HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Octafish » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 143 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 44,420

Journal Archives

Dear Juror #1

Feel free to disagree with me any time you want. If you can, post "Why" so I can learn why you think or feel that way.

As for me: I try to let the readers weigh and decide for themselves. I often post information that one doesn't find on ABCNNBCBSCIAFoxNoiseNutworks or The New York Times. They're the "respected sources" who told you Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, North Vietnam attacked the United States Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq had WMDs and was going to send them any day toward Washington. You see, I remember the times they did that, 1963, 1964 and, for Iraq twice, 1991 and 2002.

Wanting to share what I know and learn what others know is democratic. It's why the press is the only business mentioned by name in the Constitution. It's why the press is so important for safeguarding the republic and maintaining justice.

Wanting to share and learn is the exact opposite to your approach, where you and others on DU, including the rightwing lurkers and the asshole shitstain wankers, label me as a "CT theorist" in order to denigrate me as a poster and demean anything I post. That's a form of censorship, which is undemocratic.


I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want these to be in the record for all DU to see:

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):


Where you smear Naomi Klein, making me think the practice is your speciality:


You will note that I did not support any theory, smear, or lie; I only posted what these people wrote. And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what you describe, SidDithers of DU.

What's a person called who repeats something that is not true, SidDithers of DU?

Money. Those with a lot of it seem to want a lot, lot, lot more.

Maybe that's why there's not much room in their hearts for sharing it. Ask Larry Summers, seems like he would know:

Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books.


Which explains why TPP will create so much "opportunity" for so few people: they'll have to open up their countries' resources for exploitation by law.

Most importantly: You are most welcome, madokie! Thank you for grokking what is being done to those in authority by those with the means.

Last Days In Vietnam (Rory Kennedy) online stream Feb 5-7


The guy uses same M.O. in the JFK assassination debate.

John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago

Thank you for the heads-up, DonViejo.

You're a Liberal?

I've seen you described as a "Democratic strategist" on FOX television.

Doesn't say, "Liberal." BTW: Are you paid by either FOX or the Party?

Believing the CIA, too.

And the NSA making it easy to see how Gulf of Tonkin was exactly as good as Curveball.

NSA bosses feared releasing Gulf of Tonkin intel would draw ''uncomfortable comparisons'' with Iraq

Some ideas are as old as dirt.

A cartoon, FWICF, just before the First World War:

Goes a long way to explaining how some memes can stop people talking about CIA spying and its impact on inequality PDQ.

Reason for wholesale surveillance is so government can arrest a certain category.

Writing about the Third Reich, Hannah Arendt pegged our situation today.

Via Chris Hedges:

The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” is not, in the end, to discover crimes, “but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.” And because Americans’ emails, phone conversations, Web searches and geographical movements are recorded and stored in perpetuity in government databases, there will be more than enough “evidence” to seize us should the state deem it necessary. This information waits like a deadly virus inside government vaults to be turned against us. It does not matter how trivial or innocent that information is. In totalitarian states, justice, like truth, is irrelevant.

BTW: One company's technology helped enable both regimes, IBM.

We Need More War - BFEE Business Plan is now the modern American Economic Worldview.

Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, the United States of America may be in for good times, especially for those perched atop the socio-economic pyramid scheme, should war break out.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.


Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

Dr. Cowen, from what I've read, is a fine person and not one to promulgate war. He's just sayin'.

He has commented on other Big Ticket economic themes impacting us today: "Inequality," for another instance.

Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.


Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...


For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously, thanks to austerity or the sequester or the divided government.

What's important is that the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class." Unfortunately, that may see the rest of the middle class go the other way. Why does that ring a bell? Oh yeah.

"Commercial interests are very powerful interests," said George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007 White House press conference in which he added, "Let me put it this way, ah, sometimes, ah, money trumps peace." And then he giggled and not a single member of the callow, cowed and corrupt press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up.

Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention back in 2007. I don't recall even one reporter from the national corporate owned news seeing it fit to comment. Certainly not many have commented on how three generations of Bush men -- Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush and pretzeldent George Walker Bush all had their eyes on Iraq's oil.

I wish the Press had done its job. Those in authority would have to do their job. Millions might still be alive, the People might use the money spent on wars in better ways, and the Republic might see a return to Justice.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 143 Next »