No Resurrection for the Grassroots Messiah

People must accept that Obama already made his pact with the devil before the election. He cannot serve two masters. As soon as we discovered he had already cast his vote with the bankers, I knew it was over. People just need to admit to themselves they were bamboozled by Obama, Axelrod, and Plouffe into believing that Obama was a grassroots messiah, when, in reality, the alignment of self-interest and political pragmatism proved he is the ultimate insider. When it comes to political capital, he squandered a rare fortune. The "o" being such a thin disguise anyway, we really can start calling it what it is: Capital Hill. There are no statesmen in power, and the climate does not exist for them to survive---even if we had one. Move on already. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...well, er, um, you can't fool me a second time. These are all bad apples---both sides and the knife-edge middle.

Mishearing Cap-and-Trade

I've been hearing the term "cap-and-trade" often, but realized only tonight that all this time they've been discussing "gap-in-trade"---a very important issue in the long-term interest of this country. But I'm not the only person who mishears things: Goldman Sachs has their own take on the term "long-term interest."

The New Fair and Balanced on the Deepshit Horizon

There is a new balance in America. Has anyone noticed?

Question: Is anyone surprised that Goldman Sachs is talking out of both sides of its mouth---about desiring reform and then lobbying against it at the same time?

Hasn't anyone noticed their pattern yet? They do both things at the same time: selling the knucklehead clients their wares and then betting against them. The clients, by the way, include cities, municipalities, counties, and states. Excellent! That will make whatever reform will happen very effective.

Question: Does the media believe that attacking an interviewee on both sides of an issue as fair and balanced?

In a CNN (PROBAMA) interview with Representative Marci Kaptur (a hero of mine, although the term "hero" is a bit of a stretch; if she were an athletic coach, it would have been "genius." Let's just say that she's on the list of The Righteous, whatever that is.), Christine Romans asked Marci Kaptur about what the Obama administration (government) is doing to create jobs, and Rep. Kaptur replied, and then the probama telejournalist asked Rep. Kaptur, "But government by itself can't really create jobs, can it?" It was very clear that the Obama administration and their media arm, CNN, was trying to sabotage Marci Kaptur because she is not falling in line with the party lane.

Here's the Rep. Kaptur excerpt of the transcript:

ROMANS: And "The Washington Post" announcing plans to close its remaining domestic news bureaus in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago by the end of the year. It's the latest in a series of cost cutting measures. "The Post" executive editor says the paper needs to concentrate on its journalistic fire power on covering the nations' capital.

Turning now to the economy, and with unemployment at 26-year high a lot of Americans are wondering where is the recovery we keep hearing about? President Obama has scheduled a job summit for the first week of December, and Congress is already looking at ways to stimulate jobs growth.

Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio is co-chair of the bipartisan Jobs Now Caucus. She joins us live from Detroit this morning.

Good morning, congresswoman.

And let me ask you first about this idea that we need something else, some new piece of legislation or some new big push to actually create jobs. What we've seen to date has been programs really meant to mitigate the feeling of joblessness, it's been jobless benefits, also some infrastructure spending in the stimulus. But do we need something bigger and something new?

REP. MARCY KAPTUR (D-OH), CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL JOBS NOW CAUCUS: I think that's why we formed the Jobs Now Caucus with over 130 members on a bipartisan basis to keep the focus on job creation.

I think what's happening, Christine, is that the incorrect tools to solve what was wrong in the banking system, the incorrect approach has really dried up credit across our country. And the housing foreclosure crisis has not been solved. It's been going up. And that really tripped the economy into a deep, deep recession.

ROMANS: You think the incorrect tools, you think the focus on helping the banks, it wasn't done well, it wasn't done correctly, and so now you have banks not lending, and that lack of lending is starving job creation?

KAPTUR: That is. And so, we have to look to the systemic problems that we're facing, but also with 15.7 million people minimum unemployed across the country. In Ohio it's now over 628,000 up in a year, 200,000 more than last year. And here in Michigan, of course, the state has the greatest amount of unemployment, we have to be much more focused about what we are doing as a country. And the Jobs Now Caucus intends to do that on a bipartisan basis.

ROMANS: Let's talk about the stimulus, though. We have a $787 billion stimulus, there is still some $600 billion left to spend. It was time released frankly over two years, it's meant to keep going out. It would be very unpopular to ask for another stimulus. People are already questioning how this one's been spent and even where we can point to successes in the stimulus, there is a little bit of skepticism. Can you sell spending more money on creating jobs?

KAPTUR: I think we have to look at where this money is going. Only 22 percent of the Recovery bill has been committed at this point. And it stopped the hemorrhage of police officers and teachers across our country. There has been some limited investment in roads and bridges and so forth.

But I think we need to help put America back to work. And this particular bill I think was not properly targeted in some cases. And we want to look at the TARP money and that money coming back in, where that's being spent.

People want to work, and we have a responsibility at the federal level to help relieve some of this pain. You know, when Franklin Roosevelt was president in the first three months of his presidency, with the help of Harry Hopkins, there were over 350,000 people that were put back to work. Hundreds of thousands of people were employed and many more came online later.

I think we need more rigor, we need more push behind a federal program that can really help reemploy people.

ROMANS: There are plenty of economists who tell that you the government can only create jobs in a very short term basis, that it has to be private industry that's back on its feet that's creating jobs on a larger scale. Small business creates I think 60 percent of new jobs.

Do you need some sort of mix of small business tax cuts, of some things that can make the environment better for creating jobs? But government by itself can't really create jobs, can it?

KAPTUR: Government because of the way the banking crisis was handled has killed jobs. When credit dries up small business generally gets loans from local institutions. They're not lending. And the home foreclosure crisis is getting worse.

The first time home buyer credit really has made a difference in the real estate market. There was a little bit of an uptick in the third quarter. And we have to look at ways of targeting bottom-up job creation, and we have to look back at what's happened in the banking system.

But we've also got to sop up some of this high level of unemployment across the country in the areas that are being hardest hit. And I know that our caucus is going to focus directly on that when we go back next week.

ROMANS: And certainly the president and his summit will discuss this on the December 3rd as well.

KAPTUR: We welcome that.

ROMANS: Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, thank you for joining us.

KAPTUR: Thank you very much.

Source:

---

In a recent segment about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill/disaster, Brit Hume asked, "what oil?" and then claimed that natural seepage of oil from the underwater crust is much larger than this oil spill. Juan Williams, trying to be accommodating by acknowledging the existence of natural seepage, then fell into the trap set by Brit Hume to attack him about Williams' supposed restatement of the logical conclusion to what the dastard Brit Hume claimed. (He claims, "the ocean absorbs a lot," but doesn't specify exactly how much it absorbs; then again, if the ocean is absorbing a lot, how does water absorb oil? I don't understand Humian chemistry yet, but I'm sure he'll enlighten us someday when oil becomes hydrophilic. Also, if the underwater crust has been leaking in large quantities in proportion to Deepwater Horizon since time immemorial, then where the hell is all that oil? I mean, based on his absurd claim, comparing this disaster as much smaller than natural occurring seepage (Deepwater Horizon is estimated to be leaking an Exxon Valdez load about every 4 to 7 days), then there should be a Walmart parking lot on the ocean, based on that crude logic.

I suppose the new fair and balanced means being on both sides of an issue, instead of having guests from both sides of an issue.



Relevant excerpt:

WILLIAMS: But I think it will damage the environment in the gulf and damage tourism and damage fishing. I don't think there's any question this is in excess of anything we've previously asked the ocean to absorb.

HUME: We'll see if it is. We'll see if it is. The ocean absorbs a lot, Juan, an awful lot. The ocean absorbs a lot.

WILLIAMS: I think Rush Limbaugh went down this road, "The ocean can handle it." I think we have to take some responsibility for the environment and be responsible to people who live in the area, vacation in that area, fish in that area. It's just wrong to think, "You know what? Dump it on the ocean and let the ocean handle it."

HUME: Who said that? Who is saying that? No one's making that argument.

---

Where's the oil, Brit? I'll tell you where: it's behind your ears!

The Loch Ness Monster is wearing a Bikini? WTF?

Rachel Maddow Show

What is with the Bikini-Loch Ness monster graph bullshit? Then Rachel Maddow claims that the reason the jobless numbers are larger (despite the fact that more jobs were created in April---the largest increase in the last 4 years) is because there are many more people looking for jobs that weren't looking before? WTF? How does the government measure that when it doesn't even count those who have lost unemployment insurance but have not found work as still unemployed (once unemployment insurance ends, the government wouldn't know and doesn't keep track---a prime example of cherry-picking the data to paint a rosy picture; also known as the fallacy of half-truth). The flawed logic points at the intellectually dishonest mathematics here to contrast the Obama administration with the former Bush administration. Then the chart on previous recessions is a chart of percentages, not actual numbers. Now that the population of the U.S. is 300 million, not whatever the populations were at the time of the previous recessions, the use of percentages instead of actual numbers is, again, intellectually dishonest and purposefully misleading. Not having watched her show in a year or so, I did not realize how much the Maddow show has deteriorated. I knew it was biased, but did it have to get to the level of insHannity?

Gordon Geico (Warren Buffett) and his new Abacus

This blog is in response to the article, "Feisty Buffett supports Goldman, high on economy" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100503/bs_nm/us_berkshire_buffett).

Looks like Warren Buffet (Gordon Geico) has become the next colossal AZZHOLE and non-apologist for Wall Street. Buffett says, "It's very strange to say, at the end of the transaction, that if the other guy is smarter than you, that you have been defrauded."

This is the guy who put 5 Billion into GS *before* our bailout. It's called free money. Buffett also got a 700 million dollar interest-free loan from the government (read David Cay Johnston's book, "Free Lunch," if you want to make your blood boil---get your doctor's approval first).

Let's remember who investors are: a subset of the population (usually wealthier) who expect to make money from their money---not from their labor but from your labor.

Can you put your money under a mattress and make money?

No.

Do real people actually have to produce something that sells to make money?

Yes.

Does fraud count as production?

No.

Then who are the producers?

America's workforce.

Are you saying that Warren Buffett makes a percentage of the excess value of those workers?

Yes. Most of them, and certainly the ones working for the companies in which he has invested.

So, he's not actually producing anything as an investor?

That's right, he doesn't actually produce anything, but he allows production to happen.

So, workers should be happy to have the jobs that Buffett's money provides?

Yes, but Buffett should be even happier that the tables aren't reversed.

So, why would Buffett start defending GS on what the SEC deemed as fraud?

He's not defending the fraud. He's defending the 5 Billion he put into GS.

And that's why he's lying about there being no fraud?

Yes, that's why he's lying about there being no fraud.

Simple as that?

We're talking about 5 Billion dollars.

So, Warren Buffett is a fraud for the sake of saving Berkshire Hathaway's money?

Yes, Warren Buffett is a fraud.

I thought Warren Buffett used to be a pillar of the financial community.

He used to be, but his morality can be purchased.

This is a new day in America.

Yes, it does appear that Warren Buffett has turned to the dark side, unless you never thought of him as being clean in the first place. He's always made his money off the backs of less fortunate people.

Do you think he's lost his credibility?

Yes, but not his fans---his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders.

The American Dream

The American Dream is a desire to escape a brutal economic system. Americans strive to attain wealth because they believe this is the only way to free themselves from an economic system which has eroded the rights of workers and maintains a frenetic regimen that violates aspects of biology. With incomes continually decreasing in a slow, nearly imperceptible creep---noticeable by the need to take on extra work beyond the full-time job---the American is stretched beyond any effective human capacity (read David Cay Johnston's book, "Perfectly Legal," which exposes the growing disparities between the former middle class and the economic elites). When rich people are able to purchase multiple homes (in a nation where not everyone can afford to own a home that no-one can lord over you), it creates a steady inflation of home prices that disadvantage the less economically fortunate. The frenzy at which the wealthy acquire real estate and homes in order to escape tax obligations, and puts abnormal pressure by the not unfamiliar law of supply and demand---on already inflated home prices for everyone (and then those who can afford homes get special tax advantages---called subsidies---from the government. The rates at which the incomes of the poor and middle class increase are simply outpaced by inflation (government spending); wealth accumulation (through advantageous tax structures, self-policed executive incomes, advantageous stock purchasing abilities available only to the super rich, and other disparaging practices); greedy industrialists who sell, for their own personal gain, the jobs-producing intellectual property of their companies to China or other countries (which has the external effect of eroding the production capability of the entire nation); economic recessions created largely by the unscrupulous, sociopathic practices of Wallshington; and other deaths by a thousand cuts. Why don't we create an economic system that isn't a casino? Why is the system built around the players? Because they have the money to influence how the game is played, and instead of being satisfied with their already unreasonable advantage, they continue to skew the game in their favor. Where does that leave the remaining Americans who are barely holding on? They too must find their own casino, which they find in these forms: file a lawsuit, play the lottery, play the stock market (which is where the rich siphon off their money), invent something, create a company you hope to sell off after the IPO, engage in multi-level marketing, or enjoy the delayed payment of credit extension. Nobody wants to work---because work isn't cutting it anymore. Why don't we create an economic system that works for everyone?

Ridding Ourselves of the Econopaths

I suggest that, in order to move forward as a nation and as a society, we engage some kind of psychological testing for all people in elite positions, from high office to the boardroom of American's corporations. What we want to do is eliminate those in our midst who are most likely to do us great harm---the sociopaths. They are the most ambitious, the most aggressive, and the least conscientious members of our society, willing, often, to step on others to get to the trough. If they harmed themselves only, we needn't be concerned, because the consequence of their own damage is limited to their own spheres. But they harm us in countless invisible ways. If they did to an individual what they do to the masses, we would call them economic murderers. But because their actions enjoy a diffusion of responsibility, we instead look to the individual and blame him instead for his circumstances---as if the actions from on high were divinely inspired or an act of God. If these people were limited to using their own resources, they would not have the power they have; remember, they have at their disposal the cumulative resources of thousands or millions of people, and have granted themselves the divine right of looting our collective treasuries to fuel their personal, feckless ambitions. They steal from the great collective and then give it back in forms of libraries and foundations---a redistribution of wealth they so vociferously campaign against. Talk about hypocrisy. And that must be the mark of a sociopath or the American capitalist version---the econopath.