Jan 25, 2015

Why were we so goddam stupid back in 1992? Watch this debate if you dare...and tell me why?

That GIANT SUCKING SOUND OF JOBS LEAVING AMERICA.   We laughed but we didn't believe the funny talking Texas millionaire!   And he was so right, it's hurt us for DECADES.  Click the VIDEO photo-->




WHY WHY WHY did we fall for Bush and Clintons and not ROSS PEROT's wisdom?

And tell me now... are the KOCH BROTHERS leading us now down the path to poverty yet again, to feed the rich?

Radioman ain't takin your nose to the drinking fountain...figure it out YOURSELF!

Here are the links....go figure it out.   This is plenty of Guidance:
http://radiomankc.blogspot.com/p/progressive-click-being-liberal-think.html





Just remember ALWAYS:

 a BALANCED DIET IS BEST.  Always read both sides to get a better picture!  One side ONLY, makes you a propaganda victim!

And some other wisdom about people in politics too long....



Rman sez:  I never said Clinton was perfect.  Or Obama.  Applicants running for President really don't fully understand the job.  So when they make ignorant claims that don't come to pass, should we CALL THEM LIARS, or just NAIVE?  Let's be fair and patient..let em grow INTO their new jobs before we JUMP THEM!

Maybe LBJ's congressional experience didn't, but most politicians--especially Governors and other OUTSIDERS-- lack international or congressional STREET SMART.  After a couple years, most of em DO get the hang of it!


 Maybe we should consider that, when we elect someone outside of Washington DC!  And not be too hard on them.  Presidents learn how to govern by OJT.  Let's not hold them too hard to their promises.   REALITY does change their promises.

Like Obama's view on foreign policy after he starts getting CIA briefings?   Or his view on GITMO?   Or even national economics.  Moreover, let's not hold him to a higher standard than we do to, say, Republicans who win the White House.  I submit ALL PRESIDENTS GROW INTO their JOBS.

We vote for their DECISIONMAKING ABILITY, not their VISION as seen from OUTSIDE the beltway before they get the job!

 Maybe it's the price we pay for electing OUTSIDERS... we need to give them some time to figure out the lay of the land!!    I'm actually okay with that,  and I'm patient with them if they bring in some FRESH AIR!   And change their minds based on better information!
Hence I tolerated Obama's first few years of mistakes.   Sadly he was up against some old Republican hands and the McConnells and Boehners should have been booted out, but they weren't. So they sabotaged him and they were pretty OPEN about that strategy from the beginning.

So they took advantage of our new president. Not sure term limits will work...but I do wish the electorate would realize that there's a time when politicians learn to become TOO SHREWD, they need to retire!! 


Once politicians  start GAMING THE SYSTEM for personal profit and power, it's time to send them HOME!




Jan 15, 2015

Could be our great new ECONOMY is just a Mumbo-Jumbo MIRAGE!


Low unemployment, well maybe.  Big stock market?  Yes but maybe a sign nobody's building anything... they're just hording their money.   Are you still in the markets or are you out, expecting all that paper money to vaporize?    Now here's the bad news from the Wall Street Journal.   Yup there might not be anything there!




IMF Chief Says Global Economy Faces ‘Very Strong’ Headwinds
Emergency Lender to Nations Says Debt, Joblessness, Weak Investment Weigh on Global Growth
By IAN TALLEY, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Jan. 15, 2015 4:02 p.m. ET

Strong headwinds from weak investment, substantial debt burdens and high unemployment are preventing a pickup in global economic growth despite a strengthening U.S. recovery and tumbling oil prices, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde said.

A healthier U.S. and cheaper energy “won't suffice to actually accelerate the growth or the potential for growth in the rest of the world,” the head of the emergency lender to nations said in a speech Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

“If the global economy is weak, on its knees, it’s not going to help,” said Ms. Lagarde in remarks previewing the IMF’s latest forecasts for the global economy due out on Monday.

The eurozone, at risk of a third recession in six years, continues to struggle with the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis. Japan is also mired in low inflation, high debt and anemic growth. And output in many major emerging markets—economies that have provided most of the gas for global growth over the last decade—is slowing faster than expected.

Nonetheless, the IMF is upgrading its forecast for economic output in the U.S., one of the few advanced economies bucking the weak global-growth trend. But the world’s biggest economy and a shot in the arm from cheaper gasoline aren’t cures for deep-seated weakness elsewhere, Ms. Lagarde said.

“Too many companies and households keep cutting back on investment and consumption today because they are concerned about growth tomorrow,” she said.

Both Europe and Japan are at risk from a much longer period of excessively low inflation and anemic growth, the former French finance minister said.

Years of stagnation in two of the world’s biggest economies also threaten to drag down global growth. That would make it even harder for those economies to cut their dangerously high debt levels and raise employment, two persistent legacies of the financial crisis.

The Bank of Japan has expanded its cash injections to help spur growth, while European Central Bank officials have signaled plans for a new bond-buying program that could be announced as soon as next week.

Meanwhile, markets are expecting the U.S. Federal Reserve this year to raise borrowing rates for first time since 2006.

The schism between interest rates moving in different directions around the globe is one of the major reasons the dollar has hit decadelong highs in recent weeks against a basket of currencies. Ms. Lagarde said the Fed’s expected midyear rate increase will likely fuel further strong swings in international capital flows, exchange rates, bond prices and stock markets.

Many emerging markets are increasingly exposed to turmoil elsewhere, especially those with high dollar-denominated debt. As those countries’ currency values fall and their growth prospects dim, investors are rethinking their high-risk investments. “Among those emerging markets, some are likely to face a triple risk” from a stronger U.S. dollar, higher global interest rates and volatile capital flows, the IMF head said.

Ms. Lagarde also said oil’s price fall should, on balance, boost global growth, as consumers have more money left over after filling their car tanks to spend in other sectors of the economy. But she acknowledged the decline is also adding to deflation risks in Europe and Japan, bolstering the case for central bank action.

The high risk of recessions and years of slow global growth are why policy makers need to take more aggressive action, she said. Aside from pushing for a longer period of easy-money policies and more infrastructure investment, the IMF has been urging the Group of 20 largest economies to honor promises for economic overhauls to reignite growth prospects.

“Policy makers have to step up structural reforms. There’s a lot of talk about it, and some are doing it, but there has to be real implementation,” she said. “All of that is not new, but it takes a sense of increased urgency.”

In many countries, efforts to restructure labor and product markets, overhaul education, health, and social safety nets, or approve trade deals that would open up protected markets have faced stiff political hurdles. Some economists fear the longer growth remains weak, the more politically difficult those economic policy changes may become.


Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@wsj.com

So, do the Republicans have the answer as they claim?   After several tries, prolly not.

Seems greedy investors who have no loyalty to their portfolio companies would rather freeze  the minimum wage (and therefore DEMAND), rack up some more profits and then some Black Thursday, lose it all.  Risk averse Americans with money have lost their entrepreneurial spirit.  So they'll lose it anyway!



Well Finally... the Pope agrees with me.


Well does the Pope agree with ME? That's silly, just because I said it first. I agree with HIM. There are limits and calling the French Magazine a 'provocateur' is just the right word.   I should have used that word in my musings on FB that sometimes the media goes too far.

We don't like it when the Russians or the North Koreans, or the police unions, or even fanatical right wingers do it.  We in the press, or the 'almost press' sometimes can get a little bit arrogant, and no one does it better than the elite French.

Makes sense not to dumbly say what you want because you have some Right to Free Insult.  And if someone gets even when we pop off in a bar and get a black eye, the injustice is against Free Speech and we pretend we didn't have it coming.  Here.   Let him tell it.

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis said Thursday there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith.

Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.

But he said there were limits.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.

"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

Many people around the world have defended the right of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in the wake of the massacre by Islamic extremists at its Paris offices and subsequent attack on a kosher supermarket in which three gunmen killed 17 people.

But recently the Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration that denounced the attacks but also urged the media to treat religions with respect.

Francis, who has urged Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism, went a step further when asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion.

Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence.

But he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs.

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

In the wake of the Paris attacks, the Vatican has sought to downplay reports that it is a potential target for Islamic extremists, saying it is being vigilant but has received no specific threat.

Francis said he was concerned primarily for the faithful, and said he had spoken to Vatican security officials who are taking "prudent and secure measures."

"I am worried, but you know I have a defect: a good dose of carelessness. I'm careless about these things," he said. But he admitted that in his prayers, he had asked that if something were to happen to him that "it doesn't hurt, because I'm not very courageous when it comes to pain. I'm very timid."

He added, "I'm in God's hands."

Photo: Pope Francis talks with reporters during his flight from Sri Lanka to Manila, Philippines Thursday, Jan. 15, 2015. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino, Pool)

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html

Jan 14, 2015

Essay in "The Week" on our complicated relationship with the police : The Man and Me



(Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

Tim Kreider
CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Tim Kreider is an essayist and cartoonist. He divides his time between New York City and an Undisclosed Location on Maryland's Chesapeake Bay

January 14, 2015

We tell children that the police are their friends — that if they're ever lost or scared they can always trust a man in blue. Like a lot of the things we tell kids, this is a truth edited for children, like the weaker-dosage, candy-flavored medicines we administer to them. We also tell children not to worry about death. We reassure them we're certainly not going to die anytime soon, and they aren't going to die for a very, very long time. But we know that infants die in their cribs, toddlers are hit by cars, kids get leukemia, and sometimes policemen kill 12-year-olds.

We're having a rare and uncharacteristic moment of anti-cop sentiment in America. As with the furious backlash against rape on college campuses, it seems as if after decades of indifference everyone has suddenly and simultaneously had enough of the police killing unarmed black men. Anyone who wants to can now watch videos of cops gunning down a shopper suspiciously holding a BB rifle in the BB-rifle aisle of a Walmart, blowing away a kid futzing around with a toy gun in a park, or idly suffocating a father of two on a sidewalk while he begs for his life. And ever since the televised police response to the Ferguson riots, which looked less like crowd control than the Soviets crushing the Prague uprising, a lot of Americans finally seem to have noticed that we appear to have been invaded by an occupying army, one that regards us not as a citizenry to protect but a hostile populace to suppress.

I still remember how dystopian it seemed the first time I saw police holding automatic weapons in the subway, as if America had become some banana republic or besieged Middle Eastern hellhole. In the institutional hysteria that followed 9/11, the feds started handing out pricey, hi-tech, semilethal Batgear to local podunk police forces. This country has become so weaponized and coked up on Fear that every responding officer now regards each call as the next Newtown or Boston Marathon bombing. It's enough to give anyone considering dialing 911 pause, since it now seems tantamount to calling in a hit on someone. The recent Amnesty International report on the Ferguson riots said: "Equipping officers in a manner more appropriate for a battlefield may put them in the mindset that confrontation and conflict is inevitable rather than possible, escalating tensions between protesters and police." Or, as the well-known adage has it: If your only tool is a gun, every problem starts to look like a corpse.

When I say "Americans" have suddenly noticed this, I'm using the same sort of historically disingenuous language as when we say Columbus "discovered" America What I really mean is that even some rich white people have begun to notice what black people and poor people of all colors have been aware of for a long time.

I've always secretly felt a little less white in this regard than most of my fellow Honky-Americans. Although I go about my day camouflaged as a law-abiding citizen, secure in the semiotic Kevlar of an English complexion and an Italian overcoat, I've always harbored a secret terror and loathing of the cops. Once when a blind date of mine became blacked-out drunk and could or would not tell me where she lived so I could take her home, I briefly considered turning her over to some police officers I saw nearby, but in the end I could not bring myself to violate the principle: Never turn anyone over to the cops. (Also, I feared that it would somehow result in me spending the night in jail.) On the most hypocritical day of my life so far, I 1.) reported some drug dealers outside my apartment (whose clients kept breaking in and taking my laptops) and 2.) bought drugs. I regret only one of these things.

My instinctive horror of authority dates back to my first trip to the vice principal's office in second grade, and since I spent my entire young adulthood in the commission of one continuous misdemeanor, it's instilled in me a certain reflexive wariness of The Man. Luckily I was able to careen around publicly intoxicated with pocketfuls of dangerous controlled substances under the indifferent gaze of campus security instead of the streetcorner surveillance cameras of the Baltimore City Police. If I were black I would've been shot to death countless times by now.

This no-goodnik attitude makes me an aberration among white people in this country. The United States is a reactionary nation at heart; I've always suspected Nixon was probably right when he invoked his Silent Majority, those loyal TV-watching Americans who figure that any longhaired college kid, commie agitator, gun-hoarding wacko, or ghetto gangbanger the cops execute probably had it coming. Anytime the police are publicly second-guessed or taken to task for having riddled another unarmed black kid with bullets, bludgeoned a senior citizen or a schizophrenic, tear-gassed some college kids, or tasered a dad in front of his screaming children, a certain genus of commenter always comes heroically to their rescue — protecting the powerful, defending the well-armed, speaking out on behalf of those who have only bullhorns.

These commenters always explain that the beaten/deceased was breaking the law — shoplifting cigarillos, selling illegal cigarettes, resisting arrest, acting suspicious — and there have to be consequences for lawbreakers. What about this, they wonder, do we not understand? They like to say things like "it's very simple," "case closed," and "end of story." (It's hard to imagine what convoluted excuses they'll devise to explain why Akai Gurley should've known better than to walk into a stairwell. But they will.)

It's easy to dismiss these apologists as the usual chronically aggrieved and frightened bigots who make up the audience for Limbaugh and Fox. But their labored reasoning to justify why the victims of police violence all ultimately had it coming reminds me of the way in which we all subtly blame people who die in accidents or distance ourselves from people with cancer, trying to convince ourselves that this could never happen to us. It reminds me, too, of the tortured arguments of theodicy, theologians' attempts to explain God's hands-off attitude to Evil. They are trying to prop up and plug a sagging, leaky worldview in which the status quo is just, because to accept that it isn't would mean that everything they believe is a lie, that the institutions in which they've invested their faith and lives, their sons and tithes and taxes, are scams, crimes in which they're complicit.

I have had some positive interactions with the police, though it's worth noting that most of these have involved the police electing to leave me alone. (I hereby thank and salute the Baltimore police officer who let a friend and me off with a stern verbal warning to "stop impersonating Jesus.") Doing nothing is the best option in a surprising number of situations, but it's one that all authorities are constitutionally disinclined to exercise, as it they fear it might expose their own superfluity. And people in power can seldom resist an opportunity to start pushing other people around.


This is a temptation inherent in the position, not necessarily a flaw in the character of those who hold it. (Cf. the Stanford Prison Experiments in which subjects were arbitrarily divided into "jailers" and "prisoners," and within days the "jailers" had become sadistic martinets.) Although I regard the police as an institution with suspicion and resentment, I don't necessarily dislike them as people. Trudging up out of the guts of Grand Central's subway station in a Metropolis-like mob during one morning rush hour, I overheard a police officer say to his partner: "I love the faces in the mornings — they're almost just as good as the ones you see passed out on the subway." Which I guess evidences some casual contempt for the populace they're meant to Serve and Protect, but also a certain connoisseurship of the squalid human comedy that I cannot help but respect. I don't think the police are any worse, as individuals, than anyone else; I just find it prudent to bear in mind, at all times, that they can assault, abduct, or murder me without fear of any legal repercussion more serious than a lot of paperwork.

I think there must be some basic psychological divide between people who reflexively defer to authority and those of us whose impulse is to thwart and evade it. These two types have nothing but contempt for one another. Ultimately whether you instinctively identify with the police or the victims in these cases depends on your sense of whose side the police are on — on whether you feel invested in society's institutions or see them as aligned against you.

I don't believe the police are closet Klansmen or fascist lackeys; I also don't think they're heroes. They're people doing a job, and, like everyone else in the world, they do what the people who pay them tell them to do. The people who pay them are the government, and the government operates in the service of those who own it. In effect, the police are a heavily armed private security force to protect rich people against the poor — a role that became nakedly obvious to me the day our billionaire mayor ordered the NYPD to bulldoze the perfectly legal protest at Occupy Wall Street.

Join me, for a moment, in a wistful daydream: Let us picture the NYPD battering in the office door of Goldman Sachs — or of Lehmann Brothers, or Bear Sterns, or Morgan Stanley. Imagine an officer barking at the CEO to get down on the floor — "NOW!" — planting a knee in the small of his back and cinching the plastic cuffs around his wrists so tight his hands turn purple, while a bored detective informs him he is under arrest for 2,317,000 counts of criminal fraud and recites the Miranda. Maybe the CEO mouths off to a cop who tasers him, or has a heart attack in custody, or lunges for his desk to call security or legal and gets shot.

Notice how patently ludicrous, how obviously implausible this mental image is. Reflect, for a moment, on why that should be, and what it tells us about the country we live in.

Everyone who's paying attention — and I'm not talking about alarmist crackpots but the U.N., the Pentagon, the C.I.A. — agrees that the coming decades will see, to put it euphemistically, civil disturbances. The gap between the very rich and everyone else is only getting wider, meaning that more and more of us are finding ourselves on the wrong side of the police barricades. There will eventually be another financial crash, and sooner than we expect, because that's when they always happen.
Climate change is predicted to cause famines, mass migrations, and wars. So bear in mind, as you watch the coverage of the next killing, the next grand jury decision, the next protests, and the next crackdowns: what the police are doing to black people now is what they may do to the rest of us next.
 Remember the images of the government abandoning the poor in New Orleans after Katrina, local police treating the citizenry like a turkey shoot. Remember the image of the National Guard massed in Ferguson with armored vehicles, tear gas grenades, and assault rifles, ready, if necessary, to quash an uprising of United States citizens. It probably won't be the last time we see it.

Last week, after the murder of two police officers, New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, announced: "We have, for the first time in a number of years, become a 'wartime' police department. We will act accordingly." Leaving us all to wonder — some of us a lot more uneasily than others — a war against whom?


http://theweek.com/articles/532631/man

The Week    A news and opinion magazine -Britain and US editions
It's worth a read!  "All you need to know about everything important"

Jan 12, 2015

Paul Krugman: Why GOP Arguments for the Keystone XL Pipeline Are a Sick Joke Republicans supposedly care about jobs, except they don't.

An Essay worthy of your time about Keystone Pipeline, so close to us where we grow everyone's FOOD!!   It's about Money and OIL or your FOOD!

No one, including Paul Krugman, was surprised that the first move the Republican Senate has made is to try, once again, to force President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. As the the columnist points out in Monday's New York Times, "the oil and gas industry — which gave 87 percent of its 2014 campaign contributions to the G.O.P. — expects to be rewarded for its support."

If that is not appalling enough for you, then you are a very jaded observer of American politics. But, alas, this corruption-in-plain-sight has become commonplace in American politics.

More cynical still is the absurd Republican argument in favor of an environmentally damaging project at precisely the moment when the glut of oil has caused oil prices to plunge—so it really isn't that we need more oil. No, Mitch McConnell and pals say it's all about jobs.


(Radioman's note:  Map of the midwest pipeline and the underground Oglala Aquifer that brings water to the breadbasket crops generating our food.  Yes, pipelines do leak, and can't be cleaned up.  Leaks just poison the water. ) 


Puh-leaze!

Where, Krugman wonders, was this concern about jobs when "Republicans blackmail over the debt ceiling" forced cuts in federal spending that cost thousands of jobs? "Oh, and don’t tell me that the cases are completely different.

 You can’t consistently claim that pipeline spending creates jobs while government spending doesn’t," Krugman writes. Just not true. Most sane economists agree that Obama stimulus helped stave off an even higher unemployment rate, and Krugman argues that the recovery that seems underway may in part be due to the fact that the government on every level has finally stopped slashing spending.

"When the Congressional Budget Office was asked how many jobs would be lost because of the sequester," Krugman writes, "the big cuts in federal spending that Republicans extracted in 2011 by threatening to push America into default — its best estimate was 900,000. And that’s only part of the total loss."

And that alone is more than twice the best estimate for how many jobs the pipeline would create temporarily. Once it's built, there would be very few permanent jobs.

Of course, there is one kind of government spending that Republicans like, and that they agree creates jobs: Military spending. "When it comes to possible cuts in defense contracts, politicians who loudly proclaim that every dollar the government spends comes at the expense of the private sector suddenly begin talking about all the jobs that will be destroyed," Krugman writes, ruefully.

"They even begin talking about the multiplier effect, as reduced spending by defense workers leads to job losses in other industries. This is the phenomenon former Representative Barney Frank dubbed 'weaponized Keynesianism.'"

The argument for Keystone XL could be called "carbonized Keynesianism," Krugman says.

A few other tidbits you may not know about.   There are no plans to produce even the PIPES in America.   They'll be shipped in.   Dirtier Canadian oil, shipped across the US to be sent to China.  What's in it for us?  Nothing.  Read on.




But if you really want to create jobs—and not simultaneously endanger the environment—why not opt for investment in American's crumbling infrastructure? Wouldn't that be a win-win?

Krugman's Conclusion: Ignore jobs claims about Keystone XL.
The numbers are tiny, and, "the jobs argument for the pipeline is basically a sick joke coming from people who have done all they can to destroy American jobs — and are now employing the very arguments they used to ridicule government job programs to justify a big giveaway to their friends in the fossil fuel industry."




WHY REPUBLICANS CARE SO MUCH?
And did you know, the Big Republican campaign benefactors, the billionaire Koch Brothers from Wichita, Ks stand to earn $100 BILLION because of the Canadian shale oil fields they own!   It's payback to those Congressmen they contributed to and they spent MILLIONS in donations just for this very bribery VOTES!   Sadly, there just weren't quite enough votes.... hopefully.

2014 was close!   Don't let the buying of America happen so closely again!




Hopefully President Obama will do the right thing.  

VETO the Pipeline since it looks like the Republicans don't have enough votes to Override him.   

I never mind when the Kochs lose out on a big investment to bribe our government just as a hobby interest.   And  Obama's payback for all the GOP trickery to sidetrack the agenda we Americans voted for him to pass!

Lets hope we unite, watch the next 2 years and turn 2016 into a corporatist bloodbath.

Take our country back!   (Something the Tea Party often says but they think it's about the white race.)

We PROGRESSIVES think its about DEMOCRACY!   Nullifying the wealthy buying our country!)