Friday, November 20, 2015

Ben Carson’s Excellent Point About Rabid Dogs—And Republicans

The moment when Donald Trump went full-frontal Nazi, noting he will employ "a lot of systems" to track Muslims, and presumably all the other "OTHERS" Trump decides are potentially dangerous to the profoundly well-educated crew making up Trump's base. A message from one of these supporters can be see in the middle image, a detail of a photo taken a few weeks ago of an Austin, Texas bus-stop bench, where an endorsement inspired by Trump's hate-mongering against Hispanics can be seen scrawled out in its imbecilic glory. Be very afraid of "The invation" of the Trumpublicans!—or any other brand of Republican.
It is hard to keep track of all the hate-mongering idiocy—one might call it “rabid” idiocy—spewing from the Republican candidates in the presidential primary campaign.

After all, Donald Trump declared war on Hispanics as a class and a potential threat early on, and has had no problem expanding that attack on the “OTHER” to include the GOP’s new, favorite, target of hatred, Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. The vast majority of Syrian refugees are escaping the horrible violence of what is certainly the worst current hellhole on Earth, and the terrible brutality of, among other players in that game of death, Islamic State.

You might think that Americans, even the nutty right-wing version, would have some sympathy for the plight of these victims. 

Nope. Not when there are political points to be scored in Republican nutland by moving ever closer to establishing true Nazi-style values in the GOP.

Donald Trump for example, on Thursday made it quite explicit where he is coming from on the need to honor and mimic Nazi population management, regarding Muslims in the USA. Asked if he would be interested in creating national databases of Muslims “living in the US to protect the country from terrorism”, Trump said:
There should be a lot of systems beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Trump claimed this was the way in which he would establish “good management” in the US government’s operations.

And one can easily see how this would soon be expanded to include all the other threatening classes of human beings Trump and his white imperium decide need to be specially suspected and monitored and perhaps locked up for their own good in concentration camps. Welcome to Auschwitz, Hispanics.

Meanwhile, Ben Carson, carving out his own Nazi space, had earlier on Thursday said the following about the need to watch out for what he called “rabid dogs”, in other words Syrian refugees who might go “radical” (AKA “terrorist”):
If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog.
In other words, “that dog” meaning Syrian refugees should not just be assumed to be OK. That would be too dangerous. After all, some crazy people might get into the USA if you were accepting and merciful and things like that.

Well, absolutely right…wing…nut. If there is some rabid dog wondering around, people really should be very wary of it and absolutely be on guard to not embrace it, or anything it might bark out as a campaign slogan or a threatened policy if it should be elected.

Yes, rabid dogs are bad things. 

Now, the only question for the American people—the question that has become the central one in judging the quality of the political process in the USA: who are the rabid dogs in American politics? Are they really Muslims, or Mexicans? Or might they just be that unbelievably ignorant, hateful, and just plain stupid pack of mad dogs who represent the best and brightest of the Republican Party?

Monday, November 16, 2015

George W. Bush And His Pals Killed Liberty With Crazy Terror Wars

Politico has declared this guy, Michael Morell, former deputy spy-master at CIA, to be the sharpest critic of US anti-Islamic-State policy. Morell argues it is time to have the anti-Snowden debate in America, by which Morell means one defined by fear of another Paris-style attack, and so one enabling the US government to have complete control of encryption keys employed by commercial companies. The attack-clampdown process is an essential ingredient of the Bush-style erasure of American liberty.
Dubya didn’t do it all alone. 

He had lots of accomplices, from jackasses like US Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who infamously asked what good your stupid civil liberties were if you were dead—Patrick Henry already answered that long ago—to craven (or just dumb?) politicians like Hillary Clinton (and lots of Democrats), who voted to plunge the world and not just America into Iraq’s long death dance.

You think it was just Islamic State that killed a bunch of rich French in Paris a few nights ago? Nope, American taxpayers helped out too, by carving out with blood and the stupidest kind of vengeance plenty of hate-space for Islamic State to be born and to flourish.

And as the clampdown came on poor collateral Muslims all over the Middle East and the world, so did it come to the liberties of the allegedly free peoples of the West. So anxiously did Americans rush to the alter to worship the vain, hideously foolish, alter of George W. Bush and his evildoers, they had no problem surrendering all their meaningful liberties to anti-Constitutional trash-laws like the ironically-titled Patriot Act.

So horrible was George W. Bush’s assault on the very core of what Americans had thought they believed in, that in 2008 voters actually elected a black man to be president! Now that’s some change, people hopefully chanted, as Barack Obama came into power. Again, hope was smashed by the cynical reality of the state. Whatever Obama might have believed about significantly changing things, he kowtowed to power, and basically did things Bush-style, continuing and even expanding massive, and Constitution-destroying, invasions of privacy that made a complete joke of the idea of liberty. 

Only when Edward Snowden took up the mantle of latter-day patriot, standing up to the entire power of the United States government, which no doubt would love to assassinate Snowden, did the world learn of the extent of the crimes of the Bush-Obama tag-team of tyranny. 

Even American corporations responded to these revelations, finally made public, by demanding that government should not have the power to invade their most sacred investments—the products they peddle for profit! Companies like Apple vowed they would redesign their products to lock out the NSA. Encryption that the governments of the world could not break became the new, best, way to protect the remnants of liberty.

Of course, the governments of the world were not going to accept that outrage against their power. One by one, attack after attack, terrorists (who might as well be on the payrolls of the state security agencies), argued in favor of erasing privacy altogether and enabling the establishment of a great—oh what should we call it?—Big Brother of protection. 

After all, the Inner Parties demanded: what good are your rights if you are dead?

Patrick Henry would have an answer and in these dark, last days of liberty, he would be in an American prison—or assassinated by the American government.

On Sunday, ex-CIA deputy chief, Michael Morell, articulated the government's argument against liberty:
I think what we are going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, right, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult if not impossible for governments to break, and the producers of which, don’t produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages...So, we need to have a public debate about this. We have, in a sense, had a public debate. That debate was defined by Edward Snowden, right, and the concern about privacy. I think we’re now going to have another debate about that. It’s going to be defined by what happened in Paris.
"Defined by Paris" means of course, tyranny enabled once again by widespread panic at the idea that liberty has enabled death and mayhem at the hands of the terrorists.

But once again, a reasoned response to this will ask—but which terrorists? And where is this terrorism HQ truly located? Raqqa? Or Washington DC? And is liberty the real problem here? Or insanely self-destructive government policy?

Sunday, November 15, 2015

NY TImes Verdict on Obamacare: "All But Useless"

The federal government stands before pelts of Americans, taken in its yearly Obamacare slaughter. The cynicism of America's evil political class in the construction and perpetration of a worthless healthcare program points to the nature of the USA political system. Not broken, as many allege—but working just fine for the people who truly own it.
While the world scampers about playing "terrorist, terrorist, who's got the terrorist"—again—enabling the national security apparatuses of the global empires to further tighten their nooses on liberty, the New York Times published an article whose conclusion is late (I've been saying this for a while now), but nonetheless remarkable: Obamacare has turned out to be "All but useless" to many of the people it was intended to help.

While Democrats, who knew they were signing a very bad bill when they affirmed a Republican plan authored by Mitt Romney!, have always bragged about how many people were now saved from having no medical insurance, they left out a key point about that insurance: it was so expensive to use because of the extraordinarily high deductibles, that many (most?) of the people for whom it was intended, i.e. poorer Americans whose budgets were already stretched to the breaking point, cannot afford it.

The article makes it quite clear who is really to blame (all the useless politicians as always):
In many states, more than half the plans offered for sale through, the federal online marketplace, have a deductible of $3,000 or more, a New York Times review has found. Those deductibles are causing concern among Democrats — and some Republican detractors of the health law, who once pushed high-deductible health plans in the belief that consumers would be more cost-conscious if they had more of a financial stake or skin in the game."
"Skin in the game" is the Republican phrase for saying poorer Americans, most of whom work very hard just to survive at all, are worthless scumbags with their filthy hands in the pockets of good, rich folk. What the GOP wanted were the pelts of poor people, charged so much money for healthcare—they would never actually use it, and that is what they demanded and got from Barack Obama and the Democrats.

And it was Democrats who enabled this, by signing off on it. Democrats controlled the entire government when Obamacare was passed and signed into law. It was conservative Democrats who also pushed Obama to make the new healthcare law expensive for poorer Americans to use. Again, however, Obama did not lead against that push. He did what he always does—adopt the conservative position imagining that would protect him from criticism by Republicans. Of course, as we know, that has never quite worked out like Obama hoped.

Ultimately, cowardice is to blame. That and greed and enormous cynicism. Republicans initially wanted to be able to say they helped craft a conservative healthcare bill. Then right-wing lunatic talking heads claimed that Obamacare was a socialist healthcare program, and no Republican could be a Republican without opposing its existence. So that is what they did. Democrats meanwhile claimed Obamacare was a success, because they were coercing people to sign up for it with big tax penalties if they did not do so. When Americans responded by signing up, Obama claimed the whole program was great for America.

Of course, as has been pointed out, the reason these pols, and Obama, said all these things is ultimately they don't care about the welfare of average, hard-working, Americans. The politicians are rich, and have great healthcare programs they can easily afford. If a poor family someplace can't afford to use their nice, shiny, useless, Obamacare health insurance, that matters about as much to these American politicians as the deaths of thousands of poor, brown-skinned, Muslims in their insane wars on the poor (or "terror").

The politicians have betrayed the USA over and over again. And yet their skin is not in this game. Just yours. And yet you imagine voting for this political class of masters will make some difference. You deserve what you vote for—over and over again.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

The Difference Between The Middle And the Working Class

A few of life's wieners, not engaged in any practical work, because most people admit that is of no interest, but engaged in the work of convincing others they are not yet expendable—after all, they have so much time to waste looking down and seeming to be busy.
Lately I have been rather intently watching and listening to the difference between middle-class and working-class labor.

Middle-class labor consists of a psychotic fusing of one's head to a "smart" device of some sort, wherein the fused engages in a constant, really quite unbearable, stream of jargonized prattle, meant more to convince other fused persons the prattler is not yet so inadequately informed about the newest thing or word or belief that they are expendable, rather than to achieve any practical end.

Working class labor is quite easy to recognize by the presence of a particular tool: the trash grabber. Pretty much all working-class jobs consist of picking up trash to enable a middle class or especially a ruling class person to both profit and to feel cleaner about themselves and their "best system in the world." Even construction workers, who are paid pretty well, are just moving trash into configurations that will convince passersby and future inhabitants they are viewing or working in a finely-constructed, geometrically-pleasing sky-stabber.

It is way past the time for a labor rebellion, and any number of other rebellions. But as you see, sheep just wait to be shorn, like good farm animals.

At some point I say: good for the rich.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Rise of the Trumpublicans

The key to campaign success for Trump-brand politics is to say as little as possible about the stuff that matters the most to the most people. Meanwhile, Trump will say all kinds of crazy crap about demographics he figures are not going to buy him as POTUS anyway.
What’s that? You say you’ve never heard of a Trumpublican?

Well, check this out.

And note that not only did Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump trademark “Trumpublican” but also “Trumpocrat”.

Why? Think about it for a moment.

If Donald Trump somehow got elected as President, then what would happen? The first thing that would happen is that after all of his big-time bluster about “the greatest” whatever it was he had promised to voters, Trump would be stymied by the reality that Democrats and many Republicans would be obstacles to Trump getting his policies enacted into law.

In other words, Trump would have to do something that he seldom has to do when issuing orders to underlings in his Trump-brand empire. He would have to play the messy, compromising, game of politics. And nobody gets through that process without pissing off large numbers of supporters who feel the rotten compromiser has betrayed everything he has stood for.

Well, of course he did that. It is how democratic politics works—or fails to work.

But, when you are peddling a brand, and when the buyers of that brand simply do not like the product you’re selling—because it has been too compromised in the process of bringing it to market—a good marketer eliminates the compromises.

Or, as Trump liked to do on “The Apprentice” to the loser of the week—you turn to the problems and say “You’re fired!”

But Trump can’t do that in the American political system—unless he changes that system by offering his own brand of political parties. Trumpublicans and Trumpocrats would be members of either party who are ready to abandon party loyalty and go with the Trump brand of President and politics.

The trademarking of the names is obviously Trump preparing the ground for a potential third-party run. But Trump can go further than this. He can utterly erode respect (already very low) for the idea of political parties as organizations aimed at delivering candidates devoted to a particular body of ideology and policy.

Trump can reinvent the political party as solely a platform for selling a personality—a celebrity—as a brand of politics.

And what would the brand stand for? Answer: nothing!—in fact, the blander and less specific the better! But it would have a name: TRUMP!

Earlier this week, in an interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, Trump was asked a question (by Heilemann) all the candidates should be asked:
“Are you an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy?”
Trump, who is allegedly a Presbyterian, answered:
“Probably equal. I think it’s just an incredible…the whole Bible is an incredible. I joke, very much so...they always hold up “The Art of the Deal”. I say that’s my second favorite book of all time. But I just think the Bible is just something very special.”
Now, if Trump had been asked what reality television show he liked best, or what pop singer he liked the most, and he gave an answer like “all of them are incredible”, everyone would know that was a bullshit evasion, and Trump was an ass for answering that way. But with the Bible? Nobody reads or understands that stupid book anyway. All that is necessary is that you say the Bible is just very special (whatever the fuck that means).

So far, the only place where Trump is failing at the bland, stand-for-nothing principle, is when it comes to attacking groups his brand has determined are expendable and exploitable non-buyers, such as Hispanic Americans and hedge-fund managers.

To counter the charge he is anti-Hispanic, Trump is courting Ted Cruz (or is it the other way around?), as a potential VP pick. Trump doesn't seem to think losing the hedge-fund vote is a problem.

The thing is, there is a reason a reality-television host is now building the foundation to become POTUS—and this is because it isn't what you stand for that matters in America (if it ever did). It is just what you can get people to buy. And if you can get them to buy chicken nuggets, you can sure as hell get them to elect Donald Trump as host of the USA reality show.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Trump and America

Unfortunately, this is true, especially for that portion of America that still thinks with its dead-red brain. The funny thing about Trump is that if the Democrats could invent a horrific, cartoon opponent for Hillary to face, they could do no better than Donald Trump. The funny thing about that, however, is that in America, which has no love of Hillary either, Donald Trump could just be elected POTUS. And that, my unfriends, will be what we like to call a "final nail" for the USA and its absurd little empire. So, in one big respect—yeah, "bring it on"—as some other fool POTUS used to say.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Cecil The Lion Might Just Sink Donald Trump And the GOP

This disgusting image now becomes a political litmus test in the 2016 US presidential campaign. The figures are one gorgeous, fucking DEAD, African leopard, and the poor creature's murderers: Donald Trump moral-moron sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump. The question American voters will ask themselves: would I be proud of these "men", as my sons, or would I demand post-natal abortion for both of them?
The political world is absurdly crazy, as we all should know by now.

Last week, all was well with some idiot gun nut named Dr. Walter Palmer (who by now should be headed to Paraguay or someplace similar to hide out with antique Nazis and other moral trash). And all was really well with Donald Trump, leading figure so far in the 2016 Republican presidential campaign. He was leading in early polls, and his popularity was rising amongst Republicans, which by itself should speak great, dismal, volumes for the perceived value of the other Republican candidates.

In 2012, we had a clown car of bad Republican candidates (in most sane people's minds, "bad Republican" is a redundancy). In 2016, i.e. the lead-up to it, it is more like a boxcar of clowns and outrageous characters that are vying for the Republican nomination. Donald Trump, who has threatened for decades to run for president, mainly on the strength of his self-promotion as a great business person, only now, in the dismal last days of the GOP, has decided to run for the Republican nomination.

One has wondered, in looking at the other, incredibly weak, candidates the Republicans are so far sifting through, how a Trump movement might be thwarted. Worse, there is the prospect of a Trump third-party candidacy, which most likely would totally sink the GOP chances in 2016. What can stop Trump?

Answer: poor, dead, Cecil the Lion.

By now, you probably know Cecil as the much-beloved Zimbabwean lion, which lived in protected status in the African nation, until recently, when an American dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer—currently the most hated man in the world—paid poachers $50,000 to lure Cecil out of his sanctuary, and into open country, where Palmer, as big a lout and idiot as one could imagine, wounded the lion with a crossbow, and then tracked the dying animal for almost two days. When the tortured lion was finally found by the murderers, it was shot, skinned, and decapitated, to provide a trophy head for Dr. Palmer.

Unfortunately for Palmer, he killed a protected, and GPS-tracked lion, which made it much easier for authorities to discover what had happened, and who the perpetrators were. In the last few days, Palmer has gone from a tooth-pulling nobody from Minnesota, to the most thoroughly despised human being on the face of the Earth. Talk about going viral—in a really bad way.  There are millions of people in the world who would gladly see Palmer treated to the same mercy he gave Cecil. Handing the dentist over to Islamic State might actually be a more merciful fate to what some people want to do to Palmer.

Global citizens, and even most Americans, have had enough with these kinds of psychopathic celebrations. Seen here, Dr. Walter Palmer, on left, poor dead lion, center, and some other asshole-accessory to murder-photos on the right. Note to GOP: it isn't the 19th century any longer, idiots, and even in the 19th century, "civilized" behavior really wasn't exemplified by this kind of revolting foolishness.
What has all this to do with Donald Trump? The general, global hatred of hunting, as a sport, has been increasing for some time. Already, quite a few individuals have been brought low by their public declaration and publicly-shared images of their murdering animals. The Cecil killing has taken the global hatred of sport hunting to a new level altogether. It turns out that Trumps's sons are hunters (i.e., murderers) of big-game trophy animals.

In 2015, there is something really, essentially, barbaric about rich (almost always white) assholes, posing triumphantly with beautiful, dead, bodies of large animals that in many cases are struggling to survive as a species. This is not killing for any other reason than the thrill of killing. These psychopathic idiots do not need the animals for food, and certainly Cecil the Lion was not threatening anyone in Minnesota.

Trump has come out saying he supports his sons and is a member of the NRA—blah, blah, blah— which implies support for the glory of killing animals. Of course the Second Amendment was not established for the sport-hunting of animals, but to guarantee an active militia would be available for the defense of the state.

It is very likely this Cecil the Lion debate will further polarize the political debate in the USA, and especially on the Republican side of the debate. If the Republicans nominate a candidate with connections to big-game hunting, that idea and that image alone might be sufficient to sink that candidate's chances of winning in a general presidential election.

That is how crazy the world of American politics is. And yet, in that madness and that chaos, a kind of wisdom surfaces, because in 2015, and 2016, maybe it really is time for rich morons to stop celebrating their torture and murder of defenseless animals.