Why GOP Control of the Senate Would Will Be a Disaster

let’s not forget that Obama has repeatedly floated Social Security cuts as a bargaining chip in negotiations with GOP leaders.

Perhaps the most worrying consequence of a GOP-controlled Senate will be the extension of the damaging austerity agenda. Think, for example, about the next debt-ceiling fight. Republicans have repeatedly used the debt ceiling to hold the economy hostage, but they have relented each time because they knew that they would be blamed for the consequences—not the president. But if Republicans take control of the Senate, that calculus will change. What happens when they send Obama a bill to prevent default on our debt at the eleventh hour, attached to a bill that ravages Social Security? The Republicans will be able to force the president to choose between impossible options.

The Republican wrecking crew would hurt workers, women, minorities and the environment.

So, vote for someone who can’t win. Ever. Under an circumstances.

Even worse, stay home and give up the right that has been fought for, for so many years. Feel PROUD that bugfuck nuts people who’s goal is to “prove” that government doesn’t help ANYONE, are being elected due to your self-righteousness. Be very proud of letting the EXTREME RW win, because “democrats aren’t good enough”.

I’ll have to live with the consequences.

But, WTF is the problem with sending a few million Americans to a miserable death, without health insurance or a guaranteed income, as long as “we” “send a message” to a Democratic party that (as we claim) “doesn’t listen to us”.

We’re going to win, by letting the other side (John Birchers, mostly) win, because … PRINCIPLE!!! And don’t forget “IDEOLOGY”!!!

Meanwhile, life in the good ol’ US of A, as well as the rest of the world, is going to suck because

You guessed it

… “Principle !”

Or maybe “the ends don’t justify the means.”

Which is kinda like saying “bring a knife to gun fight” when your enemy is the Koch Brothers, and the GOP.

I’m hopeful. I think we can all agree that the USA, if not the entire world, is under assault by the RW. The GOP in America, by other parties world-wide.

When are we pushed so far that we give up the “Nancy” label and fight back?

I’ll abandon my “principles” (I’ve spent nearly $10 grand on a fucking CAT, fer fucksakes, merely because I love him) to DEFEAT THE RW.

So, honestly, if you can’t join me in voting in a way that defeats Republicans, at the very least, we’re not “allies”.

Vote (and support) the way you want to. But, if you’re voting in a way that allows the Republican to win, I’m not giving you a ride. Republicans suck. I’m convinced of that.

Vote for the candidate who can beat the sucky Republican.

Or, we’re on opposite sides.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Question – WTF is “Freedom”?

Look it up in wikipedia, and you get a disambiguation. Liberty come up too, and it seems that every political stripe, every theological dogma, and (of course) every politcal slogan, relies on a term that is very far from being defined in a globally acceptable way.


Franco’s coinage, for example, was labelled with “Una, grande y libre” (united, great and free) when Spain was neither united, great nor free.


The last word, however, is the caveat. Home of the free and land of the brave (whatever), for example, might seem out of place in a land of economic servitude, gerrymandering and a country notoriously afraid of any and all threats to national (or econmic) security (for a minority).


But what a great buzz word! EVERYONE, right, left and center, believes in, desires, and is willing to indeed fight (or die) for it. We used to have a “liberty quarter” in our parents’ tme. And now we even have a “libertarian party” which is niether libertarian nor a party, but a mouthpiece for moneyed interests (of course, in the rest of the world, “libertarian” has a far different meaning than what Ron Paul would define).

Looking at how many people USE the word “freedom”, in most cases I find people meaning to say “justice”. And mankind being as it is, “justice” usually means “the way I’d like to see things done”, or perhaps more correctly “the way that would benefit me most”.


It’s no secret that our “democratic revolution” of 1776 was all about some rich local boys not wanting to pay taxes for defending themselves. They argued that “taxation without representation” was a great deal, in a time when the British parliament was a good-‘ol boyz network and nary a 10th of Britain’s population had the right to vote in Brtain itself. Thus a “founding lie” upon which our national mythology is based, one of many (and reminiscent of fascist foundational mythology, I might add).


“Freedom to bear arms” or “free speech” or other such nonsensical rhetorical flourishes. “Freedom” and “rights” are now allied with “liberty”, as so many buzz words worthy of fighting for or dying for.

Wikipedia comes up with this: “Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in Western history and political thought and one of the most important (real or ideal) features of democratic societies”. But after that it seems to sputter and fail.


Perhaps it has to do with similar concepts such as faith? Something ill-defined, only attainable through self-delusion, and subject to subjective valuations?


I won’t go through the historical theme – Hitler and Stalin and Mao and just about every politician since… well, the first tribal leaders probably… have used the words of “freedom” and “liberty” as a guiding principle, all the way to the bank, so to speak.


The great German tribal leader, Arminius, famously betrayed the Romans in the cause of “freedom”, which reminds me of Monty Python: http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk/whattheromans.html


So, from my POV, the whole “liberty” and “freedom” bit has more to do with “justice”, and social/economic justice to boot.


So, judging from that particular POV, is any democracy, American democracy included, doing much in the way of “justice”?


Just a talking point, in case someone might want to intervene….



VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Carter vs Obama?

Interesting read.


“…The moral of this story is not directed at Democratic politicians; it is meant for us, the liberal rank and file. We still “yearn to believe,” as Perlstein says. There is something about the Carter / Obama personality that appeals to us in a deep, unspoken way, and that has led Democrats to fall for a whole string of passionless centrists: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Each time, Democratic voters are enchanted by a kind of intellectual idealism that (we are told) is unmoored from ideology. We persuade ourselves that the answer to the savagery of the right—the way to trump the naked class aggression of the One Percent—is to say farewell to our own tradition and get past politics and ideology altogether. And so we focus on the person of the well-meaning, hyper-intelligent leader. We are so high-minded, we think. We are so scientific.

We are such losers.”

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

God bless Liverpool

Liverpool is a “mythical” soccer team, and i have to admit that it has the best supporters of any sport I’ve seen in the world.


Tonight Ream Madrid beat them 0-3 om Anfield (Liverpool’s stadium).Liverpool isn’t in its best moment, it’s a young team, and Real Madrid are European champs.


Yet Liverpool fans never give up, and their team song (“You’ll Never Walk Alone”, which can be heard as a backdrop to manyt English rock songs, particularly Pink Floyd) is sung by all and sundry despite a 0-3 loss.


But what is most inspiring is that as Real Madrid’s players were changed, Liverpool supporters applauded them, when what is most common is to whistle against opposing players.


Gotta love Liverpool spirit


Pink Floyd with Liverpool’s supporters, a blast from the psychodelic past: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeyHPAdxuy0

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Rebuttal to Timbuk’s Krugman post

I like krugman’s take on economics, I never thought he had much to say on other aspects of politics, so the Rolling Stone article is neither here nor there to me.


But in the interests of jovial tit-for-tat:http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_face_it_obama_is_a_conservative/?source=newsletter


“…Bartlett, an economic policy expert who left the Republican Party amid disgust with President George W. Bush’s fiscal policies and backed Obama in 2008, contends that a look at Obama’s track record reveals a president who’s basically a liberal Republican of yore. From the beginning of his administration, Bartlett argues, Obama has charted a center-right course on both foreign and domestic policy issues.

Populating his administration with hawks like Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama has presided over new military engagements abroad while overseeing a draconian crackdown on national security leaks at home, Bartlett notes.

Meanwhile, Obama has pursued “very conservative” fiscal policies, Bartlett writes, signing a stimulus package that was far smaller than what experts and advisers like Christina Romer found would be necessary to really prime the nation’s economic pump. Moreover, Obama has conducted himself like a deficit hawk, “proposing much deeper cuts in spending and the deficit than did the Republicans during the 2011 budget negotiations,” when a deal eluded the two parties. And don’t buy into the the GOP “harping” that Obama hates business, Bartlett cautions. The president, he says, “has bent over backward to protect corporate profits….””



VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Now Turkey’s into it

It’s going to allow Peshmerga forces from Iraq to help out in Kobani.


Undoubtedly, this is due to US pressure, since Turkey has its own Kurdish problem that it didn’t want to help by fighting ISIS. Sooner or later the bill will come in, showing us how much forcing Turkey to go against its own interests will cost.


The Kurds are in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Only in Iraq have they gained a degree of sovereignity, against the will of the US, I might add.


The lines over there are getting SOOOO blurred. We are fighting against an enemy (ISIS) of an enemy (Syria), supporting an enemy (Kurds) of our allies (Turkey, and arguably Iraq), and are likely to come to an “understanding” with yet another enemy (Iran). There are more complications too – we’re supporting Shiites (ruling in Iraq and Iran) against Sunnis (the majority of most of our so-called “allies” in the region), and are supporting autocratic regimes of all stripes.


Our “allies” have committed virtually the same outrages as out enemies, up to and including genocide and religious cleansing.

And this is considered “good policy”? What are the chances of this turning out right as opposed to the chances of this jumping up and biting our ass?


The ME is a clusterfuck, nobody can deny this. And, to a great extent, the current situation is the result of western meddling, which very few people can deny. So what’s the use of choosing sides when the sides are yet so undefined?


Unless, of course, the objective is war itself.


‘Nuff said.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)


I’m only posting this because it might piss of Alvy, and possibly Jo and Uni. IOW, I’m trolling. I admit it. :=)

Krugman: In Defense of Obama

(snark on)Published in that RW bastion “The Rolling Stone” (/snark off). The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success.

High office shouldn’t be about putting points on the electoral scoreboard, it should be about changing the country for the better. Has Obama done that? Do his achievements look likely to endure? The answer to both questions is yes.


Fucking KRUGMAN!


VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tomorrow’s comet

watch it here http://www.space.com/19195-night-sky-planets-asteroids-webcasts.html

WATCH LIVE SUNDAY: Slooh, Virtual Telescope Project Comet Siding Spring Webcasts


VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)