Friday, October 10, 2008

On the Brink of Collapse, Palin-McCain Indulge Smear Jobs and Distractions

McCain-Palin refuse to talk about the fact that the US and the world face the biggest economic collapse since the GOP brought you the Great Depression. McCain Palin want to talk about someone Obama might have met when he was eight years old!

Palin-McCain want the US to repeat the GOP/ideological strategies that brought us to this point: 1) enriching the tiny elite which alone have benfited from GOP tax cuts, bailouts, and preferential treatments; 2) raising the tax burden on everyone else who must take up the slack. In other words, McCain-Palin want to keep on raping the nation and blaming the victim. It's the GOP way. Rather than rewarding this gang of crooks with an election win, I want to round up the Bush administration and put it on trial at the Hague, charge it with war crimes, crimes against the peace, torture and other violations of Geneva and Nuremberg.

To distract you, McCain-Palin resort to tired old GOP tactics --smear jobs and distractions.

McCain’s course correction reflects a growing case of nerves within his high command as the electoral map has shifted significantly in Obama’s favor in the past two weeks.

“It’s a dangerous road, but we have no choice,” a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. “If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose.”

--New York Daily News:

McCain's attitudes about the corporate takeover of the us government dates to the role his played in the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 80s and 90s when McCain was accused of 'improperly aiding his political patron, Charles Keating' who was chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association at the time. An investigation by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee resulted in McCain getting reprimanded for his role. McCain is, in fact, the only major party Presidential nominee in US history to have been "...rebuked, censured or otherwise admonished after a Congressional investigation." [See: Keating Economics: John McCain and hte Making of a Financial Crisis]

Two bailouts in a period of some two weeks or less hasn't worked. Panicked investors withdrew 52 billion from US managed stock and bond funds in a period of a week or less. Investors had already withdrawn $72.3 billion in September --the biggest withdrawal ever in a single month.

Years ago, I wrote in 'The Opinion' that GOP strategy was best summed up: just keep on doing whatever makes you sick! Even then, the numbers were unmistakable: every Democratic president since FDR had outperformed every GOP President in every key economic index, notably, job growth and overall GDP. Moreover, Bill Clinton had reversed a trend begun with Reagan's tax cut for the rich. It was Reagan's tax cut that not only triggered a depression of some two years --the worst since the Great Depression --it triggered a trend that is always worse under GOP regimes: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This trend abated in Clinton's second term only to resume with Bush and yet another round of GOP largesse to those who don't need it.

That was not the only trend reversed by Bill Clinton. The ratio of gross national debt to to GDP was at its lowest level since 1931 when Ronald Reagan took office. Under Reagan, it did not last long. Ronald Reagan ran up historically high debt and deficit --a trend that 'skyrocketed' through twelve years of Reagan/Bush. The official charts from every agency prove conclusively that Bill Ciinton had reversed those pernicious trends as well. Another myth is that Reagan was one of the best Presidents for job creation. In reality, he's among the worst:
Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents8


Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6

--U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

But this week, Larry King let a GOP spinmesiter and paid shill get away with characterizing 'unemployment' under Jimmy Carter as 'immense'. Briefly --that is a BALD FACED LIE and to be expected from the GOP. Check the official numbers above. One should expect a morally bankrupt party like the GOP to attack Carter's record. Carter's record on every issue is far, far superior to the miserable performances turned in by EVERY GOP President since 1900.

The GOP is a party of liars. They will lie to you because they lie to themselves daily. It's the only way they can get through the day. If GOPPERS had ever faced the truth about themselves, they would have shot themselves a long time ago.

It took a return to GOP mismanagement, greed and incompetence to undo the good that had been done in Clinton's eight years in the Oval Office. Now the national debt is the highest it's been since 1955 (53 years ago).
Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
  • He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item)
  • He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
  • He loosened controls on Wall Street.
McCain backed all three policies:
  • He backed Bush's tax cuts for the rich and now wants to give them bigger tax cuts.
  • He was gung-ho for the Iraq war from the start.
  • When Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin to name one time McCain suggested regulating Wall Street, she couldn't—because he never did. He crowed in the Wall Street Journal how he was always against regulation.
  • Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
    • 1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).
    • He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
    • He loosened controls on Wall Street.
    As it happens, McCain backed all three policies:
    • He backed Bush's tax cuts for the rich and now wants to give them bigger tax cuts.
    • He was gung-ho for the Iraq war from the start.
    • When Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin to name one time McCain suggested regulating Wall Street, she couldn't—because he never did. He crowed in the Wall Street Journal how he was always against regulation.

--Z facts.com
What if you went to a doctor who told you: 'just keep on eating the greasy foods, lazing around the house, hitting the bottle! Don't take any responsibility for your own health; blame it all on your neighbors!

Bill Clinton's was the ONLY successful presidency since Jimmy Carter left the White House. The GOP would like you to just keep on doing whatever it is that's making the nation sick, bankrupt, deteriorating, collapsing. The GOP has nothing new to offer. At the cost of the republic itself, we have learned the hard way that everything the GOP has ever said has been a lie. Nothing has worked! It's all bullshit!

Addendum: it's not bad enough that the GOP has deliberately bankrupted the nation, Bush worked assiduously to assume dictatorial powers as he put into place a huge federal bureacracy whose only raison d'etre is to spy on you, intimidate you and deny you due process of law. There is a word for this: TYRANNY!


Naomi Wolfe on Tyranny and the US Police State

Published Articles

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Download DivX

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

25 comments:

tiago said...

Len;
You are right, I subscribed using Feedbliz and I’m still not getting your e-mails. I posted on Harkavy’s ‘Press Clips’ this morning and linked to you two pictures about the ‘moran’s wanting to make English the ‘offical’ language.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/pressclips/archives/2008/10/daily_flog_futu.php
That reminded me to visit your site and found 2 additional posts I did not receive.
I do think you have to add one item that skyrocketed the debt. Not only has the supplemental funding for the Wars, as you noted, but the un-reasonable increase in Defense spending this regime has instigated. Not even China and Russia together, spend this much. Some of the expenditures are on Sci Fi gear the military is not equipped to maintain. If it breaks down, it would be cheaper to destroy the equipment and buy new. Other equipment is not up to military specs, but the Pentagon buys it anyway, (armor for Humvees and sub standard vest, for example). Or as Rummy is wont to say; Shit happens, or We go to war with what we have, (your tax dollars).

Unknown said...

Tiago,

I will try to find out what the snafu is at feedblitz. Until now, it's been 100 percent reliable.

In the meantime, there is an easier way to subscribe. If you have a 'reader', you can just drag the 'feed icon' your reader.

There are several free 'readers' or 'aggregators', but I went with the easiest one: the Google Reader. It's a freebie.

Via the reader I get automatic updates and, as far as I know, there is no limit to the number of RSS or ATOM feeds that it will 'aggregate' for you.

Let me know if this helps.

Anonymous said...

The current US financial collapse has almost certainly been actively planned for by Pres.Bush in order to further criminal activities. No US federal agency regulates mortgage lending, that's a province of the states. In 2003 when they collectively sought to legislate against predatory bank lending practices they were blocked by the US Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, acting on Bush's advice. Former New York Governor. Eliot Spitzer (Washington Post, 14 Feb) said this:

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

Bush saw this turmoil coming back in 2003 because 50 US states told him so. He is simply helping his corporate mates to steal a trillion dollars. Richard C.Cook has more. As Cook further notes:

People can’t get loans, not because the credit markets are stalled, but because they have no savings for down payments and can’t afford to repay what they wish to borrow. If they could repay their loans, plenty of credit would be available....What is happening is that the Bush administration is engineering a massive raid on the Federal treasury to pay off the people within the financial industry who have been operating the housing scam because the politicians told them to do it. This is hush money.

It's Bush's final rip off before leaving public office.

Unknown said...

damien said...

It's Bush's final rip off before leaving public office.

They are looting the nation and the world right in front of our eyes. But in the GOP mindset set nothing is truly 'evil' IF you can spin it!

But Bush fucked up! Along the way, he committed capital crimes and there must be thousands, millions of folk who are DETERMINED to bring his sorry ass to justice!

I predict that Bush will be tracked down, laid seige to until he surrenders!

The he must be put on trial for his sorry goddamned life!

Anonymous said...

Len, I found this interesting. It's a good account of the Pentagon attack and it addresses several key evidence features: (1)some witnesses saw an aircraft north of the Citgo service center (the official explanation has AA77 flying south of Citgo); and (2) the timeline shows clearly that the first explosion occurred around 9:31 AM (the official account has it around 9:38). Blogger Terral makes a good case that a missile flew south of Citgo at around 9:31 hugging the ground and masked by an overflying military aircraft of some description. And also that a retrofitted A3 Skywarrior flew north of Citgo around 9:36 loaded with explosives and aircraft parts to provide "evidence" that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. I like it! I think he's close to the mark.

Unknown said...

damien said...

(1)some witnesses saw an aircraft north of the Citgo service center (the official explanation has AA77 flying south of Citgo);

That's consistent with the conclusion I've drawn, that is, the 'citgo' witnesses might have seen Flight 77 at the Altitude recorded by the flight data, that is, 273 feet within a second or less of impact. The 'citgo' witnesses could NOT have seen whatever it was that actually struck the Pentagon and approached from a different trajectory.

Blogger Terral makes a good case that a missile flew south of Citgo at around 9:31 hugging the ground and masked by an overflying military aircraft of some description. And also that a retrofitted A3 Skywarrior flew north of Citgo around 9:36 loaded with explosives and aircraft parts to provide "evidence" that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. I like it! I think he's close to the mark.

Well, we have official evidence that Flight 77 was within a second or so of the Pentagon but at an altitude that makes the crash as put forward 'officially' utterly impossible.

I don't know about the Skywarrior but that's only because I've never had access to the hard evidence --which is certainly destroyed by now. I've seen sites which have identified Warrior wreckage from photos. But I dunno! Could be!

I am quite sure, however, that the SINGLE rotor that appears so very clearly in pictures could is the rotor from a Global Hawk.

Secondly, whatever crashed could NOT HAVE BEEN SEEN north of Citgo and secondly whatever was seen north of CITGO COULD NOT have damaged the poles.

Whatever crashed into the Pentagon flew low --as you point out --damaged the poles enroute and slammed into the Pentagon without ever touching the lawn. And while that was happening, something else --possibly 77 itself --was seen NORTH of citgo within a second or less of impact and, according to the Flight Data, it was 273 feet above the ground.

That does not rule out a Skywarrior, however.

The question is raised: what was the fate of 77 if it did not crash into the Pentagon?

Some have said that it was simply 'flown' offshore where it slammed into the Atlantic just past the Continental Shelf.

While I don't have a smoking gun, I do believe that there is 'probable cause' to being a criminal investigation of GWB right now. The charges: mass murder and high treason!

He will never be charged short of a revolution taking over the government and convening a panel to FULLY investigate 911.

Until then, only poor folk get charged with murder in the US. There is no justice here.

paul said...

While Clinton may have been a far more capable and personable politician, policy wise he wasn't that far off, under his watch:
The assassination Glass Steagall which let the monster out of the box

The controlled demolition of Yugoslavia
Workfare
The Sudanese aspirin factory
Murderous Iraq sanctions
The murky rise of paul kagame in Rwanda

Says a lot that he can look good from here

Unknown said...

A strong case can be made that Bill Clinton was the BEST 'Pesident' since FDR.

GOPPERS, eat your evil, lyin' hearts out! GOPPERS, do the nation a favor and shoot yourself or, at least, just shut the fuck up!

Anonymous said...

Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6

--U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.



Len,

You have embraced two of the right-wing's most prominent, demagogued villains to debate one of your points: Science & Government.

The fact that the top four job producers for Americans have been democratic administrations, will not be acknowledged by the right wing until it has been vetted through convoluted biblical interpretation, and a hefty donation is left in the collection plate.

The good news is building every day, the newly determined ethics breech of Palin, and the nationwide backlash and uproar of the extremely negative campaigning by the McCain camp. Finely, the MSM has started to report on the outrageous and dangerously violent rhetoric and threats emanating from the GOP base. Their heads will explode come November.


benmerc

paul said...

You can call me a lot of things, but I ain't no GOPPER, I'm not even american.

If I was a GOPPER I would have no doubt heartily approved of the list supplied and agreed he was the best.

Bush/Clinton are symptoms, the problems are systemic, the military/financial complex best described by chalmers johnson and michael hudson in my opinion.

I think JFK was the best you had since FDR, myself
I'm not trying to wind you up. I think your work's great.
Life's too short to troll.

Unknown said...

benmerc said...

The fact that the top four job producers for Americans have been democratic administrations, will not be acknowledged by the right wing until it has been vetted through convoluted biblical interpretation, and a hefty donation is left in the collection plate.

Facts are facts and the GOPs downfall is their cynical belief that truth doesn't matter, that policy can be 'spun', that bullshit repeated often enough and loudly enough is good enough.

It 'ain't'. I say FUCK THE GOP! Revolution!

paul sez...

I think JFK was the best you had since FDR, myself

I am sure he would have proven to have been had he lived. Of them all, JFK had the potential to have been the greatest of all our Presidents.

It is telling and devastating to right wing ideology [read: bullshit] that since 1900 ALL OF THE TOP PERFORMING PRESIDENTS IN EVERY CATEGORY BY ANY STANDARD have ALL been Democrats.

Teddy Roosevelt doesn't count as a Republican because he really wasn't one. He was a 'Progressive'.

paul said...

From over here, a kucinich/mckinney ticket would be a step in the right direction.
But that is as likely as your president waking up sober.

Unknown said...

paul said...

From over here, a kucinich/mckinney ticket would be a step in the right direction.

It's a little late for that now. The BEST race would have been Ron Paul against Dennis Kucinich. But instead of getting the best v the best, the American system, by design, gets us a contest between two candidates deemed to be the most electable.

In terms of intelligence, Obama is the best presidential candidate since Al Gore and Al Gore was the best since Clinton.

Sadly, it will take yeas of electoral reforms that the nation does not have the stomach for before a truly fair election system is devised.

There is no reason why two parties MUST dominate! There is no compelling reason for our having created a system in which mediocrity rises to the top.

Anonymous said...

Great post. Palin is a fucking Arctic hillbilly moron and McCain ain't much smarter. Let's have an intelligent president again. Look, the smartest president of the past century have all been Democrats - Wilson, FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton. They were all better than the GOP dumb fucks - Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I and II.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

Let's have an intelligent president again.

Indeed! The GOP must bear responsibility for having helped dumb down the nation. I can understand why they would. The GOP has not put forward an 'intelligent' candidate since Barry Goldwater whom I'm sure had a much higher IQ than did Richard Nixon.

EVERY GOP candidate since then has been just shy of 'idiot'. I personally met Ford, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. All of them were dim while Reagan, Ford, Bush Sr were probably below average intelligence. The junior Bush is barely above a moron.

paul said...

There is no reason why two parties MUST dominate! There is no compelling reason for our having created a system in which mediocrity rises to the top.

But there are very deep seated structural reasons why they do. In our country we have a virtual duopoly for the national government. It's a pretty cosy arrangement for a professionalised political class.
Policy wise, its easier to tell the difference between a male and female tortoise.

In my little corner,Scotland ,despite what looked very like machine driven vote rigging, we have broken it and the established parties response has been one of complete and utter shock.
Hilarious to watch and, if the neo liberal scum tories get in nationally, might just lead to independence.

Unknown said...

paul said...

But there are very deep seated structural reasons why they do. In our country we have a virtual duopoly for the national government. It's a pretty cosy arrangement for a professionalised political class.

That's the point! The 'structural reasons' are built-in to the primary system, the high costs of campaigns ad infinitum. In the end, it is not only wealth but power that trickles up. There are much more accurate ways to determine the political preferences of a given population --Borda counts, range voting et al. Very specific reforms would abolish the 'primary system' we know it. A complete program of reforms could and would result in office holders more responsive to people as opposed to parties, greater participation in the electoral process by all people. Voter turnout is low because, I daresay, most folk just do not believe that their participation makes any difference at all. Indeed, the current system is LOVED by lobbyists and big contributors.

In my little corner,Scotland ,despite what looked very like machine driven vote rigging, we have broken it and the established parties response has been one of complete and utter shock.

That's what we need in the US --a gang of radical Scots! Long live Wallace! BTW --I am of Scots-Irish and Native American descent. I am fairly well-traveled and recall sitting on the shore of Loch Lomand and shivering. But I found the people warm, friendly and eager to share a drink with a radical Texan. We had a great time.

There is no doubt that I would be 'radical' --at least by 'American' standards. My ancestors from the northernmost regions of England and Southern Scotland were rounded up by James I and sent to Ireland --not one of the brightest decisions ever made by a monarch.

In the New World my paternal ancestors waged war upon the Native population, a genocidal war that continues to this day. My 'Native American' ancestors escaped a forced march of Cherokee-Choctaw to Oklahoma, a crime that ranks with Adolph Hitler's Holocaust against Jews, Gypsies, and anyone who was not willing to kiss Hitler's sorry ass!

paul said...

Well I'm just a first generation immigrant, the rest is about 1000 years of Irish. So both my Countries have suffered from the predations of the English, but then again, so did the english.
Its a class thing, something people are going to have to relearn.

And its true, the people are OK (like most places) but we can't brag about the weather.

Anonymous said...

"But there are very deep seated structural reasons why they do. In our country we have a virtual duopoly for the national government. It's a pretty cosy arrangement for a professionalized political class" - Paul



Here is my take on that, and what Len has mentioned about our doupoly...Americans, especially the working class of today are typically Apolitical (certainly in voting for their best interest)...not only do they not get involved on the ground, which could be their counter effort to paid lobbyist, they rarely give money. I am not just talking about working poor, I am talking about people who could certainly afford to, yet they do not (I have ruined a few friendships with rude comments over that very issue...I am sorry, I can not tolerate non-involvement on all fronts these days) just showing up to vote every 2-4 years ain't gonna cut it anymore.

Now, that said, this current election cycle we are in, certainly has not been typical, but look at the mess it takes to wake up the citizens, and we are, yet again going for the lesser of the two evils, but this is the epitome of that scenario if you ask me. Also, on a side note, with a small exception of some healthy labor unions...what is left of them, they continue to get political involvement from the rank and file, and have over time.

But, unions are a rare thing these days, and with all of the "right to work" states, individuals are left to ride the currents on the high seas alone.
When we do get what appears to be the makings of a third party, between the kooky leadership, lack of solidarity and lack of funds...it is an up hill struggle.

But, I agree, if we do not form a party that is for the intention of doing the peoples bidding, we will never see significant reform and change...As stated above, the professional political class and their corporate partners have the entire process tied up. I do not know what the answers are, but the "Reform party", Green party" and "Libertarian party" (gag) have all gone NOWHERE...and all seem to have similar problems: Loose, and or undefined platforms, to many factions within, small base, No money, kooky leadership and a host of other problems. That does not mean many of these people and parties do not have some good ideas, they most certainly do, but they just have not produced good leaders..Len, you have got to know what I mean. We struggle on, for the time being.

benmerc

Unknown said...

paul said...

Well I'm just a first generation immigrant, the rest is about 1000 years of Irish.

In any case, Paul, we're just cousins if several generations removed.

In my case, I have traveled fairly well throughout the US, Mexico UK, and Europe. I get along with tolerant, friendly folk and friendly, well-meaning people may be found anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Just following my earlier note, Len, on how Bush overruled 50 states who sought to restrict predatory banking practices, we have further evidence that this is a financial collapse by design:

In recent testimony under oath by Mr Lynn Turner, Chief Accountant of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) testified that the SEC Office of Risk Management which had oversight responsibility for the Credit Default Swap market, an exotic market worth nominally $62 trillions, was cut in Administration ‘budget cuts’ from a staff of one hundred people down to one person. Yes that was not a typo. One as in 'uno.'

Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welsh queried Turner, ‘... was there a systematic depopulating of the regulatory force so that it was impossible actually for regulation to occur if you have one person in that office? ...and then I understand that 146 people were cut from the enforcement division of the SEC, is that what you also testified to?’ Mr. Turner, in Congressional testimony replied, ‘Yes…I think there has been a systematic gutting, or whatever you want to call it, of the agency and it's capability through cutting back of staff.’

Was that just ideological budget cutting fervor, or was it deliberate? Was former Goldman Sachs man, the man who convinced the President to hire Paulson, Bush's former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Joshua Bolten, now the President's Chief of Staff, responsible for insuring there was no effective government oversight on the exploding securitization of mortgage assets?


These crooks don't give a rats ass about the general public. More here.

tiago said...

Len;
I have to take issue with your response to Paul. Paul said;
While Clinton may have been a far more capable and personable politician, policy wise he wasn't that far off, under his watch:
The assassination Glass Steagall which let the monster out of the box
The controlled demolition of Yugoslavia
Workfare
The Sudanese aspirin factory
Murderous Iraq sanctions
The murky rise of paul kagame in Rwanda

I admit, the Clinton administration tossed a crust to the working poor, but Paul’s list is not complete, (nor does any one really know the complete list).
Clinton signed the last piece of legislation repealing anti-Monopoly laws, (which was enacted under FDR). It was under Clinton that Musharraf was installed as ‘dictoter’ in Pakistan, (with the help of the CIA and with Slick’s and Altel’s blessing). It was under Clinton’s administration to allow ‘echo’ to continue. The echo spy program was started under Ray Gun’s regime and expanded to the present day ‘big brother is watching’ program under Bush. It was under the Clinton administration that no legal action was taken against Cheney and Halliburton for illegal dealings in both Libya and Iran, (both countries under sanction at the time). And, I do not believe Sandy Berger raided the archives during the 9/11 Commission’s investigation for funsies.
Some of Slick’s actions could be explained by political black mail, (ie. Slick’s sex life was an invitation. Note that Monica saved her blue dress as evidence.), but not all. You lived under the Bush regime in Texas, but I lived under Clinton’s here in Arkansas. And I know for a fact that Hillary and Slick’s sex lives are invitation to political black mail. And I do believe that Slick and Hillary were in the employ of another con artist by the name of Sam Walton. Call it ‘campaign contributions’ if you want, but Hillary was on WalMart’s board of directors also. (Don’t read Walton’s book, “How I did it”, unless you like fiction. I lived in Waltonville, ‘Bentonville’, for some time and learned quite a bit about the damned liar.)
I am not trying to start a heated exchange here. Like it or not, I voted for Slick every time he ran for Governor or President. I am an old line Democrat that believes the government is ‘of the people for the people’. It seems to me however, that the government has not been ‘for the people’ since Truman, (JFK was not in office long enough to make a noticeable difference).

Benmarc said;
“…I can not tolerate non-involvement on all fronts these days) just showing up to vote every 2-4 years ain't gonna cut it anymore.”

I really can’t afford it, but, I have donated to certain political aspirants. For involvement, that is not enough. Political rallies and ‘town hall’ meetings have been carefully orchestrated by both political parties. This limits the discussions to only issues, the candidate has recently boned up on. Any other issues will be looked into, or some one will try to talk over you. For the common voter, they have become a show. A show that would bomb on Broadway on opening night.

Off the topic; how can there be any one left in Scotland with so many of us here in the States? My last name is as common as ‘Smith’ in Glasgow.
I got your e-mail and can’t get the link to open. I’ll try RSS or Atom.

Unknown said...

tiago sez...

I admit, the Clinton administration tossed a crust to the working poor

We not just talking about the 'working poor', we're talking about every quintile but the very, very top. It was a bit more than mere crust. Clinton reversed a long term trend that had already resulted in EVERY QUINTILE but the very, very rich losing SIGNIFICANT ground. That's a fundamental sea change and is the real reason the ruling elite decided that he had to go. If Clinton's trend had been allowed to continue, some of the harm begun with Ronald Reagan might have been undone. The 'blow job' was just the pretext they were looking for.

That's all been undone by Bush, of course. And it's gotten even worse. Every gain enjoyed during the Clinton years has not just been wiped out, the crime is compounded. A couple of years ago, an elite of about one percent owned more 'wealth' than the remaining 90 percent combined. It must be much, much worse now.

The GOP would have impeached Clinton for 'jaywalking', which, I suppose, is at least a crime. I can't imagine what 'crime' was committed by two consenting adults!!! But he lied about it, they said! Who fuckin' cares? Who but GOP perverts were really interested in who gets a BJ and who doesn't? Certainly, Jeff Ganons presence in the White House press corp failed to raise eyebrows among Bush's adoring hypocrites. Gannon's job was servicing Bush and everybody knew it.

Moreover, the GOP was not only silent, they managed to quashed a CHILD PORN AND PROSTITUTION ring being run right out of the Reagan/Bush white house. So --we're expected to believe that the GOP was 'outraged' when Clinton got a freebie!!

The GOP is not merely endemically crooked, it is absurd. The GOP is not a political party, it's a crime syndicate and a kooky, ridiculous cult. These people --to a person --are utterly fucked up. They go to Bohemian Grove, have circle jerks and worship a huge OWL GOD!

Nuts!

You mentioned Texas! Texas was lost when oil was discovered but even then, it was suspect. Anglo-saxon immigration to Texas was motivated by 'slavery' and Stephen F. Austin has succeeded in getting a 'concession' from the Mexican government, though the Mexican government still opposed it. The 'slavery' issue is prominently absent from most histories which dwell on the 'heroics' of David Crockett and the Alamo and less upon the fact that the anglo claim on Texas was dubious, if not fraudulent. No one wants to hear the truth. If the US government should collapse UTTERLY, much of SW US, still claimed by Mexico, will revert to Mexican rule. In Texas, for example, Mexico has NEVER recognized the Rio Grande as the official border separating the two nations.

. I am an old line Democrat that believes the government is ‘of the people for the people’. It seems to me however, that the government has not been ‘for the people’ since Truman, (JFK was not in office long enough to make a noticeable difference).

That's how I see it too.

tiago said...

Len;
I do have to dis-agree with this statement;
“Anglo-saxon immigration to Texas was motivated by 'slavery' and Stephen F. Austin has succeeded in getting a 'concession' from the Mexican government, though the Mexican government still opposed it”
That may be one reason, but there were many more reasons for immigration to Texas. One of the lesser was; ‘gone to Texas’. That criminal was beyond capture.
That is minor, but the fact that Mexico offered land grants to Americans was not.
My ancestors moved west from eastern Tennessee because of the free land grants in the territories. Arkansas being one of them and the Arkansas territory was much larger than the present day state. The compromise of 1850 established the Mason Dixon line and the shape of the Arkansas state.
This is how much of the west was populated including Texas.
One aspect that sped this process was the extensions of the rail roads into the new territories. My dad helped lay steel from Dalhart, Tx to Santa Fe, N.M. and down into El Paso Tx for one rail road, the Santa Fe. This is after Texas became a state, but there were rail roads coming out of the Indian Nation into Texas, long before Oklahoma became a state.
Mexico did indeed recognize the Rio Grande as a border. At least, in the El Paso, Tx. area.
Under JFK, land was recognized as being stolen from Mexico and was returned, (apparently, the Rio Grande was diverted from it’s original channel in New Mexico). Half of El Paso, clear down to the White House department store suddenly was part of Juarez.
Anapra, Donna Anna County, New Mexico, where I was married is now part of Mexico. Can you imagine county records having to be translated into Spanish, (or did Mexico burn them).
I was back in El Paso in 1976 and could hardly recognize the city.

Unknown said...

tiago wrote ...

That [slavery] may be one reason, but there were many more reasons for immigration to Texas. One of the lesser was; ‘gone to Texas’. That criminal was beyond capture.

The basic economy of the new colonies established by Austin were agrarian. Some economists have argued that southern farms (plantations) would not have been profitable in pre-cotton gin era south if there had not been slaves.

There were fears that slavery would --eventually --be abolished. Many southerners had sought to settle in lands or territories where the institution could be established. The US Civil War was at least as much about the introduction of slavery in the 'territories' as it was about the possibility that slavery might be abolished in the US. The issue most certainly pre-dates the immigrations to Texas.

Stephen F. Austin may have stated that 'slavery' was a curse, but, in fact, he 'recruited' immigrants to Texas from among slaveholders and from among those who wished to acquire slaves in order to get the work done on the farms that they hope to establish in Texas.

Austin is on record insisting that the institution of slavery was 'vital for the survival of Texas.' From PBS: "In 1827, for example, he [S. F. Austin] lobbied successfully against the banning of slavery in Texas, even though it had been illegal in Mexico since 1824."

Even in the south, it is doubtful that the huge plantations could have been 'worked' without slaves. Later, of course, Eli Whitney gin might change the economics of the large farm, the plantation --but not yet! In Texas, the economic prospects were even more precarious. Commanche raids are legendary and must have been a serious threat to the profitability of any farm, indeed, a precarious 'economy'.

Correspondence Concerning Slavery in Texas

PBS: The West, Stephen Fuller Austin