From the office of the ChairWOMAN, 28 October 2011
***LISTEN UP! The ChairWOMAN is not just unhappy with current performance – actually lack of it – but is furious and will add any staffer to the unemployed gang who is not giving 110%. She is holding down her job in the U.S. House, even voting occasionally, while directing this most important of all democrat organizations…more important, even, than the former ACORN. POTUS’s approval rating is slipping and the White House has made it plain that the main reason is the failure of this organization to make the president’s case, or at least make it better than Press Secretary Carney, who has given a new profoundness to the term “uh.” The excuse that neither Carney, I, nor any staffer knows what POTUS’s case is will not fly. He knows what his current jobs-legislation is and that’s all that matters, at least according to Minority Leader Pelosi, who has said that, like the healthcare legislation, the details will filter out after passage. The keyword to use in any discussion is “infrastructure,” which can mean hiring people to work for the government on anything from bridges to dentures, providing they’re union-members (the people, not the dentures, for recent Harvard graduates). Besides, people in the Southeast and Southwest (except for my Florida county) don’t know what infrastructure means, so this is a good, strong organizing word that cannot be connected in any way in my county with “hanging chads.” For Yale grads, “infrastructure” does not mean “buildings that can be seen only at night through the use of weird goggles.”
***This is from Memo #4: “POTUS has expressed brilliantly that the high unemployment rate is due to the Arab Spring and the Japanese tsunami and nuclear meltdown. He has requested [from the DNC] a red/yellow/black/white paper explaining why this is the case.” Not one paper of not even purple has been submitted and White House Chief-of-Staff Daly is threatening to replace me if POTUS’s explanation is not made available and teleprompter-ready within a week. LISTEN UP! I have no intention of coughing up $200 thou because my staff is plagued with dimwits. Besides, I’m tired of sitting through all those House monstrosities run now by the republicans and have no desire to attempt living on just a paltry representative’s salary of $174,000 + all the good stuff the peons don’t have, like healthcare out my ears and pensions to die for (little black humor there). The staffer who prepares this paper will be awarded a ticket to the next NASCAR race or NFL game in North Carolina, whichever has the most blood and gore to offer – little joke there, for any member of Yalie Skull-and-Bones.
***The White House has put out a statement to the effect that the president had had a long day, complete with a wrist-sprain on a chip shot from a manhole cover, when he said in March that he would take care of Qaddafi in days, not weeks. He simply misspoke in that he meant to say “in months, not years.” The statement also includes the information that for the same reason (except it was an approach shot from a golf-cart road) the president forgot to announce his war on Libya in Washington before leaving for vacation (badly needed, obviously) and thus had to announce it in Brazil between the main course and dessert at a bash in Brasilia. Please present this perfectly reasonable explanation at all town-hall meetings in New Hampshire, preferably early in the ones held in bars account drunks may not believe it.
***Everyone is directed to support the current Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, notwithstanding the hardships of living in parks and having to search for rent-a-toilets while dodging tear-gas canisters and/or fraternity brothers looking for girls to invite to their parties. POTUS is in complete agreement with whatever the protestors are protesting and is requesting red/yellow/black/white papers regarding what that is. Anyone arrested is on his/her own but is directed herein on the threat of death-by-firing-squad not to mention the DNC. It’s not okay to call the effort “community organizing gone ape,” never mind anything Limbaugh says.
***IMPORTANT: Do NOT – repeat – DO NOT ridicule the current plethora of republican debates or anyone connected to them. Do NOT even quote what the debaters say about each other. They are being closely monitored at DNC headquarters. At present, especially with POTUS in a sort of free-fall regarding popularity, the republicans are doing a wonderful hatchet-job on each other, besides trivializing their campaigns/positions in arguing about Romney’s groundskeepers and Perry’s accusing himself of being so poor at debating that he will just skip it on his way to the White House, thus making himself suspect in the event of the three a.m. call. A poor debater could hardly be expected to dispatch Libya in a matter of years, if not decades. POTUS did it in just seven months and only murdered a few thousand. Who’s counting, and they all look alike anyway. If this killing is mentioned in town-hall meetings, simply say “ce la vie” (pronounced say-luh-vee, in case Carney is snooping). That’s French and most folks, drunk or sober, will never admit to not knowing what it means, even though it’s regularly in the Crosswords, and assume it’s a profound word of wisdom.
***Important note: The DNC/White House is against drug-testing anyone receiving welfare benefits, including the old codgers on Medicare, who are generally full of pain medicine for something or other and have paid their fair share into Medicare anyway. This is a privacy matter and people receiving entitlements are also entitled to conduct their lives as they see fit, including staying numb/drunk/giggly and on another planet most of the time. Hammer on this in all meetings and in all Occupy-Wall-Street protests, but be careful of those with glassy eyes and rings in ears, nose, lips, tongue, love handles, navel, and areas seen only when flashed. This does not apply to DNC staffers, most of whom are on welfare because the CHAIRwoman owes it to all contributors to spend their money wisely.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Take Back the Country...Oh Yeah!
The campaign season is in full swing…well, actually the campaign season is always in a swing of some degree. For the president, the current campaign has been going on since the end of his last campaign in 2008. Before that, he was in campaign mode in 2005 by the time he had been in the Senate long enough to find the chamber and maybe even the restrooms. Maybe he didn’t start until 2006, but then it’s hard to separate campaigns from speeches, fact-finding trips and most anything else that gains the attention of the public…so who knows?
Look for the usual clichés to be mouthed over and over and over…like this one: “It’s time to take back our country!” The word “back” can be an adjective, adverb, verb or noun, though noun is out in this case since the country is not the back of anything, though some campaigner might claim it (the body/country, presumably including its own back…or front for that matter) is being wagged by the insidious tail, meaning, of course, the other party or cutthroat bureaucrat or, currently, the collective White House czars.
Or…let “back” be an adjective, having this connotation according to the dictionary: “being in arrears: OVERDUE,” in which case how could it possibly be taken “back,” since it’s already completely broke and “in arrears” to the nth degree, about as far back as it can get? Or, another adjective definition is simply: “not current.” Does the candidate want to take the country back to “not current,” i.e., behind the times? Maybe that’s good campaigning since folks are always yearning for the “good ole days,” at least until they’re reminded of the outhouses, no electricity and the streets filled not with CO2 as the vehicular exhaust but with “stuff” that smells b-b-a-a-d-d and ruins the carpet.
Consider “back” as an adverb, with one of the dictionary definitions accruing thereto being “in a delayed or retarded condition.” There are many uncharitable folks who claim that this definition precisely describes the current administration, while the administration insists that it aptly describes anyone with whom it disagrees, like smart aleck economists who claim that goading/legislating people into buying houses they can’t afford and will lose is not copasetic since mortgages should not be negotiated within a range reaching from one-payment-per-month to no-payments-in years, with China holding the paper and the taxpayer finally footing the bill.
But if the country is to be taken to a “delayed or retarded condition,” perhaps the candidate will simply campaign on the idea of delaying all payments, except all the military spending and entitlements, of course, which means that it can’t delay paying much of anything, such non-non-payment leading to…yep…retardation, defined as “slowing up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment: IMPEDE.” Obviously, this approach won’t work because Obama has already done that, a sort of enhancement of the entitlement programs of the 1960s, which have failed miserably to do much more than establish a permanent underclass.
As a verb, “back” has as one definition: “to get into inadvertently,” such as a quarterback dropping back to pass and getting concussed by a linebacker on steroids. That’s precisely what has happened in the last three years with respect to the humongous mess occasioned by Obamessiah and his disciples, otherwise known as czars. This has been government by the Kiddie Korps operating on the principle that “leveling the playing field,” i.e., redistributing the wealth, will make everyone happy except the earners…but, who cares about that minority anyway? After all, inadvertence is better than nothing…isn’t it? Ask the q-back.
So, it makes perfect sense to adopt this same approach, described as “Let’s get into something else inadvertently,” understanding that even if it’s inadvertent the outcome will be anything but what the country has suffered lately and thus can’t be all bad and might even be good. Listening to the wannabes chop each other off at the knees in the squirrelly debates suggests that many outcomes are possible, inadvertent or otherwise. It’s hard to keep score, though, as wannabes tailor their ideas, programs and mutual recriminations to fit whatever state they’re gaming.
“Take back,” of course, depends on “take” to mean anything in the first place, so “take” is defined as “to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control.” One remembers Obama’s previous campaign emphasis on the structuring of a national police force, a sort of civilian army commanded by the POTUS, also the commander of the military, which he might send off to liberate Timbuktu, a la Libya for instance, while the police force subjugates the citizenry at home.
The president said this in Colorado in July 2008: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” The mainstream media never mentions this, of course, not that it’s anything but a loony-tunes statement by someone wandering off the teleprompter to say what he actually thinks. One can mention names of aliens, both past and present, that represent this view but it’s considered racist/gauche to do so, if not outrageously contemptuous of political correctness.
Nowadays, the ballot-box determines the “taking back” of the government but one wonders how long that will obtain.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Look for the usual clichés to be mouthed over and over and over…like this one: “It’s time to take back our country!” The word “back” can be an adjective, adverb, verb or noun, though noun is out in this case since the country is not the back of anything, though some campaigner might claim it (the body/country, presumably including its own back…or front for that matter) is being wagged by the insidious tail, meaning, of course, the other party or cutthroat bureaucrat or, currently, the collective White House czars.
Or…let “back” be an adjective, having this connotation according to the dictionary: “being in arrears: OVERDUE,” in which case how could it possibly be taken “back,” since it’s already completely broke and “in arrears” to the nth degree, about as far back as it can get? Or, another adjective definition is simply: “not current.” Does the candidate want to take the country back to “not current,” i.e., behind the times? Maybe that’s good campaigning since folks are always yearning for the “good ole days,” at least until they’re reminded of the outhouses, no electricity and the streets filled not with CO2 as the vehicular exhaust but with “stuff” that smells b-b-a-a-d-d and ruins the carpet.
Consider “back” as an adverb, with one of the dictionary definitions accruing thereto being “in a delayed or retarded condition.” There are many uncharitable folks who claim that this definition precisely describes the current administration, while the administration insists that it aptly describes anyone with whom it disagrees, like smart aleck economists who claim that goading/legislating people into buying houses they can’t afford and will lose is not copasetic since mortgages should not be negotiated within a range reaching from one-payment-per-month to no-payments-in years, with China holding the paper and the taxpayer finally footing the bill.
But if the country is to be taken to a “delayed or retarded condition,” perhaps the candidate will simply campaign on the idea of delaying all payments, except all the military spending and entitlements, of course, which means that it can’t delay paying much of anything, such non-non-payment leading to…yep…retardation, defined as “slowing up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment: IMPEDE.” Obviously, this approach won’t work because Obama has already done that, a sort of enhancement of the entitlement programs of the 1960s, which have failed miserably to do much more than establish a permanent underclass.
As a verb, “back” has as one definition: “to get into inadvertently,” such as a quarterback dropping back to pass and getting concussed by a linebacker on steroids. That’s precisely what has happened in the last three years with respect to the humongous mess occasioned by Obamessiah and his disciples, otherwise known as czars. This has been government by the Kiddie Korps operating on the principle that “leveling the playing field,” i.e., redistributing the wealth, will make everyone happy except the earners…but, who cares about that minority anyway? After all, inadvertence is better than nothing…isn’t it? Ask the q-back.
So, it makes perfect sense to adopt this same approach, described as “Let’s get into something else inadvertently,” understanding that even if it’s inadvertent the outcome will be anything but what the country has suffered lately and thus can’t be all bad and might even be good. Listening to the wannabes chop each other off at the knees in the squirrelly debates suggests that many outcomes are possible, inadvertent or otherwise. It’s hard to keep score, though, as wannabes tailor their ideas, programs and mutual recriminations to fit whatever state they’re gaming.
“Take back,” of course, depends on “take” to mean anything in the first place, so “take” is defined as “to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control.” One remembers Obama’s previous campaign emphasis on the structuring of a national police force, a sort of civilian army commanded by the POTUS, also the commander of the military, which he might send off to liberate Timbuktu, a la Libya for instance, while the police force subjugates the citizenry at home.
The president said this in Colorado in July 2008: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” The mainstream media never mentions this, of course, not that it’s anything but a loony-tunes statement by someone wandering off the teleprompter to say what he actually thinks. One can mention names of aliens, both past and present, that represent this view but it’s considered racist/gauche to do so, if not outrageously contemptuous of political correctness.
Nowadays, the ballot-box determines the “taking back” of the government but one wonders how long that will obtain.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Libya, Uganda...Obama's Legacy?
This is from ABC News of 18 March 2011: “President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for ‘days, not weeks,’ after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role,” according to sources. The president TOLD Congress what would happen. He did not ask for any sort of approval, simply ordering the military to start bombing the bejesus out of Libya, population 2 million less than that of New York City.
Almost seven months to the day later, Qaddafi has been killed. So much for Obama’s ability to understand military matters or his ability to tell the truth, since the U.S has always been involved in far more than a supporting role, whatever that was supposed to be, at a cost of well over a billion dollars, presumably borrowed from China. Since Libya has never been a threat, military, economic or otherwise, to the U.S., there was no reason for this country’s killing of innocent Libyans, so the question of the entire enterprise has to do with the president’s reason, which seems to be that Qaddafi was a mean man and had to go (State Secretary Clinton said so). Nobody with walking-around-sense believes this, but the truth will out and will probably have to do with Libyan oil, not bought by the U.S. but by England, France, Germany and Spain, the NATO biggies, the partners in crime.
The president’s latest entry into military operations is also taking place in Africa, the ordering of about 100 military personnel into Uganda, smaller than Wyoming and a bunch of other U.S. states, to help the Ugandan government capture another bad guy, Joseph Kony, head of something called The Lord’s Resistance Army. According to the Washington Times of 19 October, the Ugandan military estimated this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain in the LRA. The Libyan military numbers 50,000, of which forces a number have fought against the al Qaeda-connection butchers in Somalia, making them battle-hardened and not exactly in need of training, which has been given as the reason for the infusion of U.S. troops.
So…the president sends 100 people in to help a 50,000-man military establishment capture a bad guy (was Hillary consulted?) leading some 300 or so other bad guys? Does Obama expect anybody with a warm forehead to believe this? Can Defense Secretary Panetta – with a straight face – actually spout this line? Or…could oil again be the catalyst for such outrageous drivel, not in terms of military strength, obviously, but for darker reasons?
World Net Daily of 15 October linked ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros with the oil industry in Uganda. Soros is a darling of the left, funding numerous liberal front-groups in the effort to turn this nation into socialism, perhaps as a part of a sort of global socialist state, the thing that appeals to President Obama, who went to the United Nations (one-world government) to cover his derriere in the unprovoked attack on Libya. The Ugandan government tightly controls the oil business, according to WND. Soros seems to be the go-to guy for any cause that purports to degrade capitalism, which could make Obama listen to him, especially in an election year. Soros needs to control the oil business in Uganda…VOILA!…send in the troops, even if they’re just for show…or to put the arm on Uganda President Museveni.
According to Wikipedia, at least 4,991 to 6,652 civilians have been reported killed in Libya by October 17, 2011. According to Wikipedia, a total of 12,770 to 16,073 deaths have been reported. These are presumed to be “ball-park” figures, not exact. How many of the killed, wounded and missing can Obama claim for the U.S. as the result of his actions, particularly during the first ten days of the conflict, when he spent $55 million per day decimating the Libyans, claiming that only military targets were in play? Bombs and missiles, besides often being fired erroneously at targets, make no distinction between the innocent and the military.
Is Obama’s modus operandi better than that of other world leaders, including Syria’s Assad and Yemen’s Saleh, who are doing what Qaddafi is accused of doing when Obama attacked him. Perhaps Obama – ironically the recipient of a Nobel PEACE prize – has concluded that he’s configured payback for the PanAm 103 crash in 1988 that eventuated in 270 deaths, 259 of them passengers and crew on the plane, and for which two Libyan operatives were brought to trial, one sentenced to life (and later released) and the other judged not guilty.
The mainstream media is falling all over itself to applaud the brave, courageous Obama, when even his own military chiefs, then Defense Secretary Gates and then Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, advised against the Libyan bloodletting. Gates described it as “on the fly,” i.e. without any planning. That makes it easy to see why something that was supposed to be accomplished in days, not weeks, took seven months and thousands of lives. This isn’t a brief for Qaddafi, without whom the consensus is that the world is better off. With the proper planning by actual military people, the losses would have been much lighter.
The question for Obama: Is Syria next…or Yemen…or Saudi Arabia?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Almost seven months to the day later, Qaddafi has been killed. So much for Obama’s ability to understand military matters or his ability to tell the truth, since the U.S has always been involved in far more than a supporting role, whatever that was supposed to be, at a cost of well over a billion dollars, presumably borrowed from China. Since Libya has never been a threat, military, economic or otherwise, to the U.S., there was no reason for this country’s killing of innocent Libyans, so the question of the entire enterprise has to do with the president’s reason, which seems to be that Qaddafi was a mean man and had to go (State Secretary Clinton said so). Nobody with walking-around-sense believes this, but the truth will out and will probably have to do with Libyan oil, not bought by the U.S. but by England, France, Germany and Spain, the NATO biggies, the partners in crime.
The president’s latest entry into military operations is also taking place in Africa, the ordering of about 100 military personnel into Uganda, smaller than Wyoming and a bunch of other U.S. states, to help the Ugandan government capture another bad guy, Joseph Kony, head of something called The Lord’s Resistance Army. According to the Washington Times of 19 October, the Ugandan military estimated this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain in the LRA. The Libyan military numbers 50,000, of which forces a number have fought against the al Qaeda-connection butchers in Somalia, making them battle-hardened and not exactly in need of training, which has been given as the reason for the infusion of U.S. troops.
So…the president sends 100 people in to help a 50,000-man military establishment capture a bad guy (was Hillary consulted?) leading some 300 or so other bad guys? Does Obama expect anybody with a warm forehead to believe this? Can Defense Secretary Panetta – with a straight face – actually spout this line? Or…could oil again be the catalyst for such outrageous drivel, not in terms of military strength, obviously, but for darker reasons?
World Net Daily of 15 October linked ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros with the oil industry in Uganda. Soros is a darling of the left, funding numerous liberal front-groups in the effort to turn this nation into socialism, perhaps as a part of a sort of global socialist state, the thing that appeals to President Obama, who went to the United Nations (one-world government) to cover his derriere in the unprovoked attack on Libya. The Ugandan government tightly controls the oil business, according to WND. Soros seems to be the go-to guy for any cause that purports to degrade capitalism, which could make Obama listen to him, especially in an election year. Soros needs to control the oil business in Uganda…VOILA!…send in the troops, even if they’re just for show…or to put the arm on Uganda President Museveni.
According to Wikipedia, at least 4,991 to 6,652 civilians have been reported killed in Libya by October 17, 2011. According to Wikipedia, a total of 12,770 to 16,073 deaths have been reported. These are presumed to be “ball-park” figures, not exact. How many of the killed, wounded and missing can Obama claim for the U.S. as the result of his actions, particularly during the first ten days of the conflict, when he spent $55 million per day decimating the Libyans, claiming that only military targets were in play? Bombs and missiles, besides often being fired erroneously at targets, make no distinction between the innocent and the military.
Is Obama’s modus operandi better than that of other world leaders, including Syria’s Assad and Yemen’s Saleh, who are doing what Qaddafi is accused of doing when Obama attacked him. Perhaps Obama – ironically the recipient of a Nobel PEACE prize – has concluded that he’s configured payback for the PanAm 103 crash in 1988 that eventuated in 270 deaths, 259 of them passengers and crew on the plane, and for which two Libyan operatives were brought to trial, one sentenced to life (and later released) and the other judged not guilty.
The mainstream media is falling all over itself to applaud the brave, courageous Obama, when even his own military chiefs, then Defense Secretary Gates and then Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, advised against the Libyan bloodletting. Gates described it as “on the fly,” i.e. without any planning. That makes it easy to see why something that was supposed to be accomplished in days, not weeks, took seven months and thousands of lives. This isn’t a brief for Qaddafi, without whom the consensus is that the world is better off. With the proper planning by actual military people, the losses would have been much lighter.
The question for Obama: Is Syria next…or Yemen…or Saudi Arabia?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
"Debates" - Silly Drivel
The republican candidates seem to have either a death-wish or are naively under the impression that virtually free public exposure is cost-effective vis-à-vis campaign expenses with regard to what have been labeled “debates,” numbering about eight now and comprising a traveling circus that trivializes both them and the process. The latest was essentially a shouting match undoubtedly savored by its sponsor, CNN, as a prime example of bickering wannabes who lack even the social graces, much less the intellect to govern the country. This, at a time when the nation is headed by a sophomoric administration and sliding toward oblivion.
Disclaimer: I felt from the start that the “debates” (or whatever they are) were hugely inappropriate at any time a year before the election in 2012, and that the fewer the better. I listened to maybe ten minutes of one of the first ones and finally about the last half of the most recent one on 18 October. However, that was enough enlightenment, especially as informed by my reading about them or hearing about them in the media, most of which wallows in the slimy process of using the “debates” to slime the republicans, who, however, do a masterful job of that themselves. That was certainly the case on the eighteenth. The notion that seven or eight people will have the time to discuss a given topic – much less a plethora of them – in a two-hour (sans commercials) time-frame is loony-tunes…not worth the time.
Largely as a result of the “debates,” the media talking-heads, pollsters, commentators and campaign gurus have made it a point to handicap the candidates, much as the odds-makers do with respect to sports. The public is invited to keep score, being forced in the process, of course, to try to separate fact from fiction with respect to not only the assertions of the wannabes but also the agendas of the various and assorted media and polling operations, which seem able to come up with data satisfying a given agenda. So…the democrats have pollsters, the republicans have pollsters, the newspapers have pollsters, the politicians have pollsters, etc., ad infinitum.
The media advertises which candidate will be the “target” before each debate, depending upon what the polls are showing in a given time-frame and/or what one or a bunch of the candidates have said lately. Perry has been a target recently, though the media seemed to believe that Cain would be the target on the eighteenth since his 9-9-9 plan has been much in the news lately, not that there is such a thing as a 9-9-9 plan because not even Cain seems to know exactly what it is. Actually, it’s a gimmick purporting to lower income taxes, making everyone happy, while at the same time adding a 9% sales tax to the sales taxes levied already in 45 states. It’s a “rob Peter to pay Paul” scheme that fools no thinking person.
The shallowness that marks the “debates” was enhanced by Brian Williams in MSNBC’s crack at the republicans when he questioned Texas governor Perry about the governor’s sleep habits vis-à-vis the executions in Texas, the obvious implication being that Perry was uncivilized at best and an outright murderer at worst. This was silliness to the nth degree by an “anchor” earning manifold millions each year but capable, nevertheless, of coming up with something as wacko as that. (I heard that one myself in my brief surfing activity, and am still laughing.) Perry could have asked Williams how he slept since General Electric, 49%-owner of NBC, paid no taxes last year.
Romney has repeatedly demanded that Perry “repudiate” a statement made by a Baptist preacher and Perry-supporter to the effect that Mormons are not Christians. Perry has said he disagrees with the preacher, which, by definition, is a repudiation of the statement. Romney, in other words, doesn’t know the meaning of the word “repudiate.” What Romney actually wants Perry to do is repudiate the preacher, i.e., cut off all connection. One of the definitions of repudiate is “to refuse to have anything to do with.” To make a demand like that is exponential silliness, but this is the level on which the “debates” are posited.
These silly “debates” are the product of an absolutely bankrupt/corrupt primary system, with state party-organizations, like schoolyard second-graders, now trying to “jump the line” to go first. Now, it appears that New Hampshire will opt for its SACRED primary to be held in December, with all the media biggies and candidates trudging through the sleet/snow/cold to gather in bars and town-hall meetings to cogitate and deliver oracular pronouncements. They should all be happy for Florida to go first for perfectly obvious reasons.
The old party-conventions, complete with smoke-filled backrooms, were eminently superior to the current process. Absent a return to that, all primaries should be held on the same day, probably about May 1. This would allow these confrontations called “debates” to take place between January and May, if necessary – and most of them are not. The actual winners are the media folks who manipulate the wannabes and make money off the mostly meaningless exercises.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Disclaimer: I felt from the start that the “debates” (or whatever they are) were hugely inappropriate at any time a year before the election in 2012, and that the fewer the better. I listened to maybe ten minutes of one of the first ones and finally about the last half of the most recent one on 18 October. However, that was enough enlightenment, especially as informed by my reading about them or hearing about them in the media, most of which wallows in the slimy process of using the “debates” to slime the republicans, who, however, do a masterful job of that themselves. That was certainly the case on the eighteenth. The notion that seven or eight people will have the time to discuss a given topic – much less a plethora of them – in a two-hour (sans commercials) time-frame is loony-tunes…not worth the time.
Largely as a result of the “debates,” the media talking-heads, pollsters, commentators and campaign gurus have made it a point to handicap the candidates, much as the odds-makers do with respect to sports. The public is invited to keep score, being forced in the process, of course, to try to separate fact from fiction with respect to not only the assertions of the wannabes but also the agendas of the various and assorted media and polling operations, which seem able to come up with data satisfying a given agenda. So…the democrats have pollsters, the republicans have pollsters, the newspapers have pollsters, the politicians have pollsters, etc., ad infinitum.
The media advertises which candidate will be the “target” before each debate, depending upon what the polls are showing in a given time-frame and/or what one or a bunch of the candidates have said lately. Perry has been a target recently, though the media seemed to believe that Cain would be the target on the eighteenth since his 9-9-9 plan has been much in the news lately, not that there is such a thing as a 9-9-9 plan because not even Cain seems to know exactly what it is. Actually, it’s a gimmick purporting to lower income taxes, making everyone happy, while at the same time adding a 9% sales tax to the sales taxes levied already in 45 states. It’s a “rob Peter to pay Paul” scheme that fools no thinking person.
The shallowness that marks the “debates” was enhanced by Brian Williams in MSNBC’s crack at the republicans when he questioned Texas governor Perry about the governor’s sleep habits vis-à-vis the executions in Texas, the obvious implication being that Perry was uncivilized at best and an outright murderer at worst. This was silliness to the nth degree by an “anchor” earning manifold millions each year but capable, nevertheless, of coming up with something as wacko as that. (I heard that one myself in my brief surfing activity, and am still laughing.) Perry could have asked Williams how he slept since General Electric, 49%-owner of NBC, paid no taxes last year.
Romney has repeatedly demanded that Perry “repudiate” a statement made by a Baptist preacher and Perry-supporter to the effect that Mormons are not Christians. Perry has said he disagrees with the preacher, which, by definition, is a repudiation of the statement. Romney, in other words, doesn’t know the meaning of the word “repudiate.” What Romney actually wants Perry to do is repudiate the preacher, i.e., cut off all connection. One of the definitions of repudiate is “to refuse to have anything to do with.” To make a demand like that is exponential silliness, but this is the level on which the “debates” are posited.
These silly “debates” are the product of an absolutely bankrupt/corrupt primary system, with state party-organizations, like schoolyard second-graders, now trying to “jump the line” to go first. Now, it appears that New Hampshire will opt for its SACRED primary to be held in December, with all the media biggies and candidates trudging through the sleet/snow/cold to gather in bars and town-hall meetings to cogitate and deliver oracular pronouncements. They should all be happy for Florida to go first for perfectly obvious reasons.
The old party-conventions, complete with smoke-filled backrooms, were eminently superior to the current process. Absent a return to that, all primaries should be held on the same day, probably about May 1. This would allow these confrontations called “debates” to take place between January and May, if necessary – and most of them are not. The actual winners are the media folks who manipulate the wannabes and make money off the mostly meaningless exercises.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, October 14, 2011
Cain's Gimmickry?
Gimmicks are the mother’s milk of candidates for most any office, not least because they seem to provide both simple and immediate answers to problems that are far too complicated for either easy or quick solutions. In 2008, Senator McCain had a huge problem occasioned by the fact that his campaign, if not completely bogged down, was going nowhere fast. Solution: Put Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on the ticket, never mind whether or not she had any presidential credentials. She was a woman. This was the penultimate in gimmickry. It didn’t work for McCain, of course, but it made an instant celebrity of Palin, not to mention a very wealthy person account her being exponentially opportunistic and smart enough to milk the whole sordid affair for every last cent.
This is not to imply that Palin was anything but bright. And she was far better prepared for the presidency than Obama but that doesn’t mean much in terms of conducting the office. One of Obama’s gimmicks as president has been speechifying, thus freeing himself from the rigors of governance through keeping the minds of the people on his words, not his actions or inactions. This has involved a certain amount of egomania, such as exhibited in his recent speech to Congress, conducted in the imperial pomp and circumstance of a state-of-the-union message, notwithstanding its importance being neutered by its postponement account another political circus (one of those squirrelly debates that mean nothing) and then having its schedule determined by a ballgame.
The best example of gimmickry currently may be the “9-9-9 tax-plan” espoused by republican candidate Herman Cain. This is not to say that Cain is not a knowledgeable and valid office-seeker. It is to say that he has brought it forth summarily without a thorough explanation of how the plan works. Indeed, even he has indicated that it is still in the working stage. He has made significant changes in it as the campaign has progressed. No one seems to know precisely what it is and can’t know as long as he changes his mind about it.
Apparently, his main selling point has been that the plan will bring in as much revenue as is currently being brought in under the current system, but that the sources of the revenue will be reconfigured so that everyone will suffer less and be happy. There would be a flat income tax of 9%, a flat corporate tax of 9%, and a flat sales tax of 9%. With the exception of the latter, the other rates are considerably lower than current rates, at least for those actually paying taxes, remembering that 46% of the population pays no taxes now. Presumably, his program would affect some or most of those people with respect to only the sales tax.
Forty-five states raise revenue through sales taxes, with California’s the highest at 8.25%. Adding a 9% federal sales tax would bring that burden to an intolerable 17.25%. Imagine paying $234.50 for a lawnmower costing $200. Does Cain mean to place a 9% sales tax on food? A family of four with an annual income of $35,000 has to eat as much as a family of four with an income of $100,000. If each family spends $600 a month on food, the former will have $27,800 left at the end of the year while the latter will have $92,800. Cain’s plan hurts the worse-off people big-time while not materially affecting the better-off.
Consider those two families with respect to the 9% income tax. The former will pay $3,150 in taxes and have $31,850 left while the latter will pay $9,000 and have $91,000 left. Again, Cain’s plan hurts the worse-off while greatly benefiting the better-off. The former is in the current 25% bracket while the latter is in the 28% bracket, another example of benefiting the better off at the expense of the less well off. The earner making $400,000 is now in the 35% bracket (taxes=$140,000) but in Cain’s 9% bracket he would pay $36,000, a huge benefit of $104,000, three times as much in tax-break alone as the $35,000-a-year guy makes in wages.
Actually, there’s no argument with the income-tax aspect. People should have the right to equitably keep what they earn. Everyone receives the same government-services as everyone else, but Cain will have a hard time selling this since the nation has been in “progressive-tax mode” for decades. His 9% sales tax is too off-the-wall even to consider, especially if it applies to food and is added to the already over-the-top gasoline taxes charged by states and the federal government.
So…is Cain indulging in gimmickry that sort of sounds good until examined carefully? The Kentucky sales tax on automobiles is 6%, high enough. Adding 9% to that in buying a car for $25,000 means paying a tax of $3,750 or $28,750 altogether in one of the poorer states. That will be a hard sell.
Sounds like gimmickry!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
This is not to imply that Palin was anything but bright. And she was far better prepared for the presidency than Obama but that doesn’t mean much in terms of conducting the office. One of Obama’s gimmicks as president has been speechifying, thus freeing himself from the rigors of governance through keeping the minds of the people on his words, not his actions or inactions. This has involved a certain amount of egomania, such as exhibited in his recent speech to Congress, conducted in the imperial pomp and circumstance of a state-of-the-union message, notwithstanding its importance being neutered by its postponement account another political circus (one of those squirrelly debates that mean nothing) and then having its schedule determined by a ballgame.
The best example of gimmickry currently may be the “9-9-9 tax-plan” espoused by republican candidate Herman Cain. This is not to say that Cain is not a knowledgeable and valid office-seeker. It is to say that he has brought it forth summarily without a thorough explanation of how the plan works. Indeed, even he has indicated that it is still in the working stage. He has made significant changes in it as the campaign has progressed. No one seems to know precisely what it is and can’t know as long as he changes his mind about it.
Apparently, his main selling point has been that the plan will bring in as much revenue as is currently being brought in under the current system, but that the sources of the revenue will be reconfigured so that everyone will suffer less and be happy. There would be a flat income tax of 9%, a flat corporate tax of 9%, and a flat sales tax of 9%. With the exception of the latter, the other rates are considerably lower than current rates, at least for those actually paying taxes, remembering that 46% of the population pays no taxes now. Presumably, his program would affect some or most of those people with respect to only the sales tax.
Forty-five states raise revenue through sales taxes, with California’s the highest at 8.25%. Adding a 9% federal sales tax would bring that burden to an intolerable 17.25%. Imagine paying $234.50 for a lawnmower costing $200. Does Cain mean to place a 9% sales tax on food? A family of four with an annual income of $35,000 has to eat as much as a family of four with an income of $100,000. If each family spends $600 a month on food, the former will have $27,800 left at the end of the year while the latter will have $92,800. Cain’s plan hurts the worse-off people big-time while not materially affecting the better-off.
Consider those two families with respect to the 9% income tax. The former will pay $3,150 in taxes and have $31,850 left while the latter will pay $9,000 and have $91,000 left. Again, Cain’s plan hurts the worse-off while greatly benefiting the better-off. The former is in the current 25% bracket while the latter is in the 28% bracket, another example of benefiting the better off at the expense of the less well off. The earner making $400,000 is now in the 35% bracket (taxes=$140,000) but in Cain’s 9% bracket he would pay $36,000, a huge benefit of $104,000, three times as much in tax-break alone as the $35,000-a-year guy makes in wages.
Actually, there’s no argument with the income-tax aspect. People should have the right to equitably keep what they earn. Everyone receives the same government-services as everyone else, but Cain will have a hard time selling this since the nation has been in “progressive-tax mode” for decades. His 9% sales tax is too off-the-wall even to consider, especially if it applies to food and is added to the already over-the-top gasoline taxes charged by states and the federal government.
So…is Cain indulging in gimmickry that sort of sounds good until examined carefully? The Kentucky sales tax on automobiles is 6%, high enough. Adding 9% to that in buying a car for $25,000 means paying a tax of $3,750 or $28,750 altogether in one of the poorer states. That will be a hard sell.
Sounds like gimmickry!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, October 06, 2011
The Hippy Autumn
There can be little doubt that President Obama has looked with great favor on the “Arab Spring,” as largely proven by his encouraging the masses to take to the streets through announcing to the world that the leaders of their countries had to go, never mind how. The results have been predictably abysmal since the masses were leaderless, clueless, and without resources except for a multitude of warm bodies to take up space. In the process, this country lost its only Middle East Arab (Muslim) ally when Obama decided that Egypt’s Mubarak had to go. The resulting vacuum of leadership is obvious unless one considers that the army should operate the government.
The president has been given a pass by the mainstream media concerning his overt participation in the Arab Spring, the attack in March upon Libya, population two million less than that of New York City and owning a military of 76,000 troops compared to the U.S. number of GIs at 1.6 million active troops. This was an invasion of another sovereign nation, entirely unprovoked and carried out by executive order with not so much as a fare-thee-well from the elected Congress, the only Constitutional establishment that can declare war. The feckless Congress has done nothing but ooh and ah and cluck its collective tongue while furnishing the funds for the bloodbath Obama has wreaked on innocent Libyans who just happen to be in the wrong place when the missiles and bombs commit their bloody mayhem.
Obama has made it plain that Constitutional government is not his bag. He made this abundantly clear from the outset when he showed his agitation toward the founders account their failure to provide for the proper distribution and redistribution of wealth. He showed it again when in his healthcare enactment he signed a document requiring citizens to buy insurance whether they wanted/needed it or not, not to mention the turning over of this most valuable aspect of life to the government to decide who gets what treatments or medicines, where and when.
The worm is turning, however. Obama has delighted in his participation in the Arab Spring, though he’s studiously avoided action concerning Syria and Yemen and Saudi Arabia, but now he’s facing his own “Hippy Autumn,” as graphically epitomized currently in the protests in New York City. These participants also make up a clueless gang without any leadership but with obvious resources since its members are well-fed and full of energy. So far, there is no coherent agenda, except for the demand that equity be granted everyone in the matter of income. Whether by college student or union member, this equity-mantra represents the intention of taking the country into socialism…reward not by merit but by governmental fiat.
The president, down in the polls, faces a dilemma, to wit, that, while he also is a socialist but still constrained by the Constitution, he needs to be reelected by a population that is not socialist, sees through his agenda no matter how passionately advanced by the left-liberal media it is, and is sick and tired of trying to find a modicum of assurance in a country that is almost totally leaderless, totally bankrupt, and totally disdained by other nations as just another successful nation trading its top standing for third-world status, with apologies all around for its very existence. This essentially has little to do with party, although republicans should be making political hay of the whole mess. They aren’t because they lack the necessary guts to call out Obama and cut him off at the knees.
So…how will Obama handle the Hippy Autumn? The hippies are his kind of people – wannabe “community organizers,” a euphemism for operators interested in putting the arm on the producers/workers to gain the products of their labors. New York’s finest arrested 700 of the “peaceful protestors” the other day, thus begetting weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. How dare a civil society remove despoilers from public property!
Will Wall Street confines be another Tahrir Square? Should the Autumn Hippies move their operation to Washington? Are they so ignorant that they don’t understand that Wall Street is what it is because Congress is what it is? The housing debacle that brought this economy down was for all practical purposes enacted into law by elected officials, who were either unbelievably dumb or too job-obsessed or greedy to put party and political ambitions before principle.
The 47% of the population that pays no taxes but can vote can just about confiscate at will or will be able to soon. This is Obama’s crowd. Welcome to the edge of the cliff.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The president has been given a pass by the mainstream media concerning his overt participation in the Arab Spring, the attack in March upon Libya, population two million less than that of New York City and owning a military of 76,000 troops compared to the U.S. number of GIs at 1.6 million active troops. This was an invasion of another sovereign nation, entirely unprovoked and carried out by executive order with not so much as a fare-thee-well from the elected Congress, the only Constitutional establishment that can declare war. The feckless Congress has done nothing but ooh and ah and cluck its collective tongue while furnishing the funds for the bloodbath Obama has wreaked on innocent Libyans who just happen to be in the wrong place when the missiles and bombs commit their bloody mayhem.
Obama has made it plain that Constitutional government is not his bag. He made this abundantly clear from the outset when he showed his agitation toward the founders account their failure to provide for the proper distribution and redistribution of wealth. He showed it again when in his healthcare enactment he signed a document requiring citizens to buy insurance whether they wanted/needed it or not, not to mention the turning over of this most valuable aspect of life to the government to decide who gets what treatments or medicines, where and when.
The worm is turning, however. Obama has delighted in his participation in the Arab Spring, though he’s studiously avoided action concerning Syria and Yemen and Saudi Arabia, but now he’s facing his own “Hippy Autumn,” as graphically epitomized currently in the protests in New York City. These participants also make up a clueless gang without any leadership but with obvious resources since its members are well-fed and full of energy. So far, there is no coherent agenda, except for the demand that equity be granted everyone in the matter of income. Whether by college student or union member, this equity-mantra represents the intention of taking the country into socialism…reward not by merit but by governmental fiat.
The president, down in the polls, faces a dilemma, to wit, that, while he also is a socialist but still constrained by the Constitution, he needs to be reelected by a population that is not socialist, sees through his agenda no matter how passionately advanced by the left-liberal media it is, and is sick and tired of trying to find a modicum of assurance in a country that is almost totally leaderless, totally bankrupt, and totally disdained by other nations as just another successful nation trading its top standing for third-world status, with apologies all around for its very existence. This essentially has little to do with party, although republicans should be making political hay of the whole mess. They aren’t because they lack the necessary guts to call out Obama and cut him off at the knees.
So…how will Obama handle the Hippy Autumn? The hippies are his kind of people – wannabe “community organizers,” a euphemism for operators interested in putting the arm on the producers/workers to gain the products of their labors. New York’s finest arrested 700 of the “peaceful protestors” the other day, thus begetting weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. How dare a civil society remove despoilers from public property!
Will Wall Street confines be another Tahrir Square? Should the Autumn Hippies move their operation to Washington? Are they so ignorant that they don’t understand that Wall Street is what it is because Congress is what it is? The housing debacle that brought this economy down was for all practical purposes enacted into law by elected officials, who were either unbelievably dumb or too job-obsessed or greedy to put party and political ambitions before principle.
The 47% of the population that pays no taxes but can vote can just about confiscate at will or will be able to soon. This is Obama’s crowd. Welcome to the edge of the cliff.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)