Nod.
On 28 Sep, 14:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim Jones, Jonestown, Guyana?
>
> On Sep 28, 8:08 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
