...that I spend weekends at my home in DE (the blue state that elected our VP, and has two D Senators and a D rep), and my weekdays at my job in VA (the purple state). Well, it's a weekday, and I've been seeing this commercial on the idiot box roughly every 10 minutes since about 8PM (it's 11PM, now). It's culture shock knowing that a larger portion of the population in VA isn't appalled by this ad than would be appalled by it in DE. North of me is Philly, NYC, and *gasp* Boston. South of here is Richmond (home of that smarmy little prick Eric Cantor), Columbia SC, Atlanta, and Tallahassee. It's hard to say which, but either the blood or the IQ drains from your brain the further south you go in this here United States of America. Set aside the fact that it starts with a lie, a BLATANT lie, and goes downhill from there. The first black POTUS in history has made a dent in the chink of the armor of the health care monopoly. Yes, we MUST build on it. But isn't it satisfying to know that "the first black POTUS" makes the RW so unhinged? Unless "the left" puts up a pretty exciting candidate WHO CAN WIN, I still think I'm gonna show up at the polls and vote for Obama.
... for all the cons out there. You "conservatives", supposedly independent libertarians that see government as something evil (which in itself is highly undemocratic if you think about it) should consider this: http://news.yahoo.com/cantaloupe-illnesses-deaths-expected-rise-192419474.html From your ideological perspective, deaths from negligence will somehow, magically, be avoided because of the deus ex machina of the "free market". If a product or service is dangerous, people will stop purchasing it and thus it is not in the self-interest of businesses to sell products or services are dangerous. Unfortunately, because of the overwhelming economic power of big businesses (and big business' crusade to cut regulation and responsibility), the "benevolent influence" of the market is lost. Laws and courts are on the side of big business, as can be seen in the infamous Pinto case (http://news.yahoo.com/cantaloupe-illnesses-deaths-expected-rise-192419474.html, don't look for it in wikipedia, it's been muzzled). If a company is powerful, it will overcome regulation, and if there's enough money in play, a company can say that it's overriding mandate to earn money is more important than social responsibility). Thus, the libertarian's argument that the "market ultimately is a positive factor" only applies to stockholders and not to the general public. Since it is clear that companies will not look to the general weal, who will? Wouldn't it be a government by, of and for the people that should look out for the people beyond the narrow self-interests of vested interests? Sorry, cons, I can't help but to despise you at every turn. Anti-democratic, self-deluded (thinking that somehow you will become wealthy in the future on the basis of "hard work"), stupidly selfish to spite yourselves, and singularly self-deluded in misplaced faith. In a libertarian world the death toll from malicious melons would reach 10's of thousands before reaching the press (if even then) - and there would be no responsibility for said deaths. In a democracy (which you despise), you can blame the government for poor oversight. In a corporate-libertarian world, you can fire management for not hiding the negligent deaths of thousands. Which is better? Sheesh.
CIA Says Global-Warming Intelligence Is ‘Classified’ By David Kravets Email Author September 22, 2011 | 3:49 pm | Categories: The Ridiculous, politics http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/cia-classifies-global-warming-intelligence/ CIA Two years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency announced it was creating a center to analyze the geopolitical ramifications of “phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts and heightened competition for natural resources.” But whatever work the Center on Climate Change and National Security has done remains secret. In response to National Security Archive scholar Jeffrey Richelson’s Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA said all of its work is “classified.” “We completed a thorough search for records responsive to your request and located material that we determined is currently and properly classified and must be denied in its entirety,” (.pdf) Susan Viscuso, the agency’s information and privacy coordinator, wrote Richelson.
... of articles like this one. What I haven't seen are articles about people fighting against such plundering.
Ironic that this would mean a massive move to the left, eh?
In most of the developed world, democracy has become a false dichotomy. Almost invariably power is within the reach of what is superficially the "center right" and the "center left". Most constitutions have been built to allow for a division between two powerful parties because of a fear of "ungovernability". What would happen if a plethora of parties ran against one another and divided the different branches of government - or (in parliamentary systems) made government so weak as to wreak havoc? For a long while, many countries could thrive on a two-party system. This was basically because there were actually two parties with distinct ideological differences. However, Bliar's and Bubba's "third way" tossed that distinction to the winds - from the adoption of the third way the differences between parties was superficial, issue-based and from the ideological POV, immaterial. The world is currently suffering from an economic crisis. This crisis can be directly attributable to an economic ideology, one that has become accepted by "both" parties in virtually every 1st world country. Coddling the market has become more important than coddling the electorate. With this in mind it is ironic to see the "democratic" reaction to the current crisis. In those countries where purportedly left-wing governments were in place when the crisis hit, solidly right-wing governments have been elected. In those countries where right-wing governments were in place when the crisis hit, contrariwise. The French, for the first time during the current republic, have solidly voted left in the municipal and senatorial elections. The Spanish are likely to vote right this autumn. The Brits turned their back on "new labour". And it is distinctly possible that the americans will replace Obama. What does this teach us? On one hand it shows the ignorance of the electorate, on the other it shows the cynical manipulativeness of the political class in general. Papandreu, a greek socialist, and Zapatero, a spanish one, would be hard pressed to be more neoliberal than their opposites. They, and many others of the putative left, have succumbed to "market pressure" just as Obama has. The "other" side calls for even more extreme measures in burying social democracy and keynesian economics. Of course, the third power has been truant (by default and by having been bought and sold). However, unusual characters have stood up - such as the catholic church in Italy running against ideas such as privatizing water distribution. What can be said? Where is the hope? Will it take things getting far worse to wake the electorate up? Or will things getting far worse lead the electorate towards unpalatable extreme solutions? Things ain't looking too good I fear. And I blame the left for the situation - for selling out for short-term electoral gains.
So, from a commie dictatorship that we were close to nuking we now have a neolib dictatorship that we almost welcome. No serious desire for democracy for the Ruskies - now that they're neolib, they're no longer much of a threat. Gawd.
The GOP "debate"... it was as if WP was a candidate. Disingenuous positions, outright fabrications... the fact that something like 50% of the voting electorate takes these clowns seriously is cause for serious concern. Except for the fact that the percentage of Americans that reject evolution is on par with that of Turkey makes sense of such a mess. What to do when the electorate is just plain stupid?
The fact that Obama hasn't taken everybody's guns just proves he's going to take everybody's guns...
You just can’t please some people. In the eyes of National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, President Barack Obama’s decision not to pursue gun control legislation is a “massive conspiracy,” and just another reason not to give him a second term. “[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.” “But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” “Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared. “Sotomayor, Kagan, Fast & Furious, the United Nations, executive orders. Those are the facts we face today… President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners. Some in the liberal media, they are already probably blogging about it. But we don’t care because the lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!”The only thing more retarded than Wayne LaPierre's paranoid ravings are the NRA imbeciles that will think he makes perfect sense.