Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Post #353: Random Observations

The following series of thoughts and observations were lifted from miscellaneous ramblings I had scribbled in my notebook or posted on various sites out on the internet. DISCLAIMER: Certain thoughts expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of The Rant Corporation....What am I saying? Of course they do.

THE DONALD

A couple of weeks ago the African American columnist Charles Blow wrote the following piece in the New York Times:

"I first met Donald Trump a couple of months ago at a cocktail party. Someone introduced us, and he immediately started in on a speech about how beloved he was among blacks. He said that everywhere he went, blacks were telling him to run for president and that some hip-hop stars had told him that he was the most popular white man among black people."

Wow! That im
mediately reminded me of Lenny Bruce's classic bit, "How To Relax Colored People at Parties":

"That Joe Lewis was a helluva fighter! That's what I love about you people, you've got a natural sense of rhythm! Born right in you I guess, huh? You hungry? Want some fried chicken and watermelon? Listen, I'd like to have you over to the house but I've got a bit of a problem. You see, I've got a sister. And I hear that you guys....Well anyway - Here's to Joe Lewis!"

Gotta love the Donald. You just gotta!

THE RONALD

I've been thinking a lot about Ronald Reagan lately. Less than two weeks from now will mark the sixth anniversary of his passing. Six years! Can it possibly be? I'm sorry he's no longer here. I wish he could have lived to see the presidency of Barack Obama. I really do. The sight of a black man in the Oval Office would have given the old bugger a severe case of spastic apoplexy or maybe worse. That would have been so much fun to watch.

POT SHOTS

About two weeks ago, some poor woman was arrested a mile down the road from where I now sit for possession of a harmless weed. Can you believe that?

DISCLAIMER: I don't smoke pot. Nor do I advocate its usage - unless for medicinal purposes of course. I haven't touched the stuff since my nineteenth birthday - August 16, 1977 - which, coincidentally, was the day that Elvis Presley died. I always tell people that Elvis and I quit drugs at the very same moment
, the only difference being that I did so voluntarily.

Having said that, let me say this:

Nearly three-quarters-of-a-century after it was made illegal; a half-a-century after it was proven to be practically harmless - why is it still a crime to possess and smoke marijuana?

Here is a list of ten famous people - heavy smokers all - who died too soon of lung cancer or other diseases related to their addictions to nicotine:

Humphrey Bogart
Edward R. Murrow
Nat King Cole
George Harrison
John Huston
Noel Coward
Betty Grable
Walt Disney
Gary Cooper

Peter Jennings

Here is another list. Ten famous people who died from alcoholism:

Tennessee Williams
Jack Kerouac
Truman Capote
Lorenz Hart
Veronica Lake
Bix Beiderbecke
Montgomery Clift
Dylan Thomas
John Barrymore
Errol Flynn

Now I'm going to ask you to name for me one celebrity who has died from too much grass.

Go on, I'm waiting.....

You couldn't do it, could you? Don't feel bad, neither could I. Not only have I never heard of any famous person dying in that matter, I am not aware of it happening in all recorded human history! Why in 2011 are we still having this same, idiotic conversation?

Is it a "gateway drug" as they never tire of reminding us? Yeah, it probably is. But so is Miller High
Life - the Champagne of Bottled Beer. Let's get a grip here.

THE "G" MAN FROM HELL

It's rare to find someone in American history as mind-numbingly evil as J. Edgar Hoover. We now know that he had a secret life that he spent fifty years hiding. His personal frustrations more-than-likely added to his peculiar psychological makeup. Why could he not have just come out of the closet? He would have been a much happier man had he done so, I think. It is no longer a mere rumor that he and his highest ranking agent Clyde Tolson were homosexual lovers for decades. And yet in spite of that, Hoover held blackmail information on other gay men - and women. The guy was beyond despicable.

Think of the "criminals" that the FBI spent decades investigating:

Eleanor Roosevelt, Charlie Chaplin, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Thomas Merton, Frank Sinatra, all three Kennedy brothers, Eartha Kitt, Dick Gregory, Joan Baez....

And through it all, the silly old bastard would deny the existence of organized crime. He has been placed where he rightfully belongs - in history's trash can. Good riddance.

JACK

"Don't let it be forgot that once there was a spot...."

I know, it's syrupy and sentimental, and I know "Camelot" never really existed, but I can't help it when it comes to President Kennedy. It's an Irish thing; you wouldn't understand. Some of his speeches read like freakin' poetry fifty years later:

"The energy, the faith, the devotion - which we bring to this endeavor - will light our country and all who serve it; and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

Although it is almost a cliche these days to say that he was hardly the Liberal that his admirers remember him as being, it should never be forgotten that he was the last chief executive to take on the Federal Reserve. For all the revisionism, let's not overlook the fact that - warts and all - Jack Kennedy was a good guy.

By the way, one of the perks of being Irish Catholic is that we can refer to him as "Jack".

"....for one brief, shining moment...."

I'm sorry, I'll stop.

CENSORING MARK TWAIN

"Are there any niggers here tonight?"

That was the question Lenny Bruce posed to a shocked audience one night in 1960. His point - right or wrong (and I believe he was right) - was that "the suppression of the word gives it the power of violence and viciousness." I was thinking about Lenny not long ago when I was watching 60 Minutes and saw that some nameless group of do-gooding nitwits had taken it upon themselves to remove the "N" word from a new edition of Huckleberry Finn and replaced it with the word "slave".

We cannot start pretending that THAT WORD never existed. It is not only futile, it's kind of silly, don'cha think? Are we expected to burn all copies of Dick Gregory's excellent 1964 autobiography which was called (by the way) "Nigger"? How silly would we look if we changed the title of that book (which is still in print) to "Negro"? Gregory knew dam
ned well the literary sledgehammer effect of the "N" word. It's a horrible word, no doubt about it. But it's a damned powerful word, too. There are certain places in American literature where not only does it work, it's essential - in Huckleberry Finn for instance. Old Huck was an illiterate, ignorant kid. That's how illiterate, ignorant kids talked in those days. In fact, that's how some of them talk still. To pretend he had the vocabulary of David Copperfield doesn't make any sense.

And, please, let's not forget that Mark Twain is not some re-visioned, nasty old southern bigot. Next to Frederick Douglas, he was the most enlightened human being of his age on the subject of race - and I would include Abraham Lincoln in that assessment.

It's a word; a terrible word, yes, but it's only a word. My kindergarten teacher, the late Annabelle Peavey, instilled it in me quite early:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones...."

Well, you know the rest.

CORPORATE GR
EED

Profits are up to record highs. So what - you may well ask - are the corporations doing? They're decimating the work force. Consider this just for a minute:

When a corporation behaves this irresponsibly, it wrecks havoc on society. This is not merely my opinion - in fact it's kind of a no-brainer. Call it Economics 101

A corporation - every corporation - that behaves this irresponsibly should be seized by the people. If you're honest with yourself, that's not such a revolutionary idea. Think about it for a minute or two. What would we do to a lone kook who was causing so much disruption within his community by means of arson, bombings etc. that his actions put hundreds - thousands - of his fellow citizens out of work? Again, this is another no-brainer - we'd throw him in prison.

Why should a c
orporation be allowed to take advantage of our free enterprise system for a period of years and then be allowed to dump the very workers that allowed it to accumulate its treasure? Especially when the treasure of which I speak comes out of the pockets of regular consumers who are adversely effected when they dump - like trash - their work force. Its very greed causes much disruption and heartache within the the local (and national) community.

And notice that I refer to this proverbial corporation as "it", not "he" or "she". I'm not sick enough to refer to a corporation as "a person".

When a corporation does so much damage to society, how come it cannot be legally seized by
the state to keep it from committing further economic carnage?

Why is this allowed to occur?

HELLO? ANYBODY HOME???

Tom Degan
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

AFTERTHOUGHT:

The photo at the
top of this piece was taken on May 20. I'm standing next to the van that got me around for over five years. When the mechanic who usually services it told me last week that it would cost me $3500 to pass inspection, I told him to forget about it. The thing was a lemon from the day I purchased it - one problem after another - and I wasn't about to sink another dime into it.

Still, it was the most "famous" vehicle I ever owned. During those eight dark years when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were destroying this country, it was kinda hard to ignore the huge "IMPEACH BUSH" signs placed prominently on either side of my van - a 2000 Oldsmobile Silhouette. My Republican brother-in-law, Dr. Jack Dermigny, used to jokingly refer to it as "the treason-mobile". I always got a kick out of that!

Thanks to godson and nephew Chris Pennings for the photograph

110 Comments:

At 6:50 AM, Anonymous Donna Donaldson said...

"The Ronald" might well think Obama is a tree, were he alive today. That old fart was riddled with dementia long before he left office, in my opinion. Why else would his staff let him snooze when they learned that US fighters had shot down some Libyan planes? Every time I saw that creepy old man, I thought of a line from Hamlet, Act I, Scene V: "One may smile, and smile, and be a villain...."

 
At 7:05 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom, you mentioned and asked...

"When a corporation does so much damage to society, how come it cannot be legally seized by the state to keep it from committing further economic carnage?

Why is this allowed to occur?
"

It wasn't always this way. At one time in our early history, corporations were chartered to have only a limited life span and specific task. Once completed, it was dissolved. Once upon a time, the state (We the People) controlled the corporation; now the corporation, the corporate-state, controls the people.

The most important court case in our nation, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, changed the course of history. It is mistakenly believed to have given corporations the legal fiction of personhood, but it really didn't -- only the court scribe's head-notes did that. Unfortuantely, subsequent court decisions have used this lie to empower corporations (and the elite who own and run them) to derail our democratic processes.

So, in a word, we've been "railroaded".

 
At 7:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What should a corporation do to not damage society?

 
At 8:01 AM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

"What should a corporation do to not damage society?"

Start paying their fair share in taxes.

Stop shipping jobs oversea.

Stop perverting the electoral process.

Stop trying to destroy the unions

There are lots of things they can start or stop doing.

peace....

 
At 8:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
An election-season essay
By David Mamet Tuesday, Mar 11 2008

John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

My favorite example of a change of mind was Norman Mailer at The Village Voice.

Norman took on the role of drama critic, weighing in on the New York premiere of Waiting for Godot.

Twentieth century's greatest play. Without bothering to go, Mailer called it a piece of garbage.

When he did get around to seeing it, he realized his mistake. He was no longer a Voice columnist, however, so he bought a page in the paper and wrote a retraction, praising the play as the masterpiece it is.

Every playwright's dream.

I once won one of Mary Ann Madden's "Competitions" in New York magazine. The task was to name or create a "10" of anything, and mine was the World's Perfect Theatrical Review. It went like this: "I never understood the theater until last night. Please forgive everything I've ever written. When you read this I'll be dead." That, of course, is the only review anybody in the theater ever wants to get.

My prize, in a stunning example of irony, was a year's subscription to New York, which rag (apart from Mary Ann's "Competition") I considered an open running sore on the body of world literacy—this due to the presence in its pages of John Simon, whose stunning amalgam of superciliousness and savagery, over the years, was appreciated by that readership searching for an endorsement of proactive mediocrity.

But I digress.

I wrote a play about politics (November, Barrymore Theater, Broadway, some seats still available). And as part of the "writing process," as I believe it's called, I started thinking about politics. This comment is not actually as jejune as it might seem. Porgy and Bess is a buncha good songs but has nothing to do with race relations, which is the flag of convenience under which it sailed.

But my play, it turned out, was actually about politics, which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.

The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it's at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

 
At 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, random observation. You are a fucking POS.

You write the same old crap all the time. How about you come up with some fresh material.

 
At 9:48 AM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

Now, now, Anonymous! Don't beat around the bush, Tell me exactly how you feel!

Cheers!

Tom

 
At 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom do you know any NY public school teachers who spent time in the Temporary Reassignment Center or "The Rubber Room?"

Have you ever spent time in the Rubber Room?

These people spend on average about 3 years there, and are employed by Amerika's biggest monopoly, the US public school system.
The tax payers, of course, pay the bill.

What is your view of the USPS that loses billions per year and shuns innovation to save jobs? Do you think the USPS should change policy and force all employees to ride donkeys to deliver mail instead of vehicles? This would create many jobs for the unemployed and reduce carbon emissions.

 
At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'"
Now he's a brain dead conservative?

 
At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

"These people spend on average about 3 years there, and are employed by Amerika's biggest monopoly, the US public school system. The tax payers, of course, pay the bill."
I know, right? And accused criminals are held in jail until their trial. The tax payers, of course, pay the bill. So obviously the solution, rather than improving/expanding the court system, is to simply to put them to work breaking rocks the whole time, eh? I mean, accusation is the same as guilt, right?

 
At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

"What is your view of the USPS that loses billions per year and shuns innovation to save jobs?"
Yeah! Take that, moderately competent service! Why can't it be more like FedEx, which moves less traffic somewhat faster for considerably more money?

 
At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's called making a profit, and is what Fed ex and evil none governmental corporations have to do in order to provide the service, and put people to work, providing employees their income and health insurance. Now USPS can operate at a profit or break even level if they either increase price,
reduce labor costs, or reduce service.
Or FedEx can provide a cheaper service if they reduce their one controllable cost, payroll and benefits. FedEx doesn't control the cost of fuel, or taxes it pays or cost of equipment or limitations put on it by the Federal government. But it like the USPS can control it's cost of labor
Which one do you prefer?

 
At 4:50 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous, being a foreigner I don't use the USPS at all (our mailboxes, for one, are in metric). I do, however, use the State postal service here in whatevercountryIamin. I also use FedEx (or equivalent). They both serve their niche.

 
At 6:02 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Agreed! FedEx can get a letter delivered overnight, for...what, $12.95? (I lost track -- don't use them anymore.)

Can they do it for 44 cents?

No.

But the USPS can...

 
At 6:31 PM, Anonymous boltok said...

TD
Did the police ever catch the person who put that graffiti on your car?

 
At 6:53 PM, Blogger Gypsy Bob said...

The TRUTH is dead, there's only spin. The end is where it all begins. The Dollar Bill is what we anoint, so what the hell is the fucking point. We are on the move but we don't travel; too busy to decipher the psycho babble...repeat as needed.

 
At 7:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JG so how much would the USPS have to charge to provide the same service if they had to make a profit and didn't have the US taxpayer bail them out?
If the USPS is such a great deal for 44 cents, then how can FedEx stay in business charging what they do for what you claim is the same service?
Another example of stupid voters? Just asking.

 
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous "David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'"
Now he's a brain dead conservative?
At least he's not a brain dead liberal Canadian, eh?

 
At 7:25 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous, you asked...

"If the USPS is such a great deal for 44 cents, then how can FedEx stay in business charging what they do for what you claim is the same service?"

Well, as Modusoperandi vividly and already pointed out (but, as you probably didn't bother to read), FedEx serves a niche market -- nothing more. They couldn't possibly delver the volume of mail, as the USPS, and do it any better.

Please don't forget, as I'm sure you're not aware, that the USPS "is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution". So, it's constitutional, meaning it's legal.

So, if you're so gung-ho about FedEx, send your bills through them for about two months, then tell me how great they are.

 
At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can they do it for 44 cents?

No.

But the USPS can..."


USPS can with losses in the billions per year paid by the taxpayer.

Amtrak can provide service with losses in the billions per year paid by the taxpayer.

Americas biggest monopoly, the US public school system, provides services and is a bottomless sinkhole of taxpayer money. "Grades would go up if more money went into education."


Tom and JG, you should thank the corporations that are pulling the wagon for the incompetently run entities above. If all companies operated like the above, our country would collapse.

Where is John Galt?

 
At 7:46 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Americas biggest monopoly..."
The DoD?

"Where is John Galt?"
He's working at Goldman Sachs. He's been there since, oh, '99 or so. He ate your 401k and got you to blame Barnie Frank and the teacher's union. And he got a bailout (because, hey, he may be an Objectivist, but he's not stupid) and from that, a bonus. And his golden parachute is bigger than ever. And he got to keep the Bush "temporary" tax cuts. And he's in no danger of ever serving jail time (at worst he might get a fine that's less than what he made).
Ain't America grand?

 
At 7:51 PM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

Good one, JG!

The PO is in the constitution because in 1789 there was a need for it. There was no need for Social Security and Medicare et.al. back in the 18th century - hence their absence.

The document was developed to be amended to address the needs of generations yet to be born in 1789. The right wing has never been able to figure this out. That's why they are so hung up with the Old Testament. They can't understand that the New Testament was a MAJOR amendment to the old.

 
At 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bad News for Liberals, and especially the loons at Media Matters obsessed with attacking Fox.

A new Suffolk University poll revealed that Fox News is the most trusted political news source among those surveyed.


FOX News - 28%
CNN - 18%
Undecided - 12%

And to add insult to injury, the rest, including the radical-left’s favorite - MSNBC, ranked even lower than “undecided”:

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JG,

You are really as dense as drift wood.

How much should the USPS charge to break even and not continue to lose money and threaten to reduce service in order to increase rates?

So is USPS red ink problem due to them having too much mail or not charging enough for their services or having too high of expenses for the product they offer?

My understanding is the number of 44 cent letters handled by the USPS has dropped dramatically over the last 5 years due to the use of email. So the problem is not too much mail to handle, the problem is too much overhead to handle what they have. And as far a paying my bills, I like a growing percent of the population, do on it line.

The USPS has become like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, simply bloated over staffed government institutions that can not operate in the free market place without being propped up by federal tax dollars.

 
At 8:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JG, Tom

Couple of things. Where in the Constitution does it say the USPS must operate at a loss?

Since the USPS is in the Constitution can we assume things like czars which are not are illegal?

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

"Couple of things. Where in the Constitution does it say the USPS must operate at a loss?"

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that it must "operate at a loss", you numbskull. It merely says that it must exist.

What the heck is the matter with you?

 
At 9:17 PM, Blogger Leslie Parsley said...

Delightful article, Tom. A POS couldn't possibly be my hero. : )

 
At 9:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what's wrong with me, but I am sure as a super hero liberal you will soon tell me.

 
At 10:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another reason why we must have better voter ID. Regardless of the party.

Media Trackers conducted an open records request investigation of election day registrations in 15 Milwaukee and Dane County wards for the April 5 election. With just a small sampling of election-day registrations, Media Trackers uncovered significant potential abuses of the same-day registration system and numerous cases of incomplete voter registrations.

Potential Voter Registration Abuses

* In City of Madison Ward 48, one person corroborated (vouched) for three consecutive voters. When asked to write in the corroborator’s address, this person listed two different address, that in each case matches the residence of the individual trying to vote.
* In City of Madison Ward 46, two instances were recorded where an individual required corroboration for his proof of residence, and then was permitted to corroborate for someone else using the residence they could not prove.
* Maura Tracy, formerly employed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in a number of capacities, corroborated for seven individuals who were unable to provide proof of residence in City of Madison Ward 44.
* One individual used an “acceptance letter to the University of Minnesota” as his proof of residence. This would not fall under any of the acceptable proofs of residence as spelled out by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB).
* 126 voters in just 15 wards required corroboration because they couldn’t provide of residency, despite the 12 different acceptable proofs of residence accepted by the Wisconsin GAB.

Incomplete Voter Registrations

* Fourteen voter registrations had the box checked that noted that the individual was “previously registered to vote in Wisconsin, but my name and/or address has changed.” But these fourteen didn’t provide a previous address in which to cancel the voting rights at that address.
* Nine voter registrations noted that the individual is attempting to register and vote in the wrong ward. It is unclear whether they voted in the proper ward or not.
* Twelve ballots are missing an official’s signature and name.

On the eve of Governor Walker’s signing of the photo ID bill, it’s important to remember that Wisconsin elections are far from perfect. While not every instance listed above constitutes an illegal action, the above evidence suggests that not requiring photo ID while permitting election-day registration, provided vast opportunity for exploitation and error.

As photo ID is signed into law, it’s important to continue to seek to improve the integrity and accuracy of Wisconsin elections and voter registration.

Photos of the questionable voter registrations can be found at Media Trackers.

 
At 12:10 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "How much should the USPS charge to break even and not continue to lose money and threaten to reduce service in order to increase rates?"
$8.5B loss in 2010 (which excludes things like early retirement), 213B things delivered/year...
Assuming no cost savings found elsewhere...four more cents each.

"Another reason why we must have better voter ID. Regardless of the party."
Cool. Now try doing it in a way that isn't a poll tax.

 
At 12:22 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Bad News for Liberals..."
Posted and answered elsewhere.
You're not even trying.

 
At 1:18 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

So, to summarize what I've learned...

USPS runs a deficit every year and that's hunky-dory.

Corporations that follow the laws and regulations, make high profits, and hire/fire who they want should be seized by the government. The same government that is trying to raise the 10 trillion debt ceiling to pay the bills, no less.

Sounds reasonable.

Tell me more...

 
At 3:50 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley, you misleadingly said...

"USPS runs a deficit every year and that's hunky-dory.

Corporations that follow the laws and regulations, make high profits, and hire/fire who they want should be seized by the government.
"

Who ever mentioned they "should be seized by the government"?

Oh, and as far as those corporations that "follow the laws and regulations" and make "high profits"; are you referring to Wall Street or Big Oil?

 
At 7:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Mo, how does that great new conservative led country of Canada run voter ID?

 
At 8:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our Prez, keeping it real in Ireland.

"“The first time I had Guinness,” Obama said, “is when I came to the Shannon airport. We were flying into Afghanistan and so stopped in Shannon. It was the middle of the night. And I tried one of these and I realized it tastes so much better here than it does in the States.”

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

JG - not sure which blog you're reading but I'm not misleading anyone. You might go back and re-read it.

"When a corporation does so much damage to society, how come it cannot be legally seized by the state to keep it from committing further economic carnage?"

- Tom Degan

No mention of illegal activity - simply activity that TD feels doesn't meet his standard of corporate behavior.

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley, you said...

"...not sure which blog you're reading but I'm not misleading anyone. You might go back and re-read it."

You're very misleading when you say these companies are operating legally and in the best interests of society and the American people. True, and unfortunately, usually they're technically within the boundaries of the law (depending upon the category of malfeasance we're discussing), but that's only because these multinational behemoths indirectly write the laws -- through their undue influence and bribery of our elected representatives and senators.

Harley, to not acknowledge this, or worse, to deny this, is even more unfortunate.

 
At 12:36 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Part II

As far as the word Tom chose to use, "seizure", it's not too brazen or misplaced if it's taken in context of how corporations used to be chartered at the inception of our nation and well into the 1800s. As I already mentioned earlier in this tread, "[a]t one time in our early history, corporations were chartered to have only a limited life span and specific task. Once completed, it [the corporation] was dissolved." If the charter expired prior to the completion of the task under which the charter was applied, application would have to be submitted for a continuation of the charter from the state under which it was originally issued.

Again, let me ask the same question which still hasn't been answered yet: As far as those corporations that "follow the laws and regulations" and make "high profits"; are you referring to Wall Street or Big Oil?

 
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous John Galt said...

"When a corporation does so much damage to society, how come it cannot be legally seized by the state to keep it from committing further economic carnage?"

Only a marxist thinks like this!

 
At 1:20 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

" Only a Marxist thinks like this. " Only greedy capitalist pigs think corporations ruining society for the majority to benefit the wealthy minority is okay. I believe all wealth and resources are the property of all of us collectively. It all should be a communal time share system where all " property " is " leased " from us all to the individual(s) who use it. Shake your hand, share the land :-)

 
At 2:36 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Well, not sure I understand the import of the question, but I’ll humor you. Regarding corporations in general (whether “big oil” or “Wall St.”), some of them follow laws and regulations and some of them don’t (much like people). The ones that don’t should have to pay the consequences. If they don’t, that is the government’s fault. The rule of law is, of course, necessary for an effective free market system. Whether the laws and regulations are over-stepping, not rigid enough, etc. is a different discussion. If you’re insinuating that all “big oil” and “Wall St.” firms regularly break the law willfully, I don’t agree. But, much like an individual, I can hate what they do and how they manage their business and choose not to do business with them (e.g. pornographic magazines), but if they are following the laws of the land, so be it. But, if they are following laws of the land, they have the right to be in business – even if they have values that differ from yours.

As for my interpretation of Tom’s meaning, I don’t think I took anything out of context nor did I miss any nuanced meaning. I think he meant what he said. He may correct me if I’m wrong.

As for the evolution of corporations, your statement is beside the point and I see no significance in pointing it out. There was also a time when there was no income tax. That changed. Doesn’t make it right, nor wrong. Ad antiquitum fallacy.

 
At 4:18 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley, thanks for humoring me. If not for your blindness and incapability to see the system for the corrupt malignancy that it is, I wouldn't be able to crack a smile all day. ;-) Your responses show an appreciation for digging deeper than just what lies on the surface, despite being misaligned and distant from the truth. But I applaud your sincerity; something I can't express for your contemptuous fellow-believers who decry everything "liberal" and "progressive" on this blog.

My main objective in bringing up the "Wall Street" and "Big Oil" question was to elicit a response not unlike what you said. When you remark that one "can hate what they do and how they manage their business and choose not to do business with them (e.g. pornographic magazines), but if they are following the laws of the land, so be it.", you misrepresent what the "free market" system really means in this country. Just by the example you chose, you cavalierly give the impression that we're a nation dominated by small enterprises, none having essentially more, or less, market influence over another. It's as if you operate from a worldview where monolithic multinational forces don't create, sway, turn, and dominate market forces of supply and demand based predominately upon management decisions -- not price. It's as if every corporate entity, whether it provides energy, financial services, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, or health services, is on a par with the corner newsstand selling newspapers and dirty magazines. If you don't like them, just buy it somewhere else, you say, but you never acknowledge that "somewhere else" is doing the same thing -- price gouging, polluting, charging excessive usury, etc. You never acknowledge that these multinational corporate entities, and banking syndicates, essentially own our legislative process and dictate the terms of our executive leaders; you fail to express any distain for a judicial system bought and sold by "special interests".

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

To Harley -- Part II

Your scripted reply is picture-perfect conservative pro-business rhetoric, endorsing of a system that puts greed high upon a pedestal, and human values and human needs secondary to the whims and desires of a system that operates outside of a purely laissez-faire system, by manipulating, and essentially owning, all our governing bodies. Your simplistic worldview continually fends off the reality of an economic system enabled by a political system that's totally corrupt. Why you can't see this, amazes me. That's why you make me smile, Harley.

By the way, your comment, ad antiquitum fallacy, doesn't apply in this instance. There was a reason for this little lesson in corporate history. If for no other reason, history is a great teacher as to why certain problems exist and persist today. If we know what it was like, maybe we can work to make it that way again. This is the way democracy will prevail -- the only way.

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger C.S.Stone said...

I think I'm in love with you... wanna get married? lol

C.S. Stone
http://theysynergisticpen.com

 
At 6:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much business regulation is driven by fears that free markets lead to monopolies that will gouge consumers. Yet it is very difficult to find actual historical examples of big successful free-market companies that have behaved that way.

The usual test of the seriousness of those who voice the fear of monopolies is to raise the USPS example — an actual monopoly that has wasted tens of billions of dollars over the decades. Does the afraid-of-monopoly person favor the immediate ending of the USPS?

Surprisingly often, the afraid-of-monopoly people such as the Marxists Tom Degan, Jefferson's Guardian, and ModusCluelessOperandi are willing to give the USPS a pass. That response signals to me that they are not really anti-monopoly as much as anti-market. Their fear of possible market monopolies is greater than their fear of actual government monopolies. They worry very much that Intel or Microsoft or the National Football League will start gouging consumers, so they support vigilant antitrust monitoring and prosecution of those companies. But they feel little concern about the USPS and various monopoly public utilities and are content to let them be.

 
At 7:08 PM, Anonymous Karl Marx said...

Jefferson's Guardian

You post just like Obama reading from his teleprompter, lots of bullshit!

Lets make it simple. If all companies were state run, like the USPS (WHICH LOSES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY EVERY YEAR), this country would collapse.

Does this need to get any simpler for your THICK skull?

 
At 8:23 PM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

If UPS and FedEx were suddenly tasked with taking up the sheer volume of mail handled each day by the USPS, you would see drastically less of it. Chances are you won't be able to send any more of those 44-cent parcels -- that's what email is for. First-class mail will probably cost the same as the smallest USPS Priority Mail flat-rate package ($5) or even more. The upside is junk mail taking a dive, as both companies will charge bulk mailers out the ass and implement other policies aimed at discouraging junk mail flow.

The Dutch recently completed the American Corporate wet-dream of turning mail delivery into an entirely private venture. The end results are best summed up in this article: lrb.co.uk/v33/n09/james-meek/in-the-sorting-office

I can't say I want my mail piled up in some long-suffering mail carrier's apartment for weeks, even months on end. I don't see how the Dutch put up with it.

The USPS is one of the few entities that are obligated by the Constitution to do what they do. Which is not "run deficits", which is what some of the bright minds here are saying, but to fulfill an essential need for U.S. citizens in all corners.

"Americas biggest monopoly, the US public school system, provides services and is a bottomless sinkhole of taxpayer money. "Grades would go up if more money went into education."

You know, you conservative guys really have this hard-on about completely dismantling the public school system, in favor of privately-owned charter schools and parochial institutions. Exactly what do you guys get out of this? That's actually an honest-to-goodness question, guys.

 
At 8:25 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

The USPS is the ONLY government department mandated by the US Constitution AND self funded. Simple enough for you, sparky?

 
At 8:26 PM, Blogger Mack Lyons said...

"Lets make it simple. If all companies were state run, like the USPS (WHICH LOSES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY EVERY YEAR), this country would collapse.

Does this need to get any simpler for your THICK skull?"


Imagine if the Department of Defense was a private company. How long do you think it could continue pulling down $800 billion+ in operating costs with little to no returns before the shareholders start making heads roll?

"So, to summarize what I've learned...

USPS runs a deficit every year and that's hunky-dory.

Corporations that follow the laws and regulations, make high profits, and hire/fire who they want should be seized by the government. The same government that is trying to raise the 10 trillion debt ceiling to pay the bills, no less.

Sounds reasonable.

Tell me more..."


Oh, I don't know....you pulled the conclusions you wanted to pull out of the comments in an attempt to disparage Tom while validating your own viewpoints at the same time?

In other words, you're being a deliberate fuckwit.

Tom, you must be doing something right. Because now you have all sorts of assholes out and about on the blog, looking to shit the place up.

 
At 10:18 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Karl Marx, you stupidly remarked...

"Lets make it simple. If all companies were state run, like the USPS (WHICH LOSES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY EVERY YEAR), this country would collapse."

Oh, like the S&L scandal from the early 1980s, Enron in the late 1990s, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers in 2008...or every other major investment house that cried wolf and got the U.S. taxpayer to bailout their collective asses because they were deemed too big to fail?

You mean those well-run and upstanding companies that were (and are) the pride of the American capitalistic system?

Anonymous, you're such a dweeb. Get back under your rock before you really embarrass yourself. How did you ever get through school? (Or did you?)

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger Gwendolyn H. Barry said...

Glad to have 'caught' this post. Good stuff. Enjoyed much. An education.

 
At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sparky here, glad to see this quote from De Bill
"The USPS is the ONLY government department mandated by the US Constitution AND self funded. Simple enough for you, sparky?"
That means we can end funding to the Dept of Education, the EPA, The Labor Dept, etc,because they are not mandated by the Constitution to be funded? And Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, they could be included as well, right?

 
At 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Boston Herald) — U.S. Rep. Barney Frank admitted he helped his ex-lover land a lucrative post with Fannie Mae in the early 1990s while the Newton Democrat was on a committee that regulated the lending giant — but he called questions of a potential ethical conflict “nonsense.”

“If it is (a conflict of interest), then much of Washington is involved (in conflicts),” Frank told the Herald last night. “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”

Frank said he helped his former longtime companion, Herb Moses, land a job at Fannie Mae in 1991 after Moses graduated with a master’s degree in business administration from Dartmouth College. Frank said he was approached by a Fannie Mae executive and vouched for Moses, who formerly worked as an economist in the Department of Agriculture.

 
At 5:48 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous, you said...

"That means we can end funding to the Dept of Education, the EPA, The Labor Dept, etc,because they are not mandated by the Constitution to be funded? And Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, they could be included as well, right?"

Yes, and also the Department of Defense, which eats over half our annual budget.

 
At 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, and also the Department of Defense, which eats over half our annual budget."
Jefferson Guardian

Typical lefty hate America wish.
Wonder how Jefferson's Guardian would feel if if he were forced at pain of death to convert to the religion of America's enemy?

 
At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget


"Yes, and also the Department of Defense, which eats over half our annual budget."


Pie chart shows DoD spending at 20% of federal spending for 2010. JG you are not fooling anyone with your bullshit 50% number. Typical marxist distortionist.

ModusCluelessOperandi, you are a resident of our "real little brother" to the North who would be spending a lot more to defend itself if the US was not here. Your healthcare system also gets volume discounts on advanced drugs and medical equipment developed in the US. Do you know what a sponge is? Yet you Canadians with your "wonderful free healthcare" still run across the border for medical help when a serious problem develops! LOL!

Yes, we should have all companies run like the USPS! Then the country will collapse and anarchy will reign. A new world order will arise from the ashes run by supreme all knowing socialists/marxists/communists!

 
At 8:41 PM, Blogger Catharine said...

"Treason-mobile" - that's really funny.

I used to see Ronald Reagan every day for a while in the early and mid-nineties. He had an office on the top floor of the building where I worked (Fox Plaza -- though you remember it best as "Nakatomi Plaza" from the movie DIE HARD). I was still mad at him when I started working there, always thought I'd snub him if I saw him. But seeing him in person, a shriveled, confused, feeble old man, I felt sad for him. Sad... but glad for us that he was out of office.

 
At 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like Ed Schultz will be off the air for some time!

Ed don't let the door hit your big butt on the way out!

 
At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Wonder how Jefferson's Guardian would feel if if he were forced at pain of death to convert to the religion of America's enemy?"
Not Jefferson, but: “Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."
“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” ~ George Washington

 
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Pie chart shows DoD spending at 20% of federal spending for 2010."
It's around $1,200,000,000,000 if you include the things they don't generally include.
This is the defense structure that decided the F22 should be canned for being too expensive, at $150,000,000 each. Its replacement, the JSF, is $122,000,000 (the B variant is $150,000,000).

"ModusCluelessOperandi, you are a resident of our 'real little brother' to the North who would be spending a lot more to defend itself if the US was not here."
I know, right? Like the way we had your systems in our North to defend the both of us from incoming nuclear strikes...that would be shot down on our land.
And thanks for protecting us from Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama and Iraq.

"Your healthcare system also gets volume discounts on advanced drugs and medical equipment developed in the US."
And yet they still make a profit in Canada. Also, if you guys don't get volume discounts for things you buy in volume, why not?

"Do you know what a sponge is?"
Yes. Yes I do.

"Yet you Canadians with your 'wonderful free healthcare' still run across the border for medical help when a serious problem develops! LOL!"
Yes. Some go over for surgeries in hospitals that specialize or have exceptional reputations, if they can afford it. Others go over because non-life threatening procedures aren't a strong suit of Socialized Medicine, and their money less important than their time (Hip surgery, wait list. Brain tumour, not so much. It should be noted that waiting in line for hip surgery is better than never getting it at all. *Cough*).

"Looks like Ed Schultz will be off the air for some time!"
No loss.
And he got suspended for calling Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut"?
Excuse me while I clutch my pearls, remark about how mean The Left is (and how they get away with everything) and listen to Ingraham talk about how gruesome Janet Napolitano looks.

 
At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Oh, and it's not "wonderful free healthcare". We pay for it. Whether it's from your taxes or from your wallet, you see, you still pay for it. About half what you pay per capita, if memory serves.
It must the those damned unelected government bureaucrats saving us all that money...by covering everybody...at a lower cost per person. It's a plan so devious that it makes no sense at all.

 
At 11:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mo,
Who was the father of Canada?
Was his most policy
Hey, as long as we kind of stay friends with the USA, we can count on them to defend us. Let them spend their money on defending us and themselves, that way we can sit up here and be smug in our suggestion on how they should do things."

 
At 12:07 AM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Mo, Who was the father of Canada?"
Jesus Christ. True Story. I'm as shocked as you are!

"Was his most policy "Hey, as long as we kind of stay friends with the USA, we can count on them to defend us. Let them spend their money on defending us and themselves, that way we can sit up here and be smug in our suggestion on how they should do things.""
You do know that a bunch of our shared history wasn't so buddy-buddy, right?
Heck, "54-40 or fight" wasn't that much before the US Civil War, and you're still fighting that.

 
At 1:01 AM, Blogger Dearest Friend said...

So, are you ready? It looks like our "go-to-gal" is going to run in 2012! She's gonna stop at all those purty historical spots like Gettysburg on her bus trip.

I feel so happy for you right now! This is like giving a chef a brand-new state of the art kitchen to work with! Can't wait to watch the fun and fireworks!

First debate: Sarah - "Can I call you, Barry?" Barack - "No, you can call me, Mr. President." What fun the next 15 monts are going to be.

 
At 2:17 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Dearest Friend, I doubt very much that Palin will run.

 
At 3:14 AM, Anonymous Sunny boy Jimenez. said...

Ola, ;;; In reference to the possible republican candidates for the presidency, one hears the name of Gary Johnson. A former govenor of N. Mexico, he advocates an end to the wars, both against oil-rich Islamic countries, and the the war against drugs. Also supportive of "womens` choice". Interesting man, an athlete and mountain climber, with a brain that functions. So, the universe awaits, a breathtaking spectacular, a dazzling show of sounbites and half-truths, as Barry and Gary battle for the champions` belt... Ah well... on with the dance.

 
At 8:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More Progressive double speak:

(The Hill) – The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) appears to drive a foreign car, despite criticizing Republican presidential candidates for supposedly favoring foreign auto manufacturers.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the DNC, ripped into Republican presidential contenders who opposed President Obama’s 2009 bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler.

“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes,” she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.

But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.

Gotta give them credit for have a large set of balls.

 
At 4:29 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous, along with more mind-numbing statements than I care to respond to, you said...

"Wonder how Jefferson's Guardian would feel if if he were forced at pain of death to convert to the religion of America's enemy?"

Do you mean the official state religion of America, the corporatocracy? The one you bow down and pray to every day?

Do you mean that enemy of America?

Not me. I'll never convert.

 
At 5:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice effort to avoid the question Jefferson's Guardian, but you still need to answer the question and to define rich for us.

 
At 6:35 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous, you wrote...

"Nice effort to avoid the question Jefferson's Guardian, but you still need to answer the question and to define rich for us."

What question have I avoided?

I "need" to answer the question? First of all, I don't even understand what you're talking about. Secondly, I don't "need" to answer anything, especially when your comments either: (1) make absolutely no sense, or (2) are disparaging or have no thought or analysis behind them. You totally bore me, and your comments are written with the insight and writing skills of a twelve year old child.

Oh, and thirdly, you said I need to define rich for "us". As I mentioned in an earlier post of Tom's, I never made any statements about the "rich". You might want to go back and see who did.

 
At 11:01 PM, Anonymous Astute Observer said...

Jefferson's Guardian and Tom Degan are the same person!

 
At 11:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JG,

You as dense as drift wood.

Question was: Wonder how Jefferson's Guardian would feel if if he were forced at pain of death to convert to the religion of America's enemy?"

JG's answer was: "Do you mean the official state religion of America, the corporatocracy?

No answer just an typical liberal deflection in the form of a question.

 
At 10:45 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

See that, Tom? According to Astute Observer, you and I are the same person. (Shhh!...Don't tell him!)

 
At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How's "hope and change" working for you this summer?

"There's less money this summer for hotel rooms, surfboards and bathing suits. It's all going into the gas tank.

High prices at the pump are putting a squeeze on the family budget as the traditional summer driving season begins. For every $10 the typical household earns before taxes, almost a full dollar now goes toward gas, a 40 percent bigger bite than normal."

JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer.

Another example of why liberalism has been failing America since 1932.

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

It'll be our little secret, Tom....I mean Jefferson's Guardian.

Cheers!

 
At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Dr. Jack said...

Tom, thanks for the shoutout in The Rant. However, regarding the "treason mobile", I wasn't joking.
All the best,
Jack

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

You weren't joking???

Well what the hey! This will certainly make the Memorial Day family barbeque rather awkward don'cha think, Dr. Jack?

That is....assuming I'm invited....I am invited aren't I, Jack....Jack???

Cheers!

 
At 5:23 PM, Anonymous Dr Jack said...

Of course just kidding, Tom. But since my name surfaced in "the Rant" Dick Cheney won't return my calls and I'm personna non grata at the vast right-wing conspiracy. ...just trying to save face.

Jack

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stephen Harper, now there's a leader a nation can be proud of!

 
At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "How's 'hope and change' working for you this summer?...Another example of why liberalism has been failing America since 1932."
How so?
1. How is it Obama's fault?
2. How is it liberalism's fault?

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, MOe, why isn't it Obama's fault?
He's the one who said if elected would fix all the problems the evil Bush created, remember "yes we can"?
Or did you not get that news clip in Canada?

 
At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey JG, now it's coming to country near you. Enjoy your freedom to be a left wing nut job while you can.

By DAVID McFADDEN
Associated Press

KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) - U.S. diplomats have expressed concern that an Islamic cleric convicted of whipping up racial hatred among Muslim converts in Britain might do the same thing in his homeland of Jamaica, according to a leaked cable from the island's U.S. Embassy.

The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons, along with thousands of American tourists."

And you think corporatocracy is what should be fought.

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Hey, MOe, why isn't it Obama's fault?"
The US is pumping more now than it did in 2003 {citation}, demand over the past few years has barely changed (see citation) and they're already giving Gulf of Mexico permits again (even though they still don't have a reliable way of preventing another Deepwater Horizon).
He's not magical. Perhaps you've confused him with Magneto from the Lord of the Rings.

"He's the one who said if elected would fix all the problems the evil Bush created..."
{citation needed}

"...remember 'yes we can'?"
Sure. "We". What are you doing to drive down the cost of oil?

"Or did you not get that news clip in Canada?"
I heard it over the CBC, eh.

 
At 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He's not magical"

Maybe you should tell his supporters that.

 
At 4:56 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

We do, but then his supporters get on their unicorns and fly back over the rainbow. I know!

 
At 8:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Moe,
Have you read this article?

torontosun.com/2011/05/26/lilley-tax-dollars-for-radicals

Are Canadian tax dollars helping pay for activists from this country to take on Israel?

If not directly, it comes awfully close. Too close.

Radicals from this country are organizing to take part in a flotilla that will try to run the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. A boat from this country is expected to be part of that flotilla in June and one of the main groups involved gets millions of your tax dollars.

This time, instead of just having Canadians on the boat, a group called Alternatives International has a whole boat from Canada.

The Montreal-based Alternatives, which has received $5 million from the federal government over the last few years, is not what most people think of when they think of an aid group. They don’t feed the hungry or clothe the naked. They are political organizers.

What say you oh wise one from the great north?

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

@ Anonyass - GOOD! Someone needs to end that blockade so that the Palestinians don't have to depend on supplies and shit getting into Gaza from fucking secret tunnels, which the Israelis destroy as soon as they locate. It's apartheid and it isn't right! We didn't accept it in South Africa, and we shouldn't accept it there! No wonder they would accept a terrorist org as their gov't. Look how they are treated!

 
At 12:11 AM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

I love your little sources of info Anonyass -- the The Toronto Sun--I have a new conservative tabloid to peruse while I'm yapping it up and getting my nails done at the beauty shop...

 
At 6:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why little Mary, I wonder if you realize how raciest you sound comparing Israel self preservation to South African apartheid? Your best line is its' Israel's fault that the Palestinians accept a terrorist org as their gov't.
Classic wife beater excuse, IE: I wouldn't have beat her if she hadn't made me by not doing what I told her to do. It's the victims fault!
WOW, now there's some pretzel logic.

 
At 7:19 AM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous, it's close, but not a perfect analogy. It it was, it wouldn't be an analogy. It would be an actualogy.

 
At 9:19 AM, Blogger Gypsy Bob said...

Too many TROLLS, too much BULL SHIT ... time to resume lurker status.

 
At 3:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice album collection- have a hard time believing you haven't smoked pot since elvis died

 
At 4:05 PM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

It IS their fault. Who are the victims here really? You are going to tell me that the Israelis are the victims when they have US money, nukes, and US power on their side? Come on! There's some pretzel logic.

By the way, I love being the raciest! Just look at all of my pictures!

Peace and love!

 
At 4:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only those who have the power can be racist? Only those who are supported by the United States can be racist?
Interesting concept.

BTW, to all the veterans of our Nation who read this blog,
Thank you for your service to our country. Thank you for risking your lives to keep us free.
Happy Memorial Day to each and every one of you!!

 
At 6:50 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous, you erroneously made the following assumption...

"Only those who have the power can be racist? Only those who are supported by the United States can be racist?

Interesting concept.
"

No, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and is the aggressor.

Nowhere did I read, on this post, where anyone made the claim that only the powerful, and/or those supported by the U.S., can be racist. Please direct me to where that was said. Or, are you imagining things again...as usual?

 
At 11:33 PM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

Anonymous - You were the one who brought up the entire concept of "raciness."

Now for race, as in the amount of melanin one's skin produces. JG, as usual, is right. No one said what you are accusing.

I said: How can the Israelis be victims when they are one of the finest military powers in the world, are allies with the other finest, have the other's money funding them, and have a shit ton of conservative, white, western ideology on their side? That doesn't sound like the typical victimology to me. In fact, it sounds like very typical bullying, type A personality. Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not too keen on how the Palestinian people act, or should we say react, in the region either. It's a reaction, since it's their land that is being occupied by the Israelis, and they are the ones being oppressed. All of this constant fighting opens up the region to terror orgs, i.e. Hamas, coming in and taking advantage of the instability to use the oppressed people for whatever kind of mission they see fit. Then that leads to other terror orgs, i.e. Al-Qaeda, blowing things up in the US, UK etc., and then blaming it on our preferential treatment of the white people in Israel and our intense fear and hatred of Islam, of which you have so gratuitously displayed for us here, on this very blog, over and over again, Anony-ass.

Gandhi said, "There is no nation that wouldn't prefer its own inefficient government to the efficient government of a foreign power."

Thank-you very much, and good-night.

 
At 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are going to tell me that the Israelis are the victims when they have US money, nukes, and US power on their side? It's apartheid and it isn't right! We didn't accept it in South Africa, and we shouldn't accept it there."

Israel is who is being talked about and are you saying that apartheid is not racist?

 
At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then that leads to other terror orgs, i.e. Al-Qaeda, blowing things up in the US, UK etc., and then blaming it on our preferential treatment of the white people in Israel and our intense fear and hatred of Islam, of which you have so gratuitously displayed for us here, on this very blog, over and over again, Anony-ass."

So it is the victim's fault for being attacked by terrorist. Just like it is the wife's fault when her husband beats her, she brought it on by her behavior!

 
At 5:37 PM, Anonymous Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "So it is the victim's fault for being attacked by terrorist. Just like it is the wife's fault when her husband beats her, she brought it on by her behavior!"
Huh? It's more like the beaten spouse who lashes out. Alternately, imagine instead that the Palestinians live on an archipegalo and the Israelis are the waters that split the islands, every once in a while dividing them further or washing away some of the land, while insisting that they aren't and it's okay because it's for their defense and shut up that's why.

 
At 10:42 PM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

Anonymous - You are too ignorant for words. Yes apartheid is about technically about race, i.e. race separation, but I don't even know what the hell point you are trying to make you are so incoherent and sloppy. I will try to make this easy for you. Israel is basically participating in apartheid by separating members of the Palestinian Nation from the from the Jewish Nation State, which was occupied by Palestinians. So, while it's not exactly about race, it's about nationalism, so it's pretty much the same concept as apartheid. The Israelis are the AGRESSORS. They occupied Palestinian land and pushed them out and are denying them citizenship. If the Jewish Nation want that territory SO bad then it needs to accept the people on it too. Second, Palestine is NOT a Terror Org, they are a NATION! They just happen to be a NATION without a state. MO's analogy about a beaten wife lashing out is right on point. Perfect even.

I'm quoting a commenter from the Economist's website "Just think about the following fact: Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, was born in the former Soviet Union as were generations of his ancestors and yet he is allowed to live in Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was born in what is now Israel as were generations of his ancestors, and yet he is not allowed to live in Israel. Why? Is it fair that Jews can return to Israel after 2,000 years, but not Palestinians after 60 years? How can you justify such blatant injustice? And don’t tell me that some Jews were kicked out of other Arab countries, since I have yet to hear of Jews wanting to return to Arab countries (if they did I definitely would support that) but Palestinians have been living in squalid camps in neighboring countries for 60 years waiting for a basic human right: be able to go home. What’s wrong with that?" political cartoon about current sitch in IS & Binni's Speech in the US

Why, Anonymous, what is your reason for supporting Israel? Who is really the raciest?

 
At 11:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary,
And you call me ignorant? read what you just posted.

"Anonymous - You are too ignorant for words. Yes apartheid is about technically about race, i.e. race separation, but I don't even know what the hell point you are trying to make you are so incoherent and sloppy. I will try to make this easy for you. Israel is basically participating in apartheid by separating members of the Palestinian Nation from the from the Jewish Nation State, which was occupied by Palestinians. So, while it's not exactly about race, it's about nationalism, so it's pretty much the same concept as apartheid."

Mary, you're the one who brought up apartheid, so live with that fact.

"Israel is basically participating in apartheid by separating members of the Palestinian Nation from the from the Jewish Nation State, which was occupied by Palestinians."

Mary have you ever looked into the reason Hitler gave for taking over Austria? Kind went like this, "there are a lot of German speaking people in Austria, so we Germans need to take over Austria so the Germans there can be a part of Germany."

"pretty much the same concept as apartheid." So those are your words that you use to excuse terrorism against Israel? Pretty much very weak, dam weak to be honest.

 
At 1:06 AM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

I never excused terrorism against Israel. Once again, Palestine is a Nation, not a terrorist org, and when Palestinians do react by attacking non-combatant (this is key) Israelis, they ARE guilty of terrorism. The general instability of the area makes it really easy for terror orgs to swoop in a play upon the general desperation of the oppressed people, so you are going to see violence and terror attacks. It is inevitable. Again, you are trying to equate Hamas and others with the nation of Palestine. If anything, the entire Nation state of Israel is guilty of terrorism against the nation of Palestine and the US is guilty of funding it.

You just are not getting it! So I will break it down Kindergarten Picture Book Style. If I had crayons, I would scribble it for you. The Jews pretty much said..."hey we had THE claim to this land 2000 years ago, and some of us have been coming back over the years to settle, but that's not good enough. We got the shaft during the Holocaust, so we should all just move back here and put the kibosh on this Palestinian shit, this IS our land, isn't it?...How's right now sound to you guys?"..{Jewish Nation}:<>......"Hey UK, US, et al, you got our backs right?" And they were like... scratching their heads and thinking...{Western Powers}:<>..."are most of you guys white and will you help us out in the middle east?" And the Jewish Nation was like...."duh! you know it!" So blam, just like that...the Nation State of Israel was formed, "A place for Jews to be Jews among Jews"...Palestinians were evicted to the projects and reduced to project status... a la "District 9" Prawns...

How does sympathizing with the people who were evicted, are denied citizenship, treated like animals and denied basic human rights because of their nationality/religion/ethnicity (the very essence apartheid) on their own FRIGGEN soil (right of jus solis) make me the RACIST???

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, Mary,

Check your history books,from 1947/1948/1949. Israel founded (1948), Arabs living in the new nation asked to stay by Israel. The surrounding Arab nations promote their leaving to what is now the Gaza Strip. Those same Arab nations deny the Palestinians they encouraged to leave Israel, access to their borders, but promise them that there will be no Israel after they beat Israel and proceed to attack them..Israel proceeds to hand the attacking Arab their ass, without the A bomb or money from the USA but with left over weapons from WWII.
Palestinians allow their racist anti-anything that is not Muslim belief's to over ride the common sense offer from Israel, and got stuck in the Gaza Strip. Sounds to me that Israel was all about diversity back in 1948, something I thought liberals were all for.

Read the books written at that time about the accounts of those days. You might be very surprised to find you are following a lot of revisionist history published 50 years after the events.

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, Mary,

Check your history books,from 1947/1948/1949. Israel founded (1948), Arabs living in the new nation asked to stay by Israel. The surrounding Arab nations promote their leaving to what is now the Gaza Strip. Those same Arab nations deny the Palestinians they encouraged to leave Israel, access to their borders, but promise them that there will be no Israel after they beat Israel and proceed to attack them..Israel proceeds to hand the attacking Arab their ass, without the A bomb or money from the USA but with left over weapons from WWII.
Palestinians allow their racist anti-anything that is not Muslim belief's to over ride the common sense offer from Israel, and got stuck in the Gaza Strip. Sounds to me that Israel was all about diversity back in 1948, something I thought liberals were all for.

Read the books written at that time about the accounts of those days. You might be very surprised to find you are following a lot of revisionist history published 50 years after the events.

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger Mary Mayhem said...

?? I can't even make sense of what you just typed!! BUT a few notes:
A) Arabs and Palestinians are not the same thing. Not all Palestinians are ethnically Arab, or even Muslim.
B) The Jewish Nation and The State of Israel are not the Same thing:
The state of Israel was supposedly founded in 1948 when the Jewish Nation declared its independence, and itself a Nationstate, but it was FAR from being a "new nation," as you stated, since the Palestinian Nation had occupied that land for thousands of years...and the Jewish nation was already in existence, just not together, and not on that land....2 nations, 1 territory.

You aren't making sense. I will not address you anymore.

 
At 7:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so I guess Mary that means you wont read the history of the time that all started? Not surprised.

 
At 8:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right?

Wrong. In fact, these two demands are nothing more than strategic deceptions – propaganda ploys. They are nothing more than phony excuses and rationalizations for the terrorism and the murdering of Jews. The real goal of those making these demands is the destruction of the state of Israel.

The proof of the pudding is that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland. Why?

In 1967, during the Six-Day War, the Israelis captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. Why did the so-called Palestinians suddenly discover their national identity after Israel won the war. Why wasn't there a demand for a Palestinian homeland before?

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was after 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived, we think, from the Philistines, a people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier.

Contrary to what Yasser Arafat told you, the Philistines were extinct by that time. Arafat liked to pretend his people are the descendants of the Philistines. Actually, the name was simply a way for the Romans to add insult to injury to the Jews – not only were they annihilated, but their land was renamed after people they had conquered.

Palestine has never existed – before or since – as a nation state. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. Who rejected that idea? The Arabs. The Jews could have no place in the Mideast. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Now, at least to Western audiences, Arafat and some other so-called "moderate" Arab leaders will tell you that it's OK for the Jews to have their homeland, too – side-by-side with the Arabs. Why wasn't it OK in 1948?

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

Arafat himself explained the ploy of negotiations with Israel in a 1994 speech in South Africa – in English. He's explained it in Arabic dozens of times.

First we create our own state, then we use that state to liberate all of Palestine. That's the goal. It's always been the goal.

Arafat and his supporters will tell you the reason a Palestinian Arab state is needed is because Arabs were forcibly removed from their property in the 1948 war. But listen to what the Arabs were saying about the refugee issue after that war.

 
At 8:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PART TWO:

* "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
– Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.

* "The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
– The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.

* "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."
– The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

* "The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.

* "For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
– The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

There was no Jewish conspiracy to chase Arabs out of their homes in 1948. It never happened. There are, instead, plenty of historical records showing the Jews pleading with their Arab neighbors to stay and live in peace and harmony. Yet, despite the clear, unambiguous words of the Arab observers at the time, history has been successfully rewritten to turn the Jews into the bad guys.

The Arab states that initiated the hostilities have never accepted responsibility – despite their enormous wealth and their ability to assimilate tens of millions of refugees in their largely under-populated nations. And other states have failed to hold them accountable.

 
At 2:51 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Shorter Anonymous: "The Palestinians have always been under control of other groups." (Which I have to assume is implying that that means the current situation is okay)


"The Arab states that initiated the hostilities have never accepted responsibility – despite their enormous wealth and their ability to assimilate tens of millions of refugees in their largely under-populated nations. And other states have failed to hold them accountable."
Yeah, like those bastards in Lebanon and Syria with a little under a half million Palestinian refugees each, and those monsters in Jordan with almost two million (in Jordan's population of six million). And Jordan's so bad that they even let the Palestinians become Jordanian citizens if they give up their claim in the occupied region (it should be noted that Jordan and Israel's relationship has gotten bumpier recently).
I mean, why can't they just take all of them, so that Israel won't so many people in the way of its settlers?

 
At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, neat if you wanna see something new try pdmiclub.com

Someone is not who they are supposed to be

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home