Mike's Blog Roundup
Watchdog Blog: How did the Bush Administration has get away with so much unnecessary secrecy over the past seven years? And how will the next president behave?
Informed Comment: Police mutiny, refuse to attack Sadrists; Clashes continue in Basra...but it's all good!
David Seaton's News Links: The discrediting of America's philosophy of finance is just another element in the general discrediting of the United States as a brand.
Lawyers, Guns and Money: McCain relies on Enron Revolution footsoldier for economic counsel. Steve Benen notes, "confronted with a fire, McCain is taking advice from an arsonist."
Liberal Values: Zbigniew Brzezinski on getting out of a foolish war.
The Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat: Mat Johnson tells the story of a black journalist passing for white, Eric Alterman faces a winger trying to pass for an intellectual, E. Benjamin Skinner stares into the abyss of modern-day slavery and Jack London, staring into the future from a century away, comes up with a novel that has more than a little in common with our own times.
Zbigniew Brzezinski speaks clearly on Bush's Imperialist war.
How did the United States ever end up with this unorganized banana republic it has become?
How did they get away with so much?
Because we have an educuschmated and informed public right?
Just keep blogging kiddies you can be somebody on the interschnet.
It isn't a war. How someone this intelligent, still calls it one, is amazing in itself. It's an OCCUPATION.
The "free market" system could never survive without government intervention. Rich people only will invest if there is no risk, low risk, or a guarantee of more $$$. That is the problem today, in not only the US, but also even in Canada. Greed trumps any market system.
DC @ 2:
Greed wrapped in a flag, with a huge does of arrogance to top it off?
Regardless what candidates stump in their speeches, or post on their internet sites, there is no way they are going to turn back the clock on the Bush Regime's ill gotten gains. They want it.
This isn't a joke.
http://tinyurl.com/yrewot
L.A. Confidential @ 7:
The 3 Headed Monster.
Get it yet?
ConcernedCanuck @ 4:
This is a ridiculous notion- especially since a system with government intervention is NOT a free-market system. So what if people invest for the guarantee of more money? That's their right- and they only make money if consumers are willing to buy(which means the consumer felt that this purchase would improve their life). And why are you complaining that people want to invest if there's low-risk or no risk? Do you want everyone to throw their money into risky ventures and lose it all? The sub-prime crisis is an example of very very risky business.
With all the current government bailouts today that show that we are not in a free-market, it is more like a free-market cannot survive WITH government intervention.
Shoaib Qadri @ 10:
It's their right, yes, but that isn't how the game works. Never has, never will. There is no such thing as a "free market" and those that say they'd like one, are either stupid, or badly educated. A "free market" would be even worse than what we have today. Free market corporations would not regulate themselves. Ever. They'd all make crap. Sell crap. And wouldn't care if little Johnny died playing with their crap, as long as their crap sold.
Shoaib Qadri @ 10:
It's their right, yes, but that isn't how the game works. Never has, never will. There is no such thing as a "free market" and those that say they'd like one, are either stupid, or badly educated. A "free market" would be even worse than what we have today. Free market corporations would not regulate themselves. Ever. They'd all make crap. Sell crap. And wouldn't care if little Johnny died playing with their crap, as long as their crap sold.
Shoaib Qadri @ 10:
It's not a ridiculous notion at all. Small-time entrepreneurs who embrace the "American Dream" get hosed, while big box retailers & corporate interests leverage huge sums of public money just to open up their businesses. I have seen the following scenario a million times: There's a corner somewhere that could use a coffee shop, say, or a burger joint or some such thing. Some local entrepreneur opens up a coffee shop, and, if it survives for a year or two, then suddenly there's a Starbucks across the street and a Caribou on the other corner, both of which opened with guaranteed loans from the public. They price the local entrepreneur out of business, then ignore the wishes of the customers in the neighborhood, thereby driving themselves out of business. After a few years, the intersection is back at square one with empty storefronts & nobody willing to take the risk to open up a business. This is the corporate mentality in a microcosm; they refuse to take any actual risks while simultaneously marching proudly beneath the "free market" banner.
The sub-prime crises is not "an example of very very risky business," it's an example of corrupt lenders convincing naive borrowers to borrow more than they can afford to pay back and then turning to the government teat as soon as the chickens come home to roost.
ConcernedCanuck @ 12:
That's ridiculous. Corporations need to make sure their products are high quality or else people WON'T buy them and they will go to a competitor. A competitor will be extremely quick to point out all the flaws in the other's products- and they do it all the time. McDonald's sells high-calorie food content, and Subway's lets you know that their own food is much lower in calorie count than their competitor.
Look at the Tylenol scare of 1982- some maniac actually entered various supermarkets and drug markets- and tampered with the medicine to lace it with cyanide- people intially thought it was something wrong with the Tylenol product. When news broke out- Johnson & Johnson halted Tylenol production and advertising, released warnings to hospitals and distributors- and issued a nationwide recall of Tylenol products which was valued at over $100 million. They also advertised telling people not to take Tylenol products. They also offered to exchange all the capsules people had already purchased. The pharmeceutal industries began to improve quality control methods on their own after the incident.
Now why did Johnson & Johnson do all this? It wasn't because the government interevened and told them to. Its because if people start to think that their products are harmful and "crap" as you say- then they won't buy anymore and they will go out of business. That's the market all on its own.
Meanwhile, more hard hitting journalamism from your "Liberal" media:
http://tinyurl.com/2dcypa
You want to talk about the banality of evil - there it is, folks
And you'll never guess how much longer it may be before white-supremacists and neo-Confederacists start whining "Cultural Intimidation! Cultural Intimidation!!" (in the inevitable key of "Ring around the collar! Ring around the collar!!", to make things all the more distasteful....)
BDM @ 13:
Well opening up stores by using "public funds"...how can you blame that on the free-market when its government provided funds? And if no one is willing to open up a business because there aren't enough consumers that want to frequent those areas(since in those areas you're telling me about places go out of business so easy)- then why should they open a business? You're in the wrong location if the consumers there don't want your product.
Well yeah the Sub-prime crisis SHOULD'VE been risky, but since these lenders are getting bailed out by our government(which shows the negatives of the government controlling the market)- its not. The reason it started in the first place was due to the artificially low interest rates by the government.
Shoaib Qadri @ 17:
What I'm getting at is that there are two sets of rules; one for small businesses and another for large corporations. If Bob's Java Hut is having trouble making ends meet, then it's "oh well...that's capitalism for ya." If Northwest Airlines can't make ends meet, then suddenly we're socialist & taxpayer money must be used to keep the company afloat.
BDM @ 18:
Well yeah that's definitely a huge issue, corporations/big business together- the rise of the military industrial complex being the most blatant abuse and fraud there possibly could be. But that's not the fault of the free-market.
Shoaib Qadri @ 19:
No, it's not the fault of the free market; it's simply exposing the lack of a free market.
L.A. Confidential @ 3:
That's cute. But what the hell does it mean? Blogging contributes to criminal governence? Blogging is merely an attempt to promote oneself and has no redeeming value?
Many of the so called "progressive" blogs continue to ignore the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I have claimed many times that many of these blogs are absolutely no different than the MSM on this particular issue. Just went through the archives of Firedoglake for the month of March not one article about this conflict. Lots of artiles about McCain, Obama, Clinton, Iraq, one of the bloggers over there claimed that an issue even bigger than what U.S.claims to be the biggest issue that we face Islam is the attitude that folks here in the feel towards the LGBT community. Hello HOwie Klein maybe you just refuse to listen as
Jane, Christy and others at Firedoglake continue to ignore or are just too petrified to focus on this issue in the middle east. Someone else wrote about the issues that the candidates are ignoring but this writer failed to whisper anything about how the candidates are not talking about this issue. HMMMMMM
How many times do we have to hear that this is one of the most critical issues that our nation faces? I guess often. Firedoglake is no different than the MSM on this issue!
How many times do we have to hear from leaders of other countries in the middle east that this conflict and the U.S.'s lopsided support of Israel no matter what they do is one of the root causes of the hatred towards the U.S? I guess more often.
Olmert announced the expansion of an illegal settlement by 700 homes in March. How much did you see written in the so called "progressive" blogs? And we wonder why this issue is unable to be resolved. Few very few of the so called "progressive" blogs will write about ithis critical issue. Why is that? How different are they than the MSM?
Why not write about the expansion of illegal settlements the month that Olmert announces 700 new homes planned for the occupied territories. Has the I-lobby all ready been successful at shutting down discussion about these critical issues? I think they have.
he Qurei rejects Olmert's statements on settlements expansion
+ -
09:20, March 18, 2008
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6375445.html
The few sites that will mention this issue are Anti war.com, Muzzlewatch, Juan Cole and
sometimes Crooks and Liars.
Palestinians say 'no peace deal this year'
By MEL FRYKBERG (Middle East Times)
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/03/20/palestinians_say_no_peac...
http://www.videospider.tv/Videos/Detail/626695216.aspx
-->>"Liberal Values: Zbigniew Brzezinski on getting out of a foolish war."
Worth tootling over for a read. Thanks for posting Mike.
Comments are closed on this entry