poverty motivates

[pic-fotosearch.com]

Did you know that, back in the old days of the 19th century, people were quite fired up about stuff.
They were enthused by democracy, technology, war, sport (like bareknuckle boxing).

They didn't have all the social democratic benefits that we take for granted like free health care, universal education, pensions, voting etc.

But, they were sensitive people. When photography was invented, one of the first things that was captured for posterity was

POVERTY.

[pic- by Jacob Riis]
[pic-by Jacob Riis]
[pic- hiddenlives.org]

Rich and less-so alike were so disgusted by the wretchedness of the poverty they had seen for the first time, that they were moved to action.
Their previous ignorance of the problem was truly an excuse. (It isn't any more, though)

So, they used their basic education, and their desire for fairness and democracy and scared the livin' bejesus out of the rich gentry and industrialists.

It's odd, but, they were so nutso at certain times that they were clamouring for war. People were greatly moved by righteousness, sometimes wrongly (wrongteousness?), to demand that they themselves be sacrificed in warfare; to save the empire, even!
One example was the Boer War in 1901, all the way in Southern Africa.
David Lloyd George of the Liberal party, who was arguing against it, barely escaped a lynching in Birmingham's town hall. (and now they talk about gang violence)
[pic- Lloyd George. Britishempire.co.uk]

The people were restless, Marxism was a utopian idea on the rise. Anarchists were fomenting rebellion, particularly in East London. So, spying was rife, but that was not a solution.

The government had to give the people a greater voice in government. They also had to give them what they were looking for: social democracy. This sharing of the wealth was a brilliant idea.
By 1910,

Britain had started taxing the rich,
controlling the House of Lords,
and were soon to give women the vote.
But they were just inches ahead of the maddening crowd
of the great unwashed,
pushing for more freedoms and rights.

They all gave us the things we now take for granted. From then on, as long as capitalists (the Crash) and militarists (the Wars) were kept in check, we had ever-improving times. The (white-collar) middle class ballooned in size.

What's up with today's people? We've stopped fighting and stopped caring while our world is crashing down around our ears.
The net and tv constantly show us starving people at home and overseas; refugees risking their lives in dinghies trying to get to the West, because our capitalists have bankrupted their countries and they have nothing to eat. Asylum-seekers are leaving countries were our soldiers are wreaking genocidal havoc, like Afghanistan and Iraq. Still we are unmoved. We don't want to share our ill-gotten plenty.

What?
You want Youtube videos to remind you?
Asylum-seekers are treated like criminals. We bar entry. We send ships back.
We send officials to Africa to push the migrants further back toward their barren homes.
We waste more than enough food to feed them, even if they didn't work, though they do work... for us.

Today, governments are taking away our rights and
we're so afraid of the consequences that we say nothing.
Our ancestors truly suffered and fought, and yet we are
soft and weak, jaded
and yet trusting that all will be well.
I guess we will need abject poverty to once again push us
to demand stuff: the things we once had.

-Costick67 (8^P
checkout: The Making of Modern Britain on BBC2

survival of the richest. Part 1: Ayn Rand was right about something

How did banks bring us to the edge? (in less than 100 words)
the paper-economy banks bankrupted (ironically) the public and the real economies.
Then they took loans and got cheap government insurance to cover their losses.
That means banks get the profits, and the public gets the losses.
Then they continued foreclosing on houses.
then they got back to immoral derivative trading, like nothing just happened.
NOW, they want to pocket their profits,
while YEARS from now,
they will have yet to pay off their debts
to government (in lieu of taxes).

so, here's my salute to bankers' supreme ballsy-ness:

Gold (man) Sachs of Sh*t


-the paper chase.

Intro
Trading Boys have found a way to bend laws of economics by pushing paper around and somehow making profits out of it. So bad is the problem that many people have
rejected manufacturing and gone trading.
Problem!
they're chucking out basic economic theory and common sense
(trading shares which they don't own),
and they've neutralised all effective legal/regulatory oversight, and because they're piggy-backed on the real economy,
when they f&%%&*ck up,
we, the little worker ants, all pay the price. And the rich call it
survival of the fittest.
Pork pies (lies) and prevarication.
If the following problems are solved, then maybe we'll be able to return to normality.
Don't bet on it happening, though.

Chapter 1: Externalisation

According to "The Corporation" documentary,
one purpose of businesses is to externalise problems.
That means to make others pay for their problems.
If a factory has polluted an area, they expect the public to clean it up.
If banks have the risk of gambling losses, they want the public to insure them against it and
when it fails, for the public to pay up lots of money.
NO RISK! ONLY PROFIT!
PERFECTION! not.
all they need is corrupt politicians to do the monkey.
see no evil...

Chapter 2: Philosophy of me-me-me

Ayn Rand, the grandiloquent, dead fiction writer, tried to show
how capitalists (re-baptised as the makers of all things useful) are
the bestest because they follow their own self-interest.
Her (anti-) Objectivist theory tried to say that
the more that government tries to solve problems, the worse it gets.
That's true, but only when capitalists
(admittedly aided by corrupt politicians)
screw things up totally,
through perfecting externalisation.
We, the idiots, trust government to keep this kind of bullsh*t from happening.
Still, governments are not willing to return to the post-1929-Crash antitrust laws and other regulations because politics is still corrupt.
So corrupt politicians threw money at the capitalists.
The capitalists were so convinced of their superiority that they expected it to happen,
and said 'thank you, do you have any more?'
So, it's not government that's to blame, it's corrupt government, full of pseudo-political capitalists that is screwing up.
So, when right-wing pundits are calling the pay-outs to their friends, and government support of failing manufacturers as 'big government', they're doing it with a big smile on their faces. Why? Those very same right-wingers get to party like it's 1999
on public money, when they don't pay taxes, and then they get to look like wise guys, smirking at fair-minded people while they criticise the largesse they themselves are benefitting from.
Since the media and governments are largely corrupt,
they get to prove Ayn Rand right:
Self-interest is the only thing that would work all the time,
but only when there's no government or law
to stop corporations from victimising people in the name of profit.
Looks like brutal survival of the fittest (but it isn't-you'll see).
some examples:
Health insurance (US), heating fuel (UK), Energy trading (US), banking and derivative trading (every-f^**$^&^ckin-where), etc.

Chapter 3: Survival of the fattest

When right-wingers trot out the theory of survival of the fittest, to explain the success of rich people, they're talking out their arses.
they got plenty of free protection and benefits from society, the ungrateful bastards.
If you look at the ever-popular wilderness documentaries
(how else are we going to witness nature?),
you see how brutal survival really is.
It's eat and be eaten.

So, what IS the difference with human society,
Sprachen-mit-arses?
Because of our evolved sense of fairness, we provide police officers to protect fat, rich guys' stuff from the coniving, starving, wretched bastards who would try to take it away.
(why are they starving? because of laws favouring the rich- what irony!)
why do the courts and expensive lawyers exist?
So that, when fat Richie, or his company is doing something illegal or immoral, Richie gets to avoid legal (and moral) justice.
Why do rich folk surround themselves with locks, guards, walls, and fast cars?
to avoid moral justice.
Nobody can get near enough to them to give them a piece of their minds.
So, we've established that fat, rich people are cunning and Chicken-sh*t.
Didn't at least some of the rich get benefits from state-sponsored education, healthcare or anything else public, like the use of a library, or a playing field? I guess not. They're self-made. Nobody helped them. Not even their parents (where are they? check the poorest, moneyless bastards in the old-folks homes. That's where they are because they begat heathen-beast humanoids).
So, if we were to have survival of the fittest, then Richie would lose his protection.* By the way, if things keep going as they are, some day, the public will take "survival" seriously and exact revenge. Not quite yet. The middle-class (white-collar workers) is not yet starving in sufficient numbers. It's the pissed-off middle class that you should be worrying about when you support survival of the fittest. They'll take it literally and then it's Night of the Living Dead
[pic- "Brains!"]
for rich folk.
Now, watch those animal videos and imagine yourself being killed and/or eaten.
You like?

Chapter 4: territorialism

It's funny to hear rich people, who've got more rights and more access than the rest of us, talking about fairness, ownership and privacy.
It's funny how rich folk manage to get the right to rape the land, as if it's theirs.
Politicians are just so thrilled to have fresh bribes and a few jobs for the voters that they'll let coal, oil, gas, trees, fish(es) go to the fittest businessman.
Since when does it belong to those guys? How can oil-rich countries like Nigeria be so poor? It's not that their politicians are super-corrupt, it's that the whole business is corrupt.
If any economist wanted to get shot, all he would have to do is to prove
how oil companies should be paying about $40 a barrel to the government
(for the right and to cover public expenses like roads, pollution control, etc. that co.s now get for free) just to get the oil out of the ground, and then more taxes on profits (with money going to schools, hospitals and good stuff.). They'd still make a killing, but now oil companies are also killing people; they get the US/UK to knock off governments, because oil barons have BEEN ALLOWED to become too powerful.
Well! In the 1930s, Rockefeller's Standard Oil was cut to pieces for the same reason. Now, the oil companies are in charge.
_____

UPDATE: (at alternet.org, Michael Moore said we must 'declare that all the energy resources above and beneath the ground are owned collectively by all of us', in "Michael Moore's action plan: 15 things every American can do right now")

_____

For survival of the fittest to apply to humans, there has to be an open natural environment. Ownership and fences make no sense to animals.

[Buenos Aires- chic next to shabby shanty]

Richie keeps his land only if he can fend for himself. That means fighting off other competitors for the land, the riches it contains, his spouse (for procreation),
[best 3 outta 5 for your wife.]

and kids (for food).

As it is, the rich've stolen exclusive access to land and underground resources. So, that's why Richie is rich. Wonderful, so he builds a house with a big fence to keep out the competition. That would not happen in the wild. So, men would tend to be killed around the age of 40 because they'd be unable to fend for themselves against younger bucks.

So, 'fair', humanitarian society has made it possible for the rich to avoid anything to do with survival of the fittest. They are the antithesis of survival of the fittest.

Chapter 5: Religion and charity

This matters more in the US, where politicians get elected simply because they claim to be religious or because they believe in traditional values and where rich people go to church and keep a straight face when they hear about the selflessness of Jesus. They can carry on being greedy and claim to be at God's side.** Horsesh*t! all of it.
If they read the important chapters of , say, Christian writing,
they would feel obliged to give away most of what they've
amassed. So, they're not Christian or whatever. I don't care what they SAY.
give it all away, first, then I'll listen.
Jesus chucked the money-traders out of the temple. Is there a Christian stock-broker willing to chuck himself out work? if not, they're not Christian or whatever.
If politicians have caused the death of innocent people, especially by deception, then they are not supposed to profess subjugation to God, because they're lying. Tony Blair and Bush43 have caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people, yet they publically declare themselves to be Christians. Crock of feces!
I suppose they feel that they can get the 'get out of hell' card by asking for forgiveness at some point before they die. That might work for the occasional gambler or adulter, but not for a mass-murderer. If there were visible Christian justice, they'd be damned by God into a living hell on Earth right now.
In the US, some religious groups will help the poor and uninsured get medical care, but in some cases, the sick have to feign Christian belief. If those religious groups were something more than a tax-write-off machine, they would go looking to save people from their own miserable fate. If they did, there would be more Christians. They would take Jesus as their example, and show what Christianity is supposed to be. Even so, they wouldn't have to give up anything serious other than their time (the house and car are safe). f#%%^cking suburban religious morons.
And don't get me started on the Pope, but I did write about him a few stories ago. In the end, there's no such thing as true religious charity in this world. So, religions should just piss off and stop lying. Also, you can't be super-rich and religious.

So, if anybody's interested, rich people are neither lions in the wild nor the fittest people, just the most morally-corrupt, cunning, chicken-sh*t hoarders. They would not survive without the peaceful society that we provide for them. We allow them to rape the land and keep some of it for their gargantuan houses. Also, they haven't got a moral leg to stand on because they help no one but themselves, and inflict pain on others (the very definition of externalisation). So, they should stop reaching out to God in order to feel better. They should just be happy with who they are:

They're just miserable, sociopathic sacks of sh*t. Thank you.

-Costick67 (8^P
pics from fotosearch.com
* check Ames' story where parts of Alabama have been so bankrupted by Wall Street that they can no longer afford police, necessitating the use of the army to quel rioting and complaining. Many people in that relatively warm state cannot afford heating, if they want water service as well.
checkitout: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/143485/after_the_billionaires_plundered_alabama_town%2C_troops_were_called_in_..._illegally/
** (from Ames' story) "Bo Pilgrim, the head of Pilgrim's Pride, once told his Texas church that he was worth over $1 billion before the market crash, and he's still worth hundreds of millions. His rapacity was boundless..."

"dead" politicians walking, Stateside

[pic- fotosearch.com]
Although this is not a complete list, I want to cheer on the few brave souls in the US Congress who are working hard against

the Tsunami of corruption
that is American politics.
They are not only pissing off their colleagues, who are,
in the majority being bought off, but they're also pissing off
the big interest groups, like banks or health insurers,
at least a bit.
If the BIG BOYS get what they want, they'll let these
few good people talk all they want, 5 minutes at a time*.
If the biggies fail to get what they want,
this blog entry becomes a deathwatch:

Alan Grayson, Democrat- Florida
Marcy Kaptur, Democrat- Ohio
Bernie Sanders, Independent- Vermont
and even,
a late entrant for his support of Public Option health-care,
believe it or don't,
it's
Rolland Burris, Democrat- Illinois

UPDATE: hold on. Let's wait for the bill
if it's good, then add:
Harry Reid, Democrat
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat- Cali

Let's look at the very definition of excellence, intelligence and bravery:

Alan Grayson
http://www.grayson.house.gov/

1. vs. Ben Bernanke
The Fed is giving away money left and right
BB didn't know where $500 billion went.
Grayson grilled him. Apparently he's the only one.
When BB played stupid, Grayson laughed in his face.[3:20]


2. vs. Republican health care plan
Grayson says "Republicans want you to die quickly."
When asked to apologise, Grayson apologised to the 44 000
Americans who die ANNUALLY
because of a lack of health care [Harvard research].


3. Butthead Bill O'Reilly of Fixed News thinks Grayson is a pinhead.
No reBUTTal needed.

4. Grayson grills Citigroup CEO
for sucking money out of the government.
Citiboy revealed that the government also gave banks
THE BEST INSURANCE in the market,
with no winnings for the government.
His fitting conclusion: "heads, the banks win, tails the people lose"
and lying about their pay and lying about ...well... everything.
He was only allowed 5 minutes of questioning.
Meanwhile, the US economy was
being chucked into a black hole.

5. You know you've bothered some big boys
when they pull out the 'anti-semite' card.
Yup, they've done it.
It used to be peaceloving, peace-treaty freaks in Congress
who were called 'a-s', but the virus has spread.
You wanna find out who did this? Go ahead.
I'm not advertising for anti-democratic liars.

Marcy Kaptur
http://www.kaptur.house.gov/

1. Tale of Two Countries
Wall Street vs. US mainstreet
Massive bonuses on WS, at the same time
that JP Morgan is pushing foreclosures on houses.

2. Squat in your own homes
Foreclosing banks ("vultures") don't have the staff,
and often don't have the paperwork.
to lock up the houses they're foreclosing on,
so Kaptur says "stay put".

3. Banks are having money orgies, and refuse to
talk about foreclosures. Check out this
explanation of what's wrong with the banks (see all parts)


Bernie Sanders
http://sandersunfiltered.com/

1. the middle class is collapsing.


2. Sanders takes a kick at Bernanke
for 3.2 trillion leant out:


3. Sander's workplace is corrupt,
bought and paid for. No new laws
regulating Wall Street, because $5 billion has been spent
to pay for politicians, by banks, 1.2 billion by pharma, etc.:


Rolland Burris
Even though he was appointed by
sleaze-ophile Blagojavich to replace Obama
he seems to be representing his people... on health care

1. Health care
Without a Public Option, where the government provides
insurance to those unable to pay for it,
then this upcoming bill is useless to bad.
So, Burris is saying he'll vote for PO, or nothing [read 1 below]

Harry Reid-not sure
This man, the Senate majority leader has just announced the Democratic end-game (running around and past the Republicans) of including a Public (health insurance) Option, while allowing crazy governors to opt out, especially if they're not interested in re-election.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/143527/harry_reid_announces_senate_health_bill_with_public_option
Let's wait and see what the actual law is. It just passed one stage with one to go.

Nancy Pelosi-not
(coming soon)
Although the Mob of Idiots outside Congress is seeking to maul her, Michael Moore says the healthcare bill has become a watered-down disaster. see MMFlint on Twitter.

So, if you think that Obama is the only voice of change, actually you're wrong. Obama has been talking alot, but has done nothing so far. These folks above are risking their lives.

Coming soon: a few brave Europeans

-Costick67 (8^P

* that's all they're allowed in Congress, or committee meetings.

info:

1 (from Yahoo/AP)
WASHINGTON – For Democrats determined to get a health care bill, Sen. Roland Burris is like the house guest who couldn't be refused, won't soon be leaving and poses a plausible threat of ruining holiday dinner. Suddenly, he can no longer be ignored.

The Illinois Democrat, appointed by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, says he'll only vote for a bill to provide health care to millions more Americans as long as it allows the government to sell insurance in competition with private insurers.

And he says he won't compromise.

"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," Burris, 72, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "That position will not change."

Those words caught the attention of the very Democratic leaders who tried to keep Burris out of the Senate, suggested he resign and have shunned him in unprecedented fashion. Burris is not the only Democrat to insist on creation of a government-run health plan. But he is the one who has the least to lose by defying President Barack Obama and the Democrats who once turned him out in the cold rain.

It was early January and Blagojevich had appointed Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, to Obama's former Senate seat — defying Democrats in Washington who had wanted someone without a tainted patron and with a better chance of winning election in 2010.

What happened next was a procession of ugly images, from Burris' rain-swept news conference after Democrats turned him away from a swearing-in to Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush daring Democrats to block an accomplished lawyer who would be the chamber's only black.

Bitterly, the Democrats seated Burris. But when it came out that Burris had admitted what he had denied under oath — that he'd unsuccessfully tried to raise money for Blagojevich — Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., suggested that Burris resign. He refused.

A Senate ethics committee probe is pending into Burris' statements. Democratic leaders, meanwhile, refused to support any effort by Burris to seek a full term, and he will leave the Senate in 2011.

Meanwhile, his relationship with the rest of his caucus has settled into one of mutual, if chilly, benefit.

It works this way: Burris stays mum about any bitterness he may feel about his reception, and he gets Obama's Senate seat for two years. Democrats seat him, don't speak of him and can count on his loyal vote at a time when all 58 Democrats and two independents must vote together to prevent Republican filibusters.

They've never needed 60 votes like they do on the yet-to-be-finalized health care bill. A disciplined grin shows that Burris knows it.

No, he says, he will not vote for any version of a government-run plan circulating in the Senate, other than the full-blown one from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

He won't vote, for example, for Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe's idea to use the threat of a public option to force insurers to lower premiums by certain deadlines. He hasn't seen the details of another idea, proposed by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., that would allow each state to decide whether to offer public coverage to compete with private insurers. The health committee's proposal, he says, must be in the final bill to earn his vote.

"Yeah, that's the one," Burris said.

By definition, all 100 senators are relevant because any one can block Senate business unless there are 60 votes to override the objection. But Burris' stated position on the public option means that Democrats can no longer take his vote for granted.

It's too early to tell whether the public option, or some version of it, ends up in the final compromise between a committee of House and Senate lawmakers. First, each chamber must pass its version of a health care bill. House Democrats are insisting on the government-run plan; but in the Senate, the public option is less popular.

Every Democratic vote is important. And yet, Democratic leaders aren't talking about Burris.

Instead, they're talking confidently about having the votes for the biggest policy overhaul in a generation, a signature issue for Obama and the Democratic Party.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Burris' demand alone makes him no different than other senators seeking this or that in the bill.

___ the end

blood of trained killers on Blair's hands

Byline: crass, vindictive soldier's father says Blair has blood on his hands for Iraq war

[pic- St. Paul's, I think]

I was walking past the Cathedral last night,
After having watched a (London Film Festival) Balkan film* about
the short period between a local war and WW1
"St. George shots the dragon"
and I remembered the memorial held last week
for the fallen(#) British soldiers of the Iraq invasion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is so well-educate,
used exquisitely-indirect language which tried
to say that the government threw those men
into the fray for no reason.

He said something to the effect that
nobody considered the cost in lives
of invading Iraq. Point well-made.

What a nice way to package the rapacious
willful intent of the invaders
to control land and people, and
to steal oil.
If you put it Archie's way,
it seems almost worthy of a Nobel. And the winner is...
Being that this seemed to be a Christian memorial,
nothing was said about the hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi dead.
Apparently, they were
an optical illusion on our tv screens,
like on a Wii game.
The victors (us) never see the victims as people.
Our media whitewashes that for us.
Bless 'em. Guilt sucks.

[UPDATE: if you want to see blood, starvation, death, sorrow and no al Qaeda in Afghanistan, find Rethink Afghanistan, a new documentary. .]

So, as I continued to walk,
I thought, what a great strategy they'd spawned.
Politicians, doing the bidding of BP, Shell and (fill the blank)
took professional soldiers who were trained and paid 'well'
to do their dirty work for them**.
[poor boys have always fought the rich man's wars.]
That's terrific! Those boys knew
the potential cost of their choice to join an army.
If they didn't, they were too stupid to live anyway.
So, the 'insurgents'
(otherwise known as the butcher, the baker & the candlestick maker)
did us all a favour by culling some idiots
who would've amounted to nothing***.
[British expression: "cannon fodder"]
If they have spouses, or civil partners,
then the soldier's pension goes to the widow(er)
Queen Liz gives them medals, too!
They get 30 seconds of fame on the nightly news,
a picture and a short eulogy:
"beloved, brave, nice smile....beautiful corpse."****
You'll hear about the good they did for Iraq, e.g.
think of the rebuilding of the colonial economy generated
by coffin-making alone!
___
Update: Don't you just love Remembrance Day 2009 becoming Remembrance week. That should keep the complaining to a minimum. The argument on tv was "there's a time for debating, and ..." (so shut up and pay your respects). The insecure nation loves its pageanty, which reminds it of the empire long since gone.
___
Things could have been very different.
Imagine a different, less-affluent, less-educated world
where the political classes of various countries
are feeling their oats (or their privates)
and want to show that their country is better than all others.
If they want to use the Earth as their chessboard,
they just dream up^ a scenario of evil foreigners
raping, or eating our young,
then general conscription is hardly even necessary.
That was WORLD WAR 1. Millions dead.
So, the victors take revenge
on the losers (as if anybody wins in mutually-genocidal war).
Anyway, Germany was bankrupted and
forced into economic servitude; people dying of hunger,
until a certain sociopath cooked up his final solution.
Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
Evil must be stopped. Let's save the world.
There's WW2 explained. Millions more dead.
See? we'll fight for queen, country, ideals & cigarettes. Nice & cheap lives.

So, unlike that crass father, above,
I think our politicians are behaving rather gentelmanly
in not asking us all to go to war.
HERE's what you do if you ever do get drafted:



You see, the rest of us have more important things to do

than getting blown up or riddled with bullets.

Our job is to create wealth for the rich
and save a few crumbs for ourselves (in bank accounts)
in order for the financial wizards
to pocket that wealth
leaving us without even
the social-democratic benefits
that our forefathers all FOUGHT for:
Health care, freedom of speech, pensions, education, universal suffrage.
And you can bet we're all suffering... (Groucho Marx, I think.)
See? no blood. nice and clean.
Unless, some of us get desperately hungry...
then all bets are off.

-Costick67 (8^P
pics from fotosearch.com

the media interpretation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/09/rowan-williams-iraq-war-memorial

NOTES:

* the film was made by a Serbian, Bosnian & Bulgarian crew, with S. Dragojevic directing. It was actually fairly overaught, but they've got some demons to exorcise.
#if only they hadn't fallen into working for the army, they wouldn't have died.
** Of course, realising that you're running security ops for the oil barons doesn't make dying any easier.
***That's been an excuse for war at least since the Crusades. Lookitup
**** I'm most concerned by the corpses' carbon footprint. Sending a transport plane 12 000 klicks for a few funerals? Is that really justifiable? If they're planted in Iraq, then Iraq can become a tourist destination. and if the graves are inside their permanent barracks, the locals won't piss on them, either.
^Here's Goebel's speech about that. It's chilling how easy it is to get one nation to kill another's people. We're lustful beasts, after all. Ya, baby!

Look! democracy is what you need. It's over there! Fetch!

It's like the game, that cunning game that bigger kids
played on you,

when they told you that the ball was in the bushes.
And you went there for hours to look,
when the ball was really behind their backs.

That's the game being played throughout the world today
by governments and big money.
Most countries have democracy such that
the average person can feel he is picking his government.
wow! good for you!
However, the real game is the running of the government,
which is completely out of our control.
So, if politicians want to tell you
the democratic ball's in the bushes*,
[pic- looking for democracy, in the wilderness]

they're doing it so that they can give the game away to the rich,
behind your back.
the game and all the winnings.
We all know that U.S democracy is corrupt (and others').
Philosophising about democracy doesn't get us anywhere:


Enjoy watching the game from the sidelines?
[pic- eat, drink, be merry]

What good is democracy if you haven't got anything to eat?

-Costick67 (8^P

pics from fotosearch.com
*- Even as we philosophise about what's wrong with democracy, the government is continuing to give away the game. As Michael Moore said, the US has not passed any laws on the stock market, because the failed banks are using the people's money to lobby (i.e. buy off) politicians.

Black adder de-fanged

In the story of the zoo of life,
where survival belongs to the fittest,
there used to be a dangerous beast, the regulator.

the regulator's job was to keep the powerful
from crushing the weak.
The regulator, an adder, was not himself powerful, just effective.
In the 1980s, this adder tried to keep US bankers
from robbing their customers.
When Reagan continued the deregulation of the jungle,
he forgot the Black adder in the corner. William was his name.

Savings and loan banks were ponzi schemes
designed to use crooked accounting
to rob customers of their savings.
directors of the S&L banks permanently loaned these savings to themselves
and some of their chosen friends,
like lions feeding on a whole suburban wildebeast family.
It was William Black Adder,
who, among the banshee cries of politicians,
Democrat and Republican,
proceeded to slay a number of bankers,
including a son of the Lion (or, Lyin') Vice President.

However, that particular Lion family had many members,
and, later, another of them became President.
This time, the idiot runt son of the family
took away the final defense
that the prey had to protect them from annihilation;
regulation of the markets.
This took the balance of nature, the cycle of life and tore it assunder.
The animals have to agree to a situation which victimises them; they are prey but not completely powerless.
Otherwise you don't have predators killing only for survival. It becomes killing for its own sake or for enjoyment.
The derivatives markets were nevertheless deregulated and the slaughter began.
Carcasses were brought in from afar.

[pic- Irish mountain sheep]

[pic- Scottish RBS angus beef]

[pic- Icelandic internet-banking horse]

[pic - Spanish leverage toro]

When the carcasses dried up, the lions cried foul.
"We are too big to fail!"
With the Black adder sidelined*,
___
William Black in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/how-the-servant-became-a_b_318010.html
William Black on Democracy Now. Get your large tissues out.
The BIG ANIMALS cheat; we get mauled.
-He can talk all he wants, but he can't really do anything where he is on the sidelines.
____
the new game-park warden, Geithner,
a fox guarding the hens,
found some fresh greenbacks
(greenback cutthroat trout)
for the appetite that knows no bounds.
Now, according to Michael Moore,
the top 1% of the US population owns
as much as the bottom 95%.
My question is , does this qualify the US as a banana republic**?

[pic- a little peel for the people to step on. The bell peals for thee.]

I wonder if the democratic deficit,
the corruption and the crony capitalism which are rife,
will help us reach a decision.

Tally me banana!
and save me one so that I can live long enough
to work for You tomorrow,
mista tallyman.

or should I say, mista accountant.
the new king-maker.

[pic- watch stuff vanish]

the kind of magician who can make derivatives losses disappear.

[pic- where's the debt? I don't see it.]

by putting them under shells; companies that is.

[pic- Caribbean bank shell]

allowing bankers to hand out BILLIONS in profits
in the paper economy
while, in the real economy, the prey haven't got a prayer.

-Costick67 (8^P

INFO: [my comments- Costick67]
*definition (Wikipedia): Banana republic is a pejorative term for a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique.

re the United States of America. (Wikipedia) [by the way, these idiots are way off the mark, but, anyway...- Costick67]

In April 2009, Missouri Republican US Senator Kit Bond likened Barack Obama's administration to a banana republic if they proceed to hold public trials on the issue of torture, giving the term banana republic a bimodal definition in the context of the ongoing US torture investigations.

In May 2009, Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, referred to the state government of California as a banana republic. He was commenting on the state's tax system, in which taxes cannot be raised even in an emergency without a two-thirds majority. The state constitution requires that the budget be balanced, denying it the ability to borrow [You'd rather have Bernanke printing money?-Costick67], while gerrymandering has turned many districts in California into safely conservative or safely liberal districts, crowding out moderate political voices in both political parties, and making a two-thirds majority consensus very difficult to achieve. [it looks like checks-and-balances to me. The less politicians do, the less damage they do. - Costick67]

In August 2009, New Hampshire Republican US Senator Judd Gregg stated the United States is on its way to becoming a Banana Republic within ten years, criticizing such programs as "Cash for Clunkers" for allegedly placing unfair tax burdens on future generations.

In August 2009, Warren Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, used the term to refer to the risk of losing financial credibility posed by the high fiscal deficit being piled up by the U.S government.

[none of the jokers presented here even mentioned the fact that lax REPUBLICAN government rules have led to all this public expenditure. Idiots!- Costick67]

pics from fotosearch.com

100+ years of fraud gives rich guys the advantage

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

If you can't see the video above, then:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/september-15-2009/the-word---let-freedom-ka-ching

I'll wait while you view it. Then, come back and read this:

There are certain things in life
that you are taught from a young age
that you will believe for the rest of your life,
never questioning its truth,
or why it is true,
or how it became true,
like Santa Claus.

Here's one example
where I'm guilty
and so are youz all! :

We all "know" that
the corporation is viewed as 'a person'
by the law.
This was first mentioned in the 19th century,
in the US.
[pic- Mr. McDonald, Ltd.- "Oi! We have 100% beef...fat! It's in the fries."]

I thought that this had been proven
by precedent in a US court. (precedent is 'like' law)
Since I don't know enough
about the law,
I never questioned it.

"The Corporation" documentary caused me
to wonder if this decision
was wrong,
or if it could ever be reversed.
It even showed us how, if a corp. is a person,
it should be locked away as a
PSYCHOPATH!
Why? It harms others and has no morals.
That excellent documentary still
never questioned whether the precedent existed.

As it turns out,
it took Steven Colbert
THE COMIC
to tell the world,
OVER 100 YEARS LATE,
that there never was a precedent.
It was, like Republican propaganda,
just something that
certain businessmen repeated
until it became accepted as truth,

[Remember Sadam & Al Qaeda, sitting in a tree...?]

EVEN BY COURTS AND LAWYERS
for OVER 100 YEARS!
If anybody cares,
that's FRAUD!
Thousands of times over!
Jail time. singing "moon river"!

So, I suppose the rest of the world has,
since that time,
followed suit,
and changed their laws,

[not to mention giving corp.s access to everything.]

like a bunch of sheep(s),
allowing corporations to graze freely
everywhere in the world
(that's what the WTO was for, doncha know?)
and take everything for themselves.
It's called globalisation.
Remember, governments have given
the keys to our future
to a psychopath!

So, what's the moral of this story? 2 things
1 Corporations, which used to be insignificant,
have used the law
to their advantage for a long time.
So, now, they're bigger than governments.
Too BIG to fail.
Too STOOPID to succeed, without theft.
[pic- fotosearch.com]
2 Corporations and executives have shown
how politically stupid they are
by needing over 100 years
to take over the whole world,
even though they have had
every politician and lawyer
from here to Timbuktu
in their pockets.
F#$%&*&ing MORONS!
Haven't they seen movies about
evil dictators or communist governments?
Actually, they did us in by looking like normal people
instead of looking like Hitler or Mussolini
and then lying like rugs. [see Exiled story below]

But, they are in charge now,
so, from now on,
please, if you come in contact with them,
it's Mr. Moron,
or Sir Moron,
or Lord Moron
as the case may be.
Then, you can ask them
to lend you the money
to buy a fried chicken
and a side-order of taters, if you're hungry.
[pic- Mr. Soupkitchen, unlimited. fotosearch.com]

-Costick67 (8^P
Exiled online:

America’s Dead Souls: 8 Reasons To Hate Our Billionaire Bolsheviks

By Mark Ames

http://exiledonline.com/americas-dead-souls-8-reasons-to-hate-our-billionaire-bolsheviks/