Wall Street Donations

Negotiations for sex
break down when she
flashes smile of rotten teeth.

It appears that Wall Street has now begun giving by far the most money to the Republican Party. I find this most interesting in several ways. First, it just confirms what we have always known, Wall Street has no interest whatsoever in the American public or what might be good for the country. They support Republicans only because they believe (know) that Republicans will do anything they can for the fat cats on the market. There can’t possibly be any other reason for supporting Republicans. They apparently gave quite a lot of money to Obama and some Democrats because Democrats won control of the White House, Senate, and House. The fact that they have now shifted back to supporting Republicans I find a positive sign in that it indicates to me that Obama must be doing something right. It does, however, serve to point out a disturbing paradox in our society. That is, when Wall Street (and the corporations) do well it must mean that the working class is not doing so well. This is so because in order to make money and do well businesses have to have cheap labor. So when they do well it follows that the working class does not do well. For many Americans this poses a rather strange dilemma because their retirement money is invested in Wall Street and when Wall Street thrives labor does not. Thus if you have money in the market you would like to see it do well, but if you believe in fair and just wages for workers, you are caught in this peculiar bind, or so it seems to me.

Mitch McConnell has now announced he will not support the Elena Kagan nomination for the Supreme Court. Orin Hatch has done the same and so has John McCain. What a crock of BS! They know she is almost certainly going to be confirmed so why not get a little publicity and reinforce your Republican credentials by opposing something you know is going to happen anyway. Hatch has said something to the effect that “she doesn’t come up to my standards.” I should think this would be more properly rendered as “she doesn’t come down to my standards.” In any case it seems obvious to me they will vote no because Obama nominated her, and they have to live up to their standard of voting no for anything Obama wants.

And speaking of playing politics, how about the Republicans on unemployment benefits and jobs? They are obviously willing to sacrifice American families and their well-being in their single-minded quest to regain power. There simply is no other explanation for all of their “no” votes. It’s really quite simple, the worse unemployment is, leading up to the elections, the more likely Democrats can be blamed and the greater chance people will vote Republican. Cynical, yes, purely political, yes, disgusting, yes, unethical and immoral, I think so, but those concepts don’t seem to apply to Republicans anymore. Who cares if a few more families go hungry and lose their homes, it’s all so Republicans and Wall Street can continue to do God’s work.

I truly admire Rachel Maddow and I think she has the best show on TV. I am not convinced, however, that her trip to Afghanistan was really necessary. I guess maybe something will be gained by it, but I have yet to hear anything that she probably could not have said without visiting there. Most everyone knows the official story by now, we have to train the Afghan army and police so they can take over when we leave because otherwise the Taliban will take over. And yes, we are wasting billions, much of which is being shipped out of the country by various warlords and politicians. And yes, the whole enterprise is stupid even beyond belief, but we have to do it (because, implicitly at least, the Afghans are unable to manage their own affairs). The real reason I believe we are pursuing this is that we are determined to have a government that is obedient to us and no one else. This seems to be our goal all over the Middle East, we have to maintain our control and influence at all costs. I’m pretty certain this is what Iran is all about, it has nothing much to do with whether the Iranians develop a (mostly useless) bomb or not, but, rather, with keeping them from becoming too much of a power in the Middle East (hence the constant talk of regime change). It is very similar to the situation in Britain after WWII when Churchill said he would not preside over the demise of the British Empire. We cannot have a President who will preside over the loss of our “empire,” even though it will almost surely bankrupt us if we continue, which seems to me to be pretty much inevitable unless we come to our senses very soon.

LKBIQ:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

TILT:
There are nearly 100 species of lemurs.