By MARC McDONALD
If you browse an anti-abortion Web site, or listen to an anti-abortion activist these days, you'll encounter plenty of references to Nazi Germany.
For example, on Monday, Randall Terry, founder of the Operation Rescue said: "I believe George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands."
Terry is hardly alone in his extremist views. For example, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly often demonized slain doctor George Tiller and said he was guilty Of "Nazi stuff."
Which raises a question: where did Hitler himself stand on abortion? Actually, he opposed it.
In fact, in their first year of power, in 1933, the Nazis outlawed abortion.
As Gloria Steinem pointed out in 1982, a flaw "in the fervent condemnations of pro-choice advocates as Nazis is that Hitler himself, and the Nazi doctrine he created, were unequivocally opposed to any individual right to abortion."
Steinem notes: "Under Hitler, choosing abortion became sabotage; a crime punishable by hard labor for the woman and a possible death penalty for the abortionist."
Hmmm, let me see: a "death penalty for the abortionist."
Some things really haven't changed much since 1933. Back then, it was the Nazis condemning "abortionists" to death. Today, it's the extremist, hate-filled evangelical "Christian" bigots whose twisted rhetoric is encouraging violence against doctors who practice abortion.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
Marking 75th Anniversary Of 1934 San Francisco General Strike
.
This video takes a look at the 1934 San Francisco general strike. May 9 marks the 75th anniversary of this historic event, which occurred during an era when U.S. workers were willing to stand up to defend their rights.
Sadly, today's working class in America seems to be content with letting CEOs and other robber barons shit all over us, as these crooks loot the U.S. Treasury and dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to themselves and their rich allies.
If you've had enough of all this, consider joining a union.
"There is power in a factory, power in the land,
Power in the hands of a worker.
But it all amounts to nothing, if together we don't stand
There is power in a union.
Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood,
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for.
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud,
War has always been the bosses' way, sir
The union forever, defending our rights,
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite.
With our brothers and our sisters from many far-off lands,
There is power in a union."
---Billy Bragg, "There is Power in a Union,", 1986.
This video takes a look at the 1934 San Francisco general strike. May 9 marks the 75th anniversary of this historic event, which occurred during an era when U.S. workers were willing to stand up to defend their rights.
Sadly, today's working class in America seems to be content with letting CEOs and other robber barons shit all over us, as these crooks loot the U.S. Treasury and dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to themselves and their rich allies.
If you've had enough of all this, consider joining a union.
"There is power in a factory, power in the land,
Power in the hands of a worker.
But it all amounts to nothing, if together we don't stand
There is power in a union.
Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood,
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for.
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud,
War has always been the bosses' way, sir
The union forever, defending our rights,
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite.
With our brothers and our sisters from many far-off lands,
There is power in a union."
---Billy Bragg, "There is Power in a Union,", 1986.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Forget Michael Savage, When Will Britain Ban George W. Bush?
By MARC McDONALD
So Michael Savage has been banned from entering Britain? If Britain really wants to do its society a favor, it will ban George W. Bush, who is guilty of vastly greater crimes than any of the two-bit assholes that it included on its newly published immigration blacklist. In fact, Britain ought to ban all the members of the Bush Crime Family, from Dick Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz to Donald Rumsfeld.
Indeed by banning a insignificant mediocrity like Savage, but not banning Bush, it seems to me that Britain is trivializing the very real crimes of Bush. This is a man who embraced torture, shredded the Constitution, and lied America into an illegal war that killed 1.3 million Iraqi civilian men, women and children. (Oh, and let's not forget the 179 British troops who were also senselessly killed in Bush's war of lies).
Savage, by contrast, is an spiteful, nasty little turd. But he's no Bush.
Having said that, Britain did make the right decision in banning Savage. This is a man, after all who has said things like:
And this is just in the past few months. More of Savage's insane, hate-filled ramblings are here.
So Michael Savage has been banned from entering Britain? If Britain really wants to do its society a favor, it will ban George W. Bush, who is guilty of vastly greater crimes than any of the two-bit assholes that it included on its newly published immigration blacklist. In fact, Britain ought to ban all the members of the Bush Crime Family, from Dick Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz to Donald Rumsfeld.
Indeed by banning a insignificant mediocrity like Savage, but not banning Bush, it seems to me that Britain is trivializing the very real crimes of Bush. This is a man who embraced torture, shredded the Constitution, and lied America into an illegal war that killed 1.3 million Iraqi civilian men, women and children. (Oh, and let's not forget the 179 British troops who were also senselessly killed in Bush's war of lies).
Savage, by contrast, is an spiteful, nasty little turd. But he's no Bush.
Having said that, Britain did make the right decision in banning Savage. This is a man, after all who has said things like:
- "Obama hates" and "is raping America"
- Mexicans are the "perfect mules for bringing this virus into America"
- A "progressive is, basically a pervert covering it up with liberal politics"
- "It seems that the Obama appointees actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did"
- Obama is "biggest liar in the history of the presidency," and he’s "getting away with it...because he’s a man of color"
And this is just in the past few months. More of Savage's insane, hate-filled ramblings are here.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Mike Malloy: A Beacon Of Truth For Our Troubled Times
By MARC McDONALD
With his fury and righteous anger, Mike Malloy is a bit like right-wing talkers such as Michael Savage and Mark Levin.
Except Malloy is a progressive.
And he doesn't tell lies.
And he is well-informed.
And he tells the truth (unlike the right-wing talk radio hate-spewers).
Actually, come to think of it, Malloy is nothing like fascist nutbag sleazeballs like Levin and Savage. But he does get angry. And Malloy's rage has been a beacon of truth and sanity for many of us since the darkest years of the Bush era.
Malloy continues to speak Truth To Power today (even though he's had a devil of a time finding a permanent home on the radio dial).
First he was unceremoniously booted by Air America (which left a big black mark on that network in the eyes of many of us progressives). Then he lost his subsequent gig, when the progressive network Nova M folded.
In the spirit of "if you wanna get something done, you've got to do it yourself," Malloy has bravely set up shop on his own and is now self-syndicated.
I suppose some timid listeners will find Malloy too abrasive. But I think Malloy's hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners style is exactly what we need to counter the likes of Limbaugh and Levin. It's time we Democrats grew a pair. It's time we started fighting fire with fire. And last, but not least, it's time we started getting angry. Why, I've always wondered is it that the Right-Wing talkers are the ones who're always angry. We on the Left have a lot more to be angry about, for Chrissakes!
And if you're a progressive, please consider signing up and supporting Malloy's program, which currently exists solely through the subscriptions of its listeners. It only costs 25 cents a day. I call that a great investment to keep Malloy on the air, spreading the truth that you will never hear elsewhere (certainly not in the corporate mainstream media).
With his fury and righteous anger, Mike Malloy is a bit like right-wing talkers such as Michael Savage and Mark Levin.
Except Malloy is a progressive.
And he doesn't tell lies.
And he is well-informed.
And he tells the truth (unlike the right-wing talk radio hate-spewers).
Actually, come to think of it, Malloy is nothing like fascist nutbag sleazeballs like Levin and Savage. But he does get angry. And Malloy's rage has been a beacon of truth and sanity for many of us since the darkest years of the Bush era.
Malloy continues to speak Truth To Power today (even though he's had a devil of a time finding a permanent home on the radio dial).
First he was unceremoniously booted by Air America (which left a big black mark on that network in the eyes of many of us progressives). Then he lost his subsequent gig, when the progressive network Nova M folded.
In the spirit of "if you wanna get something done, you've got to do it yourself," Malloy has bravely set up shop on his own and is now self-syndicated.
I suppose some timid listeners will find Malloy too abrasive. But I think Malloy's hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners style is exactly what we need to counter the likes of Limbaugh and Levin. It's time we Democrats grew a pair. It's time we started fighting fire with fire. And last, but not least, it's time we started getting angry. Why, I've always wondered is it that the Right-Wing talkers are the ones who're always angry. We on the Left have a lot more to be angry about, for Chrissakes!
And if you're a progressive, please consider signing up and supporting Malloy's program, which currently exists solely through the subscriptions of its listeners. It only costs 25 cents a day. I call that a great investment to keep Malloy on the air, spreading the truth that you will never hear elsewhere (certainly not in the corporate mainstream media).
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Progressive Music Classics. The Clash: "Guns On The Roof"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
The punk sound that was causing a musical earthquake in Britain in the late 1970s seemed light years away from where I was living at the time: dreary, boring Corsicana, Texas.
After reading about The Sex Pistols in "Rolling Stone," I desperately wanted to check out the notorious new music---but it was difficult to find. Corsicana only had one record store. It was run by a hippy, who was more into Steely Dan and Yes.
One day, he gave me a free copy of The Clash's new album, Give 'Em Enough Rope, along with a copy of Liverpool New Wave band, The Yachts. Both had been sent to him as promo copies by the record company. He couldn't stand either of them---and indeed, he hated all punk (as did everyone else I talked to about music in Corsicana).
I didn't think much of The Yachts. But The Clash album blew me away. Unlike the band's first crude-sounding, low-budget (but classic) album, Give 'Em Enough Rope, was produced with a sizeable budget by top-flight producer Sandy Pearlman (who'd previously worked with major bands like Blue Oyster Cult). The big-budget, AOR-friendly sound really shouldn't have suited The Clash's music---but it did, and nowhere better than on the stunningly powerful track, "Guns On The Roof."
To this day, I can't help but hear this track and think of all horrors that Reagan's CIA unleashed upon the world in the 1980s, in the "Dirty Wars" in Central America and elsewhere.
Most Americans didn't really become familiar with The Clash until the band hit the U.S. charts in a big way in 1982, with singles like "Should I Stay Or Should I go?" But the fact is, the band's first two albums, The Clash (1977) and ...Rope (1978) were far more powerful than the later, commercial stuff. Having said that, all of the band's music is worth checking out, particularly the underrated, sprawling, 3-record masterpiece, "Sandinista!" from 1980.
People today who think that goddawful crap like Green Day is "punk" really need to check out the Pistols and The Clash. These bands were the real deal. By contrast, Green Day is about as threatening and dangerous as a cup of Starbucks coffee.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
The punk sound that was causing a musical earthquake in Britain in the late 1970s seemed light years away from where I was living at the time: dreary, boring Corsicana, Texas.
After reading about The Sex Pistols in "Rolling Stone," I desperately wanted to check out the notorious new music---but it was difficult to find. Corsicana only had one record store. It was run by a hippy, who was more into Steely Dan and Yes.
One day, he gave me a free copy of The Clash's new album, Give 'Em Enough Rope, along with a copy of Liverpool New Wave band, The Yachts. Both had been sent to him as promo copies by the record company. He couldn't stand either of them---and indeed, he hated all punk (as did everyone else I talked to about music in Corsicana).
I didn't think much of The Yachts. But The Clash album blew me away. Unlike the band's first crude-sounding, low-budget (but classic) album, Give 'Em Enough Rope, was produced with a sizeable budget by top-flight producer Sandy Pearlman (who'd previously worked with major bands like Blue Oyster Cult). The big-budget, AOR-friendly sound really shouldn't have suited The Clash's music---but it did, and nowhere better than on the stunningly powerful track, "Guns On The Roof."
To this day, I can't help but hear this track and think of all horrors that Reagan's CIA unleashed upon the world in the 1980s, in the "Dirty Wars" in Central America and elsewhere.
Most Americans didn't really become familiar with The Clash until the band hit the U.S. charts in a big way in 1982, with singles like "Should I Stay Or Should I go?" But the fact is, the band's first two albums, The Clash (1977) and ...Rope (1978) were far more powerful than the later, commercial stuff. Having said that, all of the band's music is worth checking out, particularly the underrated, sprawling, 3-record masterpiece, "Sandinista!" from 1980.
People today who think that goddawful crap like Green Day is "punk" really need to check out the Pistols and The Clash. These bands were the real deal. By contrast, Green Day is about as threatening and dangerous as a cup of Starbucks coffee.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Where Were The "Tea Party" Protesters During Bush Years?
By MARC McDONALD
Lately, Fox News has been hyping the upcoming "Tea Party Protests," set for April 15. The event is supposed to be nonpartisan. But the people who purport to represent the movement are doing a lot of Obama-bashing.
Typical of the latter is a comment by a group organizing a local Tea Party event in Florida, which claims the protest is targeting the "outrageous spending by the Obama administration."
Which leads to me wonder: where in the f*ck were these protesters during the administration of George W. Bush?
Bush, as you'll recall, inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton when he took office in 2001. Bush quickly squandered that and then proceeded to rack up gigantic budget deficits every year of his two terms in office.
Under Bush, the national debt grew by more than $4 trillion: the biggest debt increase of any president in U.S. history.
When Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. At the end of Bush's two terms, the debt had skyrocketed to more than $9.849 trillion. And remember: Bush enjoyed a Republican Senate and House of Representatives during most of his time in office.
Things weren't helped along any by Bush's illegal and totally unnecessary Iraq War. That disaster will probably wind up costing the U.S. $3 trillion. It would be nice if some of these Tea Party protesters asked for an immediate halt to the $10 billion a month that America continues to squander in Iraq every month to this day. But I suspect there won't be too many "Stop the Iraq War" signs at these Tea Party events.
Like I said, where were these "tea party" protesters during the Bush years? Where were they when Bush was handing out billions of our tax dollars to his wealthy friends? Where were they when Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, was pocketing billions of dollars in closed, no-bid contracts? Where were they when $12 billion in cash disappeared without a trace after it was shipped to Iraq?
Obama has only been in office a few months. He inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.
I'd suspect that most of the nearly 70 million Americans who voted for him understood very well what an Obama administration would bring: higher taxes on the rich and more domestic spending by the government to re-start the disastrous economy Obama inherited. Ten million more voters supported Obama's plans than the 59 million McCain voters who wanted more of the same failed GOP policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
The fact is, Obama is simply carrying out the policies that he promised during his campaign. They are policies that the majority of voters want---a fact that the Tea Party Protesters appear to be totally ignorant about.
The Tea Party Protesters clearly do not represent what the majority of Americans want. They claim to speak for "the people," but the people have already spoken. They spoke with their ballots in the 2008 presidential election.
Incidentally, the Tea Party Protesters seem to be clueless about the original 1773 Boston Tea Party, which was prompted by an decrease, not increase, on tea taxes.
Note: BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com is now on Twitter. Click here to sign up to receive our hard-hitting progressive news updates via Twitter.
Lately, Fox News has been hyping the upcoming "Tea Party Protests," set for April 15. The event is supposed to be nonpartisan. But the people who purport to represent the movement are doing a lot of Obama-bashing.
Typical of the latter is a comment by a group organizing a local Tea Party event in Florida, which claims the protest is targeting the "outrageous spending by the Obama administration."
Which leads to me wonder: where in the f*ck were these protesters during the administration of George W. Bush?
Bush, as you'll recall, inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton when he took office in 2001. Bush quickly squandered that and then proceeded to rack up gigantic budget deficits every year of his two terms in office.
Under Bush, the national debt grew by more than $4 trillion: the biggest debt increase of any president in U.S. history.
When Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. At the end of Bush's two terms, the debt had skyrocketed to more than $9.849 trillion. And remember: Bush enjoyed a Republican Senate and House of Representatives during most of his time in office.
Things weren't helped along any by Bush's illegal and totally unnecessary Iraq War. That disaster will probably wind up costing the U.S. $3 trillion. It would be nice if some of these Tea Party protesters asked for an immediate halt to the $10 billion a month that America continues to squander in Iraq every month to this day. But I suspect there won't be too many "Stop the Iraq War" signs at these Tea Party events.
Like I said, where were these "tea party" protesters during the Bush years? Where were they when Bush was handing out billions of our tax dollars to his wealthy friends? Where were they when Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, was pocketing billions of dollars in closed, no-bid contracts? Where were they when $12 billion in cash disappeared without a trace after it was shipped to Iraq?
Obama has only been in office a few months. He inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.
I'd suspect that most of the nearly 70 million Americans who voted for him understood very well what an Obama administration would bring: higher taxes on the rich and more domestic spending by the government to re-start the disastrous economy Obama inherited. Ten million more voters supported Obama's plans than the 59 million McCain voters who wanted more of the same failed GOP policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
The fact is, Obama is simply carrying out the policies that he promised during his campaign. They are policies that the majority of voters want---a fact that the Tea Party Protesters appear to be totally ignorant about.
The Tea Party Protesters clearly do not represent what the majority of Americans want. They claim to speak for "the people," but the people have already spoken. They spoke with their ballots in the 2008 presidential election.
Incidentally, the Tea Party Protesters seem to be clueless about the original 1773 Boston Tea Party, which was prompted by an decrease, not increase, on tea taxes.
Note: BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com is now on Twitter. Click here to sign up to receive our hard-hitting progressive news updates via Twitter.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Join Us On Twitter
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com is now on Twitter. Click here to sign up to receive our hard-hitting progressive news updates via Twitter.
Friday, April 03, 2009
New York Times Company CEO Pockets Millions While Demanding Steep Union Concessions
By MARC McDONALD
The New York Times Company, owner of The New York Times and The Boston Globe, has taken the gloves off (and put on a pair of brass knuckles) in hard-line negotiations with its unions. The company is threatening to close The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions, the Globe reported on Friday, quoting union leaders.
But while The New York Times Company is demanding that its employees make steep sacrifices, its CEO is raking in millions.
The New York Times Company CEO Janet L. Robinson raked in $5,578,451 in compensation for 2008. This includes $1,552,603 in restricted stock awards, as well as a salary of $1 million, according to Forbes.com.
Once again, America's CEOs pull down huge pay packages, even as they demand brutal sacrifices from their workforces across America.
You know, I expect this sort of thing from a hard-line, right-wing company like the Coors Brewing Company. But this is the "liberal" New York Times for Chrissakes. So much for the now-quaint notion that "The business of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
The New York Times Company, owner of The New York Times and The Boston Globe, has taken the gloves off (and put on a pair of brass knuckles) in hard-line negotiations with its unions. The company is threatening to close The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions, the Globe reported on Friday, quoting union leaders.
But while The New York Times Company is demanding that its employees make steep sacrifices, its CEO is raking in millions.
The New York Times Company CEO Janet L. Robinson raked in $5,578,451 in compensation for 2008. This includes $1,552,603 in restricted stock awards, as well as a salary of $1 million, according to Forbes.com.
Once again, America's CEOs pull down huge pay packages, even as they demand brutal sacrifices from their workforces across America.
You know, I expect this sort of thing from a hard-line, right-wing company like the Coors Brewing Company. But this is the "liberal" New York Times for Chrissakes. So much for the now-quaint notion that "The business of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
Monday, March 02, 2009
Steele Attacks Limbaugh's Show As "Incendiary," "Ugly"
.
Today's Republican Party is a sinking ship. And now the rats are turning on each other. As Politico reports, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has attacked the OxyMoron's HateWing radio program. Steele called Limbaugh an "entertainer," whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."
I'm sure that GOP pressure will eventually force Steele to backtrack on his comments. For now, I'm really loving this. And I have to admit: at least for the moment, I do have some respect for Steele, for daring to speak up against this vicious hate-mongering NeoNazi, whose fascist spewings have long been embraced by so many in the GOP establishment.
Here's the report from Politico:
On the same night he was offering the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh drew criticism from an unlikely source: Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.
In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."
Steele’s criticism makes him the highest-ranking Republican to pick a fight with the popular and polarizing conservative talk show host.
But the new RNC chairman’s extraordinary comments won’t sit well with the millions of conservative listeners Limbaugh draws each week, and Steele aides scrambled to limit the damage Monday morning by trying to change the subject.
More here.
Today's Republican Party is a sinking ship. And now the rats are turning on each other. As Politico reports, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has attacked the OxyMoron's HateWing radio program. Steele called Limbaugh an "entertainer," whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."
I'm sure that GOP pressure will eventually force Steele to backtrack on his comments. For now, I'm really loving this. And I have to admit: at least for the moment, I do have some respect for Steele, for daring to speak up against this vicious hate-mongering NeoNazi, whose fascist spewings have long been embraced by so many in the GOP establishment.
Here's the report from Politico:
On the same night he was offering the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh drew criticism from an unlikely source: Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.
In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."
Steele’s criticism makes him the highest-ranking Republican to pick a fight with the popular and polarizing conservative talk show host.
But the new RNC chairman’s extraordinary comments won’t sit well with the millions of conservative listeners Limbaugh draws each week, and Steele aides scrambled to limit the damage Monday morning by trying to change the subject.
More here.
Friday, February 13, 2009
And the Kool-Aid Drinker of the Day Award Goes To...
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com reader Victor gets the Kool-Aid Drinker of the Day Award for his insightful response to the recent article by Manifesto Joe that we posted here, titled "Is A Capitalist Meltdown Upon Us?" which took a look at the current economic crisis.
Victor's award-winning comment reads thusly:
"At the end of WWII, Eisenhower and his troops rolled into the last of the concentration camps and killing fields uncovering unspeakable horrors with emaciated bodies piled into mountains. He had the foresight to order his men to 'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.'
In spite of the reams of evidence to the contrary, there are holocaust deniers around the world. Driven by the emotion of their conviction rather than the facts staring them in the face, they make utter fools of themselves.
You people remind me of those idiots who ignore the lessons of the past because of your own selfish agenda. It some kind of insane frenzy to "stick it to the man," you are willing to hand over your freedoms and to deny liberty to your own children. I knew jealousy was a powerful emotion, but I had no idea it could be fanned to such an incinerating level such as we are seeing. It is no longer considered acceptable to praise and reward achievement. Now it is called excess. The winners who our economy is built around are being pulled down by the losers who have never been willing to demonstrate any energy or to produce anything. And when it is over, they will look around and say, "Why do we not have jobs? What have we done?"
But the true lessons of the past tell us the only thing government can do to help an economy is to lower taxes, get out of the way, and let the markets do what they will. It always works. And because lower taxes lead to increased wealth, it always results in greater treasury receipts.
But you seek to cover up the past. You say it never happened. You refuse to admit the lessons of growing government a la FDR, LBJ and now Obama have been catostrophic to the economy.
But the pendulum will swing. In 2010 conservatives will muster and amass on Washington after this orgy is over and the filthy aftermath is shown in the light of day. Lets hope that once they shut down the Maniac on Pennsylvannia Ave. they keep their wits about them this time.
And I want to say one more thing. Fuck you. Fuck you all who gleefully allow this proud nation's might and traditions to be trampled, raped, starved and killed off like those innocents in Germany. You should be ashamed."
----Victor
Congrats, Victor, you get our Kool-Aid-Drinker of the Day award. But first, here's a few bulletins from Planet Earth:
1. Re: Eisenhower wanting to "Get it all on record."
Actually, that's what we Dems have long wanted to do with Bush's treasonous crimes. But (as was the case during the Reagan/Ollie North years) Bush and Cheney were the masters of secrecy and destroying records.
2. "The winners who our economy is built around are being pulled down by the losers who have never been willing to demonstrate any energy or to produce anything."
Yeah, losers like Warren Buffett, the richest man on earth, who has urged Congress to raise taxes on the rich. Clearly, Buffett doesn't know anything about economics or prosperity and, instead, we should listen to geniuses like GWB, (who was such a big success in the private sector).
3. "In 2010 conservatives will muster and amass on Washington after this orgy is over."
Yeah, the GOP showed us how "conservative" they are during the past 10 years (during which they held all the levers of power in D.C.) They inherited a surplus from Clinton and proceeded to double the nation's deficit with things like their $3 trillion war fiasco in Iraq. Yes, these are the people who we can depend on to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.
Oh and as far as the current Second Great Depression, it's clearly unfair to blame it on the GOP. No, let's blame it all on Obama, who's been in office a few weeks.
Please, Victor, turn off Rush and EDUCATE YOURSELF, moron.
Victor's award-winning comment reads thusly:
"At the end of WWII, Eisenhower and his troops rolled into the last of the concentration camps and killing fields uncovering unspeakable horrors with emaciated bodies piled into mountains. He had the foresight to order his men to 'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.'
In spite of the reams of evidence to the contrary, there are holocaust deniers around the world. Driven by the emotion of their conviction rather than the facts staring them in the face, they make utter fools of themselves.
You people remind me of those idiots who ignore the lessons of the past because of your own selfish agenda. It some kind of insane frenzy to "stick it to the man," you are willing to hand over your freedoms and to deny liberty to your own children. I knew jealousy was a powerful emotion, but I had no idea it could be fanned to such an incinerating level such as we are seeing. It is no longer considered acceptable to praise and reward achievement. Now it is called excess. The winners who our economy is built around are being pulled down by the losers who have never been willing to demonstrate any energy or to produce anything. And when it is over, they will look around and say, "Why do we not have jobs? What have we done?"
But the true lessons of the past tell us the only thing government can do to help an economy is to lower taxes, get out of the way, and let the markets do what they will. It always works. And because lower taxes lead to increased wealth, it always results in greater treasury receipts.
But you seek to cover up the past. You say it never happened. You refuse to admit the lessons of growing government a la FDR, LBJ and now Obama have been catostrophic to the economy.
But the pendulum will swing. In 2010 conservatives will muster and amass on Washington after this orgy is over and the filthy aftermath is shown in the light of day. Lets hope that once they shut down the Maniac on Pennsylvannia Ave. they keep their wits about them this time.
And I want to say one more thing. Fuck you. Fuck you all who gleefully allow this proud nation's might and traditions to be trampled, raped, starved and killed off like those innocents in Germany. You should be ashamed."
----Victor
Congrats, Victor, you get our Kool-Aid-Drinker of the Day award. But first, here's a few bulletins from Planet Earth:
1. Re: Eisenhower wanting to "Get it all on record."
Actually, that's what we Dems have long wanted to do with Bush's treasonous crimes. But (as was the case during the Reagan/Ollie North years) Bush and Cheney were the masters of secrecy and destroying records.
2. "The winners who our economy is built around are being pulled down by the losers who have never been willing to demonstrate any energy or to produce anything."
Yeah, losers like Warren Buffett, the richest man on earth, who has urged Congress to raise taxes on the rich. Clearly, Buffett doesn't know anything about economics or prosperity and, instead, we should listen to geniuses like GWB, (who was such a big success in the private sector).
3. "In 2010 conservatives will muster and amass on Washington after this orgy is over."
Yeah, the GOP showed us how "conservative" they are during the past 10 years (during which they held all the levers of power in D.C.) They inherited a surplus from Clinton and proceeded to double the nation's deficit with things like their $3 trillion war fiasco in Iraq. Yes, these are the people who we can depend on to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.
Oh and as far as the current Second Great Depression, it's clearly unfair to blame it on the GOP. No, let's blame it all on Obama, who's been in office a few weeks.
Please, Victor, turn off Rush and EDUCATE YOURSELF, moron.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Is A Capitalist Meltdown Upon Us?
By MANIFESTO JOE
I'll only be 53 on my next birthday in late July, yet it already seems like I've lived a tiring amount of history. Only 20 years ago, the world saw the meltdown of Soviet-style communism -- and many observers, largely neo-conservatives, interpreted that as an ideological culmination, "the end of history." There was even an influential book written with that title. (Does anyone remember that author now? And, does he want to remember that book? Yeah, I know -- Francis Fukuyama.)
It appears that reversals of fortune can happen quickly. Now it looks like the allegedly venerable ideology of "free-market" capitalism is on the ropes, and in serious danger of going down. Who would have thought it?
Die-hard Marxists did. I've never been one of them, even as a long-ago radical all of 23 years old. I still know three people who have continued to call themselves Marxists in total defiance of dismissal or ridicule, and they are probably gloating a lot now. The economic train wreck they kept dogmatically predicting finally seems to be in front of us.
But even as America sleepwalked through our Second Gilded Age (circa 1981-2005), I grew skeptical of the Marxist vision. "Historical inevitability" always sounded like a religious tenet, without the pure superstition; and Marxism itself, a sort of quasi-religion for embittered atheists.
We should be as cautious about awarding hard-line socialists a victory here, as much as "we" (in the editorial sense) should have checked for our wallets the minute Reagan started talking about trickle-down and Phil Gramm started talking about deregulation. The past century should have taught us that the answer lies in between.
Starting with the excesses of laissez-faire: America has, for the past 30-ish years, seen the roller-coaster ride that happens with that sort of economic policy. An elite grows very rich, a minority near the bottom slips much further down, and most people tend to stagnate in the middle.
There are cycles of boom and bust. The booms are good for most people, but especially good for a few. The latter group inevitably forms a "Why Should I Have To Pay Taxes?" lobby and gets bonanzas from lawmakers eager to please. And since these are the people of ostentation and material success, their influence is great among fashionable "thinkers" of the day.
Now the big bust is upon us. It's a bit like 1933 all over again -- not as grim or total in devastation, but it's likely to get worse. President Barack Obama has warned us that this is so.
But history, with its entire lesson, should be heeded, and it seems like Obama is one who will do so.
There were very good reasons for the meltdown of the Soviet empire 20 years ago. Contrary to right-wing mythology, Reagan and his military buildup had little to do with it. Post-Soviet Russian economists recall the problems as internal, and any intellectually honest person knew what they were. There's no need for me to recite the litany here -- Americans heard it all for decades.
But let's face it, die-hard socialists out there -- state-run enterprises have a poor track record. The employees seem to lack incentives to produce. Cooperatives tend to degenerate into personal conflict, power struggles and chaos. And as for the concentration of power in the hands of "vanguard revolutionaries" -- the horrors and enormities of that have been abundant just in the past century.
I don't think it's hard to argue for a sense of balance and measure. In America, it seems like the compromising wheeler-dealers -- the FDRs, the Trumans, the LBJs, the Ted Kennedys -- got more done for working Americans than any of our homegrown radicals ever did.
But there is little doubt that there's been a sea change, and it's been back toward socialist thinking. The Nobel Prize committees have not been known for their sympathy toward socialist-leaning economists, yet Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has more or less come out in favor of the nationalization of U.S. banks. That would be a major step toward socialism of some fashion. Why not? We've just given the bastards $700 billion in taxpayer money to keep them in business. Here's a link to the interview with Stiglitz.
And, it appears that such state power would be the only thing to force the shameless swine who run these enterprises to behave themselves. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., made a speech on the Senate floor about the Wall Street oinkers who had themselves awarded $18.4 billion in bonuses while their enterprises got in on the aforementioned $700 billion, because of reckless and disastrous mismanagement. Here's another link to reports on this issue, and to a video of McCaskill's speech. Be patient, the video seems very rough.
So, what should be the ultimate American destination, in an era of "capitalist" meltdown? The Swedes, with a hybrid socialist-capitalist system, don't seem to do badly, with avowed Socialists predominantly in power since 1929. Their booms are smaller, but so are their busts. Their people don't live in fear of homelessness or inability to afford basic health care. Right-wing humorist P.J. O'Rourke, when asked about the Swedes' seeming happiness with their stable system, said that they are all insane -- but that their insanity is distributed equally among the people.
It's a funny line. But there's nothing funny about facing a mortgage foreclosure, or about the welfare rolls shrinking even as joblessness is rapidly expanding. With a growing U.S. underclass, it may be time to take a second look at the socialist mind-set -- despite the old Marxist baggage. Nobody requires us to go to extremes.
Manifesto Joe is an underground writer living in Texas. Check out his blog at Manifesto Joe's Texas Blues.
I'll only be 53 on my next birthday in late July, yet it already seems like I've lived a tiring amount of history. Only 20 years ago, the world saw the meltdown of Soviet-style communism -- and many observers, largely neo-conservatives, interpreted that as an ideological culmination, "the end of history." There was even an influential book written with that title. (Does anyone remember that author now? And, does he want to remember that book? Yeah, I know -- Francis Fukuyama.)
It appears that reversals of fortune can happen quickly. Now it looks like the allegedly venerable ideology of "free-market" capitalism is on the ropes, and in serious danger of going down. Who would have thought it?
Die-hard Marxists did. I've never been one of them, even as a long-ago radical all of 23 years old. I still know three people who have continued to call themselves Marxists in total defiance of dismissal or ridicule, and they are probably gloating a lot now. The economic train wreck they kept dogmatically predicting finally seems to be in front of us.
But even as America sleepwalked through our Second Gilded Age (circa 1981-2005), I grew skeptical of the Marxist vision. "Historical inevitability" always sounded like a religious tenet, without the pure superstition; and Marxism itself, a sort of quasi-religion for embittered atheists.
We should be as cautious about awarding hard-line socialists a victory here, as much as "we" (in the editorial sense) should have checked for our wallets the minute Reagan started talking about trickle-down and Phil Gramm started talking about deregulation. The past century should have taught us that the answer lies in between.
Starting with the excesses of laissez-faire: America has, for the past 30-ish years, seen the roller-coaster ride that happens with that sort of economic policy. An elite grows very rich, a minority near the bottom slips much further down, and most people tend to stagnate in the middle.
There are cycles of boom and bust. The booms are good for most people, but especially good for a few. The latter group inevitably forms a "Why Should I Have To Pay Taxes?" lobby and gets bonanzas from lawmakers eager to please. And since these are the people of ostentation and material success, their influence is great among fashionable "thinkers" of the day.
Now the big bust is upon us. It's a bit like 1933 all over again -- not as grim or total in devastation, but it's likely to get worse. President Barack Obama has warned us that this is so.
But history, with its entire lesson, should be heeded, and it seems like Obama is one who will do so.
There were very good reasons for the meltdown of the Soviet empire 20 years ago. Contrary to right-wing mythology, Reagan and his military buildup had little to do with it. Post-Soviet Russian economists recall the problems as internal, and any intellectually honest person knew what they were. There's no need for me to recite the litany here -- Americans heard it all for decades.
But let's face it, die-hard socialists out there -- state-run enterprises have a poor track record. The employees seem to lack incentives to produce. Cooperatives tend to degenerate into personal conflict, power struggles and chaos. And as for the concentration of power in the hands of "vanguard revolutionaries" -- the horrors and enormities of that have been abundant just in the past century.
I don't think it's hard to argue for a sense of balance and measure. In America, it seems like the compromising wheeler-dealers -- the FDRs, the Trumans, the LBJs, the Ted Kennedys -- got more done for working Americans than any of our homegrown radicals ever did.
But there is little doubt that there's been a sea change, and it's been back toward socialist thinking. The Nobel Prize committees have not been known for their sympathy toward socialist-leaning economists, yet Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has more or less come out in favor of the nationalization of U.S. banks. That would be a major step toward socialism of some fashion. Why not? We've just given the bastards $700 billion in taxpayer money to keep them in business. Here's a link to the interview with Stiglitz.
And, it appears that such state power would be the only thing to force the shameless swine who run these enterprises to behave themselves. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., made a speech on the Senate floor about the Wall Street oinkers who had themselves awarded $18.4 billion in bonuses while their enterprises got in on the aforementioned $700 billion, because of reckless and disastrous mismanagement. Here's another link to reports on this issue, and to a video of McCaskill's speech. Be patient, the video seems very rough.
So, what should be the ultimate American destination, in an era of "capitalist" meltdown? The Swedes, with a hybrid socialist-capitalist system, don't seem to do badly, with avowed Socialists predominantly in power since 1929. Their booms are smaller, but so are their busts. Their people don't live in fear of homelessness or inability to afford basic health care. Right-wing humorist P.J. O'Rourke, when asked about the Swedes' seeming happiness with their stable system, said that they are all insane -- but that their insanity is distributed equally among the people.
It's a funny line. But there's nothing funny about facing a mortgage foreclosure, or about the welfare rolls shrinking even as joblessness is rapidly expanding. With a growing U.S. underclass, it may be time to take a second look at the socialist mind-set -- despite the old Marxist baggage. Nobody requires us to go to extremes.
Manifesto Joe is an underground writer living in Texas. Check out his blog at Manifesto Joe's Texas Blues.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
How Bush Unwittingly Helped Bin Laden's Plan To Wreck U.S. Economy
By MARC McDONALD
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
---Osama bin Laden, 2004 videotape statement.
"The past eight years of imperial overstretch, hubris and domestic and international abuse of power on the part of the Bush administration has left the U.S. materially weakened financially, economically, politically and morally. Even the most hard-nosed, Guantanamo Bay-indifferent potential foreign investor in the U.S. must recognize that its financial system has collapsed."
---Willem Buiter, London School of Economics, 2009.
Contrary to what George W. Bush would have us believe, Osama bin Laden does not hate America for its freedoms. Nor has bin Laden ever harbored ambitions of destroying America in a military confrontation.
No, actually, what bin Laden has long sought is to diminish America's standing in the world by wrecking our economy. Bin Laden believes this is possible because he saw first-hand how the Soviet Union met its demise.
As bin Laden said in a 2004 statement, "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."
It's clear that the main goal of the 9/11 attacks was to provoke the U.S. into a costly war in Afghanistan that would drain our treasury and ultimately weaken the main lever of America's global power and influence: the U.S. dollar.
Unfortunately for America, after 9/11, Bush took bin Laden's bait. As bin Laden put it himself in 2004, Al-Qaeda found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
In fact, bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in provoking America into not one, but two disastrous and ruinously expensive wars that have done untold damage to America's global standing, as well as our economic power.
Eight years after the 9/11 attacks, America's economy is in the worst shape it has been since the Great Depression. But the damage is actually far worse than that. As bad as things were in the 1930s, few people then seriously expected the dollar to collapse or for America to become a bankrupt nation. Now, such forecasts are increasingly common.
It's becoming frightening clear that the U.S. dollar is now teetering on the edge of a cliff. For all of the economic misery of 2008, the dollar managed to avoid a steep collapse in value. But it's increasingly likely that in 2009, the East Asian nations that hold trillions of dollars in U.S. debt will finally start off-loading their assets. And when they do, the dollar will crumble in value.
The destruction of the dollar's value will mean an end to America's reign as the world's sole superpower. Once upon a time, such a scenario was embraced only by an alarmist fringe of commentators who weren't taken seriously. But these days, more and more mainstream respectable observers now believe this will be America's fate in the near future. Even Warren Buffet, the wealthiest man on earth, has said the U.S. is at risk of becoming a "sharecropper’s society."
How Bush Took Bin Laden's Bait
During the Soviets' disastrous war in Afghanistan, bin Laden saw first-hand the devastating effects that imperial overstretch can have on a nation's economy. Clearly, that costly fiasco played a role in the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union.
The 9/11 attacks were meant to provoke the U.S. into a similarly costly and debilitating war. And in this, it succeeded beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams, as Bush proceeded to launch not one, but two disastrous wars. (That one of these wars was against the secular state of Iraq, headed by bin Laden's old nemesis, Saddam Hussein, was the icing on the cake).
The 9/11 attacks presented a series of challenges to George W. Bush. The challenges were clear: kill or capture bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda.
Eight years later, it's difficult to comprehend just how much Bush has utterly failed to meet this challenge. Bin Laden remains a free man. Al-Qaeda remains intact and is still as lethal as ever. And the Taliban are back and growing in strength.
On the other hand, America is a profoundly different nation than the one that existed before 9/11. We're now a country that is widely despised, feared and hated around the world. We're a vastly weaker nation, economically, than we were before 9/11. America's debts have mushroomed to fantastic levels that threaten the nation's economic security.
About the only thing future historians will remember about Bush's presidency is that he presided over the beginning of the end of the American empire. And it's clear that his bungled response to 9/11 was a key factor in America's ultimate demise as a superpower.
It's this last point that is especially noteworthy. Bin Laden realized early on that his ragtag group of Al-Qaeda fighters could never defeat the U.S. militarily. And horrific as they were, the 9/11 attacks by themselves were a mere pinprick on the overall American economy.
For bin Laden to succeed, he needed the unwitting cooperation of George W. Bush. And that's exactly what bin Laden got, with Bush's disastrous, bungling response to the 9/11 attacks.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
---Osama bin Laden, 2004 videotape statement.
"The past eight years of imperial overstretch, hubris and domestic and international abuse of power on the part of the Bush administration has left the U.S. materially weakened financially, economically, politically and morally. Even the most hard-nosed, Guantanamo Bay-indifferent potential foreign investor in the U.S. must recognize that its financial system has collapsed."
---Willem Buiter, London School of Economics, 2009.
Contrary to what George W. Bush would have us believe, Osama bin Laden does not hate America for its freedoms. Nor has bin Laden ever harbored ambitions of destroying America in a military confrontation.
No, actually, what bin Laden has long sought is to diminish America's standing in the world by wrecking our economy. Bin Laden believes this is possible because he saw first-hand how the Soviet Union met its demise.
As bin Laden said in a 2004 statement, "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."
It's clear that the main goal of the 9/11 attacks was to provoke the U.S. into a costly war in Afghanistan that would drain our treasury and ultimately weaken the main lever of America's global power and influence: the U.S. dollar.
Unfortunately for America, after 9/11, Bush took bin Laden's bait. As bin Laden put it himself in 2004, Al-Qaeda found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
In fact, bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in provoking America into not one, but two disastrous and ruinously expensive wars that have done untold damage to America's global standing, as well as our economic power.
Eight years after the 9/11 attacks, America's economy is in the worst shape it has been since the Great Depression. But the damage is actually far worse than that. As bad as things were in the 1930s, few people then seriously expected the dollar to collapse or for America to become a bankrupt nation. Now, such forecasts are increasingly common.
It's becoming frightening clear that the U.S. dollar is now teetering on the edge of a cliff. For all of the economic misery of 2008, the dollar managed to avoid a steep collapse in value. But it's increasingly likely that in 2009, the East Asian nations that hold trillions of dollars in U.S. debt will finally start off-loading their assets. And when they do, the dollar will crumble in value.
The destruction of the dollar's value will mean an end to America's reign as the world's sole superpower. Once upon a time, such a scenario was embraced only by an alarmist fringe of commentators who weren't taken seriously. But these days, more and more mainstream respectable observers now believe this will be America's fate in the near future. Even Warren Buffet, the wealthiest man on earth, has said the U.S. is at risk of becoming a "sharecropper’s society."
How Bush Took Bin Laden's Bait
During the Soviets' disastrous war in Afghanistan, bin Laden saw first-hand the devastating effects that imperial overstretch can have on a nation's economy. Clearly, that costly fiasco played a role in the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union.
The 9/11 attacks were meant to provoke the U.S. into a similarly costly and debilitating war. And in this, it succeeded beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams, as Bush proceeded to launch not one, but two disastrous wars. (That one of these wars was against the secular state of Iraq, headed by bin Laden's old nemesis, Saddam Hussein, was the icing on the cake).
The 9/11 attacks presented a series of challenges to George W. Bush. The challenges were clear: kill or capture bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda.
Eight years later, it's difficult to comprehend just how much Bush has utterly failed to meet this challenge. Bin Laden remains a free man. Al-Qaeda remains intact and is still as lethal as ever. And the Taliban are back and growing in strength.
On the other hand, America is a profoundly different nation than the one that existed before 9/11. We're now a country that is widely despised, feared and hated around the world. We're a vastly weaker nation, economically, than we were before 9/11. America's debts have mushroomed to fantastic levels that threaten the nation's economic security.
About the only thing future historians will remember about Bush's presidency is that he presided over the beginning of the end of the American empire. And it's clear that his bungled response to 9/11 was a key factor in America's ultimate demise as a superpower.
It's this last point that is especially noteworthy. Bin Laden realized early on that his ragtag group of Al-Qaeda fighters could never defeat the U.S. militarily. And horrific as they were, the 9/11 attacks by themselves were a mere pinprick on the overall American economy.
For bin Laden to succeed, he needed the unwitting cooperation of George W. Bush. And that's exactly what bin Laden got, with Bush's disastrous, bungling response to the 9/11 attacks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
