Did anybody watch that documentry about Rev Jim and Jamestown the other month? With audio recordings of the actual event at the end, fuck me talk about harrowing.
On 26 Sep, 10:04, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > We > all have drunk some flavor of Kool-Aid...and some of us know it. -orn > > Yeah, maybe so. But at least mine's not flavored with cyanide! > > dj > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “…I think the more measured and scholarly approach to > > solving problems that the Heritage Foundation takes makes much more > > sense….” – DJ > > > Sense, perhaps…wisdom, no! Personally I find any blind use of dogmatic > > social philosophy to be anathema, even more so than simple fantasy and/ > > or hyperbole. The latter can show clarity while the former can not. We > > all have drunk some flavor of Kool-Aid...and some of us know it. > > > On Sep 26, 12:56 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'trust' them but I definitely > >> respect them. Like you say, they aren't shy about stating their > >> purpose. They have some sound opinions on the health care bill that > >> make a lot of sense to me. Naomi Klein, on the other hand, comes > >> across as your typical purveyor of agitprop. I remember when she was > >> instrumental in playing the race card after Hurricane Katrina. > >> Writing some hogwash about Bush deliberately putting blacks at risk > >> while saving whites after the storm. Just silly. She has a history of > >> fabricating truths and exaggerating evidence to support her own sick > >> fantasies. I think the more measured and scholarly approach to > >> solving problems that the Heritage Foundation takes makes much more > >> sense. > > >> In a completely unrelated matter; why do so many 'activists' hide(or > >> at least obscure) their true ideologies? People that live and breath > >> a Marxist doctrine will look you straight in the eye and tell you they > >> aren't a communist. Do you think they're ignorant, stupid or are they > >> trying to put one over on us? Not that there is anything wrong with > >> being a communist... I'm just curious what some of you think of the > >> often un-clever attempts of some journalists to muddy their political > >> leanings. Do they think we're all stupid or something? > > >> dj > > >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:23 AM, ornamentalmind > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Around the time of the formation of this organization (The Heritage > >> > Foundation) I had begun to become politically and economically aware. > >> > Quite quickly I learned to study who funded and ran such ‘think > >> > tanks’. Their stated mission: > > >> > “Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. > >> > Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public > >> > policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited > >> > government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a > >> > strong national defense." It is widely considered one of the world's > >> > most influential public policy research institutes.” > > >> > …sounds innocent enough, no? And, they do come right out and state > >> > their political and economic dogma. > > >> >http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation > > >> > Further down the page, on the above link, one can find the primary > >> > corporate funders of the foundation, big-pharma, tobacco, insurance > >> > companies, military contractors. > > >> > They, along with the Cato Institute and others who manufacture > >> > consent, are anathema to anyone other than the top 1% financially in > >> > the US and similar people worldwide. > > >> > From an article by Naomi Klein a year or so ago: > > >> > “But, you know, I was interested that yesterday the Heritage > >> > Foundation, which has always been a staunch Friedmanite think tank, > >> > that they came out in favor of the bailout. They came out in favor of > >> > the bailout; they said it was vital. And what’s interesting about that > >> > is, of course, the bailout is creating a crisis in the economic—in the > >> > public sphere. It’s taking a private crisis, a crisis on Wall Street, > >> > which of course isn’t restricted to Wall Street, and it will affect > >> > everyone, but it is moving it, moving those bad debts, onto the public > >> > books.” > > >> > Her website:http://www.naomiklein.org/main > > >> > …some of her views on the Heritage Fondation: > >> >http://www.naomiklein.org/search/node/the+heritage+foundation > > >> > The most recent ‘Research’ by the Heritage Institute: > > >> > September 25, 2009 > >> > Defunding ACORN: Necessary and Proper, and Certainly Constitutional > >> > by Hans A. von Spakovsky > > >> > September 25, 2009 > >> > The Baucus Individual Health Insurance Mandate: Taxing Low-Income and > >> > Moderate-Income Workers > >> > by Robert A. Book, Ph.D., Guinevere Nell, and Paul L. Winfree > > >> > September 25, 2009 > >> > The Baucus Health Bill: A Medicare Physician Payment Shell Game > >> > by Dennis G. Smith > > >> > The above is from their own site. > > >> > I have never trusted this organization when it comes to helping > >> > humanity. They clearly continue to push the same old economic dogma > >> > that produced our current situation. I guess one gets what they pay > >> > for, no? > > >> > On Sep 25, 5:24 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> April 2005 > >> >> Top 10 Examples of Government Waste > >> >> by Brian M. Riedl > > >> >> President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly > >> >> reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective programs. > >> >> This is a step in the right direction to pare back the runaway > >> >> spending that has pushed the budget deficit over $400 billion. In less > >> >> than three years, the first baby boomers will begin to collect Social > >> >> Security: Lawmakers must therefore begin to reduce spending now to > >> >> make room for the massive Social Security and Medicare costs that will > >> >> follow. > > >> >> The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, > >> >> and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional > >> >> duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to > >> >> address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an > >> >> attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R–IA) to > >> >> address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of > >> >> Representatives, and similar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget > >> >> Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R–OK) were rejected by the Senate. A > >> >> small group of House lawmakers has formed the Washington Waste > >> >> Watchers, but their agenda has not been embraced by the whole House. > > >> >> Lack of information is not the problem. Today, government waste > >> >> investigations and recommendations can be found in hundreds of > >> >> reports, such as: > > >> >> * > >> >> Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office > >> >> (GAO),[1] > >> >> * > >> >> The Congressional Budget Office’s Budget Options book, > >> >> * > >> >> Inspector general reports of each agency, > >> >> * > >> >> Government Performance and Results Act reports of each agency, > >> >> * > >> >> The White House’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) program > >> >> reviews, and > >> >> * > >> >> The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee’s 2001 Government at > >> >> the Brink reports. > > >> >> For those seeking past recommendations that went unheeded, the 1984 > >> >> Grace Commission report on government waste and the 1993–1995 > >> >> publications of Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review > >> >> can still be found. > > >> >> With all of this available information and in an era of tight budgets, > >> >> why are lawmakers so resistant to reducing waste? One reason is that > >> >> they see it as a thankless job that would go unnoticed back home. With > >> >> Congress in session just 80 days annually, reducing waste would take > >> >> precious time away from most lawmakers’ higher priorities of increas > >> >> ing spending on popular programs and bringing pork-barrel projects > >> >> home. > > >> >> A second reason is that some of the most wasteful programs are also > >> >> the most popular (e.g., Medicare), and lawmakers fear that opponents > >> >> would portray them as “attacking” popular programs. Consequently, > >> >> waste and inefficiencies continue to build up, costing taxpayers more > >> >> while providing beneficiaries with less. > > >> >> A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion > >> >> annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of > >> >> government programs. As a first step, lawmakers should address the 10 > >> >> following examples of egregious waste. > > >> >> 1. The Missing $25 Billion > > >> >> Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of > >> >> the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled > >> >> Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains > >> >> that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2] > > >> >> The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot > >> >> account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, > >> >> somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where > >> >> it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled > >> >> transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their > >> >> expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating > >> >> the money is “a priority.” > > >> >> The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department > >> >> of Justice for an entire year. > > >> >> 2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million > > >> >> A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense > >> >> Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 > >> >> commercial airline tickets at a > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
