Socialists give it to you at both ends...a sexual metaphor for getting a raw deal...so raw your ass feels chapped.

Barack Obama...or "La Bamba" as one of my less than astute friend calls him is a professed and unabashed "progressive."

Now, in and of itself there is nothing inherently wrong with having those beliefs...among which are:

Progressive Tax:

The more you make, the more you pay with no apparent threshold on how much of your income should be confiscated/taxed/whatever. It, like all progressive policies are subject to arbitration and short-term/sighted emotionally driven "facts".

Social Engineering:

Government can and should be the tool of choice to change society. The change that should be effected is: Reduction in class stratification and economic stratification to achieve an arbitrary notion of social and economic "justice" based on racial, political and economic identity.

Government Function:

Government, and more importantly those in the government, know better than the common citizen about how life should be lived on a day to day basis and should take over such functions as are deemed appropriate at the time. any failure on the part of the government to succeed is not a failure of the idea itself, rather incorrect implementation of the idea. The entire concept revolves around the idea that one can perfectly engineer government to do whatever is necessary as long as the right people are running it.

So, let us say you are one of those few who are sick, no not a cold but something more deadly, and you do not have any insurance because you are any of the following:

A) Unemployed and cannot afford COBRA, or have not filed for Social Security Disability/Medicare becuase you are a lazy f'ing bum.

B) Work only part time jobs so you do't get benefits.

C) Are an illegal immigrant/wage slave/slave

D) Feel you are entitled to health-care as a right so you have purposefully NOT bought insurance...OR

E) Are young, dumb, and stupid and think you won't get sick..so you elect to not take insurance that is offered in order to pocket more cash...yay a new iPod/consumer good!

A Progressive believes that you should be covered by tax money for every level of care as a fundamental right. Who pays? Those that the have the money to pay...will pay. Those that do not have the money will (to the theoretical benefit of all) leech off those that have the money at no benefit of form or function to those that pay.

Even then...the people that have no money won't be "getting away with it" because those entitlements will not be tax free...you as the payee will have to pay taxes on those benefits. So really this is just a ploy for the state to get more control and more money all in the guise of benevolence.

Social security recipients get taxed...even though it was money that was taken long ago and inflation has devalued every dollar in the fund to the point of the benefits having to be cut, retirement age raised and the talk about buying out 401K's and merging them into Social Security as a hodgepodge way of trying to shore up an entitlement that is leaking like a siv!

Progressivism is no different in practice than Marxism/communism/syndicalism/corporatism/fascism, rather it appears benevolent and appeals emotionally to the lowest common denominator that always feels like it gets the shaft.

it does not lift people up, or inspire people to do great things, rather it lowers those at the top to make them closer to misery.

Rights are low level concepts:

Low level means that it is something that is not mutually exclusive, like you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The caveat to that is that all those rights are contingent that they not interfere with the rights of another to have those same rights.

Free Speech: You have this right as long as you do not prohibit the safe and free expression of political speech of another...talking does not prohibit another talking.

Bearing of Firearms: You owning a firearm does not prohibit another from doing the same.

Quartering of Troops: not without owner's consent, even in war-time, rather a lawful manner that is consistent shall be provided for troop housing.

Search and Seizure: Warrants are required for everyone

Due process: Everyone is entitled to due process to make sure all other rights are respected and you have as a result of Amendment 1 not to be compelled to incriminate yourself...but they can still trick you ;)

from wiki..

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It is the last two that give progressives a real issue with the Constitution.

See the idea that government is the solution...gets cut off by saying any powers not enumerated here are reserved for the States or the People...which is a backwards way of saying: "If it isn't here the Federal Government can't do it...but the States can...as long as it doesn't unreasonably regulate the aforementioned rights".

so someone will say..."but the government ALREADY does stuff that isn't in the Constitution! so NYAH!"

and I say, "Well that doesn't make it right now does it? That is like saying...you sholdn't rob a bank...but your neighbor did it...so you can too." Bad behavior doesn't excuse or make acceptable further bad behavior and it is the fault of the average citizen for not taking responsibility for his/her own life that this crap is going on.

Progressivism doesn't free anyone...it makes slaves of us all...slaves with chapped asses.

Stanley Kurtz

The best thing about this election cycle is seeing the return of the classic political machine...Chicago Style. And no it does not make pizza.

Here is the process:

Opposition POV is scheduled to be expressed on some media outlet:

Media outlet (75% of the time) invites target of opposition on to counter or at least put the criticism in context.

Target's representatives decline to show up

Target uses its network to get the rabble out.

Rabble attempts to shutdown opposition via mob tactics and to stifle debate.

Opposition (for the time being) tells them to go fark themselves. the Rabble does not see how fascist they are being instead relying on ad hominem attacks.

Repeat cycle until the Democrat Party gains enough power and influence to bring back the "fairness doctrine" which while sounding nice effectively shuts down free speech...all the while claiming to uphold...rather regulate it making it...not free.

Stanley Kurtz on the x720 program in Chicago last night began to feel this macine at work.

Multiple articles proclaiming him a slimy character assassin and the like as well as a deluge of phone calls and angry emails flooded the show.

This was in response to an "action call" by the Obama campaign and a great deal of misinformation...including their lack of knowledge that the Obama campaign was in fact invited to be on the program.

Not only did they decline to be on the program but they hung up not even really giving the show's producer a fair hearing.

The results of the show were as follows:

Proof by both the foundation and external observers that they ~110 Million Dollar grant and matching funds FAILED to improve public education in any meaningful way.

At no time did Kurtz ever call Obama a terrorist nor did he ever say that he and Ayers shared every single point of view.

He reported the facts that he had uncovered and aside from the waste of about 50 million tax payer dollars (no one gives a crap about the other ~$60M matched by local business owners and philanthropists except for the fact they got bilked).

The host did challenge Kurtz while on air in a very good and intelligent manner. He allowed Kurtz to respond and it was a very good program.

Callers were frequently uninformed as to the offer Barack's campaign. And they were unsatisfied with the efforts of the station to get a challenger on. The truth is that the station made a good faith effort and Obama's supporters just wanted to silence citicism.

a bunch of numb nuts.

To Paul Krugman

*clears throat and shakes hands*

The current economic flat-line is due to many tings. It is however all our fault. We elected people who appointed people to oversee our monetary policy. Those whom we elected got bought or already had a worldview that put them at odds with reality. Alan Greenspan is nothing but a political whore and he says whatever seems to be convenient. He does not predict anything, rather he speaks about a pre-existing trend in what seems to be a calm and intelligent mode. And because he has a reputation, people think he knows something that they do not. He does not. He examines the information that anyone can get and he makes boneheaded statements.

example: in Oct. 2006: 'I suspect that we are coming to the end of this downtrend, as
applications for new mortgages, the most important series, have
flattened out'.

Well we know that was bullshit he was shoveling.

Later in 2007: 'Mr Greenspan said he would expect “as a minimum, large single-digit”
percentage declines in US house prices from peak to trough and added
that he would not be surprised if the fall was “in double digits”.'

The covering himself..."However, he cautioned that it was very difficult to predict how large the ultimate decline would be. "- FT

And then at the end of the article for those comments: 'In his memoirs, Mr Greenspan, a lifelong Republican, criticises his
party for abandoning its small-government principles, and warns that
the trade-off between inflation and growth is likely to worsen.'

Well no shiat Sherlock. I mean goddamn...this is like Economics 101...but less informative.

But all the media and government types listen to him.

So home prices are down 16% on average nation wide and in many places much higher. Well whoopdidoo. High housing prices are a BAD thing for new homeowners. Why the heck should a person be forced to auction off their entire lives to pay for a tiny house on a postage stamp sized lawn? How about you just go to your oversimplified hell and stay there?!

Banks don't have infinite monies and neither do employers. If you keep pushing up the cost of living this is what happens. This is a housing correction...not some unfortunate deletion of equity. Many people overpaid for their McMansions or were not fit to get said loans anyhow no matter the size of the house. You are allowed to negotiate the price of your house. You, and by you I mean the plural impersonal form of you, do not have to take it at the asking price. Sure they want to upgrade but YOU and by YOU I mean ME doesn't have to finance it with my stupidity.

Its the American DREAM, not the American Birthright. You own it if you can afford it. We are still around 94% employment...which is far ahead of many nations that you are likely jealous of regarding their governmental social programs.

The Fed has gotten us in to this mess and needs to jack up interst rates in order to soak up all the inflated dollars...and make our currency WORTH something again. And kudos to you for realizing that the government can't pick up the tab...but fuck you for even suggesting the government should bail out fannie and freddie.

Let me put it this way...your employee...lets say he's a waiter and you are the restuarant owner: serves people food and they get *shock* Hepatitis. Well you don't fucking pat him on the head and say...thats all right I'll fix everything...and keep him employed. No you fire and sue his sorry ass before THEY (the customers) sue the shit out of you. Sure he lied to you and maybe you can get him for fraud...but the customers (i.e. the public) still have a case under most types of agency law as all this happened in the scope of employment making YOU liable. So if the government bails out freddie and fannie...that is like admitting that its the governments fault in the first place.

We as taxpayers ought to be outraged at this waste of our money. Our tax dollars should not be proping up financial institutions...the airlines...the automotive industry...or any other!

Barry's emergency economic plan was stupid...if $600 won't do anything then neither will another $1,000. Sure we'd all like another $1,000 but who is paying for that? Remember how your parents told you money doesn't grow on trees? Well apprarently Barry's parents didn't teach him that lesson.

Here's a real emergency plan: Cut spending on non-essentials, get out of debt ASAP, cut up all but one credit card, and make a budget and stick to it. The feds could do with this as well...especially sticking to a budget. Budgets aren't suggestions they are borders so you know where your financials stand for a given time period.

Surely you just want to help the impoverished with their home heating and other utilities. GReat...fantastic...then get out of the way of cheap energy first, allow for means testing and stop localities like New Haven Connecticut from disbursing the money to illegal aliens and political friends.

Plug the leaks before you start bailing water.

McCain (no matter how much I dislike him) isn't wrong about his economic policies just because Bush has a 20% approval rating. The two aren't connected. Get off your logical fallacied rear end and actually look at the policies and how they will work in both the short AND the long term...and try to connect it to empyrical data rather than political science.


Obama is just WRONG on his economic policies. hold on while I go to his website and read. Be right back...

vacation

I'm going on a vacation now...be back later

Obama...oh god my head

the title says it all

top to bottom

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America�s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation�s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Note: The Declaration of Independence originally said we have the right to “life, liberty and property” but was changed so that pro-slavery segments of the population could not use that as ammunition in the future. This was done by Benjamin Franklin who also founded the abolitionist movement in Pennsylvania.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution � a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part � through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

The Civil War or The War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression was over whether or not States had the right as States to secede from the Union: The anti-slavery angle came in after the Union side began to lose and needed more cannon fodder (soldiers) and used this as a recruiting technique. Yes it was a good idea and fortunately worked out.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign � to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.

Nothing Barak Obama has proposed will make any of us more free. His policies will only turn over more power and authority to the State and take it from YOU.

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together.

With his guidance of course. We were doing alright without him.

unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes;

Y plurbus unum

that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction � towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton�s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I�ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world�s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners � an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It�s a story that hasn�t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts � that out of many, we are truly one.

We are our race and are identified by it. Is that what you are saying?

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either �too black� or �not black enough.� We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

Some even called you the Magic Negro

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

No it isn't divisive to point out your shortcomings on character and judgement.

On one end of the spectrum, we�ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it�s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.

And for some it is...this is a very nuanced campaign and this is where Barak tries to make it Black or White...pardon the pun.

On the other end, we�ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

From what I heard there was only cheering of his congregation.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.


Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

Wait...what? No I thought you had never heard these things before... “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.” - Barak Obama 14, March 2008 on the Huffington Post Weblog.

Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely � just as I�m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Yes and by and large we either leave said church or bring it up in private to the man or woman. Glad you condemn the remarks, but you are still associated with this man.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren�t simply controversial. They weren�t simply a religious leader�s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country � a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright�s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems � two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

They are selling DVD's of these sermons at the Church Gift Shop. sigh

But the truth is, that isn�t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God�s work here on Earth � by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Coincidentally he believes the Government created AIDS to keep the black man down.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

�People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend�s voice up into the rafters�.And in that single note � hope! � I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion�s den, Ezekiel�s field of dry bones. Those stories � of survival, and freedom, and hope � became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn�t need to feel shame about�memories that all people might study and cherish � and with which we could start to rebuild.�

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety � the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity�s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

Oprah Whitney left this Church due to Rev. Wright's preaching.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions � the good and the bad � of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

Geraldine's bias was purely realism, and not something particularly divisive. Tasteless sure.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America � to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we�ve never really worked through � a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Change the subject...good.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, �The past isn�t dead and buried. In fact, it isn�t even past.� We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven�t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today�s black and white students.

Yeah well “government schools” are the ones with the problem...and all you want to do is involve more levels of government in them. Its like failing your way to the bank.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments � meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today�s urban and rural communities.

Yes, but only to a small degree, more it is the perception that these things that kept families down in the past should continue to. That is not the case by and large.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one�s family, contributed to the erosion of black families � a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

Yeah because it made them feel less masculine and more dependent on the government. It made them lazy.

And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods � parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement � all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

Yes and more: how about that when it comes to government projects they were just GIVEN these residences rather than being forced to earn them and have some equity and pride. Thats why they are run down and pieces of shit.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What�s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn�t make it � those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.

Failure is part of life...not everyone can be a billionaire. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations � those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright�s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician�s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright�s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don�t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience � as far as they�re concerned, no one�s handed them anything, they�ve built it from scratch. They�ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they�re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren�t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.

No the Reagan coalition was over opposing Soviet adventure-ism, improving the economy by cutting taxes and at least trying to control spending, and something you might be familiar with Mr. Obama and that is Morning in America...and attempt to bring hope back to this country's people after the depressing Carter years of stag-flation and malaise...Carter actually created the Malaise Index.

Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze � a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns � this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It�s a racial stalemate we�ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy � particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction � a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people � that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances � for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives � by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American � and yes, conservative � notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright�s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright�s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It�s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country � a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen � is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope � the audacity to hope � for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds � by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world�s great religions demand � that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother�s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister�s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle � as we did in the OJ trial � or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright�s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she�s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we�ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, �Not this time.� This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can�t learn; that those kids who don�t look like us are somebody else�s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don�t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

Don't forget the illegal aliens.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn�t look like you might take your job; it�s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should�ve been authorized and never should�ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we�ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn�t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation � the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I�d like to leave you with today � a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King�s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that�s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother�s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn�t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they�re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who�s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he�s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, �I am here because of Ashley.�

�I�m here because of Ashley.� By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

Ok...continue...

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

NO NO NO NO NO...it is not a start. If we can't afford this Iraq war then we sure as shit cannot afford “universal health care” The United States has at a minimum a 56 Trillion Dollar debt outstanding in unfunded mandates (Social Security, Prescription Drug Benefits...etc) Which is by the way more than THREE TIMES THE VALUE OF ALL ASSETS in the UNITED STATES..including land and resources.

Thank you,

Justin Cody

another dumb editor who didn't really read the book because he has a lazy mind

Contemporary liberal using fascism inappropriately alert!

I was never on his show,” Gore Vidal, with whom Mr. Buckley had a famous feud, said on Thursday. “I don’t like fascism much."

nothing fascist about Buckely's show as far as I know...it featured guests from Jimmy Carter to Margaret Thatcher. Gore Vidal is a retard? Maybe.

Why do people send me reviews for books they haven't read?

Anyhow here is another rebuttal to an editor who won't read my blog, but is for my bestest (summon Zlad) friend in the whole wide world.

*sigh*

Again I'm going to take fragments of his article which I either considered Hyperbole, Erroneous, Stupid or just plain IGNORANT. Also in many parts it does appear that he got so bored reading the book that he has amnesia.

Ok lets begin at someplace near the beginning.

Michael Tomasky begins by talking about a Marxist Professor and moves on to how bored he is with a well researched book...basically in the first page he throws the book out the window and after that it goes down hill
So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is ultimately oone of the most tedious and inane-- self-negating--books that I have ever read. I suspect our white-coated researchers of the future would conclude mainly that we were a society with too much time on our hands--or at least that there was once a certain Goldberg with far too much time on his. Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture.

It is good to see that on page 1 of 7 the reviewer has kept an open mind. Of course this is in THE NEW REPUBLIC...

So let us break this down: People who are intelligent and well read from the future will think this book is stupid because Mr. Tomasky thinks its stupid...thus making him a forward thinking individual whose intellect is unquestionable. Well great. Good thing we've already reached the "If you don't agree with me then you are an idiot" phase of the argument. I had a roommate like this in college...he was a moron and suffered from Only Child Syndrome. I have no idea about Mr. Tomasky's mental state but he is quite the master of out of hand dismissals.

Moving on...

The chief "rival identity," of course, is that of conservatism, and Goldberg, a noisy conservative pundit, has as his stated agenda the need "to dismantle the granite-like assumption in our political culture that American conservatism is an offshoot or cousin of fascism." He makes it abundantly clear that when some dopey lefty calls George W. Bush (or, for that matter, Jonah Goldberg) a fascist it really grates his cheese, and so he has set out to even the libelous score. He has taken it upon himself to make the case that fascism really has its antecedents on the left--that the American Progressive movement "was a sister movement of fascism." He shows that many American progressives in the 1920s, and even into the 1930s, expressed admiration for aspects of Italian or German society--Lincoln Steffens, or Rexford G. Tugwell. (He also makes it clear with thirty-two citations of this magazine that he considers it something like the historic house organ of liberal fascism.)

As to the libelous score...language is something to be respected and not thrown about carelessly or changed to fit one's own views. Words by definition have meaning. Yes he sites the New Republic 32 times...let us see why.

Page 11) "We are trying out the economics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages," - George Soule Editor of The New Republic writing in reference to the FDR administration.

Page 28) Giuseppe Prezzolini, a frequent contributor to THE NEW REPUBLIC, who would later become a respected professor at Columbia University, was one of Fascism's (meaning Italian Fascism as Mr. Goldberg only capitalizes Fascism for Italy's version) earliest literary and ideological architects.

I'll find one more of the 32 citations just for shits and giggles...

Ah here we go Herbert Croly...Founding Editor of the New Republic...oh heck time for several of his quotes. This quote comes from his book "The Promise of American Life."

"An individual has no meaning apart from the society in which his individuality has been formed."

Well damn Mr. Croly you are a fecking genius, let me tip my hat to you; you just said that person's environment determines his or her behavior and he or she would feel out of place in a different society? Well actually you said that their personality has no merit in a different society...so you're a douchebag and by extension your entire world view. Of course I don't believe that, but hey I just had to use Tomasky's logic.

And if Mr. Tomasky had actually bothered to read this book in a thoughtful manner (not in one marathon sitting) he would have had far fewer headaches and actually been able to process what was in there. But no he tried to PLOW through 465 pages of dense information and analysis. No wonder it seemed so boring. I'm sure he would try to read the whole Lord of the Rings in one sitting then blow his head off and wonder why there was so much damn poetry and singing.

Fail...epic fail, and you did it wrong.

moving on...

But very little of the story he tells is news to students of history. We had already heard that Steffens said of the Soviet Union, "I have been over into the future, and it works," so it is not exactly a shock to read that he had kind words for a similarly regimented society. We similarly understand that the Wilson administration did indeed shut down The Masses and fan racism and xenophobia and round up radicals, and no liberal today thinks of these moves as things to be proud of or to duplicate. We are also acutely aware that some New Dealers were fans of the totalitarian Soviet Union. Roosevelt's second vice-president was one such, and he kicked Henry Wallace off the ticket in 1944 for just that reason. Since Roosevelt did not manage to keep Wallace's expulsion out of the papers, it is not exactly a secret.

From the first sentence he is well off base. Most US history courses, including A.P. US History and all of the non-decade specific courses I took at University spoke about much of what happened during the WWI period other than...here's how the war started and america got involved...the end. When it comes to the New Deal there are discussions of work programs and social security and maybe the Smoot Hawley tariff act but certainly not the inner workings and motivations of the Roosevelt Administration. History courses certainly aren't that exacting. The average person is not tolld this history because the average person is taught to a test. Kicking Wallace off the ticket is well besides the point as there were more than just him in the administration who thought favorably of Stalin and his ilk.

Tomasky so far has at least used two logical fallacies:

1) Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon: reference the future people who would thing we are stupid for writing/reading this book

2) Irrelevent Appeal: Wallace being removed from the ticket

3) Ad Hominim: declaring the book boring and unnecessary for intelligentpeople to read

4) The Intelligent Socialist Appeal: See Appeal to Authority.

Continuing:

We have also recognized, since at least the 1950s and in some prescient instances even earlier, that certain consanguinities between the far left and the far right did exist in those days, and that the Nazi program was in some respects a left-wing program, appealing on a class basis--and, always, a racial basis--to German workers and the petit bourgeoisie.

No you haven't...that is just an outright lie. Heck I've had arguments with my BESTEST friend in the whole wide world about ust that issue...in fact most political text books still describe Hitler as Right Wing...and thats true only if you mean he is to the RIGHT of an avowed Marxist by about a picometer. Of course racism has noting to do with Fascism...more with german fascism and progressivism in the USA. In fact it has more to do with the prevailing social model and geography than anything else. But in the case of this book racism is used as an example of how fascism/socialism/communism uses some external enemy to incite the populace in to action. Doesn't HAVE to be racism, but it has to be SOMETHING.

ever onward...

"Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left." Now that is revisionism. But for all his chapter and verse on the proletarian rhetoric that Nazis employed, Goldberg somehow forgets to mention certain other salient matters, like the fact that within three months of taking power Hitler banned trade unions--and on the day after May Day, 1933. Their money was confiscated and their leaders imprisoned. And the trade unions were replaced with the Nazi "union" called the German Labor Front, which took away the right to strike. Hitler did many worse things, of course. I single out this act because it would hardly seem to be the edict of a "man of the left." And there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism, none of which seem to have found their way into the pages of Liberal Fascism.

Ok now just previously Tomasky had admitted that Hitler could be considered leftist and in fact it has been thought so for the last 58 years. So it is NOT revisionsism, and he doesn't FORGET to mention the destruction of the trade unions...they aren't necessary whent he STATE TAKES OVER THE UNIONS DUTIES...AND NO YOU CAN"T STRIKE AGAINST THE STATE WHICH HAS YOUR OWN GOOD IN MIND. Its not "right-wing" to bust unions in this manner it is decidedly Bismarckian and socialist where the state nationalizes what was previously a private endeavor. They hate liberals and communists because as Goldberg points out...they were fighting FOR THE SAME CONSTITUENCY. TOmasky's argument there is like saying Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton hate eachother so...one of them isn't a Democrat by that virtue. Yet another fallacy.

These points are not all that is missing from Goldberg's "analysis." I wondered, while reading his execration of Wilson (with which one can agree up to a point) how he could be so worked up about "liberty cabbage"--the name given to sauerkraut during World War I, in a fit of xenophobic bowdlerization-- as evidence that America was at the time an explicitly fascist state, without it occurring to him that maybe, just maybe, his conscience should compel him to make note of our more recent business about "freedom fries." Remember this was not an abstraction: the name of French fries was in fact changed to "freedom fries" in all the House of Representatives cafeterias in 2003. But of this, not a word.

Ok... so the Congress was fascist in naming the fries freedom fries...whoopdi doo: Doesn't negate his point in any way. And the argument is again followed by a fallacy...where he makes it out as if the liberty cabbage was the ONLY fascist thing that happened. He also makes the excuse that current bad behavior excuses past bad behavior because somehow now its ok to...oh forget it its just a twisted argument that holds no water.

And why not a word, except for the lazy intellectual deception with which he had to know some reviewer would charge him? Here is where Liberal Fascism gets simply ridiculous. For Goldberg, the fact that Progressivism and totalitarianism shared certain traits--a belief in the possibility of collective action through the state, basically--tells him all he needs to know about both creeds. Ipso facto, any totalitarian impulse must therefore have leftish origins. Never mind that there actually was a totalitarianism for which the left was responsible--the one called communism. Goldberg is after more arcane understandings.

The left was responsible for Fascism in Italy and Germany, not "conservatism" as it is practiced today. It was progressivism and socialism that resulted in "totalitarianism" (Nothing is outside the State) and Fascism. So now he'scallingthe 465 page volume
that was admittedly well researched...lazy...or arcane, either way Tomasky thinks you should not be interested. Another Ad Hominem. Yay.

Meanwhile his own creed, conservatism, is a thing entirely apart, a blameless and wholesome--and, it practically goes without saying, vastly outnumbered--tendency that has had to fight Nazis and communists and liberals alike tooth and nail so as to prevent any sign of the incubation of a religion of the state. Hence there is no connection between "liberty cabbage" and "freedom fries": the former was the handiwork of statist brainwashers, the latter the handiwork of the native rising up of noble individualists.

He forgot to read the last chapter. It hammers on conservatives. Also the title of the book should have told him (plus reading the dust jacket) that this book had a certain purpose and he's still somehow appraently expecting some kind of equal excoriation.

That Hitler had the backing of many conservative financiers whose names are well-known to history but missing from this book--Fritz Thyssen, Hjalmar Schacht, and the rest--isn't interesting to this conservative student of fascism. That Hitler and his cohort were vegetarians and health nuts, and thus similar to some left-leaning Americans today--now that is fascinating! Why, Dachau even "produced its own organic honey." What better proof of the kinship between fascism and liberalism?

Actually Hitler only had the backing AFTER he was gaining power and businesses (like they do) got behind the front runner so they weren't seen as enemies. And yes they were health nuts...germany was one of the first to ban smoking and also strip its citizens of their personal firearms (gun control). The state knows what is best for you...that is the message. These are additional examples however minor to show HOW FAR the government reaches in to your life. That is...as far as it thinks it should at the time...no limit. Tomasky fails to maintain coherence here by simply ommitting persuasive facts and placing in their place seemingly harmless things like Organic Honey and the like...as if somehow the ONLY reason dachau was fascist was because of the honey...riiiight.

I could stop here but I won't.

for the Grand Finale I'm going line by line.

Read again the passage I cited above, Goldberg's definition of fascism.

No its your interpretation of his definition of Fascism.

Is it really equally true of liberalism and fascism that each "views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good"?

Yes the only difference is that one preaches revolution and the other incrementalism.

Is it equally true under each system that "everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives"?

Yes. Otherwise you are a racist bigoted homophobe.

Is there really no appreciable difference--how clever, the way he slides quickly past this!-- between "force" and "regulation and social pressure"?

Its called deductive reasoning. Social pressure often brings about regulation and force.

This is ignorant nonsense, and over the course of four hundred pages it becomes excruciatingly dreary nonsense.

Fail. Ad Hominem.

Goldberg would have difficulty distinguishing between, say, seat-belt laws and the banning of political parties.

Exaggeration...Hyperbole...and again called Mr.Goldberg stupid.

Yes, the former may well be a manifestation of the "nanny state," but it does have an indisputable social utility--and more importantly it is not exactly comparable to the latter.

Well yes...now we have the appeal to sanity after all of that.

Is Social Security a fascist program?

Yes..its is fascist and socialist and communist, but its a nice and soft form of it...like Goldberg says throughout the book. The New Deal is not about mass genocides.

Goldberg implies as much, partly because Roosevelt felt moved to push for the program owing to pressure from his (admittedly) quasi-fascistic left in the persons of Huey Long and Father Coughlin, and partly because Social Security is, after all, administered by the state.

He doesn't IMPLY it, he comes out and syas it many times.

And once you start implementing public pension systems, well, how far away can the execution of political opponents really be?

And again we have an outright lie. Goldberg is very careful to say that one does not always lead to the other, and in the USA it is unlikely for this to happen at all because our version is softer and nicer and more incremental to avoid many of the big social problems Europe eerienced.

Thanks for reading.

Barbequeueueueueueueue at my place.

,

zomg people who can't self examine

AHEM! ATTN David Oshinsky your Membership in the Saul Alinsky Club is ready...but here's a point by point refutation (by and large) of your critique of "Liberal Fascism" Anything left out was done so because it was excessive and or so ignorant I chose to ignore it.

"Goldberg is less convincing here because he can’t get a handle on Roosevelt’s admittedly elusive personality. He treats Wilson as a serious thinker, rigidly focused on his goals, but portrays Roosevelt as a classic dilettante, shallow and detached. For Goldberg, even the president’s greatest skill — his ability to communicate with the masses — was negated by his failure to chart a steady course and stick to it. One is left to ponder how the outlines of America’s modern welfare state emerged from such a lazy, superficial mind."

- mistake here is that Goldberg was saying he was shallow in that his ideas were large ideas and even the monetary policy was simplistic/detached from reality. That doesn't negate that he thought about it seriously or was focused rigidly...

Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease. This allows him to dispose of the politics of the 1920s in a single sentence. “After the Great War,” he writes, “the country slowly regained its sanity.” What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane. This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

ok this will take a while

to point 1) The title of the book answers this and the reviewer is a moron. David did you eve read it? Perhaps you just skimmed.

point 2) Prohibition: passed over a presidential veto; Roosevelt didn't get rid of it on his own, but it was shown to be a failure and the states, congress and Roosevelt got rid of it

point 3) the KKK was largely made up of Democrats and not Republicans. there was no "Republican" mid-west like there is today; Roosevelt's 4 time election proves this, and many of our grandparents are life long democrats despite having little philosophically in common with said party.

The Scopes Monkey Trial...pfff that's just off topic because its got nothing to do with the feds...that's a Godwin. The NOA is just another quota system like the US govt has always had. We have never had "open immigration".

"The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson-Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act, (43 Statutes-at-Large 153) was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration to the US of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely.

The Act passed with strong congressional support in the wake of intense lobbying. [1] There were only six dissenting votes in the Senate and a handful of opponents in the House, the most vigorous of whom was freshman Brooklyn Representative Emanuel Celler. Over the succeeding four decades, Celler, who served for almost 50 years, made the repeal of the Act into a personal crusade. Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory.

The act was also strongly supported by Samuel Gompers, well-known union leader and founder of the AFL. Gompers was himself a Jewish immigrant, and uninterested in the accusations by many Jews of the time that the quotas were based purely on anti-Semitism." - Wiki

The NOA as you can see was broadly supported by those who favored Eugeniucs and believed that certain peoples were of a lesser race. The eugienics thing was as we now know...stupid, but it had its appeal based some in racism and some in science...bad blend. And its supporters were unions and socialists who had their own businesses.

"I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do."

Point 1) Fine...very well but then you can say that about any popular candidate/populist message. Doesn't make it untrue. Fascism creeps in everywhere.

Point 2) GWB landing on the carrier was becuase he WAS A PILOT in the Air Guard in Texas. Full Battle Regalia? WTF it was a regulation flight suit...you don't pilot a fighter jet in a suit and tie.

Point 2a) The mission accomplished banner was for the USS Abraham Lincoln which had the longest deployment of a US Carrier ever and it had in-fact completed its mission for Afghanistan and then for Iraq. The banner was not for the Iraq war as a whole as it had been mistakenly portrayed in the media and by politicians/pundits. Good bit of Propaganda tho on their part. The last senstence is just playing a victim and being a pussy. Call the Whaaaambulance. END

- Justin
Barbequeueueueueueueueueued!

Better Business Practices

As my few readers may or may not be aware of, subprime lender New Century Financial Corp has lost over 90% of its stock value and is nearly out of business as it cannot meet its obligations to shareholders and to its own bottom line. There are many companies that aren't profitable years in a row. However, very few of those companies literally gamble with stockholders money and at the same time rip off the consumer.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing as a progression from Mercantilism...but a horrible things when even in the most highly regulated industry a company can act the way New Century and other subprime lenders have. These companies acted in a very irresponsible manner. They extended credit to those who did not qualify. Our parents tell us that money doesn't grow on trees...apparently subprime lenders didn't take this to heart.

Yes I am going to keep linking that site every time I mention subprime lenders. In my work with and for Primerica FInancial Services we routinely run across families and individuals ruined by these kinds of practices. Forget about what is going to happen to the company and to its employees as that is not important. What is important is that these people to whom credit was irresponsibly extended will now most likely have their houses or condo's taken away from them by whomever buys this debt. The debt is not going to disappear...there is no fairy fucking godmother called the IMF that can just zero out debt for the consumer...no only governments have that privilege and even then it is not easy...the IMF most times would rather drive a country to financial ruin...but that is another article.

These people aren't going to get away with essentially theft of shareholder $$. Those mortgages were an investment that is contractually bound...and the contracts are not broken because the originator of the loan goes bye bye...noooooo its not that easy, the contract shifts to whoever buys the debt. And no you can't renegotiate. These people had better be glad that there are no more debtors prisons any more.

The company had horrible (but legal) business practices. The people however had horrible (but still legal) judgment. The problem there is that you (the lend-eeeeeee) gets held accountable more then the originator (lenderrrrrrr). So each and everyone of those people will be foreclosed upon...now for those of you who are smart about property you will be able to find some bargains coming on the market soon so keep your eyes out.

I know...I know..it seems bad to say you can profit form their misery, but the investment bankers who come knocking want to get rid of this debt (which the industry is legally obligated to split up evenly among the largest firms). So do your country a favor and buy this property...rent it out and pay off your fixed rate fixed term home loan in half the time.

I just told you how to become wealthy

If I wasn't already up to my eyeballs in debt I'd do it.

Cheers

derka derka mohammed jihad

In honor of my first business experience with a muslim...I hereby do proclaim it is a pain in the ass with any close knit ethnicity to avoid their own version of political nepotism system.

So I was doing my presentation for an energy conservation project and while he liked what he was hearing (including the fact that the building owner gets a tax deduction up to $1.80/sq foot or the material cost of the project: he gets the lesser of the two) He still wanted to (as my father says) "jew me down". Well yes...every jewish friend I've had has been somewhat stingy (Dave, Eric...and others), but they always pay for something that is beneficial. This motherfarker is trying to rip me off and make me take a loss on the project despite the fact that 30% of the project is being paid for by the utilities.

Of course he doesn't pay his electric bill on time, so he doesn't get the 36 month o% interest loan. Heh if he'd only been less of a cunt when it came to that he'd have to pay NO money up front.

The loan is provided via CityBank, and the interest is paid by the CT Clean Energy Fund which is why it is a 0% interest rate. The 30% incentive is from a $0.003 charge all CT rate payers have on their electric bill.

Anyhoo...this guy wants to sit down over a lunch, and haggle me down to what HE thinks it should cost. Of course he wants to bring in his brother who runs a construction company...sheesh.

So here's the deal on why the project costs what it does.

Numerous Fire Code Violations: severely damaged and inoperable exit lights, and non-code wiring to existing fixtures. Plus we are changing his lighting grid around, and we are charging him for disposal costs of the lamps and ballasts. Oh and we pay our electricians decent money instead of doing what some places do which is charge 80/hour but only pay 20/hour to the workers, and take the rest for the company's profit.

In our case our pricing schemes are dictated to us in unit prices (i.e. a certain fixture takes x$ of labor to install/retro/whatever) by the utility company. so we CAN'T mark stuff up for a nice thick profit like others including union shops.

Even if he paid us cash we might be able to knock the price down by MAYBE $500...and even so that is damned close to a loss for us. The margins are tight and as far as I am concerned he can go fark himself with a red hot poker or just have his asshole brother do the project.

Kilowatt Dark Horse

I have been noticeably absent from my blog for nary four months now. As a quick update I have begun working as a junior project manager for an electrical contractor and I have been growing to enjoy the job. Working in a small business has its advantages and disadvantages. The biggest advantage is getting to know the people and the business. The disadvantage is that work is feast or famine. However, the experience is unlike what many get even in the larger corporations since the responsibility is greater even if I don't get all the fancy tools.

However, being a project manager means a couple very big things. I have to generate the work...that I am to later assign to a foreman and manage. While the foreman supervises the actual work, I have to do all of the proposals and contract information and basically be the interface between the workers, company and utilities. The average startup IT worker is nothing but a drone until the boss decides to take him under his wing. Here if I do well enough...I can begin to dictate my salary.

But enough about my life...let us talk about the Kilowatt Dark Horse.

The great unknown in the USA at this time is a comprehensive energy policy that is truly comprehensive and IS NOT necessarily ideologically driven. Each side brings relevant concerns to the table and the biggest difference is how to get people to change. Those on the conservative or libertarian side want to encourage change via positive economic stimuli, whereas by and large those on the liberal/socialist/progressive side wish to use more punitive measures such as increased taxation and wealth redistribution in order to get the same goal. Except of course results do vary.

For vast amounts of power currently nuclear is the only decent long term solution if we want to wean ourselves from oil/natural gas, the vast amount coming from regions whose governments do not have OUR best interests on their minds.

Now of course we have a problem with nuclear waste storage and disposal. To that end there have been quite a few breakthroughs in advanced materials science and in fact biology in how nuclear waste can be broken down and the radiation absorbed in a safer manner than the traditional ::DO NOT TOUCH:: method (akin to the rhythm method for trying not to get a woman preggers).

Current reactors in the USA produce enough waste that has to be stored for 10,000 years. Not good. Research funded and supported by the Bush Administration (<3 biiiig oil) is directed at creating a new generation of reactors that actually recycle their own waste brining the amount of waste down to a level only to be stored for 500 years. Ok that isn't perfect, but it is a damned sight better than the current breeder and "slow" reactors.

As for actually storing them Texas A & M University has made a breakthrough seen HERE for separation and storage for the various kinds of radioactive waste that does not involve the more dangerous and experimental "pyro-processing" method which is rather strangely advocated in the Bush Admin's Energy Policy.

Half right...not bad, could be better.

Of course even if the technology was there, the government might have to use the power of eminent domain in order to get new plants built. People have a rather acute case of NIMBY when it comes to anything from oil rigs, to wind farms, to anything that might conceivably inconvenience them (Here's looking at you MA Senators). As sad as it seems people do not have their own long term interests in mind. So the power companies for investing in new infrastructure should perhaps not be compensated, but at least given an incentive to build (tax deduction, permit fast track, but regulations should not be eased per se without careful review).

Different areas of our country have different needs and different abilities to produce energy for comsumption. Areas like northern Maine, Alaska, Washington State and others have very dramatic tidal flows. It is in places like these that tidal generators are useful, including in rivers that are tidal like the Penobscot River which has a twenty foot tide in Bangor, Maine. In the mid west, and yes desert areas wind power is a very good idea and deserts also can support a robust solar power system.

In the end we will also have to decentralize our power grid, and neighborhoods and individuals will transform to provide their own power, via solar arrays, and geothermal taps, to a degree that the grid is freed of most of its burden today. So much so in fact that the evil utilities will pay you for any excess you generate. And while not much...it might be enough to take your family out to a movie and dinner. Good enough for me.

People should be encouraged to build new homes with this point of view in mind, getting either a tax reduction on the property, or a tax deduction on their income tax to write off the cost of this equipment, and the increased value of the property as consequence. Towns should look at this as a promotion to live in a "green" community rather than looking for more $$ to support a failing system.

The one thing that we do not need to do is to say "if you don't switch to X-type of power generation within Y-Time frame then we will make you pay out of your @$$ in taxes to maintain the lifestyle that you want. If we give people a choice, and the case is made that one is better for both the wallet (in the long term) and the world at large, then people who want to live in a nice community will switch over, but there have to be incentives first.

The biggie is research and development and how to distribute the funding. The question isn't whether or not to do research. So first is how to distribute funding for pure research. Pure research ought to receive not the bulk, but say 30% (arbitrary in my mind) of the money. Practical lines that have more immediate payoffs ought to get the other 70% spread out between advanced materials and grants for prototype construction and demonstration.

Development is separate and is related to upgrading our existing grid to something more sensible. Currently a major northeast junction runs in the CANADA!!. No that is not acceptable from more than one stand point. I like Canada and its people by and large (amazing beef jerky). Having said that, I am not in the business of putting the northeast megalopolis (Boston - DC) in the hands of another country no matter how clean or French...in fact especially because of the Quebeqois.

Decentralize the power system, make people less dependent on the large utilities and the nation less vulnerable. Give grants to the utilities and municipal producers/distributors to modernize their systems.

The fact is that a project of this magnitude is larger than the space program and possibly larger than The Manhattan Project. It will take a true leader to push this through. Incremental-ism will only lead to loopholes, earmarks and a large corrupt bureaucracy.

The culture needs to change so that early adoption of a good technology is not penalized, rather the economies of scale are sped up by proper use (or non-use in the case of tax deductions) of public funds or policy.

Belated Post

A great deal of interesting news has come out while I havebeen away.

It is election season and while the Republicans might holda majority in the house and senate, it will not be a very significant one. The Republican party has by and large betrayed itself with a hear no evil seeno evil speak no evil attitude towards its own members. I am still a great believer in the Republican party, but only a Republican party that has much higher standardsof practice when it comes to member accountability. Regardless of external ethics rules, the party needs to police itself internally much better. Politicians should be careful about how they profit while in office, and while I think they have the right to be enterprising, they should maintain a levelof propriety that is above reproach.

Politicians have incredible access to money, power and avenues to increase those that normal citizens do not [Harry Reid Land deal]. While Harry Reid did nothing illegal, his actions were not above reproach. No Harry Reid's actions rise nowhere near the level of say Jack Abramoff and Co. But they were still not the cleanest of actions.

Tom Delay has been accused of some crimes, but so far nothing has come to light that substantiate the allegations. We shall se where that leads.

Mark Foley, well that was a landmine. He voted for a bill that became a law making his actions illegal. Well thats just stupid. So now he is a creep on par with Jon Mark Karr. He is out of office, and is also an alcoholic... Well great. The House leadership...what did they know? Well just as much as the FBI who also sought to do nothing about the origianal alleged emails. The IM's were something sandbagged by someone, some pranks others apparetly real.

I hope the public can screen the candidates betterthemselves. The funny thing is that even wives sometimes don't really know their own husbands and vice versa, so really getting to know your elected official can be an astronomical task. But it is our duty as citizens to keep these people accountable. Each election, each press conference, and each session of Congress.

due dilligence is the price we pay for having a representative government.

2 cents

Liberals see American political conservatives as a greater threat than jihadists. Their axis of evil is not Iran, Hamas or Chavez, but Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. How utterly simplistic and small-minded they have become, like foolish children whose world is so small that they are more angry at parents than vicious despots they are unable to comprehend.

How true it is that prosperous civilizations eventually die because the bored among them have pushed the envelope so far that nothing remains but self-destruction, suicide -- born of national self-hate. Children spoiled by their parents usually end up hating their parents, biting the hands that fed them. And spoiled citizens usually end up hating and turning on the very country that gave them everything.

- Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Stuff

Well I haven't posted in over a month due to starting TWO new jobs. Beware for MercNet Logistics LLC is near to becoming a reality ;).

As for the real topic...

Afghanistan has clearly been sidelined as a major US priority over the media driven debacle in Iraq. This is a shame since Afghanistan has far more public support and deserves more attention which the warlords growing poppy are happy not to have. Of course the question is, as far as poppy farming goes, what can they grow instead of poppy that will give them the same guarantee of income? I don't rightly know, but chances are that matters would be better if major nations such as the USA began geting rid of farm subsidies and normalized prices of their goods on the international market. Farmers would be saddened and probably heavuly lobby good ole congress to pay em not to do work again. Sure i'd like Congress to pay me not to work so the intrinsic value of my services would rise... (work 4 hours get paid for 8 because I'm paying Congress back with 2hrs of that money as a favor/kickback).

Afghanis should be angry at us for not delivering on our word as we should have. The initial war effort was a spectacular success. The US Military is truly the best conventional fighting force on Earth at this point in time, and I am very proud of that. Sadly between the first Bush and later Clinton defense cut backs our Military is thin. Rumsfeld is doing a magnificent job at making it more streamlined, so that what forces we do have are more mobile and efficient. Yes we have quality troops, pilots and sailors, but we still do need quantity. Drone ships,planes and tanks will help to make up some of the difference as well as automated defense systems, but those are still only ancillary to bots on the ground. Clearly no one has learned from the history of the Roman Republic, and later Empire. The USA is not conuering larger swathes of territory than it can control via domestic measures, but still the barbarians are at the gates and we try and "talk reason" with them, as if both our interests are served by coming to a consensus. Well the Afghanis do not have the same interests as say... George W. Bush. George, like the much renowned Woodrow Wilson, thinks we ought to make the world safe for democracy. This goes against the right of self determination. We are no better for "imposing" democracy on anyone than we would be for backing dictators that were pro-US in the Cold-War. If a people are not willing themselves to fight for their own freedom, then they do not deserve it.
In Iran, suposedly there are many who wish to take up arms to overthrow their current government. How much less expensive for us would it be to arm them, provide some measure of intel and political support than it would be to invade them? ure a movement like that would take a decade or maybe more to grow in to a successful entity, but we do need to be patient.
Afghanis are still by and large aligned with their "tribes", social groups, or other entities that we associate with pre-agriculture/urbanized societies. Yes Afghanistan has cities, but they are nothing like even in Iraq. Telling Afghanis to love democracy is like telling oragnized crime to love Federal Distric Attorneys. What I mean by that is that they will love it as long as they can game the system and seek some kind of partiality or advantage whether by getting an agent in place, or paying off the agent. Thats not to say that those in the USA don't have those same ideas, but the pressure for doing this is lessened in a society that is more concentrated on the individual than large family groups or ethnic lines.
How do we win in Afghanistan? I can't say that I have the only answer but I believe part of that answer is to create a Middle East Economic Development Zone (MEEDZ) where the nations in that area can enter in to a cooperative free trade zone. Develop a trade law system that encourages investment, and legal standards for equitable employment. That doesn't mean that there shouldbe a minimum wage, as the price of labor should be market driven, but there should be even standards for hiring, firing and adjudication of cases in the employment arena. We should help them set up a base for their legal system, but they should develop a body of law independent of what we have. So what does Afghanistan have that it can do cheaper than anyone else in the world at the moment? Heroin. What can it do? Well I don't know, but that can be analyzed by Wolfowitz in his position at the World Bank. If the Warlords could be seen as "Govenors" rather than Warlords I am sure their public relations would be better. Afghan law could even maintain that provinces could choose the govenor based on any criteria that they passed. A provincial sub-seetion of laws would be similar to US State Election laws becuase we also do not have sweeping federal election laws. Some exist yes, but by and large each state has its own set of election laws. translating this theory in to a provincial system might be of some advantage. Govenors could be hereditary, or elected, or appointed by the provincial legislature/national legislature. Leave it up to the provinces to have a "congress" and create charters dictating the base rules, set up provincial courts and jurisdictions. The Afghani national government would control disputes between provinces, but leave alone any internal matters.
People are by and large easier to deal with in small groups or homogeneous populations as there are fewer conflicts of interest and less of a diversity of opinions. Let us treat the Afghanis as people rather than some abstract entity that we think to be homogeneous. Let them draw their own provinces based on ethnic or racial lines, or however they see fit. Work out national election balance similar to our own federal system wherethe legislature is bicameral (two houses for those who haven't taken a civics class). Our founders were rather genius when they planned out the final version of our government in 1786. That was changed in a very large way with directly electing the senate (a mistake in my opinion) and one we could set right in Aghanistan.
Afghanis suffer from a lack of law more recent than the 13th century, but that is mostly due to the Russian invasion in 1979 and lasted 9 years. The USA sponsored the rebellion and in effect created Al Qaeda...which has come back to bite us. But that is neither here nor there. That was smart policy by Reagan to fight a proxy war, as that wwas how the Russians played Vietnam with us...supporting the North with weapons and intel. The USA's biggest issue is like any world power; over confidence/arrogance. When we were finished with those militia we had armed and operated with, we cut them loose; not bothering to follow up and consolidate matters politically. We got what we wanted to a degree...lots of dead Soviets, but we didn't necessarily GAIN anything from it, and we left the Afghanis treading water.
Could the US have swoped in as a trade partner, without acting like an economic imperialist? Maybe but that is tough in a society that prizes competition over cooperation. Our economic policies should be culturally sensitive, and sometimes even restrained capitalism like ours can be a shock. and yes we are restrained quite a bit in our commercial practices now. However the Afghanis once again need to modernize their domestic trade law to something that they can accept and modify over time as wants change.
What can the US do now? Everything we should have done in 1989. It is still not too late to be fair.

yes... in the end we should be judicious in all that we do.