Some of you know that I own an FXSTSSE3 and that I ride - a lot. (in English that's a 2009 Custom Vehicle Operations Screaming Eagle Springer Soft-tail) Riding a lot means that Harley-Davidson's 2 year unlimited milage warrantee expired this mid-May and the bike just rolled over 40K miles. That expiration means that I feel free to do my own maintainance. I know a company can't make you use their service centers to honor warrantees, but I also know that this is an expensive bike that gets way more miles than Harley anticipated and conversations that start and end with "your people are the only ones who ever touched it" cut a lot of wiggles out. Yes, I own the actual Harley service manual for that motorcycle.
So, back to my tale. I am mechanically adept, I am damned good with tools and with reading, understanding, and following instructions. I cannot do anything with the computerized bits but that is outside the perview of service. Some of the service is complex, partly because the bike has a springer front end but it isn't beyond me or anyone competent. The last service was done while I was on the road back from FL and it seems that somebody managed to not understand torque specifications. To change the oil in the primary case you pull the drain plug in the bottom and then remove the primary cover to replace the oil. The drain plug was no problem, the #27 torx head screws in the primary cover were an issue, well ... two of them were. The specification are 84-108 inch pounds which isn't a lot. The top two screws refused to move with a hardened tool steel socket and 1/4 inch rachet. The torx grooves on the top one simply started going away, even with tapping with a light brass hammer and that is what it took for the next one left to it. The top one took being driven loose with a chisel, a bad thing, but I did get the cover off and the oil replaced. I will have to replace those once I can get to a dealer. I was not happy.
The next problem point was the oil filter, no filter wrench I could put on it would budge the damned thing. Not the light rubber strap wrench which should easily have removed it, and not even the Harley wrench borrowed from a local motorcycle shop. This filter is to be torqued 1/2 to 3/4 turn from gasket contact by specs. That is a bit more than you could manage with your bare hand, but it isn't a heck of a lot. I wound up driving a screw driver into the filter and cranking on it - not once, but three times for a total of 3/4 turn and then the Harley wrench barely got it off. At that point the gasket was squealing as it turned. I don't know how much beyond gasket contact that thing was turned but it was a lot and with holes through the side of the filter a lot of oil ran out on the engine.
The engine and tranny in these bikes go through a very wide temperature range, they get darned hot and they are subject to vibrations and that is a consideration whenever messing with one. But way tighter is not way better. This is what Harley publishes torque specifications for, that difficult environment. By the time I was done with these problems I was pretty unhappy - swear words were involved.
The oil all looked good which in nice and having nice fresh oil in the bike is very good - and better yet, I won't have this mess again.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
What Did Anybody Think Would Happen?
The jobless numbers went up last month because the jobs added simply were well short of population growth. The stark part was the break out between public and private sectors. The private sector added 60K jobs and the public sector shed 40K getting a net of plus 20K.
Low tax rates on the rich have not resulted in jobs, not since GWB got them, vast profits for favored industries have not produced jobs, in point of fact the housing bubble was the job driver for GWB while everything else went to hell. Why people can't manage to see that the GOP policies have not produced spit is beyond me.
The actual numbers exist that demostrate that the GOPer policies are bad for the economy and bad for the general citizenry and yet... well, we're talking about the damned debt ceiling and crashing the economic clown* car.
*if you don't think this economy deserves that level of derision ... well ...
Low tax rates on the rich have not resulted in jobs, not since GWB got them, vast profits for favored industries have not produced jobs, in point of fact the housing bubble was the job driver for GWB while everything else went to hell. Why people can't manage to see that the GOP policies have not produced spit is beyond me.
The actual numbers exist that demostrate that the GOPer policies are bad for the economy and bad for the general citizenry and yet... well, we're talking about the damned debt ceiling and crashing the economic clown* car.
*if you don't think this economy deserves that level of derision ... well ...
GOPers And Their Pledges
Michelle Bachmann got herself into some hot water with her signature on the Family Something Pledge thanks to its reference to black children being more likely to be raised by two parent families under slavery than under Obama. It is a part and parcel with the GOPer Grover Norquist stupidity in relation to taxes. To be sure there is a lot of other noxious stuff in the pledge she signed, just as there is in the Norquist idiotology.
What they seem to see is the hanging plum of getting a segment of voters on board without seeing the actual meaning of the stupidity they're signing onto. To be sure, a Christian Taliban may not seem like a problem to a Bachmann just as subsidies for targeted favorite companies aren't a problem for some. There are consequence, though.
I don't think potential Bachmann voters are much bothered by the slavery thing or the rest of it and I don't think potential Paul Ryan voters are much bothered by hedgefund managers paying less tax percentage than actually poor people. The problem for the GOPers is that these folks get to be their public face to a public that might pay attention.
What they seem to see is the hanging plum of getting a segment of voters on board without seeing the actual meaning of the stupidity they're signing onto. To be sure, a Christian Taliban may not seem like a problem to a Bachmann just as subsidies for targeted favorite companies aren't a problem for some. There are consequence, though.
I don't think potential Bachmann voters are much bothered by the slavery thing or the rest of it and I don't think potential Paul Ryan voters are much bothered by hedgefund managers paying less tax percentage than actually poor people. The problem for the GOPers is that these folks get to be their public face to a public that might pay attention.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Democrats Will Define Themselves
Thanks to the bullpucky argument about the debt ceiling (this is debt not new expenditures) the deficit hawks and others in the GOP will force Democrats to define themselves. I'd say it is the case that Democrats don't want to define themselves as shown by their behavior over the past couple years (or hell - decades). I don't suppose there's much debate that the GOPers have defined themselves as the Party of Theocracy and Plutocracy with their voters opting for one or the other of those defining features.
While the Democrats have shown little inclination (through results) to do something other than coddle the Plutocrats, there has been a continuing mythology that it is the party of the ordinary citizen. What the GOPers have managed with the debt ceiling nonsense* is to force, through the application of a gun to the head approach, the Democrats to actually take some kind of public stand. It seems the GOPers are unwilling to let them weasel out of the defining business.
What I have decided to do is to let this month's nonsense play itself out and see just how the Democrats do define themselves. Since they've already caved to the idea that the existing debt/debt ceiling is the budget I don't have a lot of optimism for what that definition is going to be.**
*you can certainly include WI, OH, FL, & ETC
**certain definitions could make me willing to join the the ranks of "as if it matters"
Don't expect much in the line of posts... Heh - you already don't.
While the Democrats have shown little inclination (through results) to do something other than coddle the Plutocrats, there has been a continuing mythology that it is the party of the ordinary citizen. What the GOPers have managed with the debt ceiling nonsense* is to force, through the application of a gun to the head approach, the Democrats to actually take some kind of public stand. It seems the GOPers are unwilling to let them weasel out of the defining business.
What I have decided to do is to let this month's nonsense play itself out and see just how the Democrats do define themselves. Since they've already caved to the idea that the existing debt/debt ceiling is the budget I don't have a lot of optimism for what that definition is going to be.**
*you can certainly include WI, OH, FL, & ETC
**certain definitions could make me willing to join the the ranks of "as if it matters"
Don't expect much in the line of posts... Heh - you already don't.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
GOP Economic Sabotage
It appears that some in some form of national Democratic leadership have brought themselves to the point of stating that the GOP is engaging in economic sabotage. Now, it has been my position since St Ronnie that economic sabotage was being conducted on the American public. That public hasn't been willing to engage in that discussion - not as long as it was the poor, working poor, and blue collar who were getting their throats cut - it seems enough of that public is willing since those reluctant Democrats are speaking up.
You bet, I'm just being mean and expecting waaaaayyyy too much - well other than this - have you heard any of this up until now? It isn't like this is something real new or that the Democrats haven't gone along with much of it all the way up to now. Will it stop here? Hah...
You bet, I'm just being mean and expecting waaaaayyyy too much - well other than this - have you heard any of this up until now? It isn't like this is something real new or that the Democrats haven't gone along with much of it all the way up to now. Will it stop here? Hah...
Not Too Many Posts...
You may have noticed a spate of posts and then an entire lack. Some work came my way. Then there is the matter of what has passed for politics lately ... yes I do actually mean lately. I'm more impressed by an elementary playground riot than what is passing for politics over the last couple weeks.
The outrage meter burnt out, circuits fried. Along with the meter the humor reservoir dried up. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time in our history outside the Civil War that things have gotten this out of hand but that's not much consolation to living in it.
How is it I'm supposed to give a damn about something that is just plain stupid? Sure, I'll wait and see how this summer plays out, but I don't have high expectations when one Party is out to lunch and the other is trying to do reasonable deals with them.
The outrage meter burnt out, circuits fried. Along with the meter the humor reservoir dried up. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time in our history outside the Civil War that things have gotten this out of hand but that's not much consolation to living in it.
How is it I'm supposed to give a damn about something that is just plain stupid? Sure, I'll wait and see how this summer plays out, but I don't have high expectations when one Party is out to lunch and the other is trying to do reasonable deals with them.
Moderate Republicans - Bill Clinton Mentions Them
So, they must exist? Bill, to paraphrase, said that a moderate Republican could give Obama a real run. I'm not sure which political landscape the ex-Pres is watching, but the one I'm seeing on display is the one where the moderate Republican's name is Barack Obama - even if he is running under the blanket of a (D).
Don't misunderstand that - in today's climate the President is practically a progressive radical. I don't pretend to mind read the President, out side my pay grade and capabilities - what I can do is look at outcomes. So can you.
It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that there are no "moderate" Republicans at any national level and none at most state levels. You could argue about NY, but that is NY.
I'm sorry Pres. Clinton - you, sir, are FOS.
Don't misunderstand that - in today's climate the President is practically a progressive radical. I don't pretend to mind read the President, out side my pay grade and capabilities - what I can do is look at outcomes. So can you.
It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that there are no "moderate" Republicans at any national level and none at most state levels. You could argue about NY, but that is NY.
I'm sorry Pres. Clinton - you, sir, are FOS.
The Constitution and Debt and Congress
I present for your perusal Art 4 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. I give full credit to Bruce Bartlett and Lawrence ODonnell for bringing it back to my consciousness in this mud fight over the debt ceiling.
Since most of you readers know where my sympathies lie I won't bore you with that. The Article seems pretty clear to me, the debts incurred by the US are its debts and won't be questioned. It doesn't seem in the least odd to me that debts incurred by the US are its debts and the US is responsible for them as legally entered into contracts and must be honored. That, in itself, is the reason why most think it would be catastrophic to default on that debt and it is the reason people are willing to let the US assume debt. Whatever it is that you think about government spending, that spending has been done on the authority of the citizenry of the US whatever their political leanings.
Setting a budget is certainly the business of the Congress, primarily the House, but obligations are not subject to political high-jinks. It is not the business of Congress to hold hostage the debt and obligations of the United States for any reason. There is a difference that seems to have evaded the Congress of the US.
and a few others...
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Since most of you readers know where my sympathies lie I won't bore you with that. The Article seems pretty clear to me, the debts incurred by the US are its debts and won't be questioned. It doesn't seem in the least odd to me that debts incurred by the US are its debts and the US is responsible for them as legally entered into contracts and must be honored. That, in itself, is the reason why most think it would be catastrophic to default on that debt and it is the reason people are willing to let the US assume debt. Whatever it is that you think about government spending, that spending has been done on the authority of the citizenry of the US whatever their political leanings.
Setting a budget is certainly the business of the Congress, primarily the House, but obligations are not subject to political high-jinks. It is not the business of Congress to hold hostage the debt and obligations of the United States for any reason. There is a difference that seems to have evaded the Congress of the US.
and a few others...
Monday, June 27, 2011
GOP Movie Fantasy World
Sure, some of us noticed that Michelle Bachman got John Wayne's birthplace wrong, not Waterloo, IA, and that caused some giggles. That isn't what matters, not even a little bit.
What matters is the theme she was hitting, she wants to live in John Wayne's America. That America is a Hollywood Production, it does not and never did exist. John Wayne was only a brave dedicated soldier on the movie set, he only played a part in movie sctipts that had little to do with history. The pictures and dialogue from the screen are just that, they are not reality, they are not a true picture of America at any time other than very exceptionally and John Wayne's flicks are not among the exceptions.
This is not a Michelle thing, it is practically the foundation of the Modern GOP. As you pick through their policy stands you find almost nothing that reflects reality or even a return to some previous reality. Their ideas and policy ideas are the stuff of fantasy. They sell their voters on the concept of a return to some previous foundation of morality. Gays are scarcely something new, not being closeted and scared to death is fairly recent. Movie stars that were idolized in those halcyon days turn out to have been ... well, really queer. That fierce warrior John Wayne never served a day in his life, while somebody like that goofy likeable Jimmy Stewart certainly did. St Ronnie, of revered GOP mythology, never saved a wagon train or served or own a chimp - he was a figment of Hollywood imagination now set into cement as a Great President.
There were no Happy Days, the Fifties sucked really bad for an awful lot of Americans, WWII was an ugly nasty brutish affair, you could go on and on about the taming of the West, the Revolution, the Gilded Age and most of American History. That's not about hate America - that's about love the real thing and understand how and why we are here today. There were real and astounding accomplishments during the Gilded Age and there were horrid conditions and actions accompanying them. You cannot understand the Gilded Age unless you know what it was and how it worked out - and that isn't available from a Hollywood Movie Script. You just cannot address today on the basis of imaginary images. You cannot, for example, set a tax policy that works based on the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue if it just never happened except in your fevered imagination. You cannot do anything about the outcomes of slavery by pointing to scripts rather than the reality of racism and institutionalize poverty to just deny it exists or is justified.
I like movies, I'm willing (if it is any good) to suspend disbelief for awhile and let the fantasy be momentary reality. I sure the hell don't expect to see hobbits and wizards out there saving civilization from the orcs.
What matters is the theme she was hitting, she wants to live in John Wayne's America. That America is a Hollywood Production, it does not and never did exist. John Wayne was only a brave dedicated soldier on the movie set, he only played a part in movie sctipts that had little to do with history. The pictures and dialogue from the screen are just that, they are not reality, they are not a true picture of America at any time other than very exceptionally and John Wayne's flicks are not among the exceptions.
This is not a Michelle thing, it is practically the foundation of the Modern GOP. As you pick through their policy stands you find almost nothing that reflects reality or even a return to some previous reality. Their ideas and policy ideas are the stuff of fantasy. They sell their voters on the concept of a return to some previous foundation of morality. Gays are scarcely something new, not being closeted and scared to death is fairly recent. Movie stars that were idolized in those halcyon days turn out to have been ... well, really queer. That fierce warrior John Wayne never served a day in his life, while somebody like that goofy likeable Jimmy Stewart certainly did. St Ronnie, of revered GOP mythology, never saved a wagon train or served or own a chimp - he was a figment of Hollywood imagination now set into cement as a Great President.
There were no Happy Days, the Fifties sucked really bad for an awful lot of Americans, WWII was an ugly nasty brutish affair, you could go on and on about the taming of the West, the Revolution, the Gilded Age and most of American History. That's not about hate America - that's about love the real thing and understand how and why we are here today. There were real and astounding accomplishments during the Gilded Age and there were horrid conditions and actions accompanying them. You cannot understand the Gilded Age unless you know what it was and how it worked out - and that isn't available from a Hollywood Movie Script. You just cannot address today on the basis of imaginary images. You cannot, for example, set a tax policy that works based on the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue if it just never happened except in your fevered imagination. You cannot do anything about the outcomes of slavery by pointing to scripts rather than the reality of racism and institutionalize poverty to just deny it exists or is justified.
I like movies, I'm willing (if it is any good) to suspend disbelief for awhile and let the fantasy be momentary reality. I sure the hell don't expect to see hobbits and wizards out there saving civilization from the orcs.
Friday, June 17, 2011
I'm So Wrong On Economics...
For quite some time now I've had some things to say about tax rates and the rich and ultra-rich that involve dissuading them from wringing every last cent out of the economy. Awhile ago I was gratified to see that somebody with qualifications was tracking along where I'd been. The plutocratic right, quite naturally, pushed back.
Well, Robert Reich was having none of it. Not even a little bit of it. Yes, he has more and better credentials than I do and he used actual numbers but he said what I said. Let's try to pay attention and not act as though the GOP bullying is going to get them anywhere. Um, Democrats?
Why do I have the distinct impression this is wishful thinking?
Well, Robert Reich was having none of it. Not even a little bit of it. Yes, he has more and better credentials than I do and he used actual numbers but he said what I said. Let's try to pay attention and not act as though the GOP bullying is going to get them anywhere. Um, Democrats?
Why do I have the distinct impression this is wishful thinking?
Hey, See That Comment Button?
Yeah, you're allowed to use it, even encouraged to use it. Please do.
This'll be around for awhile.
This'll be around for awhile.
In Honor Of Congress A Tasteless Photo Of Self
I won't even bother to try to deny to the media that it's me.
I don't suppose sex is the first thought that occurs...
ah well
You Can Tell The GOP Something But It's Probably Pointless
Hey, Family Values Guys:
I know in relation to gay marriage you like to portray me and others like me as dedicated to the destruction of marriage and modern civilization. I am aware of the tradition of asserting a homosexual agenda.
Let me assure you of the Family Values persuasion - I don't give a good goldamn if Hank and Harry want to get married any more that I give a rat's patoot if John and Mary want to get married. I don't know them and I'm not invited to the nuptials or the more fun reception. I don't care! I have NO agenda and I have no approval of any of their proposed unions. I have no idea whatever if they should get married, if they're doomed to divorce, spousal beatings, or any other damn thing about it.
What I do know is that I am firmly of the belief that each and every law-abiding citizen should have the same rights and responsibility as any other citizen. There are some good things that are connected to getting married and there are some serious responsibilities that go along with it as well. Ask anyone getting divorced if that isn't the case. I am a married hetero-sexual male and there is nothing in the marriage of anyone else that is going have the least affect on that.
When I have straight friends getting married I have hopes for them to be happy and successful in their union. I have the same hopes for my gay friends. This is because I know these people and have a reason to care about their marriage. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why I should care about some anonymous marriage or make it any of my business and I have no intention of randomly encouraging it (or for that matter - discouraging it).
I do not give the least bit of a fat rat's ass if anybody I don't know gets married or not. Now we get to the crux of the issue, because I do want law abiding citizens to have the same rights and responsibilities I do very much give a damn if they can get married.
Now do you understand?
No?
I thought not.
I know in relation to gay marriage you like to portray me and others like me as dedicated to the destruction of marriage and modern civilization. I am aware of the tradition of asserting a homosexual agenda.
Let me assure you of the Family Values persuasion - I don't give a good goldamn if Hank and Harry want to get married any more that I give a rat's patoot if John and Mary want to get married. I don't know them and I'm not invited to the nuptials or the more fun reception. I don't care! I have NO agenda and I have no approval of any of their proposed unions. I have no idea whatever if they should get married, if they're doomed to divorce, spousal beatings, or any other damn thing about it.
What I do know is that I am firmly of the belief that each and every law-abiding citizen should have the same rights and responsibility as any other citizen. There are some good things that are connected to getting married and there are some serious responsibilities that go along with it as well. Ask anyone getting divorced if that isn't the case. I am a married hetero-sexual male and there is nothing in the marriage of anyone else that is going have the least affect on that.
When I have straight friends getting married I have hopes for them to be happy and successful in their union. I have the same hopes for my gay friends. This is because I know these people and have a reason to care about their marriage. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why I should care about some anonymous marriage or make it any of my business and I have no intention of randomly encouraging it (or for that matter - discouraging it).
I do not give the least bit of a fat rat's ass if anybody I don't know gets married or not. Now we get to the crux of the issue, because I do want law abiding citizens to have the same rights and responsibilities I do very much give a damn if they can get married.
Now do you understand?
No?
I thought not.
Democrats Lose By Joining Cuts Jabber
Congress and then the White House have budget difficulties to deal with along with a looming debt ceiling problem. There sure are a lot of issues at play in this mess but one thing is real clear, spending and revenue are out of joint - pretty seriously. You sure can try to address such a problem from only one edge, but that does mean that half results ensue or unacceptable consequences ensue.
The second Democrats start to talk about cuts, sensible cuts, or any kind of cuts without taxation reform they have accomplished two things that are bad for them and the nation. First they have ceded to the one side approach and the two prong approach simply disappears. Secondly by engaging in cuts dialogue they put themselves into comparison with the GOPer while admitting that cutting is the way to go.
Any approach that involves simple humanity in relation to cutting by itself will result in virtually nothing and assuage no one concerned with the budget without slamming military spending (not gonna happen). Democrats cannot with any conscience or hope of electoral success slam hell out of people who are already over the edge or going over and the GOP gives a damn. The Democrats cannot look as though they are doing anything and will at the same time make quite a few lives just enough more difficult to take a lot of heat. Some people will notice that wealth makes out and poverty increases and the only people who will care an iota aren't voting GOP.
In order to end DADT and get a START treaty the Democrats let the BushCo tax cuts get extended. In order to get a treaty nobody opposed for any principle whatever and to get a policy that affects a vanishingly small minority of the nation revenue was decreased. Any attempt to cover that lost revenue will badly harm a hell of a lot more people who cannot take it than DADT would over years of extension. If you think I in anyway ever supported DADT you're ... well, way wrong. But that is now the proposition Democrats face if they go to cuts alone. The plain politics of it is that they would lose a lot more votes than they gained. Was DADT flat wrong, yes - was the mechanism also flat wrong, yes; and that is what you get when you do deals with the Devil.
Our tax code is so completely skewed to the favor of absolute wealth that leaving it in that state is damn near criminal and will continue to crush the economy of this nation. It is simple enough to understand that wealth will always do well short of fires and murder. It is not difficult to stay wealthy in a system that operates with capitalism at its base and I don't have a real big problem with that since most of us can benefit as well. We do not benefit as well, but the operative word is can. The fault is not with a system based on capitalism, it is the matter of making sure that not even crumbs fall off that capitalistic table. This is the crux of what Democrats face - well that and the reaction of wealth.
Democrats pretty much take anyone left of Obama for granted as voters because they have nowhere else to go and the alternative is generally nasty enough to get them to vote. It may be the case that the 2010 election results showed Democrats that a campaign of "not as bad as" can have bad results. There is also the aspect that the results of 2010 scare the hell out of anybody left of Genghis Khan. I would not want to bet on how that tension plays out and I'd sure think Democrats sure shouldn't unless smashing the country to teach us a lesson is part of the thinking.
I don't think many Democrats expect much in the line of taxation reform and that they'll go along with essentially half-measures. What I don't see them going along with is absolutely nothing done other than a ball bat taken to the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. It no longer matters how many lies the GOP tells about "job creators" in the wealth category, only a few deluded souls believe it.
I'd like to see President Obama re-elected and Congress in responsible hands other than GOPers but there really should be some reason to do it.
The second Democrats start to talk about cuts, sensible cuts, or any kind of cuts without taxation reform they have accomplished two things that are bad for them and the nation. First they have ceded to the one side approach and the two prong approach simply disappears. Secondly by engaging in cuts dialogue they put themselves into comparison with the GOPer while admitting that cutting is the way to go.
Any approach that involves simple humanity in relation to cutting by itself will result in virtually nothing and assuage no one concerned with the budget without slamming military spending (not gonna happen). Democrats cannot with any conscience or hope of electoral success slam hell out of people who are already over the edge or going over and the GOP gives a damn. The Democrats cannot look as though they are doing anything and will at the same time make quite a few lives just enough more difficult to take a lot of heat. Some people will notice that wealth makes out and poverty increases and the only people who will care an iota aren't voting GOP.
In order to end DADT and get a START treaty the Democrats let the BushCo tax cuts get extended. In order to get a treaty nobody opposed for any principle whatever and to get a policy that affects a vanishingly small minority of the nation revenue was decreased. Any attempt to cover that lost revenue will badly harm a hell of a lot more people who cannot take it than DADT would over years of extension. If you think I in anyway ever supported DADT you're ... well, way wrong. But that is now the proposition Democrats face if they go to cuts alone. The plain politics of it is that they would lose a lot more votes than they gained. Was DADT flat wrong, yes - was the mechanism also flat wrong, yes; and that is what you get when you do deals with the Devil.
Our tax code is so completely skewed to the favor of absolute wealth that leaving it in that state is damn near criminal and will continue to crush the economy of this nation. It is simple enough to understand that wealth will always do well short of fires and murder. It is not difficult to stay wealthy in a system that operates with capitalism at its base and I don't have a real big problem with that since most of us can benefit as well. We do not benefit as well, but the operative word is can. The fault is not with a system based on capitalism, it is the matter of making sure that not even crumbs fall off that capitalistic table. This is the crux of what Democrats face - well that and the reaction of wealth.
Democrats pretty much take anyone left of Obama for granted as voters because they have nowhere else to go and the alternative is generally nasty enough to get them to vote. It may be the case that the 2010 election results showed Democrats that a campaign of "not as bad as" can have bad results. There is also the aspect that the results of 2010 scare the hell out of anybody left of Genghis Khan. I would not want to bet on how that tension plays out and I'd sure think Democrats sure shouldn't unless smashing the country to teach us a lesson is part of the thinking.
I don't think many Democrats expect much in the line of taxation reform and that they'll go along with essentially half-measures. What I don't see them going along with is absolutely nothing done other than a ball bat taken to the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. It no longer matters how many lies the GOP tells about "job creators" in the wealth category, only a few deluded souls believe it.
I'd like to see President Obama re-elected and Congress in responsible hands other than GOPers but there really should be some reason to do it.
Hot Dog, He's Gone And We Can Stop Talking About ...
See ya, Anthony.
After today's frenzy over the resignation maybe the media and Democrats can talk about something that matters a hill of spit. The GOP sure doesn't want to talk about anything that actually matters and they might miss having a Weiner to put in their bun.
A person can have hopes and all - can't they?
After today's frenzy over the resignation maybe the media and Democrats can talk about something that matters a hill of spit. The GOP sure doesn't want to talk about anything that actually matters and they might miss having a Weiner to put in their bun.
A person can have hopes and all - can't they?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Say Hello To The 19th Century
I'm sorry to have to say it, the return of the Gilded Age (also known as Robber Baron Era) is upon us. Well, it is short of its denouement where the nation was starting to come apart in violent conflict. Oddly enough this mess is being Presided over by a Democrat rather than GOPers.
I don't know what the best the Democratic Party could do for elected officials and I don't short the quantity that exist that don't desire a return to those golden days but outcomes matter. That the GOP is hell bent on resurrecting the Robber Baron Era is scarcely a newsflash and that they want all of it back is pretty obvious by the theocratic anti-science stances they take along with the plutocrat sexual relations they have. (sorry for that mental image - heh)
You'd be hard put to find something in the government that directly affects economics that isn't run by one of the Masters Of The Universe other than those that aren't run by anybody since exceptions can't get confirmed. Now maybe a couple people are surprised that outcomes in any economic issues favor the plutocrats and those that don't just don't get anywhere. I can't think why that is so, other than some sort of blind stupid loyalty to personality/Party. The people who are surprised would tend to be liberal, the GOPers just plain don't see it at all and their blind stupid loyalty to personality/Party is awesome.
The risk the GOPers run in their drive to cut social safety nets is that what ended the Gilded Age was just that, starving homeless people aren't reasonable and enough of them is bad news for the plutocrats. Some of these cretins might bother to look at history that isn't millennial past and doesn't feature gods.
I don't know what the best the Democratic Party could do for elected officials and I don't short the quantity that exist that don't desire a return to those golden days but outcomes matter. That the GOP is hell bent on resurrecting the Robber Baron Era is scarcely a newsflash and that they want all of it back is pretty obvious by the theocratic anti-science stances they take along with the plutocrat sexual relations they have. (sorry for that mental image - heh)
You'd be hard put to find something in the government that directly affects economics that isn't run by one of the Masters Of The Universe other than those that aren't run by anybody since exceptions can't get confirmed. Now maybe a couple people are surprised that outcomes in any economic issues favor the plutocrats and those that don't just don't get anywhere. I can't think why that is so, other than some sort of blind stupid loyalty to personality/Party. The people who are surprised would tend to be liberal, the GOPers just plain don't see it at all and their blind stupid loyalty to personality/Party is awesome.
The risk the GOPers run in their drive to cut social safety nets is that what ended the Gilded Age was just that, starving homeless people aren't reasonable and enough of them is bad news for the plutocrats. Some of these cretins might bother to look at history that isn't millennial past and doesn't feature gods.
Iowa Pointless To GOP Primary?
Tonight Rachael Maddow made the point that Iowa is pointless in GOP Primary circles because she said the Iowa GOP has radicalized itself out of relevance. I agree with her that in regard to a General Election that segment of the GOP is meaningless. I don't agree that they're so far outside that GOP voters other places won't go in their direction. Even Mark McKinnon bothered to note that SC has similar voters.
I don't think that this year the GOP is all that hot for an establishment candidate. I do think they've self-obsessed sufficiently to block out the reality that a hard core candidate would play poorly against the President. A real large number are convinced that they are a part of some grand sweeping movement. There is also the matter of the CU decision and the groups, including Koch outfits, who don't like what they see in the "establishment" candidates. There is a closed little world composed of FauxNews, Rush (and ilk), the CU enabled bunch, and '10 elected GOPers that doesn't see past its narrowly defined limits.
Maybe Rachael and some of the other pundits didn't notice that it was GOP Primaries that ran Christine ODonnel, Sharon Angel, and a host of loons that did win and don't even come close to GOP establishment credentials. Now maybe you'd like to make the point that Sharon and Christine didn't win and that it was Blue Dogs that lost or just poorly run campaigns that lost to the loons. That does not matter. There is a usurper in office, that guy is in our House. It isn't just racism, it is socialism, communism, liberalism, whateverism that is different from the GOP Americanism narrative of the past couple decades.
The GOP has managed to stir itself into a complete frothing foaming fit over Democrats. The BushCo theme of fellow travelers traitorous defeatist liberals was only the opening salvo, now their old white guy POW got handed his ass by that usurper and only the principled obstructionism of GOP Congresscritters has save the nation from ... something horrible. What didn't sink in to the GOP establishment while they were busily fomenting fear and loathing was that frightened angry people don't think long term and strategically and vote for ... Mittens (or whatever establishment type they settle on). It isn't just imaginary devils scaring these folks, unemployment is high and threatening and wages suck and the country's demographics are changing and hell, a lot is changing. Many many people resist change and not much matches what they think it ought to.
I'd like to see a rational political landscape, I'd sure like to see an election where the centrist Obama doesn't look like a left wing nut next to their candidate because there is a hell of a lot of reasonable ground to the left of Obama. I'm sorry Rachael, you're giving way to much rationality credence to the GOP today and you're far from alone.
I don't think that this year the GOP is all that hot for an establishment candidate. I do think they've self-obsessed sufficiently to block out the reality that a hard core candidate would play poorly against the President. A real large number are convinced that they are a part of some grand sweeping movement. There is also the matter of the CU decision and the groups, including Koch outfits, who don't like what they see in the "establishment" candidates. There is a closed little world composed of FauxNews, Rush (and ilk), the CU enabled bunch, and '10 elected GOPers that doesn't see past its narrowly defined limits.
Maybe Rachael and some of the other pundits didn't notice that it was GOP Primaries that ran Christine ODonnel, Sharon Angel, and a host of loons that did win and don't even come close to GOP establishment credentials. Now maybe you'd like to make the point that Sharon and Christine didn't win and that it was Blue Dogs that lost or just poorly run campaigns that lost to the loons. That does not matter. There is a usurper in office, that guy is in our House. It isn't just racism, it is socialism, communism, liberalism, whateverism that is different from the GOP Americanism narrative of the past couple decades.
The GOP has managed to stir itself into a complete frothing foaming fit over Democrats. The BushCo theme of fellow travelers traitorous defeatist liberals was only the opening salvo, now their old white guy POW got handed his ass by that usurper and only the principled obstructionism of GOP Congresscritters has save the nation from ... something horrible. What didn't sink in to the GOP establishment while they were busily fomenting fear and loathing was that frightened angry people don't think long term and strategically and vote for ... Mittens (or whatever establishment type they settle on). It isn't just imaginary devils scaring these folks, unemployment is high and threatening and wages suck and the country's demographics are changing and hell, a lot is changing. Many many people resist change and not much matches what they think it ought to.
I'd like to see a rational political landscape, I'd sure like to see an election where the centrist Obama doesn't look like a left wing nut next to their candidate because there is a hell of a lot of reasonable ground to the left of Obama. I'm sorry Rachael, you're giving way to much rationality credence to the GOP today and you're far from alone.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Speaking Of Bigotry Rep King...
A Congressional Hearing on prison radicalized Muslims? I don't know a whole hell of a lot about being in prison but I was under the impression that there are really dangerous groups other than just Muslims - some reallllly lily white... Not maybe as politically useful dogwhistling as ... you know ... Muslims.
Ah gee whiz, the other is such good fodder for political dogwhistles and somebody there to cheer it on. You'd think there was nothing of import going on in this nation to address.
Thinking may be over-rated...
Ah gee whiz, the other is such good fodder for political dogwhistles and somebody there to cheer it on. You'd think there was nothing of import going on in this nation to address.
Thinking may be over-rated...
GOPers On Display? (offensive video)
I had left this be except elsewhere. It seems to be getting around real thoroughly so I'll have this to say. This thing is offensive and outrageous on so many levels that racism, sexism, violence, and outright lies only sort of covers it. I don't cover or comment on Stormfront, Aryan Nation, or any of the other bigotry plus outfits, but now that this thing is wayyyy out there...
I'm not infuriated by it because it is a reflection of something so stupid and senseless and politically immaterial as activism as to be laughable. It won't get voters that wouldn't have anyhow, it won't do anything other than point up that there are sufficient numbers of GOPers of this school to bother making it. Well, it got somebody attention...
Every society has its resevoir of bigotry and there really isn't much to be done about that - apparently, historically. There is the part of pointing out that it is stupid and ignorant so that hopefully fewer do it or fall prey to the dogwhistles but this group is impervious to appeals to decency or humanity.
Now I can't afford to lose my mind over every demonstration of bigotry by bigots of whatever stripe and every race, religion, and etc. has its own resevoir of bigotry. I will lose my mind when such stuff is mainstreamed and particularly when I see dogwhistling attempted. Closet bigotry and unacknowledged bigotry concerns me a whole lot more than this kind of pathetic exercise for the simple reason that the obscured bigotry has real potential to drive our relations.
Maybe you think I ought to be ranting, I think it is a heck of a lot more effective to point to the GOP and ask if this is really a good thing for them. If it is a good thing, why is that? In fact, why would somebody even think it would work within the GOP realm?
Well, they do have their Fattman and all...
I'm not infuriated by it because it is a reflection of something so stupid and senseless and politically immaterial as activism as to be laughable. It won't get voters that wouldn't have anyhow, it won't do anything other than point up that there are sufficient numbers of GOPers of this school to bother making it. Well, it got somebody attention...
Every society has its resevoir of bigotry and there really isn't much to be done about that - apparently, historically. There is the part of pointing out that it is stupid and ignorant so that hopefully fewer do it or fall prey to the dogwhistles but this group is impervious to appeals to decency or humanity.
Now I can't afford to lose my mind over every demonstration of bigotry by bigots of whatever stripe and every race, religion, and etc. has its own resevoir of bigotry. I will lose my mind when such stuff is mainstreamed and particularly when I see dogwhistling attempted. Closet bigotry and unacknowledged bigotry concerns me a whole lot more than this kind of pathetic exercise for the simple reason that the obscured bigotry has real potential to drive our relations.
Maybe you think I ought to be ranting, I think it is a heck of a lot more effective to point to the GOP and ask if this is really a good thing for them. If it is a good thing, why is that? In fact, why would somebody even think it would work within the GOP realm?
Well, they do have their Fattman and all...
Way Too Early Presidential Race Prognostication
It is soooooo early in the 2012 election process that crystal ball gazing would probably be about as good me trying to analyze - but I'll go ahead anyhow.
Looking at what composes the GOP field currently and maybe prospectively I tend to think Bachman is going to be a lot more of a factor than some other guessers. Mitt has a supposed lead, but Bachman just announced and is just actually starting to campaign. That Mitt lead is real soft and what it amounts to is that his name has been around for awhile with nobody sniping at him.
I'm a real sceptic of Mitt, all his flipper-floppering around puts him in doubtful regard and his Mormonism isn't going to fly well with the Christian Right. I have no opinion on his religion, they do. Romney's Massachusetts record just won't square with today's GOP and he can only fool about with it just so far - in the face of actual believers like Bachman. His absolute only hope is that St Ronnie's 11th Commandment carries his day. Pawlenty stubbed his toe rather badly on that one.
Pawlenty has no hope, he doesn't fight and his laughable budget policy just won't produce any heat in a Primary Election. In regards to the President he doesn't sound any different than anybody else so he just isn't a stand out. He is faced with Mr Businessman Mitt on one side and true believer Michelle on the other and looks like nothing in particular.
Look, Palin is not running, The Newt is lizard toast, Cain is black and a nobody, Huntsman thinks the GOP of yesteryear still exists, and Santorum is ... well, Santorum and Ron Paul thinks he's a Libertarian and that it means something. Oh hell, Perry is just Bachman with a Texas accent and is ... cripes ... Texan. Um, deficit?
OK, sure, in a rational political landscape Huntsman ought to be the shoo-in since he won't scare anybody, has been fairly consistent, and he isn't a real liberal. Not a damn chance. Did I mention Mormon, again?
Michelle Bachman is crazy time and she'll say things she ought not - but her gaffes will be passable amongst the GOP as forgivable and be spun as hostile media manipulation. What Michelle brings are honest conservo-GOP credentials. As crazy as I think she is, she has been consistently there and vocal. I do think that the GOP has made the mistake of being so damn partisan and demonizing of anyone else that she is now the voice of most of the Party's electorate. This is not the Party of reasoned debate and compromise and has effectively demonstrated it. The idea that they can now switch gears and go 'middle' isn't reasonable. Their actions over the last decade have precluded the 'middle' candidate.
Right now the President has his own sets of difficulties. While he never promised to be some left progressive, he did create an image of hope and change that is naturally undercut by the compromises any President would have to make which leads to a certain amount of lack of enthusiasm. The fact that this President never pretended to be left will not please or assuage the left in the face of the plutocratic gains made under him. I don't know that means they'll stay home but the left of the Party does ordinarily get out on the ground despite political disregard. There may be a limit.
The President has an economy that ... well, polite words don't suffice, but sucks. How long the voters will go with pointing at GWB and GOP constructed economic framework is open to question. Very little policy other than the Stimulus has kicked in at this point or will before 2012 and that's a problem. Health Care is little more than a dirty word in most people's experience because not much more than the rhetoric is in their experience. Deficit fever is not going to work in Democratic favor, anything they do in the regard of cutting will simply be compared to the GOP's more aggressive stances and for the most part the consequences will be negative. If the Democrats play along, they will simply be GOP-lite and once again with no clear agenda other than "not as bad as."
Compared to any GOP candidate the President will be the smartest and most reasonable person in the field. That's real good except that may not be the electorate's mood. People who are sick and tired of something don't want to be reassured they want something done (even if it's impossible). I don't have a rightwing bone in my body but I also don't want my damned head patted and that's bad.
Where the President comes out in a General Election fight may come down to who the GOP puts up against him or if the economy tanks. Michelle may scare the hell out of 'ordinary voters' and that's good for him. A tanked economy versus about any real Primary contender is real bad news. Asking me what the economy will do beyond suck for everyone other than plutocrats is just too much.
I pretty much laugh at the idea that the GOP will nominate a responsible person - they ceded that quite awhile ago and their try with the POW didn't work out as the base has really noticed. I have watched the pundits talk up the Mitt or Huntsman as though they are pretty much how it will go. This is not the GOP of four years ago and nothing I've seen brings me into the view that reasonable or even qualified is going to work whatever the desires of whatever they think is the GOP establishment.
Feel free to mock this late fall 2012.
Looking at what composes the GOP field currently and maybe prospectively I tend to think Bachman is going to be a lot more of a factor than some other guessers. Mitt has a supposed lead, but Bachman just announced and is just actually starting to campaign. That Mitt lead is real soft and what it amounts to is that his name has been around for awhile with nobody sniping at him.
I'm a real sceptic of Mitt, all his flipper-floppering around puts him in doubtful regard and his Mormonism isn't going to fly well with the Christian Right. I have no opinion on his religion, they do. Romney's Massachusetts record just won't square with today's GOP and he can only fool about with it just so far - in the face of actual believers like Bachman. His absolute only hope is that St Ronnie's 11th Commandment carries his day. Pawlenty stubbed his toe rather badly on that one.
Pawlenty has no hope, he doesn't fight and his laughable budget policy just won't produce any heat in a Primary Election. In regards to the President he doesn't sound any different than anybody else so he just isn't a stand out. He is faced with Mr Businessman Mitt on one side and true believer Michelle on the other and looks like nothing in particular.
Look, Palin is not running, The Newt is lizard toast, Cain is black and a nobody, Huntsman thinks the GOP of yesteryear still exists, and Santorum is ... well, Santorum and Ron Paul thinks he's a Libertarian and that it means something. Oh hell, Perry is just Bachman with a Texas accent and is ... cripes ... Texan. Um, deficit?
OK, sure, in a rational political landscape Huntsman ought to be the shoo-in since he won't scare anybody, has been fairly consistent, and he isn't a real liberal. Not a damn chance. Did I mention Mormon, again?
Michelle Bachman is crazy time and she'll say things she ought not - but her gaffes will be passable amongst the GOP as forgivable and be spun as hostile media manipulation. What Michelle brings are honest conservo-GOP credentials. As crazy as I think she is, she has been consistently there and vocal. I do think that the GOP has made the mistake of being so damn partisan and demonizing of anyone else that she is now the voice of most of the Party's electorate. This is not the Party of reasoned debate and compromise and has effectively demonstrated it. The idea that they can now switch gears and go 'middle' isn't reasonable. Their actions over the last decade have precluded the 'middle' candidate.
Right now the President has his own sets of difficulties. While he never promised to be some left progressive, he did create an image of hope and change that is naturally undercut by the compromises any President would have to make which leads to a certain amount of lack of enthusiasm. The fact that this President never pretended to be left will not please or assuage the left in the face of the plutocratic gains made under him. I don't know that means they'll stay home but the left of the Party does ordinarily get out on the ground despite political disregard. There may be a limit.
The President has an economy that ... well, polite words don't suffice, but sucks. How long the voters will go with pointing at GWB and GOP constructed economic framework is open to question. Very little policy other than the Stimulus has kicked in at this point or will before 2012 and that's a problem. Health Care is little more than a dirty word in most people's experience because not much more than the rhetoric is in their experience. Deficit fever is not going to work in Democratic favor, anything they do in the regard of cutting will simply be compared to the GOP's more aggressive stances and for the most part the consequences will be negative. If the Democrats play along, they will simply be GOP-lite and once again with no clear agenda other than "not as bad as."
Compared to any GOP candidate the President will be the smartest and most reasonable person in the field. That's real good except that may not be the electorate's mood. People who are sick and tired of something don't want to be reassured they want something done (even if it's impossible). I don't have a rightwing bone in my body but I also don't want my damned head patted and that's bad.
Where the President comes out in a General Election fight may come down to who the GOP puts up against him or if the economy tanks. Michelle may scare the hell out of 'ordinary voters' and that's good for him. A tanked economy versus about any real Primary contender is real bad news. Asking me what the economy will do beyond suck for everyone other than plutocrats is just too much.
I pretty much laugh at the idea that the GOP will nominate a responsible person - they ceded that quite awhile ago and their try with the POW didn't work out as the base has really noticed. I have watched the pundits talk up the Mitt or Huntsman as though they are pretty much how it will go. This is not the GOP of four years ago and nothing I've seen brings me into the view that reasonable or even qualified is going to work whatever the desires of whatever they think is the GOP establishment.
Feel free to mock this late fall 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)