Tuesday, July 28, 2009
If you're considering getting the swine flu vaccine...
Ten Things You're Not Supposed to Know about the Swine Flu Vaccine
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor(NaturalNews) She was deathly afraid of the flu.
So she asked her doc what she should do.
He jabbed her unseen
With a swine flu vaccine
Blurting, "Darling, I haven't a clue."
- by the Health Ranger
Let's not beat around the bush on this issue: The swine flu vaccines now being prepared for mass injection into infants, children, teens and adults have never been tested and won't be tested before the injections begin. In Europe, where flu vaccines are typically tested on hundreds (or thousands) of people before being unleashed on the masses, the European Medicines Agency is allowing companies to skip the testing process entirely.
And yet, amazingly, people are lining up to take the vaccine, absent any safety testing whatsoever. When the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. announced a swine flu vaccine trial beginning in early August, it was inundated with phone calls and emails from people desperate to play the role of human guinea pigs. The power of fear to herd sheeple into vaccine injections is simply amazing...
Back in Europe, of course, everybody gets to be a guinea pig since no testing will be done on the vaccine at all. Even worse, the European vaccines will be using adjuvants -- chemicals used to multiply the potency of the active ingredients in vaccines.
Notably, there is absolutely no safety data on the use of adjuvants in infants and expectant mothers -- the two groups being most aggressively targeted by the swine flu vaccine pushers. The leads us to the disturbing conclusion that the swine flu vaccine could be a modern medical disaster. It's untested and un-tried. Its ingredients are potentially quite dangerous, and the adjuvants being used in the European vaccines are suspected of causing neurological disorders.
Paralyzed by vaccines
I probably don't need to remind you that in 1976, a failed swine flu vaccine caused irreparable damage to the nervous systems of hundreds of people, paralyzing many. Medical doctors gave the problem a name, of course, to make it sound like they knew what they were talking about: Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Notably, they never called it "Toxic Vaccine Syndrome" because that would be too informative.) Note from Eileen: one of our friends in New York, a deputy sheriff and a big strapping guy, became paralyzed in that outbreak in 1976, and his doctors called it "Guillain-Barre syndrome." No one thought about the flu vaccine he was forced to take as part of his job requirements. He was very ill for several months. I don't know if Dan ever fully recovered.But the fact remains that doctors never knew how the vaccines caused these severe problems, and if the same event played out today, all the doctors and vaccine pushers would undoubtedly deny any link between the vaccines and paralysis altogether. (That's what's happening today with the debate over vaccines and autism: Complete denial.)
In fact, there are a whole lot of things you'll never be told by health authorities about the upcoming swine flu vaccine. For your amusement, I've written down the ten most obvious ones and published them below.
Ten things you're not supposed to know about the swine flu vaccine
(At least, not by anyone in authority...)#1 - The vaccine production was "rushed" and the vaccine has never been tested on humans. Do you like to play guinea pig for Big Pharma? If so, line up for your swine flu vaccine this fall...
#2 - Swine flu vaccines contain dangerous adjuvants that cause an inflammatory response in the body. This is why they are suspected of causing autism and other neurological disorders.
#3 - The swine flu vaccine could actually increase your risk of death from swine flu by altering (or suppressing) your immune system response. There is zero evidence that even seasonal flu shots offer any meaningful protection for people who take the jabs. Vaccines are the snake oil of modern medicine.
#4 - Doctors still don't know why the 1976 swine flu vaccines paralyzed so many people. And that means they really have no clue whether the upcoming vaccine might cause the same devastating side effects. (And they're not testing it, either...)
#5 - Even if the swine flu vaccine kills you, the drug companies aren't responsible. The U.S. government has granted drug companies complete immunity against vaccine product liability. Thanks to that blanket immunity, drug companies have no incentive to make safe vaccines, because they only get paid based on quantity, not safety (zero liability).
#6 - No swine flu vaccine works as well as vitamin D to protect you from influenza. That's an inconvenient scientific fact that the U.S. government, the FDA and Big Pharma hope the people never realize.
#7 - Even if the swine flu vaccine actually works, mathematically speaking if everyone else around you gets the vaccine, you don't need one! (Because it can't spread through the population you hang with.) So even if you believe in the vaccine, all you need to do is encourage your friends to go get vaccinated...
#8 - Drug companies are making billions of dollars from the production of swine flu vaccines. That money comes out of your pocket -- even if you don't get the jab -- because it's all paid by the taxpayers.
#9 - When people start dying in larger numbers from the swine flu, rest assured that many of them will be the very people who got the swine flu vaccine. Doctors will explain this away with their typical Big Pharma logic: "The number saved is far greater than the number lost." Of course, the number "saved" is entirely fictional... imaginary... and exists only in their own warped heads.
#10 - The swine flu vaccine centers that will crop up all over the world in the coming months aren't completely useless: They will provide an easy way to identify large groups of really stupid people. (Too bad there isn't some sort of blue dye that we could tag 'em with for future reference...)
The lottery, they say, is a tax on people who can't do math. Similarly, flu vaccines are a tax on people who don't understand health.
Monday, July 27, 2009
To all the "birther" true believers
So here's my latest e-mail to the Republican true believers (with thanks to online readers for some of the ideas). Soon it will be circulating on the Internet as absolute truth, and within a couple days you can expect to receive it in an e-mail from the rightwing birthers, loudly proclaiming their outrage at these latest true revelations about Obama:
Obama lost the election! His victory speech was delivered on a secret soundstage and the thousands in the audience were photoshopped in. The liberal mainstream media hid the true election results and proclaimed him President in order to further their socialist agenda, which includes sending everyone over 60 years of age to Mars to reduce overpopulation, and raising taxes on every Republican to payments of $10,000 a month. Those who refuse to pay will be immediately executed. Obama is really a homosexual and Michelle and his daughters are just actors, pretending to be his family. Obama plans to release Manson from prison and start a dog-fighting crew with Michael Vick. He's going to change the national bird from the eagle to the (fried) chicken. He eats white babies. AND he intends to move planet earth out to an orbit next to Pluto.
Blue Dog Democrats
Paul Krugman, like many others, has noticed the essential incoherence in the Blue Dog stance on health care reform, and takes up the matter in his Times opinion column today.
The Blue Dogs are (suddenly and at last) concerned with how much health care reform is going to cost, keeping watch for the next CBO report whose scoring does not land close to the deficit-neutral target. And yet, the alternatives they propose for health care reform would all -- uhm...drive up costs! So, what's the deal? Are these people basically just morons? Krugman hazards some tentative guesswork:
Maybe they're just being complete hypocrites. It's worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition's founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group's creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.
One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin's footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it's because they're nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.But I guess I'm not quite that cynical.
By contrast, I am precisely that cynical! As the Washington Post recently reported:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
[...]The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
Anyway, it seems to me quite simple. On the one hand, the average Blue Dog can take the chance that the public option may not be as popular in his or her district as it is with the rest of the country. On the other hand, HERE'S A PILE OF MONEY.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Down goes another hypocrite!
PRO-LIFE STATE SEN. PAUL STANLEY CHEATS ON WIFE WITH 22-YEAR OLD INTERN
Here we go again. Another phony pro-life or should I say, anti-choice republican gets exposed in dirty dealings. He's not so much against the idea of sex as wanting the young ones for himself.
State Sen. Paul Stanley (R-Memphis) will resign his chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow, NashvillePost.com has learned, in the wake of the revelation that he was the subject of an attempted blackmail scheme over a sexual relationship with an intern in his office.
In April of this year, I and a group of Planned
Parenthood supporters from Memphis met with Sen. Paul Stanley in his
office. We told him about all the good Planned Parenthood does in
Memphis by providing basic gynecological health care and birth control
to teens and young people and also providing medically-accurate
sexuality education programs. I had hoped to convince him that there’s
a real need for our services, especially in Memphis, which has the
highest sexually transmitted infection rates in the nation and one of
the highest teenage pregnancy rates as well. Planned Parenthood
Greater Memphis Region tries to help young people and low income
people, almost all of whom are already sexually active protect
themselves from pregnancy and disease. Sen. Paul Stanley is my state
senator, and he made it clear at our meeting that he didn’t care about
my concerns about these issues that have a major impact in the Memphis
area and that he would not ever support Planned Parenthood.He told us that he didn’t believe young people should have sex
before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to
him, and he wants to promote abstinence, blah, blah, blah. Now I
realize that when he said those things, he had already been sexing it
up with an intern and her boyfriend was trying to blackmail him with
dirty pictures. In retrospect, I think maybe Sen. Stanley meant that
he just doesn’t want young people to have sex with each other, thereby
saving the cute young things for himself. Hypocrite, anyone?
No sex for you....Is Stanley saying that after marriage you should be able to have sex with everybody?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Bill Maher: NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO MAKE A PROFIT
How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.
Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves -- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors.
Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason -- who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population -- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.
Television news is another area that used to be roped off from the profit motive. When Walter Cronkite died last week, it was odd to see news anchor after news anchor talking about how much better the news coverage was back in Cronkite's day. I thought, "Gee, if only you were in a position to do something about it."
But maybe they aren't. Because unlike in Cronkite's day, today's news has to make a profit like all the other divisions in a media conglomerate. That's why it wasn't surprising to see the CBS Evening News broadcast live from the Staples Center for two nights this month, just in case Michael Jackson came back to life and sold Iran nuclear weapons. In Uncle Walter's time, the news division was a loss leader. Making money was the job of The Beverly Hillbillies. And now that we have reporters moving to Alaska to hang out with the Palin family, the news is The Beverly Hillbillies.
And finally, there's health care. It wasn't that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.
But like everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America's largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.
Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.
When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.
And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Jon Stewart and Obama's "Born Identity"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The wingnuts are at it again, fueled by hatred
by Roland Martin
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/martin.obama.birth/index.html
EXCERPT:
From the moment President Obama entered the race, he has had to endure the so-called flag-waving American patriots who think they are the arbiters of what's right for the country. What cracks me up is that in order to justify their loony beliefs, they say, "The president could just end this once and for all by producing the birth certificate."
Do you actually believe these wackos will stop there? They will then accuse the president of doctoring the document and ordering up the state of Hawaii and federal officials to create the birth certificate.
The next thing you know, one of those nut job right-wingers in Congress...will demand a federal investigation into the production of the birth certificate.
During the presidential campaign last year, the issue of whether Obama was a "natural born citizen" legally qualified to be president was scrutinized by reporters and researchers who concluded that Obama was born in the United States.
During the presidential campaign last year, the issue of whether Obama was a "natural born citizen" legally qualified to be president was scrutinized by reporters and researchers who concluded that Obama was born in the United States.
For example, in August, 2008, factcheck.org published the following: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Wisdom finally wins one in our country
Eisenhower must be cheering from his home in the great beyond! I am cheering, too! A small victory, but certainly heading in the right direction!
A BLOW IS STRUCK TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX EISENHOWER WARNED AGAINST
President Obama won a major victory in the Senate Tuesday in a dogfight that has major, long-term implications for his agenda.
The Senate, by a vote of 58-40, approved an amendment proposed by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to strip $1.75 billion in funding for the F-22 fighter. Levin worked hand in hand to kill the F-22 money with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"There was an extensive effort by the White House," said Levin. "The president really needed to win this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 issue itself, but in terms of the reform agenda."
The vote had become a proxy fight against the power of the military-industrial complex, a term coined by President Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address.
"It's What Eisenhower Warned us About," tweeted McCain before the vote. The F-22s have not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan and military experts agree they're not suited for American campaigns, yet lobbying and regional concerns have kept the program funded year after year. The victory over the military-industrial complex is arguably its most significant setback since World War II. For McCain, it was "probably the most impactful amendment that I have seen in this body on almost any issue."
"Up until the last couple hours, this vote was in doubt," McCain said. "And so I'd like to give credit to the president for being very firm on this issue and to the Secretary of Defense, who gave as strong a speech as I've ever heard in my life."
Obama had threatened to veto any bill that authorized the F-22 funding.
Forty-two Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, joined 15 Republicans to defeat the F-22.
Levin and McCain did a victory lap up to the third floor of the Senate after the vote, sitting down in the press gallery to celebrate.
As Eisenhower first defined it, the military-industrial complex is an alliance of military officers who demand ever greater funding, industry that wants the same and home-state senators and representatives who are more concerned about jobs at home than the ultimate value of the program.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' defection from the alliance broke its back.
Yet 14 Democrats and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, still voted with the military-industrial complex. A review of the roll call shows that regional interests played a larger part than ideology.
Democrats who voted to support the F-22 spending: Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray (Wash.), Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall (N.M.) (Udall's Colorado cousin, Mark, voted to kill it), Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Max Baucus and Jon Tester (Mont.), Bob Byrd (W.V.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.).
The same geographic pattern holds on the GOP side. Republicans who voted to kill the funding: Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Barrasso and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), McCain and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), who is the Senate's most outspoken foe of wasteful spending, but not joined by his GOP colleague Sen. Jim Inhofe.
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada joined Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) joined Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in opposing the F-22. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) voted against the military industrial complex even while his Democratic colleague from the state, Shaheen, voted with it. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined the Democrat, Begich, in supporting spending for the planes. The same bipartisan dynamic was at work in Indiana with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar and Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh voting on the side of reform. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) stood against the program; Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was for it.
Obama's predilection for compromise and common ground couldn't come into play in the F-22 issue, because it wasn't a question of how much funding, but whether it should be funded at all.
"It would be hard to find any kind of middle ground on this issue," McCain noted afterward.
UPDATE: The White House renewed its veto threat Tuesday, in case the House was giving any thought to reinserting the funding in conference committee. "If that money is there, that bill will be vetoed," Robert Gibbs said in response to a question from The Advocate during the White House press briefing.
Selling Lies to the Public
The Great Tax Con Job
by Thom Hartmann
Republicans are using the T-word - taxes - to attack the Obama healthcare program. It's a strategy based in a lie.
A very small niche of America's uber-wealthy have pulled off what may well be the biggest con job in the history of our republic, and they did it in a startlingly brief 30 or so years. True, they spent over three billion dollars to make it happen, but the reward to them was in the hundreds of billions - and will continue to be.
As my friend and colleague Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks pointed out in a Daily Kos blog recently, billionaire Rupert Murdoch loses $50 million a year on the NY Post, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife loses $2 to $3 million a year on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, billionaire Philip Anschutz loses around $5 million a year on The Weekly Standard, and billionaire Sun Myung Moon has lost $2 to $3 billion on The Washington Times.
Why are these guys willing to lose so much money funding "conservative" media? Why do they bulk-buy every right-wing book that comes out to throw it to the top of the NY Times Bestseller list and then give away the copies to "subscribers" to their websites and publications? Why do they fund to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year money-hole "think tanks" like Heritage and Cato?
The answer is pretty straightforward. They do it because it buys them respectability, and gets their con job out there. Even though William Kristol's publication is a money-losing joke (with only 85,000 subscribers!), his association with the Standard was enough to get him on TV talk shows whenever he wants, and a column with The New York Times. The Washington Times catapulted Tony Blankley to stardom.
"Fellowships" and other forms of indirect sponsorship of right-wing talk show hosts have made otherwise-marginal shows and their hosts ubiquitous, and such sponsorships of groups like Norquist's anti-tax "Americans for Tax Reform" regularly get people like him front-and-center in any debate on taxation in the United States.
All so they could run a tax con on the American people, thus keeping Moon and Murdoch and Scaife and Anschutz (and others) richer than you or I could ever even imagine.
All of this money was spent - invested, really, since it's been more than saved back in low income tax rates on millionaires and billionaires - to convince Americans that up is down and black is white when it comes to income taxes. Here's how it works:
Rich Person's Tax Effect
If a person earns so much money that he doesn't or can't spend it all each year, then when his taxes go down your income after taxes goes up. This is largely because there's little to no relationship between what he "needs to live on" and what he's "earning."
Somebody living on a million dollars a year but earning five million after taxes, can sock away four million in a Swiss bank. If his taxes go up enough to drop his after-tax income to only three million a year, he's still living on a million a year, and only socks away two million in the Swiss bank. His "disposable" income goes down when his taxes go up, and vice-versa. (Technically, the word is "discretionary" income for after-tax, after-living-expenses income, but "disposable" income has become so widely used as a phrase to describe discretionary income I'll use it here.)
The Rich Person's Tax Effect is the one that virtually all Americans understand - and, oddly, most working class people think applies to them, too (this is the truly amazing part of the con job referred to earlier).
But it doesn't.
Working Person's Tax Effect - version one
Most working people spend pretty much all of what they earn - their "disposable/discretionary" income is close to zero. Savings rates in the US among working people typically are small - one to five percent - and during the last few years of the W. Bush administration actually went negative. So the take-home pay that people have after taxes - regardless of what the taxes may be - is pretty much what they live on.
As economist David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 in the "On Wages" chapter of his book "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," take home pay is also generally "what a person will work for." Employers know this: Ricardo's "Iron Law of Wages" is rooted in the notion that there is a "market" for labor, driven in part by supply and demand. So if a worker is earning, for example, a gross salary of $75,000, his 2008 federal income tax would be about $15,000 ($802.50 on
first $8,025 of income; $3,687.75 on income from $8,025 to $32,550; $10,612.50 on income from $32,550 to $75,000), leaving him a take-home pay of $60,000.
Both he and his employer know that he'll do the job he's doing for around $60,000 a year in take-home pay.
So what happens if his taxes go up, cutting his take-home pay to $55,000 a year (even though his gross is still $75,000)? Over time (typically one to three years) his wages will rise enough to compensate for the lost income.
Alan Greenspan used to be hysterical about this effect - he called it "wage inflation" - and The Wall Street Journal and other publications would often reference it, although the average working person has no idea that if his taxes go up, his wages will eventually go up. Similarly, when working-class people's taxes go down, their gross wages will, over time, go down so their inflation-adjusted take-home pay remains the same. We've seen both happen over the past eighty years, over and over again.
When I was in Denmark last year doing my radio show from the Danish Radio offices for a week and interviewing many of that nation's leading politicians, economists, energy experts, and newspaper publishers, one of my guests made a comment that dropped the scales from my own eyes.
We'd been discussing taxes on the air, what the Danes get for their average 52% tax rate (free college education, free health care, 4 weeks of vacation, being the world's "happiest" country according to research reported on CBS's "60 Minutes" TV show, etc.). I asked him why people didn't revolt at such high tax rates, and he smiled and just pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid with a minimum wage that equals about $18 US (depending on the exchange rate from day to day).
Off the air, he made the comment to me that was so enlightening. "You Americans are such suckers," he said, as I recall. "You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people. But they don't. When working peoples' taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way - look at any country in Europe. And it's the opposite of how it works for rich people!"
Working Person's Tax Effect - Version Two
The other point about taxes - which Obama leveraged with his "no tax increases on people earning under $250,000 a year" pledge - has to do with the fact that our tax structure in the US is progressive.
Here's how it breaks out for a single person from the 2008 federal tax tables:
10% on income between $0 and $8,02515% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550;25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850;28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550;33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700;35% on the income over $357,700.
Note that our $75,000/year worker has two full tax brackets above him, which, if they go up, will not affect him at all. (This is also true, of course, for the median-wage and average-wage American workers who earn in the low to mid-$40,000/year range.)
The top tax rate that a person pays is referred to as their "marginal tax rate" (in our worker's case 28%). So what happens if the top marginal tax rate on people making over $357,700 goes up from its current 35% to, for example, the Eisenhower-era 91%?
For over 120 million American workers who don't earn over $357,700/year, it won't mean a thing. But for the tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires who have promoted The Great Tax Con, it will bite hard. And that's why they spend millions to make average working people freak out about increases in the top tax rates.
Income taxes as the "Great Stabilizer"
Beyond fairness and holding back the Landed Gentry the Founders worried about (America had no billionaires in today's money until after the Civil War, with John D. Rockefeller being our first), there's an important reason to increase to top marginal tax rate, and to do so now.
Novelist Larry Beinhart was the first to bring this to my attention. He looked over the history of tax cuts and economic bubbles, and found a clear relationship between the two. High top marginal tax rates (generally well above 60%) on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth (and steady and sustained wage growth for working people).
On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens. As Beinhart noted in a November 17, 2008 post on the Huffington Post, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73% to 25%) led directly to the Roaring '20s stock market bubble, temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression of 1929.
Rates on the very rich went back up into the 70-90% range from the 1930s to the 1980s. As a result, the economy grew steadily; for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure; and working people's wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.
Then came Reaganomics.
Reagan cut top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires from 74% down to 38% and there was an immediate surge in the markets - followed by the worst crash since the Great Depression and the failure of virtually the entire nation's savings and loan banking system.
Bush I cut taxes, and the nation fell into a severe recession while debt soared and wages for working people fell.
Things stabilized somewhat when Clinton slightly raised taxes on the very rich, but W. Bush dropped them again - including taking taxes on unearned income (interest and dividends - the "income" that people like W. born with a trust fund "earn" as they sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive in the mail) down to a top rate of 15%. (That's right - trust fund babies like Bush and Scaife pay a MAXIMUM 15% federal income tax on their dividend and interest income, thanks to the second Bush tax cut.) The result of this surge in easy money for the wealthy, combined with deregulation in the financial markets, was the "froth" Greenspan worried about and led us straight into the Second Republican Great Depression, ongoing today.
The math is really pretty simple. When the uber-rich are heavily taxed, economies prosper and wages for working people steadily rise. When taxes are cut for the rich, working people suffer and economies turn into casinos.
Roll Back The Reagan Tax Cuts
While there's much discussion about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, if we really want our country to recover its financial footing we must do something altogether different. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts that took the top marginal rate from above 70% down into the 30% range.
First, though, we have to help Americans realize that "no new taxes" is a mantra that is meaningful to the very rich, but largely irrelevant to average working people.
Only when the current generation re-learns the economic and tax lessons well known by the generation (now dying off) that came of age in the 30s through the 60s, will this become politically possible. Americans need to learn what Europeans know about taxes - they only matter to the rich.
Thus today the uber-rich are spending hundreds of millions to make sure words like "burden" are always associated with the word "tax," and to convince average working people that they should throw out of office any politicians who are willing to raise taxes on the rich.
We have a lot of education to do...and as long as the Right Wing Machine of the uber-rich continues to "lose" (e.g. "invest") millions of dollars a year in their ongoing disinformation campaign, it's going to require all of us reciting the mantra, "Roll back the Reagan tax cuts!"
_______
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Death of Conservatism
They Got Some 'Splainin' to Do
by Frank Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19rich.html?em
Parts I and II Mayan Calendar information
Watch Google Videos:
The Mayan Calendar Comes North Part 1 - Ian Xel Lungold (1- 1/2 hrs)
The Mayan Calendar Comes North Part 2 - Ian Xel Lungold (1- 1/2 hrs)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
If you don't read anything else, please read this column
By David Michael Green
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22875 David Green has written so much truth in this column--you could laugh and cry all the way through it.
EXCERPT: There will always be morons who - themselves privately startled beyond belief that anyone, let alone a good portion of an entire country, takes them seriously - will don the mask of super-confidence and gleefully carpe the snot out of the freakin' diem as long as the ride lasts. American history is littered with the damage done by Palins of every size and shape. Heck, we just lived through eight years of that very thing. Boy Bush didn't have Palin's chest, but he was nevertheless every bit the boob she is. The only difference was that his daddy's name played the role of the deus ex machina who plucked him from drunken obscurity and into the leadership ranks of the world's only superpower, whereas for Lady Sarah it was a desperate John McCain.
Hardy-har-har, eh? Lots of fun watching that show, huh? What the heck. Palin guarantees high entertainment value, and the Republican Party could never possibly win the presidency in 2012, right? So who cares who gets the nomination? I mean, voters remember the Bush disaster. And the GOP is losing young people, women, Hispanics and all manner of other sentient beings in droves, right? Right?
Yeah, well, right indeed. Except for one minor detail.
If the Democrats are given four years to govern and they adopt half-measure after Milquetoast point-four-three-rounded-up-to-half-measure - all to little or no effect - then there will be a little surprise in November of 2012. If they fail to produce a robust economy, or if they end the recession but produce a jobless recovery, it's not gonna go the way it looked after last November. If they fail to use the bully pulpit to sell good ideas and aggressively discredit the disastrously failed ones, there's gonna be a different script three years from now, no matter how good a speech Obama gives.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Want to know what goes on behind the scenes?
Anyone who thinks the U.S. hands are clean should watch these videos of a former CIA agent telling about "neutralizations"
The Presidential Hit Squad:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/672.html
Before watching the videos, you may want to read the information that follows them.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Half-Baked Alaska (Samantha Bee on Sarah Palin)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-13-2009/half-baked-alaska
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Big globs of mystery goo cover ocean off Alaska coast
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/environment/story/71842.html
Strangeness in the sky -- now being reported in mainstream news
Here is some basic info. I got from listening to the Jones/Carnicom interview:
The global military/govt./industrial complex is creating an altered atmosphere by adding toxic barium, aluminum, and other particles to the air -- to what end??? Barium is highly toxic--as toxic as arsenic. Very high levels--6 times the lethal levels--have been found in water/earth samples through testing. There is no forthcoming information from the government on this, so all information gathered is from citizen observation and testing--collecting photographs and samples. Photos have shown emissions come from the entire wingspan -- these trails are not coming from the engines. Clifford Carnicom says his many years' investigation show it is not a benevolent experiment, but rather is a nefarious experiment of some kind. The operations are mostly conducted during low humidity--right before moisture/storms come in. It seems they need to maintain a certain concentration level in the atmosphere -- it has been going on since 1998. The earth is 20% darker than it was 20 years ago. The material is locking up the moisture that would be going into our water tables -- changing the climate of the earth on a global level, with the water levels being altered--earth may become a desert planet. The physics of our atmosphere has been changed. Cloud formations are changing, with new kinds appearing. Our atmosphere is fragile -- our planet's life is threatened by these changes to it. The EPA refuses to test the "spiderweb" material (sub-micron filaments) that falls from the sky after these sprayings. Can the newly appeared/diagnosed Morgellon's disease (where strange filaments/threads emerge from under the skin) be connected? (See fascinating 2008 video with Carnicom on this subject at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1473760095508840433 )
Final conclusion: Control by government. QUESTION: Are we willing to sacrifice our atmosphere for intentions not being told to us?
Despite Jones's interruptions, the following interview is well worth listening to -- each part is about 9 minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O_M_72ttV4&NR=1 Clifford Carnicom interview Part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffmPB6AVOk&feature=related Carnicom interview continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G_lkjO0-3Y&feature=related Carnicom interview continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRI7T-qCUlM&feature=related continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWNNZ9eTqQk&feature=related continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99EdW6C4dkA&feature=related continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU1q58VJGe4&feature=related continued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jn1OktFoUI&feature=related continued
AND HERE ARE THE 3 MAINSTREAM TV COMMENTATORS
REPORTING ON CHEMTRAILS
Have you ever been made fun of or scorned for
pointing out the strange "cloud" patterns in the
sky?
Well, now, after all these years, you have good
company.
Some weather reporters on mainstream TV are not only
acknowledging them, but also admitting they're
military made.
Details:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/667.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Moms Review gave a great review of Quizzler
Quizzler is a great game for parents and kids to play together and is only 99 cents to download. For those who have iPhones and kids, this is a winner. Gives parents insights into their kids (and vice versa), in a fun way for all. (~.~) For people who are dating, there is a Quizzler dating game that helps break the ice when meeting someone new. Can give insights and laughs while leading to interesting, in-depth conversation. Good for newlyweds, too (~.~)
If you don't have an iPhone, please pass along to friends who do and who you think might be interested in these games. THANKS!
Monday, July 13, 2009
CLARITY AND PEACE
I have never read anything as clear and direct as the following pointers from John Wheeler's site (www.thenaturalstate.org). All of them point directly to the core of being, the essence, that is our natural state. Each one is "Truth speaking to Truth about Truth." It is rare good fortune to hear and be directed in this way. Quantum physicists, to their great mental consternation, have recognized through their experiments that the material "reality" of the world that we perceive is not reality at all, but only an illusion, very like a hologram. But most of them have not yet come to see that the ever-present background of awareness (in which all changing appearances arise, have their being, and return), is the changeless natural state of our existence: the true reality. The mind--and its ever-changing thoughts--is part of the rising and falling and therefore cannot know its own essence. The kind of "seeing" that leads to freedom from suffering comes directly from the heart, which leaps up in recognition of truth when it hears it: because it itself is the truth it was seeking. There is a song that tells this beautifully:
I Traveled a Long Road Oh, I traveled a long road Toward where the light showed In the distance, the way to go. Now I wonder who is traveling, As the road is unraveling, Along with all the selves I seemed to know. Oh, this road goes out of the heart And winds back to meet it again At the place where the traveler knows That he and the road are the same. And a voice says within you - "There is no distance. There is no reason to travel, to see. Right here is that beacon, Here is that wisdom. There is no place untouched by me." Oh, this road goes out of the heart And winds back to meet it again At the place where the traveler knows That he and the road are the same. | Pointers
Everything that can be perceived or conceived is simply a movement in awareness. It arises, abides and sets in awareness. Objects are like waves; awareness, like the ocean. Since the waves come and go, they cannot be the essence of what you are. What you are remains clear and constant. It is not a wave coming and going. Getting to know what you are is only being familiar with that which never changes. We have been accustomed to seeking identity in appearances. The only problem is that what you are, your abiding nature as it is, cannot be limited to an appearance. So that identification feels limited. There is nothing "you" can do about this, because the "you" is itself only an appearance. However, the seeing of all of this can and does happen — not by a "you", but by intelligence itself. In this seeing, the basis of the identity is resolved and the true being that you have never left stands pristine and clear beyond any doubt. The practical side-effect is that the seeking, suffering and doubt based on the limited identification is resolved. Nothing is gained, but the false conceptualization is undermined.
The purpose of the pointer to pause thought is to see what is still present in the pause. Just be very clear what you are. That is the main point. There is no defective person in need of anything . See directly and thoroughly what the "me" actually is. It is only an idea, not a real presence at all. All the troubles, doubts and worries are for, by and about that "me", which is not really present! Be very clear on these points and there are no longer any issues to resolve, because there is no one to have an issue. The center of all the self-centered thinking vanishes into non-existence. The natural existence shines fully as it is with no problems or doubts. That is non-conceptual being-awareness that is ever-present and beyond doubt. That has never been absent and cannot be absent — because it is your very nature.
Is there a settling in period for being what you are?
Being what you are is not a matter of slowly subsiding or resting in stillness. Who is subsiding in what? Who is resting in what? So cast aside those concepts and see what you are here and now. Bondage and liberation are only from the personal perspective. Your real being needs no liberation, because it is the reality itself.
This approach is not for a person to implement, nor does it leave one in the game to wonder about his or her experiences and what he or she will do. The "he" or "she" disappears as a valid reference point. From there, self-less functioning happens according to circumstances.
The individual reference point is canceled by seeing the person never was present. You are left with no more puzzles, doubts, programs, stages, etc., all of which are still for the individual (the imagined self center).
The experience of being a spiritual seeker and all that that entails crumbles away in the clear seeing of what you are. But that does not leave an "I" with nothing to do in the picture. We are not stripping away all the activities and leaving an "I". We are removing the "I" and leaving the natural activities that spontaneously arise.
You are what you are. It is not a matter of resting as you are, which is a dualism. Simply be what you are. That is not a defective, limited person, but the vast untouchable fullness, the peace and clarity of the real self.
|
Sunday, July 12, 2009
What the Republican Party has sunk to
THE NEW ICE AGE OF THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS
by Michael Rowe
The election of 38-year old Audra Shay of Louisiana to the chairmanship of the Young Republican National Federation on Saturday in Indianapolis might have gone practically unnoticed, had it not been for revelations by John Avlon, writing in The Daily Beast, that Shay had tacitly endorsed a virulently racist post about U.S. President Barack Obama on her Facebook page.
In response to one of her Facebook friends, Eric S. Piker asserting
"Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist...Muslim is on there [side]...need to take this country back from all these mad coons...and illegals,"Shay posted back,
"You tell em Eric! lol."
When two of her other friends--including Sean L. Conner, chairman of the D.C. Young Republicans--complained about the racist language on Shay's Facebook thread, Shay responded, not by unfriending the author of the "mad coon" comment, but by unfriending the two who complained.
In his two articles, Avlon reveals a disturbing pattern of similar viewpoints expressed by Shay in previous Facebook posts, larded with misspellings, and with syntax that would embarrass a marginally-educated 16-year old, including one from October 2008 where she employs a lynching motif, suggesting "Obama in a noose" as a Halloween decoration, defending it as "freedome [sic] of speech," and that "no one in Atlanta would mind."
In spite of Shay's attempts to sanitize the 2009 "mad coon" exchange by deleting the posts and issuing a statement to the effect that racist slurs did not represent her position as a candidate for the chairmanship of the Young Republicans--and would not be tolerated on her Facebook wall--screenshots had already been taken of the post, and of her response, Avlon reported.
A final post from Piker stated his position quite clearly--the position Shay appeared to endorse with her You tell em Eric lol! response to Piker's previous post (that is, before she claimed she didn't endorse it)--
"...this is still America...freedom of speech and thought is allowed...for now any ways...and the last time i checked I was still a good ole southern boy...and if yur ass is black don't let the sun set on it in a southern town..."
Recasting herself as the victim of character assassination (and sounding disconcertingly like a low-rent road-company franchise of the Sarah Palin Circus Of Flying Media Martyrs) Shay issued a pious, melodramatic statement, complete with a reference from Psalm 23.
"It is a disgrace that these types of political attacks are taking place and once again," read the statement. "[It] proves that my opponents will stoop to the lowest levels to steal this election from the jaws of victory."
In an apparent attempt to keep the aforementioned "jaws of victory" well-lubricated, Shay deleted her Facebook account, prompting Gary Coats of The Conservativist to note on July 9th that "it appears that there is more to this story if she is not leaving her profile open to the public anymore."
Be that as it may, apparently it worked: the voting body of the Young Republican National Federation was of a similar mindset, and on Saturday they elected Audra Shay--and her values--to represent them.
Ignorance and bigotry loves a vacuum, and the cultural vacuum left in the wake of Barack Obama's historical ascension to the presidency is a significant cultural gulf.
Decades from now, social historians may be able to pinpoint the exact moment, during the lead-up to the 2008 election, that the sheer weight of historical potential tipped the scale of restraint to the breaking point, shattering the fragile veneer of the post-Civil Rights-era façade of civility. That rupture, for its part, is leaking public, social and racial bile in a way that has not been acceptable since the 1960s.
In the months following Obama's win, the Southern Poverty Law Center has reported more than 200 hate-related incidents referencing race. In Madison County, Idaho, a school superintendent found it necessary to respond to a complaint from parents that children on one school bus were chanting "assassinate Obama," while in North Carolina, the Statesville Record newspaper apologized for running a leader column asking, "What's more scary, a bleak economy or a black president?" In December of 2008, Chip Saltzman mailed out a CD of "Barack the Magic Negro," the racist parody of "Puff the Magic Dragon," as a Christmas gift to his nearest and dearest.
The line between what is acceptable and what is not appears, inexplicably, to be blurring even further. In June of this year, prominent GOP activist Rusty DePass apologized for "joking" about Michelle Obama being a descendant of apes. In short order, it came to light that Sherri Goforth, an administrative assistant to Tennessee State Sen. Diane Black (R-Gallatin) had sent out a profoundly racist email, a composite of portraits of 43 U.S. presidents, with Obama's portrait a set of white cartoon pop-eyes, jumping out of a field of black in the Al Jolson "blackface" style.
"I am calling on Sen. Black to reject this racist smear and fire this staffer who, on state government time, on state government computers, using a state government e-mail account, launched this bigoted attack on our president,"Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester said in a statement posted on the party's website.
"Keeping her on the staff would send the message that this type of behavior is condoned by the Senate Republican Caucus."
This was apparently not of particular concern to Senator Black, who replied that Ms. Goforth was "reprimanded," but not fired, citing Goforth's "stellar record," which apparently trumps any collegial concerns for the dignity of the Tennessee Senate, the State, the Republican Party, or the personal or professional moral and ethical integrity of Senator Black herself.
In a pathetic sort of way, Senator Black, better than anyone else in the entirety of this sordid tale, appears to have best articulated the unspoken policy of an exhausted and confused Republican Party as it flails about like a cranky old man who can't find a comfortable spot in his own bed. To wit, don't risk alienating "the base," however ugly it gets.
As the GOP "teabags" America, attempting to "rebrand" itself, with all the enthusiasm of a slovenly housewife in a failing marriage armed with a Jenny Craig membership and a gift certificate to Glamour Shots, no one is watching the door to the back alley.
Having long relied on the so-called Republican "base" (and still reeling from the stinging November defeat) the GOP appears to be unable--or unwilling--to put the genie of religion-based social intolerance, and racism, back in the bottle by calling it out, and distancing themselves from it in unambiguous terms once and for all.
Instead, the smell issuing from the GOP's lack of leadership and direction is attracting the subterranean element of the "base" like blowflies to a carcass by the side of the highway.
If the Republican Party is serious about "rebranding," it might begin by joining the 21st century. It's ironic that one of the only young Republican voices exhorting this change is not even an elected official, but the daughter of one--Meghan McCain, who wondered out loud how a 38-year old "Young Republican" who thought racial epithets were funny could possibly move the Party forward in the service of a generation of genuinely young Republicans who are, even as you read this, wondering what the hell is going on with their Party, and why the titular organization of its younger members is moving, not forward, but backward into a new Ice Age of political irrelevancy.
Coming as Audra Shay's election did, at the end of a week over the course of which the American public was presented with the sickening sight of a crowd of devastated black schoolchildren forced to evacuate a Philadelphia swimming pool full of white children on a blistering summer day lest they "change [the pool's] complexion," the question of how much lower the bar can be moved, before something breaks, is begged.
For better or for worse, the Young Republican National Federation is now headed by a 38-year old, spelling-challenged "event planner" who finds references to America's 44th (and first African American) president as a "mad coon" to be an occasion for great merriment.
It would be comforting to believe that Audra Shay, endorsed by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, is not the racist her Facebook shenanigans suggest, but merely a tactless, not-very-bright woman with no sense of judgment--one whose first instinct upon seeing a wall-post of untrammeled racism from her friend Eric was not to repudiate that racism, delete his post, and unfriend him, but instead to "LOL" and encourage him in it.
On the other hand, Shay might also be an astute, saturnine politician, one who accurately gauged the climate of resentment towards Obama roiling beneath the surface of the organization, and knew the electorate would forgive a spoor of racial prejudice on the part of its leader, and might even celebrate it as "mavericky."
Furthermore, that it might not even care if the Young Republican National Federation becomes tainted, in the minds of the public, as being led by middle-aged chairwoman who laughs at "coon" jokes on Facebook.
Or, as Shay would doubtless express it, "LOL@that!"
Excellent column re. Sarah Palin and the future of the GOP
SHE BROKE THE GOP AND NOW SHE OWNS IT
by Frank Rich
Read in its entirety at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12rich.html?_r=1
EXCERPT:
Were Palin actually to secure the 2012 nomination, the result would be a fiasco for the G.O.P. akin to Goldwater 1964, as the most relentless conservative Palin critic, David Frum, has predicted. Or would it? No one thought Richard Nixon — a far less personable commodity than Palin — would come back either after his sour-grapes “last press conference” of 1962. But Democratic divisions and failures gave him his opportunity in 1968. With unemployment approaching 10 percent and a seemingly bottomless war in Afghanistan, you never know, as Palin likes to say, what doors might open.
It’s more likely that she will never get anywhere near the White House, and not just because of her own limitations. The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep shrinking. But the emotion it represents is disproportionately powerful for its numbers. It’s an anger that Palin enjoyed stoking during her “palling around with terrorists” crusade against Obama on the campaign trail. It’s an anger that’s curdled into self-martyrdom since Inauguration Day.
These are the cries of a constituency that feels disenfranchised — by the powerful and the well-educated who gamed the housing bubble, by a news media it keeps being told is hateful, by the immigrants who have taken some of their jobs, by the African-American who has ended a white monopoly on the White House. Palin is their born avatar. She puts a happy, sexy face on ugly emotions, and she can solidify her followers’ hold on a G.O.P. that has no leaders with the guts or alternative vision to stand up to them or to her.Friday, July 10, 2009
IMPORTANT videos to watch if you value the truth
See this impressive interview with a retired U.S. General, a man who was in charge of all kinds of intelligence investigations while in service. His comments on the 9/11 Pentagon hit and WTC destruction are remarkable for their clarity and openness (and outrage). These older men, now retired from their take-charge jobs in the military, are not given to mincing words. They tell it exactly how they see it (think also of Col. Philip Corso and his comments about our visits from extraterrestrials, and of all the high-up military people coming forth now in the Disclosure Project, with their own experiences about truth being hidden from Americans) -- and they are not afraid of speaking the clear, unadulterated truth. I have great respect and admiration for them. They don't have to do this--they could just take their big retirement checks and keep their mouths shut. But they value the truth and their own honor too much to keep silent. They really care about the American people and want them to know the truth. God bless them all.
The other video gives information from the architects and engineers for truth about 9/11 (see their site at www.ae911Truth.org )
Poll of 2500 scientists reveals interesting data
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/majority-of-scientists-bush-suppressed-science/
There are things I agree with the scientists about -- and subjects on which I disagree with them. I enjoyed reading some of the Readers' Comments at the end of this article. Here are two of them:
1) I continue to be amazed and appalled that so many Americans don't believe in evolution.
That's terrible. Especially as there is no conflict between the science and belief in God, just between science and distorted beliefs in old religious texts written by people with primitive concepts of reality.
2) As someone whose job is at an energy research institution this isn't even slightly surprising. We don't usually do work directly for the federal government, but the difference in the kind and quality of research that's being sponsored has changed so dramatically over the past six months that it's even a little shocking to me, and I've heard first or second hand about some egregious abuses of "science" during the Bush Administration era.
The statistic about Republican self-identification tells you more about logic than political lean, also. The modern US Republican party isn't conservative, they are abusive and insane. Scientists are, for the most part, a logical bunch by definition. Thus, unlike the public at large, they're drastically more likely to be aware of the disconnect between conservative ideals and the Republican party.
Hence, as the statistic shows, very, very few would self-identify as Republican. The actual conservatives among them instead identify as independent.
Peggy Noonan speaks up about Palin
One of the most refreshingly honest moments of the 2008 campaign came when Peggy Noonan, a columnist and former Republican speechwriter, was caught on a live mike calling the choice of Sarah Palin to run on the Republican ticket "political bullshit." She smoothed over her harsh remarks in a subsequent column, saying she liked Palin even if she wasn't sure the choice would be successful. But now that Palin has resigned as Alaska Governor, Noonan apparently feels free to speak openly.
In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.
In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.
Noonan goes on to refute all the conservative arguments in Palin's favor, from her supposed working-class credentials to the idea that she upsets the mainstream media.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Speaking of the X Files and 9/11
There's a popular "urban myth" that a March 2001 episode of the X Files predicted 9/11 to a "t." It's not a myth. Watch this excerpt from that program to see how the X Files "fictional" plot laid the groundwork for the real thing on 9/11 of the same year. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/663.html The same thing happened before the Titanic went down, when a book was written about a ship just like it: called the Titan. Just like the Titanic, the Titan was an "unsinkable" ship, and just like the Titanic, it went down after a collision with an iceberg. On April 14, 1912, the huge "unsinkable" ship the Titanic was steaming across the Atlantic towards New York. This was the Titanic's maiden voyage, and her captain was encouraged to break the record for speed while making the voyage. As most people know, after striking an iceberg, the unsinkable ship went down in only a matter of hours. Out of the 2,201 passengers, only 711 were saved. Since then, there have been many books and movies about the Titanic.
A book, The Wreck of the Titan was written in 1898, fourteen years before the Titanic hit an iceberg and settled on the bottom of the northern Atlantic. The fictional story was written by a merchant seaman by the name of Morgan Robertson. Robertson's book was about an unsinkable passenger liner that sank while carrying the elite people of the time. The ship in Robertson's story was called the Titan and the book was titled The Wreck of the Titan. Even though the book is fictitious, the events in the story parallel the events of the Titanic. Both ships were built to be unsinkable. Both ships sank after striking an iceberg. Both ships were on their maiden voyage. The most well to do famous people were on the Titan and Titanic. Only one third of the passengers on each ship survived. Both ships had an inadequate number of lifeboats. Both ships were encouraged to break speed records during their voyage.
Robertson's book The Wreck of the Titan was never published. Each time it was rejected by editors, they told him the same thing. The story was "unbelievable." Surely the events he wrote of could not possibly happen to an unsinkable ship. Yes, and surely our own government wouldn't EVER fly filled airliners into our own buildings filled with thousands of other American citizens. Surely not. You might want to check the site of Architects and Engineers for Truth about 9/11 at: www.ae911Truth.org
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
A MUST-SEE: UNSOLVED MYSTERY OF TOXIC RAIN
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/662.html MILITARY EXPERIMENTS ON CIVILIANS For six weeks in 1994, an on and off toxic "rain" fell on a small town in rural Washington State. This is a case where reality makes the X Files looks tameMany nefarious experiments have been conducted by our government on U.S. civilians without their/our knowledge. We still don't know why chemtrails that contain barium and aluminum particles are being laid down by high-flying jets over our heads on a regular basis--not only in our country, but all over the western world. If you want to read more about experiments that were conducted over a long number of years on unknowing citizens, all you need to do is write MK-ULTRA in Google and see what comes up. The proven information contained in the sites that come up might knock your socks off. This is not conspiracy theory -- it is factual. All citizens should be informed about this--do you really believe these types of experiments on the U.S. population have ceased? Neither do I.
Poll shows 7 out of 10 Republicans want Palin for President? OMG!!!
More than anything else, that poll, if correct, gives us once again a loud warning about the danger of the Republican mindset. First they gave us Duhmbya -- and now they want this ignorant idiot woman to run the country??? Skeptical observers have wondered how Palin would handle being president if some ethics complaints are enough to make her unable to run a state. Palin's answer: if she was president, the Department of Law would protect her.
Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations."I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.
And there you have it: the Republicans' next choice for president. A woman who couldn't name a newspaper she reads -- who quit her job as governor right in the middle of her term because she couldn't take the heat of politics (but who loves to dish it out herself) -- who thinks there is a "department of law" in the White House -- and who thinks because she could see Russia from her house that she would be a great president. You betcha'! Wink, wink. I hope Tina Fey is getting ready for a second round...
The Republican party is a very bad joke to most thinking Americans. And it is diminishing in numbers daily, as the horrified intelligent people left in the party begin to bolt through the exit doors. But it's sad to consider there are still so many who actually seem to think they are in the same Republican party of long-ago yesteryear -- and who haven't noticed (or worse, don't care) it's been taken over by nutcase neocons, white supremacists, and fundamentalist fanatics. It is the party of "hate-everything-that-is-different-than-us" and "NEVER ALLOW CHANGE OF ANY KIND." Then there are those who agree with Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber about the way the country should be run. One would hope the overall national consciousness will rise as these poor deluded people begin to die out and a smarter, more broadminded generation of Republicans takes their place. (That is, if the party hasn't completely disappeared by then, which appears to be happening through the craziness that has overtaken it.)
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
When Sarah is President...
From the Huffington Post:
Sarah Palin and her defenders have cited numerous ethics complaints against the Alaska governor as a practical reason for her resignation. Fighting the claims, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News Monday, was immobilizing her: "I'm not going to let Alaskans go through a year of stymied, paralyzed administration and not getting anything done."
Naturally, skeptical observers have wondered how Palin would handle being president if some ethics complaints are enough to make her unable to run a state. Palin's answer: if she was president, the Department of Law would protect her.
Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.
"I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.
Posts
