Wednesday, January 28, 2009
House Republicans in their view have a choice: vote for a successful bill that credits Democrats, or
vote for an unsuccessful bill that will be used against them down the road. That means that there
is no reason for cooperation from House Republicans.
I can think of one reason for Republicans to vote for a successful bill: it is the right thing to do for the country.
Apparently, we have reached the point where everyone agrees that the Republican party has no responsibility anymore for our general welfare. They have certainly acted this way since, oh, say, 1920 or so, but have we finally given up and agreed that it's okay for them to act in this manner?
Ready for a big surprise? Their answer to our current economic problems is "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government"!
Do the Republicans and their masters have any other answer to anything that more money and less control at the rich? Why do we have to have this garbage forced down our throats, by the same people who created all of our problems in the first place?
The article is signed by two hundred professors. I started googling their names more or less at random. Sure, I found the usual people who work for a "foundation" started by Dick Armey, people who built their careers arguing against tobacco regulation, or the occasional junior college chemistry professor, but what I found disturbing was the number of these people who seem to be legitimate economics professors at mainstream universities.
How have we reached the point in our intellectual life where so many lying, greed maddened enablers of the worst sort of corporate exploitation have managed to worm their way into a position to educate the next generation of leaders? And the wingnuts complain about liberal academia.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By the way, a few pages later in the NYT, there is an ad for a wine auction house that just sold 3 bottles of 1990 Romanee Conti for $25,000. Eight thousand a bottle. Here is a classic example of a bubble created by letting the rich have too much money. Either this wine is nothing but an item of speculation, in which case no one will ever enjoy it, or else some crass asshole will actually pay eight thousand to drink one bottle of wine. Either way, it sort of makes you long to see the tumbrels rolling through the streets again.
Monday, January 26, 2009
What made me particularly angry about Kristol was not that he was a conservative. It was that, to anyone with half a brain, it was obvious that the man was not expressing his own opinion. He was simply regurgitating Republican propaganda which he knew full well was nothing but a pack of lies. He went out on exactly this high note, with a column trumpeting the notion that conservatives have been correct about everything.
Times, you can put conservatives on your op-ed page if you want; but is it too much to ask that you only print real opinions by people who really believe what they are saying? After what conservative lying has brought to this country in the last eight years, it is irresponsible to say the least to print this dishonest garbage.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people."
How could this not have been written by Jonah Goldberg? After all, American conservatism is the same as European liberalism, in the exact same way that American liberalism is the same as the Nazis- Mr. Goldberg's great contribution to civil discourse.
You lost, guys. Now, get out of the way while, as usual, the liberals clean up your mess.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Oh, if only Barack Obama can provide our country with leadership which matches the wisdom and skill
that we have seen from George W. Bush, our country will be in great shape.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Sunday, January 18, 2009
"Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation, said the policy institute will be built around several key themes, including "freedom, compassion, opportunity and individual responsibility."
"It's really a place where you're trying to advance effective policy solutions above a partisan level," Langdale said. "He's made clear that history will be a judge of his legacy. The purpose of the institute is to be more forward-looking."
Freedom. Compassion. Policy solutions above a partisan level!
Too bad you didn't think of that eight years ago, you miserable lying war criminal.
"S.E. Cupp gives a young conservative's perspective on the soon-to-be inauguration of Barack Obama:
None of my conservative friends -- in New York we all know each other, since there are roughly 14 of us -- plan to attend the actual event, and very few of us are planning to rearrange our schedules to watch on TV. Hampton Williams, the head of NYU's College Republicans, is staying in town to prepare for the start of his last semester. "I have come to the conclusion that this will be the highlight of my liberal friends' lives," he told me over a flurry of Facebook exchanges. "Eight years down the road I will have a career and a family, and my liberal friends will have a faded Obama button." The slight tone of resentment did not go unnoticed. "
Yeah, right, guy. Eight years from now, you'll still be sitting in your basement living on a diet of hate and Cheetos, while we and the rest of the world will have long passed you by. Have a nice life.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
All very deserved, but the commentary thus far has, I think, missed the point of this nauseating article. That lies in their insistence that Obama dare not engage in any foreign diplomacy without a two thirds vote of the Senate.
No longer is a sixty vote margin enough for Republicans to allow Democrats to act, no longer is it enough to just act in clear violation of the law, as Yoo and Bolton have so often argued for Bush to do. No, Obama must have a two thirds majority to be allowed to act at all.
At this point, you would have to be naive indeed to think this is some sort of casual suggestion. One can see here the fear of the Republicans that they will not be able to hold absolute party discipline in the Senate- that one or two of the laughably described moderate Republicans might someday decide to vote moderately, instead of just talking moderately. So, they are going to try to move the goalposts so that Obama has to have a two thirds vote in the Senate to accomplish anything.
I expect to be hearing more about this in the future. With Harry Reid at the helm, who knows, the Dems might just fall for it.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
I created this blog last spring. I had intended to comment on the election, but there was so much really good commenting on line that I never really felt the need to do that. Now, it's 2009, and we are faced with a new challenge. After the stunning defeat of the Republicans, we can see already that they are going to do everything in their power to destroy any attempt to put our country on the right path, even if their efforts destroy themselves in the process. We are going to need everyone's effort to keep our new leaders on the right path in the face of this onslaught; so here I go. Let's hope we all together can prevent the total collapse of our world.