Slashdot Mirror

obama has not been as friendly to the states' wishes as he could have been, but you better believe that under R control, it was an all out war. currently, the war is mostly on-hold wrt MMJ.

just keep that in mind when you go to vote.

Keep this in mind, too:

Yet the DEA’s raids continued. If anything, the pace picked up. Americans for Safe Access counts at least 41 raids on growers or dispensaries between Obama’s inauguration and the Ogden memo, almost five a month on average. As of late May, there had been at least 106 raids since the Ogden memo, nearly six a month. In fact, medical marijuana raids have been more frequent under Obama than under Bush, when there were about 200 over eight years.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage

And this:

But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst."

The federal crackdown imperils the medical care of the estimated 730,000 patients nationwide – many of them seriously ill or dying – who rely on state-sanctioned marijuana recommended by their doctors. In addition, drug experts warn, the White House's war on law-abiding providers of medical marijuana will only drum up business for real criminals. "The administration is going after legal dispensaries and state and local authorities in ways that are going to push this stuff back underground again," says Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a former Republican senator who has urged the DEA to legalize medical marijuana, pulls no punches in describing the state of affairs produced by Obama's efforts to circumvent state law: "Utter chaos."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

And this:

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) – Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state’s 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry, California’s s four U.S. attorneys sent letters Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The attorneys are scheduled to announce their coordinated crackdown at a Friday news conference. ...
The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana following a two-year period during which federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors’ recommendations.

The Department of Justice issued a policy memo to federal prosecutors in late June stating that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with

The whole "victimless crime" thing is a distinction between IP theft and theft of physical goods. Just what constitutes IP is a far more ephemeral construct than a bar of gold or barrel of salted pork.

I was referring to the "gallant nobility" of Jean Lafitte, or Robin Hood, or any of the old (mostly romanticized and false) stories of persons operating outside the law as a manner of making a living. For a more realistic depiction of what it meant to operate outside the law in the "good old days," see: The Bounty. Today's Somali pirates are certainly a much smaller fraction of the global commerce picture than the Privateers were 200 years ago.

As the internet, and the nodes that interface to it, mature with another century of experience, it will become increasingly difficult to freely trade "protected" information across it with impunity. A global consensus definition of "protected information" is one of the things that will have to develop before intellectual property will become more difficult to "steal" using the global network, but, even if there never is 100% agreement about just what is IP and what protection it deserves, you will see "blowback" from the interests that feel wronged against both the little guys who can't defend themselves and the big flamboyant pirates like Kim Dotcom.

It's not flamebait if it is the truth. Specifically from the article I am referring to:

"At churches like First Baptist Church of Anoka, parishioners believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness caused by family dysfunction, childhood trauma and exposure to pornography â" a perversion curable through intensive therapy."

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz1lFttG0bh

And it was Minnesota - not Michigan. Had Michigan on the brain from earlier today.

I live in Minnesota, and this IS happening in Anoka. It has brought on a new legislation to make "Bulleying" illegal. It is a vague law that encompasses any education related events, camps, classes, schools, employees, students, volunteers to got through training and also enforce the "law" Since when did passing a law, cause something to not happen? Example: stealing, cheating, murder, are all against the law. Speeding is illegal. How is a law supposed to curtail bullying?

It's not flamebait if it is the truth. Specifically from the article I am referring to:

"At churches like First Baptist Church of Anoka, parishioners believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness caused by family dysfunction, childhood trauma and exposure to pornography â" a perversion curable through intensive therapy."

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz1lFttG0bh

And it was Minnesota - not Michigan. Had Michigan on the brain from earlier today.

I guess I'm sort of stumped at the "business opportunity" offered here. At a guess, Z and 499 other shareholders are going to come out of this with a wad of cash and everyone else will be holding a deflated balloon in a few years....

Well, you see, according to the largest private bank in the world, Goldman Sachs, that's precisely how Wall Street is 'supposed' to work.

Your logic and reasoning abilities have no place amongst the powers that be.

This is especially true of the SEC and Wall Street. They regularly trade people back and forth, and even hobnob socially, in the open. This would be akin to DEA agents and high ranking Cartel members getting together, but for some reason it's condoned at our highest levels. Well, I shouldn't say "for some reason" since we all know what the reason is, it's to rob us fucking blind.

Here is a great article that details the close relationships between the SEC and Wall Street. If you can read this and not want to go down there and get your pound of flesh out of these cocksuckers, you're a far better man than I...

The problem here is that the people in the American government who have sent soldiers to Afghanistan to piss on corpses, murder innocent civilians for fun, etc., also were firmly against the Arab Spring uprisings, and wanted to quash them so they could keep their good buddy Mubarak in power.

During the first five months of last year, a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan went on a shooting spree, killing at least four unarmed civilians and mutilating several of the corpses. The âoekill teamâ â" members of the 5th Stryker Brigade stationed near Kandahar â" took scores of photos chronicling their kills and their time in Afghanistan. Even before the war crimes became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary measures to suppress the photos, launching a massive effort to find every file and pull the pictures out of circulation before they could touch off a scandal on the scale of Abu Ghraib.

The images â" more than 150 of which have been obtained by Rolling Stone â" portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing innocent civilians is seen as a cause for celebration. âoeMost people within the unit disliked the Afghan people,â one of the soldiers told Army investigators. âoeEveryone would say theyâ(TM)re savages.â

Many of the photos depict explicit images of violent deaths that have yet to be identified by the Pentagon. Among the soldiers, the collection was treated like a war memento. It was passed from man to man on thumb drives and hard drives, the gruesome images of corpses and war atrocities filed alongside clips of TV shows, UFC fights and films such as Iron Man 2. One soldier kept a complete set, which he made available to anyone who asked.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327

http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team

During the first five months of last year, a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan went on a shooting spree, killing at least four unarmed civilians and mutilating several of the corpses. The âoekill teamâ â" members of the 5th Stryker Brigade stationed near Kandahar â" took scores of photos chronicling their kills and their time in Afghanistan. Even before the war crimes became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary measures to suppress the photos, launching a massive effort to find every file and pull the pictures out of circulation before they could touch off a scandal on the scale of Abu Ghraib.

The images â" more than 150 of which have been obtained by Rolling Stone â" portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing innocent civilians is seen as a cause for celebration. âoeMost people within the unit disliked the Afghan people,â one of the soldiers told Army investigators. âoeEveryone would say theyâ(TM)re savages.â

Many of the photos depict explicit images of violent deaths that have yet to be identified by the Pentagon. Among the soldiers, the collection was treated like a war memento. It was passed from man to man on thumb drives and hard drives, the gruesome images of corpses and war atrocities filed alongside clips of TV shows, UFC fights and films such as Iron Man 2. One soldier kept a complete set, which he made available to anyone who asked.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327

http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team

The bulk of the Bush tax cuts went to benefit the wealthiest Americans, so they shouldn't bitch about how much they're paying now:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

Bear in mind, those cuts were funded not by cuts in spending, but by borrowing more money.

Would you take a credit card with a huge limit to the mall, and hand it not to the poor mother with three kids in tow who needs it, but instead to the rich couple covered in diamonds who already make more than they can possibly spend? Oh, and then tell the rich folks that they don't have to pay it back - their grandkids will do it for them? That's essentially what Bush and Cheney did.

(captcha: handcuff)

... the real guy behind Darth Vador is still alive and kicking. Oh, and he likes the comparison, too.

I hope that's a +5 insightful for political satire.

The FED most definitely scored political points. Wall street is a huge political donor machine, a lot of favors were called in to let the banks play with free money. Setting aside the fact that the FED is a private bank controlled by the mega banks, created in secret by wall street and the big banks, the FED is not worthy of being cheered for their actions. If they had saved the economy from implosion then perhaps - ignoring everything else the FED is. Instead the decades of screwing over everyone in the name of making money has continued.

• The too big to fail are even bigger
• The FED will loan money to big banks at 0% Interest. The banks take this money and buy treasury bonds which pay interest. The government is paying banks to loan them its own money
• The credit default swaps were a ponzi scheme. Buying insurance against stock recommendations were a ponzi scheme. Years later and where are the charges for malfeasance? Oh right, banks get away with everything and never get in trouble.
• The FED handed out money to everyone and their brother if they have connections. Or Wives of bankers with a guarantee to make money, and keep all profits.
• The FED allowed a huge financial crisis to allow a significant transfer of wealth into the banks pockets. Never let a crisis stop you from profiting!

Those actions are the the reason people are complaining about the 1%. It's not about the smart business person, lucky inventor who made it big, or dotcom startup - but the bankers who profited from their connections, and continue to do so, at the expense of everyone else. All allowed by the continued failed policies of the FED.

Too Big to Fail was an interesting look at the collapse. A modern day horror story. Here's a fun quote :

Michele Davis: They almost bring down the US economy as we know but we can't put restrictions on how they spend the $125 billion we're giving them because... they might not take it!

[the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs upon hearing that the 9 bank CEOs may refuse to take free money from the federal government if they had to be held accountable for how they spent it]

I don't claim to understand capitalism, but I'm pretty sure that it depends on the existence of a functioning government. I'm also pretty sure that capitalists like Christy Mack and Susan Karches give capitalism a bad name and need to be stopped.

You don't get it. OWS is protesting fraudsters like Christy Mack and Susan Karches and the increasing disparity between wage growth between the upper and lower clases.

The problem isn't that some people have more than others, thats always been the case in the US, especially for the last 30 years and we haven't had protests in the streets over that. The problem is that the people at the top cheated to get there at the expense of the rest of us. Here is an article that sums it up pretty well. I'm not generally a huge fan of Matt Taibbi's writing but this article hits the nail on the head.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

Some good points, but the CRA did not cause the housing bubble. The bubble was global, and the CRA only affected US housing, so there was something else going on. See Matt Taibbi at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/one-last-note-on-michael-bloomberg-20111105 or Barry Ritholtz at http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/most-subprime-lenders-werent-covered-by-cra/ Both authors have done excellent work on chronicling the housing boom and bust and what went wrong.

Let me amend your statement "It's just plain stupid that some businesses pay taxes, while other businesses don't."

Big Business X walks into the City Council chambers and says "If you want us to relocate here, and bring thousands of jobs, you'll give us a 99 year tax abatement." Council members duly roll over. The same sort of scenario plays out daily

While this article concerns itself with the Federal side of the coin, you can be damn well sure that the same sort of attitudes and partisanship are pervasive, down to the municipal level. What we have on this side of the pond is a tax system so broken and gamed, that the citizens will always foot the bill for those who should be contributing to the commonweal.

Don't forget the 220 million the FED gave to 2 wives of morgan stanley bankers, who had no business experience, to purchase student loans. The agreement also covered them for any losses, while they kept the profit. Sweet! Where can I get a deal like that, free money and no chance of loss.

This isn't even the dumbest use of our money.

Y'all don't know the half of it: Keywords: 'Waterfall TALF, Christy Mack, Susan Karches.'

Basically, the Fed provided loans to a couple of Wall Street executive wives on terms which guaranteed them millions in profit, as part of the bailouts.

And doesn't Apple already have some exclusive deals? iTunes accounted for 28% of all US Music sales May 2010, more than Walmart, and that number is likely higher now.

Walmart use to weld significant influence over the music industry, telling them to lower prices and even forcing artists to change lyrics that Walmart found "objectionable" and that was when Walmart sold only 20% of the nation's music. With iTunes at 28% they have even more power, and I imagine if Apple said "do not put your music on Google's music store" how can you say no to the company responsible for 28% of your income? If Apple was smart they would have put in their TOS long ago something that says if you sell your music on iTunes you can not sell it by any other digital distribution method.

also look at any fines that may be levied upon the companies who encouraged their brokers to do this. It will take 10 or 15 years, and the fines will be a few millions. This may seem like something, but when they have pocketed hundreds of billions, and the fine is a tax break, then I dont see too much punishment in the mix.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

Are you a total retard or just too doped up on your "America Fuck Yeah" bong? The assertion that countless civilians have been killed is obvious beyond the need for citation. But how about a look at what some of our "heros" have done recently (I know abu ghraib is probably too far back for your memory).

How about this group of Hero Soldiers in Afghanistan who murdered innocents for fun, took photos, and kept body parts as trophies: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0859078

Sadly, although he should have been executed, the latest in the group to be sentenced will get 7 years, 4 with good time, and credit for time served. If this happened in America, he'd be branded a serial killer and would get the death penalty in states that have it -- seriously, show the dried up finger he kept as trophy to a jury and they'd be wanting to inject him personally.

Instead, since it was only innocent Afghanistans, fuck it, slap 'em on the wrist and call them heros. I tell you this, if an Afghan family member of one of the victims tracked Andrew Holmes down and blew his brains out, I'd be contributing to that family member's defense costs because justice sure wasn't served here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/09/24/1811217/soldier-gets-7-years-in-afghan.html

I know he's trolling, but there's a reason he's painting everyone that way, albeit unjustifiably. It does happen, and it's disgusting when it does. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

There've been several Rolling Stone articles on the subject linked in this discussion thread. I think I got them all collected so far:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?print=true
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817?print=true

Now if only I had time to read them.

There've been several Rolling Stone articles on the subject linked in this discussion thread. I think I got them all collected so far:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?print=true
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817?print=true

Now if only I had time to read them.

There've been several Rolling Stone articles on the subject linked in this discussion thread. I think I got them all collected so far:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?print=true
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817?print=true

Now if only I had time to read them.

I doubt there was much in the way of malicious activity.

You're way off. Read the original article that details the specifics. In short, the SEC was required by law to maintain the records that they destroyed and they failed to do so. Then after destroying the records, they came up with some weasel word definition of what a "record" really is.. a la Bill Clinton.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

"The SEC exists to set a tough example on corporate governance, and it fines banks heavily for both lax practice and deliberate malpractice.".. I laughed out loud when I read this because the truth is that the SEC is currently there to let financial wrong-doers off the hook and to act as as employment agency for wannabe-wall-streeters.

See this shocking article: (print version)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true

Full article on their paper edition, appetizer here http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817 but don't eat anything heavy prior to reading.

The SEC doesn't enforce anything at the big banks, because those companies are where ex-SEC lawyers go if they want a big paycheck later. You don't prosecute your future employer. They only go after little fish just so they can appear as if they are doing their job. Small hedge fund who did something wrong? Expect the SEC to kick your ass if you cross them. Firm like Goldman? The SEC management will stop any attempt to investigate them, because the top people have their eye on retiring from there to a cushy Goldman job.

There's a good chat with Matt Taibii, author of the fun Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?, discussing how SEC Document Shredding Covers Up Wall Street Crimes. This has been going on for a long time now, and the shredding is central to why the Bernie Madoff scheme wasn't caught earlier too.

Those interested in the particulars might also want to check out a recent Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi. Basically, the SEC feels that until an actual case is opened, it is not required to store files for "matters under investigation". Definitely worth a read.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

I RTFA, the average Tea Party Mind will hear "Stem Cells", and make a life decision there; regardless of fact. If Parry should debate the President, Obama's accusation of Parry not spending funds set aside to help the poor just so Parry could bank roll personal projects in a failing Texas sized state economy will be stinging. Like wise, people want to go to work, and will vote for the candidate that get them work.

I am reminded of an old joke, "Most Tea Party Types will not change their mind on Thursday given new information discovered on Wednesday for a personal judgement made on Tuesday."

If what DDB claims are true, he also destroyed five gigabytes of internal documents from the Bank of America. Seriously, how can anyone trust OpenLeaks when one of his founder completely disregarded the wishes of the whistle-blowers to expose what they perceived as wrong, immoral, and/or of public interest? His excuse that he wanted to "protect the sources" is over-the-top ridiculous given that the track record of Wikileaks is impeccable regarding source protection (alleged cablegate leaker outed himself as per alleged chat transcript.)

I was really looking forward to have Bank of America being exposed, especially after reading this piece.

In the end, DDB exposes himself as ultimate retarded prick.

How could TARP lose money? The fed gave money to the banks at near 0%, which then bought treasuries that were guaranteed to return more than the money they got. Being paid to lend money to the govt. Give me some of that action! Oh wait I'm not one of the select friends in high places.

However TARP was a drop in the bucket. The GAO audit of the fed showed 16 trillion was loaned out to financial institutions around the world. 16 trillion makes 750 billion look small potatoes.

Rolling Stone article describing some of this. My favorite highlights

• Morgan Stanly chairman's wife + friend got 220 Mil which was used to purchase student loans and commercial mortgages. The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses.
• $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley

• It's this sort of using connections to make a ton of money, blatantly, that gets people pissed. This is the 1% that's benefiting from all of this mess. No different than GE paying 0 in taxes because they can afford 1000 lawyers, while the typical small business can't bounce money around the world and have enough lawyers to do it. When the game becomes so obviously stacked against the other players it's time for some changes.

I remind everyone that Ireland is now a bankrupted state in IMF hands, devastated by a massive property bust and credit crunch, with 5 out of 6 banks nationalised.

Ireland is also a part of the Eurozone. It has, therefore, abdicated its economic destiny to the "common market", which is really nothing more than a sophisticated form of economic warfare.

Just like Greece was screwed by profiteers, so too was Ireland screwed by its bankers. The solution is not "austerity", but to take the private banking system's power to create money away, and have a government and the people be in charge of their own destiny. The Global Debt Crisis: How We Got in It and How to Get Out

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I put down my notebook. "Just that?"

"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."

-Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?

The hoops you have to jump through are many. The larger contract houses have staff devoted to NOTHING but writing proposals. The small guy, cannot compete with this.

Sometimes they can. Maybe it helps to be stoned.

Except the rich have to do something with their money, usually putting it in a bank, or investing it, which is used to fund loans to other businesses or individuals, which generates jobs or allows people to get mortgages.

Yet having too much liquidity can lead to massive bubbles, as investors seek advantageous places to put large sums. Speculation can do nasty things like drive up oil prices, much as we saw in 2008, or land prices, such as we saw shortly thereafter.

Bubbles happen where there is too much investment money to play with. Investment houses have an incentive to work the bubbles, as the house holds all the cards. And bubbles have an enormous negative impact on the functioning of the economy as a whole. I see no justifiable reason for increasing the amount of money that rich people have, and many historically backed arguments against doing so -- essentially eviscerating your point above.

Money the government spends on things people wouldn't buy on their own (agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts) create inefficiency in the economy and slow growth.

When things are not quite so corrupt, we have seen the following instead:

Money the government spends on things people wouldn't buy on their own (bridges, basic research) creates efficiency in the economy and generates growth.

The arguments for spreading resources more broadly across a population are much stronger and more numerous than the arguments for concentrating wealth in the hands of a select few. I would not go so far as to be a French Republican (circa the late 1700s), but I would go so far as to describe the recent tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy push as an exceedingly bad idea.

Cheers,

Except the rich have to do something with their money, usually putting it in a bank, or investing it, which is used to fund loans to other businesses or individuals, which generates jobs or allows people to get mortgages.

Yet having too much liquidity can lead to massive bubbles, as investors seek advantageous places to put large sums. Speculation can do nasty things like drive up oil prices, much as we saw in 2008, or land prices, such as we saw shortly thereafter.

Bubbles happen where there is too much investment money to play with. Investment houses have an incentive to work the bubbles, as the house holds all the cards. And bubbles have an enormous negative impact on the functioning of the economy as a whole. I see no justifiable reason for increasing the amount of money that rich people have, and many historically backed arguments against doing so -- essentially eviscerating your point above.

Money the government spends on things people wouldn't buy on their own (agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts) create inefficiency in the economy and slow growth.

When things are not quite so corrupt, we have seen the following instead:

Money the government spends on things people wouldn't buy on their own (bridges, basic research) creates efficiency in the economy and generates growth.

The arguments for spreading resources more broadly across a population are much stronger and more numerous than the arguments for concentrating wealth in the hands of a select few. I would not go so far as to be a French Republican (circa the late 1700s), but I would go so far as to describe the recent tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy push as an exceedingly bad idea.

Cheers,

This Tea Party? The same group of people who believes that no one deserves any money from government programs but them?

On the topic of this thread, the fake concern about government spending by the GOP, he did a complete reversal. He substantially changed his platform once money from the GOP stopped blocking him out of the the old boys club. But you are right that he hasn't changed his position on the Patriot Act's erosion of personal privacy from the government. (I was also mistaken when I said that it was Koch money that changed things for Rand. It was general GOP money. My bad. It Seems that the Koch money was funding his initial popularity and the Tea Party rallies in general.)

Here are some excerpts from a Rolling Stone Magazine article on the Rand Paul and Tea Party in Kentucky that illustrate my point:

"In the early days of his campaign, by virtually all accounts, Paul was the real thing — expansive, willing to talk openly to anyone and everyone, and totally unapologetic about his political views, which ranged from bold and nuanced to flat-out batshit crazy. But he wasn't going to change for anyone: For young Dr. Paul, as for his father, this was more about message than victory; actually winning wasn't even on his radar."

"Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, 'should be allowed to make a comfortable living.'"

"Paul's platform began to rapidly "evolve." Previously opposed to erecting a fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only against subsidies to "dead farmers" and those earning more than $2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party, now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop deployments overseas.

Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views — particularly the ones that don't jibe with right-wing and Christian crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs."

The Abu Ghraib incident wasn't even a fraction as bad as this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

I used to support the troops, but now any time I hear that phrase, I just think of the guys in that article, and how the government tried to cover for them. Our soldiers are really no more than a bunch of murdering thugs, and any soldier who doesn't want to be painted with that brush needs to get out now.

The actions of the few don't mean everyone engages in such behavior that is flagrantly illegal per U.S. laws, rules of engagement, as well as human rights treaties ratified by the Senate (e.g. the Geneva conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I am more troubled by the Pentagon's coverup at first, and foot dragging later on.

As a veteran, I always hated the term "support the troops" when I was active duty. One aspect of a fascist regime is blind support and patriotism for the military. I hate to see our country go down that road. We should respect people of all occupations: why don't we have yellow ribbons and sayings for the electrical workers that have been working day and night to restore power to the Southeast, ravaged by tornadoes? Their job, in my opinion, is far more important than anything I ever did in the military. They are serving their country very well, and in a far more important capacity than carrying out orders to attack foreign nations in direct violation of our Constitution.

The Abu Ghraib incident wasn't even a fraction as bad as this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

I used to support the troops, but now any time I hear that phrase, I just think of the guys in that article, and how the government tried to cover for them. Our soldiers are really no more than a bunch of murdering thugs, and any soldier who doesn't want to be painted with that brush needs to get out now.

yeah, right.
"The U.S. has 31 reactors just like Japanâ(TM)s â" but regulators are ignoring the risks and boosting industry profits"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-s-nuclear-nightmare-20110427

We have a president who thinks its OK to bring us to the tipping point of $5/gallon

No...like the IPO bubble of the turn-of-the-millennium and the mortgage meltdown of a few years ago, those to blame in the oil speculation problem are on wall st...particularly Goldman Sachs. Goldman did have help from Washington where it seems that most of those tasked with regulating Goldman are ex-Goldmanites, but that doesn't absolve them of the primary blame.

This article does a good job summarizing Goldman's many large-scale fraudulent activities (see p. 5 for the $4/gal explanation)

That's great. My favorite line: "the spaceships take an unconscionable amount of time to get anywhere."

Your review reminds me of this Rolling Stone review of the first Led Zeppelin album, which complained about the "weak, unimaginative songs" and concluded that the musicians had "(wasted) their considerable talent on unworthy material."

Years later, the same magazine ranked Led Zeppelin 1 at #29 on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time.

Silly me. Of course, I only speak of some hypothetical dystopian future. I'm not saying there's any observed tendency of things like making unelected bureaucrats the arbiters of fairness, or enabling them to collect millions for indecency violations. And of course this is America, not some dictatorship like Canada where they might ban a song from the airwaves for sarcastically quoting a politically incorrect statement as a way of criticizing it. And the American government would never try to extend its broadcast control into paid content mediums like XM radio or cable tv either. I guess I'm just being paranoid. People who seek and attain authority are usually content with it; at least they don't continually try to expand it. I mean, when a government starts out just establishing official weights and measures, it is nice that they stick with just that, and they don't go expanding their purview to include food labeling, cigarette packaging (and even what can and can't be used as a brand name) or fat content. I'm also glad nobody tries to enact outright bans on fast food.

I'm sure someday excessive regulatory authority could lead to officials engaging in crony capitalism and abusing their authority in ways that happen to favor political allies, exempt favored groups from the more onerous requirements of their regulations, and/or handicap their friends' competitors, but you're right, that's not the kind of thing that regulatory authority has been known to open the door to in the past.

Sorry for bringing my tinfoil hattery into this.

the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understand...

Ah, but by then they'll all be retired, collecting Social Security and Medicare, but still bitching about the "welfare state". From The Truth About the Tea Party

• "I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
• (Reporter): "OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
• "Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."
• I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
• Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
• "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
• "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
• "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
• "Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

The article is a sad, revealing story of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party and it's members...

With even the "do no evil" Google doing major tax evasion, is anyone surprised an old boy's club like GM is doing even fancier tricks? I'm at the point now where I don't even consider companies that are net tax neutral to be that bad. You have to actively be siphoning money away from the taxpayers via bailouts and unprosecuted financial fraud to register on my radar nowadays.

1. RollingStone: "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?": http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

2. "Inside Job"(2010): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

After reading/watching these, I found myself wondering why I spent all those years accomplishing nothing in IT, when I could have been robbing banks from the inside with no worries about being prosecuted.