As a young, impressionable lad, I used to be anti-nukes and anti-war. Now, I simply admit that countries will never give up their nuclear defenses. Okay then, how does the UK defend itself?
Well, it could place a bunch of missile silos in certain secret locations, around the country. The deterent is ready. Great. Actually, they're not happy.
They have been talking about 'renewing the Trident defense system', for over a year now. The old ones've gotta go. Problem, the new ones (three to be exact) cost 70billion quid. What's so special about Trident? Well, it's the delivery system.
It's a F^^**Iking SUBMARINE! [thanks to Greenpeace for the snap]
Now, what possible use could a submersible -that could crash*, blow up, leak all over the place- have that a silo can't?
Delivery to your door!**
One day in the near future:
Hello. British Navy, here. We've got a delivery for you, Mr. Ahmedinejad. Mr. A: I no want. BN: It's a pizzaaaaa. Mr.A: Sok-et. Fak-off. No want! [Hiroshima memorial] Why don't you just tell the British public, you want to use nukes to threaten countries you don't like. No harm done, so far.
-Costick67 (8^P
* The Brits ran into a French tub in the Atlantic. A bit crowded over there.
gals are becoming more like guys no, it's not about hermaphrodites no, it's not about transexuals nor about butch lesbians either
Used to be that a guy would go off to fight the world for a paycheck. He used to lose faith in humanity and then go home, shell-shocked from the stress, and ignore his wife and kids. Read the paper in his underpants, on the back porch. Normality reigned. [pic- daily mail]
He used to smoke and drink too much. Usually, the week after he would retire, he'd die. If he happened to live longer, he'd bitch about how his boss screwed him out of money, his colleagues stole his ideas...blah, blah, blah.
About 50 years ago, after all the emotional and physical abuse from hubby, women thought, 'Gee, I must be missing something out there. It all seems so exciting.' Well, if you like it, I'm here to tell you, you can have it. All of it.
It was as my generation was growing up that this shift was picking up pace, in the workplace. So, I've seen a wide range of female behaviour. You may think that I'm complaining about my maternal unit. Not true. quite the opposite, actually. She's not the reason why I've tried to formulate this theory for 30 years now.
It's about changes in public female behaviour over the years.
It seemed to me that women tended to be more understanding and willing to listen. Perhaps guys, in the places where they work, have used too much emotional blackmail on those women. As a result, women are now more often on the attack than willing to listen. This is particularly bad for women in management. I've often witnessed this female style of management, but it's not the rule; just fairly common. [One of them was even an Ayn Rand fan, and thus up her own butt, but I digress.] Since men have the cultural confidence in management, they're now actually more understanding, because they know that most employees are not stupid enough to actively seek to get fired by being aggressive (or being a bad employee). Women, it seems, lacking this confidence, are more interested in not appearing weak, and so go on the attack, thus alienating otherwise good employees. I find some of the same behaviour from female co-workers. I truly believe that they're covering for their natural openness in an environment which they find threatening. No amount of self-effacing feminist babble on my part seems to calm them down. I try, buuutttt, I won't apologise for being a guy, or castrate myself. Some do the 'guy' act so well that they appear to be colder than the fellas. I've always wondered what kind of pussy-whipped guy would ever want one of those women. It's as if they aren't women at all. They're just one of the guys. For them, I've used the epithet
men-with-tits. Honorary members of the Men-With-Tits Club: Maggie Thatcher (this is a proven fact) Condoleeza Rice (dances like a lesbian) Hillary Clinton (why did Bill wander?)
Birds of a different feather: It seems that there's another brand of modern woman who at work, or in private life, tries to walk around like feminism never happened. They may not be understanding, but they certainly are feminine. Almost too feminine, like 'Dolls'. Not feminine and normally dressed, but feminine and sexually alluring- all day long. No problem there. It just seems that this too is a reaction to modern life. It's as if the only place for femininity is in the seeking of sexual attention*. Again, no problem for me. They get that attention. A strange mix, which I've seen before, is the man-with-tits who may be physically appealling, and actually sexually threatening. The kind of gal who will stand eye-to-eye with you and expect to be hit on, or else she'll check your packet. Exciting! It gets annoying though when they're in a pack of lad-ettes (another modern female archetype), and they've all got fat arses from sitting at a desk all day, and drinking too much beer every night. [the second group is from Australia, where they're affectionately known as bushpigs] They don't like being rejected, especially when they're three-sheets-to-the-wind. Then it's boot-to-the-nuts time for any shy guy within range. I'm afraid that when the dust clears, it'll be (weak) guys vs (tough) girls, which will be a disaster. Maybe that's why many older, shy guys are finding foreign wives. Most other countries around the world, advanced and not, don't have (wo)men-with-tits. Women act like women, and all some of them want is a good husband (I wonder what the divorce rate is). Of course, their female kids will likely become men-with-tits, so this is just a statistical blip. It's one thing to work overseas and find a wife, or find an immigrant in your country. Buttt, mail-order wives are a disgrace in this century. There was a good British film with that as the central plot.
[this movie temporarily cancels my 'ignore Nicole Kidman' policy**]
-Costick67 (8^P notes- * perhaps they're worried that feminists have beaten the crap out of men and that guys need a sexual pick-me-up/ wake-up-call, lest they all go gay. Or maybe they're just desperately looking for a vanishing resource; a civilised yet virile guy (or one with a bottle of viagra), who isn't a wife-beater. ** also Tom Cruise, and Nicolas Cage Copolla ***why do we call young women 'girls'? The age of the infantilisation of adults and sexualisation of children (by advertisers).
Why are lots of normal men hooked on something which pisses alotta women off? as if that question doesn't answer itself.
As I visit strip clubs, I've often thought 'wow, look at us guys, checking out fit, naked women in complete silence...and there's booze!' Heaven. [Actually, the above is the very definition of an academic. When everybody is looking at the chick, he's looking at everybody else's reactions.] On the one hand, we have no power over them, we'll probably never meet them, we can barely formulate a sentence, but we still enjoy... just watching. It's a rather complex issue, and for the first time, a woman actually approaches a normal discussion on the subject (see below). I'll add some ideas in a while. Now, back to the stripping: [Actually, it's burlesque, but still good.]
Actually, the author is trying to get behind the fascade that we guys build up around us, so that nosy women can't figure us out. All that introspective stuff is just bullsh*t, anyway. We don't have feelings or worries. We're tough. We insist, it's just about the sex. Anyway, Shira is about the only woman who doesn't think we're ill, wife-abusing monsters. She actually makes a link to women's lib. Good one!
I will say that women's lib is actually making more men go to strip clubs. We have lost our place in society and we don't know how to be, so we're looking around at the legal and illegal outlets for our.... selves. One of the key ways for a guy to settle down and accept his place in society is just to admit that it's okay to watch a woman peel her clothes off in public (that includes manly self-control).
It's a modern interpretation of the eternal pursuit of sex, or... (by association) the appreciation of the ultimate in titillation by professional titillators, so to speak. Dancing is one of the things that many women love doing (the other is shopping). Of course, if the dancer slinks about to Pink Floyd, she's a coked-out whore. The best in the biz are, of course, Moulin Rouge. [Not Nicole Kidman-she qualifies as contraception].
That's it.
No feelings involved. We don't have any.
I TELL U!
-Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: from Alternet
Huffington Post Shira Tarrant
Rethinking Stripping: So Why Are So Many Men Paying Women to Take off Their Clothes? We need to talk about gender, sexuality, safety, pleasure, earning power, and choice when we discuss sex work. May 20, 2010
Alternet recently published a piece on sex and relationships titled "Should You Try Stripping?"
The "you" in question is specifically female and author Lily Blau's suggestion that parading in the buff empowers women has rightfully ruffled the feminist blogosphere.
These days, says Blau, "sex appeal has attained a status that no other quality shares. So the thought of making money from stripping, especially in these tough economic times, "is increasingly appealing." What sexy girl wouldn't want reassurance that she's hot enough for cash, Blau seems to say. But the real question is not a supply-side issue. It's about the demand.
Yes, women go to strip clubs. We drink beer and eat wings at Hooters. We hire prancing men in Speedos for our bachelorette parties and Cardio Striptease is women's domain at the gym. But the primary market demand for stripping, lap dancing, and other forms of fleshertainment come from men.
So why are so many men paying women to take off their clothes?
This question is sure to elicit a Seth Rogen-esque snicker along the lines of, "Umm ... Cuz they're naked and we saw boobies."
The allegedly more thoughtful among us will argue that men are visual creatures, hardwired to become aroused at the mere site of female flesh. Besides the fact that this doesn't explain women's arousal, or why some men aren't turned on by watching women work a pole, this pseudo-scientific reasoning is just a lame excuse for "boys will be boys." As I explain in my new book, Men and Feminism, this lets men off the hook for their decisions to purchase or rent women's bodies.
In so many circles it's hip to strip. I count my friends among them. But as author and blogger Amanda Marcotte writes, we've got a "hipster culture that plays at men and women being equals, but still makes women tap dance and submit like performing monkeys begging for cookies." Let me add: makes women tap dance naked.
Others suggest that in a capitalist society women are free to choose stripping (or teasing or sucking or fucking) for cash. A simple case of contractual agreement, they might say. Yes, we all make choices. But some choices are more freely made than others. And that still doesn't answer the question why men choose to buy women's bodies and whether it's time for them to stop.
The thing is, this isn't just about stripping. Take away the pole, and we're still left with a host of problems and a crisis in masculinity: A culture that rewards men for being hyperaggressive and punishes those who can't or won't. We have pop culture films like I Love You, Man, which shows men bumbling through authentic interpersonal relationships. There's the Judd Apatow movie model that portrays guys as perpetual kidults who might not ever really grow up. Or Dito Montiel's new flick Fighting that suggests the way hard-bodied men stand tough is by kicking ass.
Yet with tons of mixed messages and no good roadmap, it's still crucial for guys to achieve successful masculinity. Failure is not an option because the stakes are really high.
In her April 2009 New York Times article, "Dude, You've Got Problems," journalist and author, Judith Warner, describes the recent suicides of two young men after being bullied at school, taunted, and called "gay."
The fast route for guys to "prove" they're not gay is to show that they're tough, that they're not weak, that they don't back down -- whether on the playground, the bedroom, or the boardroom. Warner states, "Being called a 'fag,' you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay. It's really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity... It's what being called a 'girl' used to be, a generation or two ago." Though the paradigm is shifting slightly, gender expectations for young boys and men are more heightened than ever.
As author Lindsay Beyerstein comments, "strip clubs are just a symptom of much larger inequities. If they were all eliminated tomorrow, the net effect on women's liberation would be approximately nil. It's not like men would suddenly respect women more." And it's not like men would instantly have masculinity figured out.
The real issue, then, is not whether men keep watching naked women parade around in Lucite heels. The real point is that it's time for men to expand their repertoire, pay attention, and start watching something new. Like their kids growing up. Or our shifting attitudes about gender, work, and home life. Men can head over to YouTube and check Def Jam poet Rafael Casal spit some righteous words about women, men, and relationships. More men can get involved with projects like A Call to Men's National Speak Out, a conference about ending male violence against women.
I'm not willing to tell men -- or anyone else -- to stop watching women strip. I'm not the G-string patrol. I refuse to bed-down with the conservative right. And censorship can only lead to trouble. I'm not going to debate whether women doing sex work is good, bad, sexy, or ugly.
But I am going to insist that we keep asking hardcore questions about men's market demand for female flesh. We need more -- not fewer -- conversations about gender, sexuality, safety, pleasure, earning power, and choice. Because whatever we're watching, it's time we also time to start watching something new. Our culture needs it. http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146918/rethinking_stripping%3A_so_why_are_so_many_men_paying_women_to_take_off_their_clothes?page=entire ---end
Costick67 (8^P
thanks for hanging around through all the verbosity. Now, for some fine American burlesque with Dita von Tease:
This is from San Remo, this year. Ma, che bella!
[you might notice that Dita's youtube videos have the least comments-per-visit ratio ever. If you can a functional sentence write, then not you're enough paying attention her to technique.]
This is a notification for the hedge traders. You know, those guys who've been trying to sink the Euro and the whole union? British, American traders. You guys: Germany's leader is not commiting suicide when she says the Euro is in trouble.
She's just spreading rumours, like you hedgers do. The surprise part is that she's short selling the Euro. And, only she knows when the Euro will start climbing again. That'll be shortly after she cashes in on her short position. Hedge against that if you can!
-Costick67 (8^P
you doubt the fight and cojones of the Germans? checkitout: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/hedge_funds_and_vw_what_a_pile.html
[pic- Walmart board] If, as I see it, bosses are getting/vaccuuming 50-100 times the pay of the front-line staff, then the usual routine of work ceases to make sense.
for example: A certain Mr. Walsh, and the board of British Airways, has been beating up on its staff union. Meanwhile, the company is losing money,
but the board gets 4 million in bonuses, last year.
Any fairness in that? I didn't think so. Are they breaking any laws? Unfortunate, but no. Nor for beating up on the union.
Are employees just a lifeless input to be minimised? Or, are they vital for a company's survival? When it's survival of the fittest, you have to ask these kind of questions.
I've been reading new business theory about how to promote or even demand that employees provide new ideas for the company. Of course, there's no mention of the employee being paid anything. They might get a pat on the back. As you can see, the board is too busytransfering company money to itself for them to be bothered to think about improving things. So, what exactly is it that they do?
Since I was a kid, I've always thought that the Board of a company was little more than a back-slapping club. Many guys are on the board of 10 companies. How the F^&**K do they manage to RUN one company, let alone deal the with conflicts of interest of 10? Maybe the truth is that all they do is sit around, smoking and soaking up money.
"Hey, you want a Cuban cigar?" "here, light it with a 50." I don't even know why they exist, except to suck money. Enough with the bullsh*t!
The point of this article is simple. If an employee has a good idea for an improvement, then that employee should bring in a union lawyer, sit the company down and ask them, legally, what that idea is worth to them. If they don't accept the terms, the idea is sold to the highest bidder, including competitors. How you like them scruples, Chairs of the Bored? Never again should an employee offer any idea to a boss unless that boss can show the appropriate respect.
Worse yet, in these difficult times, Boards are taking the money and running, leaving factories with debts and employees with no jobs. Some see this as workers' last best opportunity. More than ever before, employees are telling the banks to go F^&*k themselves, taking over the factory, and making money. Of course, you typically have to be Latin American in order to pull this off. Anybody else have big enough cojones?
[this is the big one. We do ourselves in, and the chimps take over. C. Heston says "Damn you bankers all to hell!"]
[under construction 2010-2012] The EU is looking to control the hedgers whose tentacles reach out from the City stockbrokerages in London. Like I said below, many times, it seems that the EU has figured out, F^&*KIN' FINALLY, that the UK and US hedgers were aiming to shoot down the whole EU, and not just the Euro. Nothing personal, just business.
New Law Drive to clean up the mess: This clean-up process could take up to two years, and there's gonna be a lot of sanctimonious screeching, in Received Pronunciation, on the tapescript in Brussels. Therefore, I'm really going to enjoy this. I'll follow every step of this process, goddamit, and i'm gonna light a smoke after every session!
[Gimme a lite, over here!]
[pic metro.co.uk newspaper]
STAY TUNED!
-Costick67 (8^P
1 May 18, MMX first vote in the Commission for hedging law change. Passed. Yee-haw! pass the ashtray! "http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/042-74270-127-05-19-907-20100507STO74256-2010-07-05-2010/default_en.htm">http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/042-74270-127-05-19-907-20100507STO74256-2010-07-05-2010/default_en.htm 2 [Addendum] Germany has made a law, in the middle of the night, to outlaw naked short-selling, which, truth be told, was the most ridiculous, illogical and dangerous of the traders' tricks. I'M LIKING THIS! http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/19/german-short-selling-ban -I wonder why this is causing turmoil? Maybe it's the panic of a wolf looking for a new Red Riding Hood, to put it politely. Maybe Germany is trying to force Europe's hand, because the law above could take 2 years to pass, and Britain stands in the way, if they need unanimity [the Conservatives are funded by the bankers in question].
You've all heard that after a certain point, our riches don't make us any happier. In fact, if we spend every day chasing after bucks, we lose the essence of life. Of course, that never stopped anybody in the West from chasing the buck and one-upping the Jones next door. The expression GNH came from the 4th King of Bhutan, who is more interested in the happiness of 'his people' than their production.
Another alternative view on life is that it's just a ride, and that it's not about doing what anybody tells you, and not about 'must do' stuff which cost you money (making others rich) and yet provide you nothing. This is from Bill Hicks. He says 'You think life's real, and maybe it is. But it's a ride, and it's your choice how to ride.
He's mostly against war-mongering, banking, advertising, etc.
or, you could follow the capitalist creed: JUST BUY IT, consumers:
They're ruled by despots and oil hungry companies.
The people are full of radical religion and might take up arms against the infidel.
Oil has brought them money, but also environmental degredation.
Someday, God will save them, insh'alla
This is the Gulf....
the Gulf of Mexico
I'm talking about Louisianna, Texas, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama
And you thought I was talking about the Middle East, didn'tcha?
The despots are the money-hungry politicians, like Bush43, who are destroying environmental laws.
BP is the main oil company in the Gulf. They saved a billion by firing all their safety personnel.
The radical religion is fundamentalist Christianity, with guns. The infidels are the present government, the one that's actually trying to save these people from Bush43 and from themselves. They still might just end up paying the ultimate price. There's no telling what a fanatic with a gun will do.
There are jobs, but there's also one hell of a mess in the Gulf. Anybody got a match? Adios carbon-burning muchachos
From Mejico -Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: from Greg Palast Slick Operator: The BP I've known too well
by Greg Palast for Truthout.org
May 5, 2010
I've seen this movie before. In 1989, I was a fraud investigator hired to dig into the cause of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite Exxon's name on that boat, I found the party most to blame for the destruction was ... British Petroleum. That's important to know, because the way BP caused devastation in Alaska is exactly the way BP is now sliming the entire GulfCoast.
Deepwater Horizon in flames before sinking. Photo provided by D.BecnelTankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn't happen but it does. And when it does, the name of the game is containment. Both in Alaska, when the Exxon Valdez grounded, and in the Gulf over a week ago, when the Deepwater Horizon platform blew, it was British Petroleum that was charged with carrying out the Oil Spill Response Plans ("OSRP") which the company itself drafted and filed with the government.
What's so insane, when I look over that sickening slick moving toward the Delta, is that containing spilled oil is really quite simple and easy. And from my investigation, BP has figured out a very low cost way to prepare for this task: BP lies. BP prevaricates, BP fabricates and BP obfuscates.
That's because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.
To contain a spill, the main thing you need is a lot of rubber, long skirts of it called "boom." Quickly surround a spill or leak or burst, then pump it out into skimmers or disperse it, sink it or burn it. Simple.
But there's one thing about the rubber skirts: you've got to have lots of it at the ready, with crews on standby in helicopters and on containment barges ready to roll. They have to be in place round the clock, all the time, just like a fire department; even when all is operating A-OK. Because rapid response is the key. In Alaska, that was BP's job, as principal owner of the pipeline consortium Alyeska. It is, as well, BP's job in the Gulf, as principal lessee of the deepwater oil concession.
Obama44 tried to hoodwink the American public, by using big mathematical concepts like graphs, about how things are going SOOOoo well in Afghanistan. Let's put this in the form of a school Math problem.
Problem: The president of the U.S. has said that the US army has reduced the momentum of the Taliban. (Of course, they're supposedly after Al Qaiduh, the 'terrorists'.) But, aaaanyway. What does the graph of this statement look like? A) B) C) Answer: A) This is falling. That's the US economy, regardless of what the official economists say. B) Rising like crazy. That's the deficit. C) Si!! See how, at the very top, the graph is starting to tail off? OK. The momentum is reducing. It's still a momentum, though. That's what effect the US imperial army is having on a handful of illiterate, bearded Afghan nationalists, after 10 years.
BULL BEAR The usual market metaphors. They work, if we're talking about capitalism and banking supporting a manufacturing economy. Of course, now we have capitalists running around trying to wreck everything in sight so that they can win their hedged bets. Businesses, countries, Western Stock markets going up and down like a yo-yo Much like fat-boy here, some people are controlling the yo-yo action.
We need some new metaphorical beasts
CHICKEN (Little) Brokers see an advantage in sowing panic in the markets. When idiots panic, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, or screaming 'the sky is falling' The only people who benefit are the traders and all those who can see the chicken run coming, and have a billion on the side. i.e. Sorros, Buffett
OSTRICH Governments willfully close their eyes. They have set loose so many chimeras that circle the planet, trying to find new victims. The IMF The WTO free capital flow globalisation hedging and derivatives. They set them loose thinking 'they ain't gonna get us. they're designed to screw poor foreigners.' Well, while their heads were in the sand, the bastards took the upper hand. Now, we're dancing to their tune.
CHAMELEON Bankers have done their best to such the cash out of the markets without realising that they were doing harm. Fraud usually someone. Now, these same bankers are all economic experts and they seem to think that 'Europe is unsteady' The 'Euro is shaky' The market are in the dumps. This situation exists because of the same bankers actions, past and present. All of a sudden, they're concerned about the national debt of the Western countries. Actually, no. They're shaking things up just to get their commissions up.
HYENA & WILDEBEEST guess which one we are. Who's the hedge market trader? see below
-Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: this is from Alternet, Mark Ames http://www.alternet.org/story/146964/top_billionaire_hedge_funder_sees_himself_as_a_hyena_devouring_wildebeests_
Top Billionaire Hedge Funder Sees Himself As a Hyena Devouring Wildebeests We're ruled over by people who despise us and think of us as prey and themselves as hyenas, busy devouring everything they can. May 21, 2010 |
Ray Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager who makes more money in a single day than most Americans will earn in their entire lifetimes. That’s because hedge funds are the top of the Wall Street food chain — and Dalio runs the largest hedge fund of all, Bridgewater Associates. Life’s good at the top of this food chain: in 2008, a bad year for most Americans, Dalio took home $780 million. That same $780 million could have paid the salaries of about 20,000 teachers — and those 20,000 teachers could have taught about 400,000 American students (using author Les Leopold’s calculations). A lot of people might find this offensive and unjust, but not Dalio—he thinks this is all part of Nature’s Plan, and it just so happens that Nature favors the hedge fund managers: “I believe that self-interest and society’s interests are generally symbiotic [bold--Dalio’s]…That is why how much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted.” So now we know why hedge fund managers are raking in record pay (last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned on average about $1 billion each), while hundreds of thousands of America’s teachers are getting fired all across the country: Nature hates teachers and other do-gooders. Sure, Dalio’s hedge fund is flush thanks in no small part to all the teachers retirement funds that Bridgewater managed to tap—without those teachers pooling their money together, he’d have a lot less to plunder, and society would never even know what a great person he is. To which Dalio would answer, “Be a hyena. Attack the wildebeest.” Did you write that down yet? Because that’s Cruel Reality According to Ray Dalio, a self-described “hyperrealist” and author of a bulky book of maxims leaked recently via the financial blog Dealbreaker. Dalio titled his collection of maxims—some 250 in all-- “Principles” and he makes every Bridgewater employee memorize it. A weighty title like Principles might have you thinking he’s the Descartes of the new millennium. Except that his philosophy comes down to something like this: I [am too rich to] think, therefore I am [a delusional asshole].” Or better yet, “If I’m so rich, then you ain’t smart.” You can read Dalio’s Principles thanks to the folks at Dealbreaker who leaked it last week. Imagine some Ayn Rand geek a few decades later and a few billion dollars richer, and you get Dalio’s Principles, exemplified by his “Be a hyena” maxim: When a pack of hyenas takes down a young wildebeest, is that good or evil? At face value, that might not be “good” because it seems cruel, and the poor wildebeest suffers and dies. Some people might even say that the hyenas are evil. Yet this type of apparently “cruel” behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom. Like death itself, it is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life. It is good for both the hyenas who are operating in their self- interest and the interest of the greater system, including those of the wildebeest, because killing and eating the wildebeest fosters evolution (i.e., the natural process of improvement). In fact, if you changed anything about the way that dynamic works, the overall outcome would be worse. That’s right, America’s largest hedge fund manager sees himself as a hyena, and the rest of us as his wildebeest. As awful as it reads, coming from the mouth of one of the oligarchy’s most powerful barons, it also reveals what an idiot Dalio is. Does he even know anything about the hyena he compares himself to—specifically the spotted hyena, since that’s the only hyena that regularly feasts on wildebeest? Can he handle the truth? Because he’s not going to like it—not unless a macho hedge fund manager like Dalio is into being dominated by bitches. THERE'S MORE IF YOU CAN STOMACH IT
3rd-party-o-phobia (US)- A disease where you won't consider a political party because you want a powerful president and country that will abuse the world.
backscratch fever (comp.noun) The desire of like-minded scumbags to do favours for each other. "You scratch my back (a bribe) & I'll scratch yours (offshoring $)
bank hole (noun)- the black hole vortex caused by derivatives trading which is sucking money out of people's pockets.
Bernanke Bungalow (noun)- a large family car. Suitable for sleeping in when you can't afford rent.
breasts & circumcisions (UK)- Young royals revealing one's nakedness for the entertainment of the plebs (formerly bread & circuses)
cesium the day (express.)- use Fukushima as a chance to go green, or as a chance to lie to your people so that your friends can continue to get rich, polluting the country with nukes
clusterf**k to the poorhouse (expr. J.Stewart)- moving in a large group (dick-in-arse) towards poverty
democracy (n)- rolling 4-year dictatorships & the right to bomb brown people
Dog's Bollocks Lick Law (philosophy)- Definition: because X can. e.g. Why would a formerly pot-smoking president jail people for simply smoking pot? Because he can
e-Z Rider (name)- used for any electric motobike
FCC-my-arse-it's showing (expr.) The FCC is a judge of on-air propriety in the US and it refuses to penalise Fixed News (Fox)
fed-douche-iary duty- The feeling in Central Banks that we are all stupid & willing victims of US fiscal policy.
haven hole (noun)- the place where rich people, banks & main street stores e-mail their money to, so that it goes on a tax-free permanent vacation. For its effect on the home economy, see def. for "bank hole"
holoFIRE (noun)- the complete burning up of the real economy by financial speculators and weak politicians
Ides of Get-the-F$%^k-out- The day in 1990 when PM Thatcher was shown the door by her keepers, er, cabinet
life support- thanks to austerity most of us will end up living on enough handouts to barely keep us alive, for life. Also known as Fascism & Life sentence.
murdoch (verb)- to totally blackmail and corrupt the legislative, judicial and moral structures of a country through control of criminal media news-gathering, thus making yourself an oligarch and un-jailable.
Narse (n)- (insult) a cross between an arse and a narcisist
PapandrIOU (name)- The prime oligarchic family of Greece, which is always is debt. They have perfected the art of using debt as a weapon.
Qualitative Easing (QaulE)- (noun) a lower quality of life caused by bankers and politicians f$^&king around in the markets.
Randy (n)- A follower of Ayn Rand, such as Alan Greenspan. Visible due to their Galt-envy.
Richie (name)- the stereotypical super-rich condescending glutton
Santanista- (noun) the religion and the religious figure of the consumerist cult. Its big celebration is during the winter solstice - Dec.25. Causes people to waste resources, money and time instead of spending time with loved ones, if they exist. Followers known as a Santanists.
sexiopath- (noun) Uses sex to bait a large populace into wanting to perhaps just touch it, thereby causing a spasm during voting. e.g. Sarah Killer-Tamayta Palin
Shadow World (amusement park known as Earth)- includes rides like Shadow Politics (behind closed doors, with Shadow Lobby), Shadow Democracy (Hidden in a soldiers clothing - Iraq, Af-stan), Shadow Media (see Rupert Murdoch/News Int.), Shadow Justice (grabs un-rich people only), Shadow Taxation (see previous), Shadow Economy (see globalisation/stock market- rich bankers vs. lost jobs)
Shat 'n Freud- (schadenfreude) the sexual pleasure gained from crapping on those rich and powerful people who have fallen from or about to fall from grace. It is a foundational right of blogs.
Squidtrix- the life matrix designed by, and for the agrandisement of, the Vampire Squid & his co-conspirators. Also know as Planet Earth. It all ends with Charleton Heston cursing "God damn you all to hell!"
TALF- new Federal Reserve give away to stockbrokers' wives. Also know as Taxpayers Always Love (getting) F^*ked.
to not give a toss (expr. UK)- to not care about sth. etymology of 'toss' (n)- masturbation 'to toss off' (likely). Use: cannot be used in the positive- i.e. I do give a toss about the environment.
to rag on sth/sb (verb)- to mercilessly criticise. etymology of rag (noun): see PMS
TSOL (abbrev.)- Totally shit out of Luck
Costick67 says...
"When you're in a FIRE economy, run for the EXIT"
"Mr. Obama, tear down that Wall Street"
"groin cancels brain."
"Laughter is the last refuge of the sane."
"A (racist) American recently said - 'I was really happy when I heard that Osama was killed, but then I realised,
Obama is the president.'
"the debt ceiling debate in the US is just a Tempest in a Tea Party"
"If you had the chance, wouldn't you also completely screw an entire country's economy? In the name of capitalism?"
"If you were given free reign as the leader of a country for four years, you wouldn't listen to the public either. It comes with the job description."
"How can a political party reform government when most of its ministers are unelected lords-a-creeping." (Labour, 2010)
"If you don't have a lobbyist, you don't benefit from democracy."
"Nobody liked communism but the fear of it in the corridors of power gave us the great 20th c. middle-class miracle we called 'democracy'."
"Politicians cannot always defend themselves from the people they've screwed."
"The more advanced you are, the more you are controlled by the machines that you use and the knowledge you have."
"Better duck for cover before they f%&&k us over."
"Regarding Libyan oil, it's better to Straw, Straw than war, war." (2010)
"Much of what we try to do for our own good ends up being used to beat us over the head."
"Social justice is a wet dream, because while the thought might make you happy, you'll never see it while you're awake."
"U.S.A. is a misnomer. It would require the 'Americans' (i.e. Gringos) to own all of the American continent, and don't think they haven't tried. I vote for the United States of Central North America-U.S.C.N.A." (hats off to M.A. Hoare)
"It's called the TOMB of the UNKNOWN SOLDIER because nobody gives a sh*t. Each body is just a means to an end since warring never seems to end."
working on a creative commons message. Until then, heed the anathema message below
copyright 2008-2014 http://posturenbluster.blogspot.com & http://outnaboutcanuck.blogspot.com & http://teach2educate4rights.blogspot.com/; http://sapiensnature.blogspot.com, http://democracy247.blogspot.com and http://hellas7thcircle.blogspot.com. Reproduction or modification in whole or part without express written permission is prohibited. (I stole this idea from another website)
As a young, impressionable lad, I used to be anti-nukes and anti-war. Now, I simply admit that countries will never give up their nuclear defenses. Okay then, how does the UK defend itself?
[thanks to Greenpeace for the snap]
One day in the near future:
[Hiroshima memorial]
[thanks to Greenpeace for the snap]
One day in the near future:
[Hiroshima memorial]
