the sarcasm of glenn beck

[reb]

having popped my self up at 1 am last night, i turned on the telly only to see glenn beck. he went through the history of the current financial debacle, as well as bahnee fwank's involvement in it and chris dodd's; and how they are now expressing outrage at aig bonuses. very funny. see if you can find last nights program...i guarantee yo ua laugh. this goes back to 'prior to clinton' and involves every president and congressperson since. we have a completely out of tune government....i'm buying a .50.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[RBM]

having popped my self up at 1 am last night, i turned on the telly only to see glenn beck. he went through the history of the current financial debacle, as well as bahnee fwank's involvement in it and chris dodd's; and how they are now expressing outrage at aig bonuses. very funny. see if you can find last nights program...i guarantee yo ua laugh. this goes back to 'prior to clinton' and involves every president and congressperson since. we have a completely out of tune government....i'm buying a .50.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

An aside ...this goes back to 'prior to clinton' ... awww c'mon you got 30 years working for the gov., surely you can see it goes back further than that ??

Or is that Beck's pitch ??

[eternaltriangle]

It is a bipartisan problem - yes, Clinton signed the act legalizing derivatives trading, but Phil Gramm wrote the bill. Both (it started under Jimmy Carter) parties deregulated the banks (I contend with the "too-big-to-fail argument though, sufficiently large banks will account for the negative externalities of a complete financial meltdown. Canada's highly concentrated - but well-regulated - banking sector hasn't had a single bank failure since before the Great Depression). Both parties failed to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or subprime lending. Both parties have supported expensive and wasteful measures like the first-time home buyer tax credit and mortgage interest deductability that helped spur on the bubble. Both parties are wracking up the countries credit credit card (Clinton did balance the budget, but Obama is certainly not following in that tradition).

Glenn Beck is a partisan hack, just like Jon Stewart, Sean Hannity, Stephen Colbert, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and whats-her-name Maddow (Lou Dobbs is not a partisan hack, but is a racist tool for other reasons). He is great at digging up stuff on the Democrats but not so great when it comes to looking at what is buried in his own yard.

I simply cannot fathom how people can continue to live in the bizarre meta-political world of the United States, where gotcha journalism prevails over serious policy debate, and horse-race coverage entertains deeply partisan masses - a welcome respite from the realities that America is rapidly declining vis-a-vis China, that the deficit is as high as it has ever been, that 40% of children born today are born out of wedlock (I don't care about the out of wedlock thing so much as I do think it is problematic that many children grow up without fathers, or at least without two parents), that America's education system is a laughingstock, that one of the world's richest countries cannot provide medical care for all its citizens (and cannot provide reasonably affordable medical care, period), that kids today may, for the first time in two centuries, make less than their parents, or that burgeoning social security costs are about to make today's financial mess look like an oasis in comparison.

No, it is more important to speculate that Obama might have been born before Hawaii was a state, or to criticize Bobby Jindal's delivery on speeches, or to blame the financial crisis on a guy who gives financial advice with funny sound effects, or to debate ad nauseum whether Obama might have once been in the same room as somebody that once disparaged America.

I really don't see how anybody in their right mind can look at where America is headed and simply say "well, this is bad, but its all the fault of those other guys". I mean, is everybody in this country on crack?

[reb]

RBM,

i dint want to go back to wilson; there's too many young people on here. they don't get it if it's 1920....that's like discussing dinosaurs with them. the smart, interested ones, i don't have to reference wilson or the fed to talk to them, but the others won't do the research or reading that far back-their consciousness is closed, and they think 'now is all there is'. they have lost their history, and don't understand this current debacle is 'not new'; nor do they understand the world environment concerning socialism and the power engendered by it. most don't know much history of wwII except what they picked up in history class and 'saving private ryan'. i suspect beck doesn't want to go too deep, as he will lose his audience as well. going back to the romans is a deep, wide reaching thing that most don't want to try to wrap their minds around....gotta reach your audience. as far as Beck, he may not be able to wake them up any more than i can.


eternaltriangle,

i wonder the same thing...joan benet ramsey, anna bighole smith...arod and steroids...john sterwart and cramer? whaaahhaahaa! and no one paid attention to the leverage in the system? it's like a fantasy land, where no one knows where their bread is buttered. it's buttered in the dang financial system, whether you make $6 an hour, or 50....and it's being manipulated by the likes of madoff and tim geitmesomemorener. the theft that's going on is amazing, and people don't see it at all.

all the media is all one kind of hack or another, but i found the short history beck put up very interesting...he listed bush as popping up the freddie/fannie percentage of loans necessary to 'stay within guidelines' as going up from 50% to 56%. small wonder no one knows what the subprimes are worth. why would the government, which i have no regard for their commons sense at all, ever think they can put their ignorant fingers in the mortgage system and 'make it work', or 'smooth out the cycles of boom and bust'? idiots! i layed off 800 people during the clinton administration....is that 'smoothing out the cycles'? and then we had 67 million in unfunded retirement liablility claims as a result.....duh!

on another progam(huckabee, i think) some doctor named john muney offered his patients a deal...pay $79 a month, plus $10 per visit, and i'll take care of all you medical that can be done 'in office'. the new york state administrators shut him down...their reasons were whacky, but the bottom line is the insurance and ama dint like it. they don't want anyone to step outside their 'system'. muney wanted his patients without insurance to be able to have medical care. he's al icensed doctor...how could nys stepping in possibly be legal? (cause they say so? lol!)

yeah, a substantial portion of the u.s.s of a. is either on crack or some mind altering drug, which is i guess what is leading to the mexican drug lords running that country...so much money, they simplly kill the competition, instead of fighting over market share in the market. who knows how deep all the money is going to pay off politicans in this country....

watch the movie 'idiocracy'. i could only watch about a half hour of it...reminded me too much of working for uncle, but if you can stand it, it is apretty clear picture of what the bureaucracy is like...another piece of the 'what the f' puzzle for the u.s.s. of a.....

[RBM]

@ reb

ROTFL ! You make good points !

RE: idiocracy - My take was it was a lousy movie, but was essential in the point it made. Extremely hard movie for me to watch, also, but I sludged through all of it.





RBM added to this post, 12 minutes and 22 seconds later...

It is a bipartisan problem - yes, Clinton signed the act legalizing derivatives trading, but Phil Gramm wrote the bill. Both (it started under Jimmy Carter) parties deregulated the banks (I contend with the "too-big-to-fail argument though, sufficiently large banks will account for the negative externalities of a complete financial meltdown. Canada's highly concentrated - but well-regulated - banking sector hasn't had a single bank failure since before the Great Depression). Both parties failed to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or subprime lending. Both parties have supported expensive and wasteful measures like the first-time home buyer tax credit and mortgage interest deductability that helped spur on the bubble. Both parties are wracking up the countries credit credit card (Clinton did balance the budget, but Obama is certainly not following in that tradition).

Glenn Beck is a partisan hack, just like Jon Stewart, Sean Hannity, Stephen Colbert, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and whats-her-name Maddow (Lou Dobbs is not a partisan hack, but is a racist tool for other reasons). He is great at digging up stuff on the Democrats but not so great when it comes to looking at what is buried in his own yard.

I simply cannot fathom how people can continue to live in the bizarre meta-political world of the United States, where gotcha journalism prevails over serious policy debate, and horse-race coverage entertains deeply partisan masses - a welcome respite from the realities that America is rapidly declining vis-a-vis China, that the deficit is as high as it has ever been, that 40% of children born today are born out of wedlock (I don't care about the out of wedlock thing so much as I do think it is problematic that many children grow up without fathers, or at least without two parents), that America's education system is a laughingstock, that one of the world's richest countries cannot provide medical care for all its citizens (and cannot provide reasonably affordable medical care, period), that kids today may, for the first time in two centuries, make less than their parents, or that burgeoning social security costs are about to make today's financial mess look like an oasis in comparison.

No, it is more important to speculate that Obama might have been born before Hawaii was a state, or to criticize Bobby Jindal's delivery on speeches, or to blame the financial crisis on a guy who gives financial advice with funny sound effects, or to debate ad nauseum whether Obama might have once been in the same room as somebody that once disparaged America.

I really don't see how anybody in their right mind can look at where America is headed and simply say "well, this is bad, but its all the fault of those other guys". I mean, is everybody in this country on crack?

I'd like to see how you fit two comedians into the mold of the others.

According to Wiki (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) you've conflated 2 (or more) distinct types. I think that muddles your message.

Oh, BTW:
I don't care about the out of wedlock thing so much as I do think it is problematic that many children grow up without fathers, or at least without two parents

I was raised by 2 parents - both alcoholic. Your view is simplistic. Reality is more complex.

[eternaltriangle]

I didn't say that two parents guarantee a child will be raised in a perfect environment, but statistically, the children of single parent families are much more likely to be poor, to drop out of school, to use drugs and to be involved in crime (even controlling for family income and other factors).

For instance some stats from Wisconsin:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[RBM]

I didn't say that two parents guarantee a child will be raised in a perfect environment, but statistically, the children of single parent families are much more likely to be poor, to drop out of school, to use drugs and to be involved in crime (even controlling for family income and other factors).

For instance some stats from Wisconsin:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"I didn't say that two parents guarantee a child will be raised in a perfect environment" - neither did I.

Thanks for the link of stat's - good start for making reality-based decisions.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Rainman]

I'm with you, eternaltriangle.

And in keeping with your username: Our founding fathers (bless their little Masonic, Kabbalah-studying hearts) saw the power in balanced sets of threes. Three branches of government (Exec, Legis, Judic) and three levels of government (Fed, State, Local). So why the hell do we only have TWO major parties? Given the "secret knowledge" of the Masons that says dualism will always cause excessive see-saws of back-and-forth power struggles (which is exactly what we see), isn't it just about time to call bullshit on the Republicratic Party and start building a new party to contend with both of their shenanigans?

I am of the opinion that both parties LOVE the status quo... each side has their built-in "enemy" they can whine and complain about on the campaign trail, and then both parties walk away with the spoils of the taxpaying public with their earmarks.

Our Federal Government is broken. There have been things I liked and things I hated about all Presidents since Nixon (and I was a mere sprite back then!). Clearly, no matter which party controls Congress, nothing gets fixed and we just go deeper into debt. I think a third party, that will put pressure on the other two not only in Congress, but for control of the White House is the ONLY thing that can save us.... that is, if we can force a third major party past the gatekeepers of the Republicrats! :angry:

[Krazy P]

I don't know much about Glenn Beck, but I am a CEO in financial services and I did watch this unfold in real time. Most people paying attention knew where this was going to end up.

The real problem is staring at you in the mirror. Humans are optimistic creatures (else why would we have kids). This optimism results in speculative bubbles leading to financial crises on a regular basis that result in massive writedowns and reallocations of assets and capital.

As generations go by, we forget the lessons of the past. My father was a child during the Depression.

Governments can't make things better - they can only prolong the agony. Humans are also egotistical - we think we can triumph over nature.

When we mess with nature - and this economic force is as natural as the tide - or an avalanche - bad things can happen.

I am just trying to stay out of the path of the avalanche. I saw it coming and I made preparations (personally and professionally) and so far so good.

The other thing about avalanches - they are loud and scary. And they sweep everything in their path away.

[RBM]

Governments can't make things better - they can only prolong the agony.
So far. It's a process, and there's nothing in the process that inherently determines agony as the outcome.

"The real problem is staring at you in the mirror"- sure and we are also the solution. It's just that the species are merely 'monkey's with car keys' at this point. Thus, the creations of gov by us are reflected.

[Rainman]

So far. It's a process, and there's nothing in the process that inherently determines agony as the outcome.

Actually, there is. It is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which applies to ALL real processes (i.e. those that consume energy to achieve some result). Entropy (the measure of energy's organization that the 2nd Law addresses) can only decrease in a local sense. And that means if you decrease entropy in your local process, somewhere else someone suffers a larger increase in entropy (increase in chaos) as a result. Because in the universal sense, entropy always increases.

So yes, because government consumes energy (money) to power its process, others will necessarily suffer. It is always best to let Nature take its course because by definition natural processess tend to have the lowest rate of entropy increase (except for catastrophic ones like earthquakes, hurricanes, meteor strikes, etc.)

[RBM]

Actually, there is. It is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which applies to ALL real processes (i.e. those that consume energy to achieve some result). Entropy (the measure of energy's organization that the 2nd Law addresses) can only decrease in a local sense. And that means if you decrease entropy in your local process, somewhere else someone suffers a larger increase in entropy (increase in chaos) as a result. Because in the universal sense, entropy always increases.

So yes, because government consumes energy (money) to power its process, others will necessarily suffer. It is always best to let Nature take its course because by definition natural processess tend to have the lowest rate of entropy increase (except for catastrophic ones like earthquakes, hurricanes, meteor strikes, etc.)

The first point about entropy, it's a tedious subject for me, so I will state the bottom line - we don't live in a 'closed system' as 'The Law' declares.

On suffering - I suffer from a mosquito bit differently than a rattlers bite - yet it's still suffering.

[Rainman]

The first point about entropy, it's a tedious subject for me, so I will state the bottom line - we don't live in a 'closed system' as 'The Law' declares.

Well, we may very well have to delve into the tedium, because your statement is a non-sequitor to the point I was making. Just because we do not live in a "closed system" does not mean the 2nd law does not apply to the process of government. In fact, the only purpose of the "closed system" boundary condition in the Second Law is illustrated in my original point: Open systems permit local decreases in entropy, but at the expense of larger increases in entropy of the systems that surround it.

None of this erases the facts of the directionality of heat flow, or the dissipation of heat due to friction, or the impossibility of any energy conversion process to have efficiency of 1.0 or greater. And government cannot escape this. However, I understand that mankind likes to think that things of our creation are "above or beyond" Nature. But it just is not so.

Government (like any other process) wastes energy in what it does. And that means that some will suffer while others are benefiting. It is never a zero sum game. I won't even address your comment about relative suffering, because there are people suffering a great deal more than a mosquito bite in this economy as a result of the actions of many people, not the least of which are people in government. This does not mean government serves no useful purpose. But when a society looks at government as "that which can solve all our major problems", such a society is usually in its declining years.

[RBM]

Well, we may very well have to delve into the tedium, because your statement is a non-sequitor to the point I was making. Just because we do not live in a "closed system" does not mean the 2nd law does not apply to the process of government. In fact, the only purpose of the "closed system" boundary condition in the Second Law is illustrated in my original point: Open systems permit local decreases in entropy, but at the expense of larger increases in entropy of the systems that surround it.

None of this erases the facts of the directionality of heat flow, or the dissipation of heat due to friction, or the impossibility of any energy conversion process to have efficiency of 1.0 or greater. And government cannot escape this. However, I understand that mankind likes to think that things of our creation are "above or beyond" Nature. But it just is not so.

Government (like any other process) wastes energy in what it does. And that means that some will suffer while others are benefiting. It is never a zero sum game. I won't even address your comment about relative suffering, because there are people suffering a great deal more than a mosquito bite in this economy as a result of the actions of many people, not the least of which are people in government. This does not mean government serves no useful purpose. But when a society looks at government as "that which can solve all our major problems", such a society is usually in its declining years.

It was a non sequitur cause I didn't finish. And if you 'won't even address' my comment then you don't want a dialog but want to preach. Preach on Bro' !

[Rainman]

It was a non sequitur cause I didn't finish.

I'd like to hear more, then.

And if you 'won't even address' my comment then you don't want a dialog but want to preach. Preach on Bro' !

Sorry. I did not mean for it to come off that way. In fact, you can see that I was kind of trying to attempt to address it. My point is this: The suffering going on right now as a result of government negligence (and yes, also the over-exuberance by many people in their home buying decisions), is already bad enough. The belief that government can jump in, with irresponsible spending, and somehow make it better, is just not supported by data. Why do you think the Euros are hesitant to follow Obama in his spending spree? Perhaps because they tried that for so many years, and it plain old did not work! The odds are, they will make the people suffering now suffer even more. In point of fact, that is how a lot of Democratic policies have played out with the mortgage crisis being the best evidence.

One of the leading causes of the mortgage crisis stretches back to the early 90s when Congress leaned-on banks, Fannie, and Freddie to lend to people in the lower end of the economic spectrum... which are a lot of traditionally Democratic constituents. For awhile, it looked like it was working, i.e. people who may not have qualified for a mortgage before were now qualifying... but many bought WAY more house than they could afford, and fell for "gimmick" mortgages. Now we see where that lead, and the vast majority of people losing their homes now are those very people the Dems sought to help. They made things worse, because before these people could only afford to rent, not own. Then they became homeowners, and thought they were gaining equity. Now, not only is all that perceived equity gone, but every single penny they paid towards that mortgage is also gone (if they were foreclosed upon).

So while I will agree with you there are "relative shades of suffering", I still cannot accept that there is ever a high likelihood that government intervention in economic markets can lessen suffering or make things better in the long run.

No preaching. That is just how I see it based on my reading of the evidence.

[RBM]

@ Rainman

I agree with your reading of the evidence. Re: the anti-gov. mindset see post #10 above.

I don't buy the presumption that a set of mechanics of Natural Law can be used to explain human behavior. There is QM literature that suggests why that is but I don't have a link at my finder tips.

[reb]

to me, our understanding of natural law is perverted by the same thing that causes us to think we are above the laws of nature...i.e., internal to our 'minds', we believe we can explain all things, and short circuit natural law (socialism, cures for diseases, huge engineering projects to solve environmental problems, weather forecasting, etc.). not intending to be 'theological', but everything that man creates is both impermanent and imperfect. it has always been so from the history i have read. our 'time line' of understanding is so short...we simply do not have the necessary perspective to understand 'how reality works', and we are too egotistical to admit this. and so we 'fix it', with predictable results, like giving a child a nuclear bomb and expecting it to use it without supervision in some reasonable fashion.

in any case, Mr. Beck had another of his 'simple explanations' the other night...i like simplicity congealing complexity. frequently it is wrong, but can also be correct, or at least indicative of the truth...he made a chart:

the popular understanding of government:

pole 1[ democrats/liberals republicans/conservatives ]pole 2

how government has devolved in reality in the u.s.s. of a.:

pole 1[t.g.* d's r's constitution confed of states anarchy ]pole 2


iow, the whole system of government has drifted towards *t.g.=total government, whereas the original confederation of states was close to 'no central control' and therefore closer to anarchy. the development of the existing 'federalist' constitution was just enough towards 'center' from anarchy, that it worked fairly well. what was not prohibited was allowed. the democrat and republican parties are so near each other in their support of total government, that our frustration is evident because we do not desire total government. in Beck's scenario, there is no real 'left/right' remaining....it's all drifting towards total government control.

seemed like an 'ah-ha' to me.

i cannot chart this thing...it's much simpler with a piece of paper and pen/ink. dang computers.

[RBM]

@ reb

to me, our understanding of natural law is perverted by the same thing that causes us to think we are above the laws of nature.

I don't buy the 'above natural laws', either.

[Rainman]

I don't buy the presumption that a set of mechanics of Natural Law can be used to explain human behavior.

Speaking about a single human being, making decisions on their own, I would agree. But in discussing representative government, it is nothing even close to that.

There is QM literature that suggests why that is but I don't have a link at my finder tips.

I'd like to see it. Because the distinction between QM and classical physics is also an interesting comparison to invidual vs. group governance. QM tells us that, below the level of the indivual atom, things act in a "fuzzy", quantum, probabilistic manner. Planck scale and below. That would be very akin to a single human mind acting in a QM-manner. But physics also tells us that as these quantum "bits" are strung together and built up into molecules and larger elements of matter, that as their size grows beyond the Planck scale, their behavior becomes normalized and follows classical mechanics. (And also interesting is that their "quantum natures" at the subatomic scale blend together and show themselves as following the probabilistic model of statistical thermodynamics at the macro level.) This is the conundrum that stands in the way of unifying classical physics with QM. And interestingly enough, I belive it is a very good analog of a single human making decisions (a quantum singularity, if you will) vs. a whole bunch of humans brought together in a representative government. By the nature of wishing to make such a system "work" their individualities must be suppressed, somewhat, and the whole body has to become more deterministic in order to get anything done. Otherwise, it would become nothing but anarchy.

[rwm4768]

I disagree on the idea that the Democratic and Republican parties are so close to each other in their support of total government. This is not to say that they are not both trying to increase the role of government but that they are doing it in different ways. The Democratic Party is attempting to increase governmental control of the economy, moving the country closer to socialism, whereas the Republican Party is trying to increase governmental control in terms of mandating social norms and conducting surveillance on potential threats to the state. Now, if there ever emerged a party that combined the economic control of the Democrats with the social and military control of the Republicans, that would be a scary situation.

[reb]

if one were to look at two divisions of one 'philosophy', i.e., dumbocrats and rebooblicans, with each handling a particular structure of the goal, it might be like design and engineering. in that sense, they have no interest whatsoever in libertarian principles, only in total control of the economy and liberty. i firmly believe that libertarian principles were what the founders tried to achieve (if you read the surrounding writings in detail-the federalist, other articles and pamphlets, the analogous writings of jefferson, franklin, locke, and others of the time). there are those that say 'times have changed, and those principles have been overcome' (unthinking nitwits). frankly, those people do not understand history...liberty of thought and action of the people from the royal 'descended from God' is what our ancestors came here to escape. they then set up what they hoped would be a self sustaining government. that government has progressively indoctrinated people through skewed and falsified teachings to the point that many have no sense of what libertarianism is, nor even anarchy. i have given up on teaching these people about history in many cases, and simply look to my own freedom and how to retain it until the dictators come for me, which i feel certain they will if i live long enough.

why do they want to 'control' me...it is NONE of their damned business. they are supposed to provide for the common defense, matters which individuals cannot take care of on their own, not 'control' us-this 'control the cattle' is bipartisan, as well...do you see them voting term limits, or salary increases in step with inflation, or economizing on their efforts while others lose their homes or eat beans and peanut butter three meals a day?....this is like the miserable hapsburg dynasty, with no sense of noblesse oblige. arrogant hemopheliacs.....rasputin got the czar where he lived....the french revolution did away with those fluffy royals they had-i wish i had been there to see marie antoinette lose her powdered head over the matter. and now...we have our own fluffy royals who are not subject to the realities they force upon the rest of us....their retirement is guaranteed, their salaries go up far beyond ours...they are not subject to the same laws as the common public....what part of elite is hard to understand? forgive me....i must go and practice my bow and scrape routine...