-top attempts to get ratings.
The author notes "The 3 Great Premises: and applies them to many instances in this book:
1. Any theory is valid if it moves units (rating, and making money).
2. Anything can be true if it is said loudly enough.
3. Fact is what enough people believe (the Truth is what you believe).
There are many examples in this book. Here are just a few:
The NAFTA Superhighway, that never was:
Even in the year 2003, a completely false rumor can end up being debated by Congressman, and end up on Lou Dobb's TV show. In 2003, the Texas legislature approved the the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) to improve road and rail lines to facilitate the movement of good within the state of Texas. Due to modern day mass communication (mostly the Internet) the TTC very quickly turned into a fictitious NAFTA Superhighway. The Superhighway was to be 400 yards wide and stretch from El Paso, TX to Saskatoon, Canada. North to South, East to West. The NAFTA superhighway would be the trade corridor for the newly united states of Canada, US, and Mexico. Congressman were asked their position on the highway by reporters in DC, and many cited their opposition to it and the erosion of America's Sovereignty. Lou Dobbs ran the story on his show on a major American news network. Viewers were "outraged." Silly as this may seem, it reinforces the point that we
cannot automatically trust nor believe the mainstream media.
Intelligent Design:
Religion and politics have merged, and both use the characteristic tactics of brand marketing in the modern marketplace. Church consultant George Barna in 1988 stated that the church has failed "to embrace a marketing orientation in what has become a market-driven environment" (page 131).
After failing to sneak religion into classrooms to get Creationism taught in biology classes, in addition to nation-wide prayer in schools, a new brand was carefully and methodically invented: intelligent design. ID was funded among many, including the owner of Domino's Pizza through a right-wing legal foundation.
A school board tried to sneak ID into the Dover, Delaware school system not by Constitutionality but by marketing. The Intelligent Designers tried to remove a science textbook and replace it with one advocating Intelligent Design. The scientific basis for the ID movement was by the term "irreducible complexity." Under this, if you cannot remove one element with demolishing the system, it proves creationism works. The ID legal strategy in court under 'irreducible complexity' was, bacterial Flagellum. But the micro bacterial flagellum fell apart in court, and a judge ruled that ID was not sufficiently proven to be taught in public science classes in Delaware. Later this judge, who was given the case, was called a "fascist" by Tim O'Reilly on TV, with Pat Robertson calling him "absurd."
POLITICAL TALK RADIO:
One set of rules noted by a professor studying radio discourse:
*Never Be Dull
*Embrace willfully ignorant simplicity
*The American public is stupid; treat them that way
*Always ignore the fact and the public record when it's convenient
TELEVISION: "Television is an emotional medium. It's entertainment, not analysis or reasoned discourse."
In spite of the massive growth of those getting their information from the Internet in recent years (which I think is good if people check the source appropriately) many folks still get their information from TV.
I think TV has devolved so much and become so bad, that instead of becoming more informed on issues, people are actually becoming less informed. When I visit the US, instantly notice how bad television news is, not only on reporting the issues to the public but by its inclusion of tabloid stories. .
How many people do you know, that simply regurgitate the ideas, positions and arguments they see on radio & television? I know and witness this plenty, and yes I sometimes do it myself.
"Idiot America: How Stupidity Became Virtue in the Land of the Free," by Charles Pierce, is an excellent book. K. Johnson July 2, 2009
Overall: 5


Post a comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on May 26, 2010 1:58:15 AM PDT
Meijer Goldstein says:
The Nafta Superhighway WAS/IS real, and Lou Dobbs was brave enough to air it. I believe him discussing REAL ISSUES and not BS like "Does Brittany Spears wear underwear" ? got him removed from the public eye.
6 of 46 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Jun 17, 2010 6:07:36 AM PDT
S. Andersen says:
All in All a spot on review. I just have one thing I would take issue with:
"I think TV has devolved so much and become so bad, that instead of becoming more informed on issues, people are actually becoming less informed."
TV was never invented to inform. TV was created to lull the masses and sell products, news and programming is designed to seperate people into demographics so the "right" products can be displayed at the right time. It never was intended to inform or enlighten.
otherwise a great review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Jul 6, 2010 1:00:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2010 1:02:40 PM PDT
Uncle Jerry says:
"Much of TV and Talk Radio promote misinformation based on emotion, histrionics, shock, being loud, and over-the-top attempts to get ratings." I actually refer to this as the Howard Stern Syndrome -
When these hucksters saw Howard making a bundle of money as the first uber successful shock jock ($$$$$$) - they jumped on the band wagon (O'Reily too) - I think Don Imus gets credit for inspiring Howard to "go for it" - so lets give him his due.
Not that I haven't laughed out loud at Stern and Imus but the new wave of hacks, cranks, and sensationalist, bombastic ratings heroes saw the winning rating formula Stern used and they too used it to ride to the top of the heap -
What happens to the country in the middle - is tough noogies - they got theirs and they will milk it for as long as they (and their bosses) can - call it the rubber necking of media and these buffoons are willing to be the accidents.
11 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Jul 6, 2010 1:10:00 PM PDT
Uncle Jerry says:
"How many people do you know, that simply regurgitate the ideas, positions and arguments they see on radio & television?" Thank you for saying that I notice it all the time and it just saddens me that people are so malleable - and do not think for themselves - I mean a verbatim recitation just scares the daylights out of me.
We need a return to independent thinking as a noble concept taught in our schools.
Group think is very dangerous and its short term rush of belonging can turn ugly in a heart beat - just ask the Nazi's right Mr. Beck.....

Matt Gonzalez - a Prescient Obama Skeptic in 2008

Yep, it is now all too painfully obvious that we shoulda had Hillary-Obama and not Obama-Biden.  At least Hillary would have had the balls to take on the Republican fascists and the Wall Street Welfare Queen Banksters.

Though, to be fair, given the extreme reaction that we have seen from the Republican fascist party to even Obama's mild proposals, one cannot evidently be both black and president and have balls.  That is a recipe for an early intervention and forcible removal with extreme prejudice by the real powers that run this country.

All the more reason even Obama should have seen the value of deferring to Hillary and by maneuvering to the VP slot to be in line for 2016, when the groundwork for the exercise of testicular fortitude by a black man in the presidency would have been laid.

-------------------


The Obama Craze: Count Me Out   by Matt Gonzalez‚ Feb. 27‚ 2008


Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here's why:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ



Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.



First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”



Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.



Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.



And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.



And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?



Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.



At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.



This is hardly a position to get excited about.



CLASS ACTION REFORM:



In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.



By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”



Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions – most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations – all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”



Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?



CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:



Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.



Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.



Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.



LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:



These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.



In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.



MINING LAW OF 1872:



In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.



The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.



Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).



REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:



The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.



The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:



"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."



As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”



ENERGY POLICY:



On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)



So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.



SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:



Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.



Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:



Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”



Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.



SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:



On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.



Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)



Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)



On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.



It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.



Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.



CONCLUSION:



Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.



I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.



Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Don't Trust the Experts for Predictions - Famous Internet BAH! Prediction 1995

sometimes it doesnt help to be an expert to see where technology is going.  One would think that an expert in internet technology in 1995 would be a retired millionaire by now, having gotten in on the ground floor of maybe a Cisco or an Apple, but one would be wrong if the expert detested the rat's nest of protocols and contraptions and website drek that was the internet in 1995.


Let's Talk About the 1995 NEWSWEEK Piece That Says the Internet Will Fail


Mar 2, 2010 8:02 AM EST Email

What's the most wrong you've ever been?

I mean really wrong. Not, like, getting-the-capital-of-Illinois wrong. Not predicting-the-Mets-to-win-the-World-Series wrong. I am talking wrong wrong, a realm of inaccuracy known not even by Columbus (when he thought he'd reached the Indies) or the guys who thought New Coke was a good idea.



What I'm saying is that there's wrong ... and then there’s Clifford Stoll’s NEWSWEEK essay about the Internet from 1995.



Let's get this over with. Here is a list of things Stoll calls "baloney" on—each and every one of which has a thriving utility in 2010:

•telecommuting

•interactive libraries

•multimedia classrooms

•electronic town meetings

•virtual communities

•taking a computer to the beach



•getting books and newspapers online

•e-commerce, online shopping, and e-payments



•booking airline tickets and restaurant reservations

•cybersex



Stoll also complains at length that it is nigh on impossible to use this Internet contraption to find the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. The headline—THE INTERNET? BAH!—reads as if Montgomery Burns was working the NEWSWEEK copy desk that night. And so on. You get the idea.



Most Americans are not in the habit of sending around 15-year-old NEWSWEEK columns, but they make an exception for Stoll. This is an essay that will not die—the only thing worse for a writer than an essay that no one remembers. Stoll's "Bah!" lives on in tweets—"a hilarious cane-waving Newsweek article from '95. Can't stop laughing"—and blog posts and never-ending e-mail chains. FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: fwd: fwd: Newsweek on why the internet will fail - bananas!! In March 2008, the piece received 3,663 Diggs. Decca Records didn't get this much heat for passing on the Beatles.

It's getting to be a little much. Our Mark Coatney, who is something of a living rebuttal to Stoll in that he mans NEWSWEEK's Twitter and Tumblr feeds all day, blogged about this last week, after seeing a NEWSWEEK/Internet/1995/morons tweet for the umpteenth time. "While this does crack us up," Coatney wrote, "... in many ways, Cliff Stoll wasn't wrong. The Internet really did suck then, and it really was a huckster’s paradise. But the fatal flaw in his argument was his assumption that it was never going to get any better." Today, undoubtedly, we all have beliefs about the future of the digital age that would seem hilarious when viewed from 2025.



Now, what does Stoll have to say about all of this? Oh, right, I can use the Internet to find out. The answer is that he is being a good sport. He saw his folly highlighted on Boing Boing last week, and contributed this comment:

“Of my many mistakes, flubs, and howlers, few have been as public as my 1995 howler.

Wrong? Yep.

At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.

Gives me pause. Most of my screwups have had limited publicity: Forgetting my lines in my 4th grade play. Misidentifying a Gilbert and Sullivan song while suddenly drafted to fill in as announcer on a classical radio station. Wasting a week hunting for planets interior to Mercury’s orbit using an infrared system with a noise level so high that it couldn’t possibly detect ‘em. Heck—trying to dry my sneakers in a microwave oven (a quarter century later, there’s still a smudge on the kitchen ceiling)

And, as I’ve laughed at others’ foibles, I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions.

Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff …

Warm cheers to all,

—Cliff Stoll on a rainy Friday afternoon in Oakland”

If Cliff Stoll was an Internet curmudgeon, then he has aged into a magnanimous one. A class act, on the Web? In 1995, no one could have predicted that.

Jamie Dimon Testimony - Plutocracy on Parade

Jamie Dimon's recent testimony to a fawning obsequious congress that he actually literally owns, the employer being 'questioned' by the employees, deserves to be immortalized for all history as the textbook display for what plutocracy looks like and how it actually works in practice.  It must surely be a watershed in the decline and fall of America that the Bush Crime Family engineered.

Jamie Dimon House Testimony: 'We Disclosed What We Knew When We Knew It'

Reuters  |  Posted: 06/19/2012 1:34 pm Updated: 06/19/2012 2:35 pm

2

1

0

0

1

Get Business Alerts:

Sign Up

Follow:

Video, House Financial Services Committee, Jamie Dimon, Jamie Dimon House Financial Services, Jamie Dimon Senate Hearing, Jamie Dimon Testimony, Jpmorgan Trading Loss, Mary Schapiro, Reuters, Business News

* Dimon says bank disclosed what it knew when it knew it

* SEC is investigating whether JPMorgan misled investors

* SEC's Schapiro says companies must speak truthfully

* Dimon defends JPMorgan's size

By Sarah N. Lynch and David Henry

WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said his bank was upfront with investors about its multibillion-dollar trading loss, even as regulators investigate whether JPMorgan disguised a dramatic rise in risk-taking.

Dimon, testifying on Tuesday for the second time in a week before lawmakers about the failed hedging strategy, acknowledged that JPMorgan in January changed a "value-at-risk" model for the trading portfolio in question.

The bank did not disclose the change until May 10, when Dimon also revealed that the trading portfolio had produced at least $2 billion in losses.

"We disclosed what we knew when we knew it," Dimon told the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday.

Dimon's comments came after the committee heard from a panel of regulators, including Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, who gave more details about her agency's investigation into the trading loss.

Schapiro said the SEC is looking at whether JPMorgan misled investors in its April earnings statements by failing to disclose the value-at-risk (VaR) change. At that time, Dimon also called press reports about a "London whale" trader with an outsized position a "tempest in a teapot".

The model change disguised a spike in the riskiness of the particular trading portfolio by cutting in half its VaR number.

"If you chose to speak, you absolutely must speak truthfully and completely and not allow yourself to leave any kind of misleading impression from the information that you are putting out," Schapiro said.

Dimon's testimony on Tuesday followed his appearance last Wednesday before the Senate Banking Committee, where senators were mostly deferential.

A few members of the House Financial Services Committee went harder at Dimon, asking him repeatedly to defend the size of JPMorgan, the nation's largest U.S. bank by assets.

"No, we're not too big to fail," said Dimon, who at times appeared more tired and exasperated than during last week's hearing.

"I don't think there's any chance we're going to fail," he added.

Karl Rove on the loose and still in the closet

Karl Rove has made a career of mocking the law and it has made him rich, why stop now?  laws are for other people, i.e. losers.

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
~ Karl Rove, quoted in the "Daily Texan," March 19, 2001.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/21/503791/rove-makes-a-mockery-of-law-super-pac-co-founder-to-attend-romney-strategy-session-this-weekend/

Rove ‘Makes A Mockery’ Of Law: Super PAC Co-Founder To Attend Romney Strategy Session This Weekend

By Josh Israel on Jun 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images

This weekend, Mitt Romney and his campaign will host a retreat for top $100,000-and-up campaign bundlers and donors at a Park City, Utah resort. The event, dubbed the “First National Romney Victory Leadership Retreat,” will reportedly be an opportunity for “strategizing and fraternizing” between those bankrolling the campaign and those running it. But one name has raised flags for campaign finance watchdogs. A Saturday panel on “media insight” will feature American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS co-founder Karl Rove. The Crossroads reportedly plan to spend a stunning $300 million to help Romney defeat President Barack Obama this November, but they are legally prohibited from coordinating this effort with Romney’s campaign.
Back in December, Romney decried the rise of Super PACs like Rove’s American Crossroads, saying they have been a “disaster” for the political system. He said at the time:

Super PACs have to be entirely separate from a campaign and a candidate. I’m not allowed to communicate with a super PAC in any way, shape or form… If we coordinate in any way whatsoever, we go to the big house.

Death Penalty for Pimps - Right On

San Francisco: Not guilty pleas from couple accused of killing daughter's alleged pimp

Bay City News Service

Posted:   06/22/2012 07:53:47 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- A San Francisco couple accused of fatally shooting a Los Angeles-area man who was allegedly pimping their teenage daughter pleaded not guilty Friday to murder charges.

Lupe Mercado, 37, and Barry Gilton, 38, have been charged with the murder of Calvin Sneed, 22, of Compton, who was fatally shot shortly after 2 a.m. on June 4.
Mercado and Gilton also denied special allegations that they fired a weapon into an occupied vehicle.
Sneed was shot in the head while he was driving near Meade and Le Conte avenues in San Francisco's Bayview District. He crashed into a parked car and died at a hospital later that morning.
Prosecutors say the longtime couple, who are not married but have four children, shot Sneed after learning that their 17-year-old daughter had become a sex worker in the Los Angeles area and that Sneed was her pimp.
The attorneys for Mercado and Gilton continued to deny that their clients shot Sneed.
"The prosecution has provided insufficient evidence," Eric Safire, Gilton's attorney, said outside of court.
Safire and Mercado's attorney, Tony Tamburello, argued that Sneed's ties to a Los Angeles-area gang were enough of a motive for someone else to have shot him.
"There are people who targeted him in the past," Tamburello said.
District Attorney George Gascon told reporters late this morning after court that his office "would not have filed a case based on motive alone"
and emphasized that the prosecution has "ample evidence that the parents conspired" to commit murder. Gascon said that as a parent he sympathizes with Mercado and Gilton's frustration as parents that their daughter had been victimized, but he said that their tragedy did not make them above the law.
"Vigilante murder is still murder," he said. "We cannot afford to live in a society where people take the law into their own hands."
According to the criminal complaint against the couple, they allegedly traveled to Southern California and, on May 27, tracked Sneed down to a street in North Hollywood where Gilton fired a 9mm handgun at him, striking him. He survived that shooting.
"North Hollywood is not exactly a tourist attraction," Gascon said.
Sneed then traveled up to San Francisco to get the pair's daughter, who had returned to the city, and on June 4 the couple found him again, prosecutors said.
Gilton then allegedly fired again at Sneed, fatally wounding him, according to the criminal complaint.
Gilton and Mercado were arrested June 9, and the attorneys for the pair this week sought the arrest warrant affidavit, which has been sealed by a judge.
Without access to the affidavit, the defense does not know the facts supporting the arrests of their clients, Safire said.
Judge Samuel Feng, who was not the judge who sealed the affidavit, today denied the defense's request to unseal the documents.
The prosecution also did not reveal in court whether it would pursue the death penalty against Gilton and Mercado.

Matt 6:35 "Sufficient Unto the Day is the Evil Thereof"

"Sufficient Unto the Day is the Evil Thereof" : we have enough to worry about today, why waste time worrying about tomorrow also?  In fact, why worry at all?

"Dont Worry, Be Happy" - Avatar Meher Baba

To worry is not trusting God, and praying for what we dont want to happen.
Not worrying is living in the reality of  'God's will be done'.

"In the World, you will have Tribulation, but be of Good Cheer, for I have overcome the World." - Jesus

"Rest in Natural Great Peace (Nirvana) this Exhausted Mind, beaten helplessly by Karma and neurotic thought, like the relentless fury of the pounding waves in the Infinite Ocean of Samsara."
- Nyoshul Rinpoche


Matthew 6:25 ff.


Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


Screwtape tells Wormwood that one of their goals as devils is to get people to focus on the Future:


To be sure, the Enemy [God] wants men to think of the Future too—just so much as is necessary for now planning the acts of justice or charity which will probably be their duty tomorrow. The duty of planning the morrow's work is today's duty; though its material is borrowed from the future, the duty, like all duties, is in the Present. This is not straw splitting. He does not want men to give the Future their hearts, to place their treasure in it. We do. His ideal is a man who, having worked all day for the good of posterity (if that is his vocation), washes his mind of the whole subject, commits the issue to Heaven, and returns at once to the patience or gratitude demanded by the moment that is passing over him. But we want a man hag-ridden by the Future—haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth—ready to break the Enemy's commands in the present if by so doing we make him think he can attain the one or avert the other—dependent for his faith on the success or failure of schemes whose end he will not live to see. We want a whole race perpetually in pursuit of the rainbow's end, never honest, nor kind, nor happy now, but always using as mere fuel wherewith to heap the altar of the future every real gift which is offered them in the Present.

"The Screwtape Letters"

Where to Retire? Thailand or Phillipines?

commentBradly • 21 I used to think it would always be bad to move to another country because of all the govt corruption and bribery... but thanks to our political system over the last 10 years I don't think I'd notice a change at all if I were to move. 55 Replies . 235users liked this 9



commentFedupwithcrap • 19 I never thought I would leave the U.S. except to vacation someday if we could afford it, then we took a job in BKK, so then I thought, well we can work here a few years and we will be sent back to the states, but as it appears now, if we don't have to leave we aren't going to for awhile. The cost of living is so much cheaper. We are able to help our two kids who are in college out more than we were. We are able to fly home every few months. The only thing that is a little costly is our other 2 kids education, they go to Inernational school of Bangkok, but even at that, the education is better, there are no gangs, there is no ghetto behavior, it's a whole different atmosphere(we moved from Houston, Texas, and yes we know what ghetto is), teachers have control of their classrooms and the students. When I was a kid growing up in a very small town in West, Texas, we had one of the top school districts in the nation, the living was affordable and people visited exotic places like Thailand or New Zealand, now we can't afford to live in our own country. There are many things I miss, but my debt back home is almost all paid off and I don't miss that. 44 Replies 36users liked this



commentLarry W • Samranrat, Thailand • 17 No gangs or ghettos in Bangkok? Dream on..



commentTHE PHAROAH • Bang Krang, Thailand • 17 FedUpwithcrap, I have lived in Thailand for the past 8 years, fully retired, saves a minimum of $2,000.00 per month from my pension, after all expenses are paid, including food, lodging, and bar hopping in my mid fifties. There is a lotof crime in Thailand, depending on the neighborhoods one visits. I often witness foreigners being beat nearly to death by street thugs, relating to bar and restaurant bill disagreements, and problems with ladies ofthe night. International schools in BKK, are not ghettorized, simply, because those schools are private and expensive, per thailand's standards, therefore, so call ghetto schools in the USA, should not be compared to private schools, not only in thailand, but to private schools, anywhere in the world, including the USA. Thailand's public universities, are infested with gang activity, and in fact, there has been numerous gun related incidents reported by the Bang Post and "NATION" newspapers, regarding various adversarial school fightsin the the BKK area. Overall, I agree that there is much less serious crime in Thailand, than in the USA..



10users liked this 5 commentBecca • Lexington, Kentucky • 16 Larry, I took her to mean in the schools there were no gangs. But yeah, if she thinks there are no gangs or ghettos in BKK she hasn't gotten out much yet. It's notorious for drug related gangs and criminal activity, as well as human trafficking. I'd keep my children very, very close...



commentDerek M • Irvine, California • 16 I'm a retiree moving to Thailand in August, my income is substantial, however I can save thousands every month, while having great times and turning my back to the nonsense currently going on in this country. With my savings I'll be able to purchase a beach house in Brazil.



commentM • Samranrat, Thailand • 15 already have a condo for retirement there and will leave the US and retire there as soon as i can. there isnt anything I cant get there. Your not miss anything that you have in America. 8users liked this 1



commentyaneeusa • 14 To registered with US Embassy Bangkok, Thailand and get some information about living in Thailand before you make your final decision. We 3 ladies retired and used to live in US more than 30ys. trying to be in Bangkok with our Thai family. We have found it's hard to be here and Bangkok is not safe to live or brought up your kids..



commentM • Samranrat, Thailand • 14 when i retire at 55. now 45. I will have a large sum of retirment coming in. I just want to live in thailand tax free. they dont tax retiement money. I go everywhere in the country and have never had an issue with gangs or crime. I'm sure it is there like anywhere. just stay away from the seedy places. Your in some other country mind your P's and Q's. 4users liked this



commentyaneeusa • 14 When you retired, please make sure that you are living as a legal permanent residence or with the requirement of Immigration that how much $$$ you require to have when you retired, not living as a tourist. To check with private hospital how much you have to pay when you sick. You may go to Government hospital in the evening with special clinic or you have to get up 5 am to take # and waiting online to get medicins. Eating junk food, american fast food in Thailand is not the Thai life. Living in apartment or one bedroom with rent is not a residence that Thai people looking for.. 12users liked this 2



commentCharles • Bang Krang, Thailand • 14 Listen to those here saying NO to Thailand. Definitely do not move here. Visit and spead huge loads of money, but do not live here. Everything bad said here about this nation is all true. It has been my briar patch for ten years!.



comment愚蠢的白人 • Samranrat, Thailand • 12 I came to BKK last year after getting fed up with USA. It's beautiful here. Quality of life is much better for what I want. Medical care is better and less expensive. Education is just as good. Public transport is better. The city has much more to offer me, personally, than any city in USA and I grew up in LA, not Missouri.. 13users liked this 4



283users liked this 8 commentHairy • 7 My wife won't go unless she can be assured that she will not be kidnapped and sold off to the sex trade. She is 68 and weighs about 220 and she can still wear the same ear rings she wore in high school.





Post

. 45users liked this 6 commentMark • Shanghai, China • 19 Here's something from a real person who actually lives in Thailand:



I just bought about 1 acre 15 minutes' drive away from the beach. I am building a home on that land as I write this. $20K USD for the land and $50K USD for a 1,500 square foot house.



Retirement in the US would have been hopeless for me. 40 Replies 15users liked this



commentNononono • 19 You spent $20K USD for 1 acre of land? You must have more money than good sense. You didn't do a lot of research in the good old USA did you?. 27users liked this 6 commentMark • Shanghai, China • 19 I sure did. That's why I bought in Thailand.. 12users liked this 4



commentTim C • McCall, Idaho • 19 It's close to the beach. Everything is more close to the beach. In the U.S?...try 250-500K at LEAST close to the beach.. 9users liked this 3 commentMark • Shanghai, China • 19 Tim C. is right. Plus, try building a 1,500 square foot house for $50K. So, for $70 grand I have an acre of ground 15 minutes from the beach with a mountain out my northwest window and a nice house with a wrap-around porch.



I see why your handle is Nononono. Good luck to you.. 11users liked this 6



commentDan • Samranrat, Thailand • 19 Fact, a foreigner cannot buy land in Thailand. Mark want to try again?. 7users liked this 0



commentMichael B • 19 perhaps the title is in his Thai wife's name. 7users liked this 0 commentJohnB • Cuenca, Ecuador • 19 That's true. Foreigners can only buy apartments. The only way to buy land/house is in the name of a Thai..



commentm • Fujisawa-shi, Japan • 19 ...and if its in his wifes name, then hes gotten fuxxed but good coz he aint got bupkis .....LMFAO. 8users liked this 2



commentMark • Shanghai, China • 19 My wife does own the land. And you're not entirely correct...a foreigner can own a house, he just cannot own the land that it's on.. 4users liked this 1



commentGreg • Manila, Philippines • 18 I don't know about Thailand, but in the Philippines, expats can't own the land either, but if you put it in your wife's name, all you need to do is get a 25 year lease, renewable for another 25, in your name.



It supersedes even the wife's ownership. You can easily protect yourself,



commentChipmonk • 18 I have a house in Chaing Mai I am trying to sell. It is true, you must have a Thai partner in order to own property. A foreigner can own the house, but the Thai ownes the land. In addition, should you want to start a business in Thailand, 51 percent belongs to the Thai. Should you seriously be...





commentcharles • Los Angeles, California • 13 hours ago Don't understand why the Philippines never made the list. I lived in Baguio City up in the mountains for over 2 years. It stays between 60s and 70s there all year long. I rented a fully furnished 2 bedroom apartment-----tv set, kitchen table 4 chairs, refrigerator, stove, queen bed in one bedroom, double bed in the other, couch and 2 over stuffed chairs in the living room, chairs on the deck all for about $200.00 usd a month! A cab anywhere in town was less than $2.00 and a bus probably less than 25 cents. They had loads of stores and a nice mall and doctors visits were about $5.00. My wife had a baby in the best hospital there for around $1000.00 and she was in there for over a week, because both here and the baby had a uti infection----a private room----Notre Dame hospital. The public hospitals had to be a lot cheaper, but I didn't want to go that far! Baguio City is called the winter capital of the Philippines and even the president and all the high mucky mucks go there.





commentpancho villa • 10 hours ago charles im retiring this yr...im 56..and living bout 30 miles from boracay...and im on the beach....philippines is the place to go for retirees....i have neighbors in my area from germany...england....australia...france and other americans too.....its quiet....sunny....and sooooooooo cheap......100 usd a year on 25 acres......



commentWilliam • 8 hours ago I agree the Phillipines is the place to go. Charles forgot to mention that the people are wonderful people to be around, they are hard working and very caring, friendly people..



commentpancho villa • 8 hours ago yep ive had a house in the phils for 22yrs...toddl and william are both right...oh you forgot to say that ENGLISH is mandatory all through school too....my kids go to private school....400 dollars a year ..each...college will be 2k a year each....so a 4 yr dental college degree is 8k plus living costs...so maybe 12k ....nice huh.



commentpancho villa • 8 hours ago im sure there will be jealous haters that bring up the so called crime...and the girly bar thing which ive never seen eithe of in 22yrs.



commentChina Crisis • 8 hours ago PHILIPPINES is really a nice Country to stay, people are nice and easy to go along with. That is why I was devastated when China bully such a wonderful country like Philippines..



Charles, shhhhhhhh! Keep it to yourself or you will be living on 10 acres at $200 usd a year. Just kidding. But real talk, a few years ago I use to blog about everywhere I went through my travels of southeast Asia. Some of my stories and photos had over 50,000 views. When I returned for holiday every place that I talked about was more then twice the price and always booked. Now I keep all my findings to myself. If you talk too much the little island that was what you fell in love with it might becomes the very thing you were trying to escape from..