Saturday, June 2, 2012

Vetting Bain, Not "Success"

In the past two weeks, after nine months of daily attacks on the President by ten or more republican candidates, who in the end went with their anti-climatic nominee, the Obama2012 campaign decided it was time to turn the tables of criticism and began with dissecting the "job creation" record of Willard Mittens Romney while he reigned as supreme leader at Bain Capital. As we all know, this was not unfamiliar criticism and most importantly, not considerably partisan; in fact this was criticism shared by the most conservative leaders of the Republican Party, such as, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and especially, Newt Gingrich, who's line of attacks during the South Carolina primary  propelled Romney from a presumed 3 week plan to the nomination to a slow, drawn out, four month death-march to inevitability.  

Since then, the tracks have been laid and the Obama-Romney trains are off and running to November. With only a few weeks into the general election race, President Obama made the logical approach to continue where Romney's republican challengers left off (causing crushing defeats for Romney in over a dozen states, including some general election swing states, such as Iowa, Missouri and Colorado), by continuing the narrative of Romney's questionable, yet central, approach of driving profits at Bain Capital. But little did the Obama2012 campaign realize of how soon the classical contiguous case amnesia was going to breakout within the herd that is republican and independent electorate.

As soon as the Obama2012 surrogates Cory Booker, Ed Randell, Bill Clinton, Duval Patrick and Harold Ford Jr went on t.v. to promote the traditional talking points (as any political campaign does) it is was made very clear that some how it was against the laws of nature to criticize private equity, and if you do, god be with you, because you will persecuted by the media (which we all forget is practically monopolized by the "holy private equity" firms). We we're being lectured about how we can't criticize "success", that somehow, if a company, like Bain Capital, made money, nobody has any right to question it, NO MATTER WHAT. Somehow, once money is made, questioning is how political wrong, that somehow you're anti-American for question a profit.

EXAMPLE: Remember in 2003-2004, when if you made any comment that appeared to be critical of George W. Bush, that somehow you were unpatriotic, Non-American or pro-terrorism? The same type of conservative lobotomy has reemerged, only this time: Profit = Patriotism, as oppose to 2003-2004 when: George W. Bush = Patriotism.

In all this time, since the Obama campaign has begun these "attacks" on Romney's leadership at Bain Capital, NOT ONCE has the President or any of his supporters have ever said, "Making money is evil, anti-American or unpatriotic"; heck, not even Bernie Sanders has ever made such an obscene statement. No one has proclaimed that making money is a bad thing; everyone likes making money.

But there's a difference between making money and the way someone makes money. There's ethical methods and unethical methods.

EXAMPLE: I cook an amazing steak. Seriously, its the best. I cook it with certain seasonings, minced garlic, etc. If you sat down to eat one my steaks, you would say, "Nate, this is the best steak I have ever eaten." But if I told you after you ate it that "I killed my mother, chopped her up and used her as the meat" you probably wouldn't have the same opinion of that "amazing" steak.

And that's the point President Obama and the Democrats are trying to make about Mitt Romney and his tenure at Bain Capital. It's one thing to help struggling companies; but it's entirely a different issue when you take a relativity healthy company, buy it, jack up the bills by purchasing other companies against the credit of that company, then lay off the workers because you can't afford to pay them because you spent their salary to buy other companies, then keep their pensions to use as cash and then, of course, take away their health insurance.

EXAMPLE: Remember in the movie, Goodfellas, when Paulie, Jimmy and Henry buy that night club and then "bust the joint out and light a match"? Bain Capital made their money practically the same exact way, just a bit more quietly.

For my own masochistic reasons, I'll sometimes listen to a few callers call in to the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin's radio shows; and I must say, it's hilarious to hear middle class Americans (some of who admit that they're struggling) defend private equity firms as if its their birth-right, that they are somehow their means to bounce back, while not realizing that the reason they lost job or home or 401k is  because of financial machines like private equity firms. When listening to these callers, you would think they were talking about their own kids or something. They were speaking with such ownership that they sounded as if the "equity" in these firms was somehow THEIR equity. They spoke with such anger about something that wasn't even theirs to have.

And that's the killer about the idea of the "American Dream"; everyone thinks that it will ultimately happen to them as well; that somehow if we criticize someone's success, it's also their [future] success that you are criticizing; that somehow you are compromising their destiny with your criticism. It's practically a "I'm gonna win the lottery" state of mind. Raising questions about what someone else perceives to be "success" is not wrong, its not unpatriotic, its not anti-American, its not anti-capitalism; its called "vetting."

Conservative Lobotomy vs. Patriotism: A Brief Observation of Their True Beliefs on Government

For decades conservatives have been able to hold custody over the mantle of patriotism through one approach and one approach only, the dehumanization of liberalism.
This plan to lobotomize the American public to view left-leaning citizens within the last four decades has been made possible through factitious arguments; we’ve heard them all:

    The media is liberal.
    The entire journalism industry is liberal.
    Every song you hear, every movie you see, everything you read has a “liberal agenda.”
    Liberals hate the military.
    Liberals are not religious and want to take away your religion.
    Liberals want you to be dependent on government and make you locked in “the system.”
    Liberals want to take away your guns.
    Liberals are trying to indoctrinate you and your children via academia.
    Liberals want to control everything you eat.
    Liberals want you to control everything you buy
Liberal want to control everything say.
Liberals are trying to erase Caucasians Americans from history.
Liberals want the government to make your medical decisions.

You may ask, why go through all this trouble, throughout all these past decades, to demonize an entire ideology and through such a vast lobotomy on the American public? The reason: to distract citizens from the reality that conservatism has no resemblance of support for the structure of a free nation that has established representative government.

The Embodiment of conservatism is that government should not exist. Conservatives have tried for decades to deploy arguments, in order to camouflage their honest convictions, such as “small government” but that phony argument has deteriorated due to two factors.

The first factor is that there is no method to measure the “size” of government; many conservatives have, and still to this day, try to execute an idea of measurement of government through the criticism of “government spending” and challenging “immigration status” of individuals.

The other factor has been the rise of libertarianism, whether it is on the coattails of the subversive literature of Ayn Rand in the 1950s, the elections of Rand Paul and other candidates of the corporate funded and non-organic “tea party” movement of 2010.

This second factor is important to understand because it has taken the idea of conservatism, which in the beginning of America’s history, was somewhat relevant to a democratic society and has now transformed into being America’s greatest enemy from within. The transformation from radical conservatism to mainstream-libertarianism has allowed the impressionable public to accept the idea of complete elimination of government.

As stated before, conservatives do not want government to exist; to them, government is a threat. A contemporary (post-tea party, libertarian) conservative views government the same way a out of control teenager views his or her parents; they hold a one dimensional view on everything, their philosophy is “they don’t understand me”, that somehow they’re the “victim” and believe that if they (their parents) just disappeared their life would be better; if you think about it, it’s pretty much a Melendez Brothers-style-view of government. But the government is not sexually molesting conservatives like the Melendez borthers’ father, but either way, conservatives want to blow the U.S. government away, but not with a shotgun, but by restricting the access to vote, monopolizing campaign fundraising, privatizing social security and national defense and defunding all aspects public education. Premeditated murder doesn’t always require a weapon; an idea is just as deadly.

Last time I checked, Americans wanting to kill other Americans is NOT patriotic, and neither is the hatred of government. Government is people, people are government. If liberal-progressive Americans successfully carryout such a message and do it long-term, then America’s conservative enemies from within can be defeated, and the mantle of patriotism can be reclaimed.

Monday, May 28, 2012

A Couple of Fun Activities You Can Do with YOUR Conservative

Give Them a Braveheart Fix

If you’re in a room with a conservative and there’s a television, immediately turn on the movie, Braveheart and always have a digital copy handy on your phone, tablet or computer. Righties seem to love this film and it’s easy to see why, with its countless battle scenes, lack of urban surroundings and racial minorities, endless head chopping and of course, it’s consistent and empty use of the word, freedom (excuse me, FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).  Whenever your conservative starts howling words at you, such as, liberty, tyranny, Marxism, statist, Stalinist, or any other word they learned from Mark Levin, just pop the movie, Braveheart on and they will shut their mouths faster than the speed of light. It’s no different than taking a screaming and crying 2 year old and plotting them down in front of the TV to watch Yo Gabba Gabba. YES. Braveheart is the Yo Gabba Gabba for whiny conservatives.  

Explain How REAL Conservatives Don’t Vote

One of the central themes of conservatism is that government is bad, its evil, its out to kill you, take all your money and kill all the babies. With all these tenets of rage your conservative has for government, they still have the nerve and stupidity to actually go to their polling place on election day and cast a vote. For a breed that lives to hate government (and essentially their country), what bigger embrace could they make towards the very structure they adamantly hate than democracy?  Tell your conservative that if he or she truly wants to “starve the beast”, they can starve it of their votes. Explain to them that when they vote, they are merely saying they’re for “BIG GOVERNMENT.”   

Invoke a Barbra Streisand-Induced Rage

If you’re having a conversation with your conservative and the topic turns to music, make an attempt to bring up Barbra Streisand, Bruce Springsteen or any random hip-hop artist that is NOT Eminem or the Beastie Boys (yes, the non-white ones), just to get a rise out of them; You will see it in their face immediately, you will literally feel their heart rates skyrocket, you will see the hair on the back of their neck spike up and will feel compelled to give them a paper bag to breathe into. Of course, any of these vocal artists will do, but for optimal effect, mention Barbra Streisand; for a political breed that loves to look for any opportunity to verbally masturbate about their “love” for Israel, they sure do love to label this particular blonde, post-menopausal Jew from New York as the “supreme leader” of the Democratic Party. 

Wow. Remember when conservatives, such as Secretary of State James A. Baker, referred to Jewish Americans as, “Fuck the Jews, they never vote for us.”? But in present day, it’s easier for conservatives to merely centralize it on one particular Jew. Poor Babs, she gets all the blame; maybe the Dixie Chicks too, but that’s a whole other story.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Libertarians: Give Me Liberty or Make Me Feel Good!

Let’s be very clear about something, “conservatism” is DEAD. It no longer exists in the realm of mainstream lawmaking. Congratulations Conservatives!! I always knew you could dig your own grave, I just never thought you would follow it up by burring yourselves alive. But oddly enough, the reason why the existence of conservatives has ceased is not due the success of any “left-wing agenda” or the “Statist-Marxist-Leninist-Big Government Tyranny” created by the Supreme Allah Obama (or whatever phrase Mark Levin is using these days), but by the nation’s leading conservative politicians, and most importantly, THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS!!! 

Some may ask, “Could this have been prevented?” “Is there anything that anyone could have done?” The answer is yes, but it wouldn’t have mattered, because it would involve listening, and if there’s anything the “modern-conservative-evangelical christian-caucasian-corporate slavery-republican noise machine” DOESN’T know how to do, its listen. Because if they were to listen, they would consider that to be an affliction, the same way they consider the word, “tax” to be an affliction, or the word, “regulation.” And if they were to commit to the cruel act of listening, they would stop their reactionary mindset dead in its tracks; and we all know they can’t have that!

But if the egg of knowledge was to pop in the brain of the conservative-zombie-brigade-death march, and they if were willing to listen, I could explain all their problems in one word, Libertarianism.  

Libertarians love to say they are “constitutionalists,” They proclaim themselves to be constitutional scholars, who have extensive knowledge of technical and historical substance of the most important document ever written since the dawn of men, even though the extent of their knowledge is merely reading 3 Ron Paul books and regurgitating them every day on Twitter, Facebook, and calling into the Glenn Beck radio show.  

People, such as Ron Paul, go so far as to self-label themselves as, “STRICT-constitutionalists.” Wow, sounds pretty…strict. But what does that label mean? Is it like being someone who is very disciplined, such as a orthodox Jew or a vegan?  What is the “strictness” of constitutionalism? What does the term actually mean? Absolutely NOTHING. Adding the term, strict to the label of “constitutionalist” is intended to imply some sort of moral superiority, condensation or elitism. But most importantly, the term’s intent, just as the term such as, “liberty, freedom, constitutional, anti-tyranny” and others, are spoken to make people simply feel good, without adding any substance to the terms, or their political arguments whatsoever. The practice of using these sorts of terms sparingly can be described as Verbal Masturbation. Just like physical masturbation, the overall goal is to feel good at the end. Who doesn't like feeling good??!!! Who cares that there is no rational or logical argument being made?!!! As long as they have that expression (or release) is doesn't matter.

This is not to assume that I believe that libertarians are stupid, obscene or pedophiles who consistently jerking off in the corner at the local Kids R Us, absolutely not; because to be any of those three things would actually make more sense than being a libertarian. The point is this, libertarians are not sincere about anything they say, they just feel good when they say it. To them, it inflicts a feel of attention by others. Heck, even the grand wizard himself, Ron Paul, doesn’t believe a single word he speaks either; the man doesn’t even want to be President. What he does want is to do is live out the remaining years of his life earning $150,000 a pop on the lecture circuit and sell as many books as possible, that way he will no longer have to ask himself, “Who is John Gault?”

But here’s the sad and ugly truth that libertarians are always desperately trying to conceal, they are either  frustrated for their lack of success, happiness and overall fulfillment in life and they don’t want to blame themselves OR they are drowned in massive success and don't know how to personally center it, creating a void or a feeling of utter detachment. So naturally they need to choose an enemy, so what do they pick? Government. It doesn’t matter if it’s federal, state or local, libertarians want to blame anything and anyone that represents social or legal order. In their delusional and emotionally damaged mind, government is like a parent who they believe was always abusive and wasn’t, or never will give them enough attention.

America’s right wing is not going to survive if they spend all their time on “daddy-issues”. To that I say, “Fine by me!!!”

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Some Observations of the book, No Apologies by Mitt Romney: An Apology for the Bullshit would be a Good Start!

BEWARE: this may not be the only posting you see about this book. 

When ever I sit down to read a piece of “literature” that may or may not challenge my own philosophies, I always make an “attempt” to read and absorb with an objective mindset. But after the first dozen or so pages of Willard Mitt Romney’s No Apologies, I had to give myself a failing grade at that objective. I’m roughly a third of the way through this book and without question or “apology”, it is completely obvious that this a book written for a type of guy who is from Iowa or New Hampshire, who grows up in small town and never leaves, marries the first woman he copulates with, and then ultimately ends up coaching the same football team he was on, which failed to win the county championship. YES, the book is that fucking dumb! And here’s just a couple examples why:  

Pg. 28, Last paragraph: “President Obama is far too gifted politician to say in plain words that America is merely one nation among many.”

Well, I don’t know about “merely”, but we are ONE nation. I don’t want to paraphrase Obama’s 2004 DNC keynote speech, but we’re not the Northern America, Southern America, Eastern America, or Western American, “We’re the United States of America”. What Romney is attempting to express (or imply) in this sentence is that somehow President Obama doesn’t believe that America isn’t different, grander, or more significant than other nations, when everyone knows that it is, always has been and always will be.

Pg.26, Last paragraph: “In the first nine months, President Obama has issued apologies and criticisms of America in speeches in France, England, Turkey, and Cairo; at the CIA headquarters in Langley, VA, the National Archives  in DC and the United Nations in NYC.”

Yes, the President did in fact make speeches in his first nine months of office; a lot of Presidents make a lot of speeches; and yes, they were given in places such as Europe, CIA, National Archives, and even the United Nations, good job, Mitt!! But Romney fails to quote ANY of these speeches where such “apologies” or “criticisms” were made, not on pg. 26, 27, 28, 29, or anywhere else throughout the chapter, which ends on pg. 34, or even the entire book for that matter. So once again, this argument, which many other conservatives have made, that President Obama “apologizes” for America, is, as usual, just plain old BULLSHIT!!!!

Pg. 34, Last paragraph: “England is just a small island.”
I know I didn’t get an MBA from Harvard, like Romney “earned”, but I’m pretty sure England is a nation, with citizens, leaders, a government, a military; it even has a “private sector”, surely Mitt isn’t going to disagree that if you have a private sector, you more than “a small island”.

Pg.47, Third paragraph: “If academics, writers, and opinion leaders have never visited China or worked in the private sector, how can they knowledgably assess the implications of China’s developing industrial strategy?”

Blah Blah Blah. So if someone is a “writer”, who has “opinions” and works in a non-government/private sector job, like McDonalds, that person is fully qualified to exam the Chinese “industrial strategy”. Okay, here’s your Quarter-Pounder with cheese, medium fries, large coke, oh and by the way, CHINA’S GOAL IS TO MAKE MORE McMONEY THAN OTHER NATIONS, that will be $8.37, thank you!

Pg. 51, First sentence: “The best all world peace has ever known is a strong America.”

First: Even in this small-little sentence, Romney is implying that America is not always “strong”, personally I believe that to be quite an Anti-America idea to imply about us, but he is allowed to believe what he wants to believe in, so we’ll put that aside for now. Second: How can an idea or goal, such as “world peace” ever have an “ally”? World peace is not a nation, or even a group of citizens, it’s a potential status that all countries should aim for, but its not something that can have an “ally”.  

Friday, December 16, 2011

Keystone Pipeline: A “WIN-WIN” for President Obama

President Obama and the republican Congress have “agreed” to keep the President’s payroll tax cuts active, after weeks and weeks of right-wing obstructionism…..of a TAX CUT, making it the first Federal tax-cut ever to be opposed by the republican party. Wow, what a paradox! But after all these weeks of noise and ineffective rhetoric, the republicans gave in; and strangely enough, it was on their very own position. How about that, they will even sacrifice their life-long position on TAX CUTS, simply because the President proposed it first! Amazing, it has gotten that childish in the post-teabagging-era of the republican party. Or maybe, just maybe, they're trying to resemble their inevitable nominee and 2012 party leader, Willard Romney, by taking positions in a bi-polar fashion.

But it wasn’t as if the republicans were just simply going to approve something that President Obama requested, in order to help working people, of course not; because that would involve being Pro-American, which is something conservatism and libertarianism does not allow for. So in order to give this “agreement” a green light from the GOP Congress, it would of course have to first make it appear as if republicans were “firm” and “strong”, and this was their symbolic-make or break-line in the sand: the Keystone Pipeline!  In order for republicans to go along with a TAX CUT, they wanted agreement that the President would “make a decision” in 60 days on approving or not approving the construction of this pipeline. There are those on the political right who say it’s a huge “job creator” creating 20,000-160,000 jobs, depending on which republican you listen to; and there are those on the political left who claim it’s a catastrophic environmental threat, that truthfully creates roughly no more than 4500 short term jobs, and that most long term jobs involved in this pipeline have all ready been filled on the Canadian side of this project, at least thats what was reported in the recent Cornell University study. 

Regardless of which facts are true or false, these are two positions that BOTH sides of the political spectrum has claimed and have stood by. BUT GUESS WHAT? OBAMA WINS EITHER WAY!! And here’s why:

If Obama approves the pipeline: He can take the republican version of the facts and use it against them, and make it a huge accomplishment in job-creation (via the oil industry, certainly no friend to the Democratic Party) creating an additional 20,000+ jobs on top of the other 2.6 millions job created in the 21 straight months of “private sector” job growth. He will be the “job creator” who kept his promise and has the results to show for it. Republicans won’t even be able to say “boo” to this, and why? Because its there own facts, this what they say the pipeline does, and its their own position that this pipeline is an necessity as much as it is a job-creator; and they will get no credit for it because it wasn’t the republican Congress’s decision to make, it was the President’s, and that is what Presidents do, they make decisions. RESULTS, JOB CREATION, DECISION MAKING, STRONG LEADERSHIP, which is the perception that will result if he approves the pipeline.

And oh yeah, will the environmental voters be upset? Yes, and it doesn’t matter, because 2012 is going to be an “economic-election” according to republicans, and the last time I checked the polls, jobs are way more important to independent voters than the environment; but when was last time environmentalists voted republican?? Give me a break!!

If Obama does not approve the pipeline: In 2008, the American people were given a choice, a choice between setting goals to get off foreign oil and taking steps towards alternative fuels and energy or “Drill, Baby Drill” (thank you Sarah Palin!), the country chose. Not too long ago, we saw the effects off shore oil drilling with BP disaster on the Gulf Coast: hurting many local economies, unjustly eliminating jobs, and cause catastrophic harm to our natural wildlife. The tragedy in the Gulf caused major frustrations among Americans about how government doesn’t listen to their concerns about the dependency of foreign oil. By not approving the pipeline, the President will be perceived as the STRONG LEADER who has kept his promises from 4 years ago to continue the efforts of getting America off foreign oil, by making STRONG DECISIONS, such as this. By showing he LISTENS to the concerns people have regarding foreign oil and at the same time, having a CONSISTENT position on the issue of energy AND the environment.

No matter which decision President Obama makes on the Keystone Pipeline project, the reality for the republicans is clear; they have given him the football field, all the good players, and all of the playbooks; and all they get in the end is to look like the drunken dumbass in the stands wearing blue face-paint.   

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Article 1 Section 8 DEFEATS ALL Anti-Government Theories

Conservatives love to bitch and moan about how EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of government is bad or evil; that somehow everything related to, or involved in government, is an affliction to all individuals. They obsess about “spending” and “fiscal policy” and preach that government should operate as a business.
NEWS FLASH: GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS! In no way, shape, or form is government design to make profit, it’s purpose is to FUNCTION, in order to “provide a general welfare of the United States” as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The more problems our society receives, the more attention government must provide to the public. Such attention can, and most likely will, involve an over expenditure of available funds. In such situations, article 1, section 8 of the U.S. constitution provides for the right for governments to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.”  But the political right-wing for decades has formulated an argument that some how it is only governments that wind up in such scenarios. But it is a fact that over 99% of all businesses, either when just starting out or right before they declare bankruptcy (another “evil government” constitutional right”) assumes an equal amount of debt that state, local, and federal governments accrued.
Since entering office in 2011, the tea party/libertarian-led House of Representatives have formed a list of entities and issues they claim to be the PUBLIC ENEMY of the United States, these include: The Postal Service, National Endowment of the Arts, and of course, (the pure evil) infrastructure. But little does the voting public, and the GOP members of Congress realize, is that all three of these entities are required for the Congress to provide and execute via legislation. Article 1, Section 8 requires that Congress “establish Post Offices and post roads” and “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”.
All government-bashing-right wing-nut-jobs love to use the “evil” U.S. Postal Service as their number one example of how “government doesn’t work” and “wastes money” and is “always in debt”. They enjoy professing an argument that only the private sector should deliver the mail, that somehow the entire planet will fall off it’s axis if one single company doesn’t financially benefit from one single government responsibility. Compared to the Royal and Holly “private sector”, such as, UPS, FEDEX and DHL, the postal service is the most affordable logistical service in the United States, and in some parts, the world. Without an affordable means of transporting parcel, American citizens would be denied the most affordable means of the most original method of communication.
Since we’re on the subject  of the “never can do no wrong” private sector, lets discuss another “evil government” requirement mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, REGULATION!! OMG RUN FOR THE HILLS RON PAUL!! As stated in the Article and Section of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”. Lets think for a moment here, why would the authors, our “founding fathers” (you know, the ones that Glenn Beck fans use to dress up as at tea 2009/10 tea party rallies) include such a duty in our National Constitution? What would be the purpose? It wasn’t to fear that government would get too big; we’ve heard that bullshit argument before. The purpose of regulating commerce is to ensure the public that no matter how much success one individualistic-interest creates; it shall never get too powerful to overthrow the influence of the people, in other words, the ability to create another King George; after all, wasn’t he the reason why we wrote these squiggly lines on a scroll in the first place?!!