June 11, 2011
This whole Weiner idiocy is making me very glad I've completely given up on politics, as I can simply point, laugh and move on. A politician is a fucking scumbag -- gee what a shocker. That this obvious crap is apparantly worthy of 'flood the zone' coverage isn't surprising, but it's just plain fucking tedious.
With the vast majority of the general populace being barely functioning retards, the only way any politician can get elected is to be either a scumbag or a complete idiot. One simply can not tell the truth and get elected, thus either politicians don't know the truth or they're lying and/or obfuscating. While there are those who are obviously idiots (eg. Boxer, McCain), most are utter scum.
I'm at the point where I don't even blame the politicians. As people are basically begging to be raped by the political / banker class, I say go for it. Weiner's only crime is getting caught, but at least it has the positive side effect of another circus for the braindead masses to distract them from the rising price of bread. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
In developments that actually matter, the recent sell-off in the markets has caused my hedge to go significantly positive for the first time. Until now, the hedge has been a slow leak in my commodities profits, but if we sell off further it will increasingly add to the bottom line. Of course, as all risk assets are moving roughly together, my basic portfolio will most likely be leaking as the hedge makes money. This makes the spread between commodities and stocks more important to my strategy as my investments are in commodities but my hedge is in stocks.
In my post from 1/6, I was off on the timing on the debt ceiling thing by about three months, as my breach assumption was about one month early, and I foolishly didn't anticipate the Treasury raiding government pension funds for cash (if you want to talk about stuff that should actually matter, that's a big one). However, my wealth preservation strategy was designed to be largely impervious to timing issues, so I'm good to go at this point.
Timing aside, it will be interesting to see if the broader predicitions prove out. So far, it's looking pretty good. So, while most of the rest of the American populace is chomping down on Weiner, I'll just keep trying to preserve wealth and prepare for the ever-increasing economic shitstorm.
May 06, 2011
Allahpundit of Hot Air is truly the poster child for everything that's wrong with the political process in America. To call him an utter fucking ignorant tool would be far too generous.
In a recent 'piece' on Herman Cain, AP says 'If you're looking for a political outsider, look no further'. Somehow AP seems to have missed the fact that Cain was the fucking deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Yeah, a fucking banker is exactly what the GOP needs right now. Asswipe.
May 02, 2011
While I'm glad that goat-fucker is dead, it's completely meaningless at this point. The reaction to us finally getting the bastard proves once again why I'm done with politics for good. America is truly a nation of ADD-afflicted children, riding the short bus over the cliff.
Maybe we can manage to get Bernanke next, as he's done more damage to the US than Osama could have hoped to do in his wettest dreams. I'm not going to hold my breath.
On a note of actual importance, silver is down sharply while gold is up a bit since my rebalance. Is silver being manipulated? Of course, and so what? It's simply something to add to the equation, and one of the reasons why I expect silver to be down in the low 30s before I'd consider upping its allocation again.
November 30, 2010
I find the opinions on the Wikileaks saga coming out of the politically conservative side of the blogosphere to be extremely disheartening, although not at all surprising. The general reaction seems to be that Wikileaks needs to be shut down by any means possible, up to and including assassination. This is in stark contrast to the financial blogosphere which is generally supportive of Wikileaks.
People who claim that we need to have major changes in the political process and the financial direction of America, yet want to see Wikileaks taken down are mush-brained idiots. I don't particularly like Assange and agree that his agenda is largely anti-American, regardless of what he claims. However, we rarely get to choose the agent of change, and even if Wikileaks isn't the ideal way in which we'd want the truth about matters to come to light, it's far far better than the status quo.
The simple fact of the matter is that the financial-political oligarchy is so firmly entrenched that it's going to take dramatic action to change the status quo. Those advocating a standard political solution -- elect the GOP and things will get fixed -- have their heads a mile up their asses. The reaction by the conservative blogosphere to Wikileaks demonstrates this quite clearly. Most would rather keep pretending that a bit of tinkering around the edges (as long as it's 'our guys' in charge) will fix things, that comfortable lies about international politics and the fiscal health of the world's banks are preferable to the truth. The truth must not be spoken too loudly, because once it is, we must address the actual source of our problems.
This is why I think it unlikely that there will be a political solution to America's problems. Most people are simply too afraid of real change. Things are going to have to get truly desperate before most are willing to do much of anything. While I continue to hold out some hope that the new Congress will make real progress, the reaction to the Wikileaks saga indicates that this hope is vague at best and unlikely to be realized.
So, I continue to prepare for increasingly desperate times. Major changes are coming whether one likes the idea or not. Attacking Wikileaks -- a source of hard information and an agent of change -- may stroke one's patriotic ego, but does nothing to alter or prepare for the future.
November 29, 2010
There have been a lot of developments in the world over the last week or so. I'm not in the mood to do full posts on any of it, so here are some quick thoughts:
Wikileaks: More please. The Federal Government is out of control -- anything that hurts them is ok in my book. This does nothing to harm the average American, while showing what a bunch of fucktards run State. As if that was any big secret.
Ireland: How does it feel to be slaves to the bankers? What are you going to do about it? Probably the same as everyone else in the western world -- bend over and ask for more.
North Korea: If we want to make a real difference in that situation, we should simply pull our troops out of South Korea and listen to the screaming from Japan et. al. Hey China, what are you going to do now? You want to be a regional power? Oh, not really? That's what I thought.
Holiday Sales: What's that sound? No, it's not Christmas Carols -- it's the sound of the dumb consuming American masses sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming 'la la la I can't hear you' to the nonstop economic warnings. It's ok, another iPOS on credit will make it all better.
TSA: Anyone who is flying who doesn't absolutely have to (death in the family is about the minimum requirement, and then only if it's over a day's drive) is a fucking cretin who deserves to live under the jackboot of government. The fastest way to take care of this situation is to immediately bankrupt the airlines by refusing to fly.
This coming New Year is going to be rather decisive for America. Do we, as a people, still desire to live freely and in a country where we are all equal under the law? I'm doubtful. It seems most would rather sell their freedom for a few shiny gadgets and a false sense of security. Europe, where governments are now seizing private pensions, is likely beyond the tipping point. America is on the edge. Prepare accordingly.
November 10, 2010
Sarah Palin has a post up on her facebook which absolutely nails the current economic picture. Do I think she wrote this? No. Do I care? No. What matters is that she is advocating for the average American in the face of insanity by the Federal Reserve and the thoroughly-sold-out Obama administration.
I initially liked Palin, then cooled towards her as she seemed to be focusing more on social issues than fiscal ones. She's recently shifted hard towards fiscal issues. If she keeps this up, I'm going to get a fucking Palin tattoo on my ass and run around in the buff.
November 08, 2010
If I'm going to keep an open mind about the GOP, I have to be willing to reconsider those who seem to be taking our current fiscal situation seriously, even if late to the game. This Hot Air piece on John Boehner, and his claim that he is going to make the referendum on raising the debt limit a stand-alone vote, is extremely encouraging.
If Boehner follows through on this, and on his claims that he will subdivide budgetary votes into more transparent packages, I'm going to rapidly become a big fan of his. The only way to have a legitimate debate on government spending and the national debt is to make all the components obvious and put politicians on the record.
At the moment, this is all just a lot of talk, and I'm fully aware of what that's worth, so I'll be looking for follow-through. However, it looks like Boehner may be one of the few old-guard GOP guys who understands what the recent election meant. If his future actions measure up to his words, I'm going to be willing to give the guy a break on his past indiscretions. After all, this is not truly about the tea party vs. the GOP -- it's about sound governance. If Boehner is willing to take the lead in that regard, more power to him.
November 05, 2010
Yes, the title of this post sounds like a punchline to Olbermann's ouster at MSNBC, but I'm completely serious about this. If Fox handled this properly, it would be a much bigger win for them than the Juan Williams hire, which was good for some positive PR, but has little long-term benefit.
First, it would have to be in at least a marginally acceptable timeslot, with a reasonable (based on his actual ratings at MSNBC) pay package. I don't watch TV news at all, so I don't know where they could possibly stick him, but there must be some place.
Second, his contract would have to be pay-for-performance, and either short-term or with an opt-out for Fox if Olby didn't meet ratings targets. The contract details would have to be announced or at least leaked so that everyone would know the deal.
Now, he probably wouldn't take the offer. Fine. For Fox, that's probably the best possible scenario. They can claim to have tried to reach out to an arch rival, and end up sacrificing nothing while achieving the high ground. But with his huge ego, Olbermann might think he'd be hugely successful on a better-rated network. Hell, it wasn't Olby that was the problem, it was MSNBC!
If Olby does take the offer, many many more viewers get to see the true ugly face of the far left. And he would get eyeballs, at least for a short while. Plus, it puts the Kos-type crowd in a terrible spot -- to support Olby so he doesn't get canned again they'd have to watch him on fucking Fox of all places.
Most likely, Olby would end up back out in the street at the first opt-out opportunity for Fox. There's almost no way his ratings could keep up with the other opinion makers on the network. Fox will have pissed away a relatively small amount of money while potentially making some net gains on their other shows from people who came for Olby but stayed for people who were at least somewhat sane. Plus, this would likely make Olby unemployable at any other network -- if he couldn't pull ratings on Fox, how the hell could he pull them anywhere?
The real longshot is that Olby both takes the offer and makes a success out of it. I really don't see how that could happen, but anything is possible. Fox could just shrug and count their money. Or Fox could get rid of him on some obscure standards and ethics clause in the contract (given Olby's complete lack of standards or ethics, it's a nearly sure thing he'd be in violation somewhere). Or maybe O'Reilly will completely lose his shit and murder Olbermann on live TV. Whatever, Fox would have plenty of options.
So yes, I'm quite serious -- Fox should offer Olbermann a job.
November 04, 2010
As long as I'm drawing lines in the sand, beyond which I will not compromise, here are three quick lists on the possible GOP candidates for President for 2012. This is not meant to be comprehensive, nor will I give much commentary. This is a simple reference for those who might care (all zero of my readers) where I stand.
Complete non-starters. Those potential candidates that I will not even consider, and if nominated, I will sit out for:
- Mike Huckabee
- Newt Gingrich
- Mitt Romney
Candidates I will consider with an open mind. There is no order of preference here:
- Sarah Palin
- Mike Pence
- Eric Cantor
- Tim Pawlenty
Candidates I generally like, but think are premature for 2012. I would prefer that these folks keep doing what they're doing, but I would almost certainly vote for them if nominated:
- Marco Rubio
- Rand Paul
- Chris Christie
Special note one: I really hope Sarah Palin doesn't run unless she bones up on her economics and shifts her focus to fiscal matters. She's made some pleasant sounding noises in that general direction, but it's pretty clear she doesn't have much of a clue economically. I think she's much better suited to a party leadership position, doing what she did so well this election. Still, if she ends up as the nominee, I would almost certainly vote for her.
Special note two: It was tempting to put Tim Pawlenty in the first list, based solely on the fact that the hacks at Powerline like him so much. However, that would have been dishonest and unfair, so I guess I'll have to consider him, as galling as that might be.
Update: I just realized Jim DeMint doesn't appear in any of these lists. That's because I assume he's not going to run, as he's smart enough to know he's too socially conservative to have truly broad appeal. That being said, even though I'm socially liberal, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he gets nominated as he's just so damn strong fiscally.
In the wake of the recent elections, I'm doing my best to be conciliatory and look for areas of compromise between the 'top down' GOP types and us 'tea partiers'. I think my vote for Whitman shows that I'm willing to compromise -- if it doesn't I don't know what would. However, compromise can only go so far: past some point it becomes just blindly going along with the other person's position.
To achieve our long-term goal of returning to fiscal sanity and restoring the Constitution, it's in our mutual best interests to find middle ground on the issue of candidates for office. I had thought that the lessons from the DE primary were extremely simple: for the GOP -- no mega-RINOs, for the tea partiers -- no whackjobs. Apparently it's not going to be that easy.
So, let me make a few points perfectly clear:
- Fact: I will never accept someone like Mike Castle as a candidate for office. If the GOP runs someone like him again, I will try to primary that person. If he is nominated, I will sit out the general election.
- Fact: The 'top down' types will never accept someone like Christine O'Donnell as a candidate for office. Whether or not I like this position is irrelevant. I have to simply accept it as fact.
- Fact: The refusal by either side to compromise will result in further defeats for both the GOP and conservatism.
These are extremely obvious points, and rehashing arguments that try to avoid these facts is a completely useless waste of time. If someone insists on trying to argue these facts, regardless of which side of the argument they are on, I very rapidly tune that person out.
This is why, way back in 2008, I left Ace's for good (and in an extremely impressive ball of flames if I do say so myself). It became all too obvious that the 'top down' types were going to try to ram McCain down my throat regardless of any arguments I made towards long-term strategy. They were simply not going to accept that I could possibly have a valid point. As there was no room for compromise, I just left. Staying would have been a complete waste of my time and Ace's bandwidth.
In what has become a thread from hell over at DPUD, I've done the same. I'm certainly not leaving DPUD, but I'm done with that particular thread. Everything that was useful to say has been said, and it's quite clear that Conservative Belle has no interest whatsoever in putting aside old grievances and attempting to find a compromise. So, she goes into my 'ignore in the future' category, just like IVD did.
CB put up another post a short bit ago, but guess what? I didn't read it ( I always look at the author before reading past the title of a post), because I'm not into wasting my time. I won't read the comments on that post either, as it's going to be just another pointless pissing contest. I'm going to look for a post by someone that's willing to compromise instead of just trying to force me to accept their point of view.
In fact, there's a very interesting post over at Ace's that is, in my opinion, the single best thing he's written in 2 1/2 years (that I've read -- for most of that time I have no idea what he might have written). Hell, even the comments are mostly good. Yes, after a long hiatus, I'm reading Ace again. I have been since about three months prior to the election. The reason: to find out if there might be some room for compromise at this point. The referenced post is highly encouraging, as are Monty's economics posts, and some other material as well. That's not to say I'm going to start commenting there again, but I will continue to at least scan the posts on a regular basis.
I'm willing to compromise, but the 'top down' types and the 'tea party' types have to at least get onto the same page to do so. In regard to the DE race, the discussion that we should be having is how to avoid that kind of standoff in the future. If that's not the discussion, if the discussion is 'accept candidates like Castle or else', I'm just going to tune out. And that doesn't do anybody any good.
Over at DPUD, there's a very interesting thread going on -- it's essentially an argument about Karl Rove and the Delaware Senate race. To me, the essence of the argument boils down to how we should achieve our goals (end the fiscal insanity and restore the Constitution) going forward. This is a repost of a comment I left in that thread (edited to remove thread-specific references):
There are three key divisions in planning: Vision, Strategy, and Tactics. Vision is what we would like as an end result. I think most, on both sides of this argument, largely agree on Vision. We want a country that is back in line with the Constitution, on a fiscally sound footing. There are some differences on social policy, but they're small relative to the larger Vision.
Strategy is the big-picture plan to achieve our Vision. This is where we differ. The 'top down' folks think that advancing the GOP is the proper Strategy. This makes Castle an easy call for them, simply because he's the GOP candidate most likely to win. The 'tea party' folks think that advancing conservatism is the proper Strategy. This makes Castle an easy call for us too (just in the other direction), because he's not conservative.
Tactics is the execution of our Strategy. In areas where we differ on Strategy, a discussion on Tactics is meaningless. The O'Donnell vs. Castle argument is a Strategic one, not a Tactical one. The Tactical argument would be how best to get the primary-winning candidate elected. That argument is pointless when we're still arguing over Strategy.
This is why I think it's important to make the distinctions between the various divisions in the 'battle plan' clear, and why calling Rove a strategist is just plain wrong. His Tactics won the GOP some difficult battles and though I don't particularly like the guy, I can certainly recognize that and commend him for it. His Strategy has been an utter fucking disaster. We're currently attempting to undo the damage his Strategies have done to the larger Vision.
This is why we need to move on from this race ... 'chill out' as DPUD says. We have to accept that our differing strategies made this race an impossible situation. What we should be discussing is how to combine our strategies so that we can implement effective tactics in the future. Otherwise, we're just rehashing old arguments and pissing each other off for no good reason.
November 03, 2010
Turns out I was 1/3, with only my local Rep. Issa winning. As he was a sure thing, it's somewhat of a bummer that the other two key races in which I had a vote went sour. Unlike most of the nation, California decided to hammer the gas and try for lift-off while going over the cliff.
Whitman's loss doesn't bother me at all. She was a lousy candidate, ran a lousy campaign, and likely wouldn't have done jack shit about California's fiscal disaster. My vote for her was based almost entirely on the 'new blood' concept, but I had no illusions about her likely effectiveness. Chris Christie she is not. Let Moonbeam and the Dems have the pleasure of being at the wheel as the state goes flying over the cliff edge. Fine by me.
Fiorina's loss, on the other hand, really bugs me. She was a wild card, and it would have been extremely interesting to see what she would have done in the Senate. With the country as fucked up as it is, it's worth taking risks to improve things, especially when someone has as much potential as Fiorina. As I've said before, she could have been an utter disaster, or she could have been brilliant. Seeing as the status quo is already 'utter disaster', Fiorina was worth taking a chance on. I'm saddened that we'll never get to find out if she would have lived up to her potential.
That's pretty much it. I'll probably have a few more things to say about the broader political picture, and the potential for reconciliation between tea partiers and the GOP establishment, but by and large this election didn't do much to excite me. Politically, it's now a waiting game until the new Congress is seated.
While I wait for the Fed announcement, here are some more thoughts on yesterday's election:
- You know who this hurts the most? Palin.
- You know who this doesn't help at all? Romney.
- Cantor may just be the big winner going into 2012 here. If he allies with Rand Paul and hones his message, people could start to take him seriously.
- Rand Paul is fucking impressive. He's the single most important pickup for the GOP. It looks to me like he's got his father's fiscal chops and fighting spirit, without all the excess baggage.
- Paul and Rubio will be the ones to watch for clues as to where the GOP is headed. They're both rock stars at the moment, but they'll have to back that up with sound fiscal policy.
- The GOP can be thankful they didn't win the Senate, as it buys them time to get their act together going into 2012.
- Both tea partiers and the GOP could come out ahead if they look to where they succeeded (Rubio, Paul, etc.) and failed (eg. Angle for the tea partiers, Fiorina for the GOP) and cooperate on fielding candidates that are both fiscally sound and electable. Finger pointing would be a huge mistake -- learn and move forward.
- Jim DeMint is quietly becoming the most powerful conservative politician. DeMint, far more than Palin, will determine who the next GOP candidate for President is.
- Palin should stick to fund raising and energizing the base. She'd be most effective if she allies more closely with DeMint, and takes a party position, rather than trying for elected office.
In big picture, practical terms, none of this means much right now. Once the new Congress is seated, it will be seen whether the GOP has any real fiscal balls or not. I still think that, even if they want to play hardball, they won't be able to do much more than tinker around the edges and position for 2012. Time will tell.
November 02, 2010
My initial reaction is that, from a practical standpoint, this election turned out to be almost meaningless. Yes, a repudiation of the crazier leftist positions, but still a vote for continuation of the larger status quo. The 'extreme' tea party type candidates got pretty well trounced, meaning that the GOP is going to be looking to field more centrist candidates in 2012. The Angle loss to Reid is especially important in this regard. In short, as we head for the cliff, the electorate wants to take the foot off the gas, but is not yet ready to turn the car.
All this brings us back to the Fed and tomorrow's QE decision. With these results, the Fed should feel fairly confident that they have free rein to do whatever they like. The odds of an immediate challenge to the banking oligarchy would seem to be pretty low, barring any serious missteps. They're going to have to deal with getting the debt ceiling increased in early 2011, but given the election results, it probably won't be a major issue. If Obama is even half smart and throws Geithner under the bus as a token negotiating point, I'd say a debt ceiling increase is a foregone conclusion.
So, the first (and less important) half of this week's picture is in place. Let's see what tomorrow brings.
November 01, 2010
I have to admit, I'm looking forward to tomorrow's elections. This is not because I think anything will really change, even if the GOP has a huge win. It's because I love seeing idiots in mental anguish. Yes, I'm a sick bastard.
I'm impartial as to which idiots I see in pain. I felt the same joy in 2008 when Obama won. Watching the hyper-partisan GOP dipshits agonize over the Dem sweep was thoroughly satisfying. This time around, I get to bathe in the agony of the leftists. It's all the same to me.
I'd feel differently if I had any emotional skin in the game, but neither party has even come close to focusing on the real issues that might get me emotionally invested on either side. I have some vague hope that the GOP might start to tackle the fiscal trap in which America finds itself. If so, I could be far less detached in 2012. I doubt it, but we'll see.
I think that America is simply not yet ready to face the short-term difficulties that would occur if we tried to truly tackle our fiscal dilemma. People are wired to avoid short-term pain, even if it means more pain in the long term. This means that the GOP will be unable to do more than tinker around the edges of the main issues, which implies that come 2012, it's likely I'll be lapping up the tears of the conservatives again.
In any event, the GOP will have their day tomorrow. It looks to be a very good day, maybe even a historically great one. I'd love for my cynicism to be proven wrong for once, and so I hope for some real political change. But until that happens, I'll just keep being a twisted bastard and take my amusement where I can get it, regardless of which side is 'winning'.
October 28, 2010
Bill Black is the best financial regulator in recent history, and a voice of sanity in regard to the current banking fiasco. He was instrumental in resolving the S&L crisis in the '80s and directly responsible for some of the perpetrators of that fraud going to jail. In a sane world, he would be a lauded figure in the financial industry and his opinions would be sought by the media and politicians. In the real world, he's been marginalized.
As opposed to the clowns teaching economics at Ivy League schools, Black teaches at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. Unlike the crooks that advise the President and run the Treasury and the Fed, he has no political influence. Instead of being sought out by MSM outlets on the very serious and very topical issue of financial fraud, he's writing at the fucking Huffington Post, of all places. And yes, as dirty as it makes me feel, that's actually a link to the Huffington Post -- it's Black's most recent article there.
While it would be easy to go on a long rant about the government and academia in regard to Black's status among the elite, it would make only a trivial and tired point. Honest people aren't welcome among politicians, bankers, the MSM, and top educators. Surprise, surprise, yadda yadda yadda.
To me, a much more important point is that Black's status is a clear indictment of the conservative alternate media. His work should be featured prominently by conservative blogs. He should be writing articles for National Review (no link, they fucking suck, I'd just as soon read Sullivan). To their credit, Reason has lots of references to Black, but they're hardly conservative, and Matt Welch is laughingly an Editor in Chief there. On balance, they're about as good a media outlet as the HuffPo.
Conservatives had best get their heads out of their asses and start taking the financial situation in this country seriously. While sucking each others cocks over the coming election landslide for the GOP might seem fun, conservatives are setting themselves up to be even more reviled in 2012 than the Dems are now. If conservatives want to hold power for more than 2 years, if they wish to actually help the USA rather than just play politics, they need to start paying attention to people like Bill Black.
October 22, 2010
I believe it's in my blogging contract that I have to weigh in on this, even though the subject's already been written about on every single site in existence. So rather than state the obvious (no public funds for NPR, etc.), I'll focus on a different idea, one that is more obscure, yet (at least to me) much more interesting.
The biggest problem at NPR seems to be that Williams was also working for Fox. Apparently, this was a major issue for NPR's listeners as well as its management. One would think that leftists would appreciate someone trying to espouse and defend their ideas in a conservative arena, so as to convince others of the validity of their ideology. One would be wrong.
Leftists are so far gone that, not only do they want to live in an echo chamber, they don't want anyone else to know what they are thinking. This, to me, is the critical point. They know that their ideology is indefensible, but they don't want to acknowledge it publicly. The current elections show that, when exposed to the full light of day, their ideology is firmly rejected by most Americans. Their only option is to retreat into a 'secret society', where not only do they hear solely what they want to hear, nobody else can be privy to their conversations.
Juan Williams was, in part, fired for breaking the leftist echo chamber and acknowledging the real world. The main reason he was fired, however, was for exposing the bankrupt leftist ideology to others. That was the truly unforgivable sin.
October 20, 2010
While Denninger's latest rant is seriously over the top, I agree with the substance of it to a large extent.
In short, The Tea Party was and is about the the corruption of American Politics and the blatant and outrageous theft from all Americans that has resulted. It is about personal responsibility and enforcement of the law against those who have robbed, financially ****d and pillaged the nation.
Exactly. Get the damn social issues out of the equation, please.
The good news is that the 'official' Tea Party organizations and the self-appointed 'leaders' of the Tea Party will rapidly find themselves out in the cold unless they focus on the truly critical issues facing our nation. If Sarah Palin wants to have any chance of winning the Presidency in 2012 (maybe she does, maybe not, who knows at this point), she better start boning up on economics.
Tea partiers aren't committed to any specific organization and they aren't dedicated to any particular leader. Any semblance of formal organization is short-term and focused on trying to give us better candidate choices in specific races. Any organization or leader who thinks they have permanent support is going to be extremely surprised when they find out they have zero support if they don't focus on what really ails us as a nation (I'm looking at you Scott Brown -- later dude -- you served your purpose, now take a hike).
But again, this is the beauty of an energized electorate. The 'throw the bums out' movement is here to stay, regardless of anyone who might try to co-opt it for their own purposes. Fuck the Tea Party. Long live tea partiers.
October 18, 2010
Perusing the web, I've come across a lot of complaining about the choice for CA Governor. A lot of people who sat out Obama / McCain (as I did) are threatening to sit this one out too. Although I agree she's not a wonderful candidate, I still think one should vote for Whitman.
If we're going to throw the bums out, we have to give newcomers a chance, even if they seem less than ideal. Whitman is all over the place on her campaign statements, but I give little weight to the words of politicians. I look at their prior history. With a newcomer, you simply don't have that prior history.
As a GOP-leaning independent, I wanted a new choice for Governer. I got that -- I may not love the exact person the GOP picked, but I have to acknowledge that I got an outsider. I'm not going to be a libertarian douchebag and whine that Whitman's not exactly what I wanted. I'm going to vote for her and hope for the best. If she sucks (and she probably will), I'll be looking to throw her out on her ass the next time around, but she at least deserves a chance.
Contrast this to Obama / McCain. McCain is a known political shithead. He has a long history of being a shithead. I had very good reasons to sit that election out (and no I'm not looking to go into it all again). If I want my vote to be considered at all, however, I must be willing to compromise and vote for the GOP candidate when I get enough of what I ask for.
I get it. Meg Whitman is a mush-brained dodohead who is likely to just try to muddle through the current fiscal disaster. But she's a new mush-brained dodohead who might actually accomplish something if given a chance. I still intend to vote for her.
I'm just about through with calling myself a libertarian. I've tried putting various descriptors on the term: 'small-l libertarian', 'conservative libertarian', 'non-doctrinaire libertarian', 'practical libertarian', etc., but they neither satisfy nor roll off the tongue nicely. I'm at the point where I have no idea what to call my ideological bent.
Melissa Clouthier has written a very good piece about how libertarians have completely marginalized themselves. I'm having difficulty finding a short part to excerpt, so RTWT. It's not very long. The point of the article is that, in a year when the Tea Party has had a huge impact, and there is a real choice to be made at the polls in many races, the libertarians are still whining and refusing to vote.
Now, I'm a firm believer in not voting for the lesser of two evils, but one can take this much too far. One must have some sense of priorities and not let 'the perfect be the enemy of the good'. I hate that fucking phrase as it's used all the time by people as a way to say, "sure we suck, but we're slightly less sucky, so vote for us," but in this case it's appropriate. The key is that you need some good, which is why I'm willing to sit out if needed, but you don't need all good, or you'll never vote. To recognize 'some good', you have to have priorities.
And that's the big problem with libertarians. Their priorities are completely fucked up. They deserve the mocking they get as a bunch of stoners, because legalizing pot should be a very low priority item, given everything else that's going on in the country. In theory, I'm all for legalizing pot, but relative to getting entitlements and government pensions under control, the war on drugs is a fucking drop in the bucket. If that's your hill to die on, your issue that you're willing to sit out for (or worse, cast a vote for a socialist), you're a fucking asshole.
This is why Ron Paul is such a joke. He's got all kinds of shady associations. He's out there talking about a return to the gold standard, when to even get to the point where it could be considered, a zillion other more important things would have to happen first. Priorities, asshole. Then, when he proposes important, practical legislation like an audit of the Fed, he has trouble getting taken seriously because he's out there in la-la-libertarian-land so often.
Maybe I should continue to call myself a libertarian, and just call fucktards like Matt Welch something else -- like fucktard. The problem is that they and others will continue to call them libertarians. So, I'm kind of stuck at the moment. I'll just have to keep myself on a practical, prioritized course of action while I come up with a new ideological term.
43 queries taking 0.0894 seconds, 112 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.