Comments

  1. says

    One thing in the modern era is how easy it is to tell how corrupt people are. Because they are no longer punished. Whereas before, guilt or innocence factored too much in ultimate consequences, so even the innocent may be framed and the guilty left unpunished. Whereas now a days, the guilty aren’t punished because they’re immune, not because someone innocent got framed.

     However, even with the internet and the ability for parochial villagers to know who is or isn’t corrupt with some research and data analysis, people are still just as ignorant now as they were 2 centuries ago. No matter how much water and fish were around, people never learned how to find water nor did they learn how to fish.

     When people like Sarah Palin are proved to be vulnerable to ethics and corruption deals, yet nothing comes up after huge resources went into discovery, is the best evidence yet that the corrupt are immune and it doesn’t even matter for them to frame people for it any more.

     

  2. says

    In the past, it was kind of hard. Rumors flown around, but people could easily be accused falsely as they could be accused correctly without evidence. But so long as there was no evidence, there would be no ability to punish the corrupt. So the corrupt tried to hide things. Now a days, I notice they aren’t even trying.

  3. kali says

    Has anyone else noticed an uptick in articles suggesting that all our problems come from insufficient spending? I’ve seen two AP articles in the last 24 hours, one arguing that the loss of government jobs is hindering our recovery, and another, saying that spending cuts will threaten our recovery. I didn’t read them, just noticed the headlines. It will be interesting to see if this becomes a mantra on the left.

  4. jj says

    Being Mitt.  Been thinking about what it must be like to be Mitt Romney.  You wake up every morning, thinking that you have a good bead on things, you really know what’s going on – and you get continually rejected.
     
    Michelle Bachmann, nice enough, but really a nothing from nowhere, enters the race, and immediately the majority of people in polls prefer her to you.  She self-immolates, clearly exposing her (current – maybe she’ll grow) unreadiness for the job, so you’re safe – through no fault of your own.
     
    Then along comes Rick Perry, who jumps in, and is instantaneously doing better than you are.  More people prefer him.  Then he self-immolates, and you’re safe again – through no fault of your own.
     
    Along comes Herman Cain, taken seriously by no one – but all of a sudden he’s leading you, too.  Being a successful black man, he even looks dangerous to the liberals, so they aim whatever guns they can find – or make up – at him, and that, combined with his own fundamental un-preparedness, does him down.  You were unable to do him down – circumstances did.  You’re ahead of him – through no fault of your own.
     
    And now Newt, who’s been plugging along quietly but steadily, emerges to lead the pack.  He is, according to the vacuous republican establishment, unelectable, so he’ll probably be done down, too; but again: it won’t be you that out-debated or defeated him by the power of your ideas, it’ll be his “baggage.”  But you’ll be the beneficiary – again.
     
    But – the stark fact remains that every time someone relatively conservative shows up, you immediately fall to second place (at best), and no matter what you do, you cannot get yourself above about 25% in the polls.  At some point it must dawn on you that you are the first, preferred choice of very few people.  It becomes apparent that nobody is going to be pulling the lever for you with any measure of enthusiasm.  In spite of all you’ve done, or think you’ve done, the rank and file simply does not like, trust, or believe in you.  If the nomination should eventually come to you, that’ll be what happens: it’ll eventually come to you.  You’ll get it, if you get it, not because of anything you did or said, but because you might have a chance to be the last body remaining upright.  You didn’t earn it, or win it, you’ll get it like Newton got his apple: it’ll fall on your head.
     
    That has to be a tough way to live.  Particularly for a guy with a fairly high opinion of himself, and his accomplishments.  And it’s obvious he doesn’t know what to do about it – he keeps defending his dopey Massachusetts health-care nonsense instead of just saying, “boy – was I stupid!” and getting away from it as best able.
     
    I don’t think he has a clue.  I don’t think he has any understanding of what’s been happening to him, or why it’s been happening – but it must be goddamed disheartening!

  5. Mike Devx says

    jj writes: I don’t think he has a clue.  I don’t think he has any understanding of what’s been happening to him, or why it’s been happening – but it must be goddamed disheartening! JJ, perhaps Romney, like the Bushes, simply believes that Big Government Is Good.  That the only problem with Big Government is that sometimes the Democrats have control, and that is Bad.  Romney just doesn’t get that, at a fundamental level, there are a lot of us who believe that Big Government is by its very nature bad and leads to massive corruption. Romney is a technocrat.  I think he just wants to harness Big Government, and he thinks it is good, he thinks he can control it for the better good.  He has absolutely no intention of reducing the size, scope, and power of the national government.  It’s not in his nature. On the positive side, he’s not *against* it actively.  If Congress is controlled by the Tea Party folk, and we get something like their very nice Tea Party Budget sent to Mitt as president, he’d likely proceed to sign it. The Tea Party Budget document is an easy read, but it’s long.  Read as much as you want – but I urge you to download it and at least START to read a few pages!  You’ll be glad you did. http://blogs.freedomworks.org/files/TeaPartyBudget.pdf The balanced budget amendment (BBA) is a good read too.  It actually exists, and has been co-sponsored by 40 of the 48 GOP Senators.  It’s referred to as SJ Res 10 in the Senate: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.J.RES.10: The BBA’s guiding principles are explained by its co-author, SenatorMike Lee:

    In order to truly rein in spending, Lee argues, a balanced budget amendment must do four things:
    - It must apply to all spending, including spending on Social Security and other entitlements, Lee writes.
    - It must cap spending at the average historical level of federal revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product, in order to make sure spending does not outpace revenue
    - It must require a supermajority vote in both houses of Congress to raise taxes.
    - It must require a supermajority vote in Congress to raise the debt limit.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Good god, what happened?  I write my comment, I Preview it, it looks good, but when I post after the Preview, all my paragraph breaks are gone.

    I’m going to be more emphatic this time:  This comment form is such a piece of software crap bullshit. It is the worst I’ve ever seen.  I’m damned tired of this bullshit.  As a software guy, its errors are REALLY difficult to accept.
    I’ll repost with better formatting below.

     

  7. Mike Devx says

    Apologies. Here it is again, if it helps (and no preview this time!):

    jj writes: I don’t think he has a clue.  I don’t think he has any understanding of what’s been happening to him, or why it’s been happening – but it must be goddamed disheartening!

    JJ, perhaps Romney, like the Bushes, simply believes that Big Government Is Good.  That the only problem with Big Government is that sometimes the Democrats have control, and that is Bad.  

    Romney just doesn’t get that, at a fundamental level, there are a lot of us who believe that Big Government is by its very nature bad and leads to massive corruption.

    Romney is a technocrat.  I think he just wants to harness Big Government, and he thinks it is good, he thinks he can control it for the better good.  He has absolutely no intention of reducing the size, scope, and power of the national government.  It’s not in his nature.

    On the positive side, he’s not *against* it actively.  If Congress is controlled by the Tea Party folk, and we get something like their very nice Tea Party Budget sent to Mitt as president, he’d likely proceed to sign it.

    The Tea Party Budget document is an easy read, but it’s long.  Read as much as you want – but I urge you to download it and at least START to read a few pages!  You’ll be glad you did. 

    http://blogs.freedomworks.org/files/TeaPartyBudget.pdf 

    The balanced budget amendment (BBA) is a good read too.  It actually exists, and has been co-sponsored by 40 of the 48 GOP Senators.  It’s referred to as SJ Res 10 in the Senate: 

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.J.RES.10:

    The BBA’s guiding principles are explained by its co-author, SenatorMike Lee:
    In order to truly rein in spending, Lee argues, a balanced budget amendment must do four things:

    - It must apply to all spending, including spending on Social Security and other entitlements, Lee writes.
    - It must cap spending at the average historical level of federal revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product, in order to make sure spending does not outpace revenue
    - It must require a supermajority vote in both houses of Congress to raise taxes.
    - It must require a supermajority vote in Congress to raise the debt limit. 

  8. Charles Martel says

    Mike D, I agree about the crappo formatting in the comments section here. I triple space my paragraphs just to get some separation. I’d say it works about 50 percent of the time.

  9. SADIE says

     
    Can I join the “kvetch” corner. Am I the only one that types in 8 font while my eyes crave 12. It’s not preview – it’s pee-view if you dare. Once you take a look at the larger font in preview, it stinks up the format. 
     
     

  10. Danny Lemieux says

    Ymarsaker, I think that you called it absolutely right. Corruption is becoming a way of life in the U.S. body politic and it is spilling over into the business sector. Year after year, the U.S.’s ranking on the Transparency International’s corruption index has been in a steady slide. After the Obama administration, it will likely plunge over the cliff.

    We are going to have to relearn everything that we do in order to accommodate the cost of corruption. Sad.

  11. Michael Adams says

    I got a late birthday present this evening, another copy of Systems.  I am mailing it to DQ, who is to pass it on the the rest of the Marin crowd. It is all about corruption, and corruption’s whys and wherefores. Ms Jacobs had it pegged eighteen years ago. It’s a damned sight harder to cure the illness before you understand the pathophysiology thereof.

  12. SADIE says

    Michael Adams
     
    Same church different pew (also written in 1994) and with a diagnosis as well – don’t ya just love the name.
     
    Jonathan Rauch defines “demosclerosis” as “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt.” In this sharp and carefully-argued analysis, he describes it as a side-effect of the postwar style of politics that emphasizes interest-group activism and redistributive programs. The dramatic rise of interest-groups coupled with the public’s increasing demands on government, he says, have produced in “an escalating game of beggar-thy-neighbor that damages the economy and chokes the government.” Today demosclerosis represents the most serious threat to the long-term vitality of American government.




    http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/rauch.html
     

  13. Mike Devx says

    kpr37, in your linked article, you wrote:
    Tarek Fatah, is a self described Marxist, and a Canadian Muslim and he puts fourth both a strong,and a chilling rejection of our path (free thinkers, non-conformists,  us, the people, you and me)

    My presumption on reading those words is that Tarek Fatah would be anti-American and jihadist.  I expected your video to describe him as such.

    But your video has nothing to do with Mr. Fatah.  And further reading on him reveals that he appears to be strongly against Shariah law and supports Western civilization values.

    Can you describe further any of your disagreements with Tarek Fatah?  Where do you object to him?

  14. SADIE says

    A brief debate with Tarek Fatah

     
    The slick and self-proclaimed moderate Muslim Tarek Fatah recently attacked the great and courageous ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan, thereby exposing himself as an enemy of those who are truly interested in defending human rights against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. And now in an exchange with my friend Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, an Iraqi who writes under his real name, he demonstrates an inability to answer tough questions, and manifests a racist presumption that anyone with an Arabic name cannot have the opinions Aymenn expresses here.

    Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi: Tarek, I know you describe yourself as a secular liberal, but why do you sympathise with Benazir Bhutto? Would you now like to take the opportunity to condemn her for orchestrating the ethnic cleansing of Hindu Pandits from Kashmir in 1990? Please watch this videoand pay particular attention to 2:15-4:00, where she is really calling for Jihad. Also, along with the Pakistani army and intelligence (which have always pursued an expansionist agenda inherent in Pakistan’s identity as an Islamic state), she helped bring the Taliban to power as Pakistan’s long arm in Afghanistan. Her rhetoric about democracy and liberalism was all a farce.
    Tarek Fatah: That is hogwash that does not deserve a response. If you do not know about Bhutto, do not pretend you do. You are trying to play the bait game that I have no intention of being lured into.Do I need to present my credentials every time a Pakistan hater asks me to? Perhaps I should, but I will not. Is this a membership application to test my credentials for some politburo? I can see when a question is put in good faith and differentiate between rhetorical questions lobbed in bad faith. Sorry mate, nothing I say will convince you one way or the other. Please go ahead and deny my credentials to the society of pavitar souls. And please write under your real name.

    At this point Fatah removed Aymenn as a friend from Facebook and blocked him from posting comments on his fan page.
     

  15. says

    Danny, I kind of get why people think Ymar has been going crazy and extreme with his “Final” solutions to government stuff lately. But I wonder if they ever thought about it like this. Maybe if people had used some “Ymar crazy extreme” solutions 50 or 20 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this rut we call the Obamanation right now. Maybe people could have said “naw, we’re not going to get rid of government whole sale, we can reform it in one year and fix the wrong”. Then they reform it and fix it in one year. But because they didn’t use any “extreme” methods 50 or 20 years now, they’re now in this little problem pit of theirs and they can’t get out in one year. Or 10 years. Or 20 years. It’s getting permanent.

     This is my world. And very quickly, it is becoming the rest of your world as well. It’s not that reform refuses to work. It’s that people refuse to do what’s necessary in ruthlessly crushing the Left to actually make anything work in the US. So long as the Left exists, they will destroy, block, and reverse any so called reforms. That’s what people don’t get. What’s what they didn’t get 50 years ago. And that’s why it has come to this conclusion, if you ask me.

     

  16. Mike Devx says

    This is an open thread… time for some football!  I tuned in to watch the #2 team in the country, Oklahoma State, blow out a huge underdog, Iowa State.  Not much else to do this evening…

    Oklahoma State, the #2 team in the nation at 10-0, just lost in overtime to Iowa State, the 28-point underdog! One of the big classic upsets in the last few decades.

    I hate the BCS system that determines who plays for the national championship.  I’ve wanted a playoff for years.  I think a playoff is inevitable, it’s just a question of when.  Of how many years must pass before the power players, mainly Jim Delaney (sp?) the Big Ten Commisioner, surrender and give in to a playoff system.

    This result throws the BCS system into chaos this year. When we do get a playoff system, finally, they will point back to this year as the key year that made the difference.

    Iowa State beats Oklahoma State in overtime!  No one saw it coming.  College Football Chaos!  Tomorrow morning on the sports shows, they are going to be BUZZING!
     

  17. Mike Devx says

    I was browsing the web, and ended up at a box office site discussing today’s big box office performance for that vampire movie series.  I guess the latest movie opened today.  While reading that, I saw the poster for the movie at the left of the article.  BLEEECH!  Seeing that poster made me realize that watching that movie would be like re-living high school.  All kinds of young angst and silly romantic idiocy and cliques and utter stupidity.  I’d rather eat a gallon of glass splinters.  I think I actually shuddered.  High school!  Why do so many people see these movies that allow them to just relive high school!?!?!

    So from there I bounced to some other movie link concerning some new movie being shot.  I read it, it was an ok article about some people I’ve heard of (eg a Hangover star, a movie I haven’t seen.)  But then I read the comments for that little article. What amazingly juvenile comments!  Snarkly insults!  A bunch of insiders in Hollywood snarking on each other!  It was hilarious, how juvenilely sophomoric these supposed Hollywood adults are!  Check out the comments at this article link!  And reflect on the, ahem, MATURITY to be found in Hollywood.

    http://www.deadline.com/2011/11/open-road-acquires-bradley-cooper-comedy-outrun/
     

  18. SADIE says

    My head has exploded and if yours doesn’t after reading this, it’s only because you’ve already lost yours.
     
    Fort Hood Massacre ‘Workplace Violence’
     
    Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.
    During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence.
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/#ixzz1ftHVlhil

Leave a Reply