There are so many things wrong with this clip, I don't know where to begin. First of all, the color of the Donald's skin makes me wonder whether he was, in fact, born outside of the US - perhaps in Oompa Loompa land? Secondly, his logic is so twisted as to call his oft-touted intelligence into question. He wonders how "two poor people" managed to get a tiny, two-line birth announcement into the Honolulu newspaper, while simultaneously explaining how easy it is for the "geniuses" he grew up with on Wall Street to fraudulently change documents. What good would it do for Obama to produce his birth certificate if it could just be another fake? More importantly, hasn't Trumpa Loompa just made the case that his own birth certificate could be an elaborate fake? Nice work, you big-headed, orange-faced freak.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
March 31, 2011 Miscellanea
I continue to slog through Atlas Shrugged, barely able at this point to resist the urge to feed it, page by page, to my dog - that it might be reborn in its rightful form. I will expound on those thoughts when I finish these last 300 pages, but I had a minor revelation while reading yesterday: Atlas Shrugged is no more than a well-written Left Behind for the evangelical-capitalist set. It is a hagiography for Rand's imagined ideal persons and a snuff story about those she deems unworthy of salvation. I began with an open mind, hoping that it might expand my mind. I was prepared to have a better understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of conservative-libertarian ideology. Alas, I do, but not in the way I had hoped.
More on that at a later date. For now, some gloriousness from Paul Simon:
More on that at a later date. For now, some gloriousness from Paul Simon:
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Nature Boys
The Powers-That-Be would like us all to believe that capitalism is a natural system and that wealth came into their hands by an entirely organic process, no more complex than the acquisition of nuts by squirrels or carbon dioxide by algae. The earth orbits the sun, the tide goes in and out, and their net worth continues to increase according to similarly unalterable, universal principles.
Through this lens, their positions make a great deal of sense. Why, indeed, should we be entitle to any of their money? What right have we to any portion of the sums amassed by those who, by some combination of inborn ability and hard work, have simply mastered the natural order of the free market? Should we have taken a portion of Einstein's brain and distributed pieces to the village idiot? Should we excise segments of Placido Domingo's vocal folds and implant them into the weakest of American Idol contestants?
Through this lens, any attempt to control, regulate, or stem the natural flow of wealth onto anyone's ledger appears as an attack on the very freedom to seek or gain wealth in the first place. If we allow the billionaire to upset the natural order by sharing even one nickel of his wealth with the destitute street urchin through any sort of government-imposed redistribution scheme, we are opening the door to the slippery slope of moral hazard that may one day lead to having our own dimes and quarters redistributed...should we ever come into possession of real wealth.
The market as a natural system is a myth propagated by people who either intend to mislead or, worse yet, actually believe that their economic impulses are an integral part of that universal order. In reality, any system of currency is a man-made system, subject to man-made flaws and corruptions. Bartering of goods and services is perhaps a step closer to a natural system, but still relies on man-made judgments about the value of those commodities, particularly once you get outside the realm of basic human needs. "I'll plow your field if you'll shoe my horse," is straightforward and "natural" enough. "I'll let you clean my office every night for a weekly salary that is less than I paid for lunch today," is not so clear cut.
No further proof of the market's artificiality is needed than the recent economic collapse. By any standard, the market was enjoying a period of unprecedented deregulation and freedom. The system was given a chance to prove itself without the meddling of non-believers. During that golden age of capitalism the market did something completely organic and totally predictable: It erected a giant, phony sub-system on top of it's own flimsy façade. (Didn't anyone see Gremlins? Don't leave the goddamed Mogwai alone after midnight - especially next to a box of irresistible fried chicken!) The results were not good.
Now, after trillions of dollars of artificial infusions of printed money into their beautiful, natural system, the Powers-That-Be are all scratching their heads and saying "Why can't we go back to the way it was?" They don't see any reason to alter their positions on, say, taxes. "The system is natural again!" "Taxes are an undue burden on the magnificent workings of the system!" "Why should they get any of our money?"
The market is not natural. It is a complex and dynamic man-made structure with moving parts and changing needs. It requires delicate tending, ideological elasticity, and above all, it needs balance. Right now, the problem is very simple: You - the Powers-That-Be - have too much money. Not too much money "for my taste." You simply have too large a share of the wealth for the system to function healthily. That is not the same as saying that you shouldn't have lots and lots of money. You should and you can. You just can't let the scales get this tilted. It's not that I relish the thought of taking it from you now that things are a mess. I just wish you hadn't got carried away in the first place.
So now we're stuck in a vicious circle: We can't buy your stuff because we don't have jobs or our jobs don't pay well enough. You won't create jobs or increase wages until we buy your stuff. Tax revenues are down across the board, but your lobbyists are there to ensure that you won't be asked to fill the gap. Instead, it'll come out of our pockets in one way or another, which means that we'll have even less money to buy your stuff. And so on down the black hole of insanity.
So why are taxes treated differently than the interest rate? Somewhere along the line, it was decided that the interest rate needed detached, calculated manipulation in order to keep things running smoothly. Otherwise, everyone would be screaming "lower interest rates!" at politicians - and politicians would try to comply even when it wasn't in the best interest of the economy or the country. Why can't we think of taxes that way? The market is utterly off-balance right now. Wealth disparity is at an all time high. The rich are sitting on their money. The economy is sputtering along, getting no help from anyone. Why can't we all be mature and acknowledge that it's time to spread some damn wealth around? The market is a machine. Pull the levers, tweak the dials. Get it working again.
Some additional reading/viewing for you:
The New American Dream by William Rivers Pit
Frontline: Inside the Meltdown
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis
And now, some delightful silliness:
Through this lens, their positions make a great deal of sense. Why, indeed, should we be entitle to any of their money? What right have we to any portion of the sums amassed by those who, by some combination of inborn ability and hard work, have simply mastered the natural order of the free market? Should we have taken a portion of Einstein's brain and distributed pieces to the village idiot? Should we excise segments of Placido Domingo's vocal folds and implant them into the weakest of American Idol contestants?
Through this lens, any attempt to control, regulate, or stem the natural flow of wealth onto anyone's ledger appears as an attack on the very freedom to seek or gain wealth in the first place. If we allow the billionaire to upset the natural order by sharing even one nickel of his wealth with the destitute street urchin through any sort of government-imposed redistribution scheme, we are opening the door to the slippery slope of moral hazard that may one day lead to having our own dimes and quarters redistributed...should we ever come into possession of real wealth.
The market as a natural system is a myth propagated by people who either intend to mislead or, worse yet, actually believe that their economic impulses are an integral part of that universal order. In reality, any system of currency is a man-made system, subject to man-made flaws and corruptions. Bartering of goods and services is perhaps a step closer to a natural system, but still relies on man-made judgments about the value of those commodities, particularly once you get outside the realm of basic human needs. "I'll plow your field if you'll shoe my horse," is straightforward and "natural" enough. "I'll let you clean my office every night for a weekly salary that is less than I paid for lunch today," is not so clear cut.
No further proof of the market's artificiality is needed than the recent economic collapse. By any standard, the market was enjoying a period of unprecedented deregulation and freedom. The system was given a chance to prove itself without the meddling of non-believers. During that golden age of capitalism the market did something completely organic and totally predictable: It erected a giant, phony sub-system on top of it's own flimsy façade. (Didn't anyone see Gremlins? Don't leave the goddamed Mogwai alone after midnight - especially next to a box of irresistible fried chicken!) The results were not good.
Now, after trillions of dollars of artificial infusions of printed money into their beautiful, natural system, the Powers-That-Be are all scratching their heads and saying "Why can't we go back to the way it was?" They don't see any reason to alter their positions on, say, taxes. "The system is natural again!" "Taxes are an undue burden on the magnificent workings of the system!" "Why should they get any of our money?"
The market is not natural. It is a complex and dynamic man-made structure with moving parts and changing needs. It requires delicate tending, ideological elasticity, and above all, it needs balance. Right now, the problem is very simple: You - the Powers-That-Be - have too much money. Not too much money "for my taste." You simply have too large a share of the wealth for the system to function healthily. That is not the same as saying that you shouldn't have lots and lots of money. You should and you can. You just can't let the scales get this tilted. It's not that I relish the thought of taking it from you now that things are a mess. I just wish you hadn't got carried away in the first place.
So now we're stuck in a vicious circle: We can't buy your stuff because we don't have jobs or our jobs don't pay well enough. You won't create jobs or increase wages until we buy your stuff. Tax revenues are down across the board, but your lobbyists are there to ensure that you won't be asked to fill the gap. Instead, it'll come out of our pockets in one way or another, which means that we'll have even less money to buy your stuff. And so on down the black hole of insanity.
So why are taxes treated differently than the interest rate? Somewhere along the line, it was decided that the interest rate needed detached, calculated manipulation in order to keep things running smoothly. Otherwise, everyone would be screaming "lower interest rates!" at politicians - and politicians would try to comply even when it wasn't in the best interest of the economy or the country. Why can't we think of taxes that way? The market is utterly off-balance right now. Wealth disparity is at an all time high. The rich are sitting on their money. The economy is sputtering along, getting no help from anyone. Why can't we all be mature and acknowledge that it's time to spread some damn wealth around? The market is a machine. Pull the levers, tweak the dials. Get it working again.
Some additional reading/viewing for you:
The New American Dream by William Rivers Pit
Frontline: Inside the Meltdown
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis
And now, some delightful silliness:
Muffin Top Malaise
Okay, so my sincere intention to be more prolific upon the launch of Bacon³ has been temporarily sidetracked by some personal and professional demands, not the least of which is my imminent return to student-hood status for the first time in...well, a long time. So for today, please accept a dose of Jon Stewart in my stead.
Also, a little music for your morning with one of my new favorite bands, Fitz & the Tantrums:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| I Give Up - Pay Anything... | ||||
| ||||
Also, a little music for your morning with one of my new favorite bands, Fitz & the Tantrums:
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
WWRD?
I never get tired of the operatic indignation Megyn Kelly slathers onto every...single...word... ...she utters. In this fantastic clip, she and Michael Reagan bend over backwardto criticize Obama for not pursuing "regime change" in Libya. They ask "What would Reagan do?" Well, they seem to have forgotten what Reagan DID. After Gadhafi's bombing of a West Berlin night club in April of 1986, Regan launched Operation El Dorado Canyon, a bombing raid on Libya, targeting Gadhafi. To hear Kelly and the former President's son discuss the matter, you'd think that that was the end of the story - that the mighty Ronald Reagan struck down the "mad dog of the middle east" with one fatal blow in the dark of night. Except that he didn't. Perhaps you've heard of the Lockerbie bombing? That was two years later, in 1988. Kelly even mentions Lockerbie later in the discussion (though she seems to think it happened in 1998). Now he's back. So...What Would Reagan Do? Evidently, not much.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Bernie Goldberg On Those Awful Liberals
First of all, congratulations to me on entering the 21st century, capturing my first video, posting it on YouTube, and sharing it with you. I'll try to improve the quality in the future, but for now you'll just have to deal with it.
Okay, so I really only intended to "audition" some video capture software so that I could do this sort of thing in the future. Obviously I needed some video to capture, so I went on over to The O'Reilly Factor website, not really expecting to find anything amazing. Well, I watched literally about 45 seconds before hearing something astoundingly hilarious and offensive. So, without further ado, here is Bernard Goldberg on those awful, terrible, no good, very bad liberals:
And there you have it. Could he be any more disgusted at the notion of a person who is sympathetic to the plight of poor children? I know that his friends like military intervention for the sheer joy of killing and maiming brown people for oil, but I didn't know they were actually nauseated by the prospect of helping anyone. Thanks for clearing that up, Bern.
Okay, so I really only intended to "audition" some video capture software so that I could do this sort of thing in the future. Obviously I needed some video to capture, so I went on over to The O'Reilly Factor website, not really expecting to find anything amazing. Well, I watched literally about 45 seconds before hearing something astoundingly hilarious and offensive. So, without further ado, here is Bernard Goldberg on those awful, terrible, no good, very bad liberals:
And there you have it. Could he be any more disgusted at the notion of a person who is sympathetic to the plight of poor children? I know that his friends like military intervention for the sheer joy of killing and maiming brown people for oil, but I didn't know they were actually nauseated by the prospect of helping anyone. Thanks for clearing that up, Bern.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Welcome to Bacon³
A great philosopher.
A decent actor.
The most delicious edible matter known to man.
Bacons, all three. Coincidence? You tell me.
No, this is nothing like Selleck Waterfall Sandwich. I will not limit the scope of my musings here to the writings, activities, and/or flavor of the aforementioned Bacons, but you can be sure that none of them are ever far from my mind. Or my mouth.
Allow me to explain how the Bacon Triumvirate inspires and influences me:
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was the father of empiricism and the scientific method, both of which are grievously undervalued by the masses these days. While he was not quite an atheist, he wrote "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation: all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue... but superstition dismounts all these and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men: therefore atheism never did perturb states." Dig it.
Kevin Bacon needs no introduction, I'm sure. In addition to being a reliably solid actor and a hip musician (as one half of the Bacon Brothers), he is also the center of the universe, as demonstrated by The Oracle of Bacon. More importantly, he is a devoted liberal who gives generously to charities and progressive causes. He's good people.
Bacon tastes really, really good. There is not a food on earth that is harmed by the addition of bacon. Not bacon bits, mind you. Real bacon. I defy anyone to name anything edible that wouldn't taste even better with bacon in, on, wrapped around, or stuffed inside of it. Disagree? For a donation of $25, I will make a video of myself accepting and enjoying your challenge and post it here. Incidentally, I will pay a reward of $25 for a well-photoshopped image of Kevin Bacon eating bacon while reading Francis Bacon. Please send submissions to baconcubed@gmail.com.
Lastly, I'll quickly detail how I intend to organize things here. I will use the Facebook and Twitter feeds to share the most interesting and/or entertaining news, essays, videos, and such that I encounter throughout the day. I will also attempt to publish an occasional (weekly?) digest of "Must Read" materials, just in case you don't happen to have as much time on your hands as I do at the moment. My own rants will appear in this column.
And that's that. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Stay tuned...
A decent actor.
The most delicious edible matter known to man.
Bacons, all three. Coincidence? You tell me.
No, this is nothing like Selleck Waterfall Sandwich. I will not limit the scope of my musings here to the writings, activities, and/or flavor of the aforementioned Bacons, but you can be sure that none of them are ever far from my mind. Or my mouth.
Allow me to explain how the Bacon Triumvirate inspires and influences me:
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was the father of empiricism and the scientific method, both of which are grievously undervalued by the masses these days. While he was not quite an atheist, he wrote "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation: all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue... but superstition dismounts all these and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men: therefore atheism never did perturb states." Dig it.
Kevin Bacon needs no introduction, I'm sure. In addition to being a reliably solid actor and a hip musician (as one half of the Bacon Brothers), he is also the center of the universe, as demonstrated by The Oracle of Bacon. More importantly, he is a devoted liberal who gives generously to charities and progressive causes. He's good people.
Bacon tastes really, really good. There is not a food on earth that is harmed by the addition of bacon. Not bacon bits, mind you. Real bacon. I defy anyone to name anything edible that wouldn't taste even better with bacon in, on, wrapped around, or stuffed inside of it. Disagree? For a donation of $25, I will make a video of myself accepting and enjoying your challenge and post it here. Incidentally, I will pay a reward of $25 for a well-photoshopped image of Kevin Bacon eating bacon while reading Francis Bacon. Please send submissions to baconcubed@gmail.com.
Lastly, I'll quickly detail how I intend to organize things here. I will use the Facebook and Twitter feeds to share the most interesting and/or entertaining news, essays, videos, and such that I encounter throughout the day. I will also attempt to publish an occasional (weekly?) digest of "Must Read" materials, just in case you don't happen to have as much time on your hands as I do at the moment. My own rants will appear in this column.
And that's that. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)