The only way he can win now is if things turn around, and I don’t think for a minute that the republicans are going to let things turn around. Why should they? They have plenty of money. It’s like the Great Depression. There’s lots of money, but it’s controlled by a small part of the population.
The rich are even spending money, but they’re spending it on artwork, exotic cars, and other luxury kinds of stuff. To be fair, that largesse probably trickles down to create half a dozen jobs for more of the beautiful people in the in crowd, some of which worked hard to get there, and working hard, you would think they would have some appreciation for people who work hard, but no, you’re only appreciated if you work hard and make a lot of money. If you don’t make a lot of money, they have another word for you, loser.
There are some elements in the Republican party, such as military veterans, with limited resources, who are comfortable with the appellation of loser because they learned (in the case of the military), that real men (or whatever) do not complain, do not question authority, and make do with what they are given. Anything else is a character defect.In this way, the haves are able to keep what they have by virtue of someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for the rights of the haves to have. Those who really made the sacrifices earned the right to drive around in secondhand delivery vans, collecting charitable contributions of stained mattresses, because they have inadequate compensation, inadequate health care, and less than inadequate recognition for what they sacrificed.
The military elite fit in with the Republican elite because they have the opportunity to accumulate money with a minimum of sacrifice by exploiting military contracts in some way, a well recognized principle of republican enterprise. Even some of those elite, such as John McCain, recognize the inconsistency, but as John discovered, if you complain too loudly about the injustice involved, you will find yourself without a voice.
Here's Thinking for You
Iffy
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Horton Hears a Heffalump
My previous reference to Oliphant and the chimpanzee rampage cartoon was somewhat ironic since one of Oliphant's new cartoons outraged the Semitic community. I’m not totally enthusiastic about the cartoon myeself because it isn’t really funny, and it’s too obvious to be clever. It has sort of a Dr. Seuss sense about it, with the little wheel under the monster star. Dr. Seuss produced patriotic propaganda during WWII, before he used the characters for children’s books. That's another lesson in recycling swords and plowshares. Maybe the Semites should give some thought to how Gaza has been coming across, however. Complaining about Oliphant isn’t exactly going to fix the problem, no matter how mindless the cartoon may be.
Oliphant 2009


Dr. Seuss 1942
***************
MSNBC published a somewhat uncharacteristic article about Bill Clinton signing off on the derivatives regulation exclusion in 2000. Some things the article neglects to mention are that besides burying the clause in a morass of complex financial legislation, in 2000 the Republicans (and I use the capitalized form lightly) had Bill on the verge of an executive layoff. It wasn’t like he could afford any showdowns over individual components of budget legislation. His veto would have been overridden faster than you can say “Monica Lewinski.”
We can blame nitwit Bill for doing something petty, arrogant, and self-indulgent in the first place, but somehow I can’t help thinking that in 2000 the Republicans should have been concentrating more on the economy and national security and less on presidential indiscretion. We would have all been better off in the long run. In a crisis, if you had to choose between whether the president gets oral sex or a long vacation in Texas, which one would you go for?
Here’s thinking for you.
Iffy
Oliphant 2009



Dr. Seuss 1942
MSNBC published a somewhat uncharacteristic article about Bill Clinton signing off on the derivatives regulation exclusion in 2000. Some things the article neglects to mention are that besides burying the clause in a morass of complex financial legislation, in 2000 the Republicans (and I use the capitalized form lightly) had Bill on the verge of an executive layoff. It wasn’t like he could afford any showdowns over individual components of budget legislation. His veto would have been overridden faster than you can say “Monica Lewinski.”
We can blame nitwit Bill for doing something petty, arrogant, and self-indulgent in the first place, but somehow I can’t help thinking that in 2000 the Republicans should have been concentrating more on the economy and national security and less on presidential indiscretion. We would have all been better off in the long run. In a crisis, if you had to choose between whether the president gets oral sex or a long vacation in Texas, which one would you go for?
Here’s thinking for you.
Iffy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
