The same question occurs to me now as we consider the fact that the Republican party is set to select Mitt Romney. This is an extremely bad choice. OK, the base denies science on the environment and empiricism when it comes to what works to improve an economy. You expect them to nominate someone that shares that view, or at least pretends to.
And yeah, his capitalistic methods may seem cruel, but the base has become convinced that this creative destruction is for the best. Sure, some people lost their jobs, but what we don't hear about is the many people that benefited because resources were routed to more efficient uses.
I think it's bogus, but you expect the base to accept it. But they draw the line on abortion. Making profits is fine. But morality still matters.
It happens I'm getting physical therapy these days after my bicycle accident and this truck was outside the door. I spoke with the guys unloading it. "Stericycle? Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Aborted fetus disposal?" Yep they told me. We're the devil they said.Mitt Romney made money by investing heavily in a company that specializes in the disposal of aborted fetuses. Really. How does a pro-life Republican justify pulling the lever for a guy like that?
Sure, the same question could be put to me on Obama due to his many evil actions, including the seizure of the power of kings. That is he singles out Americans for death and kills them with no check on that power. The idea of voting for a dictator like that for me is of course repellant. I'm hoping that Michigan isn't close and my vote for President is entirely irrelevant. If it's close I'll have to make a very difficult choice, and I really don't know what I'll do. I imagine pro-life Republicans feel similarly. What horrible choices these are. I wish we had democracy.
31 comments:
There are a couple of choices. The choices have little chance of actually winning the presidency, but you can at least register your rejection of the Democrat-Republican choices force fed us.
More emotive tokenism nonsense?
Let's be serious Jon, US Americans as "Leaders of the free world (sic)" are full of it (tokenism). Not exclusively though, however the rest of the world doesn't on its own bat go around trumpeting and enforcing well, hardly democracy.
Let's be clear the Teabaggers and the rump Republicans are hypocrites on steroids.
Deeply felt Democratic rights of the individual and moral commitment... their psychotically personality perplexed pachyderm (all that *Bull * shit) ! At least the Dems have the right source for their policies ...a donkey classically known as an Ass (arse).
Let's get real here the Republicans are worried about a life (shock horror murder?) and they want to militarily whoop ( kill) how many ? Oh yes let's not forget the those that live in squalor so that their precious capitalism can make a profit! Christian morality? (yeah right). Funny I spent 2 years of my life studying religion ( specifically Christianity) and it seems to me that at best the religious (not so) right are more than selective with their beliefs and that includes their 'holy' book!
As for the Teabagger, conservatives …..well their beliefs in general are a compost of foetid prejudices, ignorance, fear, and gullibility.
If US Americans really believe the pap they put out they'd actually do something to reign in the putrid mess that is the system that makes it almost acceptable to blame others, treat the issues as Somebody Else's Problems ( SEP). Real leaders dedicate their lives to the people they lead ….Dictators and colonialists think of themselves first and the hell with the others dismissing their rights as envy et al.
Sorry Jon, but there is nothing moral about settling for the lessor of two evils... Bemoaning the choice now is 3 year too F.... late . Enough of the self justification of why individual's can't do anything....they can all they need it to pull their proverbial heads out of their donkey's, elephant's arse and stop with the navel gazing and do something.
Now Prove ME WRONG....
See I can be "passionate (?)" too.
Now what has it achieved?
Jon,
Off topic but interesting
http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/emissions/
Look at the USA compared to China then consider the difference in the number of people China has 4-5 times as many people
Then consider how much of China's CO2 is from making goods for USA.
Chad/Jon
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/07/20127205441433206.html
Can either of you explain this in terms of freedom of speech?
Show me where Mitt Romney personally signed on to dispose the fetus?
This is a medical waste disposal business Jon, this company has over 528,000 customers and is involved in all types of medical waste disposal, plus additional segments as well. Those would be children have already been killed, this is just the clean up and one tiny tiny portion of the business model.
I doubt the employee - unless only to be sarcastic with you - called his company the devil and meant it.
So it is only okay for a Liberal Business to dispose of dead babies because they support it?
Even though your topics are always slanted to your view they are at least well investigated in most cases - this was an emotional post with little evidence to directly tie Romney to supporting abortion.
Ex, I'm not sure what you link to on Al Jazeera is actually inconsistent with freedom of speech. Legally anybody that doesn't have a security clearance (I used to have one, but no longer do because I've changed jobs) is permitted to disclose classified information. But it is a crime if you possess a secret clearance to then expose secret information. I think the article is just saying that the government is looking at the media to make efforts to determine who has committed a crime. Who with a secret clearance disclosed secret information. This actually doesn't mean that the media needs to stop publishing classified information. They still can and still do.
Just not enough. Wikileaks really was willing to do what journalists in the US are supposed to be doing, but they just don't because they really aren't watch dogs but lap dogs.
Chad, I'm surprised we disagree on this point. All I'm saying is that it seems stupid for Republicans to nominate a guy that profits from abortion.
You say the fetuses are already dead. Yeah. Stem cell research likewise is performed on fetuses that are already dead, but that doesn't mean the base is thrilled with the idea. Seems to me the base is going to really struggle pulling the lever for this guy.
Just as I would struggle pulling the lever for Obama, and I'm not sure I can do it. And it looks like Michigan is a swing state, which sucks.
What I do hope is that the base can start to see that the system is not democratic. What they actually want is not what they will get because kissing banker ass is really a lot more important. Recognizing that we don't have democracy, and so voting is kind of a very minor part of effecting any changes we might want to implement, is the first step.
Jon,
Sorry with regard to AJ article but my cynicism is coming to the fore. This is clear strikes me as clear intimidation of the media; A precursor to Bradley Manning; Assange being extradited from Sweden end charged with treason/ spying and to legitimise attacks on ANONYMOUS. In short nothing a Government does in matters of 'security' (sic) is Benign.
Note: I am not a particular fan of either ...however, it seems to me the primary onus on secrets is also on the person who has the secret to ensure their security. e.g. look at your insurance and your responsibilities.
Neither am I advocating espionage. What I am saying is that this is a step too far.
NB which US paper is going to publish Wikkileaks now? Not that with Murdoch dominance of media there is that many now.
Keep in mind this government has prosecuted more people under the 1917 act than any other since its creation. Simply put its to scare the bjesus out of whistle blowers. how ever Deterrents simply don't work and never have.
Locks only keep those who have no interest out.
Chad,
Regardless of whether Romney actually signed their disposal or not, as some one who 'should have know' and profited by the act he can't then claim indemnity.
He would have to prove that he reasonably couldn't have known... in which case how competent is he to be trusted with systems of a whole other order. i.e. if he's indifferent to what his investments actually do imagine how much greater the effects will be if the same demonstrated 'ignorance'(incompetence) is applied when/if he's prez.
Jon has a valid point. However, I doubt the myopically inclined will even think that much... there is precious evidence of that level of thinking in the Republican voters as a whole
If your corporation leaks toxic fuel into the environment and that the CEO can be shown to have known or should have know he/she is vulnerable to charges of 'craven indifference', 'accessory before' and 'after' the fact.
Jon,
I guess the over arching point I was making in my 'cranky' post was that such justifications as the Republicans will use is only valid if one reduces (limits) political choices to the banal and prosaic levels(navel gazing level).
i.e. the emotive self interest. Which coincidentally is the easiest to manipulate.
By analogy it a Tapeworm's perspective of the universe.
Ex - it's clear that you have never, ever ran or have been in upper management at any company and most definitely not at one the size of Bain.
Again let's deal on facts - this is a medical waste company which means they clean up all manner of disgusting. Is it your point that Romney should have stopped a profitable business model based soley on an act that had already taken place? One that probably represents less than 1/2 of 1% of the entire company if that.
How about he decides not to pickup any blood or waste from gay's - now you'll have a problem with that.
In a weird twisted way I guess that I would have to say that this only proves that Romney is a man of his word, business rules.
How many parts per million contamination is the dumping you described? Did the town vote yes or no to allow company x to dump there?
Also - unless I am mistaken, Romney did not start this company rather the corporation he works with invested in this company.
In business, you have to - at times - put aside your personal beliefs for the benefit of the sale or for the business.
Chad,
As for my being in a the boardroom of a diversified company, not so.
Last time I checked boards sign off on investment and it's the duty of the GM and CEO to present detailed analysis of each investment Opportunity to each board member. And the board member is supposed to read the document then vote for or against in the interests of the share holders....Its called "director due diligence". And as a matter of law that means that they are legally bound by the decision. Unless they note in board minutes their dissenting vote.
I would posit that that is one of the problems within senior management in Corporations....not enough detail is read...too much trust is put in those compiling the board briefs.
I agree many board member especially those on several boards don't really read what is put in front of them reading only the highlights, more specifically the Benefits.
Unless there's a legal risk briefing attached.
These documents are often 'managed' presented at the last minute and voluminously in nature or heavy recommendations that bury the details in appendix D. There are team players on boards, rubber stamp directors and cliques.
I have no doubt that not all these document are either fully read but that doesn't change the liability of the directors.
Do you want me to look up the case law for you? I'll do it cheap(well cheaper). ;-)
I look at it this way if Romney is or was 'morally' against abortions it is a test of his commitment to these conviction as to how he voted.
i.e. I refused to invest in some corporations that produce weapons etc also I voted against investing in a subsidiary of a building supplier because of 3 lines in the board investment brief (of products)...I checked out the details, and in my rejection I noted my reasoning in the minutes (asbestos ).... as it happened I was proven right and the company I worked for later withdrew it's investment when the shit hit the fan, at a substantial loss. I was subsequently re elected to the board, 3 other directors weren't this investment was …ONE reason.
Chad
Damn it,I forgot to add a caveat to my board experience.
i.e. Given that I'm not particularly ofey with Bain I can't be sure if I've been on a board in that league.
Notwithstanding the legal issues I mention apply to any public corp and that I have served on.
I suggest you look up the CCH binders I'm sure your Chief Financial Officer would have on the duties/ responsibilities of Board members .
I went fishing and caught a big Tuna. I had a sneaky feeling that if I challenged you that your massive ego would get in the way and the truth would come out.
So your an investor/board member - using the system to benefit you while complaining along the way.
That reminds me of a great saying. Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist.
So are you a counselor at a school, an invest or a lawyer? I am a bit confused at this point.
Back to topic - repeating myself again and its getting silly now. This company collects human and biological waste as a part of what they do. The abortion has already taken place, the crime has already been committed if you will. This companies duties is to safely dispose of the waste. This is not by any stretch confirmation that businessman Mitt Romney and board members 1-10 are for abortion.
You said you don't invest in companies investing in weapons, but I am betting that we can link your companies to a weapons manufacturer so by your argument you do vest in weapons. If they cross paths in the business world at all - your a supporter of weapons manufacturing.
By the way, if you would have invested in weapons manufacturing you'd be doing well. Once Obama got elected, I invested in two gun companies and have seen a really nice return - really nice. Bought into Gold, silver, oil and guns so I am pretty happy.
You attempt to steer clear of weapons companies and I attempt to avoid any companies that have social programs as part of their agenda.
Chad wrong again
almost all the way.
a. I was on two different boards at different times. One was a business who had an opportunity to partner up with another, a synergy...in another country
b. The second was a superannuation board to over see pension investment. we introduced an 'Ethical Investments Option'
c. My personal investment via an annuity I chose the EIO.
d. I've stated before I was a Volunteer Crisis Intervention Service and a senior crisis team member. Part of my commitment to society as is my bush care leader role.
e. I am not a lawyer again I stated I am in a consulting partner in a Business Consulting firm
f. I am not complaining about Romney I'm merely pointing out the obvious fact that abortion isn't an issue for him...either that or he's a hypocrite...I favour that it's rhetoric to get elected.
g. massive ego? I think not... that is a sub par technique to put it on me (personalise) to distract from WHAT I'm Actually saying.
H. I am 62 that simply means I've had better than 40+ years in the work force .. and I'm as stated an eclectic person who has done a lot of different things ...not all particularly well but most at least competently...end some even well.
I As previously stated I left school at 16 then off and on for the next 17 years put my self through night school then uni for a double major Business degree. this included accounting economics and law...The majors were in Psychology and Marketing.
Any questions? Don't waste your time fishing just ask.that way you'll get the right answers.
Now that's more like it, admittedly I don't read all your posts all the way through. So you've put the blood, sweat and tears required to earn success - odd that you have the views that you do.
F. So since Romney's company cleans up blood from murderers he now endorses murder? Your argument is silly - sorry. The fetus has already been killed - the blood on the hand of the doctor - his company just cleans it up
Chad,
So your perspective is to tell us or me how things are and it doesn't matter what we think or say!
Well, that's no surprise...
Now there's the deference between us.
I assume (actual respect for you as a person)you may have something I might learn from... and you well, you know everything and what you don't know isn't worth knowing?
And we should just absorb your 'wisdom' because...you say so ..
You're entitled to that view but that precludes any 2 way discussion.
Pity that
It reminds of the old saying
"the self made man is both made by a fool and has removed the almighty from any responsibility for the cock up! "
I respect you, but when reading your posts it reminds me of a famous movie quote. "You think you got brains, but sometimes I wonder if you know the difference between a sneeze and a wet fart."
When you start rambling that is when I start scanning and in most cases you attempt to part some kind of knowledge through your opinion - an opinion that in most cases I disagree with that's all.
I am learning BTW - learning or confirming I should say that - in my opinion - my basic and foundational beliefs fit me to my core.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Chad,
Sorry if I make you feel threatened that was not my intention.
BTW smart doesn't of its self equate to knowledge or experience. it is knowing what to do with that knowledge and experience that defines wisdom(smart).
Thus far all I've done is offer information and experience it is YOU THAT HAVE CONFUSED
the elements.
I state as I have before .... I make no claims to "smarts" if I did then why haven't I avoided the disasters I've faced. In fact smarts is a relative term and determined the context.
I put it to you that Society's advancement has come from learning from others mistakes and information/ experience...
Respect can't come without understanding ..... you simply don't want to see let alone understand and all else follows .
END
Jon,
This makes a mockery of of Conservative claims about tax. (Period)
In reality this wouldn't change regardless of the American Tax rate.
Corporation etc simply don't want to pay anything. They ignore such facts that they are the biggest users of infrastructure etc etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/31-trillion-dollars-hidden-in-tax-haven/4147114
Jon,
Re:- 1st amendment concern
Please note this
http://m.mcclatchydc.com/dc/db_112234/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=s0rgmkT4
Clearly they feel as I do about recent 'monitoring' moves.
Ben Franklin said something to the effect that "anybody who sacrifices freedom (of speech through secrecy ) for security gets neither."
Chad, my point was simply that I think politically it was foolish to nominate a guy that makes money disposing of aborted fetuses. They're already dead. Fine. You don't have to convince me that it's really not that big a deal. The question is what will the base think.
But I want to hit on something else you said, which I agree with 100%. You wrote:
In business, you have to - at times - put aside your personal beliefs for the benefit of the sale or for the business.
This is absolutely correct, and is the heart of capitalism. Do you know that without IBM the holocaust would have been much more difficult, if not impossible? For the benefit of the sale it was necessary to set personal beliefs aside. Or take the Dow Chemical. Agent Orange and Napalm were tough stuff and the idea of dumping that on civilians (women and children as well) is tough, but you need to make that sale and you need to set personal beliefs aside.
Today the droughts are going to cause food prices to rise. This is a predicted consequence of global warming and people are already dying. But if you are an oil man you press on because you need to keep sales going. You see a child laborer in China and you ignore it because it enhances profits. And this is all necessary not because of the needs of the people. We already make more than enough stuff to meet the basic needs of every living human. What we need is more accumulation for the super rich, though they don't actually need it and probably could never consume it all.
My personal belief may be that I should be concerned about the world I'm leaving to my children and grandchildren, but in your world that needs to be set aside as we need to generate more in sales, more in consumption, more accumulation.
I think future generations will not judge us kindly. And they shouldn't.
Ex, I think the McClatchy article has more to do with what Glenn Greenwald discusses here than with the fact that the government is trying to monitor news agencies to determine the source of leaks. Another great article from Greenwald. If you don't read him regularly I highly recommend him.
Also to you, Chad. You'll find a lot you agree with from him, but also stuff you'll have a problem with.
Jon,
Thank you for that.
Unfortunately I'm cynical about ANY (US) Regime that seeks to 'monitor' the press or personal phone calls/emails etc....it's sounds like a threat to me. Particularly in the cases I've mentioned.
You maybe interested to note both the UK media and that of Australia are giving the US political double speak a bit of a hiding. Particularly given the documentation shown in a doco on The National Broadcaster the (ABC) known as 'Aunty its very conservative (non confrontational/ cautious) Last night You might like to look at Tom Dispatch on the $13 Billion just to keep the budget know Department documents secret... This doesn't include the CIA, homeland Security et al.The increase in number of documents classified has increased exponentially. I guess my point is that paranoid power is obsessed with secrecy.
I am not conspiratorial by nature I just don't trust humans and power ... i.e.how many petty bureaucrats like parking officers, school boards,P&Cs, even garden clubs and neighborhood watchers who have messianic complexes.
What did you think of the hidden tax story? rather proves the fact that the Republicans have an agenda beyond their stated one.
I wish I could remember where I saw the article about the level of surveillance the US does on ordinary people. It's staggering.
I often bang on about how complex things are and how meaningless crude divisions like repub. dem. Green etc.
Way off topic but I found this fascinating ...only the first 20 minutes or so the diagrams ...mind bending
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=159015
It might give you insight into my perspective and how banal the above pigeon holing, B or W definitions are.
If you have time or inclination I'd be interested in you views
Cheers
E
It is dangerous Jon, an evil cycle to be sure. At the same time one that does not have a super clear answer either.
I asked a few freinds this weekend about your questions - about the base being upset at the disposal. Although a small sampling of 4 conservatives and 4 moderates only 1 took objection, but none of them offered that it would cause them to sway thier vote.
Ex - I feel no where near threatned. Entertained and occassionally annoyed, but not threatned.
Ex, you are no doubt right about those kinds of monitoring. I guess I wasn't sure what the AJ article was referring to. Obviously the White House and other government agencies already monitor the media in the sense that they read it, pay attention to it, try and track down crimes that they become aware of through the media. I kind of took the AJ article that way. Just read it with an eye towards discovering who may have leaked classified information. Maybe more was meant than that though because I suppose it's obvious they do that.
Chad, maybe you're right that this doesn't matter to people. I don't really pretend to know how to run an effective political campaign. Keep in mind though that swaying a vote is one thing and dampening enthusiasm is another. I think about a lot of the evangelicals I know. Sure, they're not going to be swayed to vote for Obama. But suppose it's election night and it's raining. They're pretty busy. You going to go out and brave the weather to vote for that abortion profiteering Mormon? Enthusiasm is an issue. But I could be wrong.
You've nailed this election perfectly - unless there is some type of surge, I think the energized base (right now) is coming from the right. What's most interesting is that the factions within the conservative party are starting to settle in that there won't be a Tea Party guy, no Ron Paul and if they want Obama out which is really the end goal they have to vote for Mitt for brains.
To me - Mitt's VP choice will play a huge role in this. I think he really needs to embrace the Tea Party side. The guy (for me) that brings the entire party together is Marco Rubio. He can rally the tea party group questioning Mitt, he brings in the Hispanic vote and I think he can help capture a bigger number of black voters. My second pick would be Alan West.
Chad,
I'm not saying that Romney's profits should change a vote... Merely pointing out as Jon did the inconsistency (hypocrisy?) of his stance.
I am not making any point beyond that.
If I were it would be caveated to the proviso that I represent a minority of one(meeeeeee) I have no interest converting any one to anything much less to any side in a frankly Crude BS choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.(lessor of two inadequate moribund alternatives to run status quo ). To me that's like asking a passenger on the titanic did they prefer a red or blue life vest.
(the cold water would kill you either way.
Now if the choices were between the Palpably good and the Palpably bad then (and only Then) I might indulge in lobbing for one side or the other.
I simply examine the options and comment.
In recent times I've been posting 'off topic " link to give you both a idea of the basis of my analysis.
Jon, In your comment in lies the real problem 'motivation'
Reality dictates that it is always the most motivated ( often the least informed and or those with the biggest self interest) that turn up at ordinary party meeting that make party policy or sadly vote..
Most people tend to leave hard issues to 'Somebody Else'. That somebody else has either died of overwork or is in the outer standard deviations of distribution .. (read most motivated).
If you like it's a catch 22 of our making. "To succeed in politics and upper business you need the same attributes that make them the least qualified or desirable."
Post a Comment