j_b

These polls mean nothing. Just ask people what they think on issues in terms not framed by the corporate media and you'll find that at least 2/3 of Americans are aligned on progressive positions: against wars of choice, for universal healthcare, for programs like social security, medicare, for minimum wages, for regulation of business and financial industry, for consumer protection, for higher taxes on the rich and capital, etc ... of course if you ask them "are you for socialist government run health care" or any other framing used 24/7 by the corporate media, they'll answer no.

Are you saying your finding the expression not 'fresh' will prevent neanderthals from using ad-hominems? Sounds good to me, if it works.

Regressives and the health care lobby did everything possible for 9 month to create a circus of stupidity and obstruction about health care reform, including daily fear-mongering on a grand scale of media propaganda. Now, they pretend to be surprised the bill is full of non-sense. You reap what you sow, assholes.

May be not guilty of any crime but pulling a gun on someone is pretty wacky. As for your difficult question, and although I am no economist, I believe there are long terms and short term goals that need to be considered. A non-exhaustive list would be: quit paying over 50% of the federal budget toward current and former military adventurism, increase taxation on very high incomes and capital to at least where it was during the Reagan years, a single payer health care that would slash costs, bail out the middle and lower class in the short term while retooling for a sustainable economy also seems to be necessary if we really want to pull most everybody out of this recession while eventually enabling folks to stand on their 2 feet, be done with the economic growth model that relies on consumerism (essentially the only source of growth for the last 30+ years), ...

Dave Zirin is one of the best sport writers around. Sharpton is certainly a loose cannon. I kinda feel sorry for Arenas; he seemed like a nice guy. That's rich coming from a McCarthyist who sees socialist/commie conspiracies everywhere. We'll note once again the lack of any argument or substantiation for that ad-hominem.

HOW TO FLEECE THE PEONS: Conservative Mogul Buying Up Reporters to Promote His Regressive Agenda By William Greider, The Nation. The Wall Street billionaire who wants to loot Social Security [is back]. This time, Pete Peterson has invented his own "news network" to promote his right-wing rants about shrinking the only retirement security system available to millions of working people. [..] The retired mogul has created a digital news agency he dubs "The Fiscal Times" and hired eight seasoned reporters to do the work there. "An impressive group of veteran journalists," Peterson calls them. [...] With his great wealth, Peterson could have also bought a newspaper to publish his dispatches, but he did better than that. He hooked up with the Washington Post, which has agreed to "jointly produce content focusing on the budget and fiscal issues." (This media scandal was first uncovered by economist Dean Baker.) The newspaper is thus compromising its own integrity. It's like buying political propaganda from a Washington lobbyist, then printing it in the news columns as if it was just another news story. [..] The first TFT "dispatch" to appear in the Post -- "Support grows for tackling nation's debt" -- made no mention of Peterson's crusade. But it featured the same devious gimmick the financier has been peddling around Washington. Congress should create a special commission of eighteen senators and representatives empowered to to make the "tough" budget decisions politicians are loathe to face -- slashing benefits, raising payroll taxes or both. Other members of Congress would be prohibited from changing any of the particular measures, and would cast only an up-or-down vote on the entire package, no amendments allowed. Supposedly, this would give them political cover. Look, no hands. We just cut Social Security but it wasn't our fault. [...] The TFT story describes the rising federal deficits as a threat to the republic, yet fails to explain why deficits on rising. The billions have been devoted to bailing out major banks and Peterson's old chums in Wall Street or to turning around the failed economy or fighting two wars at once. So why do the TFT reporters (Elaine Povich and Eric Pianin) zero in on old folks and Social Security or entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid? Because those are Pete Peterson's favorite targets. He has flogged Social Security as a blight on our future for at least twenty years. He is a nut on the subject. His "facts" are wildly distorted or simply not true. Never mind, the establishment press portrays him as a disinterested statesman. This crusade is dangerous for the people because the "respectables" in governing circles and both parties embrace the same reactionary logic. Does government have money problems? Don't restore the progressive income tax on the wealthy or capital, don't cut away some of the corporate boodle in the federal budget -- that politics is too difficult. Instead, let's whack Social Security while folks aren't watching. [...] The biggest lie in Peterson's story-telling is his refusal to acknowledge the looting aspect of what he proposes. Despite his inflamed rhetoric, Social Security is not broke -- it has a huge surplus of around $3 trillion (trillion, not billion). With no changes at all, the trust fund will be solvent for at least another thirty years. In fact, workers retiring now have already paid for their Social Security benefits because they paid higher payroll taxes for the past twenty-five years. I might have a little respect for fiscal crazies like Peterson, Conrad and Gregg if I once heard them state these facts honestly instead of demonizing Social Security recipients. Here is what really worries the fiscal hawks: as the Social Security trust fund built up the huge surpluses, the federal government borrowed the money and spent it. The time is approaching -- maybe ten or twelve years from now -- when the federal treasury will have to start paying back its debts to Social Security. The accumulated wealth does not belong to the US government, any more than the money it borrowed from China. The beneficial owners are all those working people who faithfully paid their FICA taxes for all those years. If Washington stiffs them now, it will be a bait-and-switch swindle larger than Wall Street's. A year ago, the Obama White House was playing footsie with Peterson and intended to give him a starring role in its "fiscal responsibility summit." The Nation disrupted those plans. I wrote a fierce attack on the billionaire's looting scheme and the true fiscal history of Social Security. The sting that really hurt was The Nation's cover -- an unfortunate photograph of Mr. Peterson in which he resembled a Mafia don. The White House abruptly downplayed its summit and dropped Peterson as keynote speaker. But the assault on Society Security, we knew, would come back sooner or later because many of Obama's lieutenants are devoted to Peterson's fiscal logic. Budget director Peter Orszag once co-authored a "reform" plan that would raise the payroll tax on young workers and cut benefits for older people near retirement. Isn't that clever? Pinhead economists evidently think that workers won't notice. Now the billionaire is cranking up another fight. We should finger him again, big-time, and all those who willingly collaborate in his plot. More: Fleecing the peons

No PP, obfuscation will lead you nowhere. I was answering your assertion that Angola's civil war took place under Carter whereas in fact the intensification of civil war and the height of our involvement occurred in the 80's under Reagan as discussed at the link I provided earlier or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War

what insult? You just told another lie relative to warfare in Angola, and as ususal you don't even bother to argue my documented rebuttal.

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time. If you are expecting an answer beyond "lick sack", don't hold your breath.

and yet, ANOTHER vacuous answer by PP. Until the next lie, I guess.

that rich coming from Attila the regressive who denies the urgency of addressing environmental constraints and resource limits.

PP's memory is suddenly deficient so that he can't remember that war after Angola's independence was mostly fueled by Reagan and other conservatives in Washington and South Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNITA#Guerrilla_movement

That's rich coming from someone's whose central argument is that progressives are Pol Pots in waiting. In turn, pointing out your record of warmongering and chilling for corporatocracy in these pages aren't personal attacks but setting the record straight as you position yourself to appear against Obama's war.

See how pointing out the staging of war by the Pentagon for the American public earns me red-baiting by the service goon?

Fighting national revolutions as a foreign power is a sure way to a losing record of interventions over the long term, but hey, we kicked Aristide's scrawny ass into exile.

corporate media propaganda wasn't pervasive enough for any 'shock and awe' invasion

Obama was a joke in Copenhagen because 5% reduction of US emissions in 2020 relative to 1990 is a joke. China may be angling its way toward avoiding more stringent reductions in the future but it couldn't do so without the lack of political will in the US to address climate change. People like PP are responsible for China getting away with being the major CO2 emitter today and its not being constrained to emission reductions.

As if Attila's repeatedly demonstrated level of perspicacity allowed one to conclude that he knew what is Marxism.

True enough, but I don't even want to go there. I am neither a marxist, nor am I a capitalist. It doesn't mean I don't have an ideology (social justice, freedom, ...) but it is much more fundamental than any ism. These right-wing morons and their McCarthyist ancestors have contaminated political discourse by demonizing anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman. Fuck'em.

That or whatever they did wasn't really cutting edge, and didn't have to be told about?

My bad for replying to your post when I was answering to Attila.

Completely irrelevant. Nobody here has been arguing for anything marxist despite the constant red-baiting; however, plenty of knuckle-draggers have argued for perpetual war as if they hadn't learned anything from Vietnam.

Indeed, there is nothing in PP's prose over the last 7 years indicating he learned anything from the Vietnam fiasco.

Just like JFK's legacy is more than just Teddy.... Sure, both wings of the corporate war party are compromised: Vietnam/laos-afghanistan-Nicaragua-honduras .... but how many made the War on Drugs axiomatic?

It was Emilio Comici's saying about letting fall a drop of water from the summit. I am with Bug on this: FAing is mostly about adventure and discovery, which implies that on-sighting makes the experience even fuller (IMO of course). It is the form of climbing that embodies best moving freely as the spirit moves you up the mountain. As already noted, a similar sensation can be had by later ascensionists if they choose to leave the guidebook at home.