Hullabaloo
I thought this was a great paragraph.
...
" These rich bastards are telling people who work hard their whole lives that they have to "sacrifice" their meager public pension to refill the treasury that these same rich bastards have looted --- and which they continue to refuse to help replenish, despite the fact they are still swallowing firehoses full of money. This, after the middle class in this country just suffered the biggest loss of wealth since the Great Depression as a result of these riverboat gamblers playing with the economy like it was their favorite Baccarat table in Monte Carlo. Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe it. Sociopathy is more like it"
...
The tea-baggers are right to be mad. They're just mad at the wrong people.
4.29.2010
4.25.2010
Captured Government
Captured Governmet at BubbleMeter
Yes, he seems to be an example of what he criticizes but this is what we should expect. Those who have captured power and profit in the past will complain about the system when they are thrown out by another group. The people don't really see any change, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I think the reason many Americans see government as ineffective is this recurring process of the capture of regulatory power and then, when the regulator fails to act, the extension of government, not buy fixing the existing system, but by adding additional, inefficient layers to the system. They don't see how this new layer of government will help, and rightfully so, if the first regulator was captured it's only a matter of time before the new one is rendered ineffective. The end result is an ineffective government-corporate system that spawns a new crisis every few years. The Democrats cry for more regulation, the Republicans scream that regulation doesn’t work and the whole crappy process continues.
What is needed is true government reform on a regular basis, a government operating as a business, not a bloated corporation like GM but a hungry, nimble, efficient business. One that reviews itself on a regular basis and adapts as required.
In this most recent case, the SEC (or FED, or someone) didn't do their job. Now is the time to act to build consolidated, efficient and responsible regulator. So we should
- Fire the current management and give the job to people who can handle it.
- Fire dead-beat staff to inspire the remaining staff.
- Review and fix the law so it works.
- Give the new management the power and money to enforce the law.
- Tell the new management that if they don't do the job they'll be fired (or maybe shot).
- Close the smaller competing regulators and give their jobs to the SEC.
- Again, hold everyone responsible.
- Repeat every few years.
This is the kind of “Change” I was looking for when I voted Democrat for the first time in my life.
Yes, he seems to be an example of what he criticizes but this is what we should expect. Those who have captured power and profit in the past will complain about the system when they are thrown out by another group. The people don't really see any change, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I think the reason many Americans see government as ineffective is this recurring process of the capture of regulatory power and then, when the regulator fails to act, the extension of government, not buy fixing the existing system, but by adding additional, inefficient layers to the system. They don't see how this new layer of government will help, and rightfully so, if the first regulator was captured it's only a matter of time before the new one is rendered ineffective. The end result is an ineffective government-corporate system that spawns a new crisis every few years. The Democrats cry for more regulation, the Republicans scream that regulation doesn’t work and the whole crappy process continues.
What is needed is true government reform on a regular basis, a government operating as a business, not a bloated corporation like GM but a hungry, nimble, efficient business. One that reviews itself on a regular basis and adapts as required.
In this most recent case, the SEC (or FED, or someone) didn't do their job. Now is the time to act to build consolidated, efficient and responsible regulator. So we should
- Fire the current management and give the job to people who can handle it.
- Fire dead-beat staff to inspire the remaining staff.
- Review and fix the law so it works.
- Give the new management the power and money to enforce the law.
- Tell the new management that if they don't do the job they'll be fired (or maybe shot).
- Close the smaller competing regulators and give their jobs to the SEC.
- Again, hold everyone responsible.
- Repeat every few years.
This is the kind of “Change” I was looking for when I voted Democrat for the first time in my life.
4.22.2010
The False Religion of Mideast Peace
Here's a pretty pretty good read on middle east peace.
The False Religion of Mideast Peace: And Why I'm No Longer a Believer - By Aaron David Miller | Foreign Policy
Personally, I think the best peace plan is for the US to just get out of the process, tell'em all "we're done, you guys work it out", bring the troops home, stop all aid to the region, apologize for destroying their countries and mucking things up, then focus on our own problems.
The False Religion of Mideast Peace: And Why I'm No Longer a Believer - By Aaron David Miller | Foreign Policy
Personally, I think the best peace plan is for the US to just get out of the process, tell'em all "we're done, you guys work it out", bring the troops home, stop all aid to the region, apologize for destroying their countries and mucking things up, then focus on our own problems.
4.20.2010
Two from Booman Tribune
Two good posts from the Booman Tribune.
A History Lesson for Sarah Palin
I doubt Ms. Palin or her supporters even care about history.
The Case for Peace in the Middle East
A History Lesson for Sarah Palin
I doubt Ms. Palin or her supporters even care about history.
The Case for Peace in the Middle East
4.09.2010
4.01.2010
Why we have elections.
.
This was posted on "No More Mr Nice Blog".
-----
This is similar to something i wrote about the "Stolen Bush-Gore" election found here:
demo-rats-vs-republi-cons
I guess I was wrong about Republicans handling losses better than Democrats. Boths sides are crappy losers but the the Republicans have gone fucking crazy this time. We're almost to the point of settling things with guns and knives. Fox News should be happy,.... an armed revolt will create a lot of news stories.
Anyway,... I think Mr. Hilton's article above is great. The Democrats would be better served to promote this "We Won, We Decide. That's how Elections Work" message than to try to argue against every crazy Republican/Fox News "Outrage of the Week".
This was posted on "No More Mr Nice Blog".
-----
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Here's How It Works, People:
You get to vote in elections (or not vote, but that's your choice). Elections can go either way. Sometimes your candidates win, and sometimes they lose. When your candidates lose, that doesn't mean the results are illegitimate.
The people who do win these elections are then authorized to make decisions on your behalf, even if you didn't vote for them. That authorization continues until they leave office.
Sometimes the winners do things you don't like. The fact that you don't like them doesn't mean those things were done without your consent or representation. You gave your consent when you voted in an election, and you are represented by whoever wins. Unless you didn't vote. In which case, you gave your consent by default.
When this happens, it isn't an abuse of power, or unconstitutional, or tyranny. It's the political system working in an entirely legitimate way. A way you might happen not to like, but the way it was meant to work.
Oh, and by the way? The people do not directly vote on legislation. An opinion poll is not a plebiscite. When Congress passes a bill that a majority of poll respondents oppose, that isn't un-democratic; it's just a different decision about what should be done, by the people whose job it is to make those decisions.
When you claim that any given result of the legislative process is illegitimate just because you don't like it, you de-legitimize the process as a whole. Which you're perfectly free to do, because it's a free country, and people can say stupid things if they want to. But if you do try to de-legitimize the legislative process, you don't get to pretend that the people who designed the process are on your side.
Got that?
posted by Tom Hilton | 11:44 PM Comments (1)The people who do win these elections are then authorized to make decisions on your behalf, even if you didn't vote for them. That authorization continues until they leave office.
Sometimes the winners do things you don't like. The fact that you don't like them doesn't mean those things were done without your consent or representation. You gave your consent when you voted in an election, and you are represented by whoever wins. Unless you didn't vote. In which case, you gave your consent by default.
When this happens, it isn't an abuse of power, or unconstitutional, or tyranny. It's the political system working in an entirely legitimate way. A way you might happen not to like, but the way it was meant to work.
Oh, and by the way? The people do not directly vote on legislation. An opinion poll is not a plebiscite. When Congress passes a bill that a majority of poll respondents oppose, that isn't un-democratic; it's just a different decision about what should be done, by the people whose job it is to make those decisions.
When you claim that any given result of the legislative process is illegitimate just because you don't like it, you de-legitimize the process as a whole. Which you're perfectly free to do, because it's a free country, and people can say stupid things if they want to. But if you do try to de-legitimize the legislative process, you don't get to pretend that the people who designed the process are on your side.
Got that?
-----
This is similar to something i wrote about the "Stolen Bush-Gore" election found here:
demo-rats-vs-republi-cons
I guess I was wrong about Republicans handling losses better than Democrats. Boths sides are crappy losers but the the Republicans have gone fucking crazy this time. We're almost to the point of settling things with guns and knives. Fox News should be happy,.... an armed revolt will create a lot of news stories.
Anyway,... I think Mr. Hilton's article above is great. The Democrats would be better served to promote this "We Won, We Decide. That's how Elections Work" message than to try to argue against every crazy Republican/Fox News "Outrage of the Week".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)