The Dance With Nance

Keith Olbermann's job description appears to have grown, YET AGAIN! Yeah, that's right, folks. The bastard's apparently now the official spinmeister for Pelosi. I mean, seriously, did you see his show last night? He was spinning like a washer for our dear Speaker - practically defending her, for Christ! Talk about giving somebody the benefit of the doubt - and, yes, for a person who's obviously lying her socks off, too................................................................And, no, folks, I'm not buying any of this "the speaker was sworn to secrecy" bullshit. This, I'm saying, in that, while, no, she may not have been able to say anything in public, she certainly could/should have raised objections at the briefings. SHE DIDN'T! She's not even admitting to the frigging briefings, for Christ! I mean, I hate to say it, folks, but this drooling/moronic partisan wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the backside. At least Senator Rockefeller has had the calm decency/good sense to keep his mouth shut. That's something. At least it is in this day and age.

The Man Who Did Too Much/Little

Herbert Hoover, folks - a "uniter", if ever there was one. This, I'm saying, in that, think about it. Here's the one individual who liberals and conservatives BOTH seem to despise. The liberals hate him because they feel that it was him (more than anybody) who 1) caused the Great Depression and 2) once it got rolling, didn't do damn near enough to help us get out of it. The conservatives hate him because they think that he actually did TOO MUCH and, yes, because of this, made the Depression worse - much, much worse. The guy can't frigging win, in other words..............................................................But what about it, though? Was he as bad as historians and others have made him out to be? Possibly, but I don't know. To take a line from our present president, that's a wee-bit "beyond my pay-scale". What I will say, however, is that the caricature of Hoover as strictly a free-marketeer/a person who sat idly by during the Depression - that assessment is totally off the mark..................................................................One, he worked with the Chamber of Commerce to set up the National Business Survey Conference (an entity that sought to obtain pledges from business that they maintain wages/undertake new investments). Two, he set up a new division in the Commerce Department to speed up federal construction projects (infrastructure, Rachel Maddow). Three, he pushed through a temporary tax reduction. Four, he worked with Congress to increase, by 400 million (probably a lot of money for back then), public works expenditures (yes, Rachel Maddow, MORE infrastructure!). Five, he authorized the establishment of the Federal Farm Board (this, to make low interest loans and to purchase grain when prices were falling). Six, he advocated for and signed (bone-headedly, in the opinion of most economists) the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill. Seven, he established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (the attempt being to stabilize the banking system). I could definitely go on here but I think I've gotten my point across.................................................................Now, clearly, one could be highly critical of each of these measures, Hoover's overall approach to the economy, etc.. But to say that the guy was a Nero, fiddling as the economy was burning, that, me-buckos, is demonstrably wrong. I mean, just read a history book, for Christ.

Thanks but No Thanks

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Mitchy McConnell and John Boehner - THOSE....are my options? I mean, seriously, folks, THAT'S IT? That's the frigging rubbish you're expecting me to be sifting through now? Seriously?.............................................................Well, guess what there, me-buckos? I ain't buying either of those two sorry-assed choices. I mean, think about it. McConnell and Boehner (option A) - those two sons of bitches were part of the crew that 1) got us bogged down in Iraq, 2) emboldened Iran and the rest of the Shiite world, and 3) allowed that piss-ant bin Laden to scurry off (nice job, fellas). Option B, the drooling and moronic Pelosi and Reid "squad" - that, on the other hand, is spending us into bankruptcy. Rapidly!...............................................................I mean, I hate to say it, folks, but that raving lunatic, Ross Perot, is starting to look damn good by comparison. This, I'm saying, in that at least the guy had some common sense and, yes, knew how to balance a frigging check-book from time to time. Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, and Boehner - I'm not really thinking so.

Both Ways Cheney

There's this one thing that I just don't get about the Cheney/O'Reilly position on water-boarding, enhanced interrogation techniques (torture, if you prefer), etc.. According to Bush administration officials, they actually haven't used these methods for years. Water-boarding, in particular, they haven't used since 2003 (supposedly). So, the fact that Obama says that HE isn't going to use them, either - how in the hell is that a huge departure for us, an act that is supposedly going to make us less safe....from terrorism, etc.?..............................................................And the thing is, folks, I really want to ask the former VP, "So, when was it that YOU GUYS suddenly decided to make us less safe? Yes, Mr. Vice President, or were you in fact 'keeping us safe' all along, only to be lying about it repeatedly in public?" You see what I'm saying here, right, folks? It's either got to be one or the other. They were either using these techniques all along (this, as part of their rugged anti-terror program) and lying about it OR they weren't (thus compromising security - this according to Cheney's own logic). Either way, it's (please, pardon the pun) torturous.

The Argument Within an Argument

Even the depression of 1938 (the depression within a depression) has been a topic for debate. Those on the left say that it occurred solely because FDR tried to cut spending and balance the budget (he tried to be a conservative, in other words). Conservatives, they, on the other hand, blame this second slowdown on 1) the Fed's increase in reserve requirements (an action that considerably tightened the money supply) and 2) a rapid rise in labor costs due to unionizing (less money available for investment). The President's LIBERAL policies, in other words................................................................And the fact that both sides are always so certain about everything (damn it), tend to put on display such exorbitant levels of arrogance, etc.. Hell, folks, I'd even go as far as to say is that it's probably that that infuriates me more than anything - the knuckle-dragging certitude, especially.

The Truth, As They Say, Is....

Economics isn't exactly a hard science, folks. It's comprised mostly of correlations, ex-post facto analysis, and, yes, intervening variables up the poop-shoot. To say with any certitude that any particular policy is the cause of ANYTHING is pure guess-work, period. Of course, this doesn't stop politicians, economists, economic historians, etc. from boldly trying to establish not just causality, mind you, but metaphysical certitude.................................................................Take the New Deal, for instance. On the one hand, you have most liberals saying that, yes, no question, Roosevelt and his policies worked/helped to get us out of the depression. On the other hand, you have conservatives saying the absolute opposite. The New Deal not only DIDN'T get us out of the depression, it made the depression worse, caused it to last a lot longer, etc.. I mean, talk about a differing interpretation on the same event. It doesn't get any more polar opposite than that..............................................................And like I said, it isn't just academicians who are gloaming onto these oversimplifications. Politics and demagogues are also involved. The bottom-line, folks, FDR and the New Deal was a mix (as is the legacy of virtually every president, frankly). I.E., it was probably a good thing that Roosevelt instituted the bank holiday early in his term. By most accounts (yes, even by those highly critical of Roosevelt), that was an act which seemed to restore the public's trust in the system. The Agricultural Adjustment Act - that, on the other hand, was probably a bone-headed move. First of all, a lot of food was wasted. And, second of all, it primarily helped wealthier farmers, not the impoverished people who really needed the help.................................................................Look, folks, all I can do is give you the numbers here. These are unemployment rates from the bureau of labor statistics, 1933-1942; 1933 - 24.9%, 1934 - 21.7%, 1935 - 20.1%, 1936 - 17.0%, 1937 - 14.3%, 1938 - 19.0%, 1939 - 17.2%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1941 - 9.9%, 1942 - 4.7% (the reduction in the early 1940s, more than likely - again, a guess - due to the draft and an increase in weapons production). They clearly indicate a reduction in unemployment from 1933-1937 (still light-years away from full employment, though), an increase in 1938 (the depression within a depression), and incremental reductions afterwards. Did FDR's policies cause these reductions, or did they in fact retard them? Correlate away, my friends.

Bad Example

While I feel that Obama overall did fairly well at his press-conference, the fact that he ended up inserting Churchill's name into the torture discussion - that, me-buckos, was extremely moronic. I mean, sure, maybe Churchill was in fact opposed to torture. But come on here, this is a guy who willfully (after the war was clearly over, mind you) incinerated over 100,000 civilians (the fire-bombing of Dresden). I mean, if that isn't a war crime, folks, then, seriously, nothing is.................................................................And to hold up Great Britain as some sort of entity that benevolently treats it's prisoners, give me a frigging break. Ever heard of the Irish Republican Army? The frigging Brits used to beat the crap out of those bastards - un-frigging-mercifully. And the fact that the British army was administering rifle butts to the heads of Holocaust survivors as late as 1947. Little stuff....like that, my friends..........................................................I don't know, folks, I'm thinking that maybe Obama should have researched this little analogy more so. What do you think?