The Bald Frog And The Ugly Smelly Wig

I start to think there really is no cure for depression, that happiness is an ongoing battle, and I wonder if it isn't one I'll have to fight for as long as I live. I wonder if it's worth it -- Elizabeth Wurtzel (b. 7/31/1967) an American writer and journalist, known for her best-selling memoir Prozac Nation which chronicles her battle with depression while a college undergraduate and how she was eventually rescued by Prozac after a history of therapy and multiple suicide attempts.

One day the random question feature of Blogger told me, "the children are waiting!" Then Blogger asked me to "please tell them the story about the bald frog with the wig". I decided to take Blogger up on it's suggestion. The result is the following narrative.

The bald frog did not know that all frogs were bald, and so, to cover his embarrassment, wore a wig. The other frogs laughed at the wig-wearing frog, causing him even greater embarrassment than being bald did. Even so, he decided to continue wearing the wig, because his head was cold, and he didn't have a hat. Frogs have no money, so a trip to the hat store was out of the question. The wig-wearing frog cried himself to sleep every night, cursing his baldness and lack of a hat. Why me? he often wondered, sometimes thinking that he should just end it all.

One day, after a particularly nasty group of young punk frogs surrounded him and jeered him relentlessly, he decided to do just that. He considered leaving a note for anyone who might find his lifeless body to read, but realized that most likely nobody would be interested in why, but that they would, if they cared in the least, probably be glad that the world was minus one loser.

The next thing to consider was how to do it. That is, how would he put an end to his miserable existence? The wig wearing frog considered hopping onto the nearest freeway and allowing a fast moving vehicle to squish him flat, but decided that was far too horrific to even think about.

Guts squirted everywhere, and vile flies landing, and pooping on his pancaked road kill corpse was a vision that haunted him for several days. He couldn't come up with another method to off himself; he couldn't even think seriously about it. Because so much of his time was taken up with thoughts about how awful being road kill would be, or how awful the moment just prior to becoming road kill might be. Avoiding other frogs and their taunts regarding his wig was also time-consuming.

A visit to the location where the most delicious flying insects were meant the possibility of an encounter with another frog. And so he just lay in bed and did nothing all day. Not going out meant not encountering any other frogs who might make fun of his bald head or wig. The wig-wearing frog was more miserable than he had ever been in his life. He didn't have the nerve to seek the sweet relief he craved, although he was completely convinced that there was no other answer.

Every day he grew continually weaker, due to a lack of food and exercise to keep his muscles from wasting away. He wasn't even sure he wanted to eat any more of those insects, realizing now that eating them whole meant that he was also eating their feces. This was an idea that entered his head when he first imagined the nasty bugs defecating on his flattened carcass, and decided then and there he would never consume another.

After that decision it did not take long before the wig-wearing frog was so weak from hunger that he could no longer rise from his bed. The end is near now, the wig-wearing frog reflected one evening. A long time ago he had some supposed friends over for a visit, but that ended when the so-called friends criticized his (then) newly found wig. It was a casual get-together during which he had expected them all to be impressed with his now covered head. Instead they laughed, at first thinking he was pranking them. When they realized he was not, they laughed and called him names.

Looking back now, that was when the trouble began. If he could go back and do it all over? He would never have picked the wig out of the muck where he found it. But, as much as he hated the wig, he hated his bald head more. The wig-wearing frog drifted off, dreaming of the life that might have been if only he had found a stylish hat instead of the ugly smelly wig.

 swtd-77. ant-1.  Previous. Next.

Frenemies with Benefits: 9/11 Villans George W bush & Osama bin Laden

We will take them out; we will kill bin Laden; we will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority. Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world, that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children ~ Barack Obama (dob 8/4/1961) making a campaign promise on 10/7/2008, and announcing (on 5/2/2011, as president) that the promise had been fulfilled.

Definition, Frenemy: a portmanteau of "friend" and "enemy" that can refer to either an enemy disguised as a friend or to a partner who is simultaneously a competitor and rival. The term is used to describe personal, geopolitical, and commercial relationships both among individuals and groups or institutions (Source: Wikipedia).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 5/2/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. The discussion concerns the operation (code named Neptune's Spear) carried out by Navy SEALs on 5/2/2011 which lead to the death of Osama bin Laden. (Information within brackets are notations added by me).

Thom Hartmann: ...this is a very significant moment [referring to the OBL kill]. But why now? Why not before? Gareth Porter is with us. Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy. You can read his writings over at ipsnews.net and elsewhere. Gareth, welcome to the program.

Gareth Porter: Thanks very much Thom.

TH: I was at at dinner party a couple of weeks ago with a progressive member of Congress and a couple of local DC pundits, and I made the comment that in 2001 the Taliban made an offer to George bush. The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and George bush turned them down. Everyone in the room, without exception, looked at me like I'd just said that the moon landing didn't actually happen.

GP: I think that is a fair comment on what happened in 2001.

TH: Actually, my understanding is that the Taliban didn't actually offer to turn bin Laden over to bush. They said to bush that they'd turn him over to a third country where he could get a fair trial [if the US was able to produce evidence that OBL was guilty of planning the 9/11 attacks].

GP: Actually, they went beyond that. That was their position as of the first week of October 2001; three weeks after 9/11. But after the US began the bombing of Afghanistan on October 7th, the Taliban very quickly adopted a new position - which was taken to a secret meeting in Islamabad by the then Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. The new offer was to turn over, without any preconditions, and you can forget about the evidence...

They said they would turn bin Laden over to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a Saudi-based international organization of Islamic countries. It is a moderate Islamic organization. I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks.

Had George bush seized upon this proposal - the process [his trial by an Islamic organization] would have arguably reduced the appeal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda enormously throughout the Islamic world. Having Osama tried by Islamic jurists and by an Islamic international organization would have been an enormous advantage [in that the Islamic world would have accepted the verdict as legitimate].

TH: Why did the bush administration not want that to happen?

GP: That's a very interesting question, Thom. I have been writing a chapter for a book I'm working on precisely on this topic of why bush did not catch bin Laden. There are a couple of answers to that question. The first one is that the neoconservative inner core of the bush administration's national security team (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were determined to avoid getting involved in Afghanistan. They, of course, had their hearts set on Iraq and a major US military operation there. They never took bin Laden and Al-Qaeda seriously. Cheney and Rumsfeld dismissed the idea that Al-Qaeda could threaten the United States because they weren't state sponsored but independent actors. So they convinced bush not to do anything that could possibly prejudice the plans for an attack and occupation of Iraq.

TH: Which we know now he had been talking about in 1999 to his biographer Mickey Herskowitz, and was the subject, according to Paul O'Neill, of the very first cabinet meeting that they had in January 2001. [see YouTube video below].

GP: Exactly. The bush administration never had a plan to actually capture bin Laden. Even after 9/11.

TH: Right. Even at Tora Bora where he was arguably right there in front of him [Rumsfeld let bin Laden escape in 2001, says Senate report].

GP: You have to understand that what was being done there was strictly improvisation. There was no planning ahead of time. There would have to have been very detailed planning immediately following 9/11 for any possibility of an effective operation to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.

TH: Gareth, here's my theory on this... if Lex Luthor didn't exist in the Superman comic books, and all Superman did was run around and stop gas stations from being robbed, they would be the most boring comic books on earth. The "good" of a good character in fiction is defined by how "evil" the evil character is. So for George bush to turn himself from a ne'er-do-well who was appointed by the Supreme Court - into Superman - he needed to have a Lex Luthor. And he took the opportunity to turn Osama bin laden into Lex Luthor so he could be Superman.

GP: I think there's something to that, but let's stop and recall a very important distinction here. When he had the opportunity to really do something about al-Qaeda and bin Laden in 2001 he was not interested at all. And remember that even in early 2002, after bin Laden had escaped to Pakistan, it was George W bush who reasurred the American people that bin Laden wasn't really important. He only invented bin Laden as a factor in his policy after the Iraq war began to go badly.

TH: Ah ha. So that's when it got convenient from him.

GP: Yea.

TH: Gareth Porter. Gareth, thanks so much for being with us. Great talking with you.

GP: Thank you Thom.

[End Thom Hartmann/Gareth Porter 5/2/2011 discussion]

My conclusion, based on this conversation (and everything else I have read), is that GWB didn't take the threat posed by OBL and Al-Qaeda seriously until it suited him. Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told bush that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".

bush didn't want to hear it, so he demoted Richard Clarke and re-assigned the counter-terrorism issue to a task force headed by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney's task force didn't meet until 9/4/2001. This was 234 days after the bush administration assumed power, but only 7 days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In the next segment Thom Hartmann concludes that GWB, "just wanted to transfer billions of dollars to his buddies in the defense industry", and points out that Halliburton was on the verge of bankruptcy before 9/11, and now, in the last quarter, this former US-based company (which is now located in Dubai) posted a 5 billion dollar profit. In bush's mind "the best way to revitalize the economy is war", and the best way to judge how the "economy" is doing is to examine how the wealthy elites are faring.

Clearly OBL and GWB exploited each other for their own advantage. Osama provided George with the excuse he and PNAC needed to launch their unending "war on terror" and "revitalize the economy". 9/11 also allowed bush to brand himself a "war president" and paint the Democrats as "weak on national defense", thus securing his second term - because you can't change a horse midstream when we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

In return bush handed Osama the bona fides he craved as a Wahhabi leader. Pre-9/11 Osama lead an obscure Islamic movement that was going nowhere. When bush declared war on "terror" and declared it was a "crusade", he elevated Osama to the level of super-villain (or hero fighting back against the "Great Satan", depending on your point of view) and revitalized Al-Qaeda. Outraged Muslims whose family members were killed ceased being innocent civilians and joined the "insurgency" to fight the American invaders. Osama's plan was to bog down the United States in a war of attrition and bleed America to the point of bankruptcy. George bush delivered in spades.

This is why call George bush and Osama bin Laden "Frenemies with benefits". Osama is now dead, "justice" having been served. But what about George bush? Why is he still a free man? We know where he is, so I think Seal Team 6 could take him out quite easily. Whether or not I'm kidding (about assassinating bush) I do believe he belongs behind bars - along with the other war criminals in his administration. I think that would be appropriate for a group of war profiteers that are responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

Video: When did bush decide to invade Iraq? A 2004 60 Minutes report says (according to then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill) bush spoke of invading Iraq during his FIRST cabinet meeting! (2:01)

SWTD #76

Republican Cons and Carnival Barkers

We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) the 44th president of the United States (1/20/2009 to present) referring to those who question if he was born in the United States; in a press conference announcing the release of his long form Hawaiian birth certificate on 4/27/2011.

The first Republican presidential debate was held Wednesday 5/4/2011. I find this a little confusing, considering the fact that no Republican has OFFICIALLY declared that they are actually running. The Fox Nooz-hosted debate featured Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. Except for Tim Pawlenty all of these "candidates" will drop out before the primaries. Hell, the majority of them will probably drop out before even officially declaring they are running. Ron Paul has announced that he'll be opening a campaign office soon, so I'm guessing he will declare, engage in a few more debates, and then drop out (as usual).

Absent from the debate were a number of individuals whom the media has been speculating about for awhile. It is my contention that these supposed potential candidates did not show up because they have absolutely no intention of running for president. They haven't said they aren't running though. In fact, they have made every effort to make it appear as though they MIGHT run.

The reason these fakers are working hard to maintain the illusion that they might run is because there is a significant amount of cash to be made collecting "campaign donations" from gullible right-wing voters. Of all the possibilities there are three I believe will definitely NOT run. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump will POSITIVELY not run. I'm convinced that two others, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann will PROBABLY not run.

This is the second time Newt Gingrich has pretended there is a possibility he might run for president. Newt "I might run for president" Gingrich is a Conservative con man who was the first Republican who stumbled upon this money-making scam. As far as the 2012 election is concerned Newt says he is currently in an "exploratory phase". Newt wants to avoid pesky laws the federal election commission imposes on people who form exploratory committees. FEC rules state that, "If someone is testing the waters [by forming an exploratory committee] and decides not to run, testing the waters activity is not disclosed to the FEC".

A 2/28/2011 story from Politico revels that Newt Gingrich raised 14.5 million dollars in 2010 via his fundraising organization "American Solutions". A large chunk of the money people donated to American Solutions was then bequeathed to "The Gingrich Group" in return for "administrative services". The Gingrich Group is a consulting firm headed by... (wait for it) Newt Gingrich! What a nifty way to get around federal laws that prohibit potential candidates from simply pocketing donations - which is what the less-savvy flimflammer Christine O'Donnell did.

Newt's phony presidential bids were covered by Rachel Maddow on 3/3/2011 with a story she called "He's Faking It". It turns out that pretending to run for president is only one of many Newt Gingrich scams formulated to separate Right-wing fools from their money. Newt also gives out "awards" in exchange for the modest fee of $5,000. Newt Gingrich wasn't a serious 2008 presidential contender and he will not be a serious 2012 contender either.

Sarah Palin, taking a cue from Mr. Gingrich, does what she can to maintain the mirage that a presidential run may be in her future. As long as there is a possibility she might run, interest in her books, speaking engagements, Fox News gig and reality program remains artificially high. If Palin were not MAYBE running for president would interest in the half-term governor who quit be as high? Would she be raking in quite as much dough? I think not. Pretending to run for president, while not actual work, pays very handsomely. Sarah Palin will not run for 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Some people believe Donald Trump might possibly maybe run for president. A recent public poll says Trump came in second behind Mitt Romney. The 4/4/2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that "21% of respondents said Romney was their pick for the GOP nomination, while 17% broke for both Trump and Huckabee. Newt Gingrich came in fourth at 11%, followed by Sarah Palin with 10%, Tim Pawlenty at 6%, and Michele Bachmann who received 5%". Does this mean that "Donald Trump should be taken very seriously by both the right and the left"? I say N-O.

A 4/6/2011 Talking Points Memo commentary alleges that Trump, "in an appeal to birthers, [is] questioning President Obama's citizenship". TMP's conclusion is that the "play to the party's edge may be paying off". Now that President Obama has released his long form birth certificate, Trump has switched gears and is suggesting that Obama's grades weren't good enough for him to get into Harvard.

Clearly Trump is attempting to appeal to the racist birther faction of the Republican party. The media loved discussing the issue (before Obama released his long form BC), because it was controversial and attracted eyes to their news programs. This is all about the free publicity - and electing a Republican (who isn't Trump) that will adopt Paul Ryan's "Path to Poverty" budget and significantly cut The Donald's taxes.

Whether or not this is a con (or self-delusion), it certainly illustrates the fact that The Donald has zero integrity. Donald should be ashamed of himself, although I seriously doubt he is capable of that emotion (he actually congratulated himself for bringing attention to the issue!). Donald Trump will not run for 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He'll drop out before May 16th when NBC announces whether or not Trump's Apprentice TV program will be returning for another season.

After reviewing the evidence I think the reason none of these fakers are ashamed of the humongous lies they're telling is because they're sociopaths. Ayn Rand Objectivists are PROUD of the fact that they don't give a crap about their fellow human beings. They call it "rational self interest". Republicans have, beginning with Reagan, moved steadily in that direction. Proof positive of this is their "Path to Poverty" 10 year plan which completely dismantles the social safety net; not to reduce the national debt, but to further cut taxes on the country's most wealthy citizens.

This is why Newt Gingrich trades in his wife every so often for a newer model; and treated each soon-to-be ex-wife extremely shabbily when he requested his divorces. Sarah Palin quit her governorship to make money because she doesn't understand the concept of public service and didn't give a damn that she'd made a commitment. Donald Trump is famous for his ego and (like Newt), dumping wives.

Now, I'm not saying that ALL conservative politicians are narcissistic lying pond scum, or that corruption and immorality can be found exclusively on the right side of the political spectrum, but a Democrat has never pretended he may run for president as a money-making scam. Also consider the fact that Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, thinks asking health insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is the same as asking property insurance companies to sell someone insurance AFTER their house burns down. This is a supposed man of God, and he places profit over human lives!

This is typical of Republican indifference to the suffering of people who aren't them or their friends or family members. They believe are better than the average person (who Ayn Rand called parasites and lice), which is why it bothers them not in the least to lie about running for president in order to extract money from any sucker who will believe them.

Further Reading
[1] Trump is Not a True Conservative Transcript from the Glenn Beck Radio Program, 4/19/2011.
[2] Top Ten Reasons Why Sarah Palin is Running For President by Tony Lee, Human Events 4/13/2011.
[3] So, What Is A Presidential Exploratory Committee, Exactly? by Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post 3/23/2011.

SWTD #75

Natural Born Birthers

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States ~ James Madison (4/16/1751 to 6/28/1836) the 4th President of the United States (4/4/1809 to 4/4/1817), Founding Father, and principal author of the United States Constitution, in a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789.

For the last two years the White House has had an illegal resident.

An individual who is constitutionally ineligible to be president.

The Kenyan (or British) Muslim faker must be stopped.

Are we really going to be fooled by a long form Hawaiian birth certificate that has been photoshopped?

Jerome Corsi is one of the few who knows the truth.

Barack Obama is incapable of producing any proof.

Even if he was born in Honolulu both of his parents were US citizens not.

So he isn't natural born, although on this Article Two doesn't elaborate a lot.

Regardless Birthers will interpret it the way they want.

Opposing out of control spending isn't racist.

That claim is totally baseless.

Just ask friend of "the blacks" Trump.

To get into Harvard Obama's grades gave him no bump.

Now he certainly isn't dumber than W.

But if he benefited from affirmative action that should trouble you.

The Congressional Black Caucus, Ben Jealous and their ilk are the true bigots according to MLK.

The content of your character is all that should matter today.

Do the Tea Party Birthers think we should buy this nonsense?

Personally I can't wait until we are able to refer to them in the past tense.

Republican operatives like Franklin Graham and Denish D'Souza put forth ugly theories to discriminate.

Those who aren't blind know the GOP panders to voters who hate.

Image: Not a real sign in Kenya, but a Photoshop creation. As per a 2/24/2010 WND article (believe it or not) titled "Does this sign reveal Obama's birthplace?" (answer: no). Although the WND article author does add that "the issue of whether Obama is legally qualified to serve in the White House continues to be one of high importance for many Americans".

SWTD #74

Scientology & Objectivism Are 2 Equally Crazy Cults!

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs ~ John Rogers, a screenwriter who resides in Los Angeles CA.

For many, Rand's Objectivism was a way station between L Ron Hubbard's Dianetics and Werner Erhard's est... not only has the Objectivist movement been a classic cult as defined in the dictionary, it may arguably be viewed as a destructive psychotherapeutic-religious cult ~ Jeff Walker, author of "The Ayn Rand Cult" (a quote from his book; published 1998).

If you know anything about Scientology it's probably something regarding how nutty it is. This is the religion founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology postulates that all of humanities' problems are the result of an extraterrestrial ghost infestation. These ET specters, which Hubbard calls "body thetans" parasitically latch on to nearby humans, feeding them bad vibes. Only followers of Mr. Hubbard know how to exorcise the otherworldly spirits through a process called auditing, which is provided by the church for a fee. In other words it's a money making scam designed to separate fools from their money.

Another crazy cult you may or may not have heard of is Objectivism. Whereas Scientology appeals to those who are mentally ill, Objectivism appeals to sociopaths of the Gordon Gekko variety who believe greed is virtuous. Politically these rational-self-interest types are Libertarian or Republican. The leader of the Objectivist cult was a Russian immigrant and atheist who was born Alisa Rosenbaum but changed her name to Ayn Rand. Oddly enough many right-wing Christians have succumbed to her free market fantasies. They must believe that they can worship two gods.

While I'm sure that Objectivists would take exception to being classified as crazy cultists similar in any way to the loons that practice Scientology, I'm not going to make any significant additional comparisons between the two. I'm only going to make one additional minor comparison. They both have big budget films based on fictional (and incredibly long) novels written by their respective luminaries.

Randians had The Fountainhead, which was a 1949 film starring Gary Cooper (not too shabby). But now they a second film. A brand new cinematic version of Rand's 1957 magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. This gives them the opportunity to be as embarrassed as Scientologists are in regards to the Razzie award-winning John-Travolta-starring Battlefield Earth.

Well, perhaps not THAT embarrassed, but the reviews I've read indicate that it won't end up being "the greatest film the first half of this century". The description I just related to you was a pre-review authored by the blogger Rational Nation USA. He dropped this "momentary infomercial break [slash] non-paid advertising" nugget here (on this blog) in response to my one of my previous posts (which didn't have diddly to do with Rand or Objectivism). After checking around the interwebs I discovered he had shat the same comment on a quite a few of the Left-leaning blogs I frequent.

Obviously he's quite excited. "You got to check it out", he insisted, and so I did. The last time I heard of this movie it was a big budget Hollywood endeavor with Angelina Jolie attached. As far as I know, Angelina Jolie isn't a Right-winger (or at least she has done a lot of work with the UN, which Right-wingers hate), so I was never entirely sure why she wanted to have anything to do with bringing Ayn Rand's delusions to the silver screen. Now it's starring a bunch of unknowns, although it does have a 20 million dollar budget.

Libertarian PJ O'Rourke says, "Atlas Shrugged. And So Did I". The reason PJ shrugs is because the film is more than a little boring. Brian Calle of the Right-wing rag The Daily Caller thinks Atlas Shrugged "could become a cult classic". A CULT classic isn't the same as a genuine classic. Sometimes cult films are revered by a select group because the film is hilariously bad. In this instance, however, I think the word CULT is used because that is the only group of people who will be interested in this; people who are already members in the cult of Rand. But it could be hilariously bad too.

This film has a PART 1 attached to it, although the planned parts 2 and 3 aren't currently in production. I'd guess the reason is because the financers of this film didn't want to commit to making any sequels until the box office receipts are tallied for this installment. My prediction is that the free market will speak and it will soon become apparent that there isn't a large market for films promoting the "greed is good" mantra. Gordon Gekko was the villain in "Wall Street". Most people believe avarice is a sin, not something to be proud of. What I'm saying is I hope this film does poorly.

In an email I received today FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe says "[this movie] has the opportunity to introduce millions more around the world to the philosophy of freedom". Instead of "introduce" I think the word he's looking for is "indoctrinate". Imagine a film that touted the virtues of a society where the contributions of everyone (not just the wealthy) were valued. A film in which the growing disparity between the rich and the poor was viewed as a problem and not simply the MORE VALUABLE citizens claiming their just reward. Would the Right not call such a film Socialist propaganda?

BTW, I'm not saying I'm opposed to products produced for a niche market, as I have my own niche market interests. My niche market interest is orchestral film music. Which is why I checked out who wrote the score for Atlas Shrugged. Turns out another thing Atlas Shrugged has in common with Battlefield Earth is that the background music in both was written by Czechoslovakia composer Elia Cmiral. I know this because I own a copy of the Battlefield Earth soundtrack CD. This made me wonder, is Elia Cmiral the go-to composer for films based on the books of crazy cult leaders?

I'd rather rewatch my Lord of the Rings director's cut DVDs instead of a film based on Ayn Rand's garbage, although I actually might be interested in purchasing a CD of the Atlas Shrugged film score if one is released. I listened to the "John Galt theme" YouTube on the official website, and I liked it. I was disappointed with the last CD of Mr. Cimiral's I purchased, which I would describe as "atmospheric synth droning". I've passed on several of Mr. Cimiral's CDs lately as I've grown tired of boring synth drones, but this theme is performed on a piano. There probably won't be a soundtrack CD, however. Many big budget Hollywood films don't get one, and this film already has very limited appeal.

Even if a CD is released I think I'll wait and try to pick it up second-hand. I'd prefer that NONE of my money ended up in the hands of anyone involved in producing Ayn Rand's propaganda as a rich-leeches-as-the-heroes fantasy flick. Republicans may fear a dystopian future where all citizens have access to health care and the wealthy pay a slightly higher tax rate, but my fear is of a present in which Paul Ryan's laughable "Path to Prosperity" is considered a STARTING POINT for budget negotiations.

Representative Paul Ryan's budget encapsulates the Republican dream of an America in which the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than does everyone else. And all the money the government does spend for social programs is funneled though private businesses who first take their cut. Yesterday President Obama said he wouldn't allow that to happen while he was president, but that doesn't mean Republicans are ever going to stop trying to bring their vision of a dystopian society to fruition. Clearly we have a hell of a lot more to fear from Republican fascists than Democratic socialists.

Further Reading
[1] Ayn Rand's Philosophy by Gore Vidal. Esquire 7/1961.
[2] Atlas Shrugged is Absurd but Strangely Compelling by Sam Jordison. Books Blog 3/27/2009.
[3] How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood by By Alyssa Bereznak. Salon 4/4/2011.
[4] Atlas Shrugged. And So Did I. A review of the film by P.J. O'Rourke. The Wall Street Journal 4/6/2011.
[5] Growing Up Objectivist by Andrew Sullivan. The Daily Beast 4/11/2011.
[6] The Reviews Are In: Atlas Shrugged is Really, Really Awful! by Shaw Kenawe. Progressive Eruptions 4/20/2011.
[7] Rational Nation USA & The Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Movie, A Flop From 2011 That Lost Over $15 Million. DSD #34 9/23/2016.

SWTD #73

Teabag Patsies Help Establishment GOPers Play Teabag Chicken

The perception of U.S. credit quality would be permanently impacted. The faith in the U.S. Treasury is the closest thing we have to risk-free securities. Playing a game of chicken with the debt ceiling is the nuclear option ~ Calvin Sullivan, chief strategy officer of fixed-income capital markets at Morgan Keegan & Co, as quoted in the 1/29/2011 CNN Money article "Playing Chicken with the Debt Ceiling".

Recently I received (via email) a "very important letter" from editor-in-chief Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. The very important information Mr. Farah wanted to impart was something he referred to as the Republican's "secret weapon". Apparently Mr. Farah believes House Republicans can have their way and cut every single Democratic program they disagree with. In the letter Mr. Farah asked the following questions...

Q1: How would you like to defund Obamacare now?

Q2: How would you like to end subsidies for NPR and PBS this year?

Q3: How would you like to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and dozens of other offensive and deadly programs even before Barack Obama leaves office?

How does Mr. Farah believe Republicans can accomplish these goals? Turns out all they have to do is deploy their secret weapon. Farah reveals that, "if Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, the borrowing must stop - and hundreds of billions of dollars must be cut from the federal budget".

This is the NEXT battle. If you're thinking, "wait a minute, didn't we just have this battle" - you're partially right. The House teabaggers did just try to attach these exact same defunding riders to the budget bill. Now some folks may also be thinking - because there is an apparent tentative agreement and these items aren't a part of it - funding for ObamaCare, NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood are all safe. Think again.

The odd thing is that Joseph Farah sent me this important letter over a week ago, at which point the possibility of a government shutdown still loomed (and perhaps there will still be one, as the budget agreement still hasn't been officially formalized). So why wasn't the secret weapon a government shutdown? Or why didn't he say there were TWO secret weapons?

We know that if there is a government shutdown Republicans are rightly afraid the public will blame them. Like they blamed the Republicans when Speaker Newt shut down government during Clinton's presidency (twice). Try as they might to deflect blame to the Democrats or the president this time, they KNOW their excuses won't be accepted by the public.

Did we really come close to a government shutdown, or was it simply a negotiating tactic - and the Republicans were always going to flinch? Certainly I believe the House teabaggers were stupid enough to shut the government down. But even if they are stupid enough to vote in favor of the US government defaulting on it debts - I seriously doubt establishment Republicans are that stupid (or I believe most of them aren't).

That is why I think this secret weapon is bullshit. The Republicans are playing a game of chicken with the Democrats (and the economy) and it appears to be working. Round one of Teabag Chicken was when the Republicans held middleclass tax cuts hostage. The hostages of round two were The Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare), Planned Parenthood and NPR/PBS.

Unlike round one where they got their tax cuts for the wealthy, this time they didn't get what they wanted. They did manage to pump up the budget cut figure from 33 to 38.5 billion though. This makes me wonder if that wasn't their tactic all along. Are the establishment Republicans playing the teabaggers for patsies by using their issues (which they KNOW will won't pass the House/be vetoed by the president) to force Democrats to further cut economic stimulus (AKA government spending)?

A 10/29/2008 World Net Daily article titled, "Bush's $2.2 Billion Gift to Planned Parenthood" says, "the Bush administration has extensively funded Planned Parenthood. The total amount of federal funding (through 2006, the most recent figures known) being at least $2.2 billion. In Bush's first year (2001), he approved $202 million for PP; in the last year for which there is reporting (2006), Bush gave PP $337 million – a single year funding increase of 67 percent".

So, the question is: are establishment Republicans playing Teabag Chicken with the administration to get what they want (stimulus cuts that will negatively impact the economy and make it harder for president Obama to get re-elected) - and using/making patsies of their teabag faction? I think so. I also think Congressional Democrats and the administration should stop playing along, as the GOPers are playing them for suckers as well.

SWTD #72

President Obama & The Very Bad Deal

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945) as quoted in his Speech to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (6/27/1936).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 12/8/2010, which I edited for brevity and clarity. The discussion concerns the president's tax cut deal with the Republicans that had not yet passed when the discussion took place...

Thom Hartmann: Greetings my friends, patriots, lovers of democracy, truth and justice, believers in peace, freedom and the American way. Thom Hartmann here with you. And of course the great debate going on now across the United States from living rooms to boardrooms to the United States Congress - what to do about this compromise that President Obama has come up with the Republicans to extend tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for two years, and to extend unemployment benefits on a limited number of unemployed people...

Dan Pfeiffer is with us, he is the White House Communications Director. Dan, welcome to the program.

Dan Pfeiffer: Thanks Thom.

TH: This tax cut that was originally passed by George bush and the Republicans with less than 60 votes in the United States Senate, because it was passed by reconciliation. Why has the Obama Administration not attempted to use reconciliation in the last two years for any of their agenda items that could conceivably be passed by reconciliation - to expand Medicare for example, or in this case taxes?

DP: We did use reconciliation to pass the health care bill. You only get to use it once per budget year. [Even though the budget is from October to October] we don't have a budget for the next year yet [which is why we can't use reconciliation to pass tax cut legislation and instead need to get Republican votes].

TH: [Here's the problem I see with this deal...] unemployment only goes for a year, so Obama's going to be stuck during the election year, in 2012, during that entire year, trying to deal with unemployment. And at the same time the Republicans are going to come back and say, you know the Obama tax cuts just jacked the budget deficit and the debt up by almost a trillion dollars - and so we've got to cut more social programs.

DP: Well, Thom, I think it's important to understand a few things here. First is, because the Republicans had 42 votes in the Senate, and frankly there was not unanimous Democratic support for allowing the upper income tax cuts to expire, we were put in a position where you only have two choices, and there were only two. People can talk about this far fetched scenario or that far fetched scenario, but it boils down to two very stark choices.

Do we let taxes go up on middle class families who absolutely can not afford it - a tax increase of two to three thousand dollars next year - at the same time that the unemployed Americans, 2 million at the end of this year, will go without benefits, or do you try to find a compromise that works? Compromise means we are going to have to swallow some things we don't like and the Republicans are going to have to swallow some things that they don't like, but [the question is] is it a good deal for America? Is it a good deal for our economy? Is it a good deal for middle and working class people?

There is no question that this is a very good deal. The president was adamantly opposed to extending the tax cuts for the upper income brackets - he fought this for many years - but there is not a supermajority in the Senate that will allow that it happen. So if we can't do that, we need to get a deal that ensures that middle and working class families not only don't face a tax increase, but we were able to some things to help the economy in the long run.

TH: Dan, I would submit to you that there's a third option. Let me have 10 seconds, if I may [Thom plays audio of the FDR quote at the top of this post]. Why is the president not talking like that?

DP: Well, I think that is an excellent speech. A very historic speech. You're right, there is a third option, which is the same as the first option, which is to allow the taxes to go up, and then spend the next several weeks and months making a political case to the American people about why this is the Republican's fault.

TH: Do you really think, that if you just let these tax cuts expire, and then president Obama goes on TV and gives a [FDR type] speech, and says that, we already have legislation that has been passed by the House, [and all we need to do is present that legislation to the Senate and ask] are you guys going to vote for tax cuts for middle class people? Yes or no? You really think that they would not back down?

DP: They may eventually back down, but you would go months and months before that happened, and every day we were before the Senate making these political arguments, unemployed Americans would get no benefits. Middle class Americans would have a higher tax bill. The economy...

TH: [interrupts] Wait a minute. I was talking about tax cuts. Let's talk about unemployment. Don't you think he could go right now and... bring out some stories like Ronald Reagan used to do.

DP: When Democrats had 59 votes in the Senate it took nearly six months to pass unemployment benefits. There is...

TH: [interrupts] Because there was no presidential leadership, Dan.

DP: I entirely disagree with that Thom. [The choice was to] let taxes go up which endangers our recovery and hurts middle class folks who can't afford it, or you can cut a deal. This is a good deal. It, uh...

TH: [interrupts] Dan, when George bush sold this thing we were told that the average cut on a median income individual with a family of four was $300 a year. That was the Democratic response to George bush's tax cut, "It's only 300 bucks a year". If someone making 50 grand a year is only going to see their taxes go up $300 a year where's the damage?

DP: There's a huge damage. The president talks to middle class and working class folks all the time who are scraping nickles together to...

TH: [interrupts] But income tax rates right now in the United States are lower than they've been in 60 years.

DP: Thom, if you want to make an argument that we should allow taxes to go up on middle class Americans to prove a political point, then we are at a...

TH: [interrupts] No. I'm saying that if anybody should be held hostage, it should be the Republicans rather than working Americans.

DP: What the president has said is that he has gotten a very good deal for working Americans. And a lot of measures that are going to create jobs for unemployed Americans who don't currently have them, and...[music signifying the end of the segment begins to play].

TH: [interrupts] Dan, I'm sorry we're out of time. You're doing a great job. I wish you well, but I disagree. Thank you for coming on.

DP: Thanks Thom. [Dan Pfeiffer disconnects].

TH: [addressing the listeners] I'm suggesting that we all be calling our Senators and our Congressmen and say "filibuster this thing. Stop it. Kill it". [End of segment]

My Commentary: Normally Thom Hartmann does not continually interrupt his guests. This interview was very atypical for the Thom Hartmann program. The reason for the "rudeness" (if that's what you want to call it) is that Thom felt this was a very bad deal. In retrospect, I believe Thom Hartmann was entirely correct. President Obama got teabagged. This was a Republican trap that he walked right into. Due to his quest to be even more bipartisan - which is the message he wrongly believed the voters sent by turning the House over to the Republicans.

In the next segment Thom explained another aspect of this bad deal, which is that "part of this legislation is a two percent reduction in payroll taxes". In regards to the payroll tax holiday Thom says, "What's that going to do? Over the short term, not a whole lot. But if you could make that permanent, it would take such a bite out of Social Security that it would require you to consider privatizing part of Social Security, or cutting benefits, or raising the retirement age".

This is the strategy behind the payroll tax holiday - it's a stealth move to sabotage Social Security. If further cutting the taxes of working people is a good idea - then do it. There is no reason to specifically target funds that should be going to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Finally, because the extension of the bush tax cuts added significantly to the deficit, Republicans yelling and screaming about how we're "broke" gain a lot more credibility. All over the media and blogosphere Conservatives insist that "it doesn't matter how we got here, what matters is we're broke and need to do something about it".

Of course that "something" is to cut programs that benefit middle and working class Americans, which is exactly what Thom predicted. And it certainly does matter how we got here. We are where we are because Conservative deregulation created a housing bubble that crashed the economy.

What President Obama and the Congressional Democrats could have done to get us back on the right track would have been to kill the bush tax cuts. Immediately. Repeal should have been the first order of business as soon as Barack Obama assumed office. Failing that, they most certainly should not have been extended. Some Democrats say if Obama hadn't made the deal good legislation like the repeal of DADT or health care for the 9/11 first responders wouldn't have been passed.

President Obama was RIGHT when he said the GOPers were holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage, but he was wrong when he decided to negotiate with the hostage takers. You don't negotiate with TERRORISTS - which is what the Republicans are. If you negotiate with a terrorist the terrorist will surely return to terrorize you again. Because they know they can get what they want by doing so.

This is what is happening RIGHT NOW with the battle over the budget and looming government shutdown. This time it's the Tea Party Representatives doing the terrorizing. The question now is - will Obama cave and give them exactly what they want? Will the President allow himself to be teabagged yet again? The strategy has been working for the entire Obama presidency thus far, so I see no reason why they'd abandon it now.

SWTD #71

Will Expletive R-tarded Liberals Ruin Obama's Chances for Re-election?

The gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through ~ Ted Rall (b. 8/26/1963) columnist, syndicated editorial cartoonist, and author who claims Liberals aren't going to vote for President Obama in 2012; as quoted in his 5/29/2009 Illinois State Register Journal article, "It's Increasingly Evident that Obama Should Resign".

Obama's Chances for Re-election in 2012 may be ruined. If the President does fail to secure a second term the obvious question will be - whom do we blame? Many have already began to speculate about which group of Democratic voters will torpedo Obama's re-election bid. You may have heard that Rahm Emanuel thinks thinks Liberals are "fu*king retarded"... because they aren't falling into lockstep with the Democratic leadership and actually DARE to criticize the president. So clearly they're the ones we should hold responsible if a Republican returns to the White House in 2013.

That's an opinion a blogger who calls himself Infidel753 agrees with. In the comment thread of a post on the blog Greedy Capitalist Pig 101, the Infidel blogger says...

Infidel753: Look how many disappointed leftists stayed home last year and saddled us with Rand Paul and Scott Walker and the rest of these thugs and nuts in the first place.

But this isn't the first time the Infidel blogger has complained about dissatisfied Leftists. I'm pretty sure he thinks Liberals fu*ked up the 2010 election and they're currently doing their best to fu*k things up in 2012. Later another blogger using the ID Bamboo linked to an article which he described as "very funny". In his funny commentary author Ted Rall makes the case that the next president might be a Republican because Obama won't be able to "Fool us Twice". In regards to what he terms Obama's "micro-mini-accomplishment lites", Rall says...

TR: [Will they] be enough to pry liberal asses off the sofa on Election Day? I think not. On the big issues that really matter - war, the economy, civil liberties - Obama is a Rightwing Republican. He's only a Democrat on the little stuff. Liberals won't turn out big for Obama in 2012.

Infidel is a moderate Democrat who believes the Tea Party won big in 2010 because Leftists stayed home. They did so because they were disgusted over the deal Obama struck with Congressional Republicans to extend the bush tax cuts - although personally he believes the deal was pretty good, the best Obama could do, or a necessary evil. Take your pick; I don't really care. Ted Rall is a political commentator (and cartoonist) propagating the meme that Infidel is buying into. Rall thinks the next president will be a Republican because Liberals won't vote for a president who so significantly let them down (and may as well be a Republican).

Seeing as Ted Rall is so very disappointed in Obama, he certainly can't vote for him in 2012. Luckily there is a possibility of "a strong primary challenge to Obama's left flank". Who might this strong primary challenger be? Citing the Libertarian Reason Magazine as his source, Rall says the challenger may be Russ Feingold. This causes me to question Mr. Rall's grasp of reality. Reason Magazine is a credible source concerning ANYTHING Liberal? How Liberals vote? How Liberals think? What Liberals may do?

Mr. Rall may agree with the Reason Magazine author he quoted, but Mr. Rall (and Reason Magazine) are wrong. Russ Feingold will NOT challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Not unless Russ Feingold believes a Republican president is a better alternative (which I am positive he doesn't).

Ted Rall complains that President Obama is continuing many of the bush administration policies Liberals hoped he would quickly do away with. Indefinite detention, military tribunals and many of the other "lawless behaviors" of bush have been continued by Obama; and Ted Rall is unhappy (as are many Liberals). But instead of advocating that Americans work hard to pressure Obama to abandon these policies, Rall instead suggested Barack Obama resign the presidency - on 5/29/2009. On this date Barack Obama had been president exactly 130 days (or less than 4 months). I don't know how an Obama resignation would benefit Liberals (or the country). Was Ted Rall rooting for Joe Biden to win the nomination?

My conclusion is that I think Ted Rall doesn't have a freaking clue how the majority of Liberals (or Leftists) will vote (or not vote) in 2012. But the same holds true for the Infidel blogger; the polling data says they are both wrong. On the 4/4/2011 broadcast of the MSNBC program The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell said...

LO: All the talk has been that the president has a problem with Liberals because he has disappointed Liberals. We have polling that indicates that among Democrats, Liberal Democrats support the president more than any other group. They support him 83 percent. Moderate Democrats are lower than that at 77 percent. This is after his compromising with Republicans that may have had more support among Moderates than among Liberals. I don't see in the polling where the challenge lies for the president with Liberals.

In response, his guest Melissa Harris-Perry said...

MHP: Liberals are most happy with him because relative to the alternative, they are the farthest away from the alternative. Yea, I think that's right, the moderates are the problem. It's always that issue for a candidate. He's got to get those swing voters and keep his base mobilized.

FYI - I searched for the source of the polling Larry said he had, but couldn't find it. There was onscreen graphic showing the "polling results" at the time LO spoke of the support from various Democratic factions, but I don't recall if it said (onscreen) what the source for their data was. The transcript makes no mention of onscreen graphics.

I trust Mr. O'Donnell. He says Liberals are going to vote for Obama in 2012. I'm a Liberal and I plan on voting for President Obama again. The reason isn't that I'm not disappointed in ways similar to how Ted Rall is disappointed (which I am). Rall makes a lot of valid points, but his conclusions are wrong. The Infidel blogger who believes that Tea Party victories in 2010 were due to disappointed Leftists staying home is also wrong. While it is true a lot of people who voted for the president in 2008 didn't show up to vote in the 2010 midterms - those people weren't Leftists. They were the usual non-voting types who have traditionally not participated.

A study highlighted in a 11/24/2010 article posted on the Project Vote website reveals that, "two years ago, African-Americans, lower-income Americans, and young Americans all participated in the 2008 presidential election in decisive numbers, making it the most diverse electorate in history. In 2010, however, these historically underrepresented groups were underrepresented again, as they... largely stayed home".

The Democratic losses in the 2010 midterms can be blamed on politically inactive non-voters who got excited in 2008 and voted for Obama. Once Obama was elected and nothing significantly changed they went BACK to being politically inactive non-voters. The Tea Party victories in 2010 can NOT be attributed to Liberals or Leftists, so the Infidel blogger should stop pointing his finger of blame at them.

If President Obama loses his re-election bid in 2012 we should blame the aforementioned inactive non-voters as well as independent moderate swing voters. These dipshits who voted for President Obama may actually decide returning a Republican to the executive office is a good idea. To these wishy-washy middle-of-the-roaders I say, pick a political philosophy and stick with it.

The blogger Bamboo says an obama loss in 2012 should be blamed on "the elites of the Democratic Party that abandoned [him]". While I agree with Bamboo that neoliberalism is a scourge that has infected the Democratic party and is the primary source of frustration progressives have with the Democratic Party, I'm not so sure Obama isn't a Neoliberal convert. He suggested during the lead up to the election that a renegotiation of NAFTA might be possible, but quickly dropped that notion after winning the election. He also hired a number of ex-Clinton financial advisors, including the neoliberal-ish deregulation-loving Larry Summers.

In my opinion Barack Obama has shown himself to be a third-way Bill Clinton-emulating Corporatist. He may very well not be that much better an alternative to whomever the Republicans run. Obama may be, according to Ted Rall, "a right-wing Republican [who is] only a Democrat on the little stuff", but the Republican nominee will be a Democrat on NO STUFF, of that you can be assured.

Does Ted Rall believe we should throw in the towel and turn our country over to the plutocrats without a fight? Or does he believe our only hope is for a miracle to occur and somehow (impossible as it REALLY is) Russ Feingold gets elected president - or challenges Obama and pushes him to the Left (and after that Obama still wins, despite the fact that primary challenges usually weaken a candidate)?

By the way, the topic of my commentary thus far is, "which group of constituents do we blame if Barack Obama isn't re-elected". My answer was (and still is) NOT Liberals (or Leftists), but politically inactive non-voters and independent moderate swing voters. If the question were, "of everyone who might be responsible for an Obama defeat, who should we blame?", then the answer would be Barack Obama himself, as well as the Neoliberals and Corporatists who have corrupted the Democratic Party - which is a crying shame. I did have hope when I initially voted for BO that he would deliver on his promise of change.

Even so, my opinion is that we should re-elect President Obama - and then CONTINUE pressuring him to move to the Left. It may not work, but I see no alternative. In any case Obama may have no choice BUT to move to the Left if the economy crashes again; a goal the Republicans are actively working to achieve. If that happens, as is posited by Ravi Batra in his book "The New Golden Age", the American people may rise up and DEMAND change.

Mr. Batra's book is subtitled "The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos", so protests similar to those in Egypt may not be unthinkable. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may be inevitable. Certainly we cannot continue down this same path for much longer; that path being the one where the rich get continually richer while everyone else is asked to sacrifice.

(Please note that I edited the quotes I pulled from "The Last Word" for brevity and clarity. They are not verbatim, but they are very close).

Further Reading
[1] The Narrative Continues by Bamboo, Bend With The Wind 4/6/2011.
[2] Obama's Liberal Problem by Joshua Green, The Atlantic 12/7/2010.

9/25/2014 Update: The blog "Greedy Capitalist Pig" was a temporary name change. The blog name is actually "Truth Shall Rule", which is the now-shuttered/closed-to-the-public blog of Joe Kelly (AKA "Truth 101", AKA Joe Hagstrom). If you click the link above all you will see is a notice that says the blog is "open to invited readers only".

SWTD #70

The Ballad of a Liberal Led Astray by Moral Depravity and Greed

One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real -- Klaus Kinski (10/18/1926 to 11/23/1991) a German actor who appeared in over 130 films, and is perhaps best-remembered as a leading role actor in Werner Herzog films.

"I'm sad to see you've sunk to such depths. This cannot be good for your mental health", the Liberal's life coach cautioned him. "You used to tell the truth, but now you're engaging in such depravities. The Right may believe that they are more virtuous, but they approve of cutting government programs that benefit the less fortunate. Private charities and individual giving will fill the gap, they say, even though the fact is that's a bunch of hooey".

"I'm sorry, but you can't appeal to the good nature of an individual who's morally depraved", the Liberal responded. "By the way, you're fired. Morally depravity is quite expensive and I can no longer afford your services. The booze, the women and the fine dining now consume all my discretionary income".

"That is unfortunate", the life coach lamented. "Please get in touch with me if you ever decide to resurrect your former persona whose primary concern was spreading the truth".

"I will do that", the Liberal agreed. "I'm so schizophrenic that I may just circle around again to that personality".

"That guy seriously needs help", the life coach thought to himself as the Liberal departed. "He didn't mention any harder drugs, but often times those are the substances morally depraved individuals will partake in. Perhaps I should contact his friends and family and set up an intervention".

Then the life coach remembered he had just been fired. "That Liberal may have been a good customer for awhile, but I don't work for free". He then put the troubles of the Liberal out of his head and promised himself that he'd concentrate on solving the problems of paying customers.

After engaging in morally depraved acts for several weeks the Liberal felt that he had been laid low. "I believe the saying, only the good die young, was most likely total bullsh*t propagated by sinners practicing the morally depraved lifestyle", the Liberal informed his doctor when asked what ailed him.

"I agree with your diagnosis", the doctor responded. "However, you've been late in paying your bills, and my advice isn't free", the doctor continued. "Unfortunately I'm going to have to ask you to leave right now unless you can settle your account in cash".

"That's the solution!" the Liberal declared, jumping off the examining table and rushing out the door.

Later he met with his stockbroker. "I've decided to become a greedy capitalist pig", the Liberal announced.

"That's the spirit!" the stockbroker shouted gleefully.

"I've pooled my remaining funds and now hand everything over to you", the Liberal said, presenting the stockbroker with a suitcase filled with cash. "The winners I've selected are written on a piece of paper inside", he instructed. "Buy those stocks and we will both be rich men".

"Wouldn't you rather rely on my advice? That is what you're paying me for", the bewildered stockbroker queried.

"I would not", the Liberal responded. "As you recall I am now a greedy capitalist pig, and as everyone knows -- the system is rigged in our favor. The stocks I've selected will surely increase in value".

"If you say so, the stockbroker responded. Just remember that I get paid my commission either way".

"Have faith", the Liberal reassured his financial expert. "I used to be an ayatollah, and it just so happens that I can still access those lines of communication. This information comes from on high".

"Plus", he revealed, "all one really has to do is examine what the Congressional Republicans are up to. Who are they voting against ending subsidies for? Which industries are they proposing be further deregulated? From which lobbyists are they receiving the most donations? The corporations that the Republicans favor will be the businesses that I buy stock in. In other words, if you can't beat em, make money with em".

The Liberal exited the room, leaving the stockbroker alone with the suitcase of money.

"That guy's kukoo", the stockbroker thought to himself. "Still, let me check and see if his selections are any good". A smile crept over his face after opening the suitcase and examining the list. "Clearly that Liberal has successfully completed the transformation into a greedy capitalist pig".

Several weeks later the Liberal rolled up to his former place of worship in a brand new sports car.

"I've decided to make a sizable donation to ease my conscience", the Liberal informed his pastor.

"I was under the impression that you had forsaken your faith", the pastor responded.

"After enjoying a life of debauchery for a while I eventually decided to renounce all my vices except one", the Liberal admitted.

"As you probably deduced from the expensive sports car I arrived in, I am doing very well. I am now a greedy capitalist pig".

"I am sorry to hear that", the Liberal's pastor consoled him. "As you know, being a Liberal myself (as was Jesus) I do not teach the prosperity gospel. That's a Conservative fairy tale Republicans use to justify their greed".

"I'm not looking to justify my greed, I'm only interested in mollifying my guilty conscience -- hence the sizable donation".

The pastor thought about it for 1 second. "I will accept your donation, as it will help alleviate the suffering of my many parishioners affected by this conservative-caused recession. I will also pray for your soul. May you once again spread the truth instead of succumbing to delusions of being a judge, an ayatollah, or a lord. May you also cease your acts of moral depravity", the pastor intoned, laying his hands upon the downtrodden Liberal.

"I believe you have lost your way, my son", the holy man remarked. "Otherwise you wouldn't have concluded that the Conservatives cannot be beat. Our creator said, For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. In our time it is Rich Republican a-holes who are the evildoers that passage refers to", the pastor explained.

"Why, I've never heard you speak like this from the pulpit!" the surprised Liberal exclaimed.

"Of course not", the pastor revealed, "I don't want to lose my tax-exempt status. I feel free to speak my mind in private, however".

"The only act which will wash away your guilt is for you to return to your former truth-telling ways", the pastor informed the Liberal. "I implore you to take some time and pray on it. If, however, in the meantime you decide to make another sizable donation...".

"Thank you for the advice, I will certainly take it under consideration", the Liberal interrupted, pressing a check into the pastor's hand.

"Before you go", the pastor said, taking hold of the Liberal's wrist, "I want to let you know how much I enjoy your blog".

The Liberal looked confused. Then he said, "I don't blog. I've never even been online. You must have me mixed up with some other morally depraved former truth teller who became a greedy capitalist pig".

"I guess so, unlikely as that sounds", the disbelieving pastor replied. "Perhaps my advice could help this other individual who traveled a remarkably similar path".

"I think it could", the Liberal agreed. "Perhaps you should contact this other lost soul and similarly console him".

"I may do just that", the pastor said. But the Liberal had already gone. Looking out a window the pastor saw the Liberal hop into the front seat of his sports car and take off down the road at what must be a speed that quickly exceeded the legal limit. The pastor turned and sat down in front of his computer, opened a browser window and began surfing the internet.

Update 8/8/2015: The Liberal in this story, Joe Truth (aka Joe Hagstrom aka Joe Kelly aka Truth101) has converted to Republicanism. Or, he is currently pretending to be a Republican. Or adopted a Republican persona for purposes of writing humorous commentaries on the website Mad Mike's America.

Update 7/25/2025: decopy AI (detects AI generated text) says their authoritative conclusion is, "we are highly confident this text looks like AI generated. 52% Probability AI generated". However, when I wrote this story AI text generation did not exist and I have not modified the text since I published it. "Probability Analysis" says, "the probability this text has been written by a human, AI or a mix of the two. 28% Human, 41% Mixed, 31% AI". LOL?

 swtd-69. polfi-5.  Previous. Next.

Tearing Down FDR

The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945) as quoted in his Second Inaugural Address (1/20/1937).

Welcome to the 3rd installment of "Will Hart Delusions" wherein I refute the comments of an individual who calls himself Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart (WTNPH).

Liberals have it all wrong regarding 32nd President of the United States and progressive icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Or they've got it partially wrong, at least. Today's progressives are so far to the Left that they make even FDR look like a moderate, or so one might believe if one were to listen to people like WTNPH spin it.

It began with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's attack on the public sector unions. Scott decided his first order of business when he entered office was going to be a big tax giveaway to benefit his state's corporations. Wisconsin was running a slight surplus, but Scott's proposed tax cut would put Wisconsin deep in the red. Scott determined that the solution would be to cut the wages and benefits of government workers. He knew he would take a lot of flack for this action, so he decided to blame the greedy unions (instead of himself) for Wisconsin's financial woes (which didn't exist prior to his taking office).

It turned out to be a two-for! Scott's corporate buddies got their tax cut paid for on the backs of working class public servants, and Scott got to engage in some old-fashioned union busting. Since the Republicans held large majorities in both of the state's Houses of Congress, the "union bosses" knew they would most certainly have to make some concessions. Which is why they immediately agreed to Scott's demands that they accept a pay cut AND contribute additional dollars to their health care plans and pension accounts. The only thing they asked is that Scott not take away their collective bargaining rights.

Scott, knowing that the greedy unions could be stopped once and for all, refused. He was only executing the will of the people. The stupid Conservative sheeple cheered him on; even FDR was on their side! We know this because FDR said, "...the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service". WTNPH used this quote in a post he titled "Straight From the Progressive's Mouth" (2/22/2011). All over the internets Conservatives pointed to this quote and drew the obvious conclusion - FDR and Scott Walker would have agreed that public sector unions are bad.

Most of these Conservatives quoted a 2/19/2011 Real Clear Politics article which stated that "FDR's Ghost Is Smiling on Wisconsin's Governor". Do they really expect us to believe that FDR would have been cool with Walker's partisan union busting? FYI, we know Scott's union busting was partisan because when the Wisconsin Democratic Senators fled the state to prevent a quorm, the Senate Republicans spun off the union busting provision of the "budget repair" bill into a separate piece of legislation. A quorum is only necessary when the legislation in question is fiscal in nature. In other words they ADMITTED that the union busting had absolutely nothing to do with "repairing" Wisconsin's budget.

On 2/21/2011 a Daily Kos blogger authored a post titled, "GOP Lying About FDR Again". In the post the DK blogger made the point that "FDR did not oppose public employee unions. He opposed strikes by federal public employee unions". Said DK blogger further explained that FDR opposed strikes because "Federal [employees have an] obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities".

Government workers provide essential services that (in many cases) the people DEPEND on. In the private sector if a product or service isn't currently available for purchase - because the employees that manufacture the product or provide the service are striking, then the consumer has the option to go to the private sector company's competitor. This isn't an option when the product or service is being provided by government workers. Thus FDR's concern regarding strikes by public sector employees is understandable.

However, aside from being opposed to public sector employees striking, FDR believed "organizations of government employees have a logical place in government affairs", and that "organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical". This is according to a letter FDR wrote to Luther Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees; a letter in which he closes by saying, "I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding...".

Why would FDR congratulate a public sector union on it's founding if didn't believe it should exist? Also, isn't collective bargaining one of the primary reasons for forming a union? WTNPH categorically rejected my reasoning. In response to my argument (as outlined above) WTNPH re-posted the initial FDR quote, this time in ALL CAPS. You can't argue with that logic, I conceded, eventually giving up and bowing out of the discussion.

FDR also once said "a conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward". The point is that times change. In 1962 President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies.

In FDR's day the US government stood clearly on the side of labor. Today that is not so much the case. In fact I'd argue that our government is now decidedly pro-corporate (see my 12/7/2010 post, "How The Wealthy Elites Stole Our Prosperity" for that argument). Given this fact would FDR still believe that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service"? Even though there was nuance to his position which Conservatives apparently are missing (or are choosing to ignore), I believe his opinion would be slightly different today given the increasingly hostile environment Labor finds itself subjected to.

Linked to on Sue's blog "Hello Mr. President" AKA "The Left In Me" on 6/15/2011 & re my link, Leslie Parsley wrote "w-deverish. Excellent article. Thanks for the link".

SWTD #68, wDel #3.