Saturday, December 17, 2011
Christopher Hitchens, 'No, Fuck You'
A 30 second clip that 'evicerates' and exposes the sickness in the story of Isaac.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
PBS
Once upon a time I had the impression that PBS was a more or less center-left outfit. Appealing to would-be intellectuals and a cultured citizenry, and whose mandate, I assumed, was to cultivate an aware and educated viewer. I always thought that Robin McNeil set the tone for the thoughtful, humanistic, vaguely "liberal" (as in liberal arts) sentiment that pervaded PBS.
Of course, that was before the CPB was taken over by Republicans during the Buzsh Administration, and PBS was perennially threatened with draconian funding cuts, and when PBS went on the defensive and morphed into, essentially, FOX light. During those dark days when war mongers Donald Rumsfeld and Zbigniew Brzezinski were treated as honored guests, when Bill Moyers was the subject of an inquisition and subsequently canned, I wrote to PBS saying that as a long time contributor, PBS could henceforth count me out; that after some 25 years I no longer cared to watch the News Hour or anything it broadcast except perhaps the occasional "Frontline" (to its credit, I actually received a polite reply). But henceforth the News Hour no longer was must see tv.
And now this Paul Solmon piece that promotes what Jeffrey Brown called a 'contrarian view' to the issues raised by We the 99%ers (i.e., We the People). That Paul Solmon let pass Robert Lerman's specious claim that "inequality creates an incentive..." was bad enough, but to perpetuate a quote that Lerman claims issued from President Lincoln but is entirely specious crossed the line of jounalistic integrity.
Please, do yourself a favor and read the comments at FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4424 If "The News Hour" has a shred of journalistic decency it will follow the recomendations in this piece and issue a correction, and a disclaimer. That viewers were not informed that "Epstein is also a director at Global Economics Group, a corporate consulting firm that advises on issues like financial regulation and employment law." A minor point, no doubt, unless corporations are precisely what is wrong with America. In which case it presents a fundamental challange.
Should "The News Hour" on PBS permit a long debunked, mis-attributed to Abraham Lincoln quote to be used to justify and/or 'rationalize' a position contrary to that taken by #OWS and We the 99%ers is simply unacceptable.
Indeed; the very idea that Solmon as a PBS investigative reporter would present a spokesman who holds a position contrary to that of We the People as merely the other side in an argument is unacceptable. 99 People versus 1 person is not good odds if you're the one versus all the rest of Us. Seriously, what can 'you' say to justify robbing the Poor to pay the Rich? Indeed, what a corporation says is merely advertizing. What other possible 'avenue' of SPEECH can a corporation pay for?
Oh, dang, totally forgot the SCOTUS decision of
The patent falsehood that the 1%ers are the 'job creators' is a position taken by imbicils such as Paul Ryan and the GOP know-nothings who have signed no tax pledges, believe that Evolution and climate change are myths, and somehow claim to justify the fact that wages for the 99% of Us have stagnated for the past 30 years while the richest have enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks and income growth.
Of course, that was before the CPB was taken over by Republicans during the Buzsh Administration, and PBS was perennially threatened with draconian funding cuts, and when PBS went on the defensive and morphed into, essentially, FOX light. During those dark days when war mongers Donald Rumsfeld and Zbigniew Brzezinski were treated as honored guests, when Bill Moyers was the subject of an inquisition and subsequently canned, I wrote to PBS saying that as a long time contributor, PBS could henceforth count me out; that after some 25 years I no longer cared to watch the News Hour or anything it broadcast except perhaps the occasional "Frontline" (to its credit, I actually received a polite reply). But henceforth the News Hour no longer was must see tv.
And now this Paul Solmon piece that promotes what Jeffrey Brown called a 'contrarian view' to the issues raised by We the 99%ers (i.e., We the People). That Paul Solmon let pass Robert Lerman's specious claim that "inequality creates an incentive..." was bad enough, but to perpetuate a quote that Lerman claims issued from President Lincoln but is entirely specious crossed the line of jounalistic integrity.
Please, do yourself a favor and read the comments at FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4424 If "The News Hour" has a shred of journalistic decency it will follow the recomendations in this piece and issue a correction, and a disclaimer. That viewers were not informed that "Epstein is also a director at Global Economics Group, a corporate consulting firm that advises on issues like financial regulation and employment law." A minor point, no doubt, unless corporations are precisely what is wrong with America. In which case it presents a fundamental challange.
Should "The News Hour" on PBS permit a long debunked, mis-attributed to Abraham Lincoln quote to be used to justify and/or 'rationalize' a position contrary to that taken by #OWS and We the 99%ers is simply unacceptable.
Indeed; the very idea that Solmon as a PBS investigative reporter would present a spokesman who holds a position contrary to that of We the People as merely the other side in an argument is unacceptable. 99 People versus 1 person is not good odds if you're the one versus all the rest of Us. Seriously, what can 'you' say to justify robbing the Poor to pay the Rich? Indeed, what a corporation says is merely advertizing. What other possible 'avenue' of SPEECH can a corporation pay for?
Oh, dang, totally forgot the SCOTUS decision of
The patent falsehood that the 1%ers are the 'job creators' is a position taken by imbicils such as Paul Ryan and the GOP know-nothings who have signed no tax pledges, believe that Evolution and climate change are myths, and somehow claim to justify the fact that wages for the 99% of Us have stagnated for the past 30 years while the richest have enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks and income growth.
Friday, November 11, 2011
From Baron Mind
Thirty Signs That You're a Teabagger
/> 1. You’re offended at any suggestion that the Tea Party is racist, even though nobody objects when people show up at your rallies with blatantly racist signs and slogans.
2. Ronald Reagan is your hero because he was against raising taxes and big government, even though while in office Ronald Regan raised taxes 11 times, doubled the national debt, and tripled the size of government.
3. You mocked Nancy Pelosi for getting emotional when she reflected on the murder of her friend, Mayor George Mosconi, but you think it’s manly when John Boehner blubbers when he watches reruns of Flipper.
4. You were all in favor of George Bush bringing “Democracy” to Iraq by invading and killing hundreds of thousands of women and children, but you think Obama “blew it” by staying out of it when the people of Tunisia and Egypt toppled their dictators in popular revolts [ditto, now for Libya]
5. You think Climate Change is a big hoax because Senator James Inhofe, who is firmly in the pocket of the oil companies, says it’s bogus.
6. You think president Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, and that he managed to fool the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service and the entire US government archive of documents with one Photoshopped image.
7. You think President Obama is a socialist, because he wants all Americans to pay their share of taxes, including the rich and the large corporations, and because Obama wants all Americans to enjoy the same benefits of an equitable society, including the same
healthcare that Congress enjoys.
8. You think Glenn Beck’s theory of a Code Pink/Muslim/ Communist alliance conspiracy to take over the world in a 21st Century caliphate makes perfect sense.
9. You believe the Citizens United decision was all about corporate “free speech,” yet you’re against the Fairness Doctrine being reenacted, because you think it’s contrary to “free speech.”
10. You are absolutely pro-life, under all circumstances — except when an abortion doctor is executed in his church, because he asked for it; or when an innocent man is executed by lethal injection because the DNA testing of evidence which would have exonerated him is “too expensive”.
11. You thought it was cool when Sarah Palin “targeted” Democratic seats on her website with crosshairs, including Gaby Giffords; but when Giffords was shot in Arizona, you didn’t see any connection.
12. You think Sarah Palin would make a good president because she’s a feisty conservative, but that Diane Feinstein should be run out of town because she’s a feisty liberal.
13. You think George Soros, a Hungarian born American citizen, is an enemy of freedom because he uses his vast wealth to meddle in foreign affairs; but you think it’s great that Rupert Murdoch, an Australian citizen, uses his vast wealth to meddle in American affairs and it’s even better when the Koch brothers use their billions to swing elections for Tea Partiers.
14. The main reason you despise George Soros, is because he helped bring down three foreign governments; the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and Soviet Georgia – three communist regimes. Ronald Reagan on the other hand, took down one democratically- elected socialist regime: Grenada. Reagan: 1, Soros: 3. Ergo, Soros is an un-American commie. Besides, Sean Hannity said so.
15. You think being a Teabagger makes you more patriotic than liberals, because you own more guns than them wussies.
16. You screamed bloody murder when president Obama rescued GM and Chrysler, because they were “going to fail anyway’; but now that both companies are on the road to recovery and are once again profitable, you think George W. Bush deserves most of the credit.
17. When Barack Obama was sworn in, the Dow Jones was at 6500. Today, it’s at 12,400, almost double where it was. At that time Obama was sworn in, the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs per month, a trend that has been arrested and reversed ever since. From that, you deduce Obama’s the one who wrecked the economy.
18. You still believe Saddam had WMDs.
19. You are dead-set against “judicial activist” judges, but you were okay with it when the five conservative justices of the Supreme Court voted in favor of Citizens United, effectively guaranteeing our politicians will be bought by the highest bidder, rather than elected by the people.
20. You’re strongly opposed to gay rights, because you claim it’s not biblical. Except in the case of Ken Mehlman, Mary Cheney, and Ted Haggard, because they still vote “right” on the issues.
21. You want all illegal immigrants rounded up and deported, ASAP, no exceptions, PERIOD; but you don’t want any criminal charges filed against the corporations that have been hiring them en masse in violation of law.
22. One of your stated concerns with Barack Obama’s candidacy, was that he was too inexperienced for the job, yet you want Sarah Palin, a first-time governor who quit halfway through her term, to challenge him next year.
23. You hate tax cheats, and people who abuse their status for personal advancement — but you admire Clarence Thomas, and have no problem with his wife “speaking on behalf of her husband” at the Heritage Foundation, a far right-wing organization.
24. You went ballistic when an illegal immigrant murdered an American in Texas two years ago, and you demanded justice. But when three members connected to the Tea Party murdered nine-year old Brisenia Flores in cold blood, you and your right-wing media barely even mentioned it, nor the conviction.
25. You equate being a “community organizer” to being a Marxist, yet you claim to worship a God whose entire life was being a community organizer.
26. You claim Barack Obama is soft of terrorism and that he’s sympathetic to Muslim extremists; yet during his first two years in office, his administration captured or killed more terrorists than George Bush did in all eight years of his presidency.
27. You cheered as Andrew Breitbart and his faux journalists brought down ACORN. But when Breitbart got caught doctoring footage of Shirley Sherrod, which brought into question his veracity, you accused Shirley Sherrod of waging a “race war.”
28. You support Israel’s policies regarding the West Bank and Gaza, because Israel is a democracy, like us; but when Arabs democratically voted in anti-American and anti-Israeli governments, it bewildered you.
29. Your spiritual hero, the Grande Dame of the conservative movement, is Ayn Rand, the dedicated anti-socialist; yet conveniently overlook the fact that in later years, Ayn Rand had no problem secretly cashing in on social security and Medicare [and was an avowed atheist].
30. You still think fascism and socialism are the same thing, because Glenn Beck has convinced you of that with his magic blackboard. This way, nobody can accuse you of being similar to the Nazis… even though you are.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tomgram: Bill McKibben, Chamber of Carbon Posted by Bill McKibben at 9:58am, February 22, 2011.
Consider it a tale of two speeches and a grim parable for our American moment.
On March 24, 2010, Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neil Wolin arrived for his lunchtime speaking slot at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's impressive headquarters, a short walk from the Treasury building and the White House. When his time came, Wolin strode onstage and, before hundreds of its members, tore into the chamber and its policies. As an organization, it was dishonest and "backward," he said. An ongoing three-million-dollar lobbying campaign was not intended to bolster badly needed financial reforms on Wall Street, as claimed, but "designed to defeat them."
A stunned audience mustered only the weakest of applause. At the time, there was no love lost between the White House and the chamber. Later that fall, with the help of a crucial Supreme Court decision, the group would act on that animosity, spending a million in the 2010 midterms and ushering in the biggest Republican landslide in generations.
Fast forward to Barack Obama's address to the chamber earlier this month. The president's appearance was cast as an “olive branch,” an attempt to smooth over a tumultuous relationship. It lived up to the billing. "I’m here in the interest of being more neighborly,” Obama began. “Maybe if we would have brought over a fruit cake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off on a better foot. But I’m going to make up for it.”
The toughest the president got was when he pled with the chamber's corporate membership to "get in the game" and use trillions of dollars of reserves piled up in the worst of times for American workers to create much-needed jobs.
No one should be surprised that the Obama administration is now trying to buddy up with the chamber, not after the Democrats' historic "shellacking" last November and the president’s subsequent mad dash to court corporate America big time. But make no mistake: Even were the White House to get down on its proverbial knees and beg the chamber for mercy, it would only embolden that organization when it comes to its make-life-easy-for-monster-corporations positions on issues like climate change (a figment of the liberal imagination), reforming Wall Street (don’t even think about it), and limiting corporate campaign spending (never!).
*********************************************
Wow, that final image was truly pathetic. Since when is groveling before a bully the best option? The President groveling at the feet of the Corporatocracy so that they/it would have mercy on him, or some such? Truly disturbing. The President having to ‘court’ Big Business with hat in hand? I don’t remember any other President humbly having to mend fences with the US Chamber of Commerce. Not in my lifetime. Eisenhower, Clinton? The notion is absurd. Who the fuck is in charge here?
Obama is never going to get ‘off on a better foot.’ Hell, he isn’t even on the same side of the Tracks as these masters of the universe. And despite his academic cred no one cares what he has to say. He’s the mistake President who somehow slipped in. That Barack Obama is a ‘colored’ guy is at the very heart of what motivates Birthers and Teabaggers and John Birchers and all the rest. And it is no mere coincidence that the infamous John Birch Society is enjoying a new found acceptance; praise the Lord!!
Fred C. Koch is a Bircher. As a result, “…the John Birch Society is no longer banished; it is listed as one of about 100 co-sponsors of the 2010 CPAC.” [http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/farright-john-birch-society-2010.html]
I mean, when I was a teenager, these were right wing demented racist hawks. I thought they were as anti-American as the KKK or, later, skinhead neo-Nazis (cf, the 1998 movie, “American History X”). Just ugly, stupid fanatics.
The down and out workers who should have directed their resentments against the boss man, instead lashed out against the niggers and wops and spics and kikes - the only group beneath them in the social and financial order - the racial or ethnic other. Kill ‘em all is their unspoken motto. And short of that, disenfranchise them, marginalize them, oppose them by whatever means.
And these are the knuckleheads now gaining political momentum? Gaining a foothold and moving more broadly into politics to influence our Government? Seriously? And via a John Bircher supported PAC called the Tea Party?
The Republican governor of Wisconsin who takes calls from an avowed member of the John Birch Society as if it were a call from the Pope? The analogy is strained, but, nonetheless, that’s the essence. Why would any government official kowtow to a John Bircher? Or accept the maximum campaign contribution from one? Isn’t it like taking the call from some filthy rich Grand Poobah of the KKK or Aryan Nation who contributed to the election and letting him know how things are going with the unruly parasites that leach off the government?
Crazed insular xenophobic types who belong to the KKK, the John Birch Society, Aryan Nation, Hell’s Angels, whatever, are sociopaths. Probably psychotic to some degree. Certainly filled with hatred. That’s what I always thought.
And this asshole governor takes a call from one of them and updates him on how his standoff against the public employees is progressing.
Unbelievable.
Consider it a tale of two speeches and a grim parable for our American moment.
On March 24, 2010, Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neil Wolin arrived for his lunchtime speaking slot at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's impressive headquarters, a short walk from the Treasury building and the White House. When his time came, Wolin strode onstage and, before hundreds of its members, tore into the chamber and its policies. As an organization, it was dishonest and "backward," he said. An ongoing three-million-dollar lobbying campaign was not intended to bolster badly needed financial reforms on Wall Street, as claimed, but "designed to defeat them."
A stunned audience mustered only the weakest of applause. At the time, there was no love lost between the White House and the chamber. Later that fall, with the help of a crucial Supreme Court decision, the group would act on that animosity, spending a million in the 2010 midterms and ushering in the biggest Republican landslide in generations.
Fast forward to Barack Obama's address to the chamber earlier this month. The president's appearance was cast as an “olive branch,” an attempt to smooth over a tumultuous relationship. It lived up to the billing. "I’m here in the interest of being more neighborly,” Obama began. “Maybe if we would have brought over a fruit cake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off on a better foot. But I’m going to make up for it.”
The toughest the president got was when he pled with the chamber's corporate membership to "get in the game" and use trillions of dollars of reserves piled up in the worst of times for American workers to create much-needed jobs.
No one should be surprised that the Obama administration is now trying to buddy up with the chamber, not after the Democrats' historic "shellacking" last November and the president’s subsequent mad dash to court corporate America big time. But make no mistake: Even were the White House to get down on its proverbial knees and beg the chamber for mercy, it would only embolden that organization when it comes to its make-life-easy-for-monster-corporations positions on issues like climate change (a figment of the liberal imagination), reforming Wall Street (don’t even think about it), and limiting corporate campaign spending (never!).
*********************************************
Wow, that final image was truly pathetic. Since when is groveling before a bully the best option? The President groveling at the feet of the Corporatocracy so that they/it would have mercy on him, or some such? Truly disturbing. The President having to ‘court’ Big Business with hat in hand? I don’t remember any other President humbly having to mend fences with the US Chamber of Commerce. Not in my lifetime. Eisenhower, Clinton? The notion is absurd. Who the fuck is in charge here?
Obama is never going to get ‘off on a better foot.’ Hell, he isn’t even on the same side of the Tracks as these masters of the universe. And despite his academic cred no one cares what he has to say. He’s the mistake President who somehow slipped in. That Barack Obama is a ‘colored’ guy is at the very heart of what motivates Birthers and Teabaggers and John Birchers and all the rest. And it is no mere coincidence that the infamous John Birch Society is enjoying a new found acceptance; praise the Lord!!
Fred C. Koch is a Bircher. As a result, “…the John Birch Society is no longer banished; it is listed as one of about 100 co-sponsors of the 2010 CPAC.” [http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/farright-john-birch-society-2010.html]
I mean, when I was a teenager, these were right wing demented racist hawks. I thought they were as anti-American as the KKK or, later, skinhead neo-Nazis (cf, the 1998 movie, “American History X”). Just ugly, stupid fanatics.
The down and out workers who should have directed their resentments against the boss man, instead lashed out against the niggers and wops and spics and kikes - the only group beneath them in the social and financial order - the racial or ethnic other. Kill ‘em all is their unspoken motto. And short of that, disenfranchise them, marginalize them, oppose them by whatever means.
And these are the knuckleheads now gaining political momentum? Gaining a foothold and moving more broadly into politics to influence our Government? Seriously? And via a John Bircher supported PAC called the Tea Party?
The Republican governor of Wisconsin who takes calls from an avowed member of the John Birch Society as if it were a call from the Pope? The analogy is strained, but, nonetheless, that’s the essence. Why would any government official kowtow to a John Bircher? Or accept the maximum campaign contribution from one? Isn’t it like taking the call from some filthy rich Grand Poobah of the KKK or Aryan Nation who contributed to the election and letting him know how things are going with the unruly parasites that leach off the government?
Crazed insular xenophobic types who belong to the KKK, the John Birch Society, Aryan Nation, Hell’s Angels, whatever, are sociopaths. Probably psychotic to some degree. Certainly filled with hatred. That’s what I always thought.
And this asshole governor takes a call from one of them and updates him on how his standoff against the public employees is progressing.
Unbelievable.
Chris Hedges
Re: Death of the Liberal Class
Researching the word Columbia, I had made my way to the Wikipedia article on a magazine that had its run ended in 1918, “Puck”. So I checked, and there is no reference to it in the Index.
The single most acerbic, satirical, opinionated, muckraking and popular political magazine during its 40 year run.. But by 1918 it was history.
I smell a rat.
I find it no small coincidence that William Randolph Hearst bought the magazine in 1916 and just 2 years later, after 40 successful years, it was dead. Why would he purchase a tormentor of the establishment if not to kill it? Did he save the government the trouble of bringing the Espionage Act of 1917 and other measures to bear on it? Would that have caused something of a reaction among populists and progressives? But with Hearst engineering its demise, it’s just a business decision.
It seems that, given the rising ‘corporatocracy’ and the imperial ambitions of the government, that the clampdown and mass propaganda campaigns might have targeted this magazine. A scathing critic, a scorching journalist writing in a popular magazine that for all its flaws was the horsefly on the State? Intolerable (given your account of the conditions that prevailed during that Era).
I bring this to your attention as a possible occasion when media moguls and the Federal government might have been in collusion to determine and censor what We the People can read. Which would seem to be unconstitutional.
In the vain hope that I am mistaken….I offer “Puck”.
Re: Death of the Liberal Class
Researching the word Columbia, I had made my way to the Wikipedia article on a magazine that had its run ended in 1918, “Puck”. So I checked, and there is no reference to it in the Index.
The single most acerbic, satirical, opinionated, muckraking and popular political magazine during its 40 year run.. But by 1918 it was history.
I smell a rat.
I find it no small coincidence that William Randolph Hearst bought the magazine in 1916 and just 2 years later, after 40 successful years, it was dead. Why would he purchase a tormentor of the establishment if not to kill it? Did he save the government the trouble of bringing the Espionage Act of 1917 and other measures to bear on it? Would that have caused something of a reaction among populists and progressives? But with Hearst engineering its demise, it’s just a business decision.
It seems that, given the rising ‘corporatocracy’ and the imperial ambitions of the government, that the clampdown and mass propaganda campaigns might have targeted this magazine. A scathing critic, a scorching journalist writing in a popular magazine that for all its flaws was the horsefly on the State? Intolerable (given your account of the conditions that prevailed during that Era).
I bring this to your attention as a possible occasion when media moguls and the Federal government might have been in collusion to determine and censor what We the People can read. Which would seem to be unconstitutional.
In the vain hope that I am mistaken….I offer “Puck”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
