More Lessons in Propaganda from the NYT: The Great Divide Phantasm.

We can always rely on the New York Times, aka the Old Gray Lady, to instruct us on some of the finer elements in elementary propaganda. The quality varies from writer to writer in this ragzine, but Paul Krugman seems to best follow the old rusty groove demanded by the far leftist political stance of this so-called news paper. The NYT is a propaganda rag—not a ‘news’ paper. Proof follows.

In our current lesson, we look at a middle-grade structured piece of misinformation. Krugman has done better in the past, so we give him a B^- for this one.

In the title we read there is some Great Divide[1]. This is the conclusion being stated up front in classic circular logic format. The usual method is to start with your conclusion and make an outline of whatever is necessary to support the premise and then fill in the blanks at random  like a chum chucker feeds the fish. The reader is now to be rewarded with a detailed and maudlin explanation of just how this obvious divide will affect the world. Next we look for a political lever to pull that amplifies the conclusion in the title and we find:

“Yesterday The Times published a highly informative chart laying out the positions of the presidential candidates on major issues. It was, I’d argue, a useful reality check for those who believe that the next president can somehow usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.”

Now, we have a definitive reference that will serve as some kind of reality filter to identify who can work with “bipartisan cooperation.” Recall that Nancy Pelosi refused to let Republicans even see much of her legislation in her ‘first 100 days.” That stance is actually an acceptable form of bipartisanism in the leftist or radical[2] lexicon. Why are we surprised to learn that liberals celebrate dictators like Castro[3], Kim, Chavez[4] and Ortega? Such a work is known as an apologia.

Next, the reading of this exciting ‘reference’ shows that the Republicans want to continue the War on Terrorism in Iraq while the Democrats want out with failure or whatever as a consequence as they did in Viet Nam and focus on higher taxes, more and free health care[5],even higher taxes,  and the environment,  which may be conveniently translated as the Global Warming Follies[6],[7].

We now have the players in two distinct camps and there can be no other choice but to vote for a Democrat!  This is explained as:

“Because the G.O.P. is still controlled by a conservative movement that does not tolerate deviations from tax-cutting[8], free-market, greed-is-good orthodoxy.”

Nazification of the opposition is great politics in the radical camp and we see this crude smear used frequently in the construction of such propaganda pieces at the NYT. The opposition is intolerant. We can translate this as follows: the lefties are not part of the major corporate world, the World Trade Organization, have only half of Congress at best, nothing in the White House are short a vote or two in the Supreme Court and have no say so in the War in Iraq, so we have to grunt and grab some power!

The last string of accusations from the quote above [highlighted in red in honor of Lenin] can be translated as: the left cannot survive without massive taxes and really have no regard for the growth that tax cuts offer and profits are unnecessary to run a fine society like the USSR or Cuba. Vote against Republicans at all cost.  Depression, political unrest, revolution and such are just fine with the left.

While the choice for any future elected person in the US is thusly limited to very few liberal Democrats, the author of this piece does mention the person who is least likely to win the national election. Mike Huckabee is viewed by the NYT as some kind of side-show religious freak that will alienate all Democrats and most moderates and become the Republican reincarnation of George McGovern. He will lose so Hillary or Obama can win. Edwards is a joke from the last round.

Now, the prior favorite of the NYT is shown in a strong brown light with this fluff:

“But Mr. McCain now says that he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Not only that: he’s become a convert to crude supply-side economics, claiming that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. That’s an assertion even Bush administration officials concede is false.”

The worm has turned! And he was John Kerry’s[9] pick for VP too! Traitor!

This is also a lie and, as such, is perfectly acceptable to the NYT[10]. The truth is relative in leftist speak and has little to do with the facts. There are no persons in the Bush groups or associated conservatives who are adept in economics that can deny that tax cuts do not spur revenues[11]. Remember Jimmy Carter? Krugman, a self-professed economist in his own mind, but not supported by his views, has probably never viewed the S&P 500 chart[12] since Ronald Reagan came into office and cut taxes spurred sustained growth. He cannot tolerate a guileless dialogue about tax cuts or the marginal propensity to save [MPS], the basis of investment in America. This is merely the old stale mantra known as the Eternal Whine of the Tax Whores[13] or the tautological moans of the Tax Hike Zombie[14], the author of this piece. The criminals in the Clinton and Gore camps are not criticized.[15] Liberalism is based on many faults[16] and lies structure the most  important part of this organization.

The Tax Hike Zombie ends the article with a surprising accurate conclusion:

“On economics, and on much else, there is no common ground between the parties.”

“There’s a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway, that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems”

Those parts are actually correct. Sometimes, Paul does get something about right. But he did slip in some notions about good will and that ruined the thrust.

Missing from this elementary specimen of propaganda fluff are comments on racism, drug addiction, more ‘education,’ illegal aliens, terrorism[17],[18], diplomacy[19] or oil prices. Racism is the absolute bottom line of the Marxist propaganda machine that the NYT is based upon. They must have that precious voting edge in cities or their influence evaporates. The Walter Duranty Papers erred by several omissions in this particular issue.[20] They must try harder.

It is important to keep abreast of the mundane aspects of propaganda writings because the NYT might become even more frustrated and break into new political avenues.  Stay tuned.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Why You Should Hug a Commie [or a liberal] Today.

We must conjecture at the entertaining antics of the far left as they sort out their proclivities and process their plans for the future. Much of the time there is seemingly no apparent pedestal of reason that directs their actions or explains their howls. We must also note that their political past has, in their own minds, been erased, ruthlessly redacted or never happened. The evil past of their enemies, much to the contrary and the focus of much of their attention,  is sorted and explained  by the leftist  elites and truncated without too much regard to the stark truth save for being recycled  in packages to provide ammunition for their constant artillery barrage against Fortress Capitalism.

Reading David Horowitz’s book The Politics of Bad Faith[1], and others, we find that the left is actually divided into two portions: the leftists and the radicals. The compleat understanding of these two groups soars beyond the scope of this essay as it is complicated as some players apparently toggle their political banners in a fog of ignorance and mangle their directives.  We must study Eric Hoffer a bit and sift through his True Believers[2] to assemble parts of their mental composition for a decent view. In addition, we need to analyze their past efforts in trying to constantly attack capitalist leaders such as Ronald Reagan as recorded in Reagan’s War[3], as he became the principle target of their actions since he was an anti-Communist. They became anti-anti-Communists. For other sources we need to review the Demonization of Senator Joe McCarthy as his is one of the few success stories in their long battle to defend Communist, and worse. Works by Whittaker Chambers (Witness) offer an insight into policy matters and those who suborn spying against the United States. The execution of the Rosenbergs, Julius [code name Liberal!] and Ethyl, is also a matter that requires some in-depth study as well as the story of how the Stalinist Lillian Hellman slithered out of danger during the hunt for Communists and spies in our system. They were paid spies although the leftists cannot seem to acknowledge this fact. Ann Coulter’s book Treason[4] explains much of this. The deciphered VENONA[5] Files give many details as to their spy works and payments in cash from the USSR for their traitorous deeds.

The remaining factor here in any attempt to understand the leftists and radicals of the Party of Democrats is to analyze their economic and social failures and attempt to synthesize some coherent explanation of how a party  controlled by losers could survive in the most successful capitalist and religions country in the world. The answer to this is relatively simple.

We can begin with their own celebrated icons, track their progress in politics, war, famine and ultimate failure and then try to fit them into some kind of framework. We start with the alcoholic blowhard Karl Marx and his phony economics. Here, he tried everything he could to remove profits from all capitalist systems and place the ‘workers’ in charge of all means of production. This meant outlawing private property and using the government to control society in terms of transportation, education, the media, agriculture, steel production and everything else. This scheme fails on two accounts: [1] the law of supply and demand is warped so that a surety of surplus or scarcity is guaranteed and [2] government people make economic decisions although they rarely have any talent for doing so. As such, the populace must endure hardships, shortages and have no incentive for good work. No problem for liberals here. That model is just fine with them.

Lenin warped Marx’s strict revolutionary rules and was an opportunist who used murder and vengeance to grab control of a backward agrarian country headed by a hated monarch. Trotsky noted that Marxian revolutions were supposed to occur, spontaneously, in highly industrialized nations via the revolution of the proletariat. This did not happen. There was an early prospect for this in Munich by Rosa Luxemburg in 1919, but the socialist anti-communists wrecked this attempt. Later Mussolini and much later Hitler and then Franco put an end to Bolshevism in Europe. Fascism halted the vaunted rise of Bolshevism and their leaders became symbols of hate, the basis for the anti-Communist propaganda efforts ever since.  Those three ruined a lot of leftist dreams. Asia fell later with disastrous economic results. The Great Leap Backward of the People’s Republic was as much a failure as the 74 years of Communism in the USSR. The liberals took these events as self-inflicted giving Ronald Reagan no credits and went calmly into environmentalism. They became the EcoNazis of today.

So, much of what we can sift from the torturous histories of the brutal social wreckage of the far left is based partly on a warped theory of government, part on those leaders, socialist or capitalist (Hitler and Mussolini were strict socialists and Reagan was a strict capitalist) as it may be and the need to grab power via taxation and governmental control. Their revolutions were successful only in the limited sense that they did grunt and grab massive quantities of wealth but squandered this immediately in naïve economic projects such as excessive iron production

We cannot assemble a workable description of the left that liberals and their political allies by assuming that the leftists and radicals are mere drooling idiots whose sincerity can be estimated my measuring the thickness of the encrusted slobber on their shoes, although many of their lesser cadres fit this description.  We cannot assume they are stupid or epsilon semi-morons or even mentally impaired in any form although drug addiction seems to indicate otherwise in a few cases. A way must be found to show their contentment with economic failure to explain how they operate. That way is outlined below.

The way is actually simple: they cannot win economically and do not want to! A review of history shows that the simple act of grabbing power and wealth and fomenting a revolution is the satisfying part of their collective nature. If one of their revolutionary projects crashes they merely pick another place where money is concentrated in the hands of a few and start all over again. How can they run out of projects? Thus, capitalism subsidizes Marxism by default. They have actually assumed more power from depression and war than from any other source.  Recall that war defines peace. They have been moderately successful in taxing the United States and sending bits of money to their Marxist allies over the earth, but this is small potatoes in the economic game as the United States has an annual GDP of 17 trillion dollars and a new worth of some 300 trillion dollars.  To this we have to add that failure is no barrier to their implementing more and more exotic tax machines and wasting huge piles of  money with useless and counterproductive ‘education’ projects and phony social programs. This is their definition of winning.  Thus, they lose to lose and cannot win.

Their goals are more tuned to absolute power acquisition and the jamming of free markets and restraining standard capitalism than in redeeming social projects. Africa is a great test case for liberalism and for  their ‘education’ and such as every Marxist banana republic in Africa has crashed in tribal  bloodshed and a hurried flight of capital leaving disease , poverty and revolutionary armies hunting each other in the bush as a result. The current list of so-called ‘leaders’ in their party include treasonous persons such as John Murtha, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Jesse Jackson, and others. They include phony academics with bizarre and contorted adaptations of anti-capitalist economic plans such as those offered by J. Kenneth Galbraith, the Tax Hike Zombie Paul Krugman[6] of the New York Times and howling racists who accuse others of racism such as Al Sharpton, Quannel X[7], Senator Schumer, Senator Al Gore[8] and Senator Byrd or the alcoholic murderer and parasite Senator Ted Kennedy, a person from a clan where it is difficult to find someone who is not accurately described by at least two items from the following list: murderer, liar, alcoholic, drug addict, pervert, criminal, convict, felon, cheap thug or playboy.

The use of a criminal, drug addict, hypocrite or other form of loser for a national spokesperson is useful for the left. We can wonder for hours how a liar, flip-flop artist, traitor, blowhard and phony soldier like John Kerry[9] can be a leader of a national political movement when he got three purple hearts from three drops of blood, was discharged early (no explanation for this was given) and worked against the United States in France by consorting with the enemy from North Viet Nam. Conservative talk show hosts frequently pose the simple question to the far left: Do you want the US to win the war in Iraq?? There is never a firm yes .There is always foraging for some excuse to say that they ‘support the troops’ and then the ‘but’ and then silence. The fact is that they are very willing to sacrifice our soldiers and military in any way they can, such as John Kerry voting against virtually every weapons program since he was elected. He still ran on his ‘war record.’ Such a phony coward and liar is quite suitable for leadership in leftist politics.

So, to wrap up this essay and answer the questions proffered above: The far left of the Party of Democrats have no intention of maintaining a viable economic society here or any place else. There is always more money to loot from others. The left cannot generate funds while operating in the capitalist mode and fume when others do so. Their solution to capitalism is always higher and higher taxes[10] as Jimmy Carter showed us with his malaise era. Much of our current prosperity is based on the Reagan Tax Cuts. They cannot bring themselves to sanction any form of tax cut. They prefer poverty to private property ownership and severe supervision of all citizens. They demand to judge and supply all human wants from specifying exact toilet flush volumes to the Internet. Their goal is only to destroy our system and redistribute the wealth in a phony Marxian way although many of their elites will become even richer from the plunder. Leon Trotsky predicted this. You can be a criminal, a pervert, a liar and thieves like the Clintons (or their stooges[11]) and get rave reviews from those who ignore their crimes for political reasons.

The left are losers who want others to lose with them.  Fortunately, they have not had much control of our society since 1900 except for FDR. They have lost much and deserve a good hug for being such losers. If they were competent we would have had our society destroyed by 1920 in a wave of Bolshevism. For being blundering idiots or a close approximation of same we need to give them a second hug and salute them with:” Thank you so much for buggering your own plans and projects and ruining your future. We look forward to more dim-witted mistakes in the future as we build on our 401(k)s and build more homes and businesses and enjoy the fruits of capitalism.  Thank Stalin, Mao, and a cluster of Marxist loons in Africa and give a special thanks to Castro too for his fine work in destroying economic competition for us.”  They need to sanction the illegal ‘import’ of uneducated and frequently criminal ‘workers[12]’ from Mexico or other worthless countries to stuff ballot boxes and burden the health care system. Somehow they think the ‘future’ of American must hinge precipitously on the need for uneducated labor.  It is the illegal votes that they desperately need to survive. They demand to enlist the votes of other losers.

And, their next plot is to tax capitalism around the globe[13] in a feverish effort to stop the nonexistent rise of the earth’s surface temperature in the Global Warming Follies[14]. No Lenin ever had a plan that huge. They want it all this time around.

It is obvious that they are not suitable in any form of government. They are so inept they cannot even be good Communists.  They need simple monotonous tasks to keep them busy such as sweeping the streets or harvesting corn. Vote accordingly.

rycK

Quack Science, Global Warming and the Wild Flight from Reason: Is Al Gore our New Lysenko?

If we review the history of human conduct, we can identify a series of hoaxes that, although phony, served to secure money and power for the hucksters who hatched them. Hoaxes work best when the public has no detailed knowledge of the scam.

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com, aka the junkman, has debunked many phony ‘scientific’ scams in the past and lists a series of phony science articles, fraud and such on his website. We all are aware of the history of the flat earth loonies, Cool-aid drinkers in the jungle, snake charmers in the Nevada desert, doomsday drones, nuclear winter freaks, Tim Leary’s LSD toadies and other lunatics who spread fear and frenzy with reckless abandon in search of fame or money. This list is endless.

How do these farces succeed in light of ‘education’ and scrutiny from knowledgeable watch dogs? The answer to this is motive: It is not necessary for any intrinsic ‘truth’ or any elements of veracity to be associated with a good hoax if enough willing true believers are willing to celebrate the promised disaster. We would suppose that if many of these schemes could be exposed as such that reasonable people would reject the wild claims. We note that the Coney Island Effect works because people know that the freak shows are mostly counterfeit, but enjoy the entertainment. They understand that the ‘freaks’ on the Island are actually skilled performers and some actually do swallow swords or have hundreds of tattoos on their bodies. The same philosophy may be used for magic shows as all ticket buyers know that magicians are not real wizards or warlocks or even remotely associated with the dark arts. Truth is not an essential factor here.

Clearly, education or even knowledge is not the central factor in many cases of successful frauds. In the current Global Warming frenzy, we can return to the education theorem above since the consensus of the phenomenon is formed by well-educated scientists with advanced degrees and prestigious chairs in famous universities. In science, data may be collected, analyzed and a hypothesis proffered that is conditional upon future modifications and new research  and the hypothesis remains fluid until a law is discovered or precise experiments have verified the result. The observations must always fit the theory or the theory is defective. Eric Hoffer warned us about the insanity of mass movements and the individuals who populate these peculiar groups.[1] He showed that frustration with the status quo was the prime mover for people to buy into such follies. Can we ask if the far left are frustrated with the current state of politics in the US? Nancy Pelosi is not frustrated? Hillary and John Kerry are calm?

In a previous blog, I[2] reviewed the hypothetical difference between science and politics.[3] Clearly, scientists ought to rise above the usual emotional defects that define the average rabid political agitator or activist. But, this is not the case. We have only to review certain celebrated scientific icons such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring [4] in which one of her chapters reads like a Lillian Hellman play and was entitled:  “A Fable for Tomorrow” that outlined how “life had been silenced” by the pesticide DDT. Or we could mention Margaret Mead’s crass political stunt[5] in the infamous and phony Coming of Age in Samoa replete with maudlin theater and ‘definitive’ research that was limited to an interview from a single couple. We must note that these two pieces of phony science are still celebrated by many so-called scientists in the best traditions of Lysenko. There is no science in these two examples, but science is implied and the correct political message is loudly touted. That is enough for a political crusade.

Clearly, we cannot accuse many scientists of adhering to the mandatory scientific method or even limited quantities of reason in the Rachel Carson and Margaret Mead cases and we find this same disease inherent in the Global Warming Farce. We can excuse the politicians for not having a sufficiently effective cluster of neurons to inspect the details and hard data from the ‘research papers’ and such. They grope for support and never reject and ally. Many of us depend on the ignorance and arrogance of politicians for voting recommendations.  We can thank many politicians for that.

We read:

“Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.” [6] 

Now, we reach the outer barrier of science where politics becomes the grand overlord of reason: How many authentic scientists can buy into a theory when 400 other scientists are in firm disagreement? Isn’t this the point where this status of ‘fact’ is now subject to suspicion and more research is needed to clarity the current situation? Some apparently treat this political exercise as a settled law of physics. How many of us can accept the use of tree rings to correct thermometer readings? No, it is done deal.

The reason for the partition among the scientific community is based on the formation of two platoons: one waves the political flag and the other calmly demands good science. We can also note that verbal abuse, political pressure and such are hurled against those who do not blindly accept this notion and we must wonder how many other authentic scientists have been shouted down and intimidated into silence. We can now safely state the facts: many scientists place political goals over the basics of science. This is essentially Lysenkoism [7] where some necessary political outcome is predicted by warped (or nonexistent) science. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was celebrated as a hero by the Soviets as he promised to force wheat to grow in the spring and thus, miraculously, create huge crop yields. He did this by trashing proven genetics. This crop enhancement project failed.  Lysenko had no basis in science for his wild claims and became a state-sponsored propagandist while the authentic and verified science of genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"[8] The failure of the promised crop increases did not negatively affect the politics of the time.

Can we learn from this?? Is Al Gore our new Lysenko??  Neither were ever (or are) accused of being  scientists; they were both political animals.  Many colleagues who disagreed with Lysenko were arrested or removed from their academic chairs. Can we now wonder if Global Warming is a Marxist or far-leftist  pseudoscience? How many scientists in the world are in jeopardy for not celebrating this political action? It seems many have had their names listed on letters and reports against their knowledge or will. Is this science or politics? Silence, apparently, is not acceptable to this massive poltical movement.

If this farce proceeds, it will become the biggest tax-whoring movement in history exceeding the most expensive projected variants of HillaryCare. Many in third world are excited about getting money for the mere believe in this stuff. Can we say that the United Nations is rational or above simple money grubbing or politics given their history? Is the UN mostly leftist in view?

The proper approach here is to wait until some firm and more extensive data can confirm that the temperature of the earth is actually rising and also that this is not just a normal cyclic phenonenon driven by variations in the sun’emissions. Such a stance, however, defeats the poltical  thrust here and is ‘unacceptable’ in political terms. This all means that the Global Warming Follies will blossom forth with new ‘studies’ and demands for more ‘research’ and  rabid speeches foar curtailing growth in the United States while the Marxists and third world get a pass. Al Gore is not a scientist and neither was Lysenko.

Think about this.

rycK

California: Socialism on a Roll: The Health Care Express to Debt and Poverty and the Poisoned Apple.

California’s Marijuana Crazed Assembly has sent Arnold a new bill.[1] This bill has been gurgling in the Witch’s Cauldron for months and is now a reality[2].

The bill would require the destruction of private healthcare insurance, and cover the children of illegal aliens. Of course, it would be construed to cover ‘every person’ but that is apparently not in print yet. The courts can put it there with judicial executive privilege. The usual baiting of the low class with vote-promising essences is properly in place in this Marxist/Socialist maneuver. It will be free to many new voters!

Funding?? Why more taxes of course! What else would a pack of Marxists offer to capitalism? Tax cuts are out of the question even though they generate growth and new jobs and more money for health care and other desirables. Smokers [presumably of the non marijuana sort] are singled out to cough up some specific taxes to support this social exercise.

But, we find a bug in the socialist soup from the Economist:

“These levies are not, however, spelled out in the measure that passed this week. Since any bill that included a tax hike would have been blocked by California's ornery Republicans, that part must be approved directly by the voters next November—assuming the bill first clears the state Senate. Opposition, from insurance companies, small businesses and tobacco firms, will be fierce and well-funded.” [3]

A prediction: From the numerous activist judicial benches that abound like fleas on the average dog in California, and in the 9thCircuit, [what other kinds are there in California?], we can predict a ‘ruling’ that the ‘law’ if passed by the Senate and signed by Arnold, MUST be funded from the tax base.

Put some money on this one.

Thus, we have a potential cheesy, back-door, socialist method of abrogating the wishes of the voters. Of course, California is broke from the Gray-Out Davis Era[4] and facing unavoidable default, but what does that matter to the elites of the left who need programs like this? There is always the inevitable Federal Funds to sponge upon. Nancy Pelosi[5] would appropriate this money in a heartbeat if she had one. Hillary would sign the legislation if it reached her altar.

What else can they have in mind if the bill is left unfunded and subject to referendums??

Governor Schwarzenegger has a tough choice here: He can stroke the socially liberal side of his preferences or revert to his notions of financial responsibility.

This is the old poisoned apple.

Get ready to leave California. The taxes will soar and ‘free healthcare’ will attract the sick, lame and lazy from four continents or more

This essay in lunacy is actually a necessary political mandate to demonstrate the manifold follies of wild spending and unbridled socialism. This is a budget buster. Some major state like California or Oregon must publicly crash in a hopeless muddle of debt, soaring taxes, leftist tears, and broken dreams so that the people can get a good look at this foolish socialist notion.  Voters are usually required to pay dearly to learn the lessons about liberals, Marxists, Leninists and socialists they neglected to extract and master from history. Poverty, depression and state-directed pogroms are the desired elements of the far left. Perhaps they might slide in some phony comparison to Cuba’s $230 per year ‘cost’[6] for their victims that could be proffered as a ‘chance to try this.’ The liberals believe this is a find system. We have to admit that it does have some basis in the notions of ‘equality.’ Every citizen is equally miserable and hungry in Cuba.  The leftists can just make the system ‘more efficient’ and pay for this mess in that manner. A single decent blood test panel now costs about 350$. So much for diagnostics. Cuba doesn’t need this to provide fine medical care.

These fools have proffered another unfunded mandate that must be funded with debt or higher and higher taxes. They neglect to mention that the rate of growth of health care is astronomical and sickeningly exacerbated by such non essential frills like free sex change operations in San Francisco, as a benefit.  The thought here is to get the hungry beast in place and unchained and let somebody else pay for the drool and sticky droppings. If passed, the costs will grow like a cancer even without the constant influx of illegal aliens who votes are essential to the passage of this wreckage.

Typical leftist Grunt and Grab mentality in action.  California is going down. Recall Arnold and get Gray Davis back!

rycK

Arizona: A NYT Propaganda Lesson on the Abrogation of the Rule of Law for Illegal Aliens

We must always praise the New York Times, aka The Old Gray Lady, for its tautological insistence that the Rule of Law must [and must not] be followed. Today, they have convincingly convinced themselves that is Rule of Law may be set aside if certain conditions, defined by the Times, are not met. The example for the day is a maudlin assault on Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act with an article entitled: Blazing Arizona. [1] Even the title is politically abrasive and signals the conclusion of the article from the start. The dedicated need not read past the title.

This little piece of sophomoric fluff contains two mandatory and classical-hence instructive-elements in the use of propaganda:

[1] The first statement, here that the law ought to be followed is proudly touted, and… “BUT”..

[2] In the next clause the first statement is abrogated by a set of leftist social and economics stipulations that disable the very law given in the first statement.

Thus, the law is unjust because of the criticisms by its critics! Translation: Ignore the Law.  The Rule of Law is an elastic entity subject to massage, extruding through small orifices and subsequent folding by the left.

Laura Ingraham[2] has called this form of propaganda the "But... Monkey" process, which is explored in her various Segments in her radio show The Laura Ingraham Show. The ‘but’ [pero] has been highlighted in red in the NYT article above for the benefit and clarification of certain Methodists, the mentally disnimble and illegal aliens laboring in the lettuce fields.  We have to allow for the (disproportionate) distribution of cognitive skills when we deal with the victims of the far left.

Amplifying the propaganda theme for todays little piece and, again, from Laura’s show we read”

“[It was]…Maya Angelou who said, "Don't let facts get in the way of the truth. You can tell so many facts you never get to the truth."[3] I call this the Angelou Formula in this article.

We can paraphrase this Jewel of Deep Thinking [4] as: Don't let the law get in the way of your politics. You can tell so many facts about the body of laws you will never get to the political solution.

We must review the evidence from history in the arena of politics to arrive at the stark fact that: truth is not important in politics—only persuasion[5]. We can list hundreds of liars and criminals who were successful in politics without the use of the truth and some are even running for high office today in Iowa.

Here is the opening salvo from the Old Gray Lady:

We set the cowboy theme as “On Jan. 1, Arizona intends to become the first state to try to muscle its way out of its immigration problems on its own.”[6]

The next paragraph goes the Way of the But Monkey:

“We have always said that workplace laws should be enforced vigorously — as part of a comprehensive, nationwide immigration system that doesn’t just punish, but tries to actually solve the problems that foster and sustain the breaking of immigration laws.”[7]

“But Monkeyism!”  Screech![8] A flat lie, which is essential in advanced leftist politics, and the basis for this sorry screed. There is every vague or silly alternative to the enforcement of this law in this article. Lie.

Then, the list of dire consequences follows if the Arizona law is enforced:

“If that happens, the immigrants will take a big chunk of Arizona’s growth and economic vitality with them — and not necessarily back across the international border. The collateral damage will be severe as citizens and legal immigrants are also thrown out of work, as businesses struggle to find workers in a state with a 3.3 percent unemployment rate and as sleazy employers move more workers off the books, the better to abuse and exploit them. And the national problem of undocumented immigration will be no closer to a solution.”[9]

Here, we are promised economic disaster[10] in the region if the unenforced federal law is enforced by corresponding state law. This local state law will not provide a national solution. “Equal Pay for Equal Work”

Here is a list of words that do not appear in the article: Crime, health care, collateral damage [military term used in the pejorative sense here], tax evasion, theft of Social Security numbers, illegal voting, illegal voter registration, etc. The fact that these undocumented workers contribute disproportionately to the convicted criminal population is ignored. The words actually used in this screed are: sleazy, abuse, exploit [that should exploitation of the masses to be precise[11]], meanness, hounding, humiliating and such.

This is classic propaganda from the Times alth0ugh a little rough in spots in this instance. The ‘facts’ in this article are parsed according to the  Angelou Formula noted in  Laura Ingraham’s show  and we should cite one of the Sages of the Left with this advanced advice on the use of propaganda.

No person on the New York Times staff has approached the beauty, charm and elegance of that political maxim. Not even Walter Duranty, the patron saint of the New York Times, ascended to these dizzying heights. The author of this piece needs some more political training. Sobbing is not enough. Nazism was not invoked here, an elementary blunder.  Bawling in public was not mentioned.

We can paraphrase this example of the Angelou Formula as a Jewel of Deep Thinking[12]:

Don't let the law get in the way of your politics. You can tell so many facts about the body of laws you never get to the political solution.

The rest of the article is pedestrian fluff and not worth reading except for few snippets:

“It could be that Arizona’s enforcement of the law will be calm and measured. But we worry about Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and two-thirds of the state’s population. Maricopa’s county attorney, Andrew Thomas, and county sheriff, Joe Arpaio, are prone to media-driven stunts. Sheriff Arpaio makes a show of his meanness, hounding and humiliating prisoners and forming his deputies into squads that check people’s clothes and accents before demanding their papers.”

How sad. Notice the signal of the improbable status of enforcement couched in the future subjunctive tense. Isn’t Sheriff Arpaio the one who convicts them wear pink underwear and eat baloney sandwiches? I forget.

Summing up the NYT predicts: “As Arizona exacts its punishment on the undocumented workers who have made it so prosperous, it runs the risk of proving itself tough but not smart.”[13]

We are urged  to believe that illegal aliens have made Arizona prosperous [lie], but can not read any of the negative effects of their habitation in this state. The Times probably believes in ‘democracy’ limited, of course, by definition given by Lenin and others[14] while omitting   any mention of the probable effects of ‘democratic process’ votes by illegal aliens. The Rule of Law is not applicable here as it is not smart. Bingo! Let us encourage the New York Times to rewrite the Constitution.

Probing the notion of smartness we might wonder: What happened to the celebrated “Today We March Tomorrow We Vote?[15]” Wasn’t that a smart move for the left? Senator Kennedy thought so.

This piece must be given a C+ grade in elementary propaganda. It will rate rave reviews and salutatory bravos from the Liberal Toady Commission, but not much change in the opinion of the US voters on this explosive issue.  It is rough around the edges and omits several necessary slogans and quotes from the far left. The New York Times must hustle forth with this issue, and others, and manufacture some more dents in the unexpected and uninvited Barack Obama Phenomenon and retrofit some novel apologies for Hillary Clinton if they are to contribute substantively to this next election.

Use the print version of this article to line your iguana cage.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

NYT: The Old Red Lady Haggles about Hags, Hillary and Attacks Rush Limbaugh for Looking at Her Picture.

Maureen Dowd, the Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady[1] launches a feverish apology for the negative-looking outer shell of the aging Hillary Clinton and tries to paint over her warts and other defects with attacks on those who merely witnessed her picture and were so moved to comment.  In her column Rush to Judgment[2] we can enjoy a clever play on words in this fresh and trendy polemic beginning and summing up the screed’s essentials in the first three words!! That is NYT efficiency and soars beyond the customary windy and blather-burdened articles by other op-ed contributors!  We must be assured that this will save paper and reduce the carbon footprint of the NYT and gain Al Gore’s approval for this economy. Brevity is the soul of wit we recall. Paul Krugman might publish his next op-ed piece with just two words: Raise Taxes!, and that would upstage Maureen.

“And so the inevitable came to pass this week when Rush Limbaugh began riffing about an unflattering picture of Hillary in New Hampshire that Matt Drudge put up on his Web site with the caption, “The Toll[sic] of a Campaign.”[3]

Could she mean the Troll of the Campaign??

We must launch an analysis of the words rush, toll, troll, picture and hag in this potential Pulitzer Prize-winning piece. There must be some deep, triple-reverse embedded circular logic or obscure Shavian political philosophy here that appeals to those adept in Marxism, the dark arts or other strong elitist traits of the New York Times writers. The color red also seems to shape the intrinsic foundation of sections of her political slant here, as Walter Duranty would have wished. Better Red than dead.

It is interesting that Rush did not take the picture. Rush did not feature it on his site, that was Matt Drudge, and it was a shocker. I was shocked. Of course, politics is more than skin deep. And, this comment on some political candidate’s looks was inevitable? Have we a mystical prediction process here perhaps like the Witch of Endor who accurately predicted King Saul’s political demise? I wonder if her hair was also  bright red. What is the Hillary picture conveying?

We could take a closer look at Maureen’s own picture in the NYT and wonder if she can notice the resemblance of her hair to turn-of-the-century carnival glass pieces in electric red by Fenton and Northwood. Those hand-made pieces were created in the furnace by spraying acid on hot pressed glass. Could we detect a bit of acid or heat in Dowd’s written works?

Maureen’s connection with two controversial pictures in the same column is probably not a coincidence and might be some kind of leftist-approved acid flash-back to the picture of Dorian Gray[4] that aged while he did not. Maureen’s picture appears to have lost about 25 years we might note here as long as the question of age and looks are in the queue.

Quoting Rush in her little piece we read:

“And Hillary, he noted, “is not going to want to look like she’s getting older, because it will impact poll numbers, it will impact perceptions.” So, he added, “there will have to be steps taken to avoid the appearance of aging.”[5]

Can we suggest a bright red wig?? Is this an apology for Hillary’s Haggish (or trollish) looks?

“Limbaugh finished up with this: “Let me give you a picture, just to think about. ... The campaign is Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton in our quest in this country for visual perfection, hmm?”[6]

That hurt!

And some obscure sycophant amplified this by calling Rush’s comment:  ““the snake belly of the campaign,” and notes drily[sic]: “We’ve been staring at aging white men from the beginning of the democracy.”[7]

Like Bill Clinton and Senator KKK Byrd or Ted Kennedy??

The Old Red Lady (b. January 14, 1952[8]) sums up with an oblique comment about Hillary:

“Hillary doesn’t have to worry about her face. She has to worry about her mask[sic]. Back in the ’92 race, Clinton pollsters devised strategies to humanize her and make her seem more warm and maternal. Fifteen years later, her campaign is devising strategies to humanize her and make her seem more warm and maternal.”[9]

Does Maureen play on words here (again) and really mean masque?? It seems we wax literary and esoteric here and perhaps she hints at Poe’s Masque of the Red Death[10], a reference to the ‘plague that has been sweeping the land[11]’ (read  conservatism here) that rushes forth from Rush?

The pictures of The Old Red Lady, Hillary, Dorian Gray and the Mask might all be intricately intercalated with current politics and submerged in the writings from the classic Gothic Horrors, the wrong venue, we might suppose, to look for humanizing solutions. So, let’s blame Rush for her haggish countenance. That much will be accepted by liberals.

Hillary’ acid tongue, flaming retorts and ingrained flight from the truth may be accurately reflected in her repulsive picture. Unlike Dorian Gray, a least in part, she will not grow younger as her picture sprouts more wrinkles and bags under the eyes, but she might seek solace and votes from the homosexuals, criminals, illegal aliens and praiseworthy acts of debauchery of the far left of the Oscar Wilde types. If her outsides looked as politically ugly as her political innards they would still vote for her.

This is all very complicated.

We need to watch Colonel Klebb[12] for sudden (and well-scripted) manifestations in appearance and humanity. Perhaps a nun’s habit? Oh, Methodists (or Marxists) don’t have nuns! Oh well, a halo doesn’t work either.

Hillary will have to respond to this affront in some fashion. Maureen will keep us informed as the urgent Renovation of Hillary blossoms forth before Iowa. Her picture will change, but will her cackle? We shall see.

rycK

The New York Time’s ‘Dump Obama Train’ Leaves the Station. Raise the Banners and Honk the Kazoos! Marxism Needs Your Help!

Always sifting through the candidates for a personality who best fits the acclaimed norms and wild successes of Marxism, a lesser being, who only encroaches on the fringes of accepted Communism, needs to be gently pushed aside. The far-leftist world community led by the peace-loving Swedes[1], Fidel Castro [if he is still alive, or perhaps that does not matter], Kim of North Korea, have strongly endorsed the Communist-approved Clintons for almost two decades.

It is the political duty of the New York Times to ‘f0rm opinion’ for the unenlightened masses and gently demonstrate that Hillary is The Chosen One, even if she has visible and hairy warts and behaves like the infamous Colonel Klebb[2], and must lead the country back to the ways of progressive[3] socialism. Bill Clinton has bought into this message, being indoctrinated into hard-core Marxism at Oxford and Moscow in the 60s, and is doing his best to get the Colonel elevated in the polls in the Iowa and New Hampshire.  The NYT has always picked and endorsed and encouraged candidates in proportion to their propensity to embrace Communism. Apart from the ailing Fidel Castro, Hill and Bill are the two top Commies in the Western Hemisphere.

Senator Barack Obama only skirts the fringes of Hillary Clinton’s hard-core political experience, Saul Alinsky Marxist indoctrination and the fast-and-ready assistance and advice from her Marxist-mole companion.  He has not learned. Thus, dutifully, The Old Gray Lady turns the crank on with propaganda machine with today’s article: The Obama-Clinton Issue.[4]  Here, bluntly ignoring the usual foreplay, they thrust forth with an attack on Obama: “Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines.” This is false, a trend used incessantly in political positioning pieces. Actually, Hillary has no legislative history, has backed only failures in her bills,  sponsored essentially nothing and antagonized both the far left and far right on the War on Terrorism issue and is a carpet bagger Senator in the historical sense.

We learn that “Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones.”[5] We must translate this to mean that Obama’s political training is not narrow enough and he does not have the socialist credentials to compete on the brightly-lit stages of liberal politics. We wonder about the term insecurity as we watch Hillary grow sour, wrinkled and haggard and rising into occasional volcanic rages as her staff scurries in all directions to escape her cruelty. She has fired one star from New Hampshire. More heads will tend toward the wicker basket as the intensity of the war soars. We also wonder if the NYT’s characterization of Senator Obama’s “inner direction” is a result of his skin color.

To summarize, we read from this column:

“What Bill Clinton said on “The Charlie Rose Show” is right: picking Obama is a roll of the dice. Sometimes he seems more concerned with process than results. But for Democrats, there’s a roll of the dice either way. The presidency is a bacterium. It finds the open wounds in the people who hold it. It infects them, and the resulting scandals infect the presidency and the country. The person with the fewest wounds usually does best in the White House, and is best for the country. “[6]

This is an astonishing redaction of the future, the past and the present. We seem to be reading a passage written in the future past perfect present tense.  Couched in the lingo of infectious diseases, David Brooks tells us that elected presidents enter the office with open wounds and will be ‘infected’ by the inevitable scandals awaiting them. That, indeed, is historical as we reflect on the Clintons.  Now, Hillary and Bill are known crooked lawyers from the veritable Sanjac[7] of Arkansas with many of their best friends freshly out of jail for fraud, conspiracy and worse. That much fits history. But, where is the parallel on Barack here? What are the other Senator’s wounds?

What advice is this? The histrionics and scope of this piece reflect hysteria. The New York Times needs to invoke the existence of Phantasms of Political Bacteria that bar the gates of the Oval Office to those who have not been inoculated by near-fatal infections?

To suggest that this is a pedestrian-grade polemic with the customary stretch of the facts is not unusual for the Times; it is their common stock and trade and dwells well within the boundaries of their grunt and grab mentality and their long history of sausage machine brat productions, but here we can detect a wild flight from reason.

On the contrary, Senator Obama is honest and a fresh breeze in the fetid arena of politics that the New York Times is use to swimming in. The stark contrast between an honest person and a hack political cadre is obvious and instructive here.

Barack Obama soars beyond the documented lies, sleaze, corruption, perjury and crimes of Clintoonery. The NYT is properly hysterical about the possibility of an undesirable potential outcome if the most honest candidate wins the nomination. Soon they will signal that a black person cannot be elected.

Stoke the furnaces!  The ‘Dump Obama Train’ is now the Red Ball Express of the frenetic left.

Marxism denies honesty; The Dice have been loaded by the New York Times.

rycK

The New York Times Mumbles about “Big Table Fantasies,[1]” whatever that means.

The archetypal propaganda outlet for the far left has tackled some thorny political problems in the frenzied primary races and only mentioned Hillary Clinton once in the article!  This must be a record. But, there is a good reason. Read below:

A diagnostic assessment of the article shows a distinctive predilection to cast doubt against the frontrunner Barack Obama. Isn’t that the NYT mission?  Hillary is the chosen one.  We must realize that in a good propaganda piece, the true intent, or even scant elements of pure truth or fact, are not relevant and are best suppressed. The salient point here is that Hillary’s Star has winked out in a place or two and the NYT must do some street hustling, some advanced propaganda works and hope for a rescue. The NYT has done much better in the past with advanced examples of propaganda.

The support for Hillary is offered here  as oblique  negative comments and  stilted outlines of concerns about the platforms of other candidates:

Barack states that “our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.” This is a too mild for the NYT, a paper that favors revolution, judicial activism, race riots and more to grab power. Is this a Barackian shot at Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?? It seems so.  They have failed and now insult each other.  Chaos is the lead dog in leftist politics and this paper must come to the rescue.

Paul Krugman, chief economist for The Old Gray Lady, thinks: “And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.” That was mild. Some folks think Krugman’s anti tax cut mantra is, well, naïve.”

Edwards whines in with: ““Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.” When did a liberal voluntarily give away any power? That would be a “complete fantasy” in my view.

At this juncture, it is appropriate to ask how this proffered negotiation method differs much from that compelled by the NYT and other liberals with respect to Islamo-Fascists, our ideological enemies. Where is the ‘dialogue and diplomacy’ here? The NYT was exuberant when North Korea ‘agreed’ to comply with some Madeline Albright ‘suggestions’ about nuclear weapon development and used stacks of US tax  monies to cover the debating table. The fact that Kim lied and accepted nuclear technology and  then ignored the agreements is of relevance here. Madam Albright voluntarily gave our ‘power’ away at the ‘bargaining’ table. We lost and the Communists, always a favorite of the Walter Duranty Papers won.  Why cannot Obama do the same with the Republicans in light of the utter failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other fuming far-left liberals and their political hate machine? Maybe voters want a change from far-left politicians?

One wonders about intellectual consistency here.

One, then has to follow up this with a different question: If Obama is wrong, then what liberals do to gain power? How about just scream and howl and fabricate political issues about Republicans as in the cases of Libby, Gonzales, Rove, Cheney and others with no evidence.  It is not clear how liberals enhanced their power with making cases where there is no evidence.

Krugman then asks: “Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?” Or, could we substitute the terms terrorism or illegal aliens or illegal voting or higher taxes or anything else we might ask into this sentence? The opposite of ‘bring us together’ is to tear us apart, something that the liberals are doing for each other now, much to the delight of the Republicans and many independents.

Here, Obama has opened a door for dialogue, thus seemingly supporting the Pelosi and Reid ‘bipartisanship and cooperation’ notions that began with the new Congress in 2006. But, doesn’t this break the iron clad liberal political methods of threats, intimidation and legal actions to grunt and grab for their frequently inane wants.  It does.

The point of this piece is that Obama is too inexperienced to run. But, Didn’t Hillary already instruct the NYT to push this factor??

Better late than never, but Hillary now slips in the Iowa polls and the NYT needs to get its propaganda machine oiled and back into action. Obama might win this one and upset the New Hampshire Circus. An Obama win in the first two primary events might sink Hillary and the New York Times. Their stock is a little shaky.

Paul Krugman is better suited for his tautological propagandistic skills as The Tax Hike Zombie.  Raise taxes anywhere, any time and for huge amounts is his mantra. There are those with better skills at the Duranty Papers who can sow the seeds of doubt on Obama. The ante must be raised if Hillary is to win the nomination.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Let’s Ask Hillary About Castle Grande, Perjury and the Rose Law Firm Billing Records!

Hillary claims she has been ‘vetted’ and we wonder if that includes Castle Grande.  That must mean that we don’t have to inquire about her testimony under oath on her legal work for Castle Grade[1]. I suppose we can forget about the Rose Law Firm billing records found in the White House?

According to a Washington Post article, Hillary said she “was not involved in anything called Castle Grande.” When the billing records appeared she (and her lawyers) said this was a semantic confusion. She thought this was called IDC.

But, H. Don Denton, who was senior loan officer at Madison, stated that “everybody knew this project by the name Castle Grande.”

The legal and political problem for Hillary here is that it was a crooked deal and 15 people were indicted and or convicted of crimes in Whitewater and other scams. These include:

Gov. Jim Guy Tucker[2] [convicted on mail fraud and conspiracy charges] ,

James McDougal[3], [convicted of 18 felony counts of fraud and conspiracy charges]

Susan McDougal[4] [Convicted of fraud in the Whitewater and served 18 months in prison for civil contempt of court]  

Webster L. Hubbell[5] [pleaded guilty to defrauding the firm Rose Law Firm and their clients with false billing procedures and conspiracy in the Castle Grande].

Has Hillary been ‘vetted’ in this case?? Many of her close friends and poltical allies went to jail for fraud an conspiracy.

Hillary: Can you tell us all about Castle Grande by answering questions in a debate?? You might be able to clear up my semantic confusions about you and the many criminals in your life.

Thanx,

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Clinton Breaks the Ice: Says Obama Isn’t Ready[1]

This is easily translated as: “Get to ….the Back of the bus………[fill in the blanks]”

There is nothing the Clintons won’t do to grunt and grab power.  

The attacks have just begun to show.

I guess Hillary cannot fire this one as she did one of her aids in New Hampshire .

Sleaze Alert! Racism on the Rise.

rycK

Conan Deals with the Barbarians: California on the Financial Rocks, as Predicted.

Back in July, Conan, giving a convincing performance as a governor of a radical state of whining Marxists, illegal aliens and drug-crazed hippies,  similar to the Rosa Luxemburg style government hailed in Munich in 1919 as a Soviet State, bent over too far and let the grunt and grab liberals hike the budget. Now, the financial end is in sight.

In August:

“The budget spends $145 billion, with $103 billion in the general fund used for day-to-day government operations”[1]

“Some things are worth fighting for, and a good budget is one of those things," he said, noting that the state's deficit was $16 billion when he took office in 2003.”

Now, it is December and that is not enuf??

Peanuts in a good Marxist society. There is always the Federal Tax Base. Get a shovel. Print more money or THINK ABOUT THE “T” [TAX]  WORD !

!!

Now, Governor Schwarzenegger notes that his socialist state is in financial trouble:

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he will declare a "fiscal emergency" in January to give him and the Legislature more power to deal with the state's growing deficit.”[2]

Didn’t we guess about that before the fact?? How much longer can CA wallow in Marxism and drugs and realize that their debt is crushing the state.

“Schwarzenegger in August signed a $145.5 billion budget that increased spending 11 percent due largely to the increased cost of bond repayments and special funds. General fund spending for day-to-day operations increased less than 1 percent, from $101.7 to $102.3 billion for the budget year that began July 1.”[3]

“Last month, Schwarzenegger ordered agency leaders to draft plans for across-the-board cut as high as 10 percent.”[4]

So, debt service is costing more? Wonder why? Every read the history of NYC under Beame? Cut spending?!! You might as well ask the Marxists in Sacramento to cut their throats.

THINK ABOUT THE “T” [TAX]  WORD !!

There is no limit to how high taxes might get. Ask any liberal if they want to cut spending. What happens to the new California Health Care system with freebies abounding for all illegal aliens??

THINK ABOUT THE “T” [TAX]  WORD !!

When people abandon California as the Leprotic Tax Pit and move out, the liberals remaining will just hike the taxes higher and higher and higher……….

THINK ABOUT THE “T” [TAX]  WORD !!!

rycK

Send your comments on CA taxes to: ryckki@gmail.com

Dowdy Maureen: The Old Lady of the Old Gray Lady Writes a “Greek” Dialogue.

Maureen Dowd elects to entertain us with a literary masterpiece of wit and political reasoning set in the traditional debating mechanism of Greek Circular Logic. We should not summarily dismiss this piece since that the circular logic method of persuasion [no truth is necessary to work this lever] is unassailable as it has no flanks or ends.

For her little play she creates a “tie-breaking debate with the two Democratic front-runners.”[1] The result is mostly fluff and foam, but there are a few acidic digs to be discussed in light of the fact that the NYT prints ‘all the news that is fit to read’ or words to that effect.

To wit:

“Carolyn Washburn, the phlegmatic[2] editor of the paper, once more moderates.”

Wow! Can Hillary answer tough questions? What side is the NYT on??

Hillary replies:

“I apologized to Senator Obama. I absolutely did not authorize or condone the remarks made by one of my co-chairs in New Hampshire about my distinguished colleague’s youthful indiscretions. If primary voters don’t care that he did “a little blow,” then my goodness, why should I? Even if he had packed a straw full of the white rabbit and had a snow bunny blow it in his ear, who would care, for Pete’s sake? I only wish I knew all that colorful chasing-the-dragon lingo. Senator Obama certainly has a lot of street cred, even if it isn’t Main Street. We owe it to the good people of Iowa to stick to critical issues like the economy, and how to get a fiscally responsible budget like we had in the ’90s, the ’90s, the ’90s —“

We don’t have to go much further into this oblique attack on Hillary to realize that her glow is now off and the neocons scamper to assist her in the nomination. Hillary has to wax nasty. Where is James Carville when you need him?

“WASHBURN: Snap out of it.”

Backward. Hillary flipped back into the game here.

There are more slurs woven into this play such as “…OBAMA: In turn, I would like to reply that what this country really needs is change —“ with the  nasty retort: “…Change is mine now, Senator Belushi. Bill and I stole it weeks ago. Some people believe you get change by hoping for it. Some believe you get change by snorting it. I believe you get it by working hard.”

Of course Bill never used drugs, or coke, as his brother did not mention when he said“ Bill...has a nose like a vacuum cleaner.”

And this wreckage ends with:

“WASHBURN: As I was saying, a Happy New Year.

CLINTON: He gets no kick from Champagne ... “

This cute essay is based around the assumed drug culture and frivolity inherent in the black community. Although a farce or some warped version of parody, it does point out some political truths:

[1] Any opponent of either Clinton will be toast if the usual  warnings to stay away from the Clinton turf are ignored.

[2] Obama is beyond the warning stage and will be the subject of negative attacks, particularly on race and drugs and inexperience.

Hillary can just say she didn’t know about the gutter sniping against Barack on her agenda and she can just fire another loyal toady after the affront is made public and then explained by  of a New York Times op-ed piece. She has an army of paid droolers who would crawl under the Obama Express and sacrifice themselves, tooth, fingernails and soul as Foster, Hubble and others did.  Hillary has that kind of power.

Hillary is not up to answering tough questions or reviewing her past. She has reached her limit and may freak out with comments such as The Old Red Lady has conjured up as did the Witch of Endor  in earlier times. Remember, the Witch tol dah toot.

Maureen omitted the Colonel Klebb Cackle[3]  in her little play that is now  patented by Hillary when she is on the precipice of eruption.

Does Maureen cook her hair in the microwave?? Will her job at the Old Gray Lady be in jeopardy after this affront? Or, will she be promoted?

e-mail me with your vote: ryckki@gmail.com

rycK

 Hillary: Let’s Start a Dialogue: Tell Us All about Waco.

Since Hillary wants a dialogue, let us have one.

I offer the following questions to be answered by Hillary:

[1] When did you learn about the FBI raid on Waco[1]?

[2] Did you talk to Wesley Clark about the Delta Force[2] being there? Did you set up a crisis center in the White House?[3]

[3] Did you talk, before, during or after the attack on the Branch Dravidians about CS gas[4] or the use of (toxic) methylene chloride (CH₂Cl₂) to drive them out?

[4] What did you talk about with Janet Reno (aka Jingo Janet the Mad Burner) about the attack on Waco?

Let us start a dialogue Hillary, at your own request.

rycK

The Third World Gets a Chance for a Massive Global Tax from the US.

The Kyoto Treaty, ignored for many years by Europe and excluding China and India, is now back to the mumbling stage as we read in the New York Times[1], known as Propaganda Central for the Western Hemisphere. It seems we are now mumbling about mumbling about making the US cut CO2 emissions, now designated as a ‘pollutant’ by the SCOTUS and other puppets of the feathers and drums set.

We can actually read some substance here after we hack through most of the fluff:

‘"It starts a negotiation that allows but doesn't require an outcome where the U.S. takes a cap," or a national limit on greenhouse gases, said David Doniger, a former climate negotiator in the Clinton administration and the climate policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council[2], a private Washington-based environmental group.”’

That was a severe criticism of the wisdom of not buying in to this wreckage. Al Gore and his fellow Communists may bawl.  All that algore could get is an “an open-ended deal that could be enhanced after Mr. Bush left office”[3]

What happens if Hillary loses?? This is not much from a Nobel Prize winner. What happened to the implied Marxist Clout heaped upon a Fellow Traveler?

Recall that the Congress rejected the Kyoto Treaty 98 to 0 in the negative. One wonders how many Democrats are shamed by that vote?

We don’t get down to the Red Nails[4] unless we dig and then wonder about this:

“Developing countries, a vaguely defined group that includes countries as different as China and Costa Rica, have long insisted that rich countries, which spent more than a century adding carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, should take the first step.”

It is interesting to wonder where China lies here as they are the biggest polluter on the planet now with the possible exception of the shrunken remains of the USSR.  China will not pay. Period.

This vaguely defined group is a bunch of countries mostly run by Marxist dictators or despotic idiots who have no hope of competing in this world even for minor items such as food and medicine and will have to crawl to the United States for welfare, as usual. This is just an excuse to grunt and grab some freebees from the US. The Gl0bal Warming Follies[5] is now the excuse and basis for new money!! Grunt and Grab!

Oh! The sky is falling!! Oh woe be us!! Tax the US.!!

The details are kept vague in the best propagandistic tradition of the NYT as we see when we sift thru the rubbish of this mess:

“Separately, participants agreed on a system that would compensate developing countries for protecting their rain forests…Precisely how countries with large rain forests, like Indonesia and Brazil, would be compensated has not been fully worked out…United Nations officials said part of the financing would come from developed countries through aid and other financing would come from carbon credits traded under the Kyoto pact.”

The translation of this piece of  tangled mush of pratwash[6] or  newspeak is plain: The US will continue to pay off the worthless losers in third world who slash and burn their own resources, murder their own people, celebrate slavery, pollute the planet, spread AIDS with reckless abandon and beg for alms for anyone.

Tax the US.!!

We envision a Ponzi Scheme probably to be known as the International Carbon Credit Exchange where the US will have to buy up all the credits and bribe dictators for praise. These will act as a reverse ration stamp where the US does all the rationing and the rest of the world just fluffs off.

Tax the US.!!

We expect the Old Gray Lady, aka the Duranty Papers to support any tax increase anywhere in the world as long as the US pays most or all of it.

Tax the US.!!

What else is new?

rycK