When will Americans wake up and get rid of all of these guys.
Brooks needs a motivational issue to fill the coffers so we get a flag crammed down our throat. Barnes hops on board and so ironically the issue pushed by McKinney and Brooks gives Georgia it's first Republican government since Reconstruction. The exploiter of the issue promises to have a referendum on the matter and then reneges once he's elected. Another big lie! He leaves office surrounded by all sorts of questionable real estate deals that enriched him. In choosing a successor to Sonny the people select a politician who was run out of Washington over ethical violations. Another big "Deal" for our little state.
Next door the governor who committed ethical transgressions, while engaged in an extramarital affair, is returned to Congress.
It is just the Southern equivalent of Marion Berry or Adam Clayton Powell. As one astute observer noted, "Of course he is a thief, but he is our thief!"posted @ Friday, May 24, 2013 - 08:27
Wouldn't say he was a bust, but he never competed at the same level that he reached in college. He blamed it in part on the BENGALS organization. It was Buddy Ryan that finally cut him at Philly after a 7 year career. He was never an "all pro", but he could and did play.
His greatest strength was his quickness and that advantage was markedly reduced after making the transition to pro ball. With that "edge" marginalized he was an average NFL center. As a high draft choice with the exemplary college career you would have to say he was somewhat of a "bust", but playing as an NFL center for seven seasons says he had some serious talent.
The biggest question mark was whether there was any steroid use and if there was when did it stop. Some sources say that he readily conceded steroid use at NEBRASKA. Sort of a black mark for someone with an award named for his "exemplary college career".posted @ Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 18:53
Only fitting that he plays for the TEXANS because he has a heart the size of Texas. No quit in that DAWG!posted @ Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 13:56
Well, in todays celebrity culture I'm sure it's very important to get a clear picture of the young man, but the one you provided does not seem to reflect one of his better efforts. David doesn't have a "hat" on any defender in that picture and his pad level is irrelevant because he has failed to get on his defender. In fact it looks like his "responsibility" is running to the point of attack to eliminate any cutbacks and David is making a futile effort from a poor position to stop him. This particular effort that the photo has captured gives a new meaning to the term "reach block". It was very much like this in the Spring Game where our new defenders routinely "out quicked" our veteran OLs. I just hope that this year's prospective OLs are not reading these ridiculous press clippings like Kwame and Big John did last year. If our OL play falls off as much as the NTs from last year then our QBs and RBs will all be out by mid season due to post concussive syndrome.
If you want to play the center position like Dave Rimington you have to display incredible quickness off the snap. That was a different era where run blocking, using drive blocking or angle blocking, was paramount. There are now reports of steroid use by Rimington, but regardless of their accuracy that player's strength was his incredibly explosive quickness with the first step and it served him well. That is how you gain the initial advantage over your defender.
Our entire OL could learn from Rimington's career. If you are too slow off that snap to get a hat on your opponent then you need to be on the bench. You can't win every battle, but you, and every other OL must win the overwhelming majority of snaps in order to provide the consistency required to run an effective offense. If you have only one player breaking down on every play then the whole OL will look like the Keystone Cops.
AUBURN had some big and slow offensive tackles and David acquitted himself well against them. Of course virtually everyone in the league did! The guys with the quick first steps that played in schemes that let them run around David were far more successful. Once again, Thornton and company on G Day provided a few embarrassments. This result is the antithesis of a Dave Remington center. He was always off the ball and on the defender before the defender could get moving. In the run blocking game that is what it is all about. David Andrews could weigh 320 lbs and bench 600 lbs and it wouldn't matter if everybody was running circles around him.
Steve Greer as a DG in that old "split 60" weighed in at around 200 lbs, and that was following a big meal, but he was like a big cat after a gazelle when his legs uncoiled. Sometimes I think he could have done 14 feet in the standing broad jump.(Don't hear much about that measuring device anymore, today they use the timing of players in the cone drills or the "ten yard" break in the "forty" to evaluate a player's quickness.) He and Dave Rimington would have been an interesting matchup.
The role of center on the OL is a little more complex than it was in Rimington's day. Andrews, as the "quarterback" for the OL, has to recognize all the variations in the "multiple" defensive alignments characteristic of today's game and then communicate the assignments and responsibilities of his OLs to his fellow players. A task as critical as any blocking assignment. This mental aspect is probably one of his strengths.
At around 6'2" and 285 lbs, and with the shorter arms that typically go along with that stature, David is not going to body slam too many opponents. Outside of the mental aspect of knowing the 'who' and 'how' to block the defenders he is not left with too many "strengths". At 6'2" he could possibly dominate through the leverage to be gained with a lower pad level. However, using your height as a strength requires incredible flexibility in the knees and hips and more importantly that explosive first step. You have to outquick that defender. Those traits would allow a player to be an outstanding angle and trap blocker. Of course our entire OL needs to be quicker off the ball.
At the Spring Game it looked like Xzavier Ward had the best hip and knee flexibility of the likely starters and that is amazing for a kid that looks to be 6'7". With a little more quickness in that first step he could become a solid run blocker.
If Andrews can improve that knee and hip flex and gain some explosiveness off the ball he could be a worthy candidate for that Rimington Award. In other words, play like Dave Rimington.
Still, it is an honor and a deserved recognition of his hard work. With the nomination comes the responsibility or obligation to take one's game to the next level because the knowledgeable TV announcers will now be focused on David's play. If we didn't have such awards the poor old OLs would never even get mentioned --- except when they blow an assignment or get called for a penalty!
Congratulations to David and work hard this Summer in recognizing those new defensive alignments you will be facing, but work even harder to improve your pad level and quickness. That is the pathway for your success.posted @ Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 08:42
In early 21st Century America success is defined by an amalgamated philosophy which combines the self centered hedonism of Ayn Rand's "objectivism" with Friedrich Nietzsche's "will to power".
One would think that the Nietzsche foundational basis for "the state is always paramount" fascism would be the oil that could not be mixed with the water of Rand's "to hell with the community" perspective. Libertarian fascists!
How did we arrive in this confused state?posted @ Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 07:16
Did they say "Johnson" or "Cheney"?posted @ Monday, May 20, 2013 - 20:26
Durst nailed it! A dog and pony show for the manipulated morons that frequent the political radio ringmasters and the Rupert Murdoch TV propaganda network.. A contemporary Shakespearian "Midsummer Night's Dream". A tempest in a teapot!
The truth is that this "mission" was less about diplomacy and more about espionage. Facts are emerging that suggest that the operation was a front for a CIA station house and that the CIA may have provided initial intelligence after the incident to the White House in order to obscure from public scrutiny the true nature of what was going on in that facility.
The most puzzling feature in this whole clusterphuque appears to be the decision to provide security by employing elements of one of the rebel factions that had recently been involved in the overthrow of the Libyan government. There was no way to know exactly who or what you were dealing with in terms of personnel and there was no track record to reflect proficiency or reliability. Did the CIA arrange this? Some careers need to "plateau" at this point.
That sort of evaluation is not for public consumption.
I detest Obama and his lies, but this media driven circus from the same crowd that covered up the truth regarding the Bush debacles is equally reprehensible. Is there anyone left in Washington capable of statesmanship?posted @ Monday, May 20, 2013 - 06:51
Nothing directed at you. We had our discussion on this topic sometime back. If you are looking for an academic analysis on fascism don't start with Goldberg. Once you understand the fundamental concepts and foundational basis for the political system then review you can review his work. It raises some interesting questions, but it is more valuable as a teaching example for propaganda techniques employed in "polemic" writings.
Another favorite of mine for similar illustration purposes is the decidedly non academic work which involves the Georgia coast and secret plots to rule the world. If you want to understand the creation of the Federal Reserve System and the role of the elitists that helped design and sell the entity, then start by studying the history surrounding the creation of the Rockefeller/Morgan alliance that gave McKinley the Presidency over Bryan in 1896, the deliberately "Midwestern" Monetary Convention of 1897, the Monetary Commission, the Gold Act of 1900, the Panic of 1907, the currency wars in the Pacific and South/Central America in the early 1900s, the workings of the New York Chamber of Commerce , and that clandestine late night train ride from Washington to Brunswick. After you have familiarized yourself with the competing interests, the main players, and the interconnected coalitions then you will understand the "whys" and "wherefores" that led to the drafting and passage of the legislation. If all you want is a polemic rant on the subject supporting the view that the elites crammed it down the nation's throat then pull out a copy of "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and accept it's simple explanation --- hook, line, and sinker!
Listen to Chomsky's words in that brief video. They advocate the position of the "university" which is always " believe nothing and question everything". That is essentially the "Socratic Method" of instruction which is designed to teach students how to set aside assumptions and emotions and then dismember, analyze, and reconstruct positions in order to gain insight into the various perspectives that are available in every issue. That is not an approach favored by propagandists. Is he cutting his own throat?
Chomsky's work on the propaganda issue is "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media". This volume raises a lot of questions about how the national political narrative is structured and manipulated. He and Ed Herman do a good job of taking things apart and examining the individual components. Reminds me of that low budget movie "Sling Blade" where the criminally insane murderer in the asylum with our hero explains to Carl that the only way to truly examine something is to blow it up and then sift through the burning pieces. Chomsky is good at that --- from an intellectual perspective.posted @ Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 20:36
@youdawgyou: Once again you are missing my point as well as Brother Chomsky's.
I did not take issue with Groseclose's statistical methodology, his underlying assumptions, and in his definitions of terms in reaching the conclusions that he submitted. There are some academics that did take issue, MarkLiberman at PENN was one, but my argument is with not with his methods but with what he is measuring. Once again, you are attempting to quantify opinions within a narrow narrative. The range of the narrative itself is the problem.
Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman wrote a book dealing with this phenomenon years back entitled "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media". In it they study the narratives that are selected, packaged, and sold to the American masses by the mainstream media.
"Manufactured consent" was an expression coined by Walter Lippman when the scientific basis for propaganda/mass psychology was in it's infancy. Lippmans book, "Public Opinion" was one of those early primers in the practical application of the principles that were being developed. Lippman, George Creel, and Arthur Bullard had just convinced the American immigrant populations that were Irish and German/Austrian that they needed to help the Irish worst enemy, the British, to defeat the the cousins, brothers, and uncles of the Germans and Austrians in WWI. Demonization became an art!
That video is pitiful. That is not what I was referring too when I suggested that real journalists would provide some in depth analysis.posted @ Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 18:46
@youdawgyou: Just another propaganda piece from "Prager". "Prager University" is no university at all. It is a propaganda machine run by a "neocon" who wants to legislate Judeo-Christian values --- those dealing with abortion or homosexuality rather than greed and usury.
Groseclose misses the entire point, as do all the other clueless types that fall victim to this nonsense. Our nation's "journalists" debate from the "left" or the "right" on the issues laid in front of the American public. The problem is that the narrative is selected by the corporate media.
When Bush, driven by his neocon cronies, began laying the groundwork for the Iraqi invasion, the mass media joined in the established fascist narrative. Chris Hedges at the New York Times questioned the necessity and he was essentially forced to resign. You have to adhere to the selected narrative or you will pay the price.
If we had any true "liberal" journalists in mainstream media they would be exposing the lies that comprise the narrative and would be condemning daily on the evening news the graft and corruption that permeates our current political process. Today's journalists want to keep their jobs so they don't stray too far afield. Could you imagine Chris Hedges or Paul Craig Roberts being given resources and airtime to deliver two hour "whitepapers" on critical issues in government or economics? Those types have gotten outside the box.
I've mentioned repeatedly the threat posed by a renegade Pentagon and the failure of the mainstream media to even address the potential issues raised by Col. Daniel Davis 80 page report to Congress. There has been nothing of any significance mentioned in the mainstream media. All I've seen is Petraeus' sex life discussed. We are now reaping the rewards of the Spring offensive in Afghanistan. We knew it was coming, but never discussed. Where is that lead story from Walter Chronkite telling us that all those proclamations about that light at the end of the tunnel are not adding up?
The current big lie is that the economy is turning around and home financing and home prices are picking up! That is the line, but you will not see any substantive analysis on this topic in the mainstream media. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/17/obama-and-the-housing-boondoggle/ You will not find this discussed on the CBS Evening News or on ABC, NBC, CNN, or Fox.
It is all about the unquestioning adherence to the "party Line" from which deviation is not permitted. That is fascism and not journalism. As for Chomsky, it his mission to teach folks to question anything and everything. He is doing his job!posted @ Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 12:26
Here is a piece of the Obama agenda, the continuation of the bailout of the Wall Street crowd at taxpayer expense. The elites still run the country. Some acknowledge this and far too many are in denial. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/17/obama-and-the-housing-boondoggle/posted @ Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 11:18
The myth of the "liberal" media exposed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic The cerebral defibrillator expounds!posted @ Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 08:17
@melmarino: You are just going to have to deal with my narcissistic personality disorder. Point out the statements you take issue with and we can discuss them. Better yet, just employ the "ignore" button.posted @ Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 18:31
@youdawgyou: When you want to discuss abortion my favorite topic is the U.S. economy which has experienced a "full term" abortion at the hands of the neoliberal academics and the elitists that have used their rhetoric as cover for their systematic extermination of the middle class. Sorry.posted @ Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 18:18
@King Minos: Another timely post today in the "Counterpunch" that reminded me of your tireless devotion to our current economic plight and of course your disdain for Keynesian theory in general and for Krugman in particular. Enjoy! http://www.counterpunch.org/posted @ Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 16:12
@melmarino: Truth is frequently undiplomatic. Dealing with realities however is mandatory when mapping scenarios and charting probabilities. It is extremely difficult, outside of serendipity, to craft solutions to problems when you are not even aware of the starting point.
As Sheldon Cooper said, "There are topics on which I am ignorant --- this is not one of them." Unfortunately there are multitudes who are ignorant on this topic as was suggested by prpl dawg. I simply offered some knowledge and sources to help educate those individuals. If I thought they were morons or idiots I wouldn't waste my time. Ignorance can be remedied, but you can't cure stupid.posted @ Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 16:06
@prpl dawg: I apologize for the confusion. My intent was to define the terms in a manner that might assist the "undereducated" in overcoming their ignorance by gaining a better understanding of the terms involved and then grasping the current economic trends that are ongoing in our nation.
If you stopped 100 people at random on an average street corner, how many could explain the differences between "communism" and "socialism"? How many could explain what "corporatism" is and give you an example.
There are a lot of older Americans that grew up during the ideological conflict we called the Cold War. Far too many simply accepted that "communism" was the enemy and "capitalism" was the good guy --- that rhetorical soundbyte was as far as their comprehension and understanding proceeded. This is Walter Lippman's "manufactured consent" reduced to it's lowest common denominator. Demagogues like a Robert Welch, Joe McCarthy, or Lyndon LaRouche can always exploit such ignorance and sheer the bleating sheep.
A nation conditioned to defining all arguments as "communist vs capitalist" could not comprehend what Dwight Eisenhower was worried about some fifty plus years ago when he came on national TV and warned us about the creeping influence of the defense contractors --- the speech where the "Military Industrial Complex" Frankenstine was created. For those of us watching "Shock Theatre" after midnight during that time period there was a valuable lesson to be learned. Assuming that you could get the antenna pointed in the right direction and there were not a lot of atmospherics on that evening, after several movies it dawned on you that the numerous monsters almost invariably killed their creators. This Hollywood insight obviously motivated Ike to take notice and arouse the sleeping villagers. Unfortunately, there was just no Joseph McCarthy to arouse them to take up their torches and pitchforks and slay the creature because the threat was too complex for them. The townspeople simply rolled over in their beds and went back to sleep.
Today the threat of fascism is obscured even further by the polemic writings and propaganda from the right. Works like Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" that tries to paint and demonize the liberals or progressives as the source of this "fascist" threat. A deliberate distortion that corrupts the understanding of the fascist origins. Not that socialists can't create totalitarian states mind you, but they, by definition, can't create "fascist" states. A distinction intentionally blurred by Goldberg to further his propaganda objective of reducing the heat on the super religious, super patriotic, super militaristic, super conservatives that were being labeled by academics like Britt as potential fascists. There is an excellent rebuttal to Goldberg's work that explains the subtle misconceptions inherent in his writing. Read the responses from the various academics and you can really gain some insight and understanding of the politics of fascism. I'll try to relocate the piece and post it. Here you go! http://hnn.us/articles/122231.html There are four of five responses. Interestingly enough Michael Ledeen wrote one of them. A virtual neocon in his own right and according to one former CIA official the architect of the Niger Embassy break in and the source of the forged documents on Iraq's yellowcake interest leading up to that recent conflict.
As for any changes in this potential threat we need to understand how the Populists and Progressives were able to craft a response and temporarily improve the situation.
Today's unholy alliance between government and business interests is simply an ongoing struggle that began with the creation of the Republic. The Guilded Age and the actions of the Robber Barons were just one more chapter in that continuing saga. The idea of the United States as a laissez faire capitalist nation where free markets operated in an unencumbered or unregulated setting is a myth. It never has existed. Thomas Jefferson had his idyllic vision of an agrarian democracy that could exist without corporate monopolies and government granted protections or favors, but Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay knew that this was not possible in the real world. So the early decades were a struggle over banking monopolies, canal and turnpike monopolies, and government tariffs on imported manufactures to protect American industrialists and commerce primarily in the Northeast. Andrew Jackson took up Jefferson's cause and paid heed to his warning that a banking monopoly would be more dangerous than a standing army. Some have discussed that fear and it's link to the 2nd Amendment in recent weeks although Federalist #146 didn't come up.
The Civil War period saw the government begin the process of giving away millions of acres to the railroad tycoons and the "money power", as Lincoln called it, got their favors as well. Jay Cooke got his real start as a financier when given exclusive underwriting privileges for "war bonds". A lot of special government favors made a lot of "entrepreneurs" wealthy during this period.
Of course after the War in the South the "scalawags" and "carpetbaggers" get the label as the kings of graft and corruption in government as they used their political monopoly to assist their business partners in looting the state treasuries, but the so called "Redeemers", who gradually reasserted Democratic Party control, engaged in the same practices once they had control of the state governments. C Vann Woodward's classic work, "Origins of the New South", catalogues the various abuses and relationships involved.
Although he is an Austrian School economist, and his writings are interspersed with occasional polemics, Murray Rothbard's, "A History of Money and Banking in the United States", can walk you through the evolution of the banking industry in this country. His historical account details the elitists' influence on critical policy making as thoroughly as anything that C Wright Mills or G William Domhoff ever wrote. In the financial sector, at least up until the Populist/Progressive efforts to impose some restraints, it was always government of, by, and for the bankers. In an interesting twist Rothbard suggests that the era of "regulation" was actually orchestrated by the elites to essentially carve out monopolies and eliminate competition. You can't get much more "corporatist" than that! In Rothbard's view the political battle from the late Guilded Age to the Depression was essentially a running battle between the Rockefeller/Kuhn Loeb/ Harriman factions and the Morgan group. His account of the propaganda campaign that was created as cover to push for the creation of the Federal Reserve System is quite enlightening. You may not share his interpretation of the motivations of the actors, but his recitation of the underlying facts serves a valuable purpose.
Another book that details this perpetual partnership between government and business interests, cemented through politics, is Jack Beatty's "Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money In America". Bruner and Carr's little work on "The Panic of 1907" is another that reflects the cooperation between the elites and the government.
These writings simply reflect the realities that politics and business interests by their very nature require close cooperation and have always moved in the same circles. The issue of course is whether elites, driven by their own self interests and operating in an inherent conflict situation, can exert an exaggerated and inordinate influence over policy making in a nation and that nation still retain a democratic government without close monitoring, supervision, and full disclosure to an educated electorate.
Looking at the Lewis Powell Memo in 1971 it becomes clear that corporate interests can get organized and pursue an agenda through their foundations, institutes, and think tanks and their propaganda mouthpieces that will insure that the electorate remains uneducated, ignorant, and uninformed concerning this whole process. Ignorance is a corporate victory and a stake in the heart of that democratic vampire that Powell feared so much.
The problem is that the corporate media and the so called "brain trusts" with their propaganda organs have utilized and incorporated many of Professor Britt's 14 characteristics in an effort to mobilize the masses to ignore the corporate seizure of government. Unlike the first 200 years we now have the mass media and principles of mass psychology that will facilitate these efforts.
The Populists and Progressives from a century ago, relying on church and town hall speakers, actually educated themselves and had a much better grasp of the threat posed by that business/political alliance to their own personal economic interests. They crafted insightful solutions to control the greed and limit the corruption. In short, they reacted in a logical and rational manner to protect their interests by organizing and getting involved in the politics of their respective historical periods.
This generation is too fixated on tweeting, texting, and "social media" to actually educate themselves on the issues impacting their economic futures. They can't put down their cell phones and stop engaging in this trivial nonsense long enough to read something educational. That's boring! Sheep will always get sheered. From the corporate perspective, "Ignorance is victory!"
Iposted @ Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 11:25
@davidxto: These two chaps are discussing this 20th Century phenomenon on two different planes. Eco's analysis is directed at the philosophical underpinnings of policies and Britt's is focused more on the practical application of those concepts. A coincidence that they both came up with 14 points --- like Wilson's peace plan. I'm sure Louis Farrakan could draw some inferences from that number that have remained a hidden mystery to the likes of us.
One thing that Eco doesn't dwell on is the role of corporatist economics in the overall scheme. A critical feature in Britt's profile for fascist states that explains why the transition to fascism is always led by the conservative business forces and why the fascist regimes always insist on dismantling the "socialists", the "communists", the unions or labor movements, or any other organized opposition that might interfere with corporate profits or their private ownership of their wealth.
Thanks for posting this piece, I had totally forgotten about it.
Thanks also for that blurb from the semi nude prey. At least that dude had a shot at survival --- unlike that human clay pot that was roasted over the fire. There are some serious anthropological disconnects in that film. Hollywood does tend to take a great deal of license in crafting their melodramas.posted @ Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 17:50
This is the "bigger story" guys, but you will not hear anything about it in the mainstream media or in any of the propaganda factories that spin the acceptable "narrative". http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100245480
Here is another timely piece. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/15/the-real-benghazi-scandal/
There are serious issues involved, but they transcend poor security decisions. We are not going to talk about that right now. Petraeus sex life or too many rapes are much more alluring for the ignorant masses. Forget about Lt.Col. Daniel Davis revelation that the Pentagon has lied to us all, impaired force readiness, and generally begun acting like a Praetorian Guard as Eisenhower warned us. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-afghanis...
Let these geniuses that can rant and rave about liberals and conservatives continue to be the manipulated little puppets whose actions are dictated by the interests of the elites. Clueless twits!posted @ Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 17:13
Sorry if I inferred that this nation is sliding into "communism" or even "socialism". As I have repeatedly stated we are adopting "corporatism" as envisioned by Benito Mussolini. It is not private ownership of property and free markets as in a capitalist state or government ownership of property and no pursuit of profits as in a socialist state. Mussolini described it as "...the third way..." between capitalism and socialism where corporations own their property and pursue profits and government partners with them to support their efforts. That is precisely the economic reality that exists today with our government and the military industrial complex, the agricultural complex, and the healthcare complex. We have even decided to guarantee profits to the financial sector through government policies. They are all "too big to fail"--- unless you are talking about all these "little" community banks in Georgia that have fallen by the wayside. This is the scariest "truth" that emerges in today's America.
Lawrence Britt studied the fascist regimes from the 20th Century and listed their defining traits. I suspect that Professor Britt listed his 14 common characteristics of fascist states in response to the successful efforts of the neocons to seize control of this nation's foreign policy under Bush and redirect it in a manner that supported their vision and " Project for a New American Century". The trends in American culture and governance toward many of these defining traits under the Bush Presidency greatly concerned him.
Under Obama the trends have accelerated. He is a "corporatist" masquerading as a progressive or liberal, but once you set aside the rhetoric and the symbolic actions on insignificant social matters you see him pursuing the same corporatist agenda in economics and foreign policy.
There are only six entities that control virtually all of the mainstream media and they preach the corporatist rhetoric. Anyone that posed a serious political threat to the existing order would be crucified in that media. Their demonization would be the equivalent of what Clarence Thomas described as a "technological lynching".
How many of Professor Britt's characteristics are emerging in our nation's culture and political institutions? http://www.oldamericancentury.org/whitepapers/defining/identifiers_britt...posted @ Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 13:24
There will be candidates, but they will not get the Republican or Democratic nominations, they will not get significant funding from the prominent special interest groups, and they, and their messages, will be largely ignored by the mainstream media.
Corporate America picks two candidates every four years and then you get to vote for one or the other depending on which brand of propaganda you succumb too. It is a lot like the former Soviet Union's approach where the "party" nominated candidates and then you got to choose which communist you preferred.
I would say that it is "Orwellian" in design, but with the insanity dominating the media these days it more closely resembles the work of Lewis Carroll. We need to emulate Elmer Fudd and "Kill da wascally wabbit!" --- metaphorically of course.posted @ Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 06:19
In the immediate future, 30 years, the most plausible bet is an expansion of nuclear power using thorium reactors. The Indian government is supposed to be focusing on this research and there is quite a bit already on the books. It looks more feasible at this point.
There are still the efforts to generate some sort of fusion technology, like the theoretical but failed "cold fusion" efforts, and the folks at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in the NIF are doing some similar theoretical work. NASA's Langley Research Center has had some promising findings in their low energy nuclear reactions.
Don't know a lot about the Europeans at CERN and what the various entities conducting research at that facility are working on, but any particle research, like the ones stateside, are bound to be in their theoretical infancy.
The problems with "fracking" is that the extent of the "externalized" costs is an unknown at this juncture. We really don't know until we are 20 years down the road. This self serving propaganda nonsense about energy independence being achieved by utilizing this approach is disturbing. Even if we are sitting on a sea of gas and oil that is recoverable through environmentally acceptable methods that approach is not a long term solution.posted @ Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 19:45
I was hoping that somebody in Singapore was gonna grow me a new heart --- this pump is shot!posted @ Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 19:24
@King Minos: Totally agree your majesty!
This guy is either an idiot and far too ignorant to be addressing anyone on economics or he is still preaching those same neoliberal lies and BS that the elites sold us 35 years ago --- you know, the ones which created this dysfunctional economy that we currently enjoy.
This guy should be fired for terminal stupidity or indicted for perpetrating fraud and deceit against the American public. Maybe Gary Pisano and Willy Shih could explain things to him. Apparently he is a Friedman/Greenspan disciple.posted @ Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 18:49
Perhaps a better understanding of what is unfolding in the global macroeconomic picture might give potential future "employees" some insight. While considerably more superficial than David Harvey's analysis of the impact of decades of neoliberal economic theory, Professor Durand's essay provides a brief glimpse into the future American economy and job prospects for our next generation. Is the dream dead for the vast American middle class? http://truth-out.org/news/item/16291-the-american-dream-is-dead-long-liv...posted @ Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 07:03
Want your business here? Contact Leslie Turner for more information.
Rep. Regina Quick, R-Athens, was one of two local delegates to score less than an "A+" in the Chamber of Commerce's annual legislative score card. She and I played phone tag Monday when I was reporting the story and I wasn't able to get her comments in a timely fashion. Instead, she sent over this statement Wednesday morning and she did not mince her words. (Links and italicized portions are my own; otherwise, it's as she wrote it.) Dear Friends: read more
The committee opted Tuesday night to put off deciding on the ordinance until, at the earliest, its next meeting. Of note: The Athens-Clarke County attorney highlighted that the proposed times are, in essence, placeholders for the commission to change or keep as it pleases. Full text of the Use of Public Right-of-Ways ordinance draft is below. read more