You be the judge.
My last blog noted my infiltration of a progressive organ. No, it wasn't the brain, as the bunch I refer to appears to have none; it was rather The Huffington Post, which, I have concluded, is the progressivists' gallbladder: nothing more than a repository of undifferentiated bile. After an illustrious career as a libertarian gadfly lasting, oh a week maybe, I have been banned for life from posting comments on the eggshell pysche's site. Here is the comment that apparently broke the jackass's back:
"Looking for factual errors and logical fallacies in Whatley's article is like looking for straw in a haystack: close your eyes, pick a sentence, and you're there. E.g., his ipse dixit definition of 'anti-intellectualism' conflates intellectualism with education and gratuitously adds, 'paranoid.' (Cf. www.merriam-webster.com: 'opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach.') Another: '[F]ew would deny that the driving force for America's economic growth now is educated innovators.' The 'few' disagreeing would be those faithful to the facts. 'Small businesses provide half of the nation’s nonfarm, private real gross domestic product (GDP), and half of all Americans work for a small firm.' (U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy’s 2008 edition of The Small Business Economy: A Report to the President, p. 7.) Exactly what % of these SB owners is 'educated' is unaddressed by Whatley. So is 'educated' (H.S. diploma? Some college? Ph.D.? Professional Degree? Online degree?), rendering his entire article meaningless. Btw, Egghead, your opening sentence contains this solecism: 'The burgeoning conservative 'teabagger' movement, and the 'tea party' demonstrations set for Wednesday, has [sic] created. . . .'"
Perhaps my immoderate use of the grammar-school epithet "Egghead" was more than their sensitive souls could suffer.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Fun with Progressives
In an effort to foster informed dialogue with the left - who now call themselves in true propagandist style, "Progressives" (in homage to Woodrow Wilson, the Jimmy Carter of his day), under my nom de plume "GregorSamsa, I joined the reader ranks of huffingtonpost.com. I reproduce below a recent string, to give you a taste of my "success." I admit the string is acontextual, but you'll get the drift. . . .
GregorSamsa
"I guess facts have never been all that important to right wingers like the folks who put out this story. . . ." I agree with Mr. Lux that right-wing misinformation is both predictable and frustrating. Take this outright lie, for example: "[A] young cohort of activists, backed by an illustrious group of online organizing veterans like Zephyr Teachout, Joe Trippi and Mike Lux, recently launched A New Way Forward to raise awareness and support for alternative bailout plans and to protest the current [bailout] plan." This tired old canard was spewed electronically Tuesday last by that ignorant enclave of conservative backwardthought, "The Nation." (See http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/425015?rel=hp_picks.) Yes, so predictable, so reactionary, so pathetic.
Posted 02:29 AM on 04/10/2009
tekerati
I guess comprehending what you read is not your strong suit. The Cafepress story Mr. Lux is referring to quite explicity states that A New Way Forward was formed by Mr. Lux as an Obama front group. Your quote taken from an article in The Nation makes it clear that A New Way Forward was conceived and launched by a group of activists not Mr. Lux. He backs this group, he didn't create this group. If you go to A New Way Forward's website, you will not see Mr. Lux's name listed anywhere. So yes, the Cafepress article is fact-free, predictable, reactionary and pathetic.
Posted 08:37 AM on 04/10/2009
GregorSamsa
I guess understanding irony and getting facts straight is not your cup of tea. I did not and do not endorse the blatant errors in the post Lux quotes. My point is that perpetuating factual errors is hardly a right-wing phenomenon. By the way, the source of Lux's diatribe against the right is Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10073), not as you assert as a "fact," The Cafepress. Thank you for making my point.
Posted 10:52 AM on 04/10/2009
To paraphrase Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies, and the world according to Progressives."
GregorSamsa
"I guess facts have never been all that important to right wingers like the folks who put out this story. . . ." I agree with Mr. Lux that right-wing misinformation is both predictable and frustrating. Take this outright lie, for example: "[A] young cohort of activists, backed by an illustrious group of online organizing veterans like Zephyr Teachout, Joe Trippi and Mike Lux, recently launched A New Way Forward to raise awareness and support for alternative bailout plans and to protest the current [bailout] plan." This tired old canard was spewed electronically Tuesday last by that ignorant enclave of conservative backwardthought, "The Nation." (See http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/425015?rel=hp_picks.) Yes, so predictable, so reactionary, so pathetic.
Posted 02:29 AM on 04/10/2009
tekerati
I guess comprehending what you read is not your strong suit. The Cafepress story Mr. Lux is referring to quite explicity states that A New Way Forward was formed by Mr. Lux as an Obama front group. Your quote taken from an article in The Nation makes it clear that A New Way Forward was conceived and launched by a group of activists not Mr. Lux. He backs this group, he didn't create this group. If you go to A New Way Forward's website, you will not see Mr. Lux's name listed anywhere. So yes, the Cafepress article is fact-free, predictable, reactionary and pathetic.
Posted 08:37 AM on 04/10/2009
GregorSamsa
I guess understanding irony and getting facts straight is not your cup of tea. I did not and do not endorse the blatant errors in the post Lux quotes. My point is that perpetuating factual errors is hardly a right-wing phenomenon. By the way, the source of Lux's diatribe against the right is Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10073), not as you assert as a "fact," The Cafepress. Thank you for making my point.
Posted 10:52 AM on 04/10/2009
To paraphrase Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies, and the world according to Progressives."
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Is Barak Obama Megalomaniacal? (Part 2)
In my last blog, I considered whether Barak Obama is megalomaniacal, focusing on a now enacted Congressional bill purporting to grant Obama's manikin Treasury Secretary, Timothy "If-You-Understand-Me-I-Must-Not-Be-Obfuscating-Enough" Geithner near plenary power to establish salaries for the employees of any company receiving federal TARP money. Part 2 addresses the related question whether His Lowness may fire at will corporate directors and executives whenever he gets in the mood. For this issue I enlist the help of Robert Reich, the twenty-second United States Secretary of Labor serving under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997, a graduate of Dartmouth College, a former Harvard University professor and former Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University and current professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy. In other words, a typical right-wing partisan hack. Robert's assessment, in his own words:
"Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner, the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.
"I suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out Wall Street.
"For the sake of the argument, assume he's sincere. What criterion will an axe-wielding Geithner be using? If precipitous loss of shareholder value is enough to "require a change in management and the board," presumably every CEO and director of every big bank now being bailed out should be fired, starting with Ken Lewis of Bank of America.
"If the criterion is diversion of taxpayer money to uses other than Congress intended when it first authorized the $700 billion bailout, the list of soon-to-be-fired CEOs is a bit shorter but still large. Surely it includes all the bailed-out banks that continue to fly their executives around the world in company jets, award them extraordinary pay packages, and run junkets at fancy resorts. Citigroup's Vikram Pandit (who collected $38.2 million for his taxpayer-subsidized services in 2008) comes immediately to mind.
"Why stop there? Perhaps Geithner intends to fire executives and directors of any company that's dependent on taxpayers and is now losing money. Just think of the corporate house-cleaning this will mean. Hundreds of agribusiness executives are now at risk as are scores of military contractors. Hell, the whole pharmaceutical industry depends on taxpayer support (research subsidized by National Institutes of Health, sales subsidized through Medicare and Medicaid), and it's doing badly, so their executives and directors will be gone soon, too.
"All told, about one out of every five large American companies depends on government contracts, and a majority of these firms are losing money right now. So ... off with their heads." (Courtesy of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ - yes I find Ms. Huffington attractive in a Zsa Zsa "Dawn-of the-Dead" Gabor kind of way. . . .)
Off with their heads indeed. Having demonstrated - again - both its lunacy and its current lock-step with Field Marshallette Pelosi and her red-line to the White House, it's only a matter of time before Congress resorts to the invincible Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 8, for those of you who think I'm making this up) to find a financial link to the federal government for virtually every business entity in the country - including yours. Off with your head, anyone?
"Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner, the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.
"I suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out Wall Street.
"For the sake of the argument, assume he's sincere. What criterion will an axe-wielding Geithner be using? If precipitous loss of shareholder value is enough to "require a change in management and the board," presumably every CEO and director of every big bank now being bailed out should be fired, starting with Ken Lewis of Bank of America.
"If the criterion is diversion of taxpayer money to uses other than Congress intended when it first authorized the $700 billion bailout, the list of soon-to-be-fired CEOs is a bit shorter but still large. Surely it includes all the bailed-out banks that continue to fly their executives around the world in company jets, award them extraordinary pay packages, and run junkets at fancy resorts. Citigroup's Vikram Pandit (who collected $38.2 million for his taxpayer-subsidized services in 2008) comes immediately to mind.
"Why stop there? Perhaps Geithner intends to fire executives and directors of any company that's dependent on taxpayers and is now losing money. Just think of the corporate house-cleaning this will mean. Hundreds of agribusiness executives are now at risk as are scores of military contractors. Hell, the whole pharmaceutical industry depends on taxpayer support (research subsidized by National Institutes of Health, sales subsidized through Medicare and Medicaid), and it's doing badly, so their executives and directors will be gone soon, too.
"All told, about one out of every five large American companies depends on government contracts, and a majority of these firms are losing money right now. So ... off with their heads." (Courtesy of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ - yes I find Ms. Huffington attractive in a Zsa Zsa "Dawn-of the-Dead" Gabor kind of way. . . .)
Off with their heads indeed. Having demonstrated - again - both its lunacy and its current lock-step with Field Marshallette Pelosi and her red-line to the White House, it's only a matter of time before Congress resorts to the invincible Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 8, for those of you who think I'm making this up) to find a financial link to the federal government for virtually every business entity in the country - including yours. Off with your head, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
