Stanley says "Try not falling under my spell, try not to love me -- look into my eyes -- reistance is futile -- you are mine." "Now get me the ham."
- They call it the "Dream On Act" - Marco Rubio has a sad because he wasn't consulted by the White House before the President announced the suspension of deportation actions against young undocumented immigrants. The words "fuck you you arrogant, lying sack of shit" leap to mind as an appropriate retort. Because, of course, we all know that Rubio would have bucked his party and delivered a major legislative victory to Obama prior to the election.
- So first Edwards and now Clemens -- who else is the Justice Department going to waste large sums of money on for trivial offenses that no jury will buy. I am taking odds on Lance Armstrong.
- And yet another GOP asshole from Wisconsin. Jesus, where do they breed these subhuman scum bags?
- In their defense, they first divided the carcass evenly among the pack and then gave half to the government. (Yes, it's in terrible taste, but I couldn't resist.)
- Speaking of wolves, I want to thank whoever among you raved about the book Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel. I am about two-thirds of the way through and just blown away by both its artistry and its compelling take on a story that most of us know well. And I am delighted that there is a recently published sequel.
- I thought this article in the Washington Post yesterday about the merits of teaching your son to fight was both good and amusing. I really struggled with this issue. My father taught me how to handle myself -- how to throw a punch, how to break a hold, where to hit someone to cause maximum pain (the solar plexus is a good one), and handy shorthand tips like " go for the eyes, the throat, and then the nuts." Sadly, when I was growing up in the sixties, schools largely turned their backs on bullying and left kids to a kind of Lord of the Flies existence once they left the building. In the end, I decided against giving my son a similar education. Not because I am a pacifist, but because it seemed to me to require teaching as well a kind of judgment and discretion that really couldn't be reasonably expected from a kid. My son went to private schools that basically had no tolerance at all for fisticuffs -- a stance with which I mostly agree. It seemed inherently contradictory to send him to such a school while giving him little tips on fighting. (He still ended up getting suspended for a shoving match with a smart-assed peer. I bit my tongue in the meetings and did not once utter the words "you want to see a fight -- I'll show that little fucker what a fight is.") I think in the long run that a world in which boys are not brought up needing to fight is a far better place.
What's grabbing your attention this evening?
.
If there are any tips for your son, it's about protecting the face and how to keep your airway open during a hold. Basically holding or braking motions which let you remain until help arrives.
I had to learn them the hard way while being bullied in school, tho nothing like those who came before me.
Posted by: Crissa | June 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM
I didn't have anything relevant to the prior thread, but maybe I can bring it back up. I think the more important issue to the possibility of the ACA being overturned is that it throw precent into disarray. If they do so, it means there are conflicting precedents for nearly every law on the books regarding regulation.
My other topic was that I'd been assailed by a leftist yesterday that was insistent I was a pawn of the main stream media and duopoly for pointing out that Obama says and does lots of things which the media doesn't report on. When someone says, 'But Obama should say X' and I say, 'He said X in his stump speech but media doesn't generally report it' I don't think it follows to say, 'but you're in the pocket of the duopoly to defend him!'
Posted by: Crissa | June 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM
stanley is a very handsome boy.
i did not teach my kids to fight. for one thing, i wasn't physically equipped anything bigger and more determined than a younger sister. so i focused more on paying attention, avoiding potentially bad situations, and evasive and defensive moves. red cross lifesaving class [swimming] taught me the thumb up the armpit technique and how to twist out of a neck hold, which i still think are pretty good moves if you can't get a good kick in to a delicate place.
wow, crissa. that conversation must have been fun. i've never heard of a duopoly before, but guess it means something as deeply stupid as my imagination suggests. do they know they are doing just what MSM does, equating the two parties? bleah.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 19, 2012 at 12:40 AM
One of the great gifts my father gave to me was to instill in me the value that "real men don't need to fight" other than to defend those who are in need of defense. I was turning into a big kid, was 6'3" and 235# in my 2nd year of high school, and he taught me that to use my size and strength to my own benefit was an abuse of power. He was a good man, no saint, but I will always be grateful to him for that.
Posted by: Bill H | June 19, 2012 at 01:01 AM
What's grabbing my attention? Stanley's demeanor.
Plus Mahablog's Barbara O'Brien's ridiculous vet bill for cat cancer. And Lily's impending euthanasia. So sad.
Teaching boys to fight? Hubs is still, many years later, recovering from boxing gloves being forced on his hands by his Naval Academy dad after WWII. He was about 5 or 6. Grils had it bad? Not alone I gather. Duke it out, little buddy. Dear me.
Posted by: nancy | June 19, 2012 at 01:07 AM
I don't know the answer to the fighting question you posed. I do know that in some cases if you are prepared and able to counter random agression with studiously exact countermeasures, you will end up being characterized as the aggressor. IOW, if some arrogant punk trys to beat you up and instead you dislocate his knee and then break his nose, you end up holding the shitty end of the stick because - well, just because.
Hand to hand combat is pretty desperate stuff and I have only experienced it once in my life. It isn't the kind of thing you want to know how to do, but in some sense it is the kind of thing you need to know how to do, because it might be essential.
Arguably, it should not be an issue in any lawful society. That it isn't is a testimonial to the fact that lawful societies aren't always lawful. Apparently self-defence with a weapon is more justified than self-defence with martial arts skills, so where does that leave you?
Let's all just hope your kid never has to defend himself against aggression.
Posted by: KN | June 19, 2012 at 02:14 AM
who else is the Justice Department going to waste large sums of money on for trivial offenses that no jury will buy. I am taking odds on Lance Armstrong.
Well put.
That's not a bet I'd take you up on.
I never did understand why the Justice Dept. thought trying Clemens was a good idea. The man's a narcissistic jerk, but that's not a federal crime. I realize baseball enjoys an anti-trust exemption and that as a consequence sometimes when they have nothing better to do congressional legislators will hold hearings on the latest baseball scandal, but really..........
Posted by: oddjob | June 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Stanley is magnificent, of course. Any dog who earns 'honorary cat' status is almost by definition. And the photographer is also first rate. (One of these days I'll get pix of my own crew -- but my skill wit a camera is about what my skill was with HTML.
On politics, and continuing mu discussion of the Senate, I;ve had a feelong that Mourdock would be a lot easier to beat than was Lugar, but I didn't expect him to paint a traget on his back THIS big.
If Joe Donnelly doesn't start running ads referring to his opponent as "Cancer" Mourdock, he almost doesn't deserve to win.
I doubt if this will be his last gaffe, but even Romney must have winced -- or admired him for setting a higher bar on the 'stupidity' chllenge.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM
And yesterday was 'foot in mouth' day for Republicans in general. I don't think Denny Rehberg's 'they're using drones to spy on farmers' paranoia will be a big issue, but Eric Hovde -- one of the 4 Republicans running to challenge Tammy Baldwin for Herb Kohl's seat -- will (hopefully) be working hard to overcome this:
In 2010 the blimp-riders would have been staring at the fauna through their lorgnettes, and the Democrat would have been too 'polite' to attack with it. This year, something tells me Tammy Baldwin isn't going to let it go away.
And that's the difference, that we have candidates who are both attractive and fighters not the dull timeservers we put up last time.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Jim,
It was nice to see possible good news in Indiana and Wisconsin. Especially after seeing Claire McCaskill being eight ponts behind in Missouri (it is Rasmussen, but still) and Tester behind by a few points in Montana.
I think the Senate remains quite scary for us. It could break decently for us, but it could also be a debacle.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Sir C, Rasmussen is not a reliable poll. The McCaskill race is going to be 51-49 or closer either way.
Posted by: Joe S | June 19, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Scott Brown pulled out of the Kennedy Institute debate with Elizabeth Warren, presumably because:
The Kennedy Institute rebuffed the Brown campaign’s demand that Vicki Kennedy, widow of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and president of the institute named in his honor, pledge to not make any endorsement throughout the Senate race.
TPM
http://bit.ly/Lj1BuD
Or else he's chicken.
Posted by: Paula B | June 19, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Yeah, I thought that was a rather weird demand on Sen. Cosmo's part.
Posted by: oddjob | June 19, 2012 at 04:32 PM
i think it was emma who first mentioned wolf hall here. it is a magnificient book; so good, i am almost afraid to read the sequel for fear it will not measure up. i will though, the reviews have been good.
Posted by: big bad wolf | June 19, 2012 at 04:35 PM
I was never taught to fight, though I mostly escaped bullying in my childhood. I do worry a lot about my daughters and encouraged their martial arts classes - yes, still a far way away from an actual fight but still "martial".
Posted by: Eric Wilde | June 19, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Joe,
I certainly am skeptical of Rasmussen to some degree, but eight points is troubling. He's not that bad. I think McCaskill will close, but I have this bad feeling that Missouri will continue to break our hearts as it so often has.
Paula and oddjob,
That is truly bizarre.
bbw,
I believe you are right about Emma. Where is our friend from down under? She's been scarce lately. As has Corvus. And MR Bill, after a brief appearance, is missing too.
I am really happy about the Wolf Hall sequel -- I am going on a four day trip in July and think it will be the perfect company.
And speaking of missing persons,
Hey Eric,
How are you guy? I hope your girls never need the martial arts skills and find it just to be a good form of exercise.
But Er
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 19, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Oops -- left a few stray letters there.
Hey, no one liked my Swedish wolves joke. I'm bummed. I chortled to myself when I wrote that.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 19, 2012 at 09:23 PM
More good news, and a bit of a surprise. I expected Richard Carmona to pull ahead of Jeff Flake in AZ, but probably not until the summer, and I hadn't seen any poll numbers. But PPP just polled and Carmona is already within 2% of Flake -- within the margin of error. (And that's assuming that Flake makes it through the primary. There's a self-financed millionaire TPer named Wil Cardon who is running a strong race, and will dp much less well against Carmona.) I've been seeing AZ as a likely win for us, but thought it would take a while to build.
And the same poll shows Obama within 3% of Romney. Again, I've had AZ in the Obama camp right along, bit ot was another where I thought it would take the convention and a couple months more of Mitticisms to switch it over.
Both results are here, h/t Blog for Arizona
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Bad, Sir C, very bad.
I did not have a good day, at least not the end of it--left a heated voicemail for a case manager who keeps screwing up stuff for one of my patients. It included a threat to call her supervisor. I think that's the first time I've done that in my 2 years in this job. It'll be interesting to find out tomorrow if it did any good.
I'm worried about the Senate too. McCaskill is a good example of the Blue Dog mentality; when are those people ever going to learn that trying to be Republican-lite never works? If people want Republican they'll vote for the real thing. She's following in Blanche Lincoln's clueless footsteps.
Speaking of female pols, did anyone see the stuff about Romney supposedly deciding that he can't choose a women VP candidate because Palin was so bad? Jeez, as though she's representative of the entirety of female politicians. This guy comes up with new reasons for me to hate him on a daily basis.
Stanley has the best hypnotic stare this side of Tbogg's bassets. "All of your foods belong to me...you too will be assimilated...." I've seen that look plenty of times. ;-)
Posted by: beckya57 | June 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM
I hadn't read down, thinking the cite was the end, but this is very interesting:
Okay, that looks like good news, is pretty much what I've been predicting right along, just happening earlier. Of course there will be a flurry of ads, but I don't think they'll be effective as people think.
Because I have a couple of minhutes before the next thing for us to do, let me give a quick explanation of one of the main reasons why I think Romney has specifically peaked, and Republicans in general are coming close to peaking, and that the numbers will be going steadily downward -- with some purely local exceptions in Senate and House races.
Ordinarily the electorate is in a flux at this time, as the various campaigns begin to make their cases, and voters are exposed to new arguments and new candidates. But -- after 4 years of FOX, Rush, Becj, the various Republican candidates, etc., the Republicans have used up all their arguments, and pretty damn near everyone has heard them.
By now, there aren't that many people to impress and convince that have not already been convinced. Again, usually you have a four-way flow, people moving leftward, rightward, down (no longer voting) and up (voting when they had previously been apolitical). This year all four look good for Obama.
Quickly -- I'll defend these at great length if needede later -- there will be some ordinarly Democratic liberals who will go the Hamster route, and not vote, or vote for a third party of there's one available that meets their standard of purity. But there won't be that many of them. There may be a big blog following for this idea, but I have seen little evidence that it occurs to 1% of the amount in the general voting populace. And there will be another spurce of drop-off, the FBP factor, the people who had not voted but wanted to be part of the electing of the First Black president.
But they are small compared to the number of conservative Christians who will, finally, decide against voting for Romney because of his religion, adde3d to the number of centrist-conservative Republicans who have finally grown Frum-sick of their party. (These factors are, I'd guess, not figured into the polls and should each give Obama a few more points.)
As for non-voters brought to the polls, again, i see Obama attracting Hispanics in particular, but also some workers, some gays, and perhaps a fair number of women who oprdinarily would be non-vvoters. But where are the equivalents for Romney, people not already brought out by the TPers in 2010? (In other years the Christianists might still have a pool of touchable voters, but here again the Mormonism factor makes this smaller.) Again, the shift favors Obama -- and will also help carry other Democrats, hopefully.
Voters moving right, moving from 'leaning Obama' to voting Romney. Hard to see many of them whu have already even considered voting for Obama being reached by any of the standard Republican arguments -- and again they don't have new ones to bring out. They'd have to have been totally non-political not to have been exposed to the FOX/Rush bull, and already having made up their mind about it.
(Can Romney pivot to the center and get them? No, even if he could risk losing his base by doing so. The trouble with the extreme positions he's already taken -- and will be reminded of if he shifts -- is that going from 'awful' to 'well, not really that bad' won't cut it. He'd have to match Obama on the key issue, and he is not going to do that -- and even if he does, which is more credible?)
Finally, the shift leftward. And here the chances are immense. People who opposed the ACA and now realize how they benefit from it. People who 'went TP' in 2010 and now have buyer's regret. People who never expected the Snyders, the Walkers, the Kasich's to 'really mean it' when they threatened. Plus piblic service workers who might well have voted as Catholics, as tax payers, etc., buit now have to vote as union members because of the attack. And parents who see how bad schools are getting, anyone who gets sick from poorly inspected meat -- and why doesn't some group run ads on this? -- people who are scared because of police or fire layoffs and can be taught who to blame. We'll get a large boost here, but how large depends on how well the campaign goes.
What are Romeny's other chances? Even a major disaster, unless it happened very soon, is unlikely to convince vters that Romney is the one who they can trust to handle it -- either on grounds of competence or of reliability. And no candidate -- not even Gore or Dukakis -- in recent memory is less likely to connect on a personal, 'hey, I just like the guy,' beer-sharing level than is Romney. I really think you underestimate the instinctive skin-crawling people feel when they see him in his worst moments of phony 'just folksiness.'
And one last thing that I keep on pointing out. We have some very very attractive candidates running this year. Heitkamp, Carmona, Baldwin, Berkeley, are just some of them. They'll give Obama a boost as well as gettig a hitch on his coattails.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Eric Wilde -
If the need to fight arises, having no experience at all is not an advantage. Having some conditioned reflexes designed to first defend and then, if necessary, attack, is a clear and certain advantage.
It is also helpful with respect to fear. Reaction to fear is hard to predict, hence productive in encouraging chaos.
An irrational response makes the victim more vulnerable. An aggresively defensive response can intimidate and assaulter.
Posted by: KN | June 20, 2012 at 01:43 AM
SC - I have to admit Stanely was perfectly captured in that image, pure dog. I'll hoist a glass to his canineinity.
Rubio is a clown.
Edwards is a clown. Where are the prosecutions of bankers and hedge fund managaers?
Some people will do literally anything for money.
I don't know from the wolf stories so I have nothing to say.
I have already commented on the rest.
Posted by: KN | June 20, 2012 at 02:02 AM
Hi all,
Still reading, just haven't had a lot to say. I'm glad you like Wolf Hall. I'm the same as bbw, scared to read the next one -- it's on my Kindle and sitting by my bed in hard copy, but I haven't got to it yet.
I've been obsessively reading Charles Pierce though, trying to understand the very specific brands of crazy in US politics, as we come up to your election (I always take Presidential election day off, so I can watch the results. 2008 was a good one).
Our politics gets weirder and weirder. Julia Gillard has been lecturing y'all and Europe about stimulus and growth, while boasting about budget balancing at home. Labor is seemingly headed for oblivion in our election next year, despite the best economy in the developed world, and a whole lot of good legislation. All the major broadsheet newspapers in the country have just announced they will be moving out of print, and sacking journalists, and I can't really feel sorry for the hacks who have spent the last 4 years undermining the elected government, and promoting a lunatic (our Opposition leader Tony Abbott) who is an antipodean Rick Santorum.
It's depressing. I blame Rupert Murdoch. His competitors here (Farfax Media) is about to be taken over by Australia's richest woman Gina Rinehart, and turned into a newsletter for the mining industry.
No one taught my older kids to fight and they haven't needed it as far as I know. But my 11 year old has attracted the bullies, somehow. Not so much since he's been zooming through the belts in Taekwondo. I hope he'll never have to use it, but it seems to have made a difference to how he sees himself.
Not sure if this will work, but here's a song from my youth for you all, especially SC, by Redgum who always understood working people. If you don't fight, you lose.
Posted by: Emma | June 20, 2012 at 02:09 AM
Where are the prosecutions of bankers and hedge fund managaers?
Precisely.
Posted by: oddjob | June 20, 2012 at 09:13 AM
Romney's campaign has been organizing efforts to heckle at Obama events, and Romney himself thinks that's fine.
So when do you think the MSM will start lecturing Romney about the importance of "civility"?
I'm thinking maybe next February 30th.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM
l-tc, what would you expect from a guy who dressed up like a cop and make fake traffic stops while in college, pinned down a high school classmate and cut off his hair, played embarrassing practical jokes (in public) on his family for years afterward, plus carried his dog on the roof of his car? When does mature judgment click in? Research has shown the magic moment is much later than age 18, but in some people, maybe it never happens.
There's only one adult in the room for this campaign.
Posted by: Paula B | June 20, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Sorry, I really should proof better before posting. Make the necessary edits in your mind, please.
Posted by: Paula B | June 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM
AP just reported that the House committee has held Holder in contempt.
Posted by: Paula B | June 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM
what the fuck, paula?
Posted by: kathy a. | June 20, 2012 at 04:49 PM
I guess the boss's letter wasn't good enough for Issa. This whole thing is disgusting.
Here's part of an earlier story from today's NYT:
President Obama on Wednesday invoked executive privilege to withhold from a Congressional oversight committee some documents and communications among his advisers regarding the failed gun enforcement operation known as “Fast and Furious,” in which weapons purchased in the United States were allowed to cross into Mexico.
It was the first time since Mr. Obama took office that he has asserted the privilege, and it sharpened considerably the long-festering dispute between Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Representative Darrell Issa of California, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The panel had been threatening to find Mr. Holder in contempt for refusing to hand over some documents.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole said in a letter to Mr. Issa that the president was claiming privilege over the documents, although he suggested that there might yet be a way to negotiate the release of some of the contested documents.
----------
Apparently, Obama's refusal wasn't good enough for Issa.
What's next? I assume Holder will resign, don't you? What are his choices?
Posted by: Paula B | June 20, 2012 at 05:10 PM
The committee's Republicans are expressing discontent with Holder, but being held in contempt doesn't necessarily amount to much. It's an expression of disapproval but it carries little or no legal weight. It will be interesting to see if the House's wingnuts force the House leadership to go along with them on this. My impression is that from the leadership's point of view this is a tempest in a teapot, and that it's the wingnuts in the House who are driving this.
Posted by: oddjob | June 20, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Emma,
Good to hear from you.
It is interesting that Labour is in such trouble notwithstanding the fundamental soundness of the Australian economy. Do you think it is due to the internecine battles between Gilliard and Kevin Rudd? And how are you feeling about her these days? I know you viewed her as somewhat suspect from a lefty point of view.
I really like Pierce -- he is a great and truly funny guy in person as well -- but I would read some other folks too. He has a somewhat idiosyncratic take on things sometimes. (Read Nate Silver if you really want to see the electoral tea leaves read thoroughly and accurately.)
Thanks for the song too -- I quite liked it. (They have a bit of a Pogues like sound.)
becky,
McCaskill puzzles me. At times I think she is a really effective politician and then at others she opts for the Blue Dog stance when it is least appealing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Jim,
I would not be completely surprised if Romney hit a high water mark and then faded a bit. He's not the most likeable guy in the world.
On the other hand, I believe that the Republicans are rallying to him in the way I suspected that they would. They will close ranks around him because they hate Obama (and us) that much.
I too think Arizona should be competitive. And if it isn't this time, I suspect it will be by 2016.
KN,
for reasons I will never understand there has been no stomach whatsoever for going after the banksters.
Paula,
The contempt citation against Holder will be completely academic, because the U.S. attorney in DC will take no action against him. It is just posturing by Issa and the Republicans.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 20, 2012 at 05:35 PM
A twitter message from the House Leadership on the matter. What a pipsqueak.
Posted by: nancy | June 20, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Paula, I'm not wasting my breath about what Romney's doing. He's already proved himself to be a man without moral scruples of any sort.
But the MSM has waved the banner of 'civility' anytime we DFHs get worked up about stuff. And here a Republican, a man of wealth and power to boot, is clearly violating the norms of civility. They've got a perfect opportunity to show that they don't just mean lefties need to be civil, or that just the relatively powerless need to be civil (which is a rare opportunity when you think about it, for the reasons Athenae of First Draft makes clear at the link).
Will the MSM seize this golden opportunity, and say that the rich and powerful must be civil, just as those who have little power other than the ability to make some noise and get on people's nerves must be civil?
It's almost like an opportunity to show their evenhandedness by coming out for sanctions on the rich as well as the poor for sleeping under bridges.
And yet we know how this will unfold, how it is unfolding in real time: the MSM won't condemn Mitt's endorsement of incivility on the part of his own troops. Those who can influence the process in few other ways besides a show of incivility will be told to keep a civil tongue, but those with hundreds of millions of dollars to keep a stable of lobbyists on the payroll won't be condemned for also employing rabble to heckle the opposing candidate and his supporters.
Partly IOKIYAR, I suppose, but I think it's more deeply the underlying definition of privilege, private law, that the law shouldn't apply in the same manner to those of high station as it does to everyone else.
The MSM pretty much buys into this, lock, stock, and barrel, and not just with respect to the law, but with respect to any sort of moral or ethical standards.
So of course they wouldn't expect Romney to demand civility of those who work on his campaign. Don't be absurd.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 20, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Emma, aside from the basic fact of can the sequel be as good (and it might be better) i have the irrational sense it won't be as good because i hate the title of the new one. it sounds like on of those movies or t.v. shows i am supposed to think are so hard-bitten and true and revelatory. :)
Posted by: big bad wolf | June 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM
I did not teach my kids to fight or even to protect themselves. It is true that I have focused more on explaining them how to paying attention, avoiding bad situations, and be careful. I have just now that specific armpit technique which turned to be useful in several situations.
Posted by: Luis | June 21, 2012 at 08:04 AM
Welcome, Luis, to the list of banned spammers. Bye!
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 21, 2012 at 08:49 AM
l-tc, you'll get no argument from me on that. I'm as baffled and disheartened as you are about the shallowness of reporting and commentary in today's MSM. Must be poor training, or the tight grip of corporate influence on media. After all, think of some of the owners: Cablevision, Murdoch and Company, Comcast, GE, Walt Disney Co, Viacom. For a longer list,go">http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart">go here.
I thought one of the comments on that blog you reffed was especially worth rereading:
The expectation of the ruling elite is that people will meekly accept their fate. Corporations have trained them to do just that, and adopting that model in public institutions seems perfectly normal to the mouthbreathers. Why else do people scream, mindlessly, that "government ought to be run like a business?"
When public officials start behaving like CEOs, we get idiots like Tovrea, who believe that part of that corporate model is: no dissent, no challenge to prevailing wisdom or of any decision, and most of all, no public displays of same, because those reflect badly on the brand (and the CEO).
_________________
You could substitute the name Romney for Tovrea in the last graf, for a good description of Mitt's governorship.
People who've lost their jobs in the last few years should read that graf before voting. Kinda takes the wind out of the entire Republican platform-to-be, don't you think?
Posted by: Paula B | June 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Let me try that link again:
Go">http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart">Go here .
Posted by: Paula B | June 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Go">http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart">Go here .
Posted by: Paula B | June 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM
SC - I am not much surprised, considering the overall climate in which this administration has had to operate stirring up partisan issues would have probably had unintended consequences. Consider the pathological hatred manifested by so many towards this president, he could really not have made any other choice but to defer any calling to account until the second term.
The extent to which the federal government has been corrupted by right-wing ideologs put in place solely for the purpose of contravening any constructive policies is borne out by the singular statistics of how many legal appointments were made by the Bush admin from Liberty Un-iversity.
Up thread there was a mention of the participation in all of this of the so-called media, I apologize to the original commenter for not citing them directly but I am both weary and disgusted. Media in the present sense are nothing more than corporate propaganda. They are driven by nothing but profits.
Issa. What a piece of work. A car thief with congressional power. One has to wonder how such a pathetically crippled wasteling could have risen to that status. But then there is no wonder involved when you consider what the criteria are for being a republican. Dishonesty is a prerequisite.
The fact is that it is good business to get paid for lying.
In a kind of strange sense it would be fun if I had an opportunity to express myself in a documented way before this panoply of half-wits, narcissicists and liars. Because I would remind them of the simple insight that Feynman offered concerning the Challenger disaster. You can't fool nature.
Now let's see if I can negotiate getting this comment posted.
Posted by: KN | June 23, 2012 at 02:01 AM