This reminds me of the time when Donald Trump declared bankruptcy and the banks his debt was held by paid him more than 100,000.00 a week for 'living expenses' while he recovered.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Fiscally Responsible Party
Ok, well election time is coming around again. And gee, look at how well we as a nation are doing after 8 years of republican guidance on the ship of state.
Don't whine at me that congress is controlled by the democrats, with only a single extra vote in their favor it would take a mass defection on the part of republican senators to get anything that came up from the house to get passed.. and even then you'd have GWB's veto power sitting squarely in the way.
Mired in the wrong war, the economy in dire straits as a direct result of that fiasco. Where is Osama? Not in Iraq and it's been shown time and again that there never was a link between Iraq and that piece of human trash.
The jobless rate is climbing. And last month 49,000 Wall Street employees lost their jobs, with more to follow now that another firm has gone bankrupt.
But wait! It get even better!
The federal government has bailed out in quick succession, Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.. all using guess what? Tax dollars. 85 billion in the case of AIG. 85billion that won't go to paying for better schools, or roads or any number of things the average person expect the government to actually take in hand.
Now let's all think about where those dollars are coming from: they aren't coming out of the financial benefit packages of the people that steered those entities into such a morass. No that money comes from every tax payer. Kind of obvious you say, but have you considered what it really means?
Just recently the federal government was sending out checks to 'stimulate' the economy. They'll be wanting that money back with interest.
Much of the genesis of the financial market's problems actually started back in the 1980's. I'd like you to look at which party controlled the executive branch as well as the congress back then.
Now, the republican contender to the presidency is saying we need more regulation. Talk about Flip Flop, the man has until about oh, 4 days ago been all about the free market and deregulation.
Whenever you hear the phrase Free Market think jobs going overseas, think longer work hours for less pay. Think of job security as a myth. There's the Free Market in reality.
When it's presented to the U.S. voter it's couched as being a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. And if it were practiced in a manner that the average citizen imagines it to be then perhaps we'd be in better shape.
But in fact the free market as it is actually run is more on the lines of a plutocracy. And unless you happen to own the corporation or are very upper management the trickle down isn't going to be 'green'.
So, if you happen to be an average joe or jane, and you have a family and love them do yourself a favor and don't vote republican this year. They used to be the party of small government and the common man, but that isn't what the party represents now.
The last time the federal government shrank was under a democratic president who in spite of a republican dominated congress managed to bring a multi trillion dollar deficit under control and by the end of his term had actually gotten the economy to where the country had a surplus.
It's up to you, it's your life. Are you better off now than you were 12 years ago?
Don't whine at me that congress is controlled by the democrats, with only a single extra vote in their favor it would take a mass defection on the part of republican senators to get anything that came up from the house to get passed.. and even then you'd have GWB's veto power sitting squarely in the way.
Mired in the wrong war, the economy in dire straits as a direct result of that fiasco. Where is Osama? Not in Iraq and it's been shown time and again that there never was a link between Iraq and that piece of human trash.
The jobless rate is climbing. And last month 49,000 Wall Street employees lost their jobs, with more to follow now that another firm has gone bankrupt.
But wait! It get even better!
The federal government has bailed out in quick succession, Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.. all using guess what? Tax dollars. 85 billion in the case of AIG. 85billion that won't go to paying for better schools, or roads or any number of things the average person expect the government to actually take in hand.
Now let's all think about where those dollars are coming from: they aren't coming out of the financial benefit packages of the people that steered those entities into such a morass. No that money comes from every tax payer. Kind of obvious you say, but have you considered what it really means?
Just recently the federal government was sending out checks to 'stimulate' the economy. They'll be wanting that money back with interest.
Much of the genesis of the financial market's problems actually started back in the 1980's. I'd like you to look at which party controlled the executive branch as well as the congress back then.
Now, the republican contender to the presidency is saying we need more regulation. Talk about Flip Flop, the man has until about oh, 4 days ago been all about the free market and deregulation.
Whenever you hear the phrase Free Market think jobs going overseas, think longer work hours for less pay. Think of job security as a myth. There's the Free Market in reality.
When it's presented to the U.S. voter it's couched as being a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. And if it were practiced in a manner that the average citizen imagines it to be then perhaps we'd be in better shape.
But in fact the free market as it is actually run is more on the lines of a plutocracy. And unless you happen to own the corporation or are very upper management the trickle down isn't going to be 'green'.
So, if you happen to be an average joe or jane, and you have a family and love them do yourself a favor and don't vote republican this year. They used to be the party of small government and the common man, but that isn't what the party represents now.
The last time the federal government shrank was under a democratic president who in spite of a republican dominated congress managed to bring a multi trillion dollar deficit under control and by the end of his term had actually gotten the economy to where the country had a surplus.
It's up to you, it's your life. Are you better off now than you were 12 years ago?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Petulant Politics
Or how to end up in a deeper morass.
I've been quiet lately on things political, but today I read what must be the most childish reaction to Obama's apparent win of the democratic nomination to be the candidate for president.
It seems people polled that are Hilary supporters are saying they will not vote for him.
Let's think about that folks.
You have one person that is more likely to pay attention to the bottom line of working americans, undo the tax breaks that shifted a lot of the load onto the middle and lower class while removing it from the wealthy and corporate entities, will work to extricate our troops from Iraq and get 'the war on terror' focussed on the right target. That seems the to be gist of the democrats contenders platform.
The other choice will for president says he doesn't believe in meddling in the economy and with a few tweaks to the current domestic policy will continue policies that so far have shrunk the middle class down into a lower class and the lower class into outright poverty.
He'll keep our troops in a country that has specifically said they want us to leave. At the cost of something like 40 billion dollars a month, while the economy spirals toward disaster and communities are being forced to cut back school and health programs to make ends meet.
That seems the to be gist of the republican contenders platform.
Are these Hilary supporters so petulant and so self obsessed that they'd rather see the republican take charge and continue to steer the country in the direction it has been heading for the past seven years? Really?
God, wake up. If you are at all concerned about your children, about your country, about the air you breathe and the water you drink and whether or not your progeny will be able to go to college then stop acting like over sized 5 year olds and do the right thing.
I've been quiet lately on things political, but today I read what must be the most childish reaction to Obama's apparent win of the democratic nomination to be the candidate for president.
It seems people polled that are Hilary supporters are saying they will not vote for him.
Let's think about that folks.
You have one person that is more likely to pay attention to the bottom line of working americans, undo the tax breaks that shifted a lot of the load onto the middle and lower class while removing it from the wealthy and corporate entities, will work to extricate our troops from Iraq and get 'the war on terror' focussed on the right target. That seems the to be gist of the democrats contenders platform.
The other choice will for president says he doesn't believe in meddling in the economy and with a few tweaks to the current domestic policy will continue policies that so far have shrunk the middle class down into a lower class and the lower class into outright poverty.
He'll keep our troops in a country that has specifically said they want us to leave. At the cost of something like 40 billion dollars a month, while the economy spirals toward disaster and communities are being forced to cut back school and health programs to make ends meet.
That seems the to be gist of the republican contenders platform.
Are these Hilary supporters so petulant and so self obsessed that they'd rather see the republican take charge and continue to steer the country in the direction it has been heading for the past seven years? Really?
God, wake up. If you are at all concerned about your children, about your country, about the air you breathe and the water you drink and whether or not your progeny will be able to go to college then stop acting like over sized 5 year olds and do the right thing.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
A Beethoven dud?!
Ok, so it's a quiet day.. and iTunes is playing random tracks.. along comes a tune by Ludwig Van B titled Wellington's Victory.. a rather pointy piece of music he wrote at the request of his patron to commemorate Wellington's defeat of Napolean at Waterloo.
So, I'm just a bit curious to see how it's reviewed on the net.. and I'm surprised at the utter lack of understanding the people that posted their ideas of what this piece was, everything from failed to a dud.
Let's first consider that Beethoven was no fan of the aristocracy, though he depended on them for his livelihood. Second let's consider that his view on war was dim if not vehemently opposed to them.
Now, take those two things into account and consider the piece he presented. It's one of the few pieces of music that requires Muskets and Cannons to be set up on either side of the audience, (at that time his patron and his court).
To be utterly blunt and Beethoven was, this piece was a musical gauntlet tossed into the face of anyone that thought the glorifying war and the deaths of thousands of men was a fine idea.
Beethoven first has you listen to the approaching drum corps of the opposing sides, the call of the two sides signaling their readiness to battle and then musically details the battle the anthems of the two nations involved in this little set to.. and then muskets firing, cannon shredding the ranks with grapeshot, exploding grenades and cannon balls, then the charge of the cavalry into the muddy morass of the battle field.. if you have any experience with war you get a good idea of the hell he's trying to portray.
Then, he gives you the 'pretty' version that his patron probably expected to hear.. and it's obvious if you have ears that he's essentially telling his patron what an ass Beethoven thinks he is for even thinking that the Battle of Waterloo should be commemorated.
So, it wasn't what the crowd expected.. but a dud? It does exactly what the composer intended, puts your right into the midst of the noise and smoke and chaos and then says.. 'Do you really think this is glorious?'.
And then he recaps with sardonic version of Britain's nation anthem.. just in case anyone missed his point. Failed? I don't think so, it may be that it wasn't pleasing to the court audience but then how many battle fields are pleasing? Give me a break.
So, I'm just a bit curious to see how it's reviewed on the net.. and I'm surprised at the utter lack of understanding the people that posted their ideas of what this piece was, everything from failed to a dud.
Let's first consider that Beethoven was no fan of the aristocracy, though he depended on them for his livelihood. Second let's consider that his view on war was dim if not vehemently opposed to them.
Now, take those two things into account and consider the piece he presented. It's one of the few pieces of music that requires Muskets and Cannons to be set up on either side of the audience, (at that time his patron and his court).
To be utterly blunt and Beethoven was, this piece was a musical gauntlet tossed into the face of anyone that thought the glorifying war and the deaths of thousands of men was a fine idea.
Beethoven first has you listen to the approaching drum corps of the opposing sides, the call of the two sides signaling their readiness to battle and then musically details the battle the anthems of the two nations involved in this little set to.. and then muskets firing, cannon shredding the ranks with grapeshot, exploding grenades and cannon balls, then the charge of the cavalry into the muddy morass of the battle field.. if you have any experience with war you get a good idea of the hell he's trying to portray.
Then, he gives you the 'pretty' version that his patron probably expected to hear.. and it's obvious if you have ears that he's essentially telling his patron what an ass Beethoven thinks he is for even thinking that the Battle of Waterloo should be commemorated.
So, it wasn't what the crowd expected.. but a dud? It does exactly what the composer intended, puts your right into the midst of the noise and smoke and chaos and then says.. 'Do you really think this is glorious?'.
And then he recaps with sardonic version of Britain's nation anthem.. just in case anyone missed his point. Failed? I don't think so, it may be that it wasn't pleasing to the court audience but then how many battle fields are pleasing? Give me a break.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Privacy?.. Ha!
I like the quote that roughly goes 'If you haven't done anything wrong why should you mind us looking over your shoulder?'.
That kind of logic leads one to believe that for the security of the public we should all live in glass houses. After all what have you got to hide?
Well, Wired® has a nifty report on how easy it is for the long arm of the law to reach out and sample any conversation you might have on any electronic device.
It appears that many of the liberties that the American Revolution was fought for to assure it's citizens have finally gone into the shredder all in the name of security.
Ben Franklin made a pointed remark concerning people that are willing to sacrifice liberties for security. Those words are just as applicable today as they were the day Ben uttered them.
It's a pity the people that swear to uphold the constitution of this nation are so willing to sacrifice what many generations of Americans fought and died for with so little regard for the consequenses.
That kind of logic leads one to believe that for the security of the public we should all live in glass houses. After all what have you got to hide?
Well, Wired® has a nifty report on how easy it is for the long arm of the law to reach out and sample any conversation you might have on any electronic device.
It appears that many of the liberties that the American Revolution was fought for to assure it's citizens have finally gone into the shredder all in the name of security.
Ben Franklin made a pointed remark concerning people that are willing to sacrifice liberties for security. Those words are just as applicable today as they were the day Ben uttered them.
It's a pity the people that swear to uphold the constitution of this nation are so willing to sacrifice what many generations of Americans fought and died for with so little regard for the consequenses.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Reality bites
I'm bemused and amused by the reports on the antics of the AG(x2*) and his leash holder when even their own team manages to cause them to slip on the banana peel we like to call reality.
I guess the administration is of the opinion that if you stick to your lies reality will yield the right of way.. kind of like the concept of using affirmations(**).
That or they never read that quote of Lincoln's regarding fooling people!
(* the Attorney General, he who's initials are also AG)
(** a concept endorsed by the New Age community, the belief being that if you create whatever it is in you mind and picture it clearly and then keep on wishing for it that desire will be fulfilled)
I guess the administration is of the opinion that if you stick to your lies reality will yield the right of way.. kind of like the concept of using affirmations(**).
That or they never read that quote of Lincoln's regarding fooling people!
(* the Attorney General, he who's initials are also AG)
(** a concept endorsed by the New Age community, the belief being that if you create whatever it is in you mind and picture it clearly and then keep on wishing for it that desire will be fulfilled)
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Memory check
Back in 1998 Will Smith and Gene Hackman starred in a movie titled Enemy of the State.
Most people that saw the movie thought it was far fetched and would never happen here in the land of the free. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew that the surveilance capabilities were getting close to those portrayed in the movie.
Nine years later this is no longer fiction, the only question that is being debated is how best to integrate it into every facet of 'law enforcement'.
Think I'm a crank just frothing at the mouth? Then have a read over here.
I've said it before elsewhere, Orwell just had the date wrong, otherwise he was scarily prophetic.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. anyone believe that's what our government is trying to deliver to the public.. or is it all down to the Gross National Product and corporate protectionism now?
Most people that saw the movie thought it was far fetched and would never happen here in the land of the free. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew that the surveilance capabilities were getting close to those portrayed in the movie.
Nine years later this is no longer fiction, the only question that is being debated is how best to integrate it into every facet of 'law enforcement'.
Think I'm a crank just frothing at the mouth? Then have a read over here.
I've said it before elsewhere, Orwell just had the date wrong, otherwise he was scarily prophetic.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. anyone believe that's what our government is trying to deliver to the public.. or is it all down to the Gross National Product and corporate protectionism now?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Yes!
Ars Technica tells us the latest tale on the SCO Unix/Linux court battle.
Now if only such rulings would be applied to other bandits this country might actually start to resemble the America we, (alright, most of us), were all taught to believe existed.
Personally, I'm glad to see this nail being driven into this greedy corp's coffin *.
(* pun intended!.. oh suck it up!)
Now if only such rulings would be applied to other bandits this country might actually start to resemble the America we, (alright, most of us), were all taught to believe existed.
Personally, I'm glad to see this nail being driven into this greedy corp's coffin *.
(* pun intended!.. oh suck it up!)
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Truth, Justice & the American way
Here in the U.S. we like to believe that we're a just society and that our law enforcement agencies are 'true blue'. Sadly stories like this one point out the fact that in reality the founding fathers we absolutely correct when the said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance*.
(*By that, they meant vigilance of the citizenry of their government(s) and it's various branches).
(*By that, they meant vigilance of the citizenry of their government(s) and it's various branches).
Friday, June 01, 2007
Hot air
Good ol' GW is at it again. According to US news outlets his new proposals on global warming marks a major change in policy but in fact he's just blowing hot air again.
Gotta protect those corporate profits, ehh George?
Gotta protect those corporate profits, ehh George?
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
There are improvements!
That's what our fearless leader continues to claim in his press conferences when the issue of Iraq comes up.
But according to the Iraqi people the story appears to be very different.
One of the more glaringly obscured fact in this misadventure is the number of Iraqis who have fled their homes and the reasons they had to flee.
The linked story gives you some insight on a story the main news outlets never seem to touch upon.
When you read these peoples stories of their experiences and see what news on Iraq actually reaches the American public you begin to wonder just what improvements ol' GW is referring to.. I'd like to hear them.
Do they out weigh the ongoing carnage enough to warrant our contiued presence there?
But according to the Iraqi people the story appears to be very different.
One of the more glaringly obscured fact in this misadventure is the number of Iraqis who have fled their homes and the reasons they had to flee.
The linked story gives you some insight on a story the main news outlets never seem to touch upon.
When you read these peoples stories of their experiences and see what news on Iraq actually reaches the American public you begin to wonder just what improvements ol' GW is referring to.. I'd like to hear them.
Do they out weigh the ongoing carnage enough to warrant our contiued presence there?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Showdown!
The Dems are sticking to their guns to recall the troops.
But Bush says the Washington politicians shouldn't dictate how to fight the war, they should leave that to the men in uniform.. but wait a cotton pickin' minute there George!...
When and where did Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld get their combat experience what branch of the service were they in? Weren't they the ones that came up with the strategy for the invasion of Iraq?
And didn't one of them say that the Iraqi oil sales would pay for the war and rebuilding? Why are the american tax payers footing the bill to finance this fiasco you and your school chums got us into?
How long did they serve?
Where did you get your military expertise?
Weren't they both part of the political machine?
Aren't you?
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind all the decision to remain entangled in an increasingly bitter conflict when it's clear that there will be no victory... no 'Mission Accomplished' any time in the next decade.
But Bush says the Washington politicians shouldn't dictate how to fight the war, they should leave that to the men in uniform.. but wait a cotton pickin' minute there George!...
When and where did Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld get their combat experience what branch of the service were they in? Weren't they the ones that came up with the strategy for the invasion of Iraq?
And didn't one of them say that the Iraqi oil sales would pay for the war and rebuilding? Why are the american tax payers footing the bill to finance this fiasco you and your school chums got us into?
How long did they serve?
Where did you get your military expertise?
Weren't they both part of the political machine?
Aren't you?
I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind all the decision to remain entangled in an increasingly bitter conflict when it's clear that there will be no victory... no 'Mission Accomplished' any time in the next decade.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Thoughts on the DOJ debacle
I guess I'm a bit naive or wasn't really thinking about the department of justice as a political machine.
I had always thought that of all the branches of our government those that served they should hold to a higher standard. Apply themselves with honor and uphold the truth above all political considerations.
I had not considered or kept in my mind that the Attorney General is appointed by the president and in the same we he appoints state attorney generals that the president or his advisors favor.
In the past the congress of our nation vetted the AG and so there was the understanding that appointing one that would act as your de facto hatchet man wouldn't make it past them. That all changed when the last congress was sitting.
The checks and balances the people of this country thought or assumed were in place vanished and in turn whatever was deemed good by the administrative branch was deemed good by the legislature.
One of the AG's job is to tell the administrative branch of the government when they cross the line, not to write them a pass that allows them to do whatever they please.
Keep in mind that this AG said that coercive physical interrogations were legal and that the Geneva Convention was not relevant to the 'war on terror'.
Are the opinions rendered by the AG in keeping with our concepts of justice here in the United States? Or were they simply 'get out of jail cards' issued to the administration by the AG? It seems that the more light that is shone on the operations of the current AG, the more it looks like there's an attempt to fix in place a mindset in every state AG office one that follows the dogma issued by the same people that hold to the PNAC core belief systems.
Instead of diversity of opinion: One Opinion and only one philosophy.
Now there are some people in this country that may think a world with a mono-culture would be a great thing but if you look around the one thing you discover in a mono-culture is stagnation and decay. It would be a pity if that were to befall this country.
I had always thought that of all the branches of our government those that served they should hold to a higher standard. Apply themselves with honor and uphold the truth above all political considerations.
I had not considered or kept in my mind that the Attorney General is appointed by the president and in the same we he appoints state attorney generals that the president or his advisors favor.
In the past the congress of our nation vetted the AG and so there was the understanding that appointing one that would act as your de facto hatchet man wouldn't make it past them. That all changed when the last congress was sitting.
The checks and balances the people of this country thought or assumed were in place vanished and in turn whatever was deemed good by the administrative branch was deemed good by the legislature.
One of the AG's job is to tell the administrative branch of the government when they cross the line, not to write them a pass that allows them to do whatever they please.
Keep in mind that this AG said that coercive physical interrogations were legal and that the Geneva Convention was not relevant to the 'war on terror'.
Are the opinions rendered by the AG in keeping with our concepts of justice here in the United States? Or were they simply 'get out of jail cards' issued to the administration by the AG? It seems that the more light that is shone on the operations of the current AG, the more it looks like there's an attempt to fix in place a mindset in every state AG office one that follows the dogma issued by the same people that hold to the PNAC core belief systems.
Instead of diversity of opinion: One Opinion and only one philosophy.
Now there are some people in this country that may think a world with a mono-culture would be a great thing but if you look around the one thing you discover in a mono-culture is stagnation and decay. It would be a pity if that were to befall this country.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
more improvements
Made some changes to Homefires navigation system.
Testing a new chat system, (it remembers your login).
That'll need some more feedback before we choose which we want to keep.
Some other under the hood work has been done. Users may or may not realise it ;)
Testing a new chat system, (it remembers your login).
That'll need some more feedback before we choose which we want to keep.
Some other under the hood work has been done. Users may or may not realise it ;)
Friday, March 16, 2007
Plame testimony follow on.
Ok, a mess of misdirection by the GOP on whether Ms. Plame was undercover has been hitting the sheets.
Well you can kiss the snow job buh-bye, Melinda Henneberger's report posted over on the Huffington Post from the hearing makes it clear just what the former operatives status was at the time her cover was blown.
You'll need to go down eight paragraphs to get to the meat of the subject, but once you've read through the account there should be no doubt as to the fact that she was in fact undercover.
Something that would have been easy to ascertain by the inner circle.
There's an amazing display of a lack of conscience by the people responsible for this leak. If they had any guts they'd publicly accept responsibility their lack of discretion and foresight and resign.. and turn themselves in for prosecution. But honor isn't something we've seen coming from most 'CEO' types in government lately.. most of the time it's duck and cover and oh yeah, "I can't recall..."
Well you can kiss the snow job buh-bye, Melinda Henneberger's report posted over on the Huffington Post from the hearing makes it clear just what the former operatives status was at the time her cover was blown.
You'll need to go down eight paragraphs to get to the meat of the subject, but once you've read through the account there should be no doubt as to the fact that she was in fact undercover.
Something that would have been easy to ascertain by the inner circle.
There's an amazing display of a lack of conscience by the people responsible for this leak. If they had any guts they'd publicly accept responsibility their lack of discretion and foresight and resign.. and turn themselves in for prosecution. But honor isn't something we've seen coming from most 'CEO' types in government lately.. most of the time it's duck and cover and oh yeah, "I can't recall..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)