The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) went up 1.2 percent last month, a huge jump. It amounts to, at this point, close to 12 percent per year. It will show up in retail prices at various times in the coming weeks and months, depending on the item being manufactured. The increase is likely to be multiplied by the time retail pricing is set.
Some of that is because of fuel prices but not all and, some say, not even a lot.
Prices going up in a big way while wages are stagnant or decreasing and unemployment is increasing? Does that make any sense at all?
If China’s leaders took note of it, which they probably didn’t because they are too busy presenting themselves as "the Middle Kingdom" (the "middle" between Heaven and Earth) to the rest of the world, they would doubtless have been amused by Rush Limbaugh’s case of China-envy:
See, the ChiComs need their economy growing. They need people driving around, moving around. They need people to be able to afford fuel, so they're subsidizing fuel. They're not bailing people out of stupid home mortgage messes. They're buying their gasoline for them, because they need an economy. Know what energy means to this, the whole subject of economic growth. So meanwhile, the ChiComs, a country certainly growing, certainly on the rise, but it ain't the United States of America.
Presumably, what Rush would like is for the U.S. to subsidize gas so that people in the U.S. could live large like the Chinese leaders and fuel our economic growth.
Scattered around the internet message boards, blogs and purported news sites the right is having a serious circle jerk party over a statement Barack Obama made in Colorado a couple of weeks ago. Below is the original quote they are using to make a case that Senator Obama, if elected, will force this nation into a fascist state. All of the comments and articles I've read are outrageous lies and extreme fearmongering.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
This is not ALL he said. He laid out a plan to expand the Peace Corps and Americorps as well as beginning new programs to aid with education primarily. HOW does the right twist what he has plainly laid out?
NO WHERE does Senator Obama speak of arms or that these expanded programs would be military. Yet that is exactly what they are making a case are his intentions should he be elected.
Barack Obama has run a campaign to end "politics as usual." He ran stating he will break down the labels that plauge Washington and divide it into left and right thus paralyzing both sides from getting down to business.
The right is still playing the old play book. They scream "we know nothing about him!!" while at the same time screaming "we know exactly what he is 'a flaming liberal!!!!"
Now his supporters seem angry at him for going to the "middle"
Again, either you are for Barack and want to end the labeling or not.
The Right has done a fantastic job of defining the word liberal as poison to the point where we prefer "progressive." Who cares.
Truth is, Sen. Obama is going to help us win our words back and his views are simply a continuation of his promise to break lables down.
Obama's getting hammered from the left and from the right. There's really not much he can do about getting slammed from the right; however he positions himself, they'll find a way.
The HuffPo article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... talks about how "moving to the center" won't help prevent attacks from the right. But, the central point of the article is that Obama is at risk of losing his authenticity with his recent stances.
I do not want Obama to take particular stands on particular issues so much as I want him to maintain his highly enthusiastic support. Maybe it's just a summer lull and Obama's building strength for the convention and fall after a hard-fought primary campaign, but it seems that some loss of enthusiasm comes from an authenticity problem.
Obama has clearly upset many on the Left in the last few days--and I apologize if I'm a bit out of the loop because I am in fact out of the country and without regular internet access--with what seem to many to be pandering to the Right. I'm not sure that what he's doing is the same as a Clintonian triangulation, euphemistically named. I've recently finished Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, begun after seeing his name referenced so often in relation to Obama, of course, and was struck by how thorough and to my mind undeniably accurate Alinsky's critique of large swaths of the '60's left was.
Just a short while ago, Senator Barack Obama was on the FOX Business channel for an interview. During the exchange he was asked to comment on the Supreme Court's ruling of 5-4 that struck down the Washington DC hand gun ban.
Obama voiced his opinion that the second amendment is an individual right, although he added that sensible gun laws could still be put in place. Watch the exchange below and weigh in with thoughts/opinions:
CAN WE CALL AMERICANS RACIST
AND STILL EXPECT TO GET THEIR VOTE?
Michelle Obama made a simple statement--"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of this country"–and one would have thought she declared a jihad on America. FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, and the various other Republican conduits have been harping on it for months now, trying to convince the American people that she’s hated America all of her life. But the fact is, when Michelle Obama made the above statement she was actually complimenting America.
I've been in a discussion with someone who states that 'felons vote Democratic, overwhelmingly'. And I'm curious about it. Where did this line start? When I google it, all I get are right wing news outlets. So, it sounds like an oft-repeated but unsupported conservative meme.
Does anyone have an idea of where this came from, and/or how to debunk it? It seems to be the only thing the GOP can come up with to attempt a reclamation of 'higher moral ground'.
Sounds crazy, and desperate, I know. But I'd rather be armed than unarmed, if I elect to pursue the destruction of this meme.
OK, I'm not a philosopher. However, I do get into many intellectual discussions with friends, particularly when it comes to contemporary politics.
Recently a friend of mine argued that, when it comes to how politicians actually function, there is ultimately little difference between Democrats and Republicans. He got a bit excited and extended the argument to Progressives & Conservatives, and Leftists & Rightists. They all say they will do what they seldom end-up doing or may even do the opposite. They make promises that could get them elected to office but, once in office, routinely break their promises. He proceeded to say that based on this conclusion, people ought to vote on the basis of what their gut feeling is about the likelihood of truthfulness of the candidate, rather than the issues.
After the fold, I share my response to him, and I have tabulated 22 areas where we differed, and basically set up two columns. Which column do you think you identify with?
Edit: With the all the brouhaha resulting from Hillary's atrocious remarks, I decided to post this now because I really needed a distraction from all that depressing stuff. I have always supported Obama, but to see Clinton fall the way she has was simply sad!
The pure, unadulterated, objective fact is that when ANY nation’s or state’s "right to exist" is measured by the same "objective" standards that are always lined against Israel, well, then it would seem NO nation has any right to its existence.
It strikes me as virulently anti-Jewish that, after WWI, WWII, & the Cold War (WWIII), when dozens upon dozens of Islamic nations, Christian nations, & secular nations were created, their borders drawn by a world assemblage, there developed a particular, pointed, peculiar focus on Israel alone as the ONLY nation that should have no right to its existence, its borders, its security, or the right to stand in defense of a people the world has proven it is willing to let die.
Is it a coincidence that it is solely the one nation for Jews that is the one nation whose right to existence is questioned? If Israel has no right to exist, then surely Iraq, Iran, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Jordan, every nation in Africa, Britain, Ireland, every country in South & Central America, the U.S. (especially the U.S.), Canada, & every country of the world really should not have the right to existence.
We often talk about individuals on this site, but less attention has been given to movements, and networks. We know that certain individuals decide things, that they testify certain ways, etc., but we don't speak about the network. Much of what the administration says is indefensible, including Tony Snow's snowballing (when he was 'in power'), but in Tony Snow and, with others, who is 'the voice'? And is 'the voice' the criminal? Or is there a larger movement, a network? I believe the evidence suggests the latter.
When Tenet spoke at a university, shortly before he left the CIA, he looked very evasive and suspicious to me, but then, I later see Tenet do something else, after he leaves, and seems to be an intriguing, collegiate guy. Mueller, with the FBI, as well, has had his fair share of suspicious acts, as far as I'm concerned, but I see him talk about something else and I think, this guy seems on the level.
I think that's what makes the case for something larger. And when you start to look closer, you see a pattern, a web of people, interconnected, and an ideology that fuels it, based on the religious-like system of Leo Strauss, using many of the propaganda techniques hammered out over the early part of the 20th century.
Will Obama be the next Holier than thou President? What about Gay Rights, Choice, Freedom of Religion, Equality for all. Help! Tell me his faith will not interfear with his position as President. Please, Please, Obama Supporters tell me he is not going to rule as the next GW Bush - Religious Leader-n-Chief. Help!!! My biggest fear is the thought of another President and his story about how JESUS came to him.
Tim Robbins was scheduled to give a keynote address at NAB, the annual convention of the National Association of Broadcasters. But when they read his prepared remarks, which begin as biting, sometimes profane (so use headphones if you're at work) satire and end with serious criticism, they asked him not to give it, but it was the audience that needed to hear it.
There have been two time periods in my life during which I wore an American flag pin on my clothing. The first was back when I was in high school. In protest of the Vietnam War, I wore an American flag pin upside down, a symbol of distress. I wore it along with other buttons, badges and pins, including my home-made "I am an effete intellectual, nattering nabob, snob for peace." (It repeated the unforgettable adjectives for war protesters uttered by that paragon of virtue, Vice President Spiro Agnew). My wearing of the upside down flag pin got me kicked out of typing class during a mid-term exam, which resulted in my only "D" during my high school years (not that there were so many "A’s" either.)
I have flirted with you for over a year now. I am a disenfranchised Republican looking for a port in the storm. I was lost for awhile because I feel asleep at the wheel and a bunch of heartless "posers" took the wheel of my Party and starting steering it into a ditch.
I was awakened as a young immpressionable boy by a man named Ronald Reagan. I was born in 1967, and he was the first President that had an impact on me. I became a Republican because of his ability to transmit hope through a television screen. I was moved to tears as our boys came home from Iran because they knew better than to mess with this leader...our leader, Ronald Reagan. He formed my political center before I was able to find my own.
He swept two contests in his bid for the Presidency...44 states in 1980, 49 states in 1984. He had the highest approval ratings of any President leaving office, since, well, since polls were taken.
There are of course hundreds if not thousands of various interpretations of political philosophy. There's the typical big government liberal vs small government conservative paradigm there is the states’ rights/ federalist view, the progressive/regressive veiw and many others.
It is my oppinion that the core of these political views need to be able to trancend issues and era. Further I think such an explanation will put our current political circumstances into proper perspective and provide an valuable insite into why we're where we are at.
I'm going to lay out the basis for my argument in this diary and plan on expanding upon these concepts further in the future.
