Controlling amidst overwhelming disturbances was Blowing my own horn

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.04.08.0958 CDT)]

I agree, that article is very puke-worthy.

But if there is any truth to this next article, then we are not likely to puke, we could guarantee that a lot of folks will puke in Iran as well as any other place that is targeted:

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH, Issue of 2006-04-17, Posted 2006-04-10
<http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact>

"One of the military�s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."

Talk about puke. Remember the 3-Mile Island averted threat, the Chernobyl disaster, and the US Military guinea pigs in the 50s who are now suffering long term effects of radiation poisoning? Not to mention Agent Orange and the so-called Gulf Syndrome?

Talk about disaster, we are on the brink of a world-wide disaster of global warming, clean air, water, and nutrition, secure jobs, personal safety, failed foreign exploits, and foreign takeovers of important infrastructure in our Country.

Tax or no, we will be paying dearly for these evil decisions by the neocons, theocons, paleocons, and all the *cons who have hijacked our country and culture. And I was afraid when Reagan started spewing "evil empire" in the 80s...

And from a PCT perspective, since I cannot control for this dystopic future, except for this sham of a response, I will again have to reorganize. And after I still can't control what I perceive, I will have to reorganize again, and again and again... Until, I give up and let my world (my perceptual world) be mainly that of disturbances that roll over me like so many clouds of smoke.

Next steps?

--Bry

Rick Marken wrote:

···

[From Rick Marken (2006.04.08.2020)]

    Bryan Thalhammer (2006.04.08.1040 CDT)
    Fred Nickols (Friday, April 7, 2006, at 06:44 PM)

Thanks for the comments, you guys.

What ticks me off even more than the Iraq fiasco (to the extent that that''s possible) is the fact that there has been absolutely no shared sacrifice expected from citizens while this war is going on. You might imagine that a president would ask citizens to contribute to this costly endeavor by paying more rather then less in taxes. But not only has this creep of a president not asked for any sacrifice, he has called for far less sacrifice from those who can afford a great deal than from those who can't. When I read this article I nearly puked.

    Study: Bush tax cuts making rich richer
    Report: The wealthiest Americans are reaping huge gains from reduced
    taxes on investment income.
    April 5, 2006: 12:24 PM EDT

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - President Bush's tax cuts for investment
    income have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest
    Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an
    average of about $500,000, according to a report Wednesday.

    An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times
    found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was more
    concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of
    President Bush's two previous tax cuts.

    The Times analyzed IRS figures for 2003, the latest year available
    and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends
    and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

    According to the study, taxpayers with incomes greater than $10
    million reduced their investment tax bill by an average of about
    $500,000 in 2003, and their total tax savings, which included the
    two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more
    than $1 million.

    These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about
    the same share of their income in income taxes as those making
    $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

    Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more reaped 43
    percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings
    for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.

    The newspaper's tax cut analysis showed that more than 70 percent of
    the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent,
    about 2.6 million taxpayers.

    And the savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be
    larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.
    When will you be a millionaire? Click here ...

    Congress is now debating whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

    Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the
    Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times
    that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the
    wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that
    produce jobs.

    Opponents told the newspaper the cuts are too generous to those who
    already have plenty. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the senior
    Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said after seeing
    the new figures that "these tax cuts are beyond irresponsible" when
    "we're in a war; we haven't fixed Social Security or Medicare; we've
    got record deficits."

Notice in particular the comment by Stephen Entin, another person with a severe case of being a creep (the condition, in PCT, of having lousy reference signals) who says that the tax cuts for the rich should go even further. This, of course, is complete bull (like most everything that comes out of anyone in, related to or supportive of this administration). Even if the rich did invest their tax savings, we already know that there is _no_ empirical evidence that investment leads to economic growth. If anything, the reverse is true: when the economy starts growing, investment follows. Which makes sense: why would anyone invest in increasing supply until there was clear evidence of increasing demand? Republican economics (and Republican policy in general) is just an attempt to make greed sound good.

These fascists have been able to cut taxes on the rich and keep the economy growing by borrowing like crazy. So to make their rich friends richer (while a damn war is going on) they are mortgaging my (and my children's) future. What creeps. This is the party of values? Oh, I remember, values mean not lying about a blow job, not getting married if you're gay and not getting an abortion if you're raped by your father.

Based on the events of the last 5 years of so, I have developed a patented 2 question values test that works like a charm. Here is is:

1. Did you think President Clinton should have been impeached?

2. Do you think that President Bush should be impeached?

Here's how you score the test:

Your answers Your value score.
____________________________________
1. Yes 2. No You have horrible values.
1. Yes 2. Yes You have horrible values.
1. No. 2. No You have OK values.
1. No. 2. Yes You have excellent values.

For those who scored low, there is still hope. My advice is to stop trying to get your values from ancient books (or Republican taking points) and start trying to experience the world from the point of view of those systems in you that set the references for your values.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken, PhD
Psychology
Loyola Marymount University
Office: 310 338-1768
Cell: 310 729 - 1400

[From Rick Marken (2006.04.08.1030)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.04.08.0958 CDT)--

I agree, that article is very puke-worthy.

But if there is any truth to this next article, then we are not likely to puke, we could guarantee that a lot of folks will puke in Iran as well as any other place that is targeted:

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH, Issue of 2006-04-17, Posted 2006-04-10

I know. I would not put it past the puke to declare war on Iran just to try to lift his poll numbers. That's probably why he invaded Iraq: not, as many suspect, for oil but for political purposes: so he could be a "war president" and keep the support of all the "my country right or wrong" yahoos even though his domestic policies are clearly working against them.

But I think things are really unravelling now. If we can hold out until the November elections I think we'll gain control of both houses of congress, regain control of the domestic agenda and start the process of repair. I don't care for the idea of impeachment because there is nothing but garbage all the way down the line of command anyway. Would President Hastert be an improvement (I assume Cheney would have to go too)?

My hope is that all this revelation of wrong doing: the lying, the treasonous behavior, the sex sleezballs (like the child molester in homeland security) -- the overwhelming hypocrisy -- will destroy this horrible right wing cancer that has been eating away at this country since the early 1990s (coming into full flower during Clinton's term; the yahoos hate smart people). These horrid, mindless, mean-spirited hypocrites have finally over-reached (Reagan managed to keep them in check but they have really gotten going with Bush II). I hope -- I pray to the non-existent god above -- that they're on their last legs and a new, progressive era will start again soon in the US.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400