gdp's Comments

To the Point — KCRW : Drones, the CIA and the \'Disposition Matrix\' - To the Point on KCRW

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:07:12 +0000

Very impressed with Naureen Shah: Columbia Law School, @naureenshah and her clinical description of the ethical ramifications of Obama's drone war. I fear the US will not heed her sound advice until drones are being used against our domestic populations by either outside forces like drug lords or internal surveillance and counter-terrorist forces for spying and sanctions domestically.

315PM - The Ides of March : Fire and court-martial Lt. Gen. Caldwell for his illegal actions

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:39:31 +0000

Note from Blog Author: after independently investigating these allegations, and reviewing the governments own internal investigations, it is apparent that Lt. Gen. Caldwell is guilty of treason against the united States and that a cover-up has been attempted to keep the public from understanding the extent of the military crimes and influence upon our elected representatives. This seems to be coming from top-secret military contractors and the corporations executing homeland security. It is my guess that anonymous "Joe" is a spook hired to sew misinformation. There has been no evidence of an independent external investigation by the Justice Department or any other authority. The Fox is in charge of the Hen House, and it just keeps getting scarier the deeper it gets. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-ame...

To the Point — KCRW : Debt Ceiling Negotiations and the Fear of Default - To the Point on KCRW

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:43:20 +0000

As the National Debt is only about equal to GDP, the USA could easily pay it off over 30 years. So, there is no risk of default. The immediate problem is that given our lack of jobs, and the fact that we no longer have an economy for the bottom 80%, the government must either spend upon the necessary infrastructure, research, and education, to rebuild America, or we will cease to be the dominant nation in the world. Unfortunately, we can't trust our representatives to spend the money wisely upon good programs, so we shouldn't. We should END THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, end the wars, cut all federal pay and budget increases, and pay off the national debt. After the 2012 elections, when our credit rating is up, we can then begin spending upon proven programs to create training and sustenance level jobs for the majority of American Citizens that will be out of work.

To the Point — KCRW : Debt Ceiling Negotiations and the Fear of Default - To the Point on KCRW

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:34:37 +0000

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-ame... almost all spending on government contractors is unnecessary waste, and unethical to boot.

To the Point — KCRW : Debt Ceiling Negotiations and the Fear of Default - To the Point on KCRW

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:06:16 +0000

All deficit spending in 2009,2010,2011,2013,2014,2015,2016, and a significant portion of deficit spending for the next THIRTY to FIFTY YEARS, is directly attributable to the decisions of the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS/SENATE and the G.W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION between 2000-2006. The bailouts, the stimulus, the war spending, the INTEREST UPON THE DEBT, are all consequences of decisions the REPUBLICANS MADE. However, the LARGEST contribution to the problem is not all the SPENDING caused by REPUBLICANS, the biggest part of the problem of our increasing deficit and national debt is the LACK OF REVENUE caused by the BUSH ERA TAX-CUTS FOR THE RICH. http://www.RaiseRevenue.org Stop blaming OBAMA for cleaning up the MESS that REPUBLICANS create!

315PM - The Ides of March : The Brothers Koch

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:54:50 +0000

Wealth itself seems a fungible concept, to be gauged not only by currency, or even property, but subjectively appraised by each individual, based upon their personal values. Anarchism, in this political sense, is a way of free trade, whereby ever independent individual somehow contracts with all others freely for whatever they need. I know it sounds idealistic and impractical, but they claim all the services of government can be provided by such associations. Even with imperfect knowledge, they would argue, a man should be able to choose what to do with his resources, and never be subjected to the evil tyranny of taxation. (how this ultimately differs from an open democracy is unclear, their claim is it relies upon 'property' rights, a mysterious ability to control your property without any threat of violence, even while your neighbors starve). What interests me about this sect is not their simple abhorrence of authority, or their claim that majority rule is equivalent to mob rule, for no thinking being wants to be commanded by unrecognized mandate, nor to accept one's dependence upon an abstract calculus of numerical supremacy. No, what I find fascinating about such asocial Libertarians, is their dependence upon each-other for acknowledgment. It seems even they find some value in group appraisal, some need for social acceptance, even while denying the power of collective authority. They are oblivious to these self-contradictions, and if confronted would likely ague that they do not seek acceptance, or support, but a 'free exchange of ideas', their knowledge in simple trade for information, or some other such justification. Still they cleave together in their impudent wrath, rejecting the very liberal society that spawned them, practicing their intellectual masturbation, without regard for the practical realities. What disappoints me is their cowardice and hypocrisy. Completely unwilling to acknowledge that any good comes from even a pure democratic government. And for the injustice of progressive taxation, they would remain apart. They will not participate in their own extortion, they claim, and this makes them quite impotent. You see, Libertarian Anarchists renounce the use of force except in 'self-defense' and will therefore never initiate the use of violence as a means to achieve their own ends. This leaves them both outside the political systems and unwilling to act. However, I suspect, that in a less free society than ours, they would easily justify such violence in 'self-defense'. Their obscure intellectual foundations being so oblique and rarified, their cause is palatable only to a few disenfranchised introverts. It is beneath them to communicate their ideas with others, whom they arrogantly belittle as incapable intellects and complicit in the corruption. So, mostly due to their own fears of ridicule and alienation paranoia, they become irrelevant. Many of the Anarchists ideas seem completely impractical, such as; Private security, private education, private transportation. But most confusing to me is their utter lack of empathy or compassion for the children and the elderly, and their assumption that they will never be vulnerable? It is as if, like wolves, they have no memory of childhood, and expect to die young. They live in the present. It seems to me that if they were truly convinced of their arguments and definitions of freedom and government, that they would be compelled to action, and thus either remove themselves from the onerous control of the state by some means such as rebellion, succession, or colonization. The fact that they do not verifies my assessments. Ultimately, the Libertarian Antisocial Atheist Anarchists are idealistic utopians, with impractical philosophies that have never been tested and will never exist. They are harmless and impotent. So, why do the Koch's worry me?

315PM - The Ides of March : The Brothers Koch

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:54:26 +0000

I've spent the last couple of weeks conversing with Libertarian Anarchists, a rare breed of intellectual pseudo-scientists who worship the study of the economy as if it were a religion, and draw sustenance from its ambiguity to nourish their strange moral calculus. They are infatuated by the idea of 'property rights' that begins with the concept of 'self-ownership'. They don't want to be known as Machivellians, they claim that no end, no matter how good, justifies unjust means. But injustice for them is a problem of the individual, not the society, they would not want government protection from injustice, only an impractical form of personal responsibility, presumably so that they can use their gifts prey on the weak and ignorant. They are a bit confused, they don't acknowledge a difference between "Capitalism" and Free-Market Economics. They see Usury as a valid contract between parties, even if their is indirect coercion. They see democracy as a 'tyranny of the majority', and when you try to explain that that is the reason for all the minority protections built into our laws, they protest, and claim they are extorted, paying their taxes under threat of violence. Unwilling to leave the comfort of our system, and perfectly willing to use our government regulated markets to prosper, they reject all violence as illegitimate, and thus pose no threat, except in self-defense. Somehow it depresses me to see men, and they are mostly male, using their intellect in such fruitless pursuits. They sit together in rapt agreement analyzing the texts of obscure Austrian economists, then impose their own subjective conclusions, ignoring the underlying contradictions of any individual philosophy. Conceited and arrogant, like most groups of cloistered believers, they hide their impractical objections behind curtains of assumed rationality, even while their insecurities and tangible failures lay in their laps. The core definitions of Libertarian philosophy are difficult to swallow. Freedom is not the glorious power of reason to choose ones actions and thus reap the rewards, but is instead limited to the perverse 'freedom' from threats of violent persuasion, for reasons will become clear. For the Libertarian, democracy is considered a confidence game, conceived to fool the weak minded into active participation in their own slavery. Government, all government, is considered to be evil, simply a way to force the capable and competent out of their 'rightful' earnings. For these anarchists the very thought of a progressive government, such as the United States, is a laughable abomination, nothing more than a system of power to steal one's wealth and enslave you without redemption. They feel no sense of gratitude or National pride. They freely accuse the state of extortion and oppression, yet they seem to have little to extort, and are in no hurry to escape. Their concept of an ideal society is an ungoverned capitalistic free market, based upon natural inequalities and 'free' enterprise. They argue that all with wealth somehow derived from ones labor, without referring to any unnecessary assumptions such as education, health, or resources, in their world all are naturally intelligent, strong, and independent, unfettered and invulnerable. This sense of invulnerability is a necessary part of their philosophy, for there is no sense of their dependence upon others or society for any of their wealth.

315PM - The Ides of March : The Brothers Koch

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:53:38 +0000

"The country faces great challenges and bold leadership is needed to meet these challenges. We live in interesting times, a time for heros, but we are unworthy." "One of the most striking peculiarities of psychopaths is that they lack empathy; they are able to shake off as mere tinsel the most universal social obligations. They lie and manipulate yet feel no compunction or regrets—in fact, they don’t feel particularly deeply about anything at all." Members of the John Birch Society developed an interest in a school of Austrian economists who promoted free-market ideals. Charles and David Koch were particularly influenced by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of “The Road to Serfdom” (1944), which argued that centralized government planning led, inexorably, to totalitarianism. Hayek’s belief in unfettered capitalism has proved inspirational to many conservatives, and to anti-Soviet dissidents; lately, Tea Party supporters have championed his work. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100...

Big Government : Public School FAIL: Video Clip That Will Shock, Sadden You

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:33:36 +0000

What utter BS! Did Andrew Coulson even go to school? His graph shows that costs rise from $40,000 to $150,000 for 13 years of education over a 36 year period! That's LESS than the rate of INFLATION! And still only $11,500/child/year (although in CA my state its still only $7,500/child/yr) What was the "Parent" in the video doing for the year? Apparently not parenting. There are many problems with Public Education, but over-funding isn't one of them.

Big Government : Licensing Gone Wild: Government Bureaucrats Shut Down Crying Little Girl's Lemonade Stand

Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:59:38 +0000

"At worst, these laws allow powerful insiders to protect themselves from competition." So, I'm assuming that the "powerful insiders" in the Lemonade Stand case were the Fair organizers selling soda for $3/cup? Who was the entrepreneur and who was the little wheeze trying to play on people's emotions to under-cut the existing businesses? That one lemonade stand could have cost the fair business hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars, and we don't know if that 7 year old even washed her hands.

Change.gov : Join the Discussion: Former Sen. Daschle responds on health care | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Trans

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:43:36 +0000

THESE ARE GOOD IDEAS, PLEASE READ Two months ago I had Knee surgery, replaced ACL, very common injury. The way the system works the healthcare Providers: M.D., Anesthesiologist, Surgery Center, Med. Equipment Company, Rehab, etc. all charge ME separately, through my Insurance, Blue Shield CA. Since my deductible is not met at the beginning of the day, I have to come up with $10,000 for the costs, and as it was Out Patient, (i.e. I went home that night) I was not even covered for essential medical devices like a Continuous Motion machine or an Ice Water Pad! OK that's my sob story, but here is the real problem. In order to make sure that the Insurance Company pays their MAXIMUM FEE, each provider charges 3 times what they would really charge a person without any insurance. Because the insurance company "ADJUSTS" the bill to meet what THEY decide the cost of your health should be. It is a game, and as long as the providers have to GAME THE SYSTEM we get higher costs. Why can't everyone just be honest? I also found out that the insurance company will pay more for the same procedure depending upon where you live. If you want to get more money out of them, move to an expensive area. That doesn't seem fair. Why should a Knee in kentucky be worth less than a knee in San Diego? Just because the MD payed more for his house and yacht in CA. The whole system is corrupted by sales-men. I got good care, but it could have been Great care, and half the cost. We need a GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN and LOCAL PATIENT ADVOCATES, free for poor people, and a minimal regulated cost for those who can afford it. Use people who have worked for insurance companies, and know the system. THIS COULD EVEN BE DONE BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR IF THE RIGHT LAWS WERE IN PLACE TO ALLOW PENALTIES FOR BRIBING ADVOCATES AND GIVING KICKBACKS TO PROVIDERS FROM DRUGH AND MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANIES! MICHAEL RUSSELL, SAN DIEGO, CA 92109

315PM - The Ides of March : The True Choice

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:01:32 +0000

We now have the ability to engage in INTENSEdebate