Monday, December 17, 2007

The Rationality of Rational Irrationality

In the wake of the NIE concerning Iran's nuclear weapons plan the speculation has been arroused concerning the history, success and future of our foriegn policy visa vie Iran. So just for a lark let's summarize our Iran policy and see what we can make of it:

A statement:
As rational actors, the United States and its allies, trying to curtail the threat from an irrational actor, Iran; we must act irrationally to force them to act rationally.

Let that sink in.

Here's how I come that that conclusion.

1) The United States, et al. are rational actors:
The United States are rational actors, because we are for freedom. Since we have a positive freedom agenda we are also for Democracy. These are not two sepparate argumentative statements, because we propose that given freedom democracy always follows. And because democracy is proposed to be the only rational form of government and we are promoting democracy via our pro-Freedom agenda, we must be rational.

2) Iran is an irrational actor.
Iran desires a nuclear weapon so they may attack sovriegn nations without provocation and without regard for the consequences. This desire is irrational, ergo Iran is an irrational actor.

3) The United States must act irrationally
The attack of Iraq was not the result of a direct provocation or threat to the United States and was therefore irrational.

4) Iran will react rationally to an irrational act.
The United State's irrational invation of Iraq is what caused Iran to rationally evaluate their desire for a nuclear weapon and therefore cease their program.

We'll flesh this out more later.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

John Edwards

Hillary will not be the POTUS.

Barack will not be the POTUS.

If John Edwards is not the democratic candiate for President of the United States, in 2009 we will swear in to office a pro-theocratic phsychopath.

I just want to go on record with this prediction.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007


The mortgage industry is bigger than the construction industry. If the mortgage industry is actualized around the profitability of interest based lending and fees for providing lending services, how in terms of annual revenue, is the interest based lending market larger than the construction market?

Let's say a house is built for 100k and sells for 150k.
Some of the 50k goes to the builder.
Some goes to the real estate agent.
None of this 50k goes to the lender, in fact the lender buys the house. A mortgage is actually a rent-to-own system, where the lender buys the house and you're allowed to live in it provided you pay off the 150k plus some interest to make this worth the lenders time.

Now there are two "products" floating around, both of them owned by the lender. A tangible asset, the house, and a "collateralized debt instrument", the interest expected to be paid on the loan.

Now, how many times have you heard anyone mention the house in discussions of the credit crissis? Never. We only discuss the agreement to pay interest on a loan, meanwhile thousands upon thousands of tangible assets sit there collecting dust, because the lender makes way more money on the fees involved in mortaged lending and even more in "bundling" mortgages as investment vehicles for people who have nothing to do with the tangible asset.

What's happened to the houses? Are the prices comign down so the pool of potential buyers could increase, or rather so the people who bought them when they couldn't afford them now can afford them? No, becuase the neo-conservative free market has nothing to do with buyers of products, producers of products or even servers of services, it has to do with rubbing money up against money and producing more money.

The result being the pyramid scam that our global system has become.

Friday, November 30, 2007


H.R. 1955 The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Act.

Keep your eyes on this one. This bill will be moving to the Senate soon and the debate will either be non-existant or scary as hell.


The Pentagon is claiming that the enlistment and re-enlistmen bonus revokation letters that were mailed out a week or two ago are not Defence Department policy. They are claiming that this is a beurocratic or possibly a computer snafu and that no bonuses will be recalled in part or whole. See also the post at VA, a non-partisan Vet's rights site

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The Most Awesomely Perfect Death by Cop Move Ever

The pentagon couldn't get people to sign up to go to Iraq because, well, the obvious reasons. So they offered "enlistment bonuses" of up to $30,000. Now they're asking soldiers who were injured in Iraq to return pro-rated portions of thier bonuses, because they left the military earlier than planned...because they were the military. It's right wing poetry. Absolute genius.

It's got to be more death by cop, right? I mean, this is exactly the kind of horse crap that's so egregious, so outrageous, that it has to be another desperate "please stop me before I kill again" plea?...Right?

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Quotes of the day-

But not this day.

"the politics of excluded alternatives" -Walter Dean Burnham

"downsized politics"- Jim Hightower

Some Names to Remember


The Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (1994)


Investment Company Act (1940)

Sherman Act (1890)

Monday, November 5, 2007

Iran Should be Attacked Because...

The march toward an attack of Iran has been growing as of late, seems that the increase in the volume of this meme seems tied to electioneering more than rational discussions of policy and international law. None the less why are the proponents saying we should attack and are these reasons true or valid.

1) they are trying to get the bomb

2) they support the killing of GI's in Iraq

3) they are state sponsors of terrorism.

I've decided not to waste time with the argumentation and or debunki-fying, let's end with this:

1) dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary only to further US economic interests, not to end the war

2) Saddam Hussein accepted an offer of exile from the US before the invation which was denied by the Arab League, not the US

3) Iran helped overthrow the Taliban in 2002.

Friday, October 26, 2007

The 9 Most Terrifying Words

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."-Ronald Reagan.

I like that conservatives like to think about the government as some
"other". It's this thing separate from us over there that we compare
ourselves against. It's like a tacit admission that our constitutional
republic is just a democratic kabuki intended to veil a dense
tapestry of statutory bribery. To develop an ideology which allows an
individual to run for office under the banner of "the government is

The whole "government bad" component of conservative mythology is one
of those grand unifying structural elements I think is so fascinating
about the contemporary Republicanism. The whole thing is like an
incredible rhizome composed of competing information packets that
is truly miraculous in both complexity and success. Complexity in that
it requires a re-engineering of traditionally accepted American
cultural, political and economic norms that would have been
unimaginable before the proliferation of the Chicago School philosophy
but which can only maintain its structural integrity through something
like "the government is bad". Success in that it can maintain
political power by consistently performing the most fantastical
rhetorical gymnastics in order to sculpt a functional coalition out
of the religious right and the capital class...amazing.

It's like the democratic party isn't even participating in the same
discipline or they're trying to play the same sport but the
Republicans are the Yankees and the democrats just got thier first
mitt. The skill with which the republicans can craft thier message, no
matter what is at the core of the message is enviable to say the
least. I'm deadly serious when I say the contemporary Republican party
is a work of pure genius, a revelation of applied science no less
significant than relativity or the discovery of dna.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

The Free Market

This article describes why the greed works philosophy of free marketeers is fraudulent at best.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Illegal Imigration

In reference to an email that's going around about Illegal Imigrants:

Is there another way to become an American citizen? Seriously, can you become an American citizen "the new fashion way...illegally and outside the system"? Can you do that in Norway? in, dare I say the "F" word...France? Those socialist countries must be so inefficient, and burdened by red tape, that they can't possibly control who works with and without documentation.

I can't stress this enough: We do not have an illegal immigration program, we have an illegal employment program. For all the rhetoric that surrounds the mass delusion implicit in the Chicago school, the hypocrisy of the trickle down of benefits, trickle up of responsibility is perhaps the most ironic and socially destructive. Give the owners of capital economic benefits that ensure growth of their population remains static and shift the risk to the owners of the means of production. Tax breaks to the investor class, cut social programs for the CHILDREN of the poor. The goal of this ideology is not capitalism in the broad meaning of the term in western vernacular, it is feudalism.

Illegal immigrants do not file for benefits.
They pay fica and payroll but DO NOT take advantage of the rest of the government services, because they would have to produce documentation, which, by the nature of their "illegal" status they do not have. Therefore, if they qualified for the EITC they could not possibly be illegal. This is a neat little trick the right has picked up on: " Illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes". Well, neither does the working poor... but they are taxed. They are taxed when they buy "cell phones" and clothing for thier dozens of children. They pay property tax which is included in their rent, which is inflated because, while the landlord isn't going to rat them out to INS, he is going to charge them more not to check any references or id's. By the way, since we long ago decided to screw the poor with our educational funding system, this is how they pay for thier childrens education, through property tax.

The great risk shift
If "illegal" immigrants are still getting paid 5 or 6 dollars an hour there are no less than 3 criminal acts taking place, and only one is at the level of the worker, the other two by the employer. The undocumented worker is committing a misdemeanor by working without a visa but the employer is committing a felony by employing that undocumented worker and not paying the new minimum wage. But it would be bad for business to opperate this way.

Is the invisible hand at work or not?
If free marketeers and global economists are so sure about the ability of the market to solve any problem...then there is no problem. What illegal immigration problem? American employers who hire "illegals" are simply freeing trapped value from an under performing asset.This is the market at work, lower priced labor has out competed the higher priced, and therefore, inefficient American worker.

Of course none of this matters. Try to unionize or collectively bargain and we'll call INS. try to sue me for not paying you the minimum wage, we'll call INS. take a lunch break and we'll call INS. Resperartor? Resperator?!?! You'll breath fumes and you'll like it...or I'll call INS.

The supply side that the neo-liberal economic dogma preaches seems to disregard the fact that the supplied commodity in this stupid, unbelievably, retarded debate, is jobs, ergo the responsible party should be the supplier/employer, who keeps hiring illegal immigrants. You like efficiency? Then arrest the 1 employer who hires 100 illegals. BAM you just cut your prospective tax burden for this "problem"down to 1% of projected expenses. Now, there's "your tax dollars at work."

The contemporary conservative movement is a joke. Seriously, it has to be an ellaborate fraternity prank gone awry. It is now a loose patchwork of the very, very greedy and the very, very stupid. And it's a marriage made in heaven. If the Republican Party were to stay at the Hotel Illegal Immigrant for a long weekend, you know just some us time, to get away from the kids, it would come for the cheap labor, but stay for the ignorant xenophobia and hate speach.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Death by Cop

There is a phenomenon known in law enforcement circles as death by cop, where an individual wishing to commit suicide, but not to self inflict damage, with engage the police in such a way that they are required to use deadly force.

Key members of the Republican Party may be engaged in this act in a political manner. That is to say, they have seen the possibly irreperable damage the neo-conservative movement has done to the Republican Party, The United States and the international community in place of employing that age old method of redemption: appologizing for thier mistakes; they have chosen to up the dosage of conservativism they inflict on the world in the hopes that some couragous Democrat may finally call them out, and begin an unraveling of the neo-conservative experiment.

So far though, these devious few Republicans are still brandishing thier metaphoric weapons and shouting into a disinterested night.

The New 1% Doctrine

What are the odds that given the opportunity Dick Cheney will invade Iran?

Is it 50/50? Is it 5%? There may only be 1 chance in 100 but even then, this slimest of possibilities requires his removal from office.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007


Can a police officer be held criminally responsible for not stopping a crime if it were within his power to do so? And who would charge him?

Can the justice department charge congress or members of congress with deriliction of duty for not investigating the justice department for deriliction of duty?

Let's say the president has admited to criminal acts, for instance breaking the FISA law, and congress does not draft articles of impeachment, can the whole body be charged with commiting a crime of either deriliction or abetting?

Would not the ultimate cosmic retribution for the Democrat's cowardace to be found criminally liable by those they were too fearful of charging themselves.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Uh, Google, WTF?

WARNING: Non-critical colloquialized logic content ahead.

What is it about my content that makes Google think the "Are you gay? Take the online test" ad is appropriate for my readership? Is it my consistent use of the topic labels "Republican" or "Rove"? Is it the repeated questioning of the rite ( that's not a typo ) of executive privledge? I haven't even mentioned the Republican penchant for playing dress-up.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Equal Opportunity...

It's long been my opinion that both major American political parties are populated by narcisists with borderline sociopathic tendencies and useful idiots (to borrow a term from the bolsheviks) who are controlled by powerful and, sometimes, evil men collectively forming a political class hell bent on personal glorification over the promotion of the American republican ideal. During the Bush 43 administration I ( and I would imagine many other anti-establishmentarians) briefly turned pro-Democrat as a reflexive response to the abject corruption AND incompetance of the current manifestation of the Republication party. One could applaud the Bush II administration for achieving excellence in corruption and launching a new level of corruption simultaneously, but I digress.

The main stream media's recent overt promotion of two closet corporatist Democrats (Clinton and Obama) over genuine progressives (Kucinich and possibly Edwards) has forced me to re-examine my positions and so while doing some research for the PLF I came accross the quotes I link to below.

I now officially return to my traditional belief system, proposing that the (R)'s and (D)'s are equally reprehensible, with the caveat that the Bush administration is neither (R) or conservative in any intellectually consistent sense. They should more likely be described as an unholy union of dominionists and neo-feudalists and therefore I plan to continue my unabashed criticism thereof.


The House of Cards...

A bit off topic, but exciting nonetheless: The closer you get to Rove the closer you get to indictment.

What is the PLF?

There is an insidious undercurrent in contemporary conservativism that manifests itself in daily e-mails. Despite the popular view that FOX, The Washington Post, etc. are the key distributors of conservative talking points, they, and media outlets like them are actually only billboards for the immediate manifestation of the Republican party. The truely dangerous messages get passed around at the grass roots level of the conservative diaspora, and gain thier popularity and credibility through the perception of thier origin in the populace.

We all get emails from conservative friends, co-workers, relatives, etc., and I know my standard response is, in this order: skim, get angry, start a response, decide responding would be fruitless, and go get some coffee. But perhaps instead of passing on the response to the sender we can come together and disect these e-epistles that get passed around, and see where the right goes wrong at the grassroots level. The big boys, Air America, Move On, they've got Fox covered.

So here the Peoples Liberation Frontpage is dedicated to an attempt at critical analysis of these emails. I will not be publishing the names or accounts of the orignators, but I do welcome submissions of conservative emails for disection.