I am kinda tired and don't really feel like writing a long detailed post about the various facets of torture that have come out over the last couple of weeks. This will read like a bunch of random thoughts.
To the people who call things like waterboarding and slamming people's heads into walls something that isn't torture I just want to ask why would we be doing it if it wasn't torture?
What I find more appalling then the fact that we actually torture people is the fact that we employ such matters when it is not even an effective way to gather information from suspects. Most of the information we get from torturing people is unreliable because people will reveal anything you want to hear just to get the pain to stop. Also if you waterboard an individual over 180 you're either really fucking bad at torturing someone or its not an effective method of gathering intelligence information.
Right now Bill O reilly is going crazy about how Obama is putting out memos and pictures about prisoner abuse that we are putting various American people and interests at home and abroad in danger and that Obama is the worst person in the world for letting this happen. You know what fuck Bill-O and every other fucking hack piece of shit host on Fox News and talk radio who advances this retarded four year old logic. The worst part is that Bill-O just admitted that the U.S. is guilty of committing prisoner abuses. Let me get this straight. So the previous administration is guilty of horrible acts that break not only our laws but international laws and it is somehow Obama's fault for revealing how corrupt the previous administration was? Makes perfect sense.
What is also something that makes me mad is that the same people who either dfend America's implementation of torture or who don't agree that we have tortured would probably advocate bombing the fuck out of a country who employed the same methods we have on citizens from our country. It is kind of hypicritical just like it is when those who say they are pro life actively cheered when Israel bombed the shit out of the Gaza Strip and employed hard core fucking shit like white phosperus in populated areas (and if you want to see how horrific that shit is click on this link). It basically burns your skin to the bone.
Oh and I guess I should say that not all Fox Hosts are idiots.
All though this has nothing to do with torture a while ago I posted a video by the group Matt and Kim called Daylight and this is their new video. I kind of like this song almost as much and the video is pretty cool. It even has a surprise ending.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Miss USA
The talk of the town now is this Mrs. U.S. competition that happened a weekend or two ago. I'm sure you heard about it since it deals with hot chicks and same sex marriage though the hot chicks are not actually the ones having the same sex.
My immediate thought was what is the difference between Mrs. America and Mrs U.S. Is Mrs America just the continental United States. A co-worker told me they are two different competitions where the Mrs. US winner goes on to compete in The Mrs. Universe competition. I am sure once we master interplanetary travel that the winner of Mrs. Universe will go on to compete in Mrs. Galaxy and so on. If you ask me nobody will be able to beat that blue chick in Jabba's palace.
The big controversy is that Perez Hilton asked one of the contestants what her thoughts on same sex marriage were. Hilarity ensues.
First things first Perez Hilton is an untalented hack who gained popularity because he knows enough HTML code to put pictures of celebrities on his website with pictures of penis on them. Why he is judging this pageant is a question I would like answered.
That being said Miss California is being bashed by Perez and other people who are for same sex marriage and they are angry at her. I guess Perez makes a good point saying that she is supposed to represent all of America and not just people who fuck people of the opposite sex. He apparently called her various names like "bitch" and "cunt". I guess that's bad. Even though Perez is a hack I must say that I agree with his sentiments.
Conservatives are up in arms and it is all the same bullshit. Fucking losers called the Sean Hannity Show saying this is typical liberal thing to do. Liberals can't debate points so they report to name calling. Those liberals are so intolerant of other viewpoints. It's funny how the conservatives who want to limit peoples personal freedoms and rights get all up in arms about tolerance.
Of course Miss California can say whatever she wants to say. I would even say it takes immense courage to actually say she is against same sex marriage while she is a participant in competition where all of the judges and most of the audience is gay. That being said I don't want any of these conservative crybabies who whine about how people complain about how we are such not a PC culture when they say something intolerant about any group of people who are not white Christians but get mad when anything bad is is said about them. I say if she wants to be close minded I should be able to call her close minded.
She also said that she believes in no same sex marriage because she was brought up that way by her parents. Do you think her dad sat her down one day and said "I always want you to make your bed. Always remember to look both ways when you cross the street. And remember to always deny equal rights to same sex couples."
This is another video where Miss California reacts to Perez calling her a cunt by saying she will pray for him. Just thought I would post it.
The reason I don't like Mrs. California is that I know she is most definitely not a lesbian but would probably still not fuck me. Oh and if you find that statement misogynistic remember I was not the person who was in a contest that judges people just based off of looks. Wait I think that word would be narcissistic.
My immediate thought was what is the difference between Mrs. America and Mrs U.S. Is Mrs America just the continental United States. A co-worker told me they are two different competitions where the Mrs. US winner goes on to compete in The Mrs. Universe competition. I am sure once we master interplanetary travel that the winner of Mrs. Universe will go on to compete in Mrs. Galaxy and so on. If you ask me nobody will be able to beat that blue chick in Jabba's palace.
The big controversy is that Perez Hilton asked one of the contestants what her thoughts on same sex marriage were. Hilarity ensues.
First things first Perez Hilton is an untalented hack who gained popularity because he knows enough HTML code to put pictures of celebrities on his website with pictures of penis on them. Why he is judging this pageant is a question I would like answered.
That being said Miss California is being bashed by Perez and other people who are for same sex marriage and they are angry at her. I guess Perez makes a good point saying that she is supposed to represent all of America and not just people who fuck people of the opposite sex. He apparently called her various names like "bitch" and "cunt". I guess that's bad. Even though Perez is a hack I must say that I agree with his sentiments.
Conservatives are up in arms and it is all the same bullshit. Fucking losers called the Sean Hannity Show saying this is typical liberal thing to do. Liberals can't debate points so they report to name calling. Those liberals are so intolerant of other viewpoints. It's funny how the conservatives who want to limit peoples personal freedoms and rights get all up in arms about tolerance.
Of course Miss California can say whatever she wants to say. I would even say it takes immense courage to actually say she is against same sex marriage while she is a participant in competition where all of the judges and most of the audience is gay. That being said I don't want any of these conservative crybabies who whine about how people complain about how we are such not a PC culture when they say something intolerant about any group of people who are not white Christians but get mad when anything bad is is said about them. I say if she wants to be close minded I should be able to call her close minded.
She also said that she believes in no same sex marriage because she was brought up that way by her parents. Do you think her dad sat her down one day and said "I always want you to make your bed. Always remember to look both ways when you cross the street. And remember to always deny equal rights to same sex couples."
This is another video where Miss California reacts to Perez calling her a cunt by saying she will pray for him. Just thought I would post it.
The reason I don't like Mrs. California is that I know she is most definitely not a lesbian but would probably still not fuck me. Oh and if you find that statement misogynistic remember I was not the person who was in a contest that judges people just based off of looks. Wait I think that word would be narcissistic.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Discusing a Movie That Enjoyed Popularity Years Ago
On a previous post on this blog I have discussed some movies such as Transformers that are marketed at a certain demographic. There are many movies like this mostly comic book adaptations and cheap looking Nicholas Cage movies where most of the budget went into his hairstyle.
My problem with these movies is that complex themes are replaced with loud noises and quick cuts. There are no adult themes or complex ideas going on in these movie. No Transformers is fucking Sweet Sixteen with robots.
It is too much to ask to have a movie made by adults for adults. That is why I will say one of the great action movies to come out over the last decade had to be The Matrix because it revolutionized the way movies are filmed and also for the fact that it was a movie with complex ideas and weighty issues that adults could enjoy without having to turn their brains off.
For instance the following scones dealed with complex issues like how humans need misery and how it defines not only how we see the world but how it defines our experiences, the way humans seem to consume and define reality. I find it most interesting when the Agent Smith character tells the guy from Higher Learning that he is not even sure if he hates the smell since smell is an aspect of life that humans have defined.
What I found most interesting about this movie when I randomly watched about fifteen minutes of this weekend because it was on TNT was after a training simulation program which the two main characters were using to do kung fu it was revealed that even though The Matrix is not real your brain is processing it to be real so it treats it as being real.
This made me stop to think and really examine how the human mind works. Many immediate thoughts went through my mind such as that our own perception is what we use to gauge reality but in actuality it is not reality and only is what our mind can comprehend. But iF this was true does that mean because I perceive something to be true makes it reality; the paradox being there can be no true universal reality. But that can't be true because there are basic understanding of what reality is. Even movies that aren't as fully realized but make me think about concepts such as these will receive higher praise from me then it might be warranted.
What made me think the most was how if you do die in The Matrix you do in real life because as the guy from Higher Learning told the guy from Speed that the "body needs the mind to live." Basically if you get shot in the Matrix you will die because your mind will process the gunshot like it actually happened. This gave me the most pause. Could a human brain actually convince your body that you were shot. Can it simulate the loss of blood and damage to vital organs and the body going into shock? This seems unlikely unless we go back to a point earlier in how our mind will actually define reality.
These are all weighty issues that I know I have not discussed in any sort of detail. I guess my main point is that I would like to see more movies with complex ideas such as The Matrix instead of movies about a guy who has claws in his hands. I would like to see more movies like this and less shit like Transformers. I'll never be able to perceive why anyone would like a Michael Bay movie.
My problem with these movies is that complex themes are replaced with loud noises and quick cuts. There are no adult themes or complex ideas going on in these movie. No Transformers is fucking Sweet Sixteen with robots.
It is too much to ask to have a movie made by adults for adults. That is why I will say one of the great action movies to come out over the last decade had to be The Matrix because it revolutionized the way movies are filmed and also for the fact that it was a movie with complex ideas and weighty issues that adults could enjoy without having to turn their brains off.
For instance the following scones dealed with complex issues like how humans need misery and how it defines not only how we see the world but how it defines our experiences, the way humans seem to consume and define reality. I find it most interesting when the Agent Smith character tells the guy from Higher Learning that he is not even sure if he hates the smell since smell is an aspect of life that humans have defined.
What I found most interesting about this movie when I randomly watched about fifteen minutes of this weekend because it was on TNT was after a training simulation program which the two main characters were using to do kung fu it was revealed that even though The Matrix is not real your brain is processing it to be real so it treats it as being real.
This made me stop to think and really examine how the human mind works. Many immediate thoughts went through my mind such as that our own perception is what we use to gauge reality but in actuality it is not reality and only is what our mind can comprehend. But iF this was true does that mean because I perceive something to be true makes it reality; the paradox being there can be no true universal reality. But that can't be true because there are basic understanding of what reality is. Even movies that aren't as fully realized but make me think about concepts such as these will receive higher praise from me then it might be warranted.
What made me think the most was how if you do die in The Matrix you do in real life because as the guy from Higher Learning told the guy from Speed that the "body needs the mind to live." Basically if you get shot in the Matrix you will die because your mind will process the gunshot like it actually happened. This gave me the most pause. Could a human brain actually convince your body that you were shot. Can it simulate the loss of blood and damage to vital organs and the body going into shock? This seems unlikely unless we go back to a point earlier in how our mind will actually define reality.
These are all weighty issues that I know I have not discussed in any sort of detail. I guess my main point is that I would like to see more movies with complex ideas such as The Matrix instead of movies about a guy who has claws in his hands. I would like to see more movies like this and less shit like Transformers. I'll never be able to perceive why anyone would like a Michael Bay movie.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
FTN
So I started thinking about Ted Nuggent today. I really hate him.
You might remember the band Goldfinger. They were some third wave punk ska group that had a pretty big song in the 90's called Here in Your Bedroom. They also had a song in a Tony Hawk video game but I can't remember which one.
Well Goldfinger had a song called FTN. By viewing the video I think you will what these initials stand for by watching the video.
So I don't like Ted and I think the video sums it up rather nicely. It should also be noted that the only thing worse than some of the abhorrent and ugly statements/opinions he has are his songs.
(Also if anyone knows where I can find it there was also a different version of this song that instead of Jenifer Lopez that talked about Farrah Fawcett. If anyone knows where to find that versionI would be so happy)
You might remember the band Goldfinger. They were some third wave punk ska group that had a pretty big song in the 90's called Here in Your Bedroom. They also had a song in a Tony Hawk video game but I can't remember which one.
Well Goldfinger had a song called FTN. By viewing the video I think you will what these initials stand for by watching the video.
So I don't like Ted and I think the video sums it up rather nicely. It should also be noted that the only thing worse than some of the abhorrent and ugly statements/opinions he has are his songs.
(Also if anyone knows where I can find it there was also a different version of this song that instead of Jenifer Lopez that talked about Farrah Fawcett. If anyone knows where to find that versionI would be so happy)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
America Rules!
This post has to do with a post I want to do on how America views the world and their notions on how America is the greatest country in the world. I will write that post someday. Let's just call this what they do in the strip clubs; a cock tease.
I don't know if you have read or heard about this but Spain was thinking about prosecuting top Bush aides for what they claimed were acts of torture of five Spanish citizens that were held in Guantánamo.
It is now being reported that Spanish prosecutors will recommend against opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the country's attorney-general said Thursday.
Which brings me to the conservative website Hot Air. I am using them as an example because this is how a lot of people in this country think. After quoting some of the text from the associated press report linked above the author of this post wrote this:
"Spain likes to consider itself omnipotent in criminal matters. They have the notion that they can apply “universal justice” by trying people for crimes committed outside of their own sovereignty. That’s a tremendously arrogant notion, one that challenges American sovereignty in this case. We declared our independence from European oversight 233 years ago, and we don’t answer to Spanish courts. The proper channel for issues concerning public officials between two sovereign nations is diplomatic, not prosecutorial."
This is typical American thinking if you ask me. All this talk about Sovereignty like we are the greatest country ever (as a country we aren't bad I guess but take a look at where the U.S. ranks in most major categories such as life expectancy, education, health, but more on this in another post). True we did declare our independence years ago (not from Spain) but we are responsible for following the Geneva Conventions which says torture is bad. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot instead of people crying about holding Spain responsible for torturing a U.S. citizen we would call for bombing them.
I get so sick of this antiquated notion that America can do anything they want and other countries can shut up and take it. Somehow the fattest nation who is responsible for such iconic things like the blanket with sleeves, Creed and Red Bull can go on about Sovereignty but I guess this is what happens when people are fed a steady diet of steroid injected fast food and Fox News (and Hot Air).
"If Spain moves forward, the Obama administration must defend American sovereignty by imposing stiff diplomatic consequences for this national insult."
So let me take a stab at this. The past administration endorsed tactics that are defined to be torture and these tactics were implemented on Spanish citizens who were probably innocent so their country wants to hold us responsible for such actions and that is the national insult? I would think the national insult would be that America as a country uses acts of torture that have been proven to be ineffective and people still champion it but apparently Spain is at fault here. I mean fuck, I meant to say America rules!
(I should also say that this Ed Morrissey also says in his article that Conde-Pumpido as saying that this was a political issue when in fact it was one of the human rights lawyers who brought this case to Spain who said his decision was politically motivated.)
And how about this for a laugh. Check out the comments section. this one jumped out at me:
DL13: Isn’t Spain the country that murdered millions of Indians in North/South America during the 1500-1800’s? Perhaps we should have sent our Gitmo guards to them for training, or something. OK, just kidding on the suggestion…..
Because The United States has a great track record when it comes to treatment of Native Americans. Ok, just kidding... I mean seriously what the fuck.
I don't know if you have read or heard about this but Spain was thinking about prosecuting top Bush aides for what they claimed were acts of torture of five Spanish citizens that were held in Guantánamo.
It is now being reported that Spanish prosecutors will recommend against opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the country's attorney-general said Thursday.
Which brings me to the conservative website Hot Air. I am using them as an example because this is how a lot of people in this country think. After quoting some of the text from the associated press report linked above the author of this post wrote this:
"Spain likes to consider itself omnipotent in criminal matters. They have the notion that they can apply “universal justice” by trying people for crimes committed outside of their own sovereignty. That’s a tremendously arrogant notion, one that challenges American sovereignty in this case. We declared our independence from European oversight 233 years ago, and we don’t answer to Spanish courts. The proper channel for issues concerning public officials between two sovereign nations is diplomatic, not prosecutorial."
This is typical American thinking if you ask me. All this talk about Sovereignty like we are the greatest country ever (as a country we aren't bad I guess but take a look at where the U.S. ranks in most major categories such as life expectancy, education, health, but more on this in another post). True we did declare our independence years ago (not from Spain) but we are responsible for following the Geneva Conventions which says torture is bad. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot instead of people crying about holding Spain responsible for torturing a U.S. citizen we would call for bombing them.
I get so sick of this antiquated notion that America can do anything they want and other countries can shut up and take it. Somehow the fattest nation who is responsible for such iconic things like the blanket with sleeves, Creed and Red Bull can go on about Sovereignty but I guess this is what happens when people are fed a steady diet of steroid injected fast food and Fox News (and Hot Air).
"If Spain moves forward, the Obama administration must defend American sovereignty by imposing stiff diplomatic consequences for this national insult."
So let me take a stab at this. The past administration endorsed tactics that are defined to be torture and these tactics were implemented on Spanish citizens who were probably innocent so their country wants to hold us responsible for such actions and that is the national insult? I would think the national insult would be that America as a country uses acts of torture that have been proven to be ineffective and people still champion it but apparently Spain is at fault here. I mean fuck, I meant to say America rules!
(I should also say that this Ed Morrissey also says in his article that Conde-Pumpido as saying that this was a political issue when in fact it was one of the human rights lawyers who brought this case to Spain who said his decision was politically motivated.)
And how about this for a laugh. Check out the comments section. this one jumped out at me:
DL13: Isn’t Spain the country that murdered millions of Indians in North/South America during the 1500-1800’s? Perhaps we should have sent our Gitmo guards to them for training, or something. OK, just kidding on the suggestion…..
Because The United States has a great track record when it comes to treatment of Native Americans. Ok, just kidding... I mean seriously what the fuck.
Sex And The City
I must admit that I have not seen a whole episode of Sex And The City. I saw bits and pieces of one episode. I don't really know what it was about but the older chick was sexing up another women. I can't even tell you if they were two of the main characters.
What I don't get about the show is how the women who love it find it to be so empowering while it seems to cultivate every single stereotype men have about women. It just seems to me the show is very materially obsessed and just reinforces most notions that many men unfortunately have in regards to women; that they love and just have to have that new purse or dress or whatever it is that women love these days (which I am sure is not me).
I know some of the defenders of the show will say that the characters are well developed, that it shows girls can be like guys and sit around and chat about who they hooked up with, that these women have all the power in their relationships, or that women are just happy that one movie out of all the other crappy movies such as Transformers are being marketed to them as opposed to little kids or men who are in Arrested Development.
But if you ask me I don't see that. I just see a show that reinforces the old stereotype that women like shiny things and just want to settle down with some hunky guy, preferably one that was in Law and Order.
Again, I might be and probably am wrong since admittedly the only episode I ever watched was one where two women were having sex. Maybe that wasn't very representable of the whole show. If any women read this I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
(And I must say when the movie came out in the theater I defended the women who made their boyfriends go see it with them. I hated hearing how guys were like no way I'm gonna see that movie with my girl. Well fuck you guys, how many times did you drag your girl to see some shit sucking movie like Transformers?)
What I don't get about the show is how the women who love it find it to be so empowering while it seems to cultivate every single stereotype men have about women. It just seems to me the show is very materially obsessed and just reinforces most notions that many men unfortunately have in regards to women; that they love and just have to have that new purse or dress or whatever it is that women love these days (which I am sure is not me).
I know some of the defenders of the show will say that the characters are well developed, that it shows girls can be like guys and sit around and chat about who they hooked up with, that these women have all the power in their relationships, or that women are just happy that one movie out of all the other crappy movies such as Transformers are being marketed to them as opposed to little kids or men who are in Arrested Development.
But if you ask me I don't see that. I just see a show that reinforces the old stereotype that women like shiny things and just want to settle down with some hunky guy, preferably one that was in Law and Order.
Again, I might be and probably am wrong since admittedly the only episode I ever watched was one where two women were having sex. Maybe that wasn't very representable of the whole show. If any women read this I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
(And I must say when the movie came out in the theater I defended the women who made their boyfriends go see it with them. I hated hearing how guys were like no way I'm gonna see that movie with my girl. Well fuck you guys, how many times did you drag your girl to see some shit sucking movie like Transformers?)
The Last Post On Taxes I Swear
One last post on taxes before I forget about the issue forever or until the next time I have to pay them. Hopefully the Tea Parties were so successful that the IRS will be disbanded and we can go on with our merry lives.
Matt Taibbi, an editor for Rolling Stone magazine (who blogs for a different website for some reason) has a post about the tea parties and the absurdity of it all. His basic point is that there is all kinds of wasteful government spending that use tax dollars but those who got pissed off enough about it to attend one of these Tea Parties only did so when the government pushed through a bill that included a massive public works package and homeowner aid probably which was directed at them.
His main argument is that these tea baggers did not start complaining until these programs were aimed at them. From his blog post:
"In other words teabaggers don’t mind paying taxes to fund the salaries of Bolivian miners, Lou Gerstner’s stock options, deliveries of “sailboat fuel,” the Hermes scarves on Sandy Weill’s jet pillows, or even the export of their own goddamn jobs. But they do hate it when someone tries to re-asphalt their roads, or help bail their slob neighbor out of foreclosure. And God forbid someone propose a health care program, or increased financial aid for college. Hell, that’s like offering to share your turkey with the other Pilgrims! That’s not what America is all about! America is every Pilgrim for himself, dammit! Raise your own motherfucking turkey!"
An interesting fact from his article is that according to a poll that 39% of respondents who make only 30,000 dollars a year felt federal income taxes were to high but only 32% of the respondents in that category will pay any income tax in 2008. Wow!
Taibi's blog post can be read in it's entirety here.
Matt Taibbi, an editor for Rolling Stone magazine (who blogs for a different website for some reason) has a post about the tea parties and the absurdity of it all. His basic point is that there is all kinds of wasteful government spending that use tax dollars but those who got pissed off enough about it to attend one of these Tea Parties only did so when the government pushed through a bill that included a massive public works package and homeowner aid probably which was directed at them.
His main argument is that these tea baggers did not start complaining until these programs were aimed at them. From his blog post:
"In other words teabaggers don’t mind paying taxes to fund the salaries of Bolivian miners, Lou Gerstner’s stock options, deliveries of “sailboat fuel,” the Hermes scarves on Sandy Weill’s jet pillows, or even the export of their own goddamn jobs. But they do hate it when someone tries to re-asphalt their roads, or help bail their slob neighbor out of foreclosure. And God forbid someone propose a health care program, or increased financial aid for college. Hell, that’s like offering to share your turkey with the other Pilgrims! That’s not what America is all about! America is every Pilgrim for himself, dammit! Raise your own motherfucking turkey!"
An interesting fact from his article is that according to a poll that 39% of respondents who make only 30,000 dollars a year felt federal income taxes were to high but only 32% of the respondents in that category will pay any income tax in 2008. Wow!
Taibi's blog post can be read in it's entirety here.
Top Ten Lies When It Comes To Taxes
With the Tea Parties behind us and myself still on a euphoria high because of the success of my own tea party I still can't think about everything we did for this country. We exposed Obama for the fascists that he is, derided wasteful spending by wasting money on millions of tea bags, made goofy signs, and have probably filled up the missed connections pages on Craigs List!
But it also makes me think what this country was founded on. Many people will tell you it was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, whatever those are. Don't listen to those lies. This nation was founded on the notion that we hate paying taxes. A bunch of rich well off people convinced those under them that taxes were to high and so we liberated ourselves from England. Kind of like yesterday but instead of fighting in a war we got to watch Glen Beck chat with Ted Nuggent which I guess in its own right is just as appalling as a war.
From what I get from the Tea Parties that were set up yesterday was that people don't like paying taxes. So when your house catches on fire don't bother calling the fire department. You might as well rip up your medicare card. The road getting to your house needs to be paved well forget about it. So stop paying taxes. All you people who hate Obama and his policies and talk about redistribution I hope when you get fired from your job you don't plan on using The Cobra health care plan that he has extended to you.
Anyways I thought I would post a Top Ten List of lies that have been perpetuated by mostly the republican party that I found from the website Crooks and Liars (go to their website for a more in depth analysis.
1. President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.
Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.
2. The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.
As the Washington Post explained, under President Obama budget, 99.76% of estates would pay no taxes whatsoever:
3. 40% of Americans pay no taxes.
Republican conveniently ignore sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare.
4. Tax cuts always increase revenue.
The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves...is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.
5. The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.
the modern Republican Party from Reagan forward devastated the U.S. treasury, leaving mounting debt and hemorrhaging red ink for as far as the eye can see. As it turns out, U.S. national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again under George W. Bush.
6. Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.
Ultimately, Reagan was forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe
7. FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.
FDR slashed unemployment by more than half and largely restored industrial production and GDP growth even before the onset of World War II. Only when Roosevelt wavered in the face of conservative pressure in 1937 did his New Deal temporarily falter.
8. Obama's cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.
a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340.
9. Obama's tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.
altruistic or religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say haven't hurt donations.
10. The rich pay too much in taxes already.
Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Those in the top 1% stashed an extra $45,000 a year. As a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle quintile and bottom 20% of Americans were a paltry 2.3% and 0.4%, respectively.
But it also makes me think what this country was founded on. Many people will tell you it was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, whatever those are. Don't listen to those lies. This nation was founded on the notion that we hate paying taxes. A bunch of rich well off people convinced those under them that taxes were to high and so we liberated ourselves from England. Kind of like yesterday but instead of fighting in a war we got to watch Glen Beck chat with Ted Nuggent which I guess in its own right is just as appalling as a war.
From what I get from the Tea Parties that were set up yesterday was that people don't like paying taxes. So when your house catches on fire don't bother calling the fire department. You might as well rip up your medicare card. The road getting to your house needs to be paved well forget about it. So stop paying taxes. All you people who hate Obama and his policies and talk about redistribution I hope when you get fired from your job you don't plan on using The Cobra health care plan that he has extended to you.
Anyways I thought I would post a Top Ten List of lies that have been perpetuated by mostly the republican party that I found from the website Crooks and Liars (go to their website for a more in depth analysis.
1. President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.
Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.
2. The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.
As the Washington Post explained, under President Obama budget, 99.76% of estates would pay no taxes whatsoever:
3. 40% of Americans pay no taxes.
Republican conveniently ignore sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare.
4. Tax cuts always increase revenue.
The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves...is contradicted by the historical record," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.
5. The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.
the modern Republican Party from Reagan forward devastated the U.S. treasury, leaving mounting debt and hemorrhaging red ink for as far as the eye can see. As it turns out, U.S. national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again under George W. Bush.
6. Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.
Ultimately, Reagan was forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe
7. FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.
FDR slashed unemployment by more than half and largely restored industrial production and GDP growth even before the onset of World War II. Only when Roosevelt wavered in the face of conservative pressure in 1937 did his New Deal temporarily falter.
8. Obama's cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.
a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340.
9. Obama's tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.
altruistic or religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say haven't hurt donations.
10. The rich pay too much in taxes already.
Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Those in the top 1% stashed an extra $45,000 a year. As a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle quintile and bottom 20% of Americans were a paltry 2.3% and 0.4%, respectively.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
My Very Own Tea Party
As you might have heard there have been numerous tea parties that have swept our nation today! Being the young conservative that I am I just had to take part in it so I decided to have my own tea party. I decided to have it in my room. The turn out wasn't that great but it is probably because the weather is really bad. Here are some pictures from my killer tea party! It was awesome as you can tell! It got so hot I had to take my shirt off!
In all seriousness these tea parties are really fucking stupid. Relax if you went to one of these tea parties. I am not calling you stupid. I think I would call you idiotic, or a tool, or a loser. But certainly not stupid.
Seriously on Fox News right now Glen Beck and Ted Nugent are going crazy and all the people in the crowd are saying they don't want to pass on these deficits to their children. Its looking like a pretty white affair. I know they are in Texas but couldn't a couple of minorities have showed up?
My question is what is the point and why is this happening? Let's first dismiss the fact that the people behind the scenes who are promoting these tea parties are conservative think tanks run by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Grovier Norquist and their tax cuts without reducing spending is one of the reasons we have one of these huge debts in the first place. If the point of these parties is fiscal responsibility then this is a massive fail.
But where were these parties for the last eight years when the Bush administration racked up these huge deficits? Nobody was crying about passing the bucks to our kids and their kids.
And wasn't the original Boston Tea Party all about taxation without representation? If this is true I could understand why maybe you could realistically have one of these tea parties in D.C. since they don't have any representation but in Texas?
I've heard that a lot of people are showing up at these things because of Obama raising the tax rates. Realistically 95% of the American People will see a tax relief under Obma so all these protestors are mad that extremely rich fucks are going to get taxed at the same levels they did under the Clinton administration (which was less than the Reagon administration). I can understand why people would protest this because if I remember correctly the economy had a massive expansion under Clinton and he left ofice with a surplus.
I think the biggest complaint from these Fox News watching talk radio listening cretins is the all the bitching about how government getting to big. If you ask me people are noticing this not a minute too soon. I mean look at the things the Bush administration did: eavsdropping, secret energy commisions, rendition, The Patriot Act, the expansion of the executive branch, the politicalization of the judicial branch, and their lack of transparenty just to name a few things. Where were these tea parties then. Oh yeah they were non-existant.
Maybe I'm just bitter no one showed up at my tea party. Next time I'll buy snacks.
(And please I know some of you people who did go to these tea parties have been complaining about this stuff for years but it doesn't count if you are someone who believes some sort of New World Order is going to be implemented. You people are what experts called delusional)
In all seriousness these tea parties are really fucking stupid. Relax if you went to one of these tea parties. I am not calling you stupid. I think I would call you idiotic, or a tool, or a loser. But certainly not stupid.
Seriously on Fox News right now Glen Beck and Ted Nugent are going crazy and all the people in the crowd are saying they don't want to pass on these deficits to their children. Its looking like a pretty white affair. I know they are in Texas but couldn't a couple of minorities have showed up?
My question is what is the point and why is this happening? Let's first dismiss the fact that the people behind the scenes who are promoting these tea parties are conservative think tanks run by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Grovier Norquist and their tax cuts without reducing spending is one of the reasons we have one of these huge debts in the first place. If the point of these parties is fiscal responsibility then this is a massive fail.
But where were these parties for the last eight years when the Bush administration racked up these huge deficits? Nobody was crying about passing the bucks to our kids and their kids.
And wasn't the original Boston Tea Party all about taxation without representation? If this is true I could understand why maybe you could realistically have one of these tea parties in D.C. since they don't have any representation but in Texas?
I've heard that a lot of people are showing up at these things because of Obama raising the tax rates. Realistically 95% of the American People will see a tax relief under Obma so all these protestors are mad that extremely rich fucks are going to get taxed at the same levels they did under the Clinton administration (which was less than the Reagon administration). I can understand why people would protest this because if I remember correctly the economy had a massive expansion under Clinton and he left ofice with a surplus.
I think the biggest complaint from these Fox News watching talk radio listening cretins is the all the bitching about how government getting to big. If you ask me people are noticing this not a minute too soon. I mean look at the things the Bush administration did: eavsdropping, secret energy commisions, rendition, The Patriot Act, the expansion of the executive branch, the politicalization of the judicial branch, and their lack of transparenty just to name a few things. Where were these tea parties then. Oh yeah they were non-existant.
Maybe I'm just bitter no one showed up at my tea party. Next time I'll buy snacks.
(And please I know some of you people who did go to these tea parties have been complaining about this stuff for years but it doesn't count if you are someone who believes some sort of New World Order is going to be implemented. You people are what experts called delusional)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A random thought about bad movies
I was thinking the other day about the movie Stomp The Yard. Full disclosure I saw that movie in the theater and that day I knew it I knew it was a terrible movie. It was on the other day. Probably TNT I can't remember these things anymore. What I do remember was that that I thought it was still a bad movie.
But you know what I enjoy watching it and I can't explain why. It is one of these cookie cutter movies that does nothing new or exciting and pretty much rips off all the movies that proceeded it that have the same production values or effort put into it that is trying to entice a certain niche market. I guess the word I am looking for is formulaic.
And there are many movies like this one. She's All That. Bring It On. You Got Served. The list goes on. These are all horrible movies and are a total waste of time. But you know what I discovered yesterday?
I like and enjoy these movies more than I do movies like Braveheart. I am not saying Braveheart is a bad movie. Actually I commend the artistic value behind this movie because it is obvious a lot of effort went into every scene that was filmed. It was more ambitious. It told an important story. I know it was a good movie. But it was not a movie that I enjoyed. The crappy movies I listed earlier are all movies I liked more even thought they were not as ambitious or as technically proficient.
Take a movie I enjoy about fifty times more than Braveheart called The Patriot. The script is lame and the movie looks cheap. The acting and plot are tepid at best. This movie is Braveheart light but I enjoy it so much more. Things like this baffle me.
Why do I like these movies more. IS it because I can turn my brain off and don't have to worry about thinking? Maybe I find comfort on things I find familiar. Could it be that maybe I don't like challenging myself too much while watching a movie. Maybe it is the simplicity and the formula that draws me in.
I don't know why I just found this particular aspect of myself particularly intriguing right now and decided to write about it.
But you know what I enjoy watching it and I can't explain why. It is one of these cookie cutter movies that does nothing new or exciting and pretty much rips off all the movies that proceeded it that have the same production values or effort put into it that is trying to entice a certain niche market. I guess the word I am looking for is formulaic.
And there are many movies like this one. She's All That. Bring It On. You Got Served. The list goes on. These are all horrible movies and are a total waste of time. But you know what I discovered yesterday?
I like and enjoy these movies more than I do movies like Braveheart. I am not saying Braveheart is a bad movie. Actually I commend the artistic value behind this movie because it is obvious a lot of effort went into every scene that was filmed. It was more ambitious. It told an important story. I know it was a good movie. But it was not a movie that I enjoyed. The crappy movies I listed earlier are all movies I liked more even thought they were not as ambitious or as technically proficient.
Take a movie I enjoy about fifty times more than Braveheart called The Patriot. The script is lame and the movie looks cheap. The acting and plot are tepid at best. This movie is Braveheart light but I enjoy it so much more. Things like this baffle me.
Why do I like these movies more. IS it because I can turn my brain off and don't have to worry about thinking? Maybe I find comfort on things I find familiar. Could it be that maybe I don't like challenging myself too much while watching a movie. Maybe it is the simplicity and the formula that draws me in.
I don't know why I just found this particular aspect of myself particularly intriguing right now and decided to write about it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
I will not have sex with this post until I marry it!
For some reason today my coworker was on the website www.gotquestions.org. Apparently this is a website that is set up in case you have any questions about god, Jesus, the bible, or theology.
For some reason my co-worker printed me out a sheet with this question answered on it: What does the bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex? I think premarital sex is probably a fun thing to do and I hope some day god willing I can have it. What I found interesting was the answer this website gave.
The article states this:
"There is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible that is precisely defined to refer to sex before marriage. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, but the question arises, is sex before marriage considered sexually immoral? According to 1 Corinthians 7:2, “yes” is the clear answer, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” In this verse, Paul states that marriage is the “cure” for sexual immorality. First Corinthians 7:2 is essentially saying because people cannot control themselves and so many people are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married, so they can fulfill their passions in a moral way."
And for reference here is what Corinthians 7:2 says: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
IT seems like the bible was way ahead of the curve in understanding people who are married do not have want to have sex. So kudos to them for that. Seriously though this line from the bible does not really make a clear case for sex before marriage being immoral but rather sex in general being immoral.
What notion I find rather absurd was how this statement goes on to conclude in the first paragraph that "people cannot control themselves and so many people are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married, so they can fulfill their passions in a moral way."
I know it is not a popular principle to actually do any critical thinking of issues like these when they come from a large institution you have been told not to question and place your absolute faith in but come on this makes no sense. How can an act that has the same intent whether it is in a marriage or outside any more immoral either way.
So if I have sex with someone thirty seconds before I get married to them (which would double the amount of actual time I can have sex) it is immoral but if I start fucking the bride instead of kissing her after we are pronounced man and wife that is somehow different?
I guess marriage is one of those institutions where there are exceptions to some rules like if you are in the army you can kill people or if you are a famous person who directed the movie Passion of the Christ you can blame every war on the Jews.
For some reason my co-worker printed me out a sheet with this question answered on it: What does the bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex? I think premarital sex is probably a fun thing to do and I hope some day god willing I can have it. What I found interesting was the answer this website gave.
The article states this:
"There is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible that is precisely defined to refer to sex before marriage. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, but the question arises, is sex before marriage considered sexually immoral? According to 1 Corinthians 7:2, “yes” is the clear answer, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” In this verse, Paul states that marriage is the “cure” for sexual immorality. First Corinthians 7:2 is essentially saying because people cannot control themselves and so many people are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married, so they can fulfill their passions in a moral way."
And for reference here is what Corinthians 7:2 says: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
IT seems like the bible was way ahead of the curve in understanding people who are married do not have want to have sex. So kudos to them for that. Seriously though this line from the bible does not really make a clear case for sex before marriage being immoral but rather sex in general being immoral.
What notion I find rather absurd was how this statement goes on to conclude in the first paragraph that "people cannot control themselves and so many people are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married, so they can fulfill their passions in a moral way."
I know it is not a popular principle to actually do any critical thinking of issues like these when they come from a large institution you have been told not to question and place your absolute faith in but come on this makes no sense. How can an act that has the same intent whether it is in a marriage or outside any more immoral either way.
So if I have sex with someone thirty seconds before I get married to them (which would double the amount of actual time I can have sex) it is immoral but if I start fucking the bride instead of kissing her after we are pronounced man and wife that is somehow different?
I guess marriage is one of those institutions where there are exceptions to some rules like if you are in the army you can kill people or if you are a famous person who directed the movie Passion of the Christ you can blame every war on the Jews.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
If you don't know what you are talking about shut up
I read a lot of shit online mostly by conservative bloggers that that falls over itself in contradictions and rank stupidity. This one is in relation to a post I read about current aspects of the economy and the way the author has no clue about anything except their conclusions which will be reached no matter what the facts are.
An author of this particular post came to the conclusion that deregulation is no way responsible for anything in regards to the current economic fiscal crisis and there was too much government intervention. I will lucidly agree with him that certain agencies were set up to unrealistically create some sort of property value inflation bonanza that couldn't last and that some people over extended in regards to their credit. Ok sure. That sort of happened. (though he neglects to mention people were getting adjustable rate mortgages which didn't help matters. On top of that these banks were gambling these people would pay off their houses with unregulated swaps. Many times over. All do to deregulation).
But I can't really fault this person for his lack of insight when it comes to economic markets this fucking complex. I don't fully understand them. But there is a difference of not understanding the market and then saying something so contradictory on its face to adhere to some outdated form of ideology just so your brittle little world doesn't crumble down.
He goes on the write "That this bubble would eventually burst because of the over-extension of credit could have been predicted by anyone and this wasn't due to deregulation at all. Quite the contrary, this is a problem of too much government interference into the market, namely by central bankers who manipulated the money supply for their own interests. In other words, this economic crisis would have happened regardless of how many regulations we had in place."
First off I don't know how these bankers manipulated to money supply. Is he saying the Fed has printed off more or less money than they said they have. Have the bankers, in some secret cabal that meets at some secret Jew conference on George Soros's marching orders decide that dollar bills are now worth twenty two cents? No this is just a stupid thought that makes no sense when you sit down and actually analyze it. Sort of like System of a Down Lyrics.
Let's say the above was true though. Would this be able to happen because of deregulation? It's contradictory. It would be like me saying all those Woody Allen movies would be excellent if only Woody Allen wasn't in them. But the fact of the matter is that Woody Allen movies suck no matter which neurotic jew is in them and deregulation was responsible for the various loans (both predatory and subprime not to mention the transfer of these bad loans to other entities which meant even if these people were getting screwed they couldn't be held responsible) and the unregulated swapping of these derivatives all lead to the current state of our economy. Should it come as no surprise that this author is an idiot?
He quotes some author who probably writes whatever Jesus tells him (From Gods Lips to Peter Schiff's Pen) that says "Washington is telling us that our problems result from a lack of consumer spending. Therefore, the solution is for government spending to pick up the slack. However, if Americans are too broke to spend, then how can our government spend for us? The only money they have is taken from us through taxation. To postpone immediate tax hikes (adding interest for good measure), Washington plans to borrow more from abroad. However, if our foreign creditors refuse to pony up, much of the money will simply be printed instead."
You can make an argument against the stimulus as it was presented that would be respectable if you said something like "I'm worried about the debt." Sure it is short sided because the point is to stimulate the economy but I can see that as a viable concern. But this Schiff guy doesn't understand or maybe understands to well that his intended audience won't bother to critically analyze what he is saying. The government is putting money into the economy either by giving it right to the consumer (mostly through tax cuts which I find not as stimulative as other measures that could have been enacted) or to infrastructure or other projects that will create jobs. And isn't Obama planning on raising taxes on rich fucks? What is Schiff talking about here.
And why would anyone write that "Borrowing and spending too much got us into this problem, yet Obama's plan is to borrow and spend even more to get us out of this mess. Makes perfect sense from the Keynesian point of view. Too bad it doesn't work in reality." Whoa I thought the problem was government interference in the market Stay on fucking point. And what point of view is he coming from where this makes perfect sense?
For some reason Schiff gets quoted again " Many people assume that if government provides the funds we can spend our way back to prosperity. However, it's not money we lack but production. If the government simply prints money and doles it out, we will not be able to buy more stuff; we will simply pay higher prices. The only way to buy more is to produce more. It is production that creates purchasing power, not the printing press!"
I think I know a little bit about purchasing power since I took Econ 101 twice! There was a notion called supply and demand and it must have been important when it comes to the market since we had to learn how to graph it. Supply is dictated by demand and (according to wikipedia, I am cribbing here because remember I did take econ 101 twice) the main determinants of individual demand are: the price of the good, level of income, personal tastes, the population (number of people), the government policies, the price of substitute goods, and the price of complementary goods.
Maybe I am reading too much into what Schiff is saying. Maybe he does understand supply and demand and is stating that printing money will not actually stimulate demand. But again this Schiff loves to contradict himself.
"If the government simply prints money and doles it out, we will not be able to buy more stuff; we will simply pay higher prices. The only way to buy more is to produce more. It is production that creates purchasing power, not the printing press!"
I read this over and over and am baffled. You could almost say Schiff argues covertly for the need for a stimulus. You use the printing press to put money into circulation so there can be more production. That's the whole fucking point. Even if you don't give the money to companies for production you can give money to an individual in the form of unemployment checks. This person goes out and buys a Mrs Pac-Man machine. This brings money into Namco and they can maybe produce more Mrs. Pac-Man machines which gives people more jobs. These people then go buy stuff. This is how this shit works. Are people like Schiff are either naive or just fucking idiots.
It wouldn't be so infuriating if it wasn't so contradictory. I think that is what gets me more than the general stupidity behind the whole thing.
An author of this particular post came to the conclusion that deregulation is no way responsible for anything in regards to the current economic fiscal crisis and there was too much government intervention. I will lucidly agree with him that certain agencies were set up to unrealistically create some sort of property value inflation bonanza that couldn't last and that some people over extended in regards to their credit. Ok sure. That sort of happened. (though he neglects to mention people were getting adjustable rate mortgages which didn't help matters. On top of that these banks were gambling these people would pay off their houses with unregulated swaps. Many times over. All do to deregulation).
But I can't really fault this person for his lack of insight when it comes to economic markets this fucking complex. I don't fully understand them. But there is a difference of not understanding the market and then saying something so contradictory on its face to adhere to some outdated form of ideology just so your brittle little world doesn't crumble down.
He goes on the write "That this bubble would eventually burst because of the over-extension of credit could have been predicted by anyone and this wasn't due to deregulation at all. Quite the contrary, this is a problem of too much government interference into the market, namely by central bankers who manipulated the money supply for their own interests. In other words, this economic crisis would have happened regardless of how many regulations we had in place."
First off I don't know how these bankers manipulated to money supply. Is he saying the Fed has printed off more or less money than they said they have. Have the bankers, in some secret cabal that meets at some secret Jew conference on George Soros's marching orders decide that dollar bills are now worth twenty two cents? No this is just a stupid thought that makes no sense when you sit down and actually analyze it. Sort of like System of a Down Lyrics.
Let's say the above was true though. Would this be able to happen because of deregulation? It's contradictory. It would be like me saying all those Woody Allen movies would be excellent if only Woody Allen wasn't in them. But the fact of the matter is that Woody Allen movies suck no matter which neurotic jew is in them and deregulation was responsible for the various loans (both predatory and subprime not to mention the transfer of these bad loans to other entities which meant even if these people were getting screwed they couldn't be held responsible) and the unregulated swapping of these derivatives all lead to the current state of our economy. Should it come as no surprise that this author is an idiot?
He quotes some author who probably writes whatever Jesus tells him (From Gods Lips to Peter Schiff's Pen) that says "Washington is telling us that our problems result from a lack of consumer spending. Therefore, the solution is for government spending to pick up the slack. However, if Americans are too broke to spend, then how can our government spend for us? The only money they have is taken from us through taxation. To postpone immediate tax hikes (adding interest for good measure), Washington plans to borrow more from abroad. However, if our foreign creditors refuse to pony up, much of the money will simply be printed instead."
You can make an argument against the stimulus as it was presented that would be respectable if you said something like "I'm worried about the debt." Sure it is short sided because the point is to stimulate the economy but I can see that as a viable concern. But this Schiff guy doesn't understand or maybe understands to well that his intended audience won't bother to critically analyze what he is saying. The government is putting money into the economy either by giving it right to the consumer (mostly through tax cuts which I find not as stimulative as other measures that could have been enacted) or to infrastructure or other projects that will create jobs. And isn't Obama planning on raising taxes on rich fucks? What is Schiff talking about here.
And why would anyone write that "Borrowing and spending too much got us into this problem, yet Obama's plan is to borrow and spend even more to get us out of this mess. Makes perfect sense from the Keynesian point of view. Too bad it doesn't work in reality." Whoa I thought the problem was government interference in the market Stay on fucking point. And what point of view is he coming from where this makes perfect sense?
For some reason Schiff gets quoted again " Many people assume that if government provides the funds we can spend our way back to prosperity. However, it's not money we lack but production. If the government simply prints money and doles it out, we will not be able to buy more stuff; we will simply pay higher prices. The only way to buy more is to produce more. It is production that creates purchasing power, not the printing press!"
I think I know a little bit about purchasing power since I took Econ 101 twice! There was a notion called supply and demand and it must have been important when it comes to the market since we had to learn how to graph it. Supply is dictated by demand and (according to wikipedia, I am cribbing here because remember I did take econ 101 twice) the main determinants of individual demand are: the price of the good, level of income, personal tastes, the population (number of people), the government policies, the price of substitute goods, and the price of complementary goods.
Maybe I am reading too much into what Schiff is saying. Maybe he does understand supply and demand and is stating that printing money will not actually stimulate demand. But again this Schiff loves to contradict himself.
"If the government simply prints money and doles it out, we will not be able to buy more stuff; we will simply pay higher prices. The only way to buy more is to produce more. It is production that creates purchasing power, not the printing press!"
I read this over and over and am baffled. You could almost say Schiff argues covertly for the need for a stimulus. You use the printing press to put money into circulation so there can be more production. That's the whole fucking point. Even if you don't give the money to companies for production you can give money to an individual in the form of unemployment checks. This person goes out and buys a Mrs Pac-Man machine. This brings money into Namco and they can maybe produce more Mrs. Pac-Man machines which gives people more jobs. These people then go buy stuff. This is how this shit works. Are people like Schiff are either naive or just fucking idiots.
It wouldn't be so infuriating if it wasn't so contradictory. I think that is what gets me more than the general stupidity behind the whole thing.
The Death of Classic Rock
It came to my attention yesterday that the classic rock station in the DC area has packed it in and has been replaced with top 40 pop hits or whatever over saturated, safe corporate pop music is currently big with the kiddies right now. Believe me I am not too sad to see the classic rock station go even though now there is one less radio station in my market that will not be playing Freebird at least once every hour.
So let the kids have their billboard top 40. I understand how the market forces work. The only people who listen to to classic rock (without any hint of irony) are old people and we all know that advertisers could care less about putting out material that old people care about.
So yeah, the only reason I write this post is because of a commercial I heard on this new pop hits station. It started out with that one asshole who sounds like he is constipated say something like "only the best music here baby." They then play some shitty soft ass eagles song for a couple seconds before cutting it off. Then that guy with the backed up voice comes back on and says "just kidding we play nothing but the newest, hottest hits."
Guess what the next song is that comes on. Lenny "fucking" Kravitz. Not even a new Lenny song. It was Are you Gonna Go My Way. I got news for you replacement radio station. Not only does that song suck now, if I remember correctly, and I think I do, that song sucked ten years ago when it first came out.
So let the kids have their billboard top 40. I understand how the market forces work. The only people who listen to to classic rock (without any hint of irony) are old people and we all know that advertisers could care less about putting out material that old people care about.
So yeah, the only reason I write this post is because of a commercial I heard on this new pop hits station. It started out with that one asshole who sounds like he is constipated say something like "only the best music here baby." They then play some shitty soft ass eagles song for a couple seconds before cutting it off. Then that guy with the backed up voice comes back on and says "just kidding we play nothing but the newest, hottest hits."
Guess what the next song is that comes on. Lenny "fucking" Kravitz. Not even a new Lenny song. It was Are you Gonna Go My Way. I got news for you replacement radio station. Not only does that song suck now, if I remember correctly, and I think I do, that song sucked ten years ago when it first came out.
The Credit Crisis Explained
I found this to be an interesting video since it breaks down the credit crisis. Worth the eleven or so minutes it takes to watch it.
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.
Send Me An Angel
Someone who is in somehow related to someone who is somehow employed in some capacity with the company I am employed with died so I got an email about it on my work email. This sentence was found within the body of the email which got me thinking:
"Early this morning, God’s Angels came to escort (person's name) to her new home."
This got me thinking about all sort of things in relation to life and death matters. For instance what time do the Angels have to leave heaven to be able to pick up this person on time. I am sure there are a lot of angels who have to make the trip down here every day so do you think there is a lot of traffic. Do you think if someone has a sudden and violent death that is unexpected that the angels who are picking them up get to take some sort of HOV lane or something like that. I would think something like HIV the angels could plan well in advance in order to get down in time to escort these people to their new home but something unexpected like a heart giving out might catch them by surprise. And do you think these angels get pissed off when someone dies during rush hour because they'll have to fight all that traffic?
Do you think in some sort of cataclysmic event like when the World Trade Center was bombed and there are a lot of people who have to be picked up at the same time that the angels will either car pool or take a Greyhound down to pick up a lot of people at the same time. I mean I can't be sure what the distance these angels have to travel is but I'm sure it would probably be cumbersome to take two trips.
I don't know but if you ask me all these people who created these the aspects of various religions such as heaven, hell, Noah's Ark, and whatever the other things Indiana Jones was searching for in those movies would be able to come up with an answer for these questions for me.
"Early this morning, God’s Angels came to escort (person's name) to her new home."
This got me thinking about all sort of things in relation to life and death matters. For instance what time do the Angels have to leave heaven to be able to pick up this person on time. I am sure there are a lot of angels who have to make the trip down here every day so do you think there is a lot of traffic. Do you think if someone has a sudden and violent death that is unexpected that the angels who are picking them up get to take some sort of HOV lane or something like that. I would think something like HIV the angels could plan well in advance in order to get down in time to escort these people to their new home but something unexpected like a heart giving out might catch them by surprise. And do you think these angels get pissed off when someone dies during rush hour because they'll have to fight all that traffic?
Do you think in some sort of cataclysmic event like when the World Trade Center was bombed and there are a lot of people who have to be picked up at the same time that the angels will either car pool or take a Greyhound down to pick up a lot of people at the same time. I mean I can't be sure what the distance these angels have to travel is but I'm sure it would probably be cumbersome to take two trips.
I don't know but if you ask me all these people who created these the aspects of various religions such as heaven, hell, Noah's Ark, and whatever the other things Indiana Jones was searching for in those movies would be able to come up with an answer for these questions for me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
