LABOR DAY (Part 1)
There is a saying among soldiers:
I dare not make the first move but would rather play the guest
I dare not advance an inch, but would rather withdraw a foot
This is called marching without intending to move
Rolling up your sleeves without showing your arm,
Being armed without weapons.
There is no greater catastrophe than underestimating the enemy.
By underestimating the enemy, I almost lose what I value.
Therefore when the battle is joined,
The underdog with win.
Tao Te Ching (Ch-69)
Call out the
instigators
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Lock up the streets and houses
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Hand out the arms and ammo
We're going to blast our way through here
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together
Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
The first Labor Day in the United States was celebrated on September 5, 1882 in New York City.[1] In the aftermath of the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the US military and US Marshals during the 1894 Pullman Strike, President Grover Cleveland put reconciliation with Labor as a top political priority. Fearing further conflict, legislation making Labor Day a national holiday was rushed through Congress unanimously and signed into law a mere six days after the end of the strike.[2] Cleveland was also concerned that aligning a US labor holiday with existing international May Day celebrations would stir up negative emotions linked to the Haymarket Affair.[3] All 50 U.S. states have made Labor Day a state holiday.
Struggle; that is where Labor Day Celebrations come from. Deaths and injuries were incurred by those who were being abused. And there are Labor Day Festivities all over the world. Canadian workers fought for and won theirs before us.
I was going to spend more time discussing income disparities but Rowan has done such a fine job I refer you all to her blog. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rowanwolf/2009/09/lets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php
Her '24' is over and this will help keep it alive. Someone was suggesting one of us just cut and paste it with proper attribution onto a new blog. Not a bad idea really. And if you have the time, check out the links there.
I can add some other 'facts' supporting Rowan's thesis though.
Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing." As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"
Beginning in the economic expansion of the early 1990s, Saez argues, the economy began to favor the top tiers American earners, but much of the country missed was left behind. "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007," Saes writes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html
Take a quick look at Ramona's blog today on health insurance. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ramona/2009/09/health-care---a-condition-not.php?ref=reccafe
Here is another example of class warfare with regard to that issue:
NaturalNews) Health
insurance company Health Net Inc. rewarded employees for finding ways to drop
customer policies and not pay for their medical expenses, according to an
investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).
Since 2005, the DMHC has been investigating five of the seven insurance
companies that provide health care plans to individuals in California. The department is attempting to crack down
on the practice among insurers of dropping people's coverage based on often
accidental errors in their enrollment applications. In many cases, people's
policies have been dropped after they submitted medical claims.
The DMHC has fined Health Net $1 million for failure to disclose a program in
which employees
received bonuses for meeting or exceeding quotas for health insurance
policies to be dropped. The department continues to investigate Health Net and
has yet to determine if the dropping of policies or the bonus program are
illegal. http://justwondrin.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-company-paid-its.html
Here is just a note on foreclosures:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. foreclosure filings spiked by more than 81% in 2008, a record, according to a report released Thursday, and they're up 225% compared with 2006. A total of 861,664 families lost their homes to foreclosure last year, according to RealtyTrac, which released its year-end report Thursday. There were more than 3.1 million foreclosure filings issued during 2008, which means that one of every 54 households received a notice last year.
"Clearly the foreclosure prevention programs implemented to date have not had any real success in slowing down this foreclosure tsunami," said James Saccacio, CEO of RealtyTrac in a statement. And despite those efforts on the part of both the government and the banking industry to quell the housing crisis, defaults continued to climb as 2008 came to an end. Foreclosure filings were up 17% in December over November, and rose 41% compared with December of 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/15/real_estate/millions_in_foreclosure/index.htm
So the repubs wish to get 'government' off 'the people's' backs. BUT WHICH PEOPLES ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? Oh and the best the repubs can come up with is that those seeking parity for the vast majority of our workers are guilty of fulminating CLASS WARFARE.
Every time you witness a home being foreclosed upon, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time your cousin or your friend loses a job due to 'downscaling', you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time your cousin or your friend is denied health coverage, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time COLA is denied to Social Security recipients, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time one of our citizens is put into prison for some drug related crime, you have witnessed a casualty of class warfare.
Every time you see cheney or rummy smirk after pocketing tens of millions and maybe hundreds of millions of tax payer money during their reign, you have witnessed an example of class warfare.
PEOPLE, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE HOUR OF EVERY SINGLE DAY, THERE IS A BATTLE BEING WAGED IN THIS CLASS WAR AND GUESS WHICH CLASS WINS ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME?
And what are the prospects for a more equitable arrangement for our work force?
It has become fashionable among equities managers of the bullish persuasion to argue that a strong recovery in GDP will occur in 2010 because the "structural adjustment period" of moving back to a more normal savings rate has been completed. We've gone from a savings rate of barely 1% in 2008 up to 4.2% in July (ok, so the argument sounded better when the number was 6.2% in May, but still...).
Fortunately, there IS some pretty good data on income stratification in the United States, and a few assumptions can help shed some light. Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have made careers of studying US income inequality using IRS data, which goes back to 1913. The most recent data available (for 2007) showed that the top 14,988 households (0.01% of the population) received 6.04% of income, the highest figure for any year since the data became available. The top 1% of households received 23.5% of income (the second highest on record, after 1928), while the top 10% received 49.7% of income (the highest on record).
I've never actually had an after tax income of $22.9 million, so I couldn't say for sure whether a 50% savings rate is a reasonable assumption, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is, just based on the pure physics of spending money. Buying cars, clothes, and fancy dinners, even at Masa, won't get you there...the math doesn't work. Buying a private jet could get you there, but most people, even rich people, don't buy one of those every year. The only EASY way to spend more than 50% of $22.9 million on an annual basis is to buy lots of houses...but the definition of "personal consumption expenditure" used by the BEA specifically excludes purchases of real estate. They use an imputed rent calculation instead. So I'm going to stick with my 50% number. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/income-disparity
I picked this squib just to underline the point that when you hear the word 'recovery' coming in the next few months (some already use that word) it is a recovery for the top echelon. It has nothing to do with those in the trenches. There is no legislation pending that I see, anyway, that is going to change the fact that when we have the 'ups' it will represent an increase for those on top and little for the remainder.
Do I feel hatred or animosity toward our Democratic Leaders? No. It is just that it will take five years to get our workers back to where they were nine years ago before the fascists took over full control of our tax dollars. That is if everything goes well. If the repubs get back in power, everything will be lost.
Until we tax Wall Street, until we institute a 90% tax on 'earnings' (aint that a great word? Do you really believe for one goddamn moment that one person can 'earn' a million dollar bonus? Or a one hundred million dollar bonus?), until we give shareholders back the rights that were stolen from them over the last three decades, until we find good regulators and overseers to police our capitalist society, until all Americans are given access to adequate health care;
WE ARE SCREWED
Dick, this is very leftist and off message of you. You wouldn't want Democrats to be caught hanging around with the wrong crowd.
September 6, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems are the wrong crowd Bluebell, at least if they act like Dems.......hahahahahahahahah
It is so weird to look at things in the sixth decade and look back at how I saw the same things in my third decade.
September 6, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then we have our version in West Virginia which I posted about the other day.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wvbiker/
September 6, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry. Forty-niner I will sell this blog as soon as you repost it.
I missed it.
There is something happening and most Americans do not know what it is.
Thank you for showing more courtesy than I did you.
September 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, wvbiker. Bring the comments too. maybe someon can find the YouTube with the flattened mountains.
September 7, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir DickDay, my thanks for the effort to keep my post alive. As you know, the discussion has been a bit contentious at times. I am honored you judge it worthwhile enough to encourage folks to read it.
You have included excellent information here.
I also think that this point you make is critical:
This BS started under Bush with the 2001 recession (as far as I remember). It was labeled a "jobless recovery." WTF? When I started hearing the Obama folks use the same terminology, I almost lost 3 teeth by grinding them. A jobless recovery is no damn recovery at all.
Clinton used a similar upbeat tone with the "float all boats" when those needing foodbanks were skyrocketing. Your boat can't float if it is sunk, and a recovery that misses 90% of the population is graft. Moreso this time when what is fueling that isolated recovery is being paid for by us, and they are building the same bubble with the same games all over again.
This is not even a "recession" for much of the population. It is a depression, and it set in before 2008 for a lot of folks.
Thanks DD - for everything - and particularly your unswerving support for justice.
September 6, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am soooooooooooo pleased you came onto my post.
Yes there will be gooooooooood and bad arguments with regard to the issues you posted. BUT SO BE IT.
Oh and thank you for obviously reading the blog in toto.
And the Clinton Model, which was a compromise, obviously...
Hey, he likes to stand up and say we created tens of millions of jobs.
And his model worked. But it did not work under w.
There were tens of millions of jobs lost.
Thank you, thank you , thank You.
September 6, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was created under Clinton was the technology bubble. Lots of paper millionaires created - yes more monopoly money just another kind. It really didn't do much for the economic bottom half of the population, and of course we bled productive capacity and jobs - thanks to NAFTA and GATT. I was not a Clinton fan.
The "real economy" has been slipping away for some time. Personally, I blame Reagan with pushing us over a cliff corporately. On going into office he asked corporations for their wish lists. He then took is first 100 days implementing as many of them as possible. I have always thought it very telling that the Republicans lionize Reagan and keep wanting to "finish" the Reagan Revolution. They made big gains under Clinton and even bigger ones under baby Bush. Aside from "green jobs" Obama is not building the productive base as far as I can see. I know it is early in some regards, but the harbingers to date have not made me jump for joy.
But regardless of sector (productive, service, or tech) we laborers. I wish folks would realize that, but that was part of the Reagan Revolution as well - destroy organized labor. Folks forget, or choose not to think about, what Unionization brought us: 40 hr work week, overtime pay, paid vacation, health insurance. Those things people think about as basic components of a "good" job and which is disappearing from the employment landscape almost as quickly as ice from the Arctic.
September 6, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we have lost something. We really have lost our 'private' unions. Government workers have just about the last shield of union protection. We have a couple grocery stores here and the union basically ensures that you make minimum wage and management makes sure no one works over 32 hours so that no benefits will be paid. One cashier I see from time to time, SLEEPS in her car.
Oh and I agree that this 'started' with Reagan.
September 6, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What bugs me is that real wages for workers have not gone up since 1970. But total consumption had to increase for the economy to increase, so working families had to get additional money to spend from somewhere.
Savings have dropped continually since 1970 until the unemployment reached scary levels recently.
Both parents in two parent families have often gone to work. That increased from 1970 on. In 1970 the income of a single worker could still support a middle class lifestyle.
That wasn't enough so then credit was expanded. This has been the period of two to three new credit card applications being sent out a week, and the standards of who could be given a credit card steadily dropped.
Then somehow the workers who were not getting more income had to pay off the credit cards. Voila! Home equity loans were expanded nation wide. Suddenly the value of the home became added to credit card debt. At the same time banks increased interest rates and fees.
By the late 90's the last additional source of consumption was sub-prime mortgages and Greenspan started playing with the interest rates to keep the economy pumping.
Now of course, Greenspan raised interest rates in 2000 to above 6%. The single most reliable predictor of whether the party holding the Presidency is the state of the economy during the election year. Oddly enough the increase in the interest rate slowed the economy down in 2000.
Then right after the election Greenspan started lowering interest rates so that in 2004 they were at the lowest level in decades. It kept the recession at bay - and reelected Bush. Strangely, Greenspan started increasing the interest rate in February 2005 by 1/4% per month for 17 months, at the end of which time the Housing bubble had collapsed and started the Recession that has almost been the second Great Depression.
The timing of the interest rate increases and especially the timing of the reversal of the direction of interest rates are a dead giveaway of their political nature.
That was also class warfare.
And the so-called business news is also complicit. As the economy started down every month or so we were fed "economic happy talk."
"The downturn will be over soon. It should be recovering six months from now." I heard that one regularly for over two years.
This year they finally switched to "Next year there will be the recovery starting."
You know what the economic happy talk is about? It's Wall Street selling more securities under any conditions. The brokers get paid for transactions, not for the outcome the purchaser gets. So the market is always just about to recover and housing prices will soon start back up. There are few liars as oblivious as security salesmen, and those who are worse are clearly either psychotic or tobacco executives. Recently Republican politicians have similarly reached that level.
September 7, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You reminded me a something I had forgotten. Sometime last September when 'this was all goin down' MSM was saying, hey this all started in 2007 so it should be over soon.
I thought it was strange when I heard it at the time. But after reading your fine essay...
PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. I can see a public good in it. Stop the panic...the only thing to fear is fear itself.
It all seems so conspiratorial.
Or is it stay on the sunny side of the street?
September 7, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, MCB has not yet read this, or there would be a comment for sure.
If I ever get organized, I will make aplace to keep links. Maybe it was here, but a factor in the recovery of the housing market is foreign capital. It has been revealed that realtors are bundling properties for foreign investors who buy them up and rent them. In the age of computers and service employees, who needs to have a contiguous property when it can all be managed so easily with our telecommunications? Banks are unloading the foreclosures and making money like crazy. How do you think these bailout funds are being returned so fast?
September 7, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could rec this comment. This has been my experience, but I couldn't state it so well. Thank you.
September 7, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure as hell isn't a recovery.
September 6, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this incredibly important blog. Some of the statistics in the articles you quoted leave me breathless. What the hell have we DONE??
This alone is enough to cause me many sleepless nights. Let's hope I put all of that awake time to good use fighting against the bastards who are hell-bent on totally destroying everything we've worked for since the days of our founding:
September 6, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Ramona Rowan started this with the link I provided.
I wanted an angle
this is part one
Tomorrow I wish to proceed
But I made sure to include yours as well
861,664 families LOST THEIR HOMES
I am emailing with a friend from here
She lost hers.
Its a depression unless you work for a great corp or have some huge retirement reservoir.
Yes and the amount who cannot get unemployment benefits.
THis is a mess Ramona.
September 6, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope it doesn't take 5 years to get back to a decade ago. I fear you are right, though. I have been talking about this for 10 years now. These chickens of our collective blindness to the plight of labor, (hey, it wasn't us, right?) Now they have come home to roost. With a vengence.
I'll never believe another lie about how these upper 10% people are smarter or work harder, they aren't and they don't. The only difference between them and everyone else is they sold their souls for money. Their callous disregard for their fellow man won't have a pretty end.
I do not think they should lose their lives, that's too easy, but their wealth? Oh yes, and they will, because they no longer have anyone left to prey on.
And no one to blame but themselves.
September 6, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Bwak you know this because you have met the top and the rest of us. Just like me. ha
Yes, I am more than concerned. But look at the Civil Rights Division, it will take five years to get rid of the racists in THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT DAMNIT.
Oh well.
Tomorrow is another day.
September 6, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, MCB has not yet read this, or there would be a comment for sure.
If I ever get organized, I will make aplace to keep links. Maybe it was here, but a factor in the recovery of the housing market is foreign capital. It has been revealed that realtors are bundling properties for foreign investors who buy them up and rent them. In the age of computers and service employees, who needs to have a contiguous property when it can all be managed so easily with our telecommunications? Banks are unloading the foreclosures and making money like crazy. How do you think these bailout funds are being returned so fast?
September 7, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know how this got here, but it is amazing how we cater to ur own destruction. IN more ways then one we are taking down the machinery that was once a great nation and shipping it overseas so that others might do out jobs. It's a kick in the teeth. These 10% are smarter, but in a deviant way. We shoul acknowledge the complexity of their scams, but we should refrain from labelling them heroes. They are parasites.
September 7, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every day that goes by, I get angrier, Dick. And seeing as I was trying to calm down after 50 years of white-hot rage, re-igniting is probably not a good thing. But if you just look at the numbers and think about them for a few seconds, and the viciousness of it all becomes clear.
"The fortunate 14,988 had an average income in 2007 of $35,042,705. They had an average federal tax burden, according to Piketty and Saez, of 34.7%, leaving them after tax income of $22.9 million."
While 861,664 families lost their home.
If those 14,988 wealthiest families incomes were reduced to a mere $2.9 million a YEAR, it would open up $348,000 for EACH of those 861,664 households going under.
But to suggest this stuff will bring the asshole brigade in here screaming to high heaven about Rights and Efficiency and Freedom and Communism and Russia and God and the Constitution. Their economic knowledge is nil, the proof is in the pudding, the only rights they see have to do with protecting complete freedom for the monied, (and seemingly no rights for health), and from their perspective even old Ike must've been a Commie.
But each day we ponder this stuff, and wonder why the world won't see sanity, thousands more families hit the floor.
Which leads me to the same conclusion as you.
FUCK 'EM.
Really. Fuck these people. I have no time for them anymore.
September 6, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I have my own white hot rage. Do I hear these figures or facts or reports on msm? Not often.
CNN was kind of good about the foreclosures for awhile.
Nobody is touching the top 15,000 families.
See this would not happen in the 1950's. Oh sure there was 'hidden income' but the rich did not wish to broadcast this grandeur. But do not attempt to tell me that these 15,000 do not have 'hidden income'. That is absurd.
And, to beat the dead horse again, Pat Robertson on his show spoke about how bad it would be to tax off shore corporations. Probably after he cashed his own checks from some off shore corporation, monies that he will never pay taxes on.
And no group of shareholders would stand for this rape but they cannot bring suit in most cases.
We shall see if my countrymen awaken someday.
September 6, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's a good thing you don't live here, quinn.
Seriously: I don't spend much time contemplating life or the politics of Canada, nor Europe, nor Japan... I'm too busy typically sorting out issues here in the US. Which leads me to wonder why are you so emotionally involved in the United States? I can understand following global things... but to be involved so emotionally with something that is so outside of your reach of influence? What's up with that?
September 7, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is awesomely shitty of you, CT! THANKS! Remember how I said I love it when you try so blatantly to get rid of me by playing your nationalist card? You know, patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel? And I DO love it when you try it in front of a crowd, 'cause you're too stupid to realize just how nasty it looks when you're trying to run someone off because of their race or age or sex or religion. And yeah, it gives me a chance to explain why I call you a coward. It's for this.
And the even awesomer thing is, now you've done it on Dick's blog! Right put where everyone can see it, not just after the 24 hour timeclock has gone on someone's blog, which is where you usually do it.
So, let's proceed.
I've told you numerous times, my family has - for many generations - been completely intertwined with the US. I have a brother, a sister, and 6 nephews/nieces there as we speak. Other sibs married Americans, who came to Canada. Others got US degrees. So our family gatherings this Summer included Chicago and Fayetteville and Cape Cod and so on. And my sibs, their kids, cousins and I myself cross the border regularly, for work, play, family, school, etc.
As for family, I should probably start with my father, who went to Julliard and Yale and Oberlin, had numerous Top Tens in the Boston and NY Marathons, etc etc. Interesting guy. So my mother got to live in Ohio and Connecticut and NYC. Like I've said, a family with no money - but good brains. I have relatives going back to the Mayflower CT, Fullers. And those other funny old New England names. Royce. Chase. etc. Look 'em up. How about you? You been around these parts this long?
Now, I've told you all this before, more than once. But you keep hounding. Because you think it'll drive me off. You keep asking why I don't leave. And that's because when we argue, your bluster doesn't do very well, does it?
As for me, I wander back and forth. I got offered a nice job in NYC a year back, but didn't want the associated travelling. You'd know the people doing the offering, funny enough - we discuss them every day. But I still speak there from time to time. Last place I spoke was MIT, last year. So far, I've lived in California, and spent time in Mass, Colo, N Carolina, Maine, NYC, Michigan, etc. My major friendships, e-mail lists, reunions, etc. - are American. But as for the US being outside my reach of influence? Oh dear. Son, my college hockey team had more major US political players on it than you'd ever guess. Anyway. Lemme put it this way. My housemates, my friends, my colleagues, my family - they're into US politics, up to the eyelids, for decades now.
And I think you're just jealous, because I've managed to pull off a 3-nation political hat-trick. Canada, Britain, and the US. I may have to move back, just to disappoint you!
And with that, you really should feel a bit of shame, and apologize for continuing to try this shit on with me, but I doubt that you will, and even if you tried, you'd suck at it, because at heart, you're a graceless individual, and so, at this point I'll call you a name so you have something to complain about, and can go away complaining about that, and ignore the fact that you were just caught out being a total ass, because let's face it, you really are a bed-wetter and a gent who seems to enjoy celery jammed up his arse.
P.S. This is the last time I'm nice about this issue.
September 7, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done.
September 7, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, quinn, you don't talk nor write nor act like the allegedly VIP you claim to be. You exhibit essentially no self-control. Frankly, though not the point of my question, your response makes it difficult to believe your 'facts' -- especially as they are, on the Internet. Anonymously.
You claim your family had no money. So apparently, you, too, are a success story like Stilli. This puts you in the "wealthy" catagory.
Are you an ex-pat like David Seaton? You don't sound much like one. Or are you a Canadian who tries to find work in the United States?
As far as "trying to run you off the board" -- it's funny. You are the one always telling people to go away. (And not just me.) Simply put: whether you post or don't post at TPM is not something I spend any time thinking about.
Lastly, I posed my question because you were so emotional in your response about "not wanting to deal with those people". Well... what's preventing you from walking away from the situation. Especially since you are in Canada?
September 7, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a graceless man he is.
At least this time people will get to see how CT does this, as the other times he did it after the 24 hour bell. The way he takes some piece of personal information, and then starts snidely discounting somebody's life, asking these "innocent" questions designed to damage someone's place here. Somebody's nationality, their income, the state of their marriage, their home ownership - all fodder for CT to use - stabbing, but always in his most innocent voice. And if they smack him down? CT says - you can be anyone you want on the Internet.
But he doesn't swear, so that makes it all ok, apparently. See, CT feels that it's worse to call someone an asshole than to make cracks about their divorce, or to challenge their right to speak on the internet because of their supposed nationality.
A nasty little man. The blowhard who himself claims to be busily briefing Congress and/or writing jokes for late night TV and/or contributing to important NASA and military activities. But who when challenged, blows up, blows up his blog, comes back as pathetic little alternative characters, and then, when they too die a dog's death, returns as the Mighty CT.
And all from the comfort of his little Nectarine Repair & Celery Insertion Shop in California.
P.S. As I said, I'm not wealthy. Our family is just well-educated and engaged with the world. Nor did I claim to be a VIP. I know interesting people, including in politics, and my friends like to talk to me. As for my facts, they're straight up. As for CT? He's still a coward for the way he handles this kind of thing.
September 7, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just assume clearthinker gets off on it, q, if you know what I mean. That's his game: bait someone (I watched him bait stilli and then turn on her, and now he's working on baiting dickday), abuse them, then play innocent. It's a compulsive pattern, meaning he needs to do it, enjoys it, gets something out of it. Control, I guess. Who knows.
September 7, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of pot and kettle analysis going on these days.
September 7, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really? Please show me either Gasket or Quinn brought up marital status, or nationality as a method to discredit any one.
You are out of line.
September 7, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot and Kettle - accusing others of behaviors that they themselves exhibit.
This has zero to do with the specifics of this conversation and has everything to do with methodology.Both of the bloggers in question are quick to flame-down on anyone, at any time, with the slightest provocation using many of the same tactics. I am not passing judgment one way or the other, just observing the fact that all parties concerned use these techniques.
Yourself included.
September 7, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Jason. I disagree. As I said further downthread, everyone personalizes sometimes, politics can get pretty personal. The poster in question does as a rule. Therein lies the difference.
There is such a thing as degree, and by saying "everyone is guilty of this" you are effectively saying no one is. That is not reality.
I have noticed you tend to fall into this same logical fallacy frequently. Degree matters.
September 7, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get personal at the drop of a hat. Do I need to provide an entire blog full of quotes from just today or are you willing to stipulate that very observable fact?
Since I have never once produced such a blog (unlike my more vocal critics) perhaps I'll just grab one of your comments from this thread in response to this fairly innocuous comment:
The first sentence of your response?Pot and Kettle doesn't even begin to describe it.September 7, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly in the same league, you are being disingenuous, just like you were on Rowan's blog. Pointing out that someone that hasn't read the posts in question and thus isn't qualified to make a judgement, is merely pointing out the obvious. Bringing someones marital status or Nationality into it is a whole nuther matter. I thiink that you can agree with that.
Maybe you need to take some time off. You are devolving in your usually decent reasoning powers. I hate to see that.
September 7, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name one thing that CT offered that was more personal or snarky than that quote. Or even this one. Or this little beauty complete with graphic! Drop the stones and back away from the glass house.
September 7, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I missed those. Thanks!
September 7, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't back down. I didn't click on your link, but to riterate what I said before, EVERYONE does it SOMETIMES.
Now you are starting to annoy me. You show me a comment where I commented on someones marital status, Jason, or on their nationality. In fact find me a quote where ANYONE on this board has done so.
You go on defending the indefensible, it reflects on you.
Have a good day. I have more interesting things to read than this nonsense. Nothing personal, just pointing out the obvious.
September 7, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are comparing apples to orangutans. It doesn't matter what you are saying when the manner in which you say it is as worse than CT's rather pedestrian "insults" about seeming contradictory statements.
You use words like "dickhead" and "asshole" and "supercilious prick" instead of making actual criticism of the comment being offered. You didn't follow the links because they are proof that you are exactly that which you constantly rail against.
Irony seems to be a wasted realization around here most days.
September 7, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does matter WHAT you are saying Jason. Shame on you for going to the ends of idiocy to defend a scumbag.
Now you are being utterly ridiculous.
We're done.
September 7, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again selectively taking words out of context and changing the entire meaning of what was being said. Shame on you for intellectual dishonesty.
September 8, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak,
Just for the record, let's quick review history:
a) Stilli posted a very personal story about her ability to grow wealth.
b) You critiqued the story
c) I disagreed with your critique and pointed out that you had, in fact, risen to the point of owning two homes. I do regret bringing this up because instead of responding to the critique, you ended up responding to my bringing up two homes
d) You accused me of lying
e) I simply reminded you that you posted this info as a result of your describing your divorce. I was really explaining how I knew (one thing that does get to me is to accuse me of lying -- my integrity, even as an anonymous poster, is important to me).
f) Then you said I'm personalizing things by bringing up your divorce and that I was further lying
g) That's when I pulled up the post showing you had an ex, etc.
So that's where the marital status came in. You basically kept saying I was lying and I had to show I knew -- from things you posted -- that I wasn't making stuff up.
You know what? This is one of the problems with confusing TPM with Facebook. How am I to know what the boundaries are of posts for friends and posts for discussion?
Answer: I can't.
We see often that people use personal stories use them here as a means to promote a political idea. (Stilli elegantly did so on this blog, case in point.) So it's hardly surprising that these may come up later.
It's unfortunately that you see this as "personalizing" things in a derogatory way. In fact, you were the name caller -- you implied I was a liar. All I wanted to point out originally is that you, also, were able to rise above your initial means and so you, also, were proof that mobility is a possibility.
I think people should remember that this is not Facebook or myspace or a personal website.
I really do regret that we got sidetracked, but I think it's because some of the questions are so daunting or demanding that people would rather find any means of not addressing them seriously. It's easier to scream and vent and then move on asking why nothing gets done.
Stilli initiated such a great comment and it did, in fact, impact many people here and things did progress.
SO... there you have it.
This, I believe is the central problem. You come onto an Internet forum with a militant attitude. I'm not talking about thinking you are correct about things -- we all can do that -- but with the tactic of "I won't back down." If indeed we are discussing ideas, as I think we should be, then there's no reason to be militant. That's what hoses discussions.
September 7, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 8, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Links.
Good heavens!
September 7, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this is TPM, and facebook is facebook.
September 7, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was never commenting on the 'comments' you felt I 'should' have read so really this whole 'uninformed' and right to comment thing makes no sense.
September 8, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. It was a message to quinn in a secret code.
September 7, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's your secret code? Needs a little work.
September 7, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it worked quite well, thank you.
September 7, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. You're a fine one to talk about flamers, jason. Takes one to know one, I suppose.
September 7, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please link to a single blog of thread that I have written that could be considered flaming that didn't start with words not my own. I make frank and honest assessments about comments or blogs, but I never take it personal until someone else goes there first.
September 8, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How in the fuck am I supposed to do that, jason? Am I supposed to check each and every date/time stamp just to prove you're a hothead? Or are you vain enough to think I save all of your posts and comments and organize them by who insulted whom first? You know you are a hothead, so stop being dishonest.
I did go back to your very first post, however, where you called Bill Clinton a neocon. I politely corrected you in my very first comment, and you cried that I took your words "out of context" in your second response to me:
Wow. That strikes me as significant now because that's exactly what clearthinker did when I quoted his exact words recently! His response to my calling him out (for saying "Older people don't make protests") was almost identical to yours:
Do you two share notes, or are you the same person?
September 8, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just wow. I can't get over this.
I much prefer the jason persona over the clearthinker persona.
September 8, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even in your own example, you refuse to allow someone to further explain a statement without using that explanation as some sort of proof that they are an ideologue, despite the fact that it actually refuted the original criticism. Since that first post here I have completely changed my MO, so going all the way back to my first, stumbling steps into blogging at TPM seems a bit weak.
I could go over your history at TPM and pull all sorts of quotes that would make you look like an asshole or a hypocrite.
As to the straw man you led off with, of course I don't expect you to know every single thing I have ever said here nor the exact context of all those words. That is clearly a ridiculous statement about something I didn't actually write, especially considering you are familiar enough with my style of writing to know that it takes a lot of getting punched in the balls before I respond in kind.
I prefer the Gasket persona I learned so much from in the primaries to this thin-skinned clone of so many TPM weenies.
September 8, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you what, jason: You jumped into this thread to defend clearthinker's honor (such as it is) with exactly the same intent that I had for jumping in: to support my own friends here. It's an open forum, and we each have that prerogative.
Therefore, however, you have no more moral authority than I have. So get off your fucking high horse already.
Meanwhile, I've never claimed I wasn't an asshole, but I can claim that I'm not hypocritical. Feel free to go through my comment history until you go blind, because you're gonna have a really hard time finding inconsistency. And even though I've never pledged to be "nice" or to not use swear words or to not call out bullshit when I see it, you're also gonna find a lot of supportive comments from me to people that I've tangled with in the past, including you and (gasp!) clearthinker.
September 8, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reply here.
September 8, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If CT had your writing skills he would be deadly, because he'll go to any depth. He just has no turn of phrase except, nya nya nya, nya! Forget him, Quinn. (At least he can't take all these comments home with him when he goes into another snit and quits again.)
September 7, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't "quit" last time I stopped posting.
There were real reasons, but again, we see the same people here who wonder about the chicken-little-sky-is-falling-birther-panic exhibit exactly the same behavior.
If you really followed me, you would have seen a comment or two on this topic.
September 7, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I really followed you? Oh, that is rich!
All I know is that one day you deleted all your blogs and took all the comments out at the same time. That seemed like quitting to me.
But no, CT, I don't follow you, nor do I ever intend to do so. When I did substitute teaching I had plenty of Eddy Haskels that I had to deal with on a daily basis, and I don't miss dealing with them. You really remind me of them though (middle school, BTW; not even high school)
I run into you because you post on some blogs that interest me. But I don't search you out.
September 7, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, as usual, you have very strong opinions on less than substantial knowledge.
September 7, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOOOOH, Snap!
That was deep criticism, and as usual, totally without substance.
September 7, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't understand why some of ya'll can't seem to comment without ad hominem attacks and snarky personal asides. It really is an odd way to discuss politics if the end goal is progress or influencing persuadable voters. The irony of having an allusion to civil in your name just makes it more confusing to me.
September 8, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read an illuminating Freudian slip on Rowen's blog, in which someone with conservative views said that we should not help "those who cannot help themselves...".
I might have been shocked by that statement, but considering the source, I wasn't.
What is shocking is that the right's definition of those to be scorned and left to sink has now morphed to include, not only those who, in their view, "will not help themselves" but also those who, in the poster's own words, "cannot help themselves." This, then, would presumably include people who are physically or psychologically handicapped, mortally ill, or otherwise incapacitated.
Can callousness really get worse than this? Now it is a capitalist crime if a person literally cannot help himself or herself?
Just asking, DD, since you are a whiz at links: have you found any evidence of top echelon investments in ice floes? Because surely when they set us out to sea to freeze or drown, they'll want to sell the floes to us, to get that last profit per person.
September 6, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not coveting someone else's goods. The repubs would like that to be the cornerstone of their moral
foundation.
I mean our civilization is based upon coveting...I want a hybrid automobile because the Jones have one,I want an IPOD because Suzie has one...
But there is something soooooooooo sinister in a public official standing up to speak against the minimum wage.
Why such cruelty?
Oh well.
Hope you are having a nice weekend.
September 6, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the comments read that way. Especially when taxes are seen in terms of punitive measures. Or comments like "the rich suck".
Ted Kennedy was one of the wealthiest people in Congress. Did he suck?
What about Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? Started off poorly and became self-made millionaires?
People here should understand that 90% tax brackets have been empiracally shown to produce less revenue than lower ones.
There is too much sheep bleating of "four legs good, two legs bad" here. Appropriate taxation is a valid point. It should be made progressive to be sure, but not debilitating.
If you want a more grown-up discussion of proper taxation techniques, here is a layperson article on JFK and his tax cuts.
September 7, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Define debilitating.
September 7, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define progressive
September 7, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
90% tax bracket. Shouldn't exist. Period.
September 7, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, do they?
September 7, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for AIG employees who made obscene bonuses, that is. Yeah; a lower rate for them would save the country.
September 7, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
wwstaebler says:
"I read an illuminating Freudian slip on Rowen's blog, in which someone with conservative views said that we should not help "those who cannot help themselves...".
I did a search on that blog and the words "cannot help themselves" only appear in one of my comments.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=cannot+help+themselves&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Ftalk%2Fblogs%2Frowanwolf%2F2009%2F09%2Flets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
The trouble is - that comments is the opposite of what you claim it to be. It says: "There is everything right with helping those who cannot help themselves."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rowanwolf/2009/09/lets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php#comment-3588332
It seems to me that you're committing a Freudian slip with your comment about my Freudian slip.
Or - you're a liar and you've been caught.
September 7, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do not call my Belle a liar. Why do this at all Lola. Huh?
There was no name given. No attribution. She might have been thinking of another blog.
Go away. I am done with you.
September 7, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There was no name given. No attribution. She might have been thinking of another blog."
- Unless you find evidence to the contrary, the only words that fit are my words.
In fact, a portion of them is presented as a quote - except of course for the part where the writer of the comment changes the meaning to the opposite of what was said.
Here's a search on all of Rowan's blogs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=cannot+help&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Ftalk%2Fblogs%2Frowanwolf%2F&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
My words were deliberately distorted in order to create an intro for a comment.
I don't care if anyone calls me a conservative or any other name that's considered offensive. But there is a pattern at TPM to twist and distort the words and views of those the resident bleeding-heart mob disagrees with (in rare moments when it stops weeping about the ills of the world). And since it happens with such frequency, it's not accidental Freudian slips.
It's deliberate lying.
September 7, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's just careless reading, L. Not deliberate lying. Just carelessness.
I'm glad you defended yourself, however, because I know you don't believe what was implied about you.
September 7, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll note, Lalo, I never got a response from my inquiry. :-(
September 7, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick:
Can you show us where you believe WW was referring to?
September 7, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD: Thank you for coming to my rescue -- an experience I cherish, believe me -- but I'm afraid, although it galls me, that Lalo was right.... at least in the sense that I did misread his comment and so I have apologized for same, above.
Now it will be interesting to see if he apologizes to me for suggesting I was lying, but never mind, as that is a bit tit-for-tat.... or would that, in his case, be tat-for-tit?
XOX
September 9, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo:
I didn't come back to the top of this blog until this evening, and so missed your response to me.
You are correct that I misread your comment, which was:
"There is everything right with helping those who cannot help themselves...."
You did, in factm say "everything right" not "everything wrong" as I read it.
So it is my Freudian slip, not yours. Please accept my apology for that.
This is an interesting, if embarrassing, experience for me.
Because when I followed your link, just now, I read it wrong, again. Proving, perhaps, that the impression we have of someone's views can, in fact, color what we read, much later on, more than once.
Mea Culpa.
September 9, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds a lot like a final solution, doesn't it? Makes me want to call them the 4th Reich at times, but ... would I ever do that?!?
September 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy - In the case of the Health Insurance Industry, they take our health care dollars that we spend as "premiums" and then they spend these dollars as bribes and in dishonest PR campaigns to campaign against universal health care. Is this not somewhat similar to buying our ice flow as you mention? Or perhaps paying your hangman?
September 8, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say, SJ, is that I will cut my own ice floe before I will pay the pipers who made the gesture necessary. And, hey, if I cut my own, I have a final opportunity for a little creativity, eh? A little honed reflection here, a little depression there, some smooth surface , a few rough edges -- a floe to call my own. You?
September 9, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno Dick, this all sounds a bit hyperbolic and incendiary and ideological and I can't really trust it you see because you don't cite any right-wing sources and all and what do all the fine people at AEI or Heritage or Dick Cheney have to say since you know they might not agree with you and we should always always be fair minded about this stuff and maybe there's a reason that only God knows why all the money's going to the top 0.01% and all those poor people must deserve what's coming to them, because that's the way nature or Darwin or God or Reagan would have wanted it, so I'm just saying this just can't be right and its not helping the country unite behind a common purpose if you say things that aren't very nice. though true...
*goes off stage... bangs head against wall*
September 6, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
(here's some ice for your head - mine hurts too)
Fair and balanced may apply if one is discussing opinions and points of view. However, there is such a thing as reality - though some seem to live in an alternate one than I do (or the reverse).
September 6, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Rowan, your blog is great. Fair and balanced just means 'check your goddam facts and document the sources'. What the hell is wrong with those people...?!
p.s. sorry for making a bit of a mess with your thread...
September 7, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU didn't make a mess.
September 7, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to apologize for making a bit of a mess on the thread too.
Lalo and Jason are pretty good at suckering me into their digressions, but yesterday's was a new low. Lalo flat out admited that he was lying (14th amendment requires a flat tax) and that really he just wanted to argue becuase his simplistic interpretations of our founding are against what he thinks Rowan is talking about. He didn't even read the post. Its one thing to disagree but state your case in facts- or state 'this my philosophical opinion' but don't make shit up and then scream russia.
I can't countenance such disingenuous any more. I get too angry. I will try to abstain (but whatching Quinn is a delight).
September 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
translation:
""I made a mess, but "THEY MADE ME DO IT"!!!!
I go from sane to total bitch in 0.1 seconds, and it's not my fault I can't control myself.
I lie about what others say because my eyes are red with noble anger and I can't read well and why would I even want to??
My only effective treatment is the high decibels of the resident drama quinn.""
You know what, Saladin? You do a great job of being an insecure fake, so I'm not bothered by your defending yourself by lying about others. WW fired the first shot in here, but it's not like you needed it or waited for it.
I've only got one thing left to say to you.Kiss My Ass. And have fun.
September 7, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
touched a nerve I see.
'insecure fake' now who is personal? No I am just someone who likes to discuss things, sometimes I do a good job, sometimes I don't. Its a hobby, but I do it with good intentions and with a goal of learning from whom I am conversing and maybe convincing them of my point.
I assume the same intentions on the other side. I didn't like your disingeniousness. I don't respect it.
Sometimes you make thought provoking points but in this case you were simply a lying provocateur (14th amendment) who rapidly descended into illogical screaming (you know the Russia thing) and then vitriol. I responded with "you are not serious today". You weren't.
Regardless. Peace.
I have no interest in fighting anymore today.
September 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes you did. Lies usually do .
Here's what I said:
"The constitution (on which the laws are based) requires treating everyone the same under the law. A law that doesn't apply to everyone equally shouldn't be allowed to pass."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rowanwolf/2009/09/lets-talk-class-warfare-shall.php#comment-3588355
You might want to read up on the role of 14th Amendment in imposing a general restraint on the government's power to discriminate. Or on Obama's belief that DOMA SHOULD NOT have been passed into law. Or various SCOTUS rulings related to government action on personal property.
14th Amendment (jointly with the 5th Amendment) provide more than enough foundation to find progressive taxation unconstitutional - if there was common sense and political will to do it.
To conclude:
- I didn't "flat out admited that he was lying"
- I didn't say a word about "flat tax"
- You're totally full of shit.
September 7, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it a digression to show that the actual profit margin of the health insurance industry is pretty much the same as every other industry, despite the outrageous numbers being improperly quoted?
The entire blog was based on the premise that "outrageous profits" show that corporate America is engaged in class warfare. I punch a huge, gaping hole in at least one set of data, though it admittedly took a few tries, yet very few seemed to give my point half a second's thought before firing off a raging reply.
Seems to me that anything the TPM choir doesn't agree with is considered a digression and jumped on with zero mercy and even inclusions, which doesn't sound all that liberal to me. Perhaps I am reading the wrong definition.
September 7, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is...?
;-)
September 7, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The top of my head apparently.
September 8, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always wondered what the 'Headbangers Bawl' was all about Obey. hahahahhahahahah
You forgot about the part where I refuse to consult a good dictionary.
September 7, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
a dictionary? I have a vague vague memory of some crap like that, but jeezus, some things are so friggin stupid even my neurons refuse to register it. God they drove me nuts tonight. Q was on form though!
This could start a series, eh? "The Asshole Monologues", or something...
September 7, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The dictionary is because you don't know the meaning of many words, dickday, at least in evidence of how you misuse them.
Just wanted to be clear that your issue is not a simple spelling problem. It's a conceptional one.
For homework, may I suggest you look up the following words and use them correctly in a sentence?
Dictatorship.
Martial law.
Fascism.
All of these words have been misused by you in the past 48 hours. You know, just like teabaggers claim that Obama is a socialist... or a Nazi.
September 7, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If your Mother ever saw you in action, she'd stand in mute horror.
Really. You have turned out to be such a shitty person. Asocial. Arrogant.
Go away. Become someone better. This "Clearthinker" character of yours is an abomination.
September 7, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I went crying to my mommy every time someone critiqued my writing with half the restraint that CT has shown, I would have never finished a single screenplay or short story. I certainly wouldn't be writing here under my own name, mostly succeeding in not going nuclear on people using aliases to bait me.
I lost track of the number of editors who told me to read a book or "learn a fucking thing or two" about the subject at hand before writing. If someone steps into the lead role in any situation, they should be willing to court such mild criticism as properly using fairly standard terms. If one wants to take poetic license with the terms, that is their business, but they should know enough to acknowledge they are doing so.
I would mention a change in the TPM acronym to better suit its recent mood swings, but that would probably make me a misogynist.
September 7, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comfy up there, Jason? Keep an eye peeled. I hear there's a lot of celery passing through those parts.
September 7, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to see your psychiatrist for an update on your meds. This particular dosage appears to no longer be working.
September 8, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: The voices aren't real.
September 8, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, sometimes I read your comments and get such relief.... it's rare, granted, but when you DO manage to make it through a comment with using STRAWMAN or AD HOMINEM it's really just a cause for celebration.
Huzzah!
September 8, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just decided to respond in kind since that is the only type of debate you seem capable of conducting.
September 8, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing like a good run-on sentence, Obey. When your head stops hurting, would you consider posting a run-on sentence blog competition (on more serious matters than mine was, although it was apparently fun for one and all)?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2009/02/shared-creativity-just-for-fun.php
September 7, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Obey, Belle is famous for dark and rainy night blog. Not to hard to find. broke all records.
Go ahead. Kind a fun fest.
September 7, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy!! You know THAT was the blog that got me hooked here! I had already put up a couple of posts with some gibberish about Geithner that no one was reading, but then I came across that one, and I remember sitting in front of my computer for hours laughing with glee and amazement at those stories. And I didn't daaare touch my dashboard... except to refresh again and again. I was in awe. honestly. Should really, nay, MUST, do it again!
September 7, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
=D
The pug rawks yet once again.
Yez, if we suspend the evidence of the present reality, in order to be fair to those who don't believe in the very concept of fairness unless, of course, it applies to themselves, then one could reasonably concur with those that wander blindly and erratically in the wilderness of their own creation due to their craniums being encased firmly in their nether region orifice.
Yez.
September 7, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okie dokie haha
September 7, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now see? Bwak -- in your comment, you have already demonstrated the combination of real substance and a run-on sentence.
September 7, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"fairness"? pshaw! that's just morality, and morals are arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, doncha know. With the exception of progressive taxation, from which ultimately all evil stems. Or so says lalo's almighty google, apparently...
September 7, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
An example of histrionic rhetoric. You'd be better off with the previously agreed upon made up number of 1%. See Rowan's blog for further details.
September 7, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"histrionic rhetoric"
You know CT, when you throw stuff like that out there you better substantiate it. So I'll show you my numbers and you show me yours. Deal?
I'm going roughly by Saez and Piketty's numbers and get
for the top 0.01%: an increase in share of total income from 1% to 6%
- i.e. a six-fold increase in share
for the next 0.09% (outside the top 0.01%): an increase in share from 1% to 2%
- i.e. a two-fold increase in share
for outside the top 0.1%, then next 0.9%: an increase in share from 6% to 9%
- i.e. their share increased by half
So we've got a highly non-linear distribution of increase in share of income within the top 1%. The huge bulk of the increase in inequality is concentrated in the acceleration of income growth in the top 0.01%.
Okay, what have you got?
Or were you just posturing like an ignorant asshole. And don't ask me to do your fucking homework for you.
September 7, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe I was the one who pointed out first, or near first, on Rowan's blog that wealth is distributed exponentially.
For those that know mathematics, an exponential curve is one where, the higher you go up the hill, the climb gets no easier.
Or for those that want the latest buzzword to Google, you can look up "the long tail".
Or... you could have said "all the wealth going to the 0.000001%" and you would have been able to make the same statement. Which sort of was my (admittedly oblique) point.
Interestingly, no one has yet commented on the fact that the wealthy have always controlled about 66% of the wealth in the country during at least the last 100 years.
The shift starts happening about 30 years ago in the early 80s. So the real question is this:
Are people here talking about evening the playing field to where it was in the 1970s... or something more radical?
Because it's clear what shifted things in the last 30 years and it's easy to make proposals to start sliding them back. Taxes are a key strategic start.
September 7, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you found out how to google. Now find your meds.
You're way out of line down thread. When you've sorted out your psychological issues, then maybe we can have a good-faith discussion of tax-policy, social justice and inequality. For now, seek help.
September 7, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done! You've found a way to avoid answering a hard question.
September 7, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hummm...lets see...The CEO people who don't want to pay income tax or have safe and healthy working conditions.
Maybe the bankers who want to give only Shylock loans to the middle class and below.
How about the small businessman who would rather pay his employees a buck an hour instead of the minimum wage.
Retailers who would like to sell what ever overpriced junk they can to an unsuspecting public.
Those people ?
(just for starters)
C
September 7, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What bothers me is that so many people vote against their own economic welfare. Against their own economic interests. Year after year they do this.
And they seem to sympathize with guys like beck.
See C, I cannot even feel satire tonite.
September 7, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a book to occupy yourself with, dickday.
If you really want to learn the answers to your questions, that is.
September 7, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it awesome that CT thinks that there's a book that will answer these questions? I mean, he actually thinks he's showing higher intelligence by pissing on everyone on the site (except maybe his little buddy, Jason)... but then always proclaiming that there's some magic book out there, which has all the answers. Why... just read that book!
You know, he's the kindof guy who thinks that if you take Poly Sci 101, the reading list could just rolllll out the answers for you. Kevin Phillips! Lakoff! There's only about 5 others he ever quotes. A few weeks reading, and the answers are all at hand!
HE'S THE SHAM-WOW MAN OF TPM!
Celery. Inserted. Only possible explanation.
September 7, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahhaha. Yeah, I aint never been much for that book learnin and all...kind of confuses folks anyway.
Just twenty years of schoolin, thirty five more reading every day...hahahahahah
SHAM WOW
September 7, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dick,
It's not your 35 years of reading every day, it's what you are reading.
Books are better than newspapers. They require more thought to put together.
September 7, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A common notion, but absolutely untrue.
1) Books are only as good as their authors. Books never get fact-checked, but newspapers regularly do.
2) Most authors can't put a book together. Editors do that.
September 7, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Yes, I agree it depends on what book you look at. That goes into the "what you read" category. That's why I point to specific books -- written in a scholarly manner.
2) A nice little semantic game that is debatable in and of itself, but had nothing to do with my point.
September 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you don't get it at all, clearthinker. That's not what I'm saying. You are both uninformed and making assumptions that are incorrect.
"Scholarly manner" is meaningless. Lakoff's book was published by a "trade" publisher (Penguin, whom I've actually done work for). It's written for a lay (not a scholarly) audience. Therefore, it's popular nonfiction, and not given as much credence as a scholarly or university press might give it. Whether a book has integrity or not depends on the author, but it doesn't have to be accurate because it's not peer-reviewed.
Not semantics, and of course I'm not playing a game with you. I'm trying to correct a misconception people like you have about books. I've put together many more books than you have, I'm quite certain. Many authors can't put a book together without lots of help over many, many months. Try reading some acknowledgments pages sometime.
I also know from firsthand experience how newspapers and magazines are put together. The fact-checking is much more rigorous, even in popular publications.
You're simply wrong, clearthinker. And stupid about being wrong. So what else is new?
September 7, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh gasket... I love how you end up posting about nothing.
Lakoff is a known scholar and wrote something for those without training in neuroscience. Maybe you'd like to give us your take on Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking... or Albert Einstein next?
Perhaps you would like to make a positive recommendation on a book describing "why people vote against their self-interest"?
Or is your position really "don't read books"?
September 7, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with Lakoff; I appreciate his work and I have cited him myself. Recently, in fact.
But I would never categorize him with Hawking, Sagan, or Einstein, and I don't think he would, either. Totally different sciences. Perhaps that's a subtlety you simply aren't able to comprehend. Oh, well. Tells me a little more about you.
What I have a problem with are your erroneous generalizations, clearthinker. Sometimes it's important to point them out in a very clear way, since you make so very many of them. I can't possibly keep up with the quantity, but I do what I can.
September 7, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're doing a good job, too. It's appreciated.
September 7, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink