Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Recommended Reading

See Supremes ruling – turning nice neighborhoods into ghettos, posted June 30, 2015, at Bunkerville's site. Excerpt:
While we were so involved with the Gay Marriage and Obamacare Supreme court rulings, this little number came our way at the same time. Guess who is moving into our neighborhood?
In a 5-4 ruling, the court said certain housing policies that put minorities at a disadvantage, even if they aren’t expressly intended to discriminate, can be challenged in court.

The court sided with a community organization alleging that Texas’ housing department had improperly clustered Section 8 housing in low-income, high-crime areas — essentially preserving the segregation that federal housing law was designed to end.

Texas had argued that the lawsuit was invalid, and the question before the high court was whether the Fair Housing Act — a law intended to outlaw racial discrimination in housing — allows people to sue over practices that might not be explicitly discriminatory, but end up hurting minorities disproportionately....
Read the rest HERE.

193 comments:

  1. This is what happens when you got nothing but Jooze, Cathlicks, Blacks and Lezbos on the court.

    ... Luis di Giorno

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why roll 'blacks' into your blame game???

      There is one black Supreme Court Justice, his name is Clarence Thomas, and he the most reasoned one of them all. He is certainly not part of the problem.

      Delete
    2. Wait I though poverty caused everything from crime to terrorism? Do these leftists not even believe their own bullshit?

      Delete
  2. Thanks for the link. Amazing that this has received little mention. A crack house in every neighborhood. One of the remarkable achievements of this regime's legacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bunkerville,
      Last night, we had a small gathering of homeschoolers for a yearbook-signing party. Several of the parents are quite politically savvy -- about most things, anyway (not usually about the threat of Islam).

      Even as well versed as many of these parents are with regard to domestic issues, only one of them knew about the ruling mentioned in this blog post. ONLY ONE! You should have heard the gasps when I talked about this ruling. I saw real fear in their eyes -- in part because their homes are part of their retirement plans. Down will go their home values when these homeowners sell their homes so as to fund their retirements.

      Delete
    2. Home ownership has/had always been the mainstay of the middle class creating wealth, and permitting upward mobility for the owner, and passing the accumulated wealth on to their children. We can't have that now can we in our new Utopian society.

      Delete
  3. These policies will not touch the walled-off enclaves of the Obamas, Clintons, Pelosis, Feinsteins, and their uber-rich progressive cronies.

    This, like everything else this progressive government does, targets the middle class.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Of course those enclaves you mentioned will not be touched!

      Orwell stated in Animal Farm: "Some animals are more equal than others."

      George Orwell was a prophet!

      Delete
    2. "Orwell stated in Animal Farm: "Some animals are more equal than others."

      DITTO! That was my very first thought and Hillary's hypocrisy makes her the biggest PIG of them all.

      Delete
  4. Landlord's are not "B Corporations". Unfortunately, Local, State and Federal Governments are. So get used to your tax dollars being used to give you a good "social" screwing to go along with an "economic" one, too! Don't like it? Get rid of Government!

    ReplyDelete
  5. FJ, I really try to dismiss a lot of the rhetoric coming from many of today's so-called conservatives but quite often, in their obvious advocacy of plutocracy and social Darwinism, their arguments truly jumps the shark and should seriously insult the intelligence of anyone of reasonable intellect.

    I continue to hear such lunacy as "get rid of the IRS", "end the EPA", "end all entitlements", and as you suggest, "get rid of the government". Now granted, I'm all for scaling back on power and revisiting the authority of many agencies but you can't simply pull the leg out from under the table and call it a day. We even have an actual so-called conservative presidential candidate saying to get rid of the SCOTUS,

    This is just utter buffoonery on any level. By what possible stretch do you suggest we get rid of the government?

    This is an area where I could just never take the Tea Party's rather unhinged hodgepodge of of incoherence serious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You want to know what I'm sick of, Ronnie? I'm sick of Establishment Republicans and Democrats advocating Government solutions for every ill that befalls the World at large. You promise government will "solve problems" and yet they only succeed in complicating them. Richard Nixon created the EPA to solve Environmental problems like the Santa Barbara oil spill, not churn out costly laws and regulations. Solving problems, like cleaning up oil spills, involves actually "doing things", NOT writing complicated laws to force "other people" to do things. So tell you what. If the next time there's an oil spill in the Gulf, the Coast Guard responds with actual ships to skim and recover the oil, instead of fines and scientists to assess the financial damage, I'll "actually" take your complaints a little more seriously. And a little consideration would be far more than they deserve. So till that happens, kindly stuff your complaints over the extent of my rhetoric where the sun don't shine. Cuz yours has already cost this country its' liberty.

      Delete
    2. OK FJ, you're sick of Rs and Ds "advocating Government solutions", yet you chastise them for not providing a solution to oil spills, or, or, or something.

      And in that argument I suppose, you still want to "get rid of the government" so, well, I guess we'll then have a working protocol to deal with oil spills. Or, once again, something.

      To be clear, "I" never "promised government will "solve problems" as you imply so you taking my "complaints serious" or giving them "consideration" is a non sequitur. I simply questioned your rationale of getting "rid of the government".

      The accolades to your spin and nonsensical gibberish is additionally telling.

      Delete
    3. Ronald,
      Ahem. That last sentence could have been omitted, and you'd have a better comment. Just sayin'.

      Delete
    4. Well Ronnie, you're the one turning a generalized "Get rid of Government!" into a polemical strawman by adding the article "the" before the more general "Government" transforming it into a singular noun, "the Government", instead of the more general verb "some Government".

      I can assure you that is I had wished to propose Total Anarchy in my actual statement, I would have done so by placing the article "the" before the word Government But since I didn't, thanks for "trying" to obfuscate the statement for everyone with your "singular" polemical misinterpretation.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. erratum - "plural noun" for "general verb" above.

      Delete
    7. After trying to decipher your comment at 7:58 PM, you schooling me on grammar and the English language caused me to chuckle.

      But getting back to the point, other than a genuflection to corporate bosses, it's extremely hard to actually deduce what precisely it is that the cheerleaders of plutocracy are advocating.

      There seems to be some rather radical and unsustainable drumbeats (end IRS, end EPA, end workers rights, end minimum wages, end overtime pay, more corporate welfare, etc) coming from today's so-called conservatives but when questioned, they seem ashamed about the very policies they promote and then, well, prefer to correct English errors.

      Delete
    8. You have a talent for construing arguments that no one is making, so perhaps your levity is unwarranted. Cheerleaders of plutocracy? You'll find none here. So where did that come from? Or is every argument against expanding the State now necessarily an argument for Plutocracy? Especially as the greatest force maintaining an established plutocracy Would necessarily and by definition, BE the State.

      It seems that a course of basic grammar could certainly do you no harm.

      Delete
    9. ...but unless complemented by a course in basic logic, it might also prove a waste of time... much like reading your comments.

      Delete
    10. Most arguments against expanding the State seem to ultimately lead to that. When you say "get used to your tax dollars being used to give you a good "social" screwing to go along with an "economic" one, too! Don't like it? Get rid of Government!", it often tends to point that direction, or at least it has from my observations.

      When pressed for a coherent explanation of precisely what that means, in terms of how much taxes to be cut, where they're to be cut, what spending needs curtailed, and what parts of government needs to be shed, well, that's where the arguments starts to crumble.

      From an economic perspective, you just can't go pulling legs out from under the table and still expect it to stand. An example would be that ACA (or Obamacare if you like) has now become a leg in the economic equation. Simply "ripping it out root and branch" at this point, as we've learned while waiting on the SCOTUS verdict, really isn't the ticket. Yet, we still here the bobbing heads parrot the same meme as if reality isn't an issue. And this hods true with an ending of EPA, or such agencies. SNAP, Medicare, etc has become an important function in our economy, just as farm subsidies for wealthy farm owners, as corporate handouts, etc.

      When one advocates pulling these legs out from under the table, they simply falter on a rationale explanation of the consequences.

      So perhaps I jumped the gun on your statement but it really isn't clear what you want to cut or what government we should get rid of. But my guess is that should you elaborate, my hypothesis will be hold true.

      Delete
    11. Can I construe your July 1, 2015 at 10:25:00 PM EDT comment as an example of "a modicum of politeness" that I'm told is expected here?

      Delete
    12. Anarcholibertarian here. First off, let's dispense with the "conservative" label. By 2012 when establishment Republicans were swearing Mitt Romney is a "conservative" I decided either a) everyone and their feces-encrusted genitalia is a "conservative," b) there is no such thing as a "conservative," or c) if there are conservatives as presently defined in America (re: Romney) I do not want to be a conservative and am damn sore sorry I ever self-identified as one. As far as I'm concerned, "conservatives" (as defined as the "Mitt Romney-esque") need to be machine gunned into ditches followed by the first person that doesn't applaud when the last of them drops crying in vain for socialized health care.

      Needless to say, I have never voted for a Democrat, and now don't see a reason to vote for a Republican. I don't even see how voting Republican would even spite the left. I tired of the shell game.

      On to the anarcho part of my political development... I've spent the better part of the last two years not caring about politics or the government fueled by it, severing every possible tentacle that kleptocracy can put upon my life, and I gotta say, I feel effin fantastic.

      Get the government out of everything no specifically framed within the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and then.... Start taking those powers away from government too.

      Government is the worst good idea ever implemented.




      Delete
    13. Ronald,
      Can I construe your July 1, 2015 at 10:25:00 PM EDT comment as an example of "a modicum of politeness" that I'm told is expected here?

      Quit whining.

      Delete
    14. Beamish,
      There has indeed been a sea change in American "thinking." All that I can do at my age is make the best of it.

      I have no desire to see people machine gunned into ditches. Why? There are too many people who would qualify for the executions. Crony capitalism is a big part of what has gone wrong -- but there are more parts to what has gone wrong. One of those parts is the embracing of Zinnism; I'm sure that you know what I mean.

      There isn't a day that goes by that I don't say several times: "Look at that!" Mind-boggling absurdity is afoot everywhere!

      In my view, our Founders' republic is gone and ain't comin' back.

      As you said, what we have today is a shell game. Yes, I still vote, but I don't get out there to work for any candidate now.

      I'm glad that I'm as old as I am.

      Delete
    15. Related:

      ...And other than redefining marriage in a ridiculous way by judicial fiat, what other rights might courts now invent?

      In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy made it clear to lower courts that, after he eliminated Glucksberg, the only remaining limit on new judge-made rights is a judge’s imagination. He noted that “when new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim for liberty must be addressed.” In other words, he believes that since the Founders “did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,” they gave courts unlimited power to “protect . . . the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we” in that sentence refers to judges.

      The left is always on about how people have "a right" to be free from "want" and given things like "free" housing, food, a "living wage" and on and on. All the things they couldn't get via the electoral process? They will now simply sue for citing Kennedy's decision and obtain them by judicial decree....


      SCOTUS dictatorship?

      Delete
    16. Can I construe your July 1, 2015 at 10:25:00 PM EDT comment as an example of "a modicum of politeness" that I'm told is expected here?

      Want R-E-S-P-E-C-T? Try giving a little.

      As for "specifics", I'm not a fan of putting lipstick on a pig. A "tax cut" here and a "subsidy" there won't amount to a hill of beans. Major PAINFUL root-and-branch changes will be required, if ever we are to return to the principles of "limited government". And the first "major" change would be to completely revamp "Corporate Law" so as to prevent all a nation's money from being siphoned offshore. UNTIL that happens, no amount of dancing with special interest groups over the tax code will ever make a bit of difference. When it comes to Corporate Law, I'm a Shari'a Law advocate, war powers constituting the sole exception.

      Delete
    17. So consider the implications of root-and-branch changes before you decide that it's time to partner up for a dance around US tax codes. Because a simple adjustment to Intellectual Property laws currently in place might go a long way in leveling the economic playing field for small and medium sized businesses. And restoring "liability" risks to corporate investors might go a long way towards curtailing the development of a legally regulated plutocracy.

      Delete
    18. ps - This is an example of the current foolishness our "liberal elite" bretheren espouse. Don't get fooled into supporting the coming neoliberal economic globalism.

      Delete
    19. pps - Does this sound like anyone we know? ;)

      ‘But what do you want?’ This is the question addressed by male authority to the hysterical woman: ‘All your whining and complaining – do you have any idea what you really want?’ In psychoanalytic terms, the protests are a hysterical outburst that provokes the master, undermining his authority, and the master’s question – ‘But what do you want?’ – disguises its subtext: ‘Answer me in my own terms or shut up!’ So far, the protesters have done well to avoid exposing themselves to the criticism that Lacan levelled at the students of 1968: ‘As revolutionaries, you are hysterics who demand a new master. You will get one.’

      - Slavoj Žižek, "Democracy is the enemy" (28 October 2011)

      Delete
    20. The left is always on about how people have "a right" to be free from "want" and given things like "free" housing, food, a "living wage" and on and on.

      All victims of the corporate economic malaise the country currently suffers from. Their only function in the economy has been reduced to that of "consumer". Consumers of goods that only the most efficient processes and with the lowest cost labour can supply. They no longer "qualify" to become "efficient producers", or even better, Prosumers. ;)

      Delete
    21. @ beamish - Anarcholibertarian? Or Atavist? ;)

      Delete
    22. ppps - Don't forget to support the latest Offshoring American Jobs Act that the Obama Adminsitration has dreamed up. Just the most recent example of government "regulations" subordinated to the global plutocracy.

      Delete
    23. Nah, just a perspective on how the government puts most people in the red and keeps them there at gunpoint.

      Delete
    24. There's a lot above to consume but in the end, it pretty much validates my argument on a couple fronts. One seems to be a cry for draconian cuts and changes and the other is the covering of the ears and singing "la la la" to the ramifications of it. There seems to be some mindset that we must destroy the village in order to save it. That argument and as history has proven, simply doesn't return a healthy economy.

      "The left is always on about how people have "a right" to be free from "want" and given things like "free" housing, food, a "living wage" and on and on".

      That somewhat goes off the rail when you toss in the living wage part. I mean, associating wanting a fair days pay for a fair day of work to wanting government assistance is rather radical.

      The above isn't intended to hurt anyone's feelings but if it does, please contain your whining.

      Delete
    25. Ronald,

      I have a baseball bat that can make your brain stop doing that.

      Delete
    26. Covering of the ears and singing "la la la" is SO much less "activist activism than whistling past the graveyard, eh, Ronnie?

      But please, share YOUR solutions, lest you think that we don't care, and come to understand by their omission, that you really don't.

      Delete
    27. And, after that, heehee, explain why your solution is more viable than painting walls with your brains.

      Delete
    28. "Ronald, I have a baseball bat that can make your brain stop doing that."

      So, innuendos of physical harm, like threatening to take a baseball bat to those you disagree with falls within the parameters of "a modicum of politeness", I guess? Opps! there I go whining again. Sorry bout that.

      FJ, the argument really has nothing to do with "my" solutions. I am not the one presenting solutions but rather discrediting yours. You are advocating changes and refusing to acknowledge the ramifications, falling back on a sophomoric rebuttal of "oh yeah, so what do you have". I'm not the one wanting to end governance.

      Delete
    29. Nah, Ronnie won't let Idiocracy reign. He's got a cloud-based solution.

      Delete
    30. I didn't threaten you with physical harm. I informed you that I have a manually-powered device that can change your mind.

      Delete
    31. Am waiting to see Ronnie discredit someone other than himself.

      Delete
    32. Let me make this easy for you Ronnie. FJ wants to reduce government. I want to reduce government to ashes. Choose your target wisely.

      Delete
    33. I am not the one presenting solutions but rather discrediting yours.

      Since you offer NO alternatives, only critique of change, we can only rationally assume that you support the status quo. How's that working out for America, Ronnie? Lowest workforce labor participation rate since 1977. Got any MORE "Good Government" you want to lay on us, or is the goose not dead yet?

      Your lack of any desire for a change in course demonstrates just how "serious" you are about what's good for the country. And let me give you a hint, it's NOT another bailout of GM.

      He's all yours beamish. I doubt he's ever been to Louisville before.

      Delete
    34. I'm not the one wanting to end governance.

      Wow! And I thought I had burned THAT strawman.

      Delete
    35. Jesus must be IN the building. Lazarus is running around the table again!

      Delete
    36. "Let me make this easy for you Ronnie. FJ wants to reduce government. I want to reduce government to ashes. Choose your target wisely."

      I understand your objective but you fail to explain how we deal with the consequences.

      For example, we have no government intrusions on new home builders. Obviously, folks in the country without sewer service might opt out of spending $10K on a septic tank because, well, they don't have to as there's no evil "regulations". Once the hills are populated, this could prove problematic for those folks in the valley.

      Those in the city may build with lighter gauge wiring as it's cheaper. Your reduction to ashes theory fails to acknowledge the hazards on the neighbors.

      Building codes are just a minute part of the bigger picture. Pull out farm subsidies (which even I oppose), and it would upset the grain market. End SNAP and other entitlements, and it would harm the food markets. End the EPA, and you return to historic disasters such as Bhopal and Chernobyl. End OSHA and MESA and we return to the sweat shops of the 30s. End the IRS and there is no funding for the military, or military at all. And the list goes on and on to the point of anhydrous ammonia transported in pickup trucks to raw toxins in rivers to an economic ruin to mass epidemics and so on.

      What you advocate is indeed an invitation for a take over of the most wealthy or as I have argued, a plutocracy. Get the government out of the way and let the most powerful rule.

      Delete
    37. Vote for Hammurabi, people! You can't have a livable structure without a code!

      Hammurabi’s Code also gave the world the first written Building Codes. They were unusually simplistic by today’s standards, but very matter-of-fact. There were not many lawyers in those days to haggle over the details.

      228. If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall give him a fee of two shekels in money for each sar of surface.

      229. If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

      230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

      231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house.

      232. If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.

      233. If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.”


      Sounds like clauses and conditions in a rider for an insurance policy for a plutocrat, if you asked me.

      Somebody needs to read Hesiod's "Works and Days" Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement which is of Zeus and is perfect. For we had already divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel

      Delete
    38. FJ, it's becoming increasingly difficult to deduce precisely what it is that advocate, or to what extent.

      Delete
    39. And its' becoming increasingly simple to deduce yours. All I need to do is read Hillary's latest talking points. Thanks for playing, Ronnie! And don't forget to donate!

      No, really, don't forget. Somebody will definitely be by to break your arm is you do!

      Delete
    40. The dodge and distract is at least consistent with the flawed arguments of today's so-called conservatives. You and Beamish want to rid government by different degrees but when your argument is scrutinized, well, I'm getting beat up with a bat or my arm's getting broken or I need to provide solutions to all the woes of the world or something akin to such nonsense.

      To fall for your "what's your solution" tactic (which gives you and Beamish an out from your illogical stand on shedding government), well, I'm obviously more of a Federalist than you.

      I recall as a child swimming in coal mine strip pits. In that day, mining companies would strip coal and then leave mountains of shale, high wall cliffs, and run off pits of water, making the land useless. Well, here comes big intrusive job killing guvmint with them godawful "regulations" enacting laws requiring them to save the top soil, reclaim the land, replace the top soil, and sow grass, basically restoring the land close to it's original condition.

      Well, one would think that coal mines would have seen their evil ways with the law in place and respected future generations a bit more. Instead, they simply stripped the coal, filed for bankruptcy, left the pits, and then reopened down the road under a new name. So here comes intrusive guvmint again enacting laws that they be bonded. And coal mines still did very well in their profits and job creations after these loopholes were closed. So this naive notion that corporations and businesses should not be regulated (or to put it another way, become lawless) simply doesn't hold water. I am personally glad to see government take an active role holding these coal mines accountable.

      One of the first things that comes to mind is to raise the minimum wage. The problem is that we have $billion profiting corporations such as Walmart, the banking industry, foreign government contractors, and so on actually providing training seminars for their full time employees on how to sign up and qualify for food stamps and other fed assistance. They have gamed the system by using money from tax payers like me to subsidize their full time employees, while raking in historically high profits. Today's so-called conservatives seem to be rather content with that. I'm not. Obviously as I've argued, ending food stamps and such entirely is not a realistic argument.

      That would make a good start.

      Delete
    41. When your argument is scrutinized...

      I'm still waiting for it. The only arguments you've scrutinized so far are your own. I threw out a number of specific suggestions. You addressed none of them. So please, the only "dodge" we seen thus far is your own.

      As for your coal mine argument, it's a good one. Unfortunately, restoring the environment is no longer a sufficient cause for your side. They must now be ALL put out of business through EPA regulation of Mercury, and the like. God forbid a volcano should erupt! There'd be no one to fine! Where would the plutocracy get their protection money from?

      And ps - Didn't you see my post at 10:20 am today? Raise the minimum wage before allowing the corporations to simply transfer more jobs to China? You must really HATE the American working man!

      Delete
    42. erratum - 'prohibitting' for "allowing" above.

      Delete
    43. The DNC. Dedicating to making America a "Jobs-Free Zone" since 1932.

      Delete
    44. Forgive me for not wading back through this forum to find that list of specific suggestions you threw out. I guess it was a one shot thing?

      Your counterargument on the EPA still provides no coherent thoughts on constructive problem solving. I agree that the EPA, like many gov agencies, has too much power. You, like many of today's so-called conservatives, seem reluctant to want to to "repair" of "fix" while al the same time, reluctant to admit that you just want to end them entirely (albeit Blemish is a bit more outright). So it's hard to know where you stand when you yourself don't seem to know, or, reluctant to admit.

      The MW ordeal is yet another prime example of your refusal to accept reality. You run from my argument that corporations have gamed the system by utilizing tax payers to subsidize their $billion profit producing employees while rhetorically accusing me of "hating" American workers.

      By what stretch do you feel the American working man should compete with the Chinese worker to keep his/her job here? And to be clear, even if the American working man could compete with those wages (which he can't), there are more variables at stake anyway. When Whirlpool left Evansville IN a few years ago for Mexico, workers and the city tried to negotiate. Whirlpool told them that they were leaving even if the work force was willing to work for free. So your argument is again nonsensical and appears to be a product of abject ignorance rather than knowledgeable dialog.

      For what it's worth, I was dead set against all trade acts. But that doesn't mean the answer is to get rid of government. It means we need to be much more selective in who we put in charge. Obviously in the last case, we needed more Democrats to say no to Obama.

      Delete
    45. Forgive me for not wading back through this forum to find that list of specific suggestions you threw out. I guess it was a one shot thing?

      The time to attack an argument is when it's presented. Instead, you chose to resurrect an old strawman of yours to attack it, instead. Conclusion: You're not serious.

      Your counterargument on the EPA still provides no coherent thoughts on constructive problem solving. I agree that the EPA, like many gov agencies, has too much power. You, like many of today's so-called conservatives, seem reluctant to want to to "repair" of "fix" while al the same time, reluctant to admit that you just want to end them entirely (albeit Blemish is a bit more outright). So it's hard to know where you stand when you yourself don't seem to know, or, reluctant to admit.

      I offered you a tool to fix the problems you only complain about. Remember those "abandoned" coal pits full of contaminated water? Let the EPA go in and ACTUALLY clean them up. Let them "invent" new technologies for seperating out the contaminants. And since the corporations that left the damage went bankrupt, every employee and every stockholder would still "liable" for the remaining cleanup costs under my de-shielding plan, so let DOJ "collect" those costs instead of protecting their ill gotten gains from liability (as is present practice).

      The MW ordeal is yet another prime example of your refusal to accept reality. You run from my argument that corporations have gamed the system by utilizing tax payers to subsidize their $billion profit producing employees while rhetorically accusing me of "hating" American workers.

      I agree that corporations HAVE gamed the system. But left legislatively unaddressed, reality is that you are pricing American workers out of the employment market by artificially raising wages. Keep raising minimum wages, and soon every US manufacturing job gets offshored. And since the TPP has reduced import duties, the product comes back into the country at a China-labor cost instead of an American-worker labour cost. Not every minimum wage job is a service job that can't be off-shored. I would also prevent rampant offshoring by uber-taxing corporate profits (instead of offering corporations incentives to compete against individuals and small businesses). The larger the corporation's capitalization, the HIGHER the tax. Eventually, every corporation would leave the country. And my duties and tariffs on imported corporate-produced products would go through the roof.

      Delete
    46. By what stretch do you feel the American working man should compete with the Chinese worker to keep his/her job here? And to be clear, even if the American working man could compete with those wages (which he can't), there are more variables at stake anyway. When Whirlpool left Evansville IN a few years ago for Mexico, workers and the city tried to negotiate. Whirlpool told them that they were leaving even if the work force was willing to work for free. So your argument is again nonsensical and appears to be a product of abject ignorance rather than knowledgeable dialog.

      I would make American pay more for their products. Duties and fees on imported products would make it cost prohibitive to import a "Maytag" appliance. I'd also "charter" certain limitted-liability corporations to perform specific functions (ie. Defense) and prevent them from entering the food and retail product distribution markets. I'd put Walmart OUT of business, and tax them into a mom and pop operation.

      For what it's worth, I was dead set against all trade acts. But that doesn't mean the answer is to get rid of government. It means we need to be much more selective in who we put in charge. Obviously in the last case, we needed more Democrats to say no to Obama.

      We're both against the trade acts. All they do is to divide world markets amongst major corporations. By regulating corporations and imposing "socialism" on those who still form them within national boundaries, I would ensure that people who worked for corporations were truly IN-corporated into them. Everything an employee or director had would be subject to lawsuit. I would force them to pay dividends to shareholders. I would make it unattractive to invest in "sketchy" operations through unlimited shareholder liability. And I would make sure that the janitor had the same financial stake in the company as the CEO or a shareholder. Corporation would be "socialism writ small" with none of the unmet needs or financial liabilities foisted upon taxpayers.

      Delete
    47. Corporate employment contracts would essentially become "domestic partnership agreements" aka - plural-marriages. With all the pluses and minus that come with it.

      Delete
    48. Humanity got by just fine swinging clubs for over 98,000 years before the U.S. Government came along and started charging admission.

      Delete
    49. Long term effects of my policies? A MAJOR Economic Depression... short term. Long term? A hundred million small, independently operated self-employed people. Wage-labor would virtually disappear overnight, and a Prosumer economy would slowly take it's place. So long as the playing field stayed level, GDO growth rates would burst off the charts.

      Delete
    50. erratum - GDP for GDO above,

      Delete
    51. Now "teams" that suck are allowed to play in the league while millions more dare them to come talk smack in the sandlot. And your only argument is "it's not nice to bash people's brains in." Bullshit. Your whole machine is built from broken skulls.

      Delete
    52. All that faggy talk about civilization and morality stops with just one good swing....

      Delete
    53. Let's ask Formy how he feels about not fitting in.

      See, he's cool with it.

      Delete
    54. The Catholic Church was the world's first chartered corporation, chartered to prevent its global properties from being confiscated by the local national monarch. So I'm sure that Formy WOULD be cool with it!

      Delete
    55. Even after my 2.5 year vacation from blogworld, you still see where I'm going with my obscure analogies. Cheers, FJ :)

      Delete
    56. from my link at 7:51 am today:

      Around 1000, as Islamic contract law was assuming the classic form that would remain essentially unchanged for the next millennium, the West was continuing to experiment, in uncoordinated fashion, with the corporate form of organization. A critical step in the development of the corporation was taken about two centuries later. Following the split of Christianity in 1054, and during the struggle to emancipate religion from the control of emperors, kings, and feudal lords (1075-1122), the Roman Catholic Church began calling itself a corporation. This struggle, considered to have culminated in the Papal Revolution,' gave rise to the new canon law ('us novum) of the Catholic Church. Canon law, which dealt with a wide range of issues, including jurisdiction, property, and contracts, built on innumerable concepts, enactments, and rules belonging to the inherited secular and ecclesiastical legal systems. Unlike its forerunners, however, it emerged as a systematized body of law. Articulated in texts, it was supported by theories pertaining to the sources of law. During the incorporation wave of the sixth through eleventh centuries, all across western Europe the clergy had developed a collective self-consciousness and formed effectively autonomous religious organizations. Now, by claiming a corporate identity of its own, the entire Church sought to differentiate itself from the secular world, separate its assets from those of its members, and weave detached clerical collectives into what has been called a "translocal, transtribal, transfeudal, and transnational" corporation with an autonomously shaped chain of authority. The move would also enhance the power of the Church over clergy by weakening clerical bonds to competing sources of authority, such as the family. Where states regained power, the assertion of legal personhood, too, began to matter. Meanwhile, other attempts were made to form corporations with large memberships and elaborate legal systems. Thousands of towns in northern Italy, France, England, and Germany acquired a corporate identity, in some cases through a royal charter, in others simply through the will of residents and the recognition of outsiders.

      Delete
    57. This is why Jonathan Swift, et al, attacked the Church in his "Tale of a Tub" and Gulliver's Travels (Struldbrugs). So did the Pope (Alexander). ;)

      Delete
    58. LOL!

      Hegel didn't account for illiteracy when he wrote the end of history...

      I am curious if Ronnie's nightmare of governmentless America matches my ideals. Where his sympathy and empathy comes from... What right does he have to deny the mob a home run swing at his skull.... Where does he get the hubris to say his destruction is neither necessary nor entertaining?

      Delete
    59. By what possible stretch Beamish, would I be mad?

      Watching you guys spin and tap dance around your very own arguments is predictably funny.

      Delete
    60. Yep, you're mad. You can't even defeat your straw man of FJ's argument, and you fear even approaching my argument.

      All that's left is for you to futilely exclaim in vain that you're not a brainless pro-government zombie.

      Delete
    61. There seems to be a harmonized claptrap of non sequitur gibberish.

      If I'm not mistaken, the argument was about the role of government, its usefulness, and to what extent we "rid" government.

      There seems to be a preference here to pretty much gut it to the bone but you seem unwilling to debate the consequences.

      FJ's response to coal mines leaving chunks of earth upended was to have the EPA go in and clean it up. That's the very plutocratic mindset of today's so-called conservatives; let the rich man take from the earth and then have the working man pay to fix it.

      He gave a rather inconsistent babble about building codes and he tap dance around other points. We agreed on a few points and disagreed on some.

      But you on the other hand, what inkling of an argument did you present that I feared to approach? Something about a attacking me with a bat? About the only thing I see above is you sniffing on FJ and then like a trained seal, clapping your fins together and chanting "ork ork ork" at his every comment.

      If you want a response to an argument, present one (or hell, just be like FJ and run from it while demanding me to say how I'd fix it).



      Delete
    62. Ronald,
      You have no idea as to what you've stepped into! FJ and Beamish go way back -- years before I made their acquaintance in 2005. Along the lines of Crocodile Dundee, " Bloggers havin' fun."

      Delete
    63. Actually AOW, FJ, Beamish, and several others here are no different than most other far right leaning web sites.

      I too go way back and they're all the same. Their arguments have no merit and what they advocate is divorced from reality. When that's all you have, the only option they have is to make a game of it.

      I've often referred to them as either resident trolls or rodeo clowns.

      The job of the resident troll is to distract, throw the one that shot down their argument off their game, or to childishly toss insults and baseball threats or such-anything to change dialog to diatribe when their arguments fail.

      The job of a rodeo clown is to distract the bull after the rider has been bucked in order for the rider to duck under the fence to safety. Likewise, when reality is injected into a radical right weblog, the online rodeo clowns come out with their ball bats and such.

      Speaking of logic, one would deduce that if Beamish et al had a reasonable rebuttal, that the could debunk my argument, why wouldn't they rather than make a game of it? You know, actually making a fool of me rather than pretending they did? That doesn't add up. And it's rather telling that, from your own admission, they've spent 10 years on political blogs play Crocodile Dundee. Obviously, the days must be long and lonely where they live.

      Delete
    64. Ronald,
      You think that I'm far right leaning? I'm not. I'm well to the right of center, but I'm certainly not far right.

      I assure you that you are wrong when you type in the days must be long and lonely where they live. You'd be wise not to leap to such absurd conclusions, Ronald.

      You, FJ, and Beamish can argue night and day -- and never reach any significant agreement. C'est la vie! Long live Freedom of Expression!

      I invite you to go elsewhere. You clearly don't like this blog or many of the commenters here, so there's no need to make YOUR days long and lonely by waging a futile battle.

      Delete
    65. The only "reality" that we're "divorced from" is the "reality" of an ideological discussion on the set of MSNBC with three progressive pundits and an approved and anointed "token" conservative.

      You don't control the ideological "frame" here. You're premises and assumptions as to what IS and IS NOT possible do not apply.

      You're not in Kansas anymore, little girl.

      Delete
    66. ps - and just for the record as to "who pays" for the cleanup of those coal mines, I suggest that you review my response once more. Because it certainly wasn't "the working man".

      Misrepresentations pay no service to an honest debate.

      Delete
    67. FJ, I'll comply with AOW request and show myself to the door, or at least refrain from posting or commenting on future forums here but when you challenge me, well, it deserves a response.

      You say above, "and just for the record as to "who pays" for the cleanup of those coal mines, I suggest that you review my response once more. Because it certainly wasn't "the working man"

      Well, ya know, it's in black and white above exactly what you said.

      "Remember those "abandoned" coal pits full of contaminated water? Let the EPA go in and ACTUALLY clean them up. Let them "invent" new technologies for seperating (sic) out the contaminants."

      So, uh, well, if, by your logic, the EPA is to actually provide the man power to clean up the mess of the coal companies, I mean, where would you suppose those funds come from? The tooth fairy?

      To be clear, around 50 of the Fortune 500 companies paid NEGATIVE taxes last year, actually making them a welfare recipient of the state. So, they can be exempt of course. Your argument certainly doesn't point the expense back to the coal company but rather seems to let them off the hook.

      Who is going to provide the funds for the EPA to manually clean up the mess AND "invent" new technologies, which is EXACTLY what your (I mean, we can read it right here so I didn't make this up) what you advocate? That is (again, read above) your solution. Where do you suppose this money come from?

      Rich man slaughters the village milk cow to take the prime rib and leaves the carcass for the villagers to bury.

      This has been my argument all along, and you actually validated it.

      Delete
    68. I mean, where would you suppose those funds come from? The tooth fairy?

      From the very next sentence from my statement, that you once again misrepresented: And since the corporations that left the damage went bankrupt, every employee and every stockholder would still "liable" for the remaining cleanup costs under my de-shielding plan, so let DOJ "collect" those costs instead of protecting their ill gotten gains from liability (as is present practice).

      "Your argument certainly doesn't point the expense back to the coal company but rather seems to let them off the hook."

      You must be illiterate. Corporate liability limitations, your "Government', currently lets them off the hook. As stated previously, I would end that practice.

      The only thing that has been validated by this argument is your blind adherence to maintaining the status quo.

      Delete
    69. It's really not being illiterate but rather trying to pick from your flip flopping word salad what you actually promote.

      For starters, if I'm not mistaken, (and I don't think I am) my government and your government would be one and the same.

      That aside, which precisely is it? Is it the the company's responsibility or is it the EPA's (at the tax payer's expense of course)? How can you have it both ways?

      And in an honest attempt to interpret your gibberish, what's basically is the difference in the DOJ collecting these cost (which, uh, wtf? The DOJ is not a collecting agency) vrs simply fining them?

      Why would employees be held accountable for the actions of their bosses? What the hell is up with that and considering coal mining was simply an example, where would that madness stop? I mean, a CEO at Tyson Chickens bypasses FDA restrictions and sends under-cooked birds which causes a gazillion salmonella outbreaks and you want the chicken pluckers and the shit scoopers to pick up the tab! And the DOJ to collect the money? And then, the EPA to pick up the rest of the tab? Or, or, or what the hell are you talking about?

      Your "de-sheilding", as you've explained it, is no more than a hodgepodge of incoherent ramble. It's really time for you to fall back on your "uh, well, well what would you do?" stratagem.

      Delete
    70. That aside, which precisely is it? Is it the the company's responsibility or is it the EPA's (at the tax payer's expense of course)? How can you have it both ways?

      The government can't collect fines from a company like BP and then spend them on environmental cleanups now? Only the taxpayers can pay for cleanups? Who knew? They should give BP back the $18bsettlement that they just paid to five states.

      Playing stupid doesn't become you, Ronnie.

      Why would employees be held accountable for the actions of their bosses?

      Why is a husband responsible for his wife's debts, and visa versa? Why do you punish a soldier who carries out an illegal order?

      If an employee knew that polluting the environment was wrong, and that he would be personally held accountable for cleaning it up, do you think he would? Or do you think that he made sure that his company disposed of its' waste product in a responsible manner? It's called "accountability".

      I mean, a CEO at Tyson Chickens bypasses FDA restrictions and sends under-cooked birds which causes a gazillion salmonella outbreaks and you want the chicken pluckers and the shit scoopers to pick up the tab!

      CEO's don't send out under-cooked birds. They sit in offices and give orders. Responsible employee's, who are held accountable, won't follow illegal orders, or orders that would place their own personal fortunes at risk. They would tell the CEO that the birds will ship when they are done cooking. Accountable employees don't "bypass FDA regulations". The cover their own *sses. And so do their "bosses".

      And if the birds go out and people get sick, FDA and DOJ assess the damages incurred, and collect the funds/distribute to the victims. And if the company goes bankrupt, they sue the emloyees and stockholders, and use those funds to pay the victims. Either way, the victims get paid. Taxpayers aren't on the hook for a dime.

      De-shielding is simple. The days of the "limited liability corporation are over, except for certain vital defense needs. In those cases, the "Government/People" carry the risks of default when the corporation fails. And believe me, there won't be many corporations left after I'm done taxing them.

      It's really time for you to fall back on your "uh, well, well what would you do?" stratagem.

      You let them all off the hook and make the taxpayer pay. Talk about a pawn of the plutocracy...

      Delete
    71. The point that you are probably missing, is that pretty soon no one will be working for "Tyson's Chicken" anymore. Instead, there will be thousands of independent chicken processors, each supplying a regional independent food market. Each former Tyrson's worker, managing his own personal chicken processing firm. Each man no longer a wage-earning proletariat worker. Each one a petit bourgeoisie small business owner.

      Delete
    72. In case you're confused Thersites/-FJ are both me. Note the "static" graphic.

      Delete
    73. Ronnie, you are very much afraid of addressing my argument because your pro-government power stance requires consent not granted and a need to counter a baseball bat at your head when you come ask for consent or try to act without it anyway - with perhaps a baseball bat of your own - which in effect means you've adopting my argument wholesale. The difference being I don't dress up my argument with all that "people are created equal" bullshit that your way proves wrong by virtue of futilely trying to make it come true with all manner of legal wrangling and firearms. Equal people don't require governing, you douchebag.

      Delete
    74. Beamish, I am not at all afraid to address your argument. Seriously!

      I simply don't know what the hell it is.

      Delete
    75. Sure you do. My argument scares the hell out of you because you presume, incorrectly, that government is required, that people can't live without it. And, you're probably pathetic enough to scream for government intervention to save you even as you're beaten to death with a baseball bat, to reaffirm your quaint and ludicrous notion that you're "equal" and "deserve better" while glossing over the fact that the government you'd cry out for is merely a bigger baseball bat in the fight.

      Individual liberty is incompatible with the existence of any amount of government. The very essence of your argument is the complete and total opposite of mine - you want people controlled, I want people to control themselves.

      Your government may "punish" me for smashing your skull with a baseball bat, by supplying me with food, clothing, shelter, and time to write a novel or get a law degree, but it isn't going to do jack shit about your brains all over the wall. Government is just fail all over for you, huh?

      Delete
    76. ...and, even after your government has paid for my housing, food, shelter, and mockery of your grieving society, with other people's money no less, your brains are still dripping off a wall. Oh wait, the tooth fairy is going to bring you "justice."

      Delete
    77. Oh, wait, I can't control myself without government intervention, so I'm not guilty - I'm insanely innocent ;)

      Delete
    78. ...Maybe YOU need government because YOU ARE INSANE.

      Delete
    79. Now, if I wanted to attack FJ's argument - that government doesn't need to be eliminated but rather made more accurate in deciding who it pummels to death and who is defended from the pummeling - my argument posits that you can pummel to death whoever you want to until someone pummels you to death. May the most effective mob inciter win :)

      Delete
    80. Bull Connor is a civil rights hero for allowing his thuggery against blacks to be filmed ;)

      Delete
    81. Seriously, I think my politics became radicalized (reactionized?) by the events in Ferguson (half hour drive from here) - no, not the over-sensationalized burning and looting of a few blocks of businesses not protected by private owners armed with AR-15s, but by the blue wall of silence that went up from the point Darren Wilson hit Mike Brown with his police SUV to the point STL County prosecutor dismissed eyewitnesses and shell casings on the pavement behind Brown's corpse and bullet holes in buildings behind Darren Wilson all showing Brown was fired upon from behind and finished off while prone (and the absurdity of a 300 lbs. man running through and towards .40 cal handgun fire fast enough to pass the shell casings on the ground... with his pants sagging around his thighs) and other inconsistencies blatantly overlooked (Wilson heard about a robbery call not dispatched until after Brown was dead, on a radio he had on the wrong channel; Wilson reported to his supervisor that Brown had his hands up; Wilson DROVE HIS "EVIDENCE-FILLED" SUV away from the scene with Brown's blood all over his hands; etc.) to ignore everything damning Wilson to an easy murder conviction to go with corroborative "eyewitnesses" - a mental patient that wasn't there and her racist diary, and a guy that was too far away to hear anything but quoted conversations. The only silver lining is the statute of limitations for murder,run much longer than Bob McCollough will be in office.

      I was already suspicious of police misconduct - government's baseball bat - but this blatant example was too in-my-face for me. And then, around a month ago, police started calling for more armored vehicles and military equipment, citing that "54 police officers have died in the line of duty this year" due to "post-Ferguson anti-police violence" when closer examination shows 67% of those police deaths were not violence, but rather heart attacks or driving errors leading to fatal single vehicle crashes.

      Government is ramping up the ugly, and playing everyone for fools. It's time that stopped.

      Delete
    82. ...and who are the police unions going to back in the next election? Here's a hint: it sure as funk won't be a Republican

      Delete
    83. Neo-Nazi wannabe Rhodesian white supremacist kills 9 in a church because he's sick of his favorite racists being all talk - Amazon still sells Nazi everything and Hitler-inspiring progressive leftist literature (Madison Grant's psuedo-science) while taking a baseball bat to the Dukes of Hazzard.

      Yeah.

      Delete
    84. Beamish,
      Darren Wilson hit Mike Brown with his police SUV...Brown was fired upon from behind and finished off while prone (and the absurdity of a 300 lbs. man running through and towards .40 cal handgun fire fast enough to pass the shell casings on the ground... with his pants sagging around his thighs) and other inconsistencies blatantly overlooked (Wilson heard about a robbery call not dispatched until after Brown was dead, on a radio he had on the wrong channel; Wilson reported to his supervisor that Brown had his hands up; Wilson DROVE HIS "EVIDENCE-FILLED" SUV away from the scene with Brown's blood all over his hands...

      What???

      I fully understand the part about Brown's running toward the police officer with those sagging pants.

      But the rest of what you typed in? How did you hear all those things?

      Delete
    85. Beamish,
      Amazon still sells Nazi everything and Hitler-inspiring progressive leftist literature

      Of course!

      It's an Orwellian world. And a Bradbury-ian world, too.

      Delete
    86. In Plato's "Magnesia" the citizens are the police. Lictors are for plutocrats!

      Delete
    87. ...and who knows, we just might need the citizens to once again assume their proper role.

      Delete
    88. This Bud's for you, Ronnie. Have a Happy 4th!

      Delete
    89. AOW,

      Imagine the Twilight Zone where a local event is reported inaccurately nationally, embellishments growing daily for a month, before you even know the murdering cop's name and badge number.

      If you or I went out and killed someone in cold blood in the middle of the street, in front of witnesses, our names would be on the news that night and media camped out on our lawn by morning - because we don't have badges.

      The details I mentioned above are buried in the "grand jury" report where the prosecutors acted as Darren Wilson's defense team rather than seeking a true bill on murder charges. Where in addition to bombarding the grand jury with irrelevant data, known to be false evidence, and outright lying about the Constitutionality of Wilson's actions, the prosecutor in the case comes out smiling and laughing about losing an indictment.

      Mike Brown was extrajudicially executed in the street by a rogue cop, who's backup didn't arrive until after a local TV station called to confirm a story of shots being fired by a viewer that called them. Follow Darren Wilson's testimony in the grand jury - all of it - and you'll spot the inconsistencies the prosecutors sis gymnastics to avoid pouncing on.

      Delete
    90. "did" not "sis" above (tiny keyboard)

      Delete
    91. Beamish, with an admission that I didn't read all of each of your screeds in their entirety and then just started briefly scanning (after a while, it became redundantly obvious), once again, you are not presenting a coherent argument on any level. All you are doing is ranting about all the things you hate about government and all the woes of the world which you chose to blame government for.

      You maintain "people can live without government", "Equal people don't require governing", and so forth, even admitting your "politics became radicalized (reactionized)".

      I understand your libertarian and radical views that you continue to state. My argument from the beginning has been on 1)how much government specifically do we cut (actual agencies; police? EPA? OSHA? SNAP? building codes? bridge inspections? airline safety? military? etc) and to what degree (cut them entirely, partially, selectively) and 2) how do we deal with the ramifications I've argued above.

      You keep pounding sand rather than give a constructive rebuttal on the aftermath of your proposals, indeed consistent with today's so-called conservative plutocratic and social Darwinism push.

      You obviously hold a prejudiced and bigoted view of me (not to be mistaken as racism) as you impute opinions of me that I do not have or, you could not know I have as I've never indicated in my writings or in public.

      But I think this binary bigotry you posses of anyone not marching to your mindset is consistent with your binary conclusion that I (and "I" being me and anyone that disagrees or questions you) want "people controlled" whereas you "want people to control themselves" and that there's absolute parameters that prohibits any government intervention (or, one has to assume you believe this as again, you refuse to recognize the ramifications of removing government from many applications). My argument has been that this isn't some yes or no, true or false, on or off fix, that you simply cannot pull the legs out from the table holding the house of cards and assume everything will just correct itself in an expeditious manner. Your argument that I'm supposedly afraid of is no more than covering your ears and singing "la la la" while occasionally regurgitating your anti-government rants.

      Now, about this baseball bat thing. I'm starting to think that somewhere in your diatribes that there's probably some coherent analogy. I suppose I could reread all this in hopes of capturing the meaning but good lord, you have been so all over the place that I just don't think the chase is worth it.

      Delete
    92. The thing that sickens me most about the Ferguson incident and the aftermath was probably another thing that discouraged me from jumping back in to the blogging fray (and I'm not back...yet) is how immediately it became taboo to question police integrity on the right - we hate the government but just love their henchmen - and ignore the growing trend of turning the law enforcement community into our militarized prison guards. Our questions are "conspiracy theories" for the crank file...

      Delete
    93. Ronnie,

      Get back to me when you tell me who you're going to vote for to run the IRS and who's running against them and the policy proposals of both. Then do the same for the rest of the alphabet soup agencies.

      Delete
    94. Beamish,
      I am not automatically on the side of the officers when incidents such as what happened in Ferguson and Baltimore arise. However, when CNN and MSNBC jump in with their lynch-the-cop attitude, I typically take the side against the CNN/MSNBC agenda.

      I guess we are all left with trying to answer the question, "What is truth?"

      Delete
    95. Beamish,
      Are you going to resurrect your blog?

      Delete
    96. My argument from the beginning has been on 1)how much government specifically do we cut (actual agencies; police? EPA? OSHA? SNAP? building codes? bridge inspections? airline safety? military? etc) and to what degree (cut them entirely, partially, selectively) and 2) how do we deal with the ramifications I've argued above.

      1. all of it
      2. with beer and barbecue and fireworks and action-thriller movies, maybe some celebratory football spiking "here lies Leviathan" grave markers.

      Delete
    97. @ AOW - my old URL has been claimed by a squatter, but I doubt I have the time and I know I lack the family / home approval for full on blogging... And the things I'd blog about now would have the government drones delivering mysterious gas line explosions to my house...

      Delete
    98. I guess we are all left with trying to answer the question, "What is truth?"

      The truth is the little boy became wolf poop.

      Delete
    99. Ronnie,

      I drive 80 miles for the best chimichanga in the St. Louis metro area, passing a few dozen inferior Mexican restaurants along the way and back, to get the quality and taste I want. I've done this for decades, and watched those other Mexican restaurants fold and disappear. The free market has an "invisible fist" that smashes the undesirable options. Without government intervention. You would have me eat inferior government chimichangas closer to my home rather than help the superior chimichanga makers build a franchise closer to me.

      Delete
    100. Ronnie,

      Now, about this baseball bat thing. I'm starting to think that somewhere in your diatribes that there's probably some coherent analogy. I suppose I could reread all this in hopes of capturing the meaning but good lord, you have been so all over the place that I just don't think the chase is worth it.

      You can't and won't read, and it's my fault. Okaaaaaay...

      Delete
    101. Ok Beamish, unless you were being sarcastic (I'm trying to give you the benefit of a doubt here) you want to get rid of all government. That is what you said.

      You can't do that. It's impossible. Oh, granted, you may be able to temporary rid all government but then, well, with no military we would soon be consumed by yet another one of those "governments".

      But maybe you want to back track and realize a military is actually needed to keep other "governments" out, we at least need that much but we certainly don't need no stinkin IRS. Well, you can't do that either, assuming you're ok with having a military. As pointed out in recent media arguments, you can change the name of the IRS, you can limit their functions, you can take considerable power away from them, and you can even reduce the manpower tremendously but you CANNOT eliminate them. Someone ultimately has to collect the money.

      And once again, I understand your argument (not the logic of it, uh, well, perhaps "lack of logic" is a better term but I do understand your message). You are doing EXACTLY what I've been saying all along-sticking with nonsensical argument while having no coherent rebuttal of the consequences. Looking way way back up there to my very first comment to FJ, I ended it with "This is an area where I could just never take the Tea Party's rather unhinged hodgepodge of incoherence serious". Profoundly ludicrous agenda that would utterly destroy the country with absolutely no explanation or plan of the consequences.

      You are really not making an argument at all. You're simply making an utterly ridiculous statement and then running from that argument, only to return with the same abject radicalism.

      Delete
    102. Ronnie,

      Talk about binary thinking. Yes, there will always be "government." I advocate that government being ME governing MYSELF. I don't need an army. I may die in the course of a government seeking to usurp and govern me, but that government's goal to govern me would never be realized.

      And so, you're left arguing that your government has a bigger better baseball bat, as I said you would.

      Delete
    103. BTW, I don't take the Tea Party seriously either. They're basically Bernie Sanders if he didn't have a government job.

      Delete
    104. ...unless of course you believe government to be some irresistable form of energy not answerable to the laws of thermodynamics. It's okay, many goo-goos like yourself do.

      But you're wrong, and entropy is a bitch.

      Delete
    105. Uh, Beamish, my bad obviously. You governing you, that's the government you speak of? Or, dear lord, whatever in the hell are you talking about. AOW was right, I've stumbled upon an abject bumbling loony bird that's coocoo for coco puffs.

      Delete
    106. I'm a bacon and eggs man myself, but who am I to regulate what you have for breakfast. You seem like the kind of guy that would soil himself in the woods looking for a toilet. Why do you need to be regulated so much, Ronnie?

      Delete
    107. I mean look how naive you are... You think prime rib comes from a female cow and that some rich dude wouldn't know the difference.

      Don't you have some doorknobs to polish?

      Delete
    108. Life is rough in the big city... It's why I commute to work from a "census designated place" that barely has a US Post Office, and occasionally we might see a county cop or state highway patrol car driving though on the way to somewhere else. If I need eggs, I go grab them out of the coop. The solar shingles on the 4 bedroom house and 4 car garage outbuilding just about power everything and later this year the power company is going to be paying me to ease their burden. The well water is clean enough to drink, and the softeners aren't that expensive to run. On a particularly cold night, the fireplace makes the house feel like summertime, and there's plenty of trees to keep that fire going I can scout out for spring logging while I'm shopping in nature's grocery store for deer, squirrel, turkey, and boar meat to go with the peas, corn, carrots, okra, beans, spinach, cucumbers, and squash growing out back.

      I'm sorry, you were saying something about why I need government?

      Delete
    109. Next summer, if my promotion isn't further delayed by government opposition to my employer's corporation's wholesale purchase of a competitor's corporation, I'd like to take the missus to some really barbaric, uncivilized, dangerous place, like Europe. And to think ten years ago, I was a nobody trying to swim upstream the unAmerican way. The government way. Once you taste real freedom, you can't get enough of it. :)

      Delete
    110. Ronnie, here's a nice cut to government that we can play with. Marijuana cultivation and distribution in America generates $18 Billion untaxed a year, all going into the black market, all funding growers, dealers, and smugglers, not to mention funding organized crime, terrorism, and gang activity.

      Governments at the federal, state, and local level spend $8 billion a year on marijuana arrests, prosecutions, and imprisoning convicted marijuana offenders.

      If all levels of the government made marijuana as legal as potatoes tomorrow,
      that would save the American taxpayers $8 Billion dollars a year. Then, federal average income tax rate of 20% on the earnings of formerly black market marijuana industry workers (farmers, distributors, etc.) adds $3.6 Billion to federal revenues a year.

      And then, excise taxing marijuana product sales the same way alcohol and tobacco are taxed, there's another $7 Billion a year in the government's coffers.

      With a stroke of a pen, President Beamish has just created several hundred thousand legal jobs, planted the seeds for a booming ancillary industrial sector and expanding entrepreneurial tax base (ever vaped apple flavored hash oil, man? Check out the new hydraulic bongablaster... Oh cool, a Hello Kitty hemp oil extractor! Etc...), and cinched up an extra $18.6 Billion a year the bean counters can start spending on... the national debt?

      Just by stopping Uncle Sam from persecuting stoners alone I've pointed you towards paying off what we owe China in a decade, or multiplying veterans benefits by 20, or putting every newborn this year through Harvard, or buying every citizen a $5000 savings bond every year...

      Something as simple as legalizing marijuana back in 2000 would have paid for seven Iraq Wars by now. F*ck government.

      Delete
    111. Beamish, you are a batshit crazy howl-at-the-moon lunitic, obviously incapable , or to be charitable, unwilling of any reasonable dialog.

      Delete
    112. Ronnie must be looking through a one-way mirror.

      Delete
    113. I'm crazy? When I went to your schools? I went to your churches? I went to your institutional learning facilities?!

      Delete
    114. FJ,

      Zizek tackled They Live?!!!

      I used that movie in one of my favorite now-derezzed blog posts long ago lol.

      (I swear I don't wear a gas mask to keep my hands off my nose...)

      Delete
    115. Ronnie,

      You've spent a lot of time wagging your finger at your obvious befters with all that "It's too much to read / I can't read / there's too much to read / I don't understand / you're crazy" noise.

      Instead of having to be painstakingly vivisected by the professionals here, wouldn't it be more efficient and honest if you just up front admitted that you're an easily dismembered blithering idiot mindless pro-government zombie?

      Delete
    116. Ronnie,

      Here's a solution for you. Take a few days off from your government Ritalin and see if your mind can concoct a mildly amusing irredentist claim upon the moral high ground.

      Delete
  6. Since the plutocrats and social Darwinists ARE in charge, and many conservatives are challenging them, it boggles one's mind to conceive of what the hell you're talking about. Standing up for the Bill of Rights, for Personal Freedom, Economic Freedom and a Debt Free Future with integrity and compassion works for me! And millions more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bring back the robber barons.

      Social Darwinism, Calvinism and the Full Ayn Rand for everyone !

      Personal freedom unless you're gay and want to enter into a civil contract !

      Back to the late 19th century.

      Although I truly don't understand why you find it attractive.

      Reagan taught us deficits don't matter.
      -- Dick Cheney
      Well actually excessive deficit spending is just a jive stunt the hedgies came up with to lower taxes and dismantle social programs.
      Starve the working class and profit by it. How can you lose. But make sure you militarize the police first.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Your sarcastic hyperbole is ludicrous. Too far over the top. Sheesh.

      Delete
    3. Baysider, I really don't know precisely who these so-called conservatives are that you speak of or how they are fighting against the reverse Robin Hood agenda I argue.

      When you throw in: "Standing up for the Bill of Rights, for Personal Freedom, Economic Freedom and a Debt Free Future with integrity and compassion works for me!", in further muddles the conversation. Yes, your rhetoric does splash a nice glossy coat on today's so-called conservative's agenda of kowtowing to their corporate bosses but it rings hollow as a coherent rebuttal to my argument.

      Delete
    4. Ronald,
      You have stated your views; Baysider has stated hers. She is under no obligation to rebut your argument according to your parameters.

      Look, I run a nearly wide-open forum. But I do request a modicum of politeness; otherwise, the conversation descends into ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps I'm missing something AOW but I think Baysider was challenging my argument that a large faction of today's Republicans legislate only at the whims of their corporate donors.

      Her response was mainly that "many conservatives are challenging" that, "it boggles one's mind to conceive of what the hell I'm talking about", and then a lyrics on freedom, freedom, freedom/standing up for rights/debt free-works for me".

      I respect views but fail to understand who these conservatives against plutocracy that she speaks of or how the rest of her response applies.

      I understand there's no obligation to anyone to rebut but it would seem fair that if one does, it stand to scrutiny, just as mine should.

      Delete
    6. Ronald,
      Be aware that some who comment here don't have a great deal of time to construct their comments and their arguments. My own time varies accord to my work schedule and caregiving responsibilities (I am my husband's sole caregiver).

      If Baysider has time and is so inclined, sheocome back to respond to you,

      Delete
    7. I think we're going astray here.

      I understand people's time and to reiterate, I'm not requesting anyone to respond.

      The fact is, Baysider did. I simply questioned the context of that response. Nothing more and nothing less.

      As far as what people chose to say contingent on their window of opportunity, I'm reminded of a childhood sitcom of a talking horse that went: "People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
      But Mister Ed will never speak unless he has something to say".

      Folks can learn a great deal from a horse I guess.

      Delete
    8. Whatever.

      This blog post will remain here at the top of this site for a few days -- unless I choose to cover breaking news. Baysider will likely stop back by the thread at some point.

      Good night.

      Delete
    9. You know Beamish, in your rambling word salad on nonsensical utterance, there's an undeniable reality that your rubber/glue game omits.

      You advocacy of ending this undefined yet nonexclusive scope of government is simply nonworkable on any level. The very fact that you run from your argument while doubling down on it at the same time further exposes how detatched from reality it is.

      It's additionally telling that the regular loyalist here silently nod to you dispite the fact that you make no sense, consistent with the snake oil salesmanship of today's so-called conservatives and validates my entire argument throughout this forum.

      Delete
    10. aRonniemous,

      You're really taking your trouncing way too hard. Just because I would unplug your life support to charge my phone doesn't mean everybody hates you.

      While I don't claim any metaphysical intuitive powers to see "silent nodding" or imaginary validations of your entire argument - to wit that you can't read my argument, can't understand my argument, can't challenge my argument, can't insult or mischaracterize my argument, or try to run to escape my argument - because now that you're shot yourself full of holes you can't even get your hot air balloon to support you.

      There is no conspiracy of so-called conservatives keeping you down, chump. You're just a blithering idiot.

      Delete
    11. Try pureeing your dead horse. ;)

      Delete
  7. AOW,

    Please don't be dismayed. I thought this was an excellent thread!

    Farmer knows how to bring it, as always.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, SF. They will have to duke it out for a while. Home front matters to tend to at the moment.

      And, yes, Farmer knows "how to bring it." Beamish does, too.

      Delete
    2. I've become a bit more Thermidorian in my old age ;)

      Delete
    3. Beamish,
      If you are old, them I am ANCIENT!

      Delete
    4. 45 years young next month... Mindful that my generation is the last one that will tolerate the status quo...

      Delete
    5. ...and he's bringing a whiff of grapeshot.

      Delete
    6. "A Whiff of Grapeshot" would make a fine name for a blog...

      Delete
  8. Look, if you work hard and deserve your lovely home, the gov't doesn't think you deserve it. Others do. Not moving directly into your home? Right, just bringing poverty to the neighborhood, no biggie, right? Sure, it's a biggie; folks didn't work that hard to live in poverty.
    Apparently, disagreeing with this ridiculous idea, what I call "Adult school busing" (because that was such a failure when kids were legislated into "all getting along", which they did not), means you're a racist and hate the poor.
    Go figure. No room for the fact that the rich give to charity and buy those items middle class folks have a job for the producing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      "Adult school busing" is an excellent term for it!

      What is afoot is redistribution of wealth. And grinding down the middle class -- not only financially but also with regard to morale and initiative.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, FINALLY someone who likes that, too (If I do say so myself!)!!

      It's also about killing the rich; taking their joy because they're OPPRESSED THE POOR FOR YEARS ....typical leftwingers, as they live in their mansions themselves...
      Forgetting that THE RICH EMPLOY, the RICH buy luxurious items whose production was done by folks getting paid to make them...
      RICH was something America's looked up to..."success! good for yOU!"
      With an Obama minded leftwinger in office, it's all about retribution to the rich...discouraging people to DO WELL on their own.
      it's literally sickening. And they don't even KNOW what they're doing...what they're going to have when there IS nothing lovely and luxurious and wonderful in America...just one big stinkin' pit of constant near poverty.

      Delete
    3. Z,
      Also, the term "rich" is relative.

      Delete
  9. Replies
    1. Millet's "Angelus" is an image that appears frequently in Dali's work.

      Delete
    2. ps - In the Dali version, you might just make out a "fish" on a rock between the pair. ;)

      Delete
    3. Thersites,
      I see the fish-- now that you've called my attention to it.

      Delete
    4. I think that it was the Duck who first called mine to it. :)

      Delete
    5. Brian,
      Love your avatar!

      It does figure that Duck would find that kind of detail. He's good at doing that kind of thing. Because he's a photographer?

      Delete
    6. I suspect that he's a photographer because he's a well read and creative "culture creature." ;)

      Delete
  10. News Flash! Unrelated to the topic at hand, but worthy of mention:

    After all of the political yodeling about "black churches burning" we find that....

    God burned down the black church in South Carolina!

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sc-investigators-find-that-weather-caused-church-fire/ar-AAcssQZ

    *America will be a happier place if Americans just ignore the media.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tammy,
      Henceforth, we should refer to the media as "the Enemedia."

      Delete
  11. FT,
    The workforce labor participation rate should be alarming people. I mean, alarming them in the extreme! Are people reacting that way -- or merely shrugging?

    ReplyDelete
  12. They've been trying this for decades. It doesn't work. If these people wanted decent neighborhoods they'd have them.
    It will be a cancer. Peoples home values will randomly be flushed down the toilet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man I hope it's predominately libtard neighborhoods.

      Delete
    2. Kid,
      Peoples home values will randomly be flushed down the toilet.

      In many cases -- such as in mine, a person who refused to work for any government entity so as not to be on the government dole down the line -- people are relying on home values to fund retirement.

      We are living in such Orwellian times!

      Delete
    3. Kid,
      Man I hope it's predominately libtard neighborhoods.

      So do I!

      The reality, of course, is that the political elite and many of their fellow travelers will wall themselves off in enclaves far away from any resulting mayhem. For a while, that is. Mayhem spreads virulently once it gains momentum.

      Delete
  13. @ Beamish,
    I miss The Crank Files. Remember the Koran and Renoir postings? The good ol' days of blogging.

    Don't start blogging if it will interfere with your family. But remember that blogging doesn't have to be full on (if I understand what you mean by that term).

    For me, blogging is a respite from caregiving and teaching Composition. Know what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  14. AOW,

    Blogging provided an "escape" from a life that I no longer need (the escape, that is)... But sunny life aside, I think I could channel some ragey rage if I needed to. Plinkin' at Ronnie above was fun, after all.

    My hat is off to everyone that has slogged through blogging the last 3 years. I just don't foresee me having time to do even a weekly roundup. Pretty soon, I have got to roll up my sleeves and get the farm ready for winter between a 40 hour office job and keepin my better half from taking half ;)

    *If* I return to blogging, I may borrow a page from FJ's book and return under a different name, different mask, and different set of subject matter. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beamish,
      Literally a farm?

      Outside work gets away from a person, inside work can wait. Something I read in Cold Sassy Tree years ago when I first read that little gem, which I'm rereading now.

      A lot of bloggers closed up shop after the 2012 National Election. Occasionally, yet another blog which I frequent stops offering postings or disappears entirely. Morale has been ground down, and the grinding continues apace.

      Delete
  15. @ AOW,

    Not so much a "farm" as a piece of property with a 4 br house and 4 car garage I've turned into a "prepper" mansion ;) I have just enough land to maintain a garden that makes going to the grocery store for staple veggies virtually unnecessary, and the solar shingles have just about paid for themselves because I don't use a lot of electricity anyway. I'd say I'm about 75% "off the grid" and getting better.

    I had a major turnaround in my life Around 3 years ago that has made me quite a driven individual individualist... I have damned good job I'm growing with, and I've replaced a parasitic organism with the most incredible woman a guy could be blessed with. No more feeling cut off at the knees for me. I am putting my various survival skills into thriving. And it's working. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gardening is a lot of work. When I was growing up, we had a full acre for the vegetable garden. Every summer we canned enoug vegetables to get us through the winter and beyond. We had chickens for a while, too, but gave them up after two miserable winters back to back. Shoveling out to that chicken coop every day for months was too much work!

      Delete
    2. In total, the whole lot is 6 acres, but 4 of that is trees and a fishing pond ;)

      I'm mostly increasing the size of the backyard / pushing back the treeline a bit to put in a smokehouse and compost pile. Work work work!

      Delete
    3. Beamish,
      Definitely a lot of work!

      The place where I grew up consisted of 6 acres: one acre of house and yard and mechanical garage with a pit (no lift), one acre of garden, 4 acres of alfalfa. Regular mowing (Dad) and baling (contracted out to someone who had horses). We had a compost pile, too, for a while.

      Once Dad was pushing age 70, the extensive outside work was too much for him. Furthermore, drifting pollen from Lady Bird Johnson's Beautify America Program caused weird woody bushes to sprout up all over the place, thus ruining the alfalfa fields. The mower we attached to the tractor couldn't handle those bushes, so Dad let the fields grow up. Hiring someone with a bush hog was too expensive. In a few years, a developer came along. Not a good price, but because of age and real-estate taxes, my parents had to get out of there. They hated leaving -- Dad had built the house with his own two hands back in the 1940s.

      Having acreage is a job for a younger person than I! I can barely keep up here with .50 acres of yard to tend -- and I contract out the mowing. There's a lot more to do out there besides mowing. **sigh** That runaway wisteria vine is a plague! **sigh again**

      Delete
  16. If not for the government's preference for packs of wild coyotes to run free around here (hey we're back on topic hehehe) I would consider bringing in some goats. My parents had goats on their 17 acres until the coyotes got them. Dad barely had to cut the grass, ever.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective