Monday, January 29, 2007

Limousine Liberals

John Edwards, possible presidential candidate for 2008 has just purchased a 30,000 sq. foot monster-mansion on a 100 acre estate. Included in this huge $6 million property are two (!) squash courts, a swimming pool, a four story tower (!) and two (!) stages! (What is that all about? Has he turned all literary and Shakespearean on us?).

Yes, this is hypocrisy... and it's especially noticeable amongst the "elite left" (if there is such an oxymoronic reality). Look at the "limousine liberal" syndrome: politicians living mega-opulent lifestyles whilst calling for social change, or egalitarianism, to make it look on the surface as if they have the interests of the less fortunate, or average earner in mind). To preach "progressive values" while filtered by such wealth to the harsh realities of life endured by the average working class American to whom they are trying to reach (i.e. those 10s of millions with 2 jobs, no health insurance and no life).... doesn't quite compute.

I am not saying that "liberals" should be disqualified from earning megasalaries because of their political stance: it just kinda stinks that a public figure like John Edwards who claims to speak for "ordinary Americans", goes and purchases a spread like that. This is sticking the finger at his potential support base. For sure, he has every right to to earn whatever he can and spend it however he wants...but a 30,000 sq ft mansion with all those "extras" is a supremely inappropriate gesture for a left-leaning politician (that is, if he really is left leaning, of course). At least at the other end of the spectrum (the Rupert Murdoch, Enron etc. doctrine, and similar), there's no pretense to be something they are not: in their case, what you see is what you get, in all its sociopathic or even psychopathic, reptilian, ugliness.

I forget whose quote this is, but perhaps John Edwards and the Hollywood elite (for example) should take it to heart: "Money is like fertilizer. Pile it all up in one place and it starts to smell bad.... but when spread around, it will grow things"

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

World Economic Forum: Mafiosi, Corporate Barons and Psychopaths... oh my!

The World Economic Forum is getting up to one of its somewhat inaccessible ivory tower hideyholes: this time, Davos, a posh Swiss ski playground for the rich and famous plays host to the reptiles. Of course it is business as usual: once the corporate media have had their splurge at the celebrity trough, their attention will be transferred to broadcasting the usual stageplay of hired black-clad stooges, masquerading as "protesters", breaking windows of McDonalds in the downtown area, thereby publicly casting the opponents of jungle-law capitalism as "rowdy anarchists" on prime time TV. Meanwhile, the psychopaths, war mongers, and merchants of death and destruction sip the champagne and sample the caviar. Louis XIV would be so proud!

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Hillary, or Obama... for President?

Hillary is too "establishment" (ie bought and corrupt) to provide any real hope of honest leadership. Not only that, but she's being marketed as "America's Margaret Thatcher". That spells "nightmare".

and Obama...that's a democratic party suicide ticket. Traditional "values" in much of mainstream America (both dem and repub) are still subject to too much inertia to result in Obama becoming president. A woman *could* make it, if she has an excess of "yang" or male qualities, (in the mold of Thatcher, or Jeane Kirkpatrick, for example). But a black person, or bachelor, or gay, or genuine progressive.. etc etc... no matter how brilliantly qualified they might happen to be.... fergettit!

To become president. it takes access to almost unlimited wealth to campaign at highlevel intensity for 2 years and a blanket endorsement by big business. Hillary *might* have that already.. but Obama? He would have to sell his soul.

It is depressing to think further about all this, because when one gets into it... we all know that "business as usual" will reign.

The sociopaths and psychopaths always seem to win.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Eye-popping executive salaries

I think it was Bertrand Russell who said (pls correct me if I'm mistaken): "a specialist is a person who gets to know more and more, about less and less, until he finally knows everything about nothing". The executive salary situation reminds me a little about the above quote, in that (proportionately) fewer and fewer people are getting paid more and more, until finally a tiny elite owns everything. Well, thats obviously an exaggeration, but it is a parallel.

How much reward constitutes "enough", or "too much", or "too little" (dare I ask?)? I am vehemently against government regulation and intrusion into peoples' private affairs... but this Thomas Paine quote puts it in a nutshell: "Society is produced by our wants, and governments by our wickedness." In the case of insane executive rewards, when society fails to exercise self-discipline and the top individuals within it fail to exercise "reasonable self restraint", where bloated excess, greed, grossness, opulence and the resulting astronomical wealth does not reflect those individuals' worth to civilization, then that is the (unfortunate) time where responsible government ends up having to step in, for the sake of everyone.

How much higher can executive salaries get, before regular people start getting pissed enough to do something about it? There may be also a fear factor, a cold war relic at play here preventing this, (especially here in the US): Are we too afraid of being called "communists" or similar, because suddenly we recommend that the top people are limited to getting paid only 5,000 times the rate of regular workers, for example, as opposed to 10,000 times, or 20,000, or 100,000 times or unlimited?

The top exec. salary thing is also a game they play ... a celebrity competition amongst the elite to see who leads the table of excess. Not only that, but these people can afford to hire teams of skilled accountants and lawyers to set up complex trusts and overseas accounts etc. etc. in order to "legally" avoid paying taxes.

If these top salaried folks cant keep their own houses in order, re pay, and the situation gets so crazily out of kelter and lopsided that government is forced to finally step in, then that is the fault, not of government, but the narrowminded greed, lack of vision, and the "out-of-touch-with-reality" of these pigs. It's a bit of a parallel with the effects of terrorism, where the (evil) actions of a tiny minority screw things up for all... or in microcosm, where a kid misbehaves, doesn't own up, and the entire class ends up being punished.

At some point, I believe, enough is enough.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

More troops for Iraq?

What in the f*** is Bush (and Congress) trying to prove here? The only thing that is going to result from this extension of the Iraq war folly is to provide the burgeoning insurgency with more targets to fire at. Are they trying to ramp the troops' casualty roll up to 4,000 dead by next Christmas? Or sooner, perhaps?

Of course Bush is not going to give up on his pet Neo Con war. He's full of testosterone as well as being a self-righteous character who is scared witless about admitting being wrong. Facing up to reality, losing face and changing course is an alien concept to this excuse of a president (and his cohorts). If he pubicly admitted the mistake of the invasion,left the fate of Iraq up to the Iraqi people, and plugged the endless corporate welfare gravy-train that is the Iraq war, then history will look a little less harshly upon his presidency.

If thr Pentagon asks for $100 billion for the immediate war costs, then they will get $100 billion. How many democrats are there who have the spine to vote for what is best for the USA, rather than being on their knees to their corporate owners and their agenda?

In Congress right now, Weasels outnumber Patriots by a huge factor. Count the brave men and women there on the fingers of two hands, at best.