Don’t Blame Chris Hayes - He can’t help it.

In my previous post honoring our fallen heroes I included the Epitaph for the Unknown Soldier by W. H. Auden (emphasis mine):

To save your world you asked this man to die:
Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?

I return to Auden epitaph because less than 24 hours later MSNBC's Chris Hayes gives us a perfect example of what Auden was talking about:

Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that'll be happening tomorrow.  Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible].  Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word "hero"?  I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that. 

I had to count to 10 20 10,000 before I sat down to write this post. However, as sat counting, with the intense fury of a thousand suns, I was able to reflect and look at this from Hayes' point of view. Can I blame him for this stupidity? Where would this kind of thinking come from? His parents? In part surely - but there must be more to it than that. A quick peek at his Wikipedia page goes a long way to help understand his politics:

Friedman: Man up O!

In yesterday's Times op-ed column, Thomas L. Friedman is advising the president to "Seize the High Ground" (emphasis mine):

I wonder how Barack Obama would do if he ran for president as himself. ... How he would do if he ran for re-election on all the things he's accomplished but rarely speaks about.

Barack Obama is a great orator, but he is the worst president I've ever seen when it comes to explaining his achievements, putting them in context, connecting with people on a gut level through repetition and thereby defining how the public views an issue.

Two things strike me right off the bat here. The fist is that Friedman is implying that because the American electorate is too stupid to realize just how wonderful the O really is, the President will have to use his great/legendary oratory skills and put his accomplishments into 'context' (read dumb the message down) so us unwashed rubes can understand it.

The second, and more disturbing, is that Friedman actually thinks Obama has a compelling message here.

He continues to spell out these great, nay, herculean accomplishments the O should be touting. Let's look at them in the order Friedman lays them out.

First up Obamacare:

Think about this: Is there anyone in America today who doesn't either have a pre-existing medical condition or know someone who does and can't get health insurance as a result? Yet two years after Obama's health care bill became law, how many Americans understand that once it is fully implemented no American with a pre-existing condition will ever again be denied coverage?

Golly, that sounds great. Further, any hardhearted fool who would be against something like this must be crazy. I mean who wouldn't want the government to provide first-class, timely expert care for its citizens?

In reality Friedman is being either journalistically dishonest or lazy - or maybe both. Never-mind the fact that the electorates approval rating for O-care is underwater. Look at the math! WHEN OBAMACARE IS FULLY ENACTED, I.E. MILLIONS OF NEW PATIENTS ON ENTERING THE MARKET, THERE WILL BE SHORTAGES - PERIOD.

A time to remember..

To save your world you asked this man to die:
Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?

- Epitaph for the Unknown Soldier, by W. H. Auden-

Preparing for Memorial Day Celebration at Zachary Taylor Cemetery Louisville, KY

Only Two Defining Forces Have Ever Died For You: Jesus The Christ And Your American Soldier – Jesus Died For Your Soul And The Soldier Died For Your Freedom.

Zachary Taylor Cemetery - Louisville, KY

For what these brave American heroes did to secure our freedom, it is incumbent upon each us to strive everyday to be worthy of their sacrifice.

Wisconsin PEU: Circling the drain?

After two years of full-throated Scott Walker bashing and a pending recall election it seems that whatever credibility the Wisconsin public unions have left is about gone. 

Writing for the Wisconsin Reporter.com M.D. Kittle Wisconsin has an excellent article out today about just how much impact Gov. Scott Walker's Act 10 has made on the Badger State's economy (emphasis mine):

While a lightning rod for controversy and recall, Wisconsin's Act 10 has paid significant dividends to taxpayers, according to a new analysis by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research, at Suffolk University in Boston. 

Act 10, which curbed collective bargaining for most unionized public employees, in the whole has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion, according to The Economic Impacts of the Wisconsin Budget Repair Act. The study is slated for release this week by Beacon Hill Institute, a prominent free market think tank.

That's billion with a 'B'! In 2 short years Walker has done what no other governor has been able to accomplish. He has decreased unemployment, closed a $3.6 Billion budget deficit all without raising taxes. In fact property taxes in Badgerland have actually gone down.

The analysis goes further to suggest that without the law things would be getting pretty ugly in Wisconsin (a la CA):

“They don’t get us..”

Mr. Biden that could be the most profound statement of your public life. Last week The Veep delivered a fiery speech where he indicated that those evil rich guys (read Romney) don't get us. For your viewing pleasure here is a video:



The link is from Business Insider and Michael Brendan Dougherty tries to make the case that Biden can pander, er, I mean connect with southern middle class workers:

And that's where Biden comes in. He is the only populist in this 2012 presidential race. He can speak to a crowd of middle and working class voters in Youngstown and say "They don't get it. They don't get who we are," and that crowd just instantly connects with him in a way that they can't with either of the men at the top of the ticket. 

For all his verbal-gaffes, Biden has the feel for a part of America that Romney and Obama don't. 

I am on the other side of that fence. While this sort of class envy nonsense works for some I'm guessing most see right through it. And given the performance of these economic titans over the past 3 plus years they should have about as much credibility as a clever garden slug.

I mean if Biden's message is that Romney takes risks on businesses that sometimes fail, um, so what. By implication the Obama team is suggesting that the country is far better off under the governance of two people with no experience except, ahem, public service. Call me old fashioned but I'd rather have a president who has actually signed the front of a paycheck not just the back of one.

I’d like to thank the academy…

.. my producers and writers for this prestigious award..

Well folks I've hit the big time and all my hard work has paid off. Today I was honored with a tied for fifth place in the This Week's Watcher's Council (Non-Council Winner) competition for my recent blog U.S. Lagging Rwanda in Healthcare? 

Um, you'll have to scroll down a bit to find me but there I am. I was nominated by none other than my good friend and council member the Mellow Jihadi, a good American and you could do a lot worse than read his mil-blog daily.

And now for my acceptance speech: Well due to the fact that I could not attend the ceremony my good friend Sally Field will accept in my absence:


 

U.S. lagging Rwanda in Healthcare?

Here is an article in the L.A. Times by Noam N. Levey, who attempts to carry the administration's water by chastising those in the U.S. who oppose Obamamcare. Specifically, he holds up efforts in China, Mexico and Thailand and others who are attempting to give universal health care to all of their citizens:

Even as Americans debate whether to scrap President Obama's healthcare law and its promise of guaranteed health coverage, many far less affluent nations are moving in the opposite direction — to provide medical insurance to all citizens.

China, after years of underfunding healthcare, is on track to complete a three-year, $124-billion initiative projected to cover more than 90% of the nation's residents.

Mexico, which a decade ago covered less than half its population, just completed an eight-year drive for universal coverage that has dramatically expanded Mexicans' access to life-saving treatments for diseases such as leukemia and breast cancer.

In Thailand, where the gross domestic product per person is a fifth of America's, just 1% of the population lacks health insurance. And in sub-Saharan Africa, Rwanda and Ghana — two of the world's poorest nations — are working to create networks of insurance plans to cover their citizens.

"This is truly a global movement," said Dr. Julio Frenk, a former health minister in Mexico and dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. "As countries advance, they are realizing that creating universal healthcare systems is a necessity for long-term economic development."

So after getting in a jibe at us anti-Obamacare folks, Levey holds up China, Mexico, Thailand, Ghana and Rwanda as examples the U.S. should follow in terms of universal health coverage? Um, OKaaay.

Obama: Trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Some of the headlines from Drudge:

AP: GAY STANCE SETS 'WORLD PRECEDENT'...
FLASHBACK 2009: Cheney endorses gay marriage...
WASHPOST: 'Wink and a nod' no longer enough...
Germany hails 'courageous' decision...
REPORTER: 'I'm getting chills again'...
ELLEN: Obama 'brave' for evolving...
Raises $1 million in 90 minutes...
Still Not Signed 'Nondiscrimination Executive Order'...

But with all this gushing breathless praise, what exactly has the president done? Here is the direct quote from the interview with Robin Roberts:

"I've been going through an evolution on this issue. I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally," Mr. Obama said in a television interview with ABC. "At a certain point I've just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

You'll notice my not too subtle emphasis. He "personally" thinks same sex marriage is groovy. What about policy changes? Well here is what the white house is adding to his interview:

While the president opposes the federal Defense of Marriage law that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, he doesn't plan to pursue new U.S. policy on gay marriage, aides said, because he believes states should decide the issue.

So on the one hand he personally believes in same-sex marriage but on the other hand he doesn't believe in it enough to actually do anything about it.

Why? Because he's trying to have it both ways. My guess is that internal polling is indicating that the path to reelection isn't going as smoothly as the experts are saying it will be, so he has to shore up the base without ticking off those opposed to same sex marriage too badly. Especially after the blow back from Biden's gaff last weekend on "Meet the Press". And the fact that North Carolina voters just amended the state constitution to ban same sex marriage by a whopping 61-39%.

So he had to do something to signal his base that he was there for them and as usual he decides to vote "present". But with a complaint media gushing over his 'courage' and 'bravery' it will look as if he has made real lasting policy changes when in reality he's done nothing except 'personally' come out of the closet (so to speak) on the issue.

Exit question: Is there one person in the country that was really surprised by this?

A Quick Reminder to Krugman - Reality Sucks!

In an earlier post yesterday I talked about Paul Krugman's cheerleading the sharp left turn France and Greece took in their recent elections. In that post I had an Exit Question: How long will the average German keep working to support the rest of the continent before they get fed up and tell them all to Geh zur Hölle?

Well it seems not very long. This from the Paper of Record:

"Germans are now predominantly of the opinion that they would be better off if Greece left the euro zone," said Carsten Hefeker, a professor of economics and an expert on the euro at the University of Siegen. "If the country really is continuing on the path they are taking now, it would be hard to justify keeping them in. How do you deal with a country that says we don't want to keep any of the commitments we have made?"

Wonder what Kamikaze Krugman's answer to this is? Without the German's paying the bills how can he justify more spending?

Margret Thatcher once said - "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "

Folks at some point you have to pay the piper and I think the Germans have just decided not to fund Greece's social utopia any longer.

Oh the I-RON-Y

Alternate title: Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

It turns out that not only is Elizabeth Warren NOT .03125% Cherokee but get this - The grandfather who she claimed married one was actually - well here is the article from Breitbart.com:

Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandfather, was apparently a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees from their family homes in the Southeastern United States and herded them into government-built stockades in what was then called Ross's Landing (now Chattanooga), Tennessee—the point of origin for the horrific Trail of Tears, which began in January, 1837.

Well at least she has sewed up the cowboy vote!

Krugman: Hah, I Told You So!

 

Kamikaze Krugman is about to wet himself. In today's column Paul Krugman is postulating that the electorate in Greece and France are smarter than those evil politicians who for the last two years have been trying to cut spending to get their financial house in some kind of order (emphasis mine):

The French are revolting. The Greeks, too. And it's about time. Both countries held elections Sunday that were in effect referendums on the current European economic strategy, and in both countries voters turned two thumbs down. It's far from clear how soon the votes will lead to changes in actual policy, but time is clearly running out for the strategy of recovery through austerity — and that's a good thing.

What is true is that Mr. Hollande's victory means the end of "Merkozy," the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a "dangerous" development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn't and doesn't; it's time to move on. Europe's voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent's best and brightest.

So after decades of borrowing from their children and grand children to live the life of Riley, where over 50% of the voters population is on the dole, the French and Greeks try austerity for two whole years without results. Golly, those wise voters sure know what they are doing - oddly enough they are doing what capitalist do - act in their own best self-interest!

But wait - Pauly gives us proof that austerity measures are bunk. Just look at Ireland:

Moreover, there seems to be little if any gain in return for the pain. Consider the case of Ireland, which has been a good soldier in this crisis, imposing ever-harsher austerity in an attempt to win back the favor of the bond markets. According to the prevailing orthodoxy, this should work. In fact, the will to believe is so strong that members of Europe's policy elite keep proclaiming that Irish austerity has indeed worked, that the Irish economy has begun to recover.

But it hasn't. And although you'd never know it from much of the press coverage, Irish borrowing costs remain much higher than those of Spain or Italy, let alone Germany. So what are the alternatives?

Not so fast there Paul, you are certainly entitled to your opinions but not your facts. The fact is Ireland had a deeper hole to get out of and they have in fact turned the corner. The problem is not necessarily in Ireland but the EU yoke tied around their necks. This from the International Monetary Fund dated March 12:

After three years of recession, Ireland's economy is recovering, albeit slowly. Led by a pickup in exports, the country saw growth turn positive in the first half of 2011. Financial markets are drawing confidence from Ireland's strong implementation of the European Union (EU)- and IMF-supported program and the signs of recovery.

As a result, Irish bond spreads have fallen markedly since they spiked in July 2011, and are now closer to the levels seen for Italy and Spain than for Portugal or Greece 

But the crisis is not yet over, not least because unemployment remains unacceptably high at more than 14 percent. The economic slowdown in other eurozone countries makes it more difficult for Ireland to fully recover from its housing bust in 2008.

So while Krugman would have you believe the Irish slow recovery is due to their austerity measures exclusively, it appears that the real culprit is in large part from the fact that they have no one to trade with in the eurozone because those knuckle heads are depressing the entire region.

Krugman goes on to explain that inflation is the key to the recovery citing Germany in the late 90s as the poster child but with a caveat:

Talk to German opinion leaders about the euro crisis, and they like to point out that their own economy was in the doldrums in the early years of the last decade but managed to recover. What they don't like to acknowledge is that this recovery was driven by the emergence of a huge German trade surplus vis-à-vis other European countries — in particular, vis-à-vis the nations now in crisis — which were booming, and experiencing above-normal inflation, thanks to low interest rates. Europe's crisis countries might be able to emulate Germany's success if they faced a comparably favorable environment — that is, if this time it was the rest of Europe, especially Germany, that was experiencing a bit of an inflationary boom.

Uggg. Paul's answer is to print money I guess so that everyone is in the same sinking ship.

The reason Germany experienced such a quick and decisive recovery is because they freak'n worked their tails off while the rest of Europe reaped the benefits. The Germans cut red tape and created a much more business friendly environment without raising taxes. Meanwhile countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and France that were creating more red tape and another generation of welfare recipients

Krugman is giddy because in his view austerity measures have failed after only two years of half-hearted implementation. This would be laughable if it weren't so serious for both Europe and The US.

Exit question: how long will the average German keep working to support the rest of the continent before they get fed up and tell them all to Geh zur Hölle?

Holy Cow Where is Cathy Vega When You Need Her?

 

As some of my readers may know I have written a book called Death at the Downs where the heroin's name is Cathy Vega (available on Amazon Kindle edition for only $0.99! what a steal! - OK that was shameless self promotion but don't let that stop you from hitting the link and buying the book) and is set at Churchill Downs.

Anyway it turns out that there was an actual murder at the track on Derby Day here in Louisville - Kills me (no pun intended) because the next book in the series (still in the writing stage) is called - wait for it - Death at the Derby. Holy cow how weird is that?

Smashy-Smashy = GOOD!

Just some Anarchists NOT Committing Violence

I just read an article by Brendan Kiley over on the Slog and I confess myself amazed at just how remarkably talented the left is at justifying just about anything.

The title (which he admittedly stole from another site) is: Why All the Smashy-Smashy? A Beginner's Guide to Targeted Property Destruction. In it he takes great pains to justify property damage for political purposes. First by drawing a distinction between violence and vandalism as if one is bad and the other can be a good thing (emphasis his):

Smashing a window is not violence, it's (targeted) vandalism. There is a difference—unless you think of people as the moral equivalent of property.

Soooo it's cool to take away someone's means of existence just so you don't assault the actual person who owns the building being vandalized? And further it is OK just so the anarchist in question has a 'legitimate' beef with the business they are vandalizing?

Kiley kindly breaks down his justification in three simple 'frames' after giving a shout out to Jesus: 

Why would anyone use targeted vandalism as a means of political expression? It's a very, very old tactic, dating back to Jesus smashing up the moneylenders' kiosks in the temple. And it is still popular among some, but totally anathema to most, today.

The rationale breaks down into three basic frames: one practical, one theoretical, and one a mix of practical and theoretical. Any given act of targeted property destruction usually involves a little of all three.

Really, did Kiley just use Jesus? Is this a WWJD defense, that Jesus' actions were political? Now keep in mind I wasn't there when Christ threw out the merchants - but I was taught that he did it because the Temple was his Father's house NOT to make a political statement. He was just taking out the trash. I just - I mean - Really?

Anyway, let's get back to his justification for 'targeted' vandalism - first the Practical:

Hurting businesses where it counts—their pocketbooks—is a way to get their attention.

OK that's one way but wouldn't another (less violent, er, I mean criminal) way be to boycott the business? I mean this is a country made up of laws where we are not at liberty to pick and choose which we would like to abide by. Either we enforce all of them or none.

If you don't agree with a business, don't buy their stuff. But just because you have a beef with them does not mean I do. And it is my right to patron that business if I choose. Conversely, it is NOT the anarchists' right to choose for me.

Second the theoretical:

This is basically the broken-windows theory of policing in reverse. That theory was floated by sociologists in the 1980s and became popular under New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. According to the policing model, an unfixed broken window is a sign of lawlessness and a weak state—one broken window might attract more broken windows which might attract squatters and other forms of lawlessness. Window-breaking anarchists, conversely, want to show that the state is weak and that the state of law and economy we live with is not as inevitable as gravity or aging—it's the result of human choices.

Fair enough but here again Kiley is missing the broader picture. His assumption is that the anarchists are right in the first place. Meaning that it is okey-dokey to do whatever the hell you want because your view is the correct one. And the certainty that they are right is based on what? Because some professor at Berkley said so? Because my Daddy didn't give me enough attention? Or more likely I am too damn lazy to get up in the morning and get a job to support myself.

OK the third frame - The marriage of the practical and the theoretical:

broken windows—and even arsons by the Earth Liberation Front—are a kind of fire alarm, designed to make us pay attention to what they see as accelerating economic, social, and ecological catastrophe. "Then you get a chance to say why would [someone] do that," he said. "And the media has to pay some attention to that and people want to know what's going on."

This just kills me. So instead of playing by the rules - i.e., going through the electoral process that is in place, these knuckle heads simply think it's OK to throw a tempy-tantrum all the while they expect the rest of us have to play by the rules. Why don't they find like minded politicians and elect them to champion their cause? If they are so sure that they are right surely the rest of us plebes will rally behind them. Right? 

Unfortunately their views are in such direct opposition to the American way of life they couldn't run for dog catcher and get elected. And deep down they probably know it.

Kiley finishes with a flurry of justification by saying that if the protests were peaceful the message would wouldn't be heard (you know like those posers Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.) :

So it's a question: Did today's vandalism detract from the protests? If it was all hand-holding and vigils and kumbaya, would the press have replaced their coverage of the smashy-smashy with an equal amount of attention to "secure communities" and "e-verify" and how Wells Fargo makes money off of private prisons? Or would that have all been equally—or even more—ignored?

I don't know. And I'm not a self-professed anarchist, nor a proponent of targeted property destruction (even though I've just devoted 1,500 words to justifying it in this post).

But I do know there are compelling, not-entirely-stupid arguments for vandalism as a form of protest, and as a way to force people's attention towards certain problems that we might otherwise ignore in the deafening static of our undisrupted, workaday lives.

Kiley writes well but the message is bunk. I am sure the SA Stormtroupers who carried out the Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) thought they were doing the right thing as well. The problem there - as with possibly here - the German authorities were complicit due to their lack of upholding the citizens rights and laws against these criminals.

Exit question: Since I don't agree with these putzes is it OK for me to vandalize their homes as long as I don't assault any one. After all I'm just expressing my frustration with these people.

Heros vs. Political Hack

“Veterans for a Strong America” put out the video below ripping President Barack Obama for what it sees as exploiting Osama bin Laden’s death.

Priceless.

Visiting the dark side

Occupy Louisville was pretty much a bust yesterday so I decided to go on a few Anarchist web sites to get and give my fair share of abuse. Right now I am in the middle of a comment battle over on anarchist news dot org. Here are the comments so far. I have identified my comments with the (Me) moniker in the title and caution there are some words here that might be offensive to some (emphasis mine):

Are you guys really serious. (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 07:39

Are you guys really serious. I've never seen so much navel gazing in my life. Are you guys even living in the real world? 'Get the workers first and the owners will follow' this is insane. Do you really believe this nonsense you are spouting?

My guess is that the Poly-Sci or Philosophy degree you knuckleheads got at Cal-Berkley didn't work out for you when you graduated and you want to blame someone else for your poor choices.

So your solution is to kill off the productive members of society and then what? Everything will fall into place? Please.

And what if you got what you want? True anarchy. As soon as one of you declared yourself the leader the others would turn on him like a shark feeding frenzy.

Here's an idea why don't you folks take a bath and get a real job and stop blaming your situation on others.

troll.

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 07:47

troll.

Sorry thought you guys wanted (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 07:51

Sorry thought you guys wanted a debate. I'll leave you to your echo chamber..

The "productive" members of

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 07:55

The "productive" members of society are oh-so productive that they must rely on the labor of other people to make their money.

And labor relies on those who (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 07:56

And labor relies on those who take risks to make money. Instead of gripping about what you want why don't you take a risk and go get it. Or is it that those who take risks somehow owe you, the worker, something that you didn't earn? Labor is a commodity not a religion.

>production >labor >assumptio

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:05

>production
>labor
>assumptions that taking 'risks' with money somehow legitimates capitalism

Look no one here agrees with you on even the most basic things. The entire focus of this discussion is on creating ruptures in the system that you are trying to rationalize to us. Save yourself the time and turn back now dude, even if you were up for a serious debate on this and not just telling us to accept society as it is, @news is not the place for that debate. This is where we come to do our 'gripping' about things.

An addendum to that, if you

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:06

An addendum to that, if you think labor isn't a religion you probably haven't spent much time around leftists.

I never said Capitalism would (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:09

I never said Capitalism would 'save' anybody. It works for me and mine and that is all I can control. evil Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. Communism on the other hand has killed about 100 million people in the last century alone.

Lulz at the troll who argues

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:36

Lulz at the troll who argues against communism as if any of us support it. By the way, you're history is shit. Capitalism drove more people off the land than any other system and brought us to resource exhaustion and eventual collapse. Obvious troll is fucking retarded.

Not sure why being driven (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:44

Not sure why being driven 'off the land' is such a bad thing. As for resource exhaustion there is enough clean burning natural gas to effectively run this country for 100 years at current consumption levels.

As for supporting or not supporting communism It is unclear to me what you guys support. It is true anarchy? Will roads just magically be made under your system? Schools magically be built? Further, if under your system, someone wants to make their life better (and by definition making everybody else's relatively worse) do you just kill the guy because he has risen above the crowd?

"Here's an idea why don't you

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:00

"Here's an idea why don't you folks take a bath and get a real job and stop blaming your situation on others."

"Sorry thought you guys wanted a debate."

Right, I can tell that's totally what you came here for. Troll on.

Actually I came here to learn (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:07

Actually I came here to learn what Anarchists really want - the occupy'ers aren't exactly eloquent with their message. I guess when you are paint bombing police cars and breaking store windows you don't have a lot of time to discuss their message.

So just so I understand your definition of Troll. Someone who comes to your comment section and actually disagrees with your point of view. Is that it? So rather than explain to me the superiority of your philosophy you just call me a troll and you feel good about yourself. Lame.

Why don't you explain your position so I can better understand what it is you are trying to say?

Learn it on your own. Go read

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:21

Learn it on your own. Go read a book like the rest of us. You clearly have internet access. Google it you lazy prick.

Ahh, I guess you are too busy (ME)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:22

Ahh, I guess you are too busy throwing bricks I assume..

yes.

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:35

yes

>Capitalism >Socialism >Mass

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:46

>Capitalism
>Socialism
>Mass society
>Industrialization
>Domestication
>Social Hierarchy
>The State
>Global Economic System

These are all things which I, and many (but not all) anarchists want to do away with or at least negate within our lifetimes by creating ruptures in these manifestations of domination which hold us back from our true desires. Now if you want info on Anarchism and its various ideologies why not start where many others have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-civilization
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

If you actually wanted us to explain our positions, maybe you should have just asked us that instead of being a dick and throwing out stereotypes and insults, you usually get a better response that way. Besides, we aren't the PR branch of Anarchy Inc., we're just a bunch of pissed mofos who want seize freedom by the fucking balls. 

Thank you sir/madam for (Me)

anon - Wed, 2012-05-02 08:56

Thank you sir/madam for taking the time to put this together, honestly I appreciate it.

But here is where it falls out of bed with me. I simply can't get over the theory that a stateless society based on non-hierarchical voluntary association can really work in a global sense. Sure you can get about 50 or so folks in a commune to get along for a while but eventually someone is going to want to rise above the herd. Again this is nothing short of navel gazing. This stuff would never work in the real world.

 

My point in all this is to point out that these people are not serious about anything. Rather than actually try to convert/educate a prospective member, with the exception of the last guy, they just huddle down in their echo chamber where it is safe and call me a troll. If anybody thinks these egocentrics have a chance in actually influencing policy they are nuts.