News and Current Events - 2011

[Marge_Innavera]

Here's one we won't need any emoticons or translations for:



Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support

"The American Free Press, which markets books like 'The Invention of the Jewish People' and 'March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,' is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will 'Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!'

"Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled 'Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?' has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. 'I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,' read one. Far-right groups like the Militia of Montana say they are rooting for Mr. Paul as a stalwart against government tyranny."

~      ~     ~     ~     ~

“. . . .  'I wouldn’t be happy with that,' Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.  But he did not disavow their support. 'If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,' said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

"The libertarian movement in American politics has long had two overlapping but distinct strains. One, backed to some degree by wealthy interests, is focused largely on economic freedom and dedicated to reducing taxes and regulation through smaller government. The other is more focused on personal liberty and constraints on government built into the Constitution, which at its extreme has helped fuel militant antigovernment sentiment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html


The story runs for 3 pages (online), and the comments are all over the map.  One of the commenters described Paul's nudge-and-wink relationship with right-wing extremists as being "always on the fringe of a cocktail party that I want no part of and yet somehow he is never imbibing."

[brokebacktom]

^^^^

Thanks for sharing. I find it strange that most Libertarians I know want smaller government in order to have more freedom from it. Yet at the same time they want to limit reproductive choices for women, make sure gays are out of the military and limit the so-called "Free Education" for the population. I will never understand them.

Right now Paul and Romney are in a dead heat in Iowa. No clear winner for now.

[fritzkep]

There's a Ron Paul ad at the bottom of the screen. Sheesh.

[fofol]

I have tried to listen, for example, to Michele Bachman, and am so quickly appalled that I have to turn away.

Here in Dallas, there is no shortage of vitriol aimed at Obama, even from school teachers.  I talk to my son about it, but honestly, it makes me very sad.

In case it isn't clear, I am appalled by the KFC jokes -- so appalled I didn't want to comment but alas, you are right, the ugliness is the actual news topic here.

   On PBS radio this AM, the talking heads finally dropped a real bomb.  The guest of the morning was the head of Politifact, the organization that checks politicians' statements for truth, and he revealed the name of the biggest liar (or fact-bender, if you'd like to be fair to the unfair) of all the Republican candidates, and the biggest liar is (trumpets): Michelle Bachman!  Nice going, Christian lady!!  I think if you'll do a fact check on the One you call Big Boss you'll find, believe it or not, in His top ten list of rules, He's got one that scans as: Thou shalt not lie!

[brokebacktom]

Bradly Manning Hero or Villain?

There are NO heroes in this sad story.

The American government have in the past shown they are willing to use propaganda and twist facts to suit themselves and hide others which show them in a bad light.

This confused young man though idealistic motives wished to expose truth, but risked putting others lives in danger through his actions.

And Wikileaks were found to be flawed too. Exposing Manning to begin with.

Another sad part to this story is with the information being reveled about the war crimes done, will there be an investigation to bring to justice the ones who committed these crimes? My guess is a big fat NO!

Still confused on how to feel about this whole thing.

[Marge_Innavera]

I find it strange that most Libertarians I know want smaller government in order to have more freedom from it. Yet at the same time they want to limit reproductive choices for women, make sure gays are out of the military and limit the so-called "Free Education" for the population. I will never understand them.

"Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work argues that there has never actually been a government and society that functions as libertarians think they should.


essentially because [excerpts]

"Feudalism is the inevitable historical consequence of the decline of a centralized cosmopolitan state. That's because the exercise of power by those in a position to wield it does not end with the elimination of federal authority: rather, it simply shifts to those of a more localized, more tyrannical, and less democratically accountable bent.

~    ~    ~    ~    ~    ~    ~

"Urban street gangs in under-policed neighborhoods, mafias in under-taxed countries, and groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon invariably step in to fill the void where government fails. When the Japanese government wasn't able to adequately help the population after the earthquake and tsunami, the yakuza [organized crime groups] helpfully stepped in to do it for them. The devolution of local authority and taxation into the hands of criminal groups willing to provide a safety net in exchange for their cut of the action is the invariable pre-feudal result of the breakdown of the government-backed safety net. It happens every single time. The people will want a safety net where utter chaos doesn't prevent it: they'll either get it from an accountable governmental authority, or from a non-governmental authority of shadowy legality. Both kinds of authority will levy their own form of taxation, be it legal and official, or part of an illegal protection scheme.

"In its own way, the "No True Libertarianism" argument is very similar to the "No True Communism" of those on the far left, who argue that the fault of Communism lies not with the idea, but with the practice--despite the fact that no successful large-scale Communism has ever been implemented in the world. Neither ideology can fail its adherents. They can only be failed by imperfect practitioners."

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

"Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work argues that there has never actually been a government and society that functions as libertarians think they should.


essentially because [excerpts]

"Feudalism is the inevitable historical consequence of the decline of a centralized cosmopolitan state. That's because the exercise of power by those in a position to wield it does not end with the elimination of federal authority: rather, it simply shifts to those of a more localized, more tyrannical, and less democratically accountable bent.

~    ~    ~    ~    ~    ~    ~

"Urban street gangs in under-policed neighborhoods, mafias in under-taxed countries, and groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon invariably step in to fill the void where government fails. When the Japanese government wasn't able to adequately help the population after the earthquake and tsunami, the yakuza [organized crime groups] helpfully stepped in to do it for them. The devolution of local authority and taxation into the hands of criminal groups willing to provide a safety net in exchange for their cut of the action is the invariable pre-feudal result of the breakdown of the government-backed safety net. It happens every single time. The people will want a safety net where utter chaos doesn't prevent it: they'll either get it from an accountable governmental authority, or from a non-governmental authority of shadowy legality. Both kinds of authority will levy their own form of taxation, be it legal and official, or part of an illegal protection scheme.

"In its own way, the "No True Libertarianism" argument is very similar to the "No True Communism" of those on the far left, who argue that the fault of Communism lies not with the idea, but with the practice--despite the fact that no successful large-scale Communism has ever been implemented in the world. Neither ideology can fail its adherents. They can only be failed by imperfect practitioners."

Re:  my bold above -- absolutely.

Or going back even further -- tribalism.  

The author of "Our Better Angels" says that when kings or lords force scattered tribes to submit, violence between the tribes decreases -- not because of altruism, but because the ruler doesn't want his subject peoples killing each other.  That would detract from the ruler's wealth.

[janjo]

Somalia is a very good example of a state run by feuding warlords with a very weak central government.

Is that REALLY a good role model?

[Tony_]

 Interesting minor story.
  Hugo Chavez said, recently, that his cancer may have been caused by the U.S. government.  The knee-jerk reaction might be:  whoops, there he goes again.  But the further story of what he said (it was on yahoo news, and probably can be found by any search) reported that he was unsure, that he found it strange that most of the 5-6 leftist leaders in South America have come down with sudden cancers, and that statistically this was improbable. And his conclusion was: just saying, seemed strange to him.
  
  As it happens, the super-dooper, buck rogers technology used in the Iraq surge that scattered the terrorists and was referred to by Bob Woodward in a 60 Minutes interview, was probably the new high tech snooping devices that use something past X-rays at the airport, to see into homes and also detect sounds.  I have a news photo of the devices, and they were then referred to as back scanners, I think, (but that phrase has now vanished from word searches).  And there had been some issues over whether prolonged use of them could cause cancer and other health problems. And it is Bambi thinking to suppose we don't snoop on foreign leaders.
  In the 1970's, the reverse occurred, where the commies were using electromagnetic waves to snoop on the American embassy in Moscow, and two of our ambassadors developed sudden rare cancers.  It cost 100 million $ to seal the embassy from further snooping.
 
  There's also what are called "clean kills" which is the knocking off of an enemy of a political group or nation, that looks accidental or natural.  It's not so whacked out then, to wonder if Hugo might be on to something.
 This is the country, of course, that harbored G. Gordon Liddy, and Oliver North. It's not so unlikely, then, in the climate of these times, that governments have gone on to much worse.

[brokebacktom]

The propagandi­sts are out in force, attempting to shift blame from 30+ years of conservati­ve supply side policies to the Obama administra­tion. The presidency is not a dictatorsh­ip and only has the ability to negotiate with that branch of government that has the true power of the purse, Congress.

I give secondary blame to Obama for not making better use of the "bully pulpit", and allowing Summers and Geithner into his administra­tion, who by the way were there under Bush. We do need an administra­tion that has a treasury secretary who is not from the New York Fed or Wall Street?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/obamas-economic-policies-_n_1174188.html#comments

[brokebacktom]

Interesting minor story.
  Hugo Chavez said, recently, that his cancer may have been caused by the U.S. government.  The knee-jerk reaction might be:  whoops, there he goes again.  But the further story of what he said (it was on yahoo news, and probably can be found by any search) reported that he was unsure, that he found it strange that most of the 5-6 leftist leaders in South America have come down with sudden cancers, and that statistically this was improbable. And his conclusion was: just saying, seemed strange to him.

He gets nuttier by the minute.

[fofol]

In its own way, the "No True Libertarianism" argument is very similar to the "No True Communism" of those on the far left, who argue that the fault of Communism lies not with the idea, but with the practice--despite the fact that no successful large-scale Communism has ever been implemented in the world. Neither ideology can fail its adherents. They can only be failed by imperfect practitioners."


   This reminds me of one of a famous commentary on religion that I always thought was either from Mark Twain or G. K. Chesterton, but I can't find it to cite its origin:  "Christianity is a wondrful thing: too bad nobody practices it."

[garyd]

  This reminds me of one of a famous commentary on religion that I always thought was either from Mark Twain or G. K. Chesterton, but I can't find it to cite its origin:  "Christianity is a wondrful thing: too bad nobody practices it."

That doesn't sound like Twain.  This one, however, is definitely his:

The motto stated a lie. (In God we trust) If this nation has ever trusted in God, that time has gone by; for nearly half a century almost its entire trust has been in the Republican party and the dollar -- mainly the dollar. I recognize that I am only making an assertion and furnishing no proof; I am sorry, but this is a habit of mine; sorry also that I am not alone in it; everybody seems to have this disease.

[fofol]

That doesn't sound like Twain.  This one, however, is definitely his:

The motto stated a lie. (In God we trust) If this nation has ever trusted in God, that time has gone by; for nearly half a century almost its entire trust has been in the Republican party and the dollar -- mainly the dollar. I recognize that I am only making an assertion and furnishing no proof; I am sorry, but this is a habit of mine; sorry also that I am not alone in it; everybody seems to have this disease.

  This one is Mr. Twain's:

   There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him--early.
                                                             - Notebook, 1898

[Lyle (Mooska)]

  On PBS radio this AM, the talking heads finally dropped a real bomb.  The guest of the morning was the head of Politifact, the organization that checks politicians' statements for truth, and he revealed the name of the biggest liar (or fact-bender, if you'd like to be fair to the unfair) of all the Republican candidates, and the biggest liar is (trumpets): Michelle Bachman!  Nice going, Christian lady!!  I think if you'll do a fact check on the One you call Big Boss you'll find, believe it or not, in His top ten list of rules, He's got one that scans as: Thou shalt not lie!

Romney doesn't make the top because he has two answers for every question.  Or should I say
he has one answer--the one you want to hear.  The more I've seen of him on tv news this week
the less and less I think of him.  He's a real piece of work.

Love this article:

Iowa Caucauses: A Colossal Waste of Time
By Frank Cagle
December 28, 2011

http://www.metropulse.com/news/2011/dec/28/iowa-caucases-colossal-waste-time/