Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Putin: US orchestrated Georgia conflict, suggests motive was to affect US president election.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Thursday of instigating the fighting in Georgia and said he suspects a connection to the U.S. presidential campaign — a contention the White House dismissed as "patently false."
"We have serious grounds to think that there were U.S. citizens right in the combat zone" during Russia's war with the U.S.-allied ex-Soviet republic, he said the interview broadcast on state-run Russian television. "And if that's so, if that is confirmed, it's very bad. It's very dangerous."
"The American side in fact armed and trained the Georgian army," Putin said. "Why hold years of difficult talks and seek complex compromise solutions in interethnic conflicts? It's easier to arm one side and push it into the murder of the other side, and it's over.
The United States has close ties with the Georgian government and has trained Georgian units. The Pentagon has said that the U.S. had about 130 trainers in Georgia when the fighting erupted earlier this month, including a few dozen civilians who were all working to prepare the Georgian forces for deployment to Iraq.
But Russian officials have made statements aimed to convey the idea that Americans may have directly supported Georgia's offensive.
-------- Is Putin serious? Sort of like the old US accusations regarding Russia's backing, arming, training the "commies" around the world and in our backyard - Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. It's not as if the USSR had close ties with Cuba for decades, oh wait ... Russia did do those things.
Did the US push Georgians into murdering the other side? That's harder to prove. Unless of course you tend to believe Georgians are ignorant backward patsies who can be pushed around by the US, not that Russia would ever push them around.
Doesn't Putin know US rulers don't need no stinkin' conflict to get one party elected over the other - America's ruling class (like Russia's) can count the vote any which way they want?
I think Putin reads "left" bloggers who have been claiming the motive behind the Georgian conflict was to effect the US election (for McCain). And some believers, such as this one claims Russia is in on it. "WE MUST ELECT BARACK OBAMA IF WE ARE TO SAVE OUR WORLD FROM THESE MADMEN!!!!"
Loosen that tinfoil man, you've interrupted the brain's blood flow.
Posted by Kate-A at 1:48 PM
An acquaintance here in the 'hood, nickname Pookie, made a comment weeks ago that I've been mulling over ever since. Not a particularly bright man and uneducated by any standard, he does run a successful auto detailing and body shop, and in the last few years has tripled his business. His comment : "I'm votin' republican 'cause when them dems get in, the folks with money holds their money tighter to themselves."
His success at small business makes it apparent he has innate good sense, is intuitive, and his comment has the ring of logic. He also admits to not voting - doesn't have time for politics. We need more Pookies.
You might say Pookie's logic is what progressives have scorned as the "trickle down" effect. Not that you ever really hear installed Democrats complain seriously about corporate tax cuts - but those Dems running for office promise tax relief for the lower and middle class will be achieved by raising taxes on the rich, the corporations, etc. And for 8 years we have been bombarded with the mantras that Bush tax cuts are a break for the rich, blah blah blah. Rich folks like Bill Clinton claim that, even though he did not need it, he benefited from BushCo tax cuts. Didn't see him giving it back to Uncle Sam though.
Supporters of corporate tax breaks claim corporate tax breaks are necessary in order for American companies to compete globally, blah blah blah. Opponents would have you believe the rich are getting richer off your money (even though you don't have much money to begin with, if the rich paid more taxes you would somehow get more - it doesn't work that way because it's a rigged game but democrats/progressives would have you believe you'll win the Utopian scratch-off if you just vote for them).
It's all jingoistic b.s. politically oriented to get elected - leaving Bubba and Joe Average with a lot of spin and little reality of economics. This "tax the rich" mantra every 4 years is a ploy for the poor - because anyone with even a little money knows how to legally avoid paying much more in taxes, and wait it out until the next election.
So, I've been searching around for a way to explain Pookie's insight. I'm not sure I can, but will continue on with this blog post anyway.
The average family focuses on visible taxes such as property taxes, sales taxes on purchases, and personal income and payroll taxes. All of which, other than Federal income taxes, are determined at the state and local level. Some states have no income tax, some have no taxes on food products, some state, county, and city sales taxes are higher than the next state or county; the neighborhood you're in determines property tax.
Generally when corporate taxes are higher the cost is passed on to the consumer. You may or may not agree with this depending on the brand of political soap used to wash your brain. The corporate cost will be passed on in higher prices, lower wages, fewer benefits, lost jobs, etc. If you don't believe me, just remember that most manufacturing jobs bled out of the US under Clinton.
Now, you might argue that a company such as say Walmart should pay more taxes. Or you could argue that had progressives been on the ball they would have ensured unionization to fight for better wages and benefits, or perhaps politicians should have fought to keep manufacturing jobs at home. While Democrat pols swear support for union labor they vote for NAFTA, CAFTA, go mum on halting the outsourcing of jobs; not to mention support and sympathy for immigrant labor - your low-wage competition.
You could say one administration plows and plants and the next administration reaps the harvest - it's how the two-in-one party system works. Clinton did a lot of plowing for BushCo.
Meanwhile, rather than tell you the truth, both parties jump on the most stupid unimportant out-of-context comment to sensationalize and distract you from what they're really doing on the Potomac. The mainstream media, and 99.9% of the "alternative" media, go on and on about nothing that will make any change in the status quo (follow the funding).
I found an interesting article at the Tax Foundation site on the cost of corporation taxation to Mr. and Ms. Average. This appears to be a nonpartisan website but that's for you to decide; I doubt anyone is completely nonpartisan - other than those few souls who stand back disconnected from the duplicity in all political partying. Someone has to fund "foundations" and the hands doling out the funds always expect a certain doctrinal tilt to the results.
Tax Foundation economists Andrew Chamberlain and Gerald Prante have some interesting charts, most interesting is the corporate tax burden by congressional district.
Tax Foundation: "From a political perspective, it is interesting to note that four of the top five districts with the highest per-household corporate tax burdens are all represented by Democrats. However, looking at the top 25 districts, or even the top 50 districts, shows that the parties are roughly evenly represented. The bottom end of the rankings, by contrast, is heavily tilted toward Democrats. Eight of the 10 districts with the lowest corporate tax burdens are represented by Democrats. Of the 25 lowest districts, only four are represented by Republicans."
These lowest places include Yuma, El Paso, Chico, CA. One of the highest is the 14th, Silk Stocking district in NY, represented by congresswoman Maloney.
According to Chamberlain and Prante ... "... low-income households pay more in corporate income taxes than they pay in personal income taxes. Geographically, households in largely urban congressional districts and metropolitan areas bear a disproportionate share of corporate income taxes today and, thus, would receive a significant boost in living standards if the corporate tax burden were reduced."
While the average per-household burden of the corporate tax is $2,757, a disproportionate share of the burden falls on urban areas where households have higher wages and more capital income. However, lower-income households tend to pay more in corporate income taxes than they do in personal income taxes. This indicates that a general cut in corporate income tax rates (or other taxes on capital) would provide a greater benefit to low-income households than would further rate cuts in individual taxes. Indeed, there are 43 million Americans who already have no income tax liability after they take advantage of their credits and deductions. Those households would benefit most from a cut in corporate taxes.
Does the average progressive Joe Blow understand how taxation works? I don't think so and what he thinks he knows is backasswards. But Pookie understands, even if he doesn't articulate it very well.
What Pookie sees is that when Democrats (or Republicans) promise to cut his taxes - they lie - because your state, county, city, sales, property tax are determined locally, and have you ever seen a reduction in your paycheck taxes under any administration? Raising the taxes on mega corporations does not return money to your pocket or living standard because Big, Inc. will pass the tax cost on to you every time. Small to mid-size businesses like Pookies are sometimes taxed out of business. Big, Inc. and government are fine with that too; wouldn't want too many independent folks out there.
What Washington, D.C. does with this extra tax money from the rich, when and if they "raise taxes on big business" is fund new or existing bureaucracies that are here to help you - although after administrative costs, graft and corruption Joe Average will see little to none of it. These extra tax dollars from "the rich" should flow to the local level from the Feds, which could make your standard of living better, but such funds always peter out by the time they reach the town council level, and then local taxes rise to repair those potholes and playgrounds. Pookie will pay more local taxes to keep his business going. Those "richer" folks across town will pay more local tax and use Pookie's services less often. Big, Inc. corporation will raise prices for the products necessary for Pookie to do business; his insurance rates rise along with local fees and taxes.
But you might ask - then how come the cost of energy/oil, which drives up the price of everything, is so high? The war? Tax breaks for the rich? Falling dollar?
Maybe you agree with Michael Greenberger:
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 or CFMA (Public Law 106–554, §1(a)(5) [H.R. 5660], December 21, 2000), was passed by the United States Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in December 2000 to allow for the creation, for U.S. exchanges, of a new sort of derivative security: the single-stock future. Also known as the "Enron loophole" as it exempts over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The "loophole" was drafted by Enron Lobbyists working with senator Phil Gramm.
The Enron loophole, so they say, allowed oil speculators to drive up oil prices. It sounds logical but is it true? Doesn't seem to be, and speculation can continue on in London, Singapore, other locations outside the NYSE.
While pols continue to promise you hope and change by taxing the rich - they conveniently omit the cost of living has little to do with forcing the "rich" guy across town to pay a few hundred or thousand more in taxes and more to do with buddy legislation where both parties cooperate to the fullest with any PAC or lobbying group who donates the most. In 2000, Only 4 members of the House, 1%, voted Nay on the CFMA, 2 republicans and 2 democrats, Ron Paul was one No vote. Progressive favorites voted Yes on the Enron loophole - Kucinich, McKinney, Murtha, Barney Frank, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, etc.
You have to really wade around in these govtrack and Thomas bills. Often, if tabled or voted down, a bill seems to change numbers and resurface, or attached to another bill with little to no change, and then pass into law.
Some experts say legislation to curb global trading by speculators would cut oil by $30-60 per barrel, or bring it down to $2 per gallon, which in turn would lower the cost of everything else, overnight they say. Bipartisan efforts worked to repeal the "Enron loophole."
In May of this year the Farm Bill which Bush vetoed closed the Enron loophole, but the senate voted to override Bush's veto. Oil hasn't dropped dramatically but maybe the effect needs a few more over nighters. What little price drop at the pump we've seen - is it because of closing the speculator loophole or because it's an election year? It apparently did not have any effect on food or energy prices. Did they lie about oil prices being tied to speculators? Apparently someone lied somewhere. The IEA says there's no connection between speculators and oil prices.
Who can you believe?
Should Big Oil pay more taxes? Sounds good to me. But will you see your standard of living rise if they pay more tax? Or will the "trickle down" trickle out in the last pocket of a bureaucrat's suit? Will Big Oil simply pass more legislation so you subsidize more oil production?
What has government done directly in the last 30 years that raised your living standard to any degree?
Am I defending big business? Hardly. If I had my way Walmart would not be using sweatshops in China. If I had my way any oil pulled from American soil would be nationalized. If I had my way PAC/lobby groups would be illegal. If I had my way there would be term limits and hard prison time for corruption. If I had my way higher education would be free; we would have unquestionable fool-proof voting methods; we would have more direct legislative participation and less need for lying politicians.
When things change economically for Pookie he adapts and works around it because he knows all political parties exploit him, and work together to do it. We need more Pookies, who are too busy living to waste time on phony political carnivals.
Posted by Kate-A at 10:47 AM
Monday, August 25, 2008
The majority of the left/progressive/democrats have convinced themselves, again, that their candidate (Obama, Nader, McKinney) will bring something new to the White House table - just as republicans/conservatives believed 8 years ago of their brush clearing regular Joe Dubya Bush.
Amazing that 99% of our pols are always from the "working class" or at least their parents were working class. If that's not proof that capitalism works I don't know what is. I mean, think about it, where else can a boy or girl born in a log cabin or raised in a one bedroom apartment, or from the 'hood, or an Arkansas trailer park, or a South Carolina mill hand's son, or son of a car salesman, rise to such levels? It's a testimony to the success of the capitalist system, isn't it?
On the "far left" - socialist, Marxist, etc. there seem to be two types. One type discussing the "science" of socialism (intellectual b.s.) and how well it would work for America under their stewardship; this type usually puts the second type of "far left" asleep - but not before they rant about all the "free stuff" they should be receiving because apparently the State owes them something just because they're here. Strangely, the same folks support the idea the State owes nothing to an unborn fetus.
According to most progressives - John McCain is an opportunist, a lying pig because decades ago he cheated on his first wife, divorced, and remarried an heiress who was 18 years younger. What a womanizer.
When cheater Bill Clinton encouraged Monica, 30 years younger than himself, to give blowjobs under the desk in the oval office - progressives claimed it was a private matter, and that in Europe folks wouldn't think anything of the adulterous antics of their politicians. Oh wait, maybe the double standard is because Conservatives claim they have morals and Progressives admit they do not.
When McCain says he doesn't know how many homes he owns (he and wife own 7 homes worth 13 million) - progressives remark that he's a man who doesn't even know how many homes he owns while millions are homeless. He's out of touch, rich.
Four short years ago, John Kerry and his second millionaire heiress wife Theresa, owned at least 5 homes worth 33 million - but Kerry wasn't out of touch - he had just married up, again (Kerry's first wife was also a millionaire heiress).
When Teresa Heinz Kerry used Botox - progressives said so what. Four years later, progressives are claiming what a phony the skinny ass Cindy McCain is with her Barbie doll Botox appearance. So called "progressives" are also claiming the McCains adopted their Bangladesh daughter as part of an "image creation process." But Obama backer Oprah can "adopt" an entire African village of school girls, for image and tax write off.
The "left" might not want to harp on wives too much as Michelle is not exactly the hand-to-mouth working class southside Chicago girl - her daddy was earning $42,686 in the 1960s - much higher than a working class salary, and dad was involved as a precinct captain in the Daley machine.
When Swiftboat vets attacked Kerry's Vietnam record, John McCain rushed to defend Kerry. Today "progressive/alternative" bloggers are claiming McCain cooperated with the Vietnamese to receive "special treatment", even giving military information that cost an untold number of American lives. McCain did make propaganda films (coerced?) stating how evil Americans were for waging war on Vietnam, etc. but there is no evidence he gave information that cost American lives.
Tran Trong Duyet, former head of the Hanoi Hilton would give his vote to McCain if he could vote here. "We used to argue about the war - about whether it was right or wrong," he says. "He is a very frank man - very conservative, and very loyal to his country and the American ideal." Duyet also says McCain did not tell the truth about his years in the Hilton ... "... I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners."
Tran Trong has all the makings of an excellent politician, or pundit.
Remember when democrats made an issue of Bush's cocaine history? Not so with Obama's admitted pot haze and a little blow when he could afford it. We're the culture of "everybody has done it." No, everybody has not done drugs - but I suppose it's too much to ask of our leaders. Unless you're the evil Cindy McCain and admit to stealing prescription drugs. Curiously, the same progressive folks who argue for decriminalizing marijuana, even suggesting we have Amsterdam style "pot pubs" - are the first to demand banning tobacco. Folks, I'm not worried about exposure to secondhand smoke - it's secondhand stupid that gets to me.
The best laugh I had yesterday was "Kos (the "far left's" biggest freedom fighting gatekeeper) : "...the more comfortable I am with Biden's selection. There's really no faster way to my heart than having a Democrat go after Republicans with a (rhetorical) 2-by-4."
As if the vote rigging ruling class cares if you're comfortable. (They will notice when they see pitchforks and rope, or zero voter turnout.)
Biden instantly became the "scrapper" for Obama. When Cheney was the same for Bush the Boy - Cheney was a snarling "attack dog" - one sneer away from a massive coronary; Biden one quarrel away from a brain aneurysm. Or was Rove the dog and Cheney the Bush brain?
This weekend I briefly caught a few minutes of Susan Jacoby discussing the degeneration of political language, particularly the use of the word "folks." Jacoby is a noted atheist and secularist; I believe she was plugging her book The Age of American Unreason. (Here's an older clip of her spiel.) Jacoby believes rightwing intellectuals are dangerous because they are more clever than liberal progressive intellectuals. While I agree with her on the arrogance and ignorance of today's citizen - I don't think it's a recent occurrence - there's just more "folks" and speedier methods of displaying stupid, nor do I think the rightwing is any more clever than the left - in fact, having the rightwing take the blame may be the cleverness of the left.
(Speaking of noted atheists - god was not a political issue until the infamous Madeleine Murray O'Hair made it her cross to bear. Maddie also argued 6th graders should be taught sex ed and allowed to have intercourse without interference.)
In any event, Jacoby's is another book reminding us how lazy and dumb the citizens are, but no solutions, and actually no valid reason as to why - other than the rise of "anti-intellectualism." (Code: Acknowledge those of bona fide superior intellect or you may be a bigot.) I venture to say the cause of ignorance may be laid more at the progressive feet because of inclusiveness/diversity and doublespeak, no child with hurt feelings, all us "diverse" folks are the same - developed to make us feel good about ourselves, but has made folks equal only in indolence and ignorance.
Oh the hypocrisy and petty snobbery of it all. No wonder half the eligible voting public turns their back on politics and pundits.
Posted by Kate-A at 11:23 AM
Saturday, August 23, 2008
No surprise Biden is the VP pick, is it?
Hillary was out - no one likes the Clintons anymore and she can use the next 4 years to mend her image, and besides, she's a woman who has played second fiddle long enough and is not gonna go there anymore.
Edwards pecckerdillo on a dying wife - he's out.
Bill Richardson didn't have a chance - too many clingy white folks would turn from this mix Mex (one minority on the ticket is enough), and Richardson had abandoned his good friend Hillary for Obama only because he hoped for the VP slot - the career climbing too obvious. No one likes a brown-noser (no pun intended).
Those never-heard-of-'em such as Kathleen Sebelius had nary a chance - Obama needs muscle, not makeup - it was a brief sound byte for Obama to pander to the feminist vote.
Evan Bayh was out because too many of us might remember daddy Birch Bayh's incident with Pixie Grismore.
(You know, when they talk about the body count of politicians they're not kidding.)
Biden is to Obama what Cheney is to Bush (handler/babysitter, ready to step in and be president).
August 18, statement from Biden upon return from the Russia/Georgia conflict: "When Congress reconvenes, I intend to work with the Administration to seek Congressional approval for $1 billion in emergency assistance for Georgia, with a substantial down payment on that aid to be included in the Congress' next supplemental spending bill. This money will help the people of Georgia recover from the damage that has been inflicted on their economy and send a clear message that the United States will not abandon this young democracy. I hope this $1 billion commitment will be matched by others in the international community.
"Russia's actions have already erased the possibility of advancing legislative efforts to promote U.S.-Russian partnership in the current Congress, including an agreement to allow for increased collaboration with Russia on nuclear energy production and the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which currently blocks the country's integration into the World Trade Organization. Russia’s failure to keep its word and withdraw troops from Georgia risks the country’s standing as part of the international community. That is not the future the United States or Europe want – but it is the future Russia may get if it does not stand down its forces and live up to its commitments."
---- Note the "emergency" spending (see Welfare/Warfare below).
Obama's original statement on the Russia/Georgia "crisis," August 8, was a generic call for cooperation and the usual UN "peacekeeping" solution, yadayada, but on August 9th Barack flip-flopped to "condemn Russia's aggressive actions...," after hearing hawk McCain's response, and after Biden told Obama to talk tougher.
I remember Biden from the '80s as the "Drug Czar." Under the Reagan administration Joe created the nation's Drug Czar Office to oversee the federal government's anti-drug strategy. Another "War on" that will never be won but forever funded.
On the issues Biden is rated as "left-liberal."
Using the above grading Biden scores 70% on the Personal Score and 10% on Economic Score.
Personal Score measures how much one believes government should intervene in people's personal lives. Personal issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars. Above 60% means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles. A score below 40% means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government.
Economic Score measures how much one believes government should intervene in people's economic lives. A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth.
Essentially, Biden, with a P score of 70% believes we the unwashed masses can self-govern when it comes to personal choices e.g. sex, drugs, recreation, pulling the plug on a loved one, god - but with a 10% E score, Joe believes that only the State is qualified to give us the "good society," after all, we have been too busy doping, dumbing down, and f*cking around to take care of ourselves.
Posted by Kate-A at 11:07 AM
Friday, August 22, 2008
Joseph Sobran - Our State, Ourselves:
In truth, the welfare state and the warfare state are inseparable, because they are two aspects of the same thing, the state itself. Countless people depend on both for their income. Both expand inexorably. We always hear calls for emergency spending; there is no such thing as emergency saving. And ... emergencies — as defined by the state — just keep on coming.
In the days of monarchs, a man at least knew who the state was: the king. "L’etat, c’est moi," and all that. When there was a war, everyone knew it was the king’s war. When the king imposed taxes, everyone knew who was paying whom. It might be tyranny, but you knew what was what; there was no nonsense about self-government. Government meant some people ruling others.
But in the age of Democracy, people think, confusedly, that they themselves are the state, when they actually have no idea what the state is doing in their name--at least, not until it does it to them. An encounter with a bureaucrat may throw cold water on the notion that the government is "we." We no longer really know who it is. But whoever it is, we no more control our rulers than our ancestors controlled their kings.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves. This amorphous, global, bureaucratic empire has nothing to do with liberty, democracy, or self-government. Or the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by Kate-A at 2:49 PM
Cameron Strang "Why I Accepted and Then Declined to Pray at the DNC."
Strang is the young evangelical, Oral Roberts U grad, Florida based and founder of Relevant magazine - described as a hip/edgy mag for young Christian folks, and a member of Church in the Son, self-described as "... a church for people who don't like church."
A non-denominational, Church in the Son in Orlando, is where a 100 or so young adults in tank tops and flip-flops enjoy impassioned singing and pulsing lights and a conversational sermon from biblical passages, with clapping, crying and talk of God's "furious love."
"We don't get hung up on the trappings, the legalisms, the stuff that worries fundamentalists," Strang says.
In other words - religion for folks who don't want to strictly follow the traditional Christian teachings - you know, folks who would prefer the 10 commandments lighten up a little, who feel Jesus is Savior, but more a relaxed hip-hop homey than a stern legalist on the "stuff" that worries the older folks (some of whom may be clinging to god and guns). The new Jesus untrapped - more a populist, or "progressive" god with strobe lights and flip-flops for the 18-34 age group.
Cameron is/was part of the Obama camp's outreach to prove Obama's Christian credentials. Previously, Cameron and his dad, Steven Strang (founder of Charisma mag) accepted an off-the record meeting with Obama.
Cameron: A few weeks ago, I was asked if I’d be interested in possibly praying at the Democratic National Convention. Taken aback, but intrigued at the opportunity, I accepted. Then I found out the invocation was to be on the main stage, opening night of the DNC. Part of the national broadcast. Most people would jump at such an exposure opportunity, but it gave me serious pause. Through Relevant I reach a demographic that has strong faith, morals and passion, but disagreements politically. It wouldn’t be wise for me to be seen as picking a political side, when I’ve consistently said both sides are right in some areas and wrong in some areas. (And truth be told, I haven’t yet made up my mind about who I’m going to vote for this November. There are a lot of specifics I’d like to hear the candidates talk about before my decision will be made.)
Strang says most people would jump at the exposure op but it gave him serious pause. Uh, please. LOL. You did jump goofball and then had to decline - there was no pause, serious or otherwise, anywhere.
I don't really believe people when they say they "haven't made their decision" yet, especially at this late date when candidates have been campaigning for 2+ years. But doesn't it make one sound thoughtful and wise to pretend they are still contemplating and weighing the issues?
Truth be told, I bet daddy Strang thumped Cameron on the head over this one.
Posted by Kate-A at 11:23 AM
Thursday, August 21, 2008
According to Zogby poll: McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.
This latest Reuters/Zogby poll is a dramatic reversal from the identical survey taken last month – in the July 9-13 Reuters/Zogby survey, Obama led McCain, 47% to 40%.
Okay, I'll say it: I told you so, 6 months ago in The Obama Fling.
Now of course, "progressives" are declaring Obama tricked them into thinking he was the real deal and not simply the left cheek on the corporate ass.
Poor progressives - fooled again, and again and again. Except those few hundred progressive Naderistas and McKinneyites - they weren't fooled by Obama's ability to read a good speech with passion and seductiveness.
(Obamamania is like the roller coaster ride of a lust-based relationship, hot damn up and down and you can't get off until it stops and then you stagger away a bit weak in the legs but it was worth it ... maybe ... you hope.)
But whine not Obamamites - the votes may be counted until they add up right, to install Obama in the White House. I'll tell you where the country is headed the day after election. Not that either political party will take us in the direction the majority of we the people want to go - but one ride is always bumpier than the other (sort of the lesser of two evils meme).
Remember too, Obama has not been officially nominated ... :)
Posted by Kate-A at 11:36 AM
Monday, August 18, 2008
Investigative reporter Ron Suskind's new book, The Way of the World charges that the White House, seeking to justify its invasion of Iraq, ordered the CIA in late 2003 to forge evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Suskind, a Pulitzer-winning reporter and relentless chronicler of this administration's secrets, depicts a White House with a simpleminded bully in the Oval Office taking direction from a paranoid vice president -- and caps off his latest expose with what he acknowledges sounds a lot like an impeachable offense.
"Suskind writes in his new book that the order to create the letter was written on 'creamy White House stationery.' The book suggests that the letter was subsequently created by the CIA and delivered to Iraq, but does not say how.
---- Yawn. Actually, I would say Bush is simply simpleminded and Cheney is the paranoid bully - and both are ordered around by the Poppy Bush 1000 points of light political faction. I would also say this administration has no secrets - they've been slapping the crap out of you with the real world of politics for 8 long years.
A recurring figure in Suskind's latest book is the head of Hussein's intelligence service, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti - a bad guy in the Saddam regime and now with a State Department $1,000,000 price on his head.
The London Telegraph first reported on the allegedly forged Habbush letter in December 2003 - Newsweek quickly reports that the document is probably a fabrication, citing both the FBI’s detailed Atta timeline and a document expert who, amongst other things, distrusts an unrelated second “item” on the same document, which supports a discredited claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger (the Wilson/Plame distration). "It will later be revealed that many forged documents purporting a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda were left in places for US troops to find."
Would that be the CIA clandestine services dropping documents for troops to find? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy work - where was Mossad when BushCo needed plausible forgery.
The faked "letter" or memo dated July 1, 2001, is supposedly written by Habbush to Saddam "describing a three-day “work program” Atta participated in at Abu Nidal’s base in Baghdad. The link between Saddam and 9/11. The order to do a fake Habbush letter was written on "creamy" White House stationery, which George Tenet took back to CIA and let guys like Robert Richer take a peek. Although Tenet vehemently denies such a creamy White House letter ever existed.
Three-day work program? Sounds like a short college work/study stint. And the CIA so dumb they didn't even check the itinerary of Atta to assure it meshed with this 3-day program in Baghdad?
Suskind's main snitch in TWOTW is Robert Richer, former CIA #2 man in clandestine operations. Richer quit in 2005 because he was unhappy with Porter Goss' direction. Richer, with 35 years in the Agency reported he "lost confidence" in the agency's leadership." Richer, the spy manager, "wanted something more expansive in reforming and expanding the clandestine service within the CIA, while reducing the side of the agency that conducts analysis..." He wanted to e-x-p-a-n-d the clandestine. Clandestine services (HUMINT-think job creation) encompasses international, military, and political issues. Richer wanted more covert surveillance. Maybe Richer should have waited around as Goss left a few months later, to be replaced by General "Let's-Spy-on-Everyone" Hayden.
It sounds to me Bubba like Mr. Suskind has seen one too many Tom Clancy spy thrillers where one faction of the government keeps a creamy letter implicating higher ups in the government, their chip in the big game of Clear and Present Danger. Except the big screen's CIA head is Harrison Ford, a good guy and way better looking than Tenet, and Ford has to break into the bad guy's safe to steal a peek at the damning creamy colored document.
(Suskind, won his Pulitzer as a feature writer for WSJ - and we all know the Wall Street Journal is trustworthy. His feature stories for the Pulitzer in WSJ were about Cedric Jennings, who Suskind met in 1994, an inner-city honor student in Washington, D.C. Suskind later wrote A Hope in the Unseen, the legitimate story of the Jennings odyssey from inner city to Ivy League. Hope Unseen is mandatory reading in many college courses.)
Since Hope Unseen, Suskind has written articles and books predicting things to come, i.e. Bush would privatize Social Security immediately upon reelection in 2004.
In the book The One Percent Doctrine Suskind states Osama bin Laden (apparently still alive and well) wanted Bush reelected in 2004.
If you like writers who focus on becoming NYT bestselling bashers you will love Ron Suskind, and his counterpart, Jerome Corsi, who had bestselling hits with Unfit for Command (Kerry bashfest), Atomic Iran (democrat pols corrupted by Iranian money), and his latest The Obama Nation. Corsi is also known as a 9/11 truther and impeach Busher, but he did co-author a rebuilding America book with Ohio political crookster Kenneth Blackwell. Corsi has been accused of plagiarism - but heck, when so many pop culture authors are shilling the same themes - they're gonna sound alike.
Kind of reminds me of what's his name, Michael Moore - all these guys (and gals) wetting their fingers in the wind to see what trendy political/social plot might sell next.
Oddest thing is, the US is a nation of non-readers and politically apathetic bumpkins - so who buys these books? Go figger. Maybe the CIA buys a lot of copies - just to make ya think damn near the whole nation is reading and believing these political peddlers - armed with no proof, no credible witnesses, no hard facts, no smoking guns - just pushing bullshit and hearsay - check publisher listings for price and availability.
Posted by Kate-A at 12:27 PM
Friday, August 15, 2008
November 2004, Madrid: Rio Ferdinand has said he was ready to come off the field after Spanish fans hurled abuse at England's black players in Wednesday's friendly in Madrid. England's Shaun Wright-Phillips and Ashley Cole were subjected to monkey chants from sections of the crowd.
February 2008, Madrid: Racist who taunted Brit track ace Lewis Hamilton during pitstops could cost Spain its Grand Prix, F1 chiefs warned last night. Whizkid Hamilton — a hate figure among Spaniards after a bitter row with ex-McLaren teammate Fernando Alonso last year — faced boos and racist chants as he tested his new car on Saturday. And last night a motor racing website displayed disgraceful photographs of so-called F1 supporters wearing black make-up and dark wigs at the track yesterday.
August 14, 2008: A photo of the Spanish men's Olympics basketball team, using their index fingers as if to slant their eyes, has sparked controversy with Asian rights groups. The image, showing the players pushing up the outside corners of their eyes, was taken before the team left Spain for Beijing.
Posted by Kate-A at 11:20 AM
Thursday, August 14, 2008
There are a lot of folks who use the labels liberal, progressive, and "Left" interchangeably, and most will argue there are major differences - but there is little if any difference.
Liberals are Democrats. Tax and spend, create more government programs to "help," and allow government to assume responsibility for your needs. In the last decade the adjective "liberal" has become an embarrassment, a sort of synonym for personal immorality and/or a political wuss. Which is why so many Democrats now refer to themselves as "progressive." Claiming to be change artists without changing much of anything. Examples: Obama, Kucinich, Kennedy, Hillary, etc. but all support the status quo of the State. (I have to laugh when Obama and/or Kucinich are called "far-left.")
Progressives are said to be left leaning - Democrats, Greens, some Independents, sometimes third party. They more often advocate "interventionist" economics - believing that redistributing more of the wealth to the poor will solve US social and political problems and save the world. Example: Nader, John Edwards, McKinney, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, etc. Most Democrats consider themselves "progressive" but both Democrats and progressives are standard issued pols with the State's stamp of approval.
Many claim to be anti-war yet in 2001 all but one member of congress, Barbara Lee, voted YES for AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan) which led us into the current Middle East mess, and which they continue voting to fund.
The "Left," including Socialists, Maoists, Marxists, etc., generally believe in abolishing capitalism. Many common folks who call themselves "progressives" are actually socialists but the term socialist is not mainstream or acceptable in the US, hence most timid souls use the word "progressive", and continue to trawl for "hope and change" among the usual political suspects - all while dreaming of tyranny by their brand of social and economic justice; some refer to one another as comrades, brothers/sisters, citizens of the world (sometimes with the gang mentality of relentless loyalty to the group, but aspiring for a collective global gang).
But therein lies the problem with American politics - there is no “Left.” There are only liberals, progressives, Democrats, and a pseudo-left: A bunch of folks unable to reason independent from the State, unable to stand by themselves and unable to contribute anything other than the politically correct mantras allowed by the State, but of course flavored with their own profitable modifications and axes to grind. They are easily bought off with trifles and trinkets, and charisma and hot air go a very long way. More frightening is they are completely unaware of what they are, and adamantly believe they have the solution; understandable as most folks cannot acknowledge when they are vacuous and/or full of shit.
Liberals, Dems, Progressives, and the so-called Left - all are conduits of the imperial capitalist State - pretending they know how to create a better world and will give it to you (all you have to do is repeat their manifesto and follow). And all you are gonna get is more State - good and hard.
Essentially, you can say the same for the "Right." Instead of liberals, Democrats, progressives, Left - just insert conservatives, Republicans, neocons, Christo-Zionists.
Posted by Kate-A at 12:37 PM
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The "left/progressives" have ranted to their followers, continuously, of the US police state, the failing dollar and US economy, the spreading global US hegemony, etc. etc. And they are not good at lying about it. For example, the Left "police state" is based on such things as KBR being awarded a contract to build detention centers.
The centers have not been built, and won't be unless there's a need (another Katrina or Mariel boatlift). Add in a bureaucracy like Infraguard and a few progressive lies and you have Left fear mongering at it's finest. According to "whistleblower" Matthew Rothschild the FBI has deputized Infragard members who can kill at will in a martial law situation - it's not true, but made ya scared. Favorite sites for such barkers are Progressive.org, Alternet, DemocracyNow, Dissident Voice, Opednews, etc.
And let's not forget all those snoop laws, habeas, FISA, airport searches that can see through your clothes, etc. The government is just waiting to storm troop into town, roust you from your bed in the middle of night, ship you to a yet-to-be-built KRB detention center where you will be murdered and disposed of in those plastic coffins (see previous post below).
Progressives pimp the solution as you need more "free" stuff from a benign loving government, which only democrats/progressives, or the "left" can secure for you.
And amidst all this doom, gloom, whine, and phoniness - the number of super rich continues to grow. In 1985 there were 13 billionaires in the US - today there are over 1000. Granted, a lot of this wealth is through government contracts or funds in some form or another, etc., as it usually is - in case you haven't noticed how many of the wealthy are made in America with government aid in some way or another.
While progressives moan about tax breaks for Halliburton, KBR, Exxon, etc. those same breaks benefit the overnight millionaire landowners in western North Dakota , who have a much better chance of striking it rich from oil than they do playing the lottery.
These tax cuts also benefit most every member of congress and all your favorite politicians, pundits, and celebrity heroes. (By the way Dummie Bush did not ask for these tax cuts. Congress added them to the 2001 tax-cut bill, which was enacted at a time when policymakers assumed budget surpluses would surpass $5 trillion over the coming decade, Bush and congress have continued the cuts.)
You don't really believe those tax returns released by politicians, read that way when they are out of office do you?
The rich get richer and the poor, thanks to socialist styled programs, get their tax rebates, EIC, stimulus checks - and other "free" stuff - housing, foodstamps, Medicaid, job training, etc.
Progressives would have you believe there is a ship of really big "free" stuff coming in (when they are elected), and it will be funded by taxing the rich. Not true - the rich have always gotten out of paying their fair share of taxes - but progressive sheople are taught their station in life is dependent on government programs which must be funded by the greedy rich.
That's right Joe Chump, you are helplessly and economically downtrodden unless the government gives you the substance you need. (Psssst, that's the same oppressive, imperialist, capitalist government you rail against.)
Progressives lead you to believe, after their candidate is elected, that a good-hearted government daddy is going to pay for your lifestyle - but you're gonna get punked. In case you're too young to notice, or too clueless, over the past 40 years there has been a direct correlation between the growth of social programs and the taxes withheld from your paycheck, and the "fees" and other hidden taxation you pay on everything necessary for the needy lifestyle. You have paid and will pay for your "free" stuff - not the wealthy, not the ruling class.
What frightens the ruling class is that you, little schmucker, might one day acquire an education and some ambition - imagine how crowded the economic playing field would be. Please stay poor, helpless, and ignorant.
Imagine the empty tax coffers if more folks were self-employed and/or knowledgeable on how to avoid unnecessary taxation. It's much safer to have the "poor" led by those faux-angry big-hearted "progressives" demanding "free" programs for you, assuring you that you cannot work your way through college (too strenuous), you cannot and need not speak intelligible English (ebonics and Spanglish are fine), and it is not your fault at all that you are ignorant and criminally inclined - it's the government's fault, it's rich folks fault.
Progressive folks recently turned on their own, The Obamassiah, when he chastised Black men for not being responsible fathers. It's not culturally cool to play dad, especially when Jaquita herself doesn't know for sure who's the daddy. Thank god for the department of family services and DNA.
Oops, some on the Left might accuse me of that ugly terminology "personal responsibility." Or, my favorite, I'll be accused of worshiping the rich; by those on the left who earn theirs from "worshiping" the poor.
In the meantime, almost no one champions the disappearing middle class, clinging to god and guns and prone to traditional family-ism. But hell, the middle class is in the way of all that "free" stuff to come, who needs 'em.
Posted by Kate-A at 10:29 AM