Sunday, September 02, 2007

Billionaires For Bush Reveal How Bush Paid Off His Base and Stuck You with the Tab

If you think the astounding rise of income inequities and the rise of the GOP are just coincidental, please email me. I would like to speak with you about the many advantages and pleasures you might derive as the new, proud owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. The GOP sold Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1982 like George W. Bush sold his war on Iraq. The benefits of both have accrued only to this nation's power elite and, in both cases, everyone else is stuck with the tab. It will be left to sons, daughters, grand-children and great grand children to retire the debt Bush has run up murdering civilians in Iraq. Yet, odds are, many of those same sons, daughters and their offspring will start life pulling up the rear having been denied pole position at the outset.

Bush stuck you in yet another way. His "elite" base got the tax cut that you didn't. Those who did not get a tax cut are considered "poor" but are getting poorer as we live and breath. His "base" was rich at the time Bush cut their taxes. They've gotten richer as a result. Where will Bush's base hide, I wonder, when the bill he has run up in Iraq comes due? They are not worried. Bush has been bought and paid for.

We have grown up with "official myths", Horatio Alger stories of rags-to-riches, stories about how down-and-out boys might achieve an American dream of wealth and success through mere hard work and fair dealing. The US, myths say, is not an aristocracy; it is a "meritocracy". On the other side of the coin is an implicit message that if the deserving poor eventually get rich, those that are not rich deserve to be poor.

The GOP are well-advised not to waste my time and their time denying it. Their progenitur is Scrooge.
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."

—Scrooge, A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
Still, the GOP is indicted best in their own words. Pat Buchanan is the class example.
One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.

--Patrick J. Buchanan, 1992 Republican National Convention Speech, Houston, Texas

Buchanan targeted Democrats already tarred with the label "liberal", a GOP code word for anyone opposing GOP robber-baron economics. Any Democrat would have made a better President than any Republican chosen at random. At least one on Buchanan's hit list did. Jimmy Carter, now demonized with a GOP made-up, code word --stagflation. There is, in fact, no real word for an economic condition that only Republicans seemed to have complained about. Certainly, when another Democrat interrupts the GOP diet of government gravy and Pentagon pork, he/she will be accused of stagflation --or whatever word GOP consultants and focus groups can make-up or otherwise "pass".

The critics Buchanan so vociferously publicized were right about Reagan's disastrous presidency. Much of the rest of Buchanan's speech credits Reagan with any number of things which Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with or things which occurred despite Reagan's worst efforts.
It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down...
Thus it is implied that Ronald Reagan, who paid tribute to Nazi SS dead at Bitburg, had something to do with bringing down the Berlin Wall. Reagan is more accurately remembered for having "blinked" when Gorbachev put total nuclear disarmament on the table for negotiation at Rekjavik.

Buchanan's next absurdity must be read while remembering Bush v Gore:
We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution.
To be fair, Buchanan could not have known in 1992 that in a mere eight years a "conservative" majority on the high court would prove him wrong yet again. For all the right wing bluster about "strict constructionist" interpretations of the US Constitution, it will be forever recalled that it was the Republican majority on the Supreme Court that rewrote the Constitution in order to put into office an imperial "President" who would finish off the venerable document for good!

Wealth "trickling up" is a world wide phenomenon but the effects are stunning. In the year 2000, almost twenty years after the infamous Ronald Reagan tax cut benefiting only the richest Americans, a tiny elite, the richest 1% of adults, owned 40% of the world’s total assets. In 2000, the richest 10% of adults owned 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned a mere 1% of global wealth.

[See: World Institute for Development Economics Research, The World Distribution of Household Wealth, 2006]. It's gotten much worse since then.
It is well known that wealth is shared out unfairly. "People on the whole have normally distributed attributes, talents and motivations, yet we finish up with wealth distributions that are much more unequal than that," says Robin Marris, emeritus professor of economics at Birkbeck, University of London.

In 1897, a Paris-born engineer named Vilfredo Pareto showed that the distribution of wealth in Europe followed a simple power-law pattern, which essentially meant that the extremely rich hogged most of a nation's wealth (New Scientist, 19 August 2000, p22). Economists later realised that this law applied to just the very rich, and not necessarily to how wealth was distributed among the rest.

Now it seems that while the rich have Pareto's law to thank, the vast majority of people are governed by a completely different law. Physicist Victor Yakovenko of the University of Maryland in College Park and his colleagues analysed income data from the US Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 2001. They found that while the income distribution among the super-wealthy- about 3 per cent of the population- does follow Pareto's law, incomes for the remaining 97 per cent fitted a different curve- one that also describes the spread of energies of atoms in a gas.

In the gas model, people exchange money in random interactions, much as atoms exchange energy when they collide. While economists' models traditionally regard humans as rational beings who always make intelligent decisions, econophysicists argue that in large systems the behaviour of each individual is influenced by so many factors that the net result is random, so it makes sense to treat people like atoms in a gas. The analogy also holds because money is like energy, in that it has to be conserved. "It's like a fluid that flows in interactions, it's not created or destroyed, only redistributed," says Yakovenko.

--New Scientist, There's one rule for the rich

Some essential background:
  • In 1979, the top 1 per cent of the US population earned, on average, 33.1 times as much as the lowest 20 per cent. In 2000, the multiplier had grown to 88.5. Certainly, since Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1982, US "inequality" grew steadily but for a brief respite in Clinton's second term. Bush's final record will be even worse.
  • Surveys have also identified a small, but fast-growing global group of 70,000 super rich individuals with more than $30 million in financial assets. This group is growing even faster than "paupers" in the $1 million-plus bracket." [See: World's richest worth $29 trillion in 2003; Survey: Wealthy now back at level before dot-com bust. MSNBC.com, June 15, 2004 ]
  • The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent.
  • The top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined
  • Table 2: Share of Total Available Household Net Worth, 2001*



    Wealth GroupShare of Net Worth
    99-100th percentile32.7%
    95-99th percentile25.0%
    90-95th percentile12.1%
    50th-90th percentile27.1%
    0-50th percentile2.8%
    Total100.0%

    [See: Kennickell, 2003. See data from the Federal Reserve Board for details.

The "center" itself would not be so bad were not the centers so far to the "right", in other words, skewed. Imagine a line with a tiny, ruling oligarchy on the right end and a perfectly egalitarian democracy i.e, a group sharing both power and wealth in perfect equity on the left end. The bulging bell curve in the middle of this line is not --in America --the middle at all, but far to the right. In America, the center is not in the center and may never have been.

While a tiny few, like Bill Gates, may indulge acts of philanthropy from time to time, the over all trends have not changed. A more egalitarian society is the preferred remedy to injustice --not isolated acts of charity, however kind. Moreover, with very, very few exceptions, those growing rich at the expense of others are unlikely to become more liberal as they gain riches. With few notable and statistically insignificant exceptions, the nouveau riche will continue to "...dance with the party that brung 'em." Reagan-heads called it the "Reagan Revolution" for good reason. Conditioned to think of "revolution" in terms of the French or Russian revolutions, Americans might not have grasped the significant harm "Reaganomics" have done America. It was for real.

How many people actually rule America by virtue of their great wealth, their ability to finance political campaigns, their ability to open doors with a phone call? The size of this group is variously estimated, but the fact is no one really knows. Surveys don't ask that question and political consultants like Karl Rove or Paul Caprio will most certainly not tell you. It is possible, however, to estimate the size of a group that literally owns some 99 percent of all "wealth" in the US. As this group grows both smaller and richer, the GOP declines in terms of total votes that can be counted on. This is why the GOP must, of necessity, communicate to its core base via "code words". The GOP, in other words, cannot afford to be honest even with its rank and file. It has cut a Faustian bargain with a tiny elite, Bush's base.

This tiny elite, Bush's base, must work behind the scenes. Robber barons have the money and the power to interfere with the electoral process in numerous ways. The most glaring development is the rise of super-conservative "networks" like Fox and talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. These programs are the Right Wing's propaganda machine, "faux news" programs that make no effort to tell the truth. Gullible people who have nothing in common with Rupert Murdoch will nevertheless fall for the Fox line. In more egalitarian days, opposing voices could demand and get "equal time". The Fairness Doctrine was deliberately targeted by un-American, "monied" interests for whom the open exchange of ideas is a threat.

Even Roman Emperors gave the vox populi lip service with a healthy soupcon of bread and circuses. The most successful oligarchs --real and faux --are those who succeed in tricking the "folk" into thinking them "...of the people". A regular contributor to this blog wrote recently:
Howard Dean, along with the other main stream Dem orgs. and the progressive Dem.orgs had better figure out a way to co-exist and share resources, they are going to need, if they are to over come this corrupt bunch they are about to take the field with.
Certainly, as more voters grow dis-enchanted with George W. Bush and the GOP in general, Democratic prospects will improve. But there is a downside to the political reality that even as they grow smaller in number, the GOP's natural base grows very, very rich.

Sadly, our electoral system seems designed to weed out dissent deviating past a certain "norm", a norm acceded to by a tiny, exceedingly rich, ruling cabal, a "norm" established by the Democratic and Republican wings of a single party.

An update.

Americans Now Resemble Pre-War Nazi Germans

You see them at the supermarket aggressively pushing their shopping carts around, and you get this feeling that if you do not move fast enough they might just run into you. You detect an undercurrent of suppressed rage, hostility, and detachment as if they are on some other planet.

You feel the same thing when you are driving down the road, and you see them driving with one hand on the wheel, the other hand holding up a cell phone to their ear, wheeling their SUVs around just as aggressively and at the same time detached, like those people in the supermarket pushing their shopping carts around.

No-one smiles any more. No-one wants to talk about things that matter. If you want to discuss anything other than sports, sex, or Dancing with the Stars, no-one seems interested.

What is happening? Is it something in the water, or is Invasion of the Body Snatchers actually happening for real?

I do not remember people being like this. They are hostile, impatient, full of suppressed anger, abrupt, suspicious, and some even threatening.

Not so many years ago, you couldn't walk down the street without running into your friends and neighbors wanting to talk about anything and everything, and have a good laugh. People, I remember, used to communicate -- now they just glare at you, or completely ignore you.

No-one wants to complain about anything. No-one seems to be bothered by high taxes or inflation. They just look at you and roll their eyes like you are crazy if you dare to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo. And God forbid, do not mention the wars, that topic really gets people uncomfortable. It is as if you are asking some personal question. ...
Just how much debt will Bush leave to your children to pay back --unless, your children somehow become billionaires?


As percentage of GDP, "deficit is twice as large as it's ever been"


Billionaires for Bush

Bush Restricting Travel Rights Of More Than 100,000 Americans

Monday, September 3rd, 2007 by RLR
From True Blue Liberal
By Sherwood Ross

Citizens who have done no more than criticize the president are being banned from airline flights, harassed at airports’, strip searched, roughed up and even imprisoned, feminist author and political activist Naomi Wolf reports in her new book, “The End of America.”(Chelsea Green Publishing)

“Making it more difficult for people out of favor with the state to travel back and forth across borders is a classic part of the fascist playbook,” Wolf says. She noticed starting in 2002 that “almost every time I sought to board a domestic airline flight, I was called aside by the Transportation Security Administration(TSA) and given a more thorough search.”During one preboarding search, a TSA agent told her “You’re on the list” and Wolf learned it is not a list of suspected terrorists but of journalists, academics, activists, and politicians “who have criticized the White House.”Some of this hassling has made headlines, such as when Senator Edward Kennedy was detained five times in East Coast airports in March, 2004, suggesting no person, however prominent, is safe from Bush nastiness. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia has also been mistreated. And it can be nasty. Robert Johnson, an American citizen, described the “humiliation factor” he endured:“I had to take off my pants. I had to take off my sneakers, then I had to take off my socks. I was treated like a criminal,” Wolf quotes him as saying. And it gets worse than that. Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s foreign minister, said he was detained at Kennedy airport by officers who “threatened and shoved” him. And that was mild. Maher Arar, a Canadian software consultant was detained at Kennedy and “rendered” to Syria where he was imprisoned for more than a year by goons that beat him with a heavy metal cable. Read the rest of this entry »
From an Amazon reader review of John Perkins' "The Secret History of the American Empire.
In his first book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins lifted the veil on a world rarely seen by most people. He took us on a tour of the costs and consequences of American corporate hegemony, dispelling myths of the `free market', and forcing us to peer deep into our own souls. As Perkins states in his earlier works, "The world is as you dream it," so the question is, what will you dream?

Picking up where he left off, Perkins continues down the path of redemption. Once serving the masters of modern slavery, Perkins now works tirelessly to free those who have been oppressed by the corpratocracy. His thesis? Our planet cannot survive ruthless consumerism at the expense of the world and its people. When all the trees are gone, and all the oil is tapped, what will be left? Does your shirt still feel nice when you understand the suffering involved in its production?

The world John Perkins envisions is one in which personal participation is crucial, and power does not rest in the hands of the few. We have everything we need to create a sustainable global society. We have the resources, the technology, and viable social models. What we need now is a vision, and the inspiration to create such a world. In 329 pages, Perkins provides us with the inspiration to fearlessly question ourselves, and the power structures that exist around us.

Traveling through countries like Indonesia, Brazil, Bolivia, Iraq, and Iran, Perkins paints a picture so vivid its life-altering. This is an amazing follow-up to Confessions, and I strongly recommend this book to anyone who still believes the `free market' benefits all, or anyone who is still waving a flag. This story is brutal, harsh, and real. But the good news is: life can change. We can change. Deep down we all share common values. We all want to live peacefully, we all want to prosper, and we all want to feel love.

If you wish to understand the world for how it really exists, and you seek the tools to help create positive changes, then you have to read this book.

As John says, "Today is the day for us to begin to truly change the world."
Additional resourcesDiscoveries





Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's the same here in Okc, Ok. I trust NO ONE. Hostility, and pushy people currently rule the mood. Of course we have a lot of foreigners here that still swear loyalty to their birth country, so I'm guessing that has a LOT to do with it. And of course you have your average murderers, and other garden-variety criminals who come to our big city to hide from authorities. Makes me dread going out of the house when our own government doesn't take care of business that's really not a good example to the people. It's all about the money.

Anonymous said...

One more thing, people don't have many/any friends these days. 10-20 years ago folks might have 6-8 "friends", and 2-3 "close friends". Now people have a few aquaintences (maybe) and trust no one. Part of this is due to telecommunting, part is due to overpopulation, outsourcing etc. Sad but true...

SpaceGhoti said...

I can't speak for anyone else, but my lady and I have a hadful of "close friends" and innumerable folk whom we're friendly with. The irony is that we wouldn't know many of them without the Internet.

Perhaps the problem with trust and interpersonal relationships is more personal and less endemic.

Anonymous said...

I might suggest you take a look at landholding concentration in the United States, and also take into consideration the proportion of land value nominally held by corporate and foreign "owners" and the consequence of the present and growing epidemic of foreclosures.

Will future generations grow up renters in their own land?

Unknown said...

SpaceGhoti said...

The irony is that we wouldn't know many of them without the Internet.

And sadly, a "virtual" relationship is not a personal one. Something has gone terribly wrong in the US. I can tell you that, in Europe, it is common for strangers to strike up conversations on the street, in sidewalk cafes, at the train station. It helps if you speak the language. But, unlike the US, many Europeans speak 2,3, maybe 4 languages. I am not saying that to put America down ---just to wake people up to the fact that there IS a better way of life if we would just STOP LISTENING to the liars of the right wing. It's all a cult. It's all bullshit. Life can be good. GOP ideologues are either miserable sons o'bitches or religious kooks or vegetating seed pods from another planet.

whig said...

I might suggest you take a look at landholding concentration in the United States,

Good suggestion. It was, however, beyond the scope of this article and, lately, I have been pressed for time. I will say this ---there are several mechanisms by which land ownership is concentrated in very few hands. Inequities themselves tend to big prices of desirable lands past the point of affordability. Rich elites can simply bid up prices for places like Malibu to the point where very ordinary residences cannot be bought by ordinary folk. The rich make their own ghettos.

Anonymous said...

Hi Len,

I think it's important for people to understand what animates the economics of bush et al.

By that I mean, the basic, essential, assumption that results in the specific policies that the Feudalist Cult in America has advanced.

They want all legitimate authority in our country to reside in Property, rather than with the Voters.

In fact, they do not believe that mere voters should have any authority at all when it comes to restricting, or modifying the interest of a property owner as against the community as a whole.

Therefore their hatred of the EPA, OSHA, zoning laws, building codes, etc.

Yes, the specific policies of bush et al, are destructive and evil, but it is most important to understand the underlying "philosophy" that finds expression in these evil policies.

A 25 year old NYC Young Republican Club official said to me with a straight face, "Only property owners should be allowed to vote."

I replied, "Why?"

He responded, "Because they have a stake in the country."

To which I averred, "Don't mere citizens have a stake in our country."

BLANK STARE.

Len, these individuals simply believe in the sovereignty of PROPERTY.

They grudgingly allow perfunctory and cosmetic "elections" with the understanding that the only good candidate is the candidate who promises to do nothing once he is elected, ie, the creed, cant, and cult, of so-called "limited
government" (I say "so-called" because these same advocates of "limited government" have zero problem with listening to you on the phone, opening your mail, and imprisoning you without enumerating charges).

So the candidates of this movement brag in advance that they will not do anything at all if elected.

Literally.

This results in a country where money and guns rule the day, rather than mere voters, and millions of dupes think this means "freedom".

Why not, sean hannity says so.

God Bless America.

SpaceGhoti said...

Len Hart said...

And sadly, a "virtual" relationship is not a personal one.

If I gave you reason to believe all of my friendships are virtual, then I apologize. These are people I meet locally, but wouldn't have known if I hadn't run across them virtually. Does that clarify?

James Davis said...

You hit the nail on the head... my hat's off to you!

Anonymous said...

Len you are the perfect candidate to write the book on this one: "The Reagan era, Mythology and Misconception"
Someone needs to do it.

benmerc

Diane B said...

What an interesting article, as usual, Len, you brought up some serious concerns. One being the electoral college. Here, in Ca. their planing on a ballot measure which would change the way their distributed. It's not a good thing for the Democratic running for President in 2008.

It could very well give the election to a Republican.

Two weeks ago, I wrote Attorney General Jerry Brown, stating my concerns. Hopefully, he can find a reason for why it should not be on the ballot. Jerry, is my favorite politician and was a wonderful Governor. If anyone wants to stop this, let me tell you all, its Jerry Brown.

Unknown said...

SpaceGhoti said...

If I gave you reason to believe all of my friendships are virtual, then I apologize. These are people I meet locally, but wouldn't have known if I hadn't run across them virtually. Does that clarify?

I apologize if I gave you the impression that I thought YOUR relationships were all "virtual". I also hope I didn't give the impression that I am anti-NET. If I were, I wouldn't bother blogging. I suspect that many an insurrection and perhaps a revolution or two were fomented in coffee shops. The net may be filling that vacuum.

benmerc said...

Len you are the perfect candidate to write the book on this one: "The Reagan era, Mythology and Misconception" Someone needs to do it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, benmerc. I may just do that. The Reagan years were nightmare for millions. It really pisses me off when a stupid gopper swoons: "But he made us feel good about ourselves". It's nauseating.

Jay Diamond said...

This results in a country where money and guns rule the day, rather than mere voters, and millions of dupes think this means "freedom".

Thanks for your comments, Jay, and welcome to the Cowboy. It is not only "sovereignty of property" --though it is that to be sure. It is also "corporate personhood". Somewhere along the GOP-way, corporations, mere legal abstractions, became, like Pinocchio, real "little boys" with all the "right" recognized as belonging to "people" in the Bill of Rights. I don't know how they got away with that one. The notion that mere scraps of paper have "rights" is just downright stupid on its face.

Diane B said...

What an interesting article, as usual, Len, you brought up some serious concerns. One being the electoral college.

Thanks, Diane. The electoral college is a relic and should be abolished by a new people's convention created to undo the harm Bush has done. Electoral reform should be designed to break the backs of the special interests by banning corporate contributions outright. The objection would be that such a measure violates the First Amendment. To that I say: a new people's convention can re-write the First Amendment SUCH THAT it applies to only to people --NOT corporations, which are mere legal abstractions. Secondly, US political campaigns have become, in fact, interminable. The system of endless primaries should come to an end. Finally, the direct election of the President should utilize either a "range system" or a "borda count" which I written about briefly. Many of the comments on that topic were very knowledgeable and lean toward "range voting".

Unknown said...

Thanks, James Davis, and welcome to the Cowboy.

Diane B said...

Len, would you leave the link to what you wrote regarding direct voting. I would appreciate it!

Your right about ending these primaries. Why not just one.

Anonymous said...

Len...

The ground general that introduced Bush today for his pep rally in Iraq in front of 750 marines actually quoted Reagan...this guy was a rabid gopper. Also, didn't Reagan's poor policy decisions leave 240 marines dead in Lebanon? Anyhow, Bush did his cheer leader thing, did the photo op thing and then in true chicken hawk fashion, split for somewhere else...

benmerc

Blue Ibis said...

The ECB wrote:

"It will be left to sons, daughters, grand-children and great grand children to retire the debt Bush has run up murdering civilians in Iraq. Yet, odds are, many of those same sons, daughters and their offspring will start life pulling up the rear having been denied pole position at the outset."

Hi Len,

I think the plan is to have that debt covered by the draft. When there is no career opportunity other than the military (through a ruined economy ala the Depression; these things can be arranged) then one may wage war at will. There will be no lack of cannon fodder. And war, as we know, "is good for business". For the robber barrons, war is waaay better than peace. Peace gives too much opportunity to great unwashed. Mark Twain once said "History may not repeat, but it does rhyme". We've seen this before. Sadly, unless there is a great shift of awareness, we will see and endure it yet again. But will we learn?

Blue Ibis

Unknown said...

Diane,

Here's the link to the article about various balloting methods and direct elections:Restoring American Democracy: A Proposal

benmerc...

Also, didn't Reagan's poor policy decisions leave 240 marines dead in Lebanon? Anyhow, Bush did his cheer leader thing, did the photo op thing and then in true chicken hawk fashion, split for somewhere else...

You remember correctly, benmerc. Reonald Reagan, at least, had the good sense to pull out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks was blown up. Reagan's "intervention" in Lebanon was the second such US intevention, the first being Eisenhower's ludicrous "D-Day like" beach landing in the 1950's. I suppose he wanted to relive the glory days of WWII. I have an article about Reagan's failed war on terrorism that includes some background on the US in Lebanon at Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes

and here:

The Heritage Foundation Picks a Fight with the Cowboy

and here: The Iraq War Makes Terrorism Worse, Al Qaeda Strikes Back, Tenet Took the Fall

Here is a link to a great chronology of US problems, or, more correctly, US made problems in the Middle East, Iran in particular:
U.S. Intervention in the Middle East

Blue Ibis said...

the plan is to have that debt covered by the draft. When there is no career opportunity other than the military (through a ruined economy ala the Depression; these things can be arranged) then one may wage war at will. There will be no lack of cannon fodder. And war, as we know, "is good for business". For the robber barrons, war is waaay better than peace. Peace gives too much opportunity to great unwashed. Mark Twain once said "History may not repeat, but it does rhyme". We've seen this before. Sadly, unless there is a great shift of awareness, we will see and endure it yet again. But will we learn?

You are correct and, sadly, it's already come to that. US industry has not been what it had been for some time now. When it ceased being what it was is a matter of some debate but I tend to place the responsibility for finishing off the US, as a first-world, industrial nation with Ronald Reagan whose policies effectively conceded the manufacture of automobiles, steel, and electronics to Asia, most prominently Japan. At the same time, the GOP had "effectively" RAISED taxes proportionally on everyone but the very, very rich who got a tax CUT!

See:The war on Iraq threatens the US Economy as mass murder ceases to be profitable

Also:

The War Racket: How Americans Pay for Bush's War Crimes at the Bank, the Pump, the Shop & the Graveside

It must be pointed out that NONE of the GOP's "tax cuts" have done a damn thing to stem the export of US jobs abroad, nor have they, in any way, diversified the manufacturing base or job creation. In Reagan's era much was made of the "export" of US technology, whatever the hell that was supposed to have meant. The result has been that even IT jobs have been outsourced to India and China.

But, if you are willing to murder folk without conscience, you can always risk getting your head blown off in service to Uncle Sam in one of his many wars of naked aggression. Even then, the Nazis of Blackwater are better paid.

Briefly, the US is down to its last major export: death and destruction.

The GOP has made of America a two-bit banana republic run by tin-horn GOP despots and sexually perverted megalomaniacs, certifiable psychotics and venal criminals. The US is a sick puppy. And the GOP must bear almost ALL the blame. As I have said many time, the GOP is not a political party, it is a crime syndicate, a criminal conspiracy whose leadership ought to be indicted under RICO. But it won't be. The GOP has packed the courts and law enforcement.

I hope that I live to see the demise of the GOP in a flaming Götterdammerung. As the old saying goes: "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings". I might learn to love opera.

Anonymous said...

"I might learn to love opera."- LH


No need Len, the late great Roy Orbison brought it to everyday Americans almost 50 years ago...best alto in the world...least thats what was explained to me.

benmerc

Anonymous said...

Scuse' me Roy, that would be Tenor...

benmerc

Unknown said...

benmerc,

I have enjoyed opera from time to time. My favorites include La Bohème, Lohengrin, Tales of Hoffman, and Aida.

I must admit that after four hours of Lohengrin, my butt was numb and I needed a beer. Even so, the prelude to Act III alone makes everything else worth enduring.

Tales of Hoffman boasts some of the most beautiful music written, including the famous Barcarolle, most recently heard in the film "Life is Beautiful", but also, the famous Les Oiseaux Dans La Charmille in which the sexy automaton, Olympia, keeps winding down. In the same act, Olympia is disassembled. Hoffman had bad luck with women.

Aida is memorable for the Grand March, of course and the heart wrenching last scene.

Two other works come to mind --Scott Joplin's Treemonisha which had been all but forgotten and never performed until Houston Grand Opera re-discovered it and produced it during David Gockley's tenure there. Earlier, HGO was the first major opera company to perform a complete Porgy and Bess. Their production of it was, of course recorded and performed in the company's tours throughout Europe.

You are absolutely correct about Orbison. An historic voice and, from all accounts, a nice guy. His original songs are now compared to Spanish opera in form.

Anonymous said...

Just passing this on, Len. It's an excellent one from Robert Dreyfuss -- How the Bush Administration and the Neocons got into bed with Iran's agents in Iraq.

And yeah, long live opera. Any classical music is good news. The theory is beyond me but I'm lately enjoying Rachmaninoff. Very beautiful.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the link, damien. Now Rachmaninoff may be my favorite composer aside from Mozart. Rachmaninoff would be remembered for the Second Piano Concerto if everything else got forgotten. Also --his Variations on a Theme by Paganini and the often overlooked, Third Piano Concerto. Rachmaninoff, by the way, had huge hands, I am told, and he had no trouble playing the "widely spaced" chords so typical of his sweeping, romantic style.