Fake Russian Comey News

 

Podesta

caught phishing

fed Brazile

a few questions

 

Debbie

What’s her name

Schultz

resigned

 

Got promoted

or demoted?

Added to HRC’s

campaign

 

The campaign

to nowhere

again

 

Electoral college

but who’s gonna

pay for it?

Miss Popularity?

 

MI PA

my pa

in Wisc

got frisked

 

Jill Stein

got attention

does that count?

 

Advertisements

Awaiting Bad News

I am, as the title says, awaiting bad news.

I am signed up for Bernie Sanders’ announcement to his supporters this coming Thursday night, June 16, and my ex-boyfriend but still friend is awaiting a liver biopsy.

I am awaiting bad news all around, and I am sort of resigned to it.  And sort of not.

How to deal with the fact that our country’s political system is due to undergo more corruption and or other nightmarish hell thanks to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  No chance of Bernie saving the day, anymore.

How to deal with the fact that the man I had hoped to marry, but didn’t, might be back under my roof soon in order for me to give him the care he would otherwise have at a hospice?  How to deal with the fact that I had thought we were over and could just be friends, but that was when I thought he’d be hanging around in my life for years and years, as a good buddy, and not possibly suffering pancreatic cancer of the pancreas and liver.

How to deal with the fact that, as much as I know life is unpredictable and things don’t always go smoothly, this year is turning out to be the suckiest, fuckiest year ever, and I don’t mean that in a good, fun, sexual way.

I hate bad news.  I hate news, in general.  Especially mainstream media news that is broadcast by firms who are already bought and sold by the lobbyists and corporations that own our politicians.

I hate awaiting bad news.  I hate waiting.

But I love you all, and wish you peace, as I wait.

I await the news.

 

Our Incompetent Pundits

I think all of you will find this interesting and true

Pilant's Business Ethics Blog

Our Incompetent Pundits

This week Peggy Noonan decided based on her math skills that there are sixteen million jihadist sympathizers and 1.6 million actual jihadists out there stalking us. A reader who took this stuff seriously could be excused if that locked themselves in an interior room and refused to come out. Fortunately for all of us, the actual number of terrorists depending on which estimate you use range from less than a hundred thousand to almost two hundred thousand.

illo-p0079 Our Incompetent Pundits

So, it seems to me that those recalcitrant students of mine who refuse to do Internet searches to verify their data have a future writing for the Wall Street Journal.

This wouldn’t be so bad if this kind of nonsense didn’t have legs. I promise I’m going to run into someone blogging or commenting on Facebook who are going to be talking about these bogus numbers. It’ll…

View original post 596 more words

The Angriest Liberal

Oh geez. Really? I didn’t really pay attention to this so-called outrageous action by HHS’s new regulation mandating the coverage of contraception for women without a co-pay. Those bastards, I didn’t know I should be outraged about something that already happens.

I also found out via Old Pundit Alpha aka Mark Shields, who exclaimed on PBS the other night, “This is going to be cataclysmic for the Whitehouse”. Waa… he continued on rather histrionically about how horrible this decision would turn out to be. Then I noticed Old Pundit Beta aka David Brooks, sitting there ready,leaning forward oh so hard and so ready to respond to this burgeoning controversy, the greatest mistake ever made by any administration, “This,” he said, “is the most under-reported story of our time all religious people resent this intrusion into their lives, even if it has already happened in 28 states!!!”

Check out the…

View original post 74 more words

Hyping the media and how it has changed nearly everything.

 

“I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure–exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter’s opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference.”
Edward R. Murrow
Continue reading “Hyping the media and how it has changed nearly everything.”

Calling Crazy Out

Guy comes back from a brief reunion with family members huddled around a beach to find that, in a week of rollercoaster rides on the stock market, brought on by what Paul Krugman aptly described as the “Wile E. Coyote moment” as we pause in our endless debate about how much to cut from our federal budget to discover that what we need is massive federal spending, the talk of the political folk is about whetherNewsweek’s cover unfairly portrays Congresswoman Bachmann as a crazy woman.

Jon Stewart, of course, had it right. Forget her crazy woman look—it is what she says which mark her as flat out nuts.


But what of it? She will not be president. The White House can only dream of her as the Republican Party nominee and the party knows this. Hence, they dispatched one of their most loyal soldiers, a former National Review stalwart, to just illustrate one of the seventy-five million reasons she cannot win a national election. If it is all that important to you to know just how lost in the rhetoric of the pathetic know nothingism that has plagued our country since its founding, then try to read Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker without screaming into space. Can’t be done.

 

The more serious issue is whether she is all that far from mainstream Republican “thought” these days. The word “thought” is put in quotation marks because thinking has little to do with it. And, yes, we need to make another reference to the Bush White House “adviser” who in 2004 told Ron Suskind that the “reality based community” just doesn’t get it lest we think any of this is a passing fad.

 

As our economy and, perhaps more, just collapses under the weight of the two terms we allowed that administration to control the presidency, preceded by a Congress the same party led to impeach the prior president while leaving more important issues to be ignored or decided by a fealty to ignorance, the mainstream press just begins to notice what has been so for at least the 15 years since the “contract with America” was endorsed by an electorate addicted to stupidity.

 

 

These “wise heads” suddenly noticing just how crazy these people are when they threaten to prevent the country from paying its debts—and, sadly, this includes our president (a smart man, who grew up not in Kenya, but in Hawaii, going to high school in sandals and thinking the best in people who mean nothing but…) have nothing but themselves to blame. It was only two weeks after the new President was inaugurated, for instance, that Steven Pearlstein (then a sane person) had to explain to his readers that spending is stimulus and vice versa, and to warn about

supposedly intelligent people [who] are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.

That was 2009. The same year that even before his inauguration, the President was warned that this was a time to be bold, not tepid and that with an economy then falling at least $1 trillion under its capacity

Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion [stimulus] plan. And that’s not enough.

and a few weeks later, still 2009—and on the same day as the Pearlstein column explained the English language to people obsessed with Laffer curves or something equally discredited—Paul Krugman observed that

most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump….Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh

So cut the comedy, folks. Maybe it took Standard & Poor’s two years (much less 15) to notice that

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed

but, their track record of noticing problems only after every other person in the world sees them is legendary (and, of course, none of this has much to do with the liklihood of the country defaulting on, say, T-bills).

What’s everyone else’s excuse? The brief rant that appeared here last week, noting that in the face of evidence that the source of the nations’ growing debt (putting aside the more obvious source from the loss of revenues during in a massively declining economy) was not the FDR-inspired “entitlement programs” but unfunded wars and prescription drug programs to help drug company campaign contributors, the Chief Bloviator of what passes for “Washington Wisdom” questioned his guests, by announcing as if it were fact, that

what really drives the debt, that’s entitlement spending, it’s been going on this way and was a ticking time bomb since the ’60s [and] we’re going to solve a political problem but not the underlying fiscal problem, which is what creates our debt

Keep talking, folks. You are doing a great job. Stupid is just plain stupid and treating the stupid as if they are “the other side” of a reasoned argument is not only foolish, it is destructive. See?