Tuesday, February 9, 2010
American, negotiating with Health Insurance claims agent
Nancy Pelosi resists President Obama's outreach efforts (Politico.com)
Marijuana - a toke whose time has come
I sincerely believe that Marijuana will become legalized in some states and remain forever banned Nationally.
There are benefits for the Oligarchs to having a stoned nation.
I imagine that the Oligarch's know that public resentment is building and now that the Republican Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for outright purchase of the Government through the 'reality' show that is called The Electoral Process, a program scripted, directed, and produced just like any other entertainment in the empire, tempers might get a little shorter than usual.
Then, factor in the very real possibility that this will be a 'Jobless' recovery and you can see that some Americans might even start protesting or organizing to restore democracy...silly crap like that.
The Oligarchs hate it when people are pissy.
So, along comes the legalization of Marijuana to keep all of us disgruntled citizens a little more disconnected, a little more unaware, a little more out of it. Plus we get the pseudo-thrill of actually believing we, the citizens, changed something. Americans will get all warm and fuzzy thinking we overturned the law and allowed Marijuana to be legalized.
The Oligarchs are always amused by our pretensions: "Keep toking dudes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
I predict Marijuana will be legalized in California, Nevada, and Colorado first and then spread to Oregon and perhaps Washington. I don't know about the East.
The Oligarchs realize that they need to keep people distracted but still believing they actually have some say so in this country. Marijuana legalization would be perfect.
Not only would the folks on the left be pleased, but those on the right will go apeshit with rage because the 'lib'ruls' won a victory..further destroying any possibility of a united citizens action against the elite.
"Toke ON! and trust no one over 50...(miles away from you)."
Monday, February 8, 2010
THANKS
It just occurred to me that I've had over six thousands hits to my site. And TWO FOLLOWERS. I have no idea what to say to that. Other than: "Don't you people have anything better to do?" and, "Thanks."
For a Blog that has no advertisement, no big names, no marketing, no web crawlers (whatever the hell that is) and makes very little sense, that's pretty remarkable.
There was a cartoon a while back about a guy yelling into the Internet, "Does anybody out there hear me?" Well, clearly, somebody is, and you can't all be Department of Homeland Internal Security Forces or porn seekers who stumbled here by mistake.
Whoever is reading this, no matter your reason: Thanks. I really appreciate it.
(I get all my photo's from : 1X.Com and a Brownie Instamatic I found in an old sock drawer. Only I can tell the difference.)
The winter of discontent
Business Lobby Shifting Back To GOP
Zachary Roth | February 8, 2010, 4:04PM
"...During the 2008 election cycle, Democrats took in a record $89 million from the the securities and investment business. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase and a key Obama ally and Democratic donor, exemplified this trend. But this year, with Republicans looking set for big gains in the fall midterms, JP Morgan's PAC gave $30,000 to the Republican House and Senate campaign committees, while turning down solicitations from the Dems, reports the New York Times.
And a Wall Street Journal report from last week sounded a similar theme: "Through the third quarter, campaign-finance reports show that some major Wall Street players began sending an increasing share of their donations to Republicans," it found..."
Republicans. Democrats. Who cares? The Oligarchs don't give a crap who's in the White House or what the weekly entertainment is at Disney World.
I's all about money.
ALL ABOUT MONEY.
The Oligarchs will buy whatever politician they need and keep that puppet in office as long as he, or she, is making them money.
But if this erstwhile leader should start making noises about "regulations" and "taxes on Corporations" and "reigning in Wall Street" then he, or she, can kiss their ass goodbye. Obama is going to shut up in a hurry about even the possibility of regulating Wall Street.
But, even more sobering, is the utterly insane idea that the Oligarchs will throw their weight behind a loose cannon like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck. Given enough money, the Oligarchs could probably get Rex the Wonder Horse to take the oath of office.
If a nutjob like Palin could make them money...well, I don't dare utter the words.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to look out the window...
"...Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash..." ("Wall street 'fat cats' revolt, send money to GOP"
This is the reality of our entire political system summed up in one sentence, because Wall Street has deeper pockets than anyone else around. What's even crazier: if they need more money to buy off Congress and the President and the Supreme Court, they can always get a taxpayer loan.
Sometimes I laugh so hard it hurts.
The Future--brought to you by WTO.
Another Reason why Congress refuses to regulate Wall Street
"On March 1, 1999, countries accounting for more than 90 per cent of the global financial services market signed onto the World Trade Organization’s Financial Services Agreement(FSA). By signing the FSA, they committed to deregulate their financial markets.
For example, by signing the FSA, the U.S. agreed not to break up too big to fails. The U.S. alsopromised to repeal Glass-Steagall, and did so 8 months after signing the FSA.
Indeed, in signing the FSA and other WTO agreements, the U.S. has legally bound itself as follows:
• No new regulation: The United States agreed to a “standstill provision” that requires that we not create new regulations (or reverse liberalization) for the list of financial services bound to comply with WTO rules.
• Removal of regulation: The United States even agreed to try to even eliminate domestic financial service regulatory policies that meet GATS [i.e. General Agreement on Trade in Services] rules, but that may still “adversely affect the ability of financial service suppliers of any other (WTO) Member to operate, compete, or enter” the market.
• No bans on new financial service “products”: The United States is also bound to ensure that foreign financial service suppliers are permitted “to offer in its territory any new financial service,” a direct conflict with the various proposals to limit various risky investment instruments, such as certain types of derivatives.
• Certain forms of regulation banned outright: The United States agreed that it would not set limits on the size, corporate form or other characteristics of foreign firms in the broad array of financial services it signed up to WTO strictures …
• Treating foreign and domestic firms alike is not sufficient: The GATS market-access limits on U.S. domestic regulation apply in absolute terms; that is to say, even if a policy applies to domestic and foreign firms alike, if it goes beyond what WTO rules permit, it is forbidden. And, forms of regulation not outright banned by the market-access requirements must not inadvertently “modify the conditions of competition in favor of services or service suppliers” of the United States, even if they apply identically to foreign and domestic firms.
In other words, the problem isn’t just that Congress and the White House have sold out to the Wall Street giants.
The problem is also that the U.S. has signed WTO agreements that have given the keys to the too big to fails, and have neutered their regulators.."
Damn. Just when you think these snakes can't be any more crooked, I discover a whole new level of psychopathological existence.
The President and the Congress of the United States agreed not to regulate financial markets as part of a signed agreement with The World Trade Organization?
We, this country, are legally bound to leave curious creatures like Bank of America, Goldman Sacs, AIG, etc, alone and unwatched? We can't arrest them? Chain them? Beat them? We can't touch them? By law? Our law?
The representatives of the people of the United States of America have legally proclaimed that huge, private, corporations are a law unto themselves, outside the normal boundaries and controls of Nation-States.
But one of the most puzzling points? They signed this agreement with who? The World Trade Organization. WTO is the sloppy wet dream of Neoconservatives mixed with the vomit of Milton Friedman. A bastion of 'Free Marketry.' WTO has terrorized the third world for much of the past decade and is, some would conclude, either the beginning of the de facto World Government, or the financial wing of this planetary blight.
Why would the U.S. Government agree to this with the WTO?
And more to the point: Why would corporations like Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo,and JP Morgan/Chase need to be protected from regulations?I don't know, but the world may be under an entirely different management than I had thought...maybe the guy with the red balloon knows something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)