Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Why won't Congress debate the ISIS war?

Jon Stewart quotes a regressive House member, noting their strategy is to avoid a debate at all costs: "At a time of war our Congressional inaction is pure political calculation." This after all the regressive rhetoric that they would like to discuss the situation, since ISIS is going to kill us all. But the President just hasn't invited us to do so. Congress doesn't need the President's permission for debate on the issue. Regressives just really don't want to debate it, instead preferring to avoid taking responsibility for their vote on the war. They are cowards and liars, but we already knew that.

Who will pay for the zero marginal cost society?

From this article, "Who will pay for the zero marginal cost society?":

"The first concern that arose in my mind as I began reading the book was simple and likely one that most people will raise: What about the fixed costs? Who is going to supply the infrastructures necessary for the various near zero marginal cost systems to function? [...] Who will bear the fixed costs and supply these infrastructures? If the supplier is a private company that owns the infrastructure, how will the supplier manage it? (To lay bare my concerns: Rent extraction and control by private, for-profit infrastructure owners may very well undermine most of Rifkin's dreams.) If the government supplies the infrastructure, how will it raise the funds and how will it decide which infrastructures to build and when to build them? [...] To be fair, Rifkin does address some supply side issues."

Monday, September 29, 2014

Maher's new rule on liberal judgment

This is not liberal relativism incapable of passing judgment on other cultures or practices. Everyone is not ok just as they are, and Maher makes no bones about it. And reams those so-called liberals that cannot so adjudicate.

William Desmond

Balder started a new IPS thread on the above. Some of my comments so far follow.

It does sound like a lot of the various and sundry contemporary philosophies we've discussed in the forum. All of which could be considered in/of the new wave of popo, pama or paraphysics I brought up in a FB forum. We've compared this new wave to Wilber's work, and while the latter is in some ways like these others, in other ways it is not.

Have you given any further thought to my proposition that prepositions, and other parts of speech, are the linguistic extension of image schema? The latter, while pre-positioning language, do not just extend into linguistic prepositions but all parts of speech. And as I noted elsewhere, image schema as basic categories are in the middle of classical hierarchies so fulfill this 'in between' ontological nature. Which itself changes the nature of how we see hierarchy (and holarchy), a key ingredient in many philosophies. We see it manifest in all these contemporary philosophies of the between, multiplicity, relationship, even in OOO, as well as the more metaphysical ones. Yet none of them have made this connection to how image schema and its linguistic extension in metaphor explain said philosophies and contextualize them cross-paradigmatically.

Obamacare is reducing the growth of healthcare spending

See this article. More facts to hammer home for the upcoming election, and why progressives should proudly support Obamacare as part of their campaign. This chart shows the CBO's projected Medicare costs, and how those costs have been revised based on actual costs to date.


Obamacare saves hospitals $5.7 billion

This election regressives will ignore facts like the following, while progressives must hammer them home. See this article, which states that according to Health and Human Services hospitals will save this amount due to typically unpaid hospital bills being paid by Obamacare. Such unpaid bills have fallen by a third. And of course this applies more to those States that instituted Obamacare Medicaid, but even those States that did not will still save.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Senator Warren calls for investigation of the NY Fed

Following up on the last post, Senators Warren and Brown, both members of the banking committee, are calling for an investigation of the NY Fed in light of Segarra's recordings. She reiterates that this sort of Wall Street ass-licking by regulators is what caused the meltdown in 2008. In one recording a Goldman Sachs executive said “once clients became wealthy enough, certain consumer laws didn’t apply to them,” an Fed regulators told her to ignore the remark and change her meeting minutes. Why is it that only progressive Democrats want to investigate this? We know full well the answer.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

The Fed is corrupted by its Wall Street targets

This is a fascinating story on the corruption in the New York Fed, tasked with investigating Wall Street conflicts of interest. The Fed realized that their own investigators were too deferential to Wall Street, often looking the other way, or not including factual findings contrary to Wall Street's wishes. So the Fed decided to change its own corrupt policies in this regard and hired investigators to work inside Wall Street banks. These investigators had to be "out of the box thinkers," even "disruptive personalities." They wanted them to be contrarian and question the orthodoxy of the Fed's lapdog culture.

Regressive morality

From Robert Reich's FB page:

"At yesterday’s Values Voter Summit – the annual gathering of social conservatives that’s a critical step for Republican presidential hopefuls – Texas Senator Ted Cruz told the redemptive story of his alcoholic parents to show the role faith has played in his life, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul told the crowd how liberty, virtue, and God were intertwined.

"When Republicans talk about morality, they talk about God and redemption. But they don't mention the immorality of one in five of American children being impoverished, of cuts in food stamps that are causing many to go hungry, and of reduced education funding that’s condemning them to lousy schools. They don't talk about the immorality of declining worker incomes when corporations are making record profits and CEOs are taking home record pay. They leave out the immorality of billionaires flooding our democracy with money to elect candidates that will make them even richer. We are in a moral crisis but it has nothing to do with private redemption. It is a crisis of public morality, and the redemption of America."

Friday, September 26, 2014

Stewart to Fox News: "Fuck you and all your false patriotism"

Recall Colbert on this story. Stewart takes it on too, noting that "diseased minds" are behind this nonsense. He tell Fox News: "Fuck you." It's the only reasonable way to deal with these sick fucks.