Why the fuck is Paul Wolfowitz on the news being asked what we should do about Iraq's descent into civil war?
Why the fuck is William Kristol being asked the same questions? Or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld. At least George Bush has the respect for this fuck up happening as a result of his "Decider-ing" to be quiet and paint cats.
How, and why, are people who so colossally oversold a threat, misled expected outcomes, so poorly prepared for occupation, and so pathetically mismanaged all of the above being asked what should be done now?
You might call this Monday morning quarterbacking. It's more like the week after Monday, since what is happening in Iraq now was predicted before the invasion, and during the early stages of the occupation.
"Naysayers" "America-haters" "Non-supporters" we were called. We wanted the invasion to fail we were told. We loved Saddam we were accused. Bullshit. We would be happy if it failed we were admonished by the "grown ups" - as they called themselves when they won the disputed 2000 election. I'm not "happy" that the Iraq misadventure failed. It would have been some karmic justice if what is happening now had happened in 2007 so these fucknuts would be the ones answering the questions - "What do we do now?"
I don't know what should be done about Iraq. I don't know if the United States should do much of anything. I certainly don't support sending troops back. I don't know that air strikes, and drone strikes are enough to quell the civil war that the "grown ups" pooh pooed when told it was coming.
I do know that Paul "Iraq doesn't have a history of sectarian discord, and its reconstruction can be paid for by oil revenues." Wolfowitz, Dick "We'll be greeted as liberators" Cheney, Donald "You go with the military you have, not the one you want - We know the WMD are in the north by Tikrit" Rumsfeld, and Bill "The Iraqi National Congress is a popular group in exile to build a government around" Kristol are not the ones to ask what to be done. They were so epically, and tragically wrong in 03. Why would anyone listen to them again?
What to do? I don't know, but this time can we ask someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about? Seriously - can we?
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Could we keep things in perspective? Please???
Enough already. Enough!
If I hear one more "So and so are like the Nazis" I'm gonna ....... engage in my own hyperbole.
Seriously, do you know how stupid, and uniformed you sound when you say healthcare, or gun control laws are like the Nazis? You sound ignorant. To be fair I will tell you what are acceptable things to say are "like the Nazis.:
1) The Nazis
That's the list. All of it. The whole enchilada. The kit and kaboodle. Unless your store windows are being broken, and your business shuttered because of your faith, or descendants you can't compare current affairs to the Nazis. Unless you have to produce identification papers to ride the goddamned bus, what's happening isn't remotely close to what happened under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s. Unless there's a suspicious new camp erected near your town by the railroad, and you don't recall there being much activity related to hiring people to work there - what's happening isn't anywhere near what happened in eastern Germany, and Poland in the 1940s. Nobody. Let me repeat, nobody, no group, no party is like the Nazis. Not even remotely so.
So stop. Stop it. Stop being historically illiterate, and ignorant.
While we're at it let's address another bit of historical hyperbole that has become in vogue lately when it comes to debate, ahem "debate." Comparisons to Stalin and Mao. Again, to be fair, there are acceptable comparisons to Stalin and Mao,
1) Stalin
2) Mao
I know, it's a list that's twice as long. Still, it's short enough to quickly commit to memory. When the political parties in your country take political opponents, put them on trains to work camps you can say they're just like Stalin or Mao. When their writings are made illegal, burned, and printers penalized for producing them, you can compare them to Stalin and Mao. Till then you need to find a more apt comparison. Political bullies are not in short supply, and they come in varieties across the political spectrum.
Please, apply some sense of perspective.
If I hear one more "So and so are like the Nazis" I'm gonna ....... engage in my own hyperbole.
Seriously, do you know how stupid, and uniformed you sound when you say healthcare, or gun control laws are like the Nazis? You sound ignorant. To be fair I will tell you what are acceptable things to say are "like the Nazis.:
1) The Nazis
That's the list. All of it. The whole enchilada. The kit and kaboodle. Unless your store windows are being broken, and your business shuttered because of your faith, or descendants you can't compare current affairs to the Nazis. Unless you have to produce identification papers to ride the goddamned bus, what's happening isn't remotely close to what happened under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s. Unless there's a suspicious new camp erected near your town by the railroad, and you don't recall there being much activity related to hiring people to work there - what's happening isn't anywhere near what happened in eastern Germany, and Poland in the 1940s. Nobody. Let me repeat, nobody, no group, no party is like the Nazis. Not even remotely so.
So stop. Stop it. Stop being historically illiterate, and ignorant.
While we're at it let's address another bit of historical hyperbole that has become in vogue lately when it comes to debate, ahem "debate." Comparisons to Stalin and Mao. Again, to be fair, there are acceptable comparisons to Stalin and Mao,
1) Stalin
2) Mao
I know, it's a list that's twice as long. Still, it's short enough to quickly commit to memory. When the political parties in your country take political opponents, put them on trains to work camps you can say they're just like Stalin or Mao. When their writings are made illegal, burned, and printers penalized for producing them, you can compare them to Stalin and Mao. Till then you need to find a more apt comparison. Political bullies are not in short supply, and they come in varieties across the political spectrum.
Please, apply some sense of perspective.
Friday, November 1, 2013
America's pastime
Really???
If you clicked the link you saw a story about a ND woman who decided it would be responsible on her part to pass out notes on Halloween to kids that are, in her judgement, "moderately obese." These notes called the kids who received them "moderately obese," admonished the parents regarding "consuming sugar and treats," and that she was "disappointed" in the village, and she was taking action since "it takes a village to raise a child."
Really???? Fat kids shouldn't eat too much candy? No shit!? Thanks for the wisdom. Do you really think the parents DON'T know their child has some extra chubb? Expecting parents to read these and say "Holy shit honey! Little Ashley got this note, and wouldn't you know it, she's 'moderately obese.' I had no idea. We're better people now! This is JUST THE THING that will get us to clear the pantry of unhealthy snacks, fatty lunch meats, and high fructose soft drinks. THANK GOD FOR THIS NOTE! IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. God bless this woman!!!"
I must sheepishly admit that the woman is a liberal apparently. Citation of the "takes a village" tipped me off. And while it does take a village to raise a child, what that means is when you're being a little dickhead as a kid your parents will find out from parents in the neighborhood (village).
Everybody's got an opinion, and that's cool. This is America. And we've been told that's what's so great from the time we're kids is that we're free to express them. But seriously, with the advent of social media sharing your opinion, telling your friends how full of shit they really are, and how fat the kids are in the neighborhood has replaced baseball as the national pastime.
If you clicked the link you saw a story about a ND woman who decided it would be responsible on her part to pass out notes on Halloween to kids that are, in her judgement, "moderately obese." These notes called the kids who received them "moderately obese," admonished the parents regarding "consuming sugar and treats," and that she was "disappointed" in the village, and she was taking action since "it takes a village to raise a child."
Really???? Fat kids shouldn't eat too much candy? No shit!? Thanks for the wisdom. Do you really think the parents DON'T know their child has some extra chubb? Expecting parents to read these and say "Holy shit honey! Little Ashley got this note, and wouldn't you know it, she's 'moderately obese.' I had no idea. We're better people now! This is JUST THE THING that will get us to clear the pantry of unhealthy snacks, fatty lunch meats, and high fructose soft drinks. THANK GOD FOR THIS NOTE! IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. God bless this woman!!!"
I must sheepishly admit that the woman is a liberal apparently. Citation of the "takes a village" tipped me off. And while it does take a village to raise a child, what that means is when you're being a little dickhead as a kid your parents will find out from parents in the neighborhood (village).
Everybody's got an opinion, and that's cool. This is America. And we've been told that's what's so great from the time we're kids is that we're free to express them. But seriously, with the advent of social media sharing your opinion, telling your friends how full of shit they really are, and how fat the kids are in the neighborhood has replaced baseball as the national pastime.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
No, really. Who's naive and clueless??
"Just another pie-eyed liberal who wants the government to right all the wrongs, and make everything fair for everyone."
"You libs are so naive. You think the answer for every thing is more government. If we could just get the government out of the way of the free market it would be so much better."
"Competition in the market is just more efficient by virtue of competition."
Tea Partiers and other extreme conservatives call liberals "naive" for putting the purpose of helping others on the shoulders of government. To hear them it would be best for all concerned if most everything was left to the magic of the private sectors' market forces.
What does the free market, unfettered by regulation, produce? One only needs to look at the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Child labor, there's that. Increased poverty, and stagnant wages. Income disparity, More frequent boom bust cycles with deeper recessions.
Really? History? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? 19th Century - unfettered capitalism. Ring a bell? How was it for people who worked for a living? We have, in the United States the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. The financial sector has been deregulated time and again since the 1980s. For the Tea-Billies - deregulation means less government, and more "free market." So the money that greases the skids of the economy has been pretty much going where it wants to in it's chase for profit. You know, profit, the end all be all motivation that, according to the cult of conserva-libertarian-Ayn Rand objectivism will fix everything. Everything I say.
Who's really being naive here? If you think that, despite - you know - history, unfettered capital markets will address what a society need, you're being naive.
So what does history tell us unfettered free market forces yield? Historically business seeks the greatest market share it can get. Theory says a player captures market share by being better: better product, or more less expensive by being a more efficient producer. Market share rules, but unfettered, players in a market find it more effective to capture market share by leveraging it's comparative advantages to buy more. Rockefeller didn't only dominate the early petroleum industry by seeking to be the most efficient producer of kerosene, and later gasoline. He also did it by leveraging early leadership to own and control as much delivery as possible throughout the economy. JP Morgan's General Electric didn't only get in early, but it used frivolous legal maneuvers to choke out early players like Westinghouse whose pockets were not so deep. It's not about being the best in a market. Believing that as business dogma is naive. It's about being the quickest to be the biggest in a market, then dominating the competition with size, not necessarily out performing them. Conservatives say that's business, and it is. What it's not is capitalism, and it's not market forces creating optimal outcomes for the society that they are in. If there's not enough competition, then market forces can't work. Participants get bigger and bigger, and when threats of competition are neutralized - through acquisition, or elimination - players become rent seekers, and extract revenue while controlling costs.
How was it to be in labor in the 19th century, and early 20th century economies? Generally it sucked. Long hours, no overtime, shitty wages. Add to that the greater frequency of panics, recessions, and depressions.
It's been said that business is the worlds most competitive sport. Make no mistake, capitalism remains the most efficient economic system to base a society on, but it needs to be regulated. That is to say it needs regulations, not central planning. It needs the government to be an official and enforce the rules. Every competition needs rules, and referees, otherwise it's not really a competition.
If you really think that unfettered capitalism leads always to optimal results, you need to crack more than a few history books, because you're a doe-eyed child.
"You libs are so naive. You think the answer for every thing is more government. If we could just get the government out of the way of the free market it would be so much better."
"Competition in the market is just more efficient by virtue of competition."
Tea Partiers and other extreme conservatives call liberals "naive" for putting the purpose of helping others on the shoulders of government. To hear them it would be best for all concerned if most everything was left to the magic of the private sectors' market forces.
What does the free market, unfettered by regulation, produce? One only needs to look at the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Child labor, there's that. Increased poverty, and stagnant wages. Income disparity, More frequent boom bust cycles with deeper recessions.
Really? History? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? 19th Century - unfettered capitalism. Ring a bell? How was it for people who worked for a living? We have, in the United States the greatest income disparity since the Great Depression. The financial sector has been deregulated time and again since the 1980s. For the Tea-Billies - deregulation means less government, and more "free market." So the money that greases the skids of the economy has been pretty much going where it wants to in it's chase for profit. You know, profit, the end all be all motivation that, according to the cult of conserva-libertarian-Ayn Rand objectivism will fix everything. Everything I say.
Who's really being naive here? If you think that, despite - you know - history, unfettered capital markets will address what a society need, you're being naive.
So what does history tell us unfettered free market forces yield? Historically business seeks the greatest market share it can get. Theory says a player captures market share by being better: better product, or more less expensive by being a more efficient producer. Market share rules, but unfettered, players in a market find it more effective to capture market share by leveraging it's comparative advantages to buy more. Rockefeller didn't only dominate the early petroleum industry by seeking to be the most efficient producer of kerosene, and later gasoline. He also did it by leveraging early leadership to own and control as much delivery as possible throughout the economy. JP Morgan's General Electric didn't only get in early, but it used frivolous legal maneuvers to choke out early players like Westinghouse whose pockets were not so deep. It's not about being the best in a market. Believing that as business dogma is naive. It's about being the quickest to be the biggest in a market, then dominating the competition with size, not necessarily out performing them. Conservatives say that's business, and it is. What it's not is capitalism, and it's not market forces creating optimal outcomes for the society that they are in. If there's not enough competition, then market forces can't work. Participants get bigger and bigger, and when threats of competition are neutralized - through acquisition, or elimination - players become rent seekers, and extract revenue while controlling costs.
How was it to be in labor in the 19th century, and early 20th century economies? Generally it sucked. Long hours, no overtime, shitty wages. Add to that the greater frequency of panics, recessions, and depressions.
It's been said that business is the worlds most competitive sport. Make no mistake, capitalism remains the most efficient economic system to base a society on, but it needs to be regulated. That is to say it needs regulations, not central planning. It needs the government to be an official and enforce the rules. Every competition needs rules, and referees, otherwise it's not really a competition.
If you really think that unfettered capitalism leads always to optimal results, you need to crack more than a few history books, because you're a doe-eyed child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)