Skip to main content


Literally, cow manure.  

Did you know that progressives were the ones who fought for federal meat safety laws?

It started with progressive muckrakers writing about the horrid, unsanitary conditions in meat packing facilities. Upton Sinclair, in his 1906 book The Jungle, elevated the issue to national discourse, and voila! - that very same year, the Meat Inspections Actand the Pure Food and Drug Act were passed into law.

This allowed federal inspectors to come in and inspect meat packing facilities. You don't want to know what they found.

One of the most disturbing trends since the ascension of Barack Obama to leader of the Democratic party, is the increased hostility towards progressives.

Perhaps he set the tone when allowed his chief of staff to call progressives "fucking retarded."

Many of Obama's staunchest defenders here have even tried to turn the word progressive into a pejorative, calling people "True Progressives" as though that were an insult.

I've also seen use of the word almost vanish in some Democratic circles and, at a meeting I attended recently, a person suggested we stop using "progressive" in our marketing because it had a negative connotation.

Let's get something straight.

If it weren't for progressives, children would still toil 16 hours a day in factories, our environment would be a toxic wasteland, our food wouldn't be safe to eat, and our skies would be so polluted they would block out the sun.

There would have never been an American middle class because only a handful of Americans would have made more than poverty wages.

There would be no workers' rights, workers compensation or, God forbid, labor unions because there would have been no Wagner Act.

And, of course, progressives are the reason you have the Social Security program, the most popular government program in the history of government.

FDR was opposed to social security. Did you know that? It took progressives threatening to throw him out of office to get the law passed.

The fact is, Progressives are, and have always been, the adults in the room.

When Wall Street bankers and their little minions in Washington almost destroyed themselves and everyone else, it was the adults to had to make them keep their greedy little fingers out of the cookie jar.

It was the adults who stopped them from turning our banks into a casino, threatening our very livelihood.

It has always been the adults who protected us from the childish idiots who would sacrifice the our very future for a moment of gratification.

The fact is, if it weren't for progressives, this would be a fucking hell hole of a country. You wouldn't even recognize it.

It's time we put the adults back in charge, while we still have time to repair the damage of letting greedy, stupid children run rampant.

Discuss

Tue Nov 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM PST

You Make Me Sick

by James Hepburn

To all the people who recommended the insipid, Joe the Plumber-esque,  Canadian open letter propaganda diary, you should be ashamed. I have never read anything more offensive posted to this site.

In this day and age, when so many are still struggling just to survive, while the .01% continue to grow incomprehensibly rich, you actually recommended a diary telling us how good we've got it?

And if that weren't bad enough, the evidence used to support this claim is a bunch of stats on how good the .01% of Wall Street is doing.

Don't you realize what a slap in the face it is to go around touting the economic success of Wall Street as one of Obama's big "accomplishments", when so many of your fellow Americans are still suffering?

Where the fuck am I here? Orange State?

Look at this woman. Her name is Lily. She's 78 years old and she has to work at McDonald's to survive. Why don't you tell her how good she's got it?

Perhaps she just doesn't understand the good news!!!

Corporations are making record profits!!!!
Rich people are getting richer!!!
GDP (corporate profit again) is better than OECD!!!
The stock market is booming!!!

Great. If you're a bond trader.

There was one stat cited that is actually relevant to most Americans' lives. The unemployment rate. Unfortunately, the number cited is a complete fraud.

The real unemployment rate is easily above 16%. All Obama's labor dept. did was stop counting all of them.

There the real unemployment situation, right there. Fucked.

But what about all those NEW JOBS!!!! we keep hearing about?

Well, if you read the fine print, what you find is that they're almost all low wage service sector jobs. Part time jobs. Crappy jobs you can't survive on.

The new word of the season is underemployed. That's because in the new corporate economy, that the Demopublicans have brought about with their undying loyalty to Wall Street, it's perfectly legal to, instead of hiring one full time worker with full time benefits, hire two part time workers with no benefits.

Apparently, all those part time workers who are failing to survive  didn't get the message about how good they've got it.

Hey Lakoff, is there a better way to frame "You're fucked."

It's one thing to be clueless about what's really happening to our economy under the neoliberal regime. But to smear it in everyone's faces like a bunch of spoiled rich kids is quite another thing. "Look at my new Farrari - thanks Obama!!!"

You know, when Obama famously said that it was OK if Republicans secretly supported him, he didn't mean for them to flood Daily Kos.

But that's what that diary reads like. On what planet is it OK to rub in everyone's faces how good we have it because a bunch of rich assholes are getting richer? Planet Wingnut, of course.

And since when do Democrats care more about a politician than they do Lily? The guy's not even up for reelection, and these...these...people, race to defend him.

But make no mistake. What they are really defending is right wing ideology.

This is the guy who wanted to cut Lily's social security checks to make Pete Peterson's billionaire buddies happy.

This is the guy who cut a deal to cut funding for head start and other critical programs that Democrats are supposed to support.

And he cut these programs at the same time as he was bailing out the banksters.

I'm sorry. If you stand behind all that, as well as handing public education over to corporate profiteers, drilling in the antarctic, attacking whistleblowers and journalists, conducting illegal mass surveillance on innocent Americans, allowing criminals to walk free and even covering up their crimes, and radical free trade deals that hand over sovereignty to an unelected international body, then you're not a Democrat.

And maybe that's why you lose elections. I seem to remember real Democrats being popular.

Discuss

Michael Price, counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, has a disturbing article up at Salon.com.

Turns out, he bought a new "smart" TV, but is now afraid to turn it on.

You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.

The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect “when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.” It records “the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.” It ignores “do-not-track” requests as a considered matter of policy.

It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition. The purpose is to provide “gesture control” for the TV and enable you to log in to a personalized account using your face. On the upside, the images are saved on the TV instead of uploaded to a corporate server. On the downside, the Internet connection makes the whole TV vulnerable to hackers who have demonstrated the ability to take complete control of the machine.

More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a “voice recognition” feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV.

The technocracy, in the employ of Wall Street corporations, has fully jumped the shark. Sharing the audio from the microphone with third parties?

Are liberals really going to allow this steady march into dystopia to continue? And if liberals and Democrats aren't willing to fight it, who will?

Privacy isn't really about privacy. It's about power. There is strong evidence that a system is either up and running, or in the process of implementation, to record everything said on American phones and store it.

Imagine being 32 years old, and launching your first campaign for congress, when suddenly a recording surfaces of you in your early twenties, saying things that will harm your campaign or worse.

Or maybe your a political operative for a labor union, plotting to unionize WalMart. Or an environmental activist planning a demonstration.

The possibilities are endless.

The Snowden revelations don't appear to have done anything to even slow down the race to put every single American citizen inside a glass box - from the push by big online services providers like Google and Yahoo to force their users to give up their real ID, to ever increasingly complex schemes to track our movements online, Wall Street, not the government, is creating the surveillance state Orwell never dreamed of.

Not that the government isn't helping them. But it's clear who the real culprits are. And it ends with Inc.

Discuss

Discuss

I know there are a lot of people here who think that the #1 priority of our electoral strategy should be to keep Republicans from being elected.

And I know why these people think that: because they only think one election ahead, they don't know history, and they haven't a clue how politics actually works. Like tiny one celled organisms, they only see one step ahead, ignoring the long term consequences of their decisions.

The single greatest single thing that ever happened to the Democratic party, both in terms of electoral success, and success in serving the people of this country, was in the 1930s, when FDR and the Democratic congress were, as usual, failing to do anything that was really going to change anything, or solve any of the problems they were facing at the time, and FDR and the party leadership got a big fat wake-up call.

There were solutions available to get us out of the Great Depression. But the party, just like today, was captured by Wall Street interests and unable, or unwilling, to act.

So this greatest thing that happened was the people of that day, led by, God forbid, True Progressives, made it real clear: Either you get off your sorry asses and serve the people for a change(instead of Wall Street), or we're going to throw all your sorry asses out of office.

And they meant it. They were even prepared to let FDR lose the 1936 election and let a Republican win (Ooooh Nooes).

They had a candidate, Huey Long, who was threatening to spoil FDR's chance for 2nd term by running as an independent and splitting the ticket, and they had the strong support of a lot of Americans across the country who saw FDR's first new deal as being an ineffective sell-out to the bankers.

So they made a play. Either you fucking do what you're fucking here to do, or we're going to throw you out into the streets, and all else be damned.

And guess what? It worked.

Fortunately, back in 1935 and 1936, no one listened to all the idiots running around screaming "But..but..the Republicans will win. This is the Most important election ever! Think of the Supreme Court!!!!!"

Yes, the American people ignored those people, and made their threats to let the Democrats lose, no matter what, very very clear.

And what happened? Suddenly the crusty old cranks of entrenched authority in the Senate became REFORMERS. LOL. And we, the people, got the Second New Deal. Not the crappy 1st New Deal the establishment historians love to dwell on at the exclusion of all else - the so-called "First 100 Days".

The real, populist New Deal that only passed in 1935-36, in time for FDR and the Democrats to have something to run on in the 1936 elections.

This was the New Deal that gave us Social Security, worker's protections, and most importantly for the time, gave us a public works program that put 10,000,000 (ten million) people to work.

This, for the most part, made the Democratic party the WINNING PARTY for the next 50 years. And winning is the point right?

"Pure" "True" Progressives did that. They made the modern Democratic party. And this short-sided, idiotic submission to the good cop bad cop routine is what unmade the Democratic party.

We need another New Deal. And the Democratic party needs an enema.

Discuss

US tech giants knew of NSA data collection

The senior lawyer for the National Security Agency stated on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s widespread collection of data.

Rajesh De, the NSA general counsel, said all communications content and associated metadata harvested by the NSA under a 2008 surveillance law occurred with the knowledge of the companies – both for the internet collection program known as Prism and for the so-called “upstream” collection of communications moving across the internet. Guardian UK

Remember the shrieks and shrills of denial emitted from these companies?

Google's Larry Page and his lawyer released this statement:

"First, we have not joined any program that would give the US government – or any other government – direct access to our servers.
Apple denied knowledge as well. But, as most of us knew anyway, they were all lying.

In fact, as Al Jazeera revealed a few months ago, the NSA's Keith Alexander and the Google boys were good buddies. Here's one where Google CEO Eric Schmidt calls Keith Alexander "General Keith." How cute.

Exclusive: Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSA

“General Keith.. so great to see you.. !” Schmidt wrote. “I’m unlikely to be in California that week so I’m sorry I can’t attend (will be on the east coast). Would love to see you another time. Thank you !”

These revelations have, of course, been devastating to the image and sense of trustworthiness consumers have toward these companies.

Enter FBI chief Comey. Readers may remember that Comey was one of the ones in the Bush administration who was aware of Bush's illegal surveillance operations and, unlike some of his more honest peers, DIDN'T blow the whistel. This his very different career trajectory.

Anyway, these same big tech giants are all Big privacy advocates now.  So FBI director Comey has expressed his grave concern that law enforcement will be unable to do its job.

Except that it's all complete bullshit. You privacy will not be protected. And the FBI will not be deterred.

For starters, most of the most valuable data about you is not even stored on you phone. Call records, GPS tracking data, text messages, these are all stored on Apple and Google's servers.

And as for the data that is stored on your phone, Jonathan Zdziarski offers a dose of reality - for Apple anyway. After saying that some of Apple's efforts do seem positive, he goes on to dispel the hype:

It’s important to take a minute, however, to note that this does not mean that the police can’t get to your data. What Apple has done here is create for themselves plausible deniability in what they will do for law enforcement. If we take this statement at face value, what has likely happened in iOS 8 is that photos, messages, and other sensitive data, which was previously only encrypted with hardware-based keys, is now being encrypted with keys derived from a PIN or passcode. No doubt this does improve security for everyone, by marrying encryption to the PIN (something they ought to have been doing all along). While it’s technically possible to brute force a PIN code, that doesn’t mean it’s technically feasible, and thus lets Apple off the hook in terms of legal obligation. Add a complex passcode into the mix, and it gets even uglier, having to choose any of a number of dictionary style attacks to get into your encrypted data. By redesigning the file system in this fashion (if this is the case), Apple has afforded themselves the ability to say, “the phone’s data is encrypted with a PIN or passphrase, and so we’re not legally required to hack it for you guys, so go pound sand”. I am quite impressed, Mr. Cook! That took courage… but it does not mean that your data is beyond law enforcement’s reach.

In a recent blog post, I outlined a number of measures Apple took with iOS 8 to prevent many forensic artifacts from being dumped off of the device by existing commercial forensics tools. These services had completely bypassed the user’s backup encryption password, affording the consumer virtually no protection from the many law enforcement forensics tools that took advantage of these vulnerabilities. Apple closed off many of these services in iOS 8. This was a great start to better securing iOS 8, but not everything has been completely protected.

In addition to what’s been fixed, I also outlined some things that haven’t yet been. What’s left are services that iTunes (and Xcode) talk to in order to exchange information with third party applications, or access your media folder. Apple wants you to be able access your photos and other information from your desktop while the phone is locked – for ease of use. This, unfortunately, also opens up the capability for law enforcement to also use this mechanism to dump:

    -Your camera reel, videos, and recordings
    -Podcasts, Books, and other iTunes media
    -All third party application data

Existing commercial forensics tools can still acquire these artifacts from your device, even running iOS 8. I have tested with my own private forensics tools, as well, and confirmed this. I dumped all of my third party application data (including caches, databases, screenshots, etc), as well as my camera reel and other media… all within a few minutes and from my locked iPhone running iOS 8 GM.

You can dwell on the positives and ignore the negatives of Zdziarski's (he's not the only critic by the way. I'm just in a hurry.) Or you can dwell on the negatives.

But even a fair assessment, acknowledging both sides, leads one to conclude that this is, most probably a PR stunt, or at best, just highly misleading.

And the way it was framed by Kos is straight out of lappy land.

"FBI criticizes Apple and Google for giving people what they want: privacy"

I'm sorry, but even if we buy that these efforts are a step up, they are a far cry from the claim that Apple and Google are giving people privacy.

These are the same assholes who got caught illegally giving the NSA what the NSA wants - your data.  They have never come clean about it and there's no evidence that they've changed their practices. So we have to assume they are STILL cooperating with the NSA.

The fact is, these companies, Google especially, constitute the greatest mass surveillance system in human history. Their phones can be invisibly, and with the flick of a switch, turned into the perfect audio/video surveillance  devices.

They monitor and record where you go and when, who you talk to, who you communicate with and what websites you visit.

And they've been caught opening all that information up to an illegal, unconstitutional (same thing, I know) surveillance operation by the Wall Street subsidiary known as the NSA, or more accurately, NSA Inc.

But now people in the land of orange are supposed to believe that these companies are sincerely wanting to give us privacy?

Hahahahahaha. Call me skeptical.

Discuss

You don't get to have it both ways. Either Obama's latest attack on a foreign, sovereign nation was a declaration of war, or the war in Iraq never really ended.

For the last three years, we've been hearing Obama's cheerleaders loudly proclaiming that thanks to Obama, the "Iraq war has ended."

 Jed said it right here on the front page of Daily Kos. And thousands of Obama defended have said the same thing, repeatedly over the last few years.

As Obama said, the economy was falling off a cliff when he took office. It took several months to stop the bleeding, but since unemployment peaked in October, 2009, things have been getting better: the auto industry is back, more than 4 million private sector jobs have been created, the Iraq war has ended, and Osama bin Laden has been brought to justice.
Here's Ian Reiforwitz saying the exact same thing:
The Iraq War has ended, and we will be getting out of Afghanistan. We must do everything in our power to give President Obama another four years. Volunteer, donate, and vote!
I could cite this quote, word for word, repeatedly, for pages.

Now, it appears, the same people who've been championing Obama's fake image as a "peacemaker"(Hahahahahaha), are completely unmoved by this new bombing campaign, as though Obama didn't just declare a new war on a sovereign nation we were supposedly at peace with.

Of course, Obama didn't just declare war, did he? He just continued the old one. Otherwise, so many liberals, who are super seriously opposed to war, would be typing angrily things like, "Hmmm, I would like better if Obama weren't bombing brown people again."

But everyone has always known that the Iraq war never really ended. That was all just bullshit, with tens of thousands of US troops stationed there, and many more mercenaries doing the Fascists' bidding.

But the cheerleaders, oh they loved to declare the Iraq war over and credit that lie to Barack Obama.

But it was always a lie. Even to the extent that the war did end somewhat (meaning main combat operations) under Obama's presidency, it was done under an agreement negotiated and signed by George Bush.

Even Obama's White House confirmed this fact:

“This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave.."

But what's really obnoxious is that, not only did Obama defenders try to take credit for a deal that was cut under Bush, but the Obama administration spent 2 years trying to GET OUT OF THAT DEAL AND STAY IN IRAQ LONGER.

U.S. forces to stay in Iraq into 2012, says Leon Panetta

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iraq’s government has agreed to extend the U.S. military presence in the country beyond 2011 — but Iraq quickly rejected the claim.

Hahahahahah.

Panetta, acting on orders from Obama, thought he had the Iraqis on board with an agreement to void the original mandate to leave Iraq by 2011, and instead stay in Iraq for at least another year.

Then the Iraqis told him to fuck off. In public.

For those of us who, you know, actually pay attention, and who were opposed to Obama's flip flop on his promise to pull troops out of Iraq, this was some funny shit.

But in Obama Ponyland, none of this ever even happened. And in 2011, Obama magically "ended the war in Iraq."

So, which is it? Did Obama just start another war in Iraq? And if so, have liberals become so de-sensitized to the bombing of brown people, that it doesn't even warrant a recommended diary?

Or is everyone now admitting that our occupation never really ended, Iraq hasn't really been a sovereign state since 2003 but just another of the Empire's colonies, and bombing colonies is really no big deal in the New America?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for the New Liberals, who are strangely hawkish all of the sudden, former US diplomat in Iraq Peter Van Buren, who wrote critically of the "reconstruction" operations in Iraq so the Obama and Hillary tried to punish him, schools Obama and Co. on why bombing Iraq, yet again, is so fucking stupid. Via Common Dreams

1. Sunnis are not confined by the borders of Iraq and this is not a chessboard. U.S. actions toward Sunnis in Iraq (or Syria, or wherever) resonate throughout the Sunni world. There is no better recruitment tool for Sunni extremists than showing their fight is actually against the Americans.

2. Precise, Surgical Strikes: Sure, just ask those wedding parties in Yemen and Afghanistan how that has worked out.

3. Air strikes will not resolve anything significant. The short answer is through nine years of war and occupation U.S. air power in Iraq, employed on an unfettered scale, combined with the full-weight of the U.S. military on the ground plus billions of dollars in reconstruction funds, failed to resolve the issues now playing out in Iraq. Why would anyone think a lesser series of strikes would work any better? We also have a recent Iraqi example of the pointlessness of air strikes. The Maliki government employed them with great vigor against Sunnis in western Iraq, including in Fallujah, only six months ago, and here we are again, with an even more powerful Sunni force in the field.

Discuss

Via the Guardian

The USDA is moving toward final approval of a rule that would replace most government inspectors with untrained company employees, and to allow companies to slaughter chickens at a much faster rate. (The rule is called the "Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection", but advocates like the Center for Food Safety and Food and Water Watch are calling it the "Filthy Chicken Rule".) It could be approved as soon as this week.

This "modernization" of inspections through privatization is likely to cause more problems than already occur because the company employees will be disinclined to cost their bosses money by slowing down, stopping production or removing chickens when there's a problem. "It's really letting the fox guard the chicken coop", says Tony Corbo of Food and Water Watch.

Yes, we can!!!
Discuss

You don't have to be George Lakoff to understand how misframing a statement with imprecise language can be harmful to your argument.

Right now there is a diary on the Rec List that claims the Neocons "got it wrong." It links to another article that talks about how the Neocons "got it wrong." And THAT article links to yet another article that talks about how Neocons "got it wrong."

Why, I could almost be moved to forgive them for merely getting it wrong.

But the fact is, they didn't get it wrong. On every front, they had the accurate information, and they chose to lie about it.

The Vanity Fair article the link eventually led to is partially titled "Perpetually Wrong Paul Wolfowitz".

How kind the establishment is to themselves. Indeed, the article mentions how people were deceived about WMDs. But in establishment land, deceiving people doesn't make you a "liar". It makes you just "wrong."

Now, I can understand if your great ambition is to make the cable news talk show circuit - there's no quicker way to be shunned then to go on TV and call someone, a made man like Wolfowitz, a liar.

But what is the point of mincing words here? One of the best parts of being a homespun blogger is you actually get to tell the truth, if you want to.

It is a lie to claim that these asswipes were merely "wrong." Let's not revise history. We had multiple groups of weapons inspectors, multiple whistleblowers, and countless other knowledgeable people who knew Saddam had no WMDs.

We had multiple Middle East experts, and even some Republicans who warned repeatedly of the quagmire that was bound to ensue.

These clowns had all the info they needed. They knew they were lying about the case for war. They just didn't care.

No really, you only had to be moderately informed to know they were all lying. In 2002, UN weapons inspectors verified what everyone knew in 1998, that Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed.

My dentist knew.

And there's someone else who knew too: Hillary Clinton. Her husband, the president, was the one who ordered Iraq's WMD destroyed.

Everyone but the most clueless American TV viewers knew what was up. Saddam Hussein was playing fast and loose with the oil spigots. He had to be removed. The State Dept under Colin Powell had a plan. Replace Saddam with a friendly General. They had the guy waiting.

But the Neocons had other plans than a quiet regime change. They wanted to reinvent it as another Chicago School, Neoliberal experiment, and fuck OPEC in the process.

There's books about it and stuff. With leaked documents and everything. For another day perhaps.

In the meantime, let's not defend the Neocons by mischaracterizing their lies as mere mistakes. These are criminals who should have been prosecuted long ago, for many crimes. Not one of which is being wrong.

Discuss

I'm sorry. But am I the only one who sees a pattern here? Every other week it seems, another energy related disaster. And every other week, our so-called leaders don't do anything about it - except to cover it up.

The latest, a "valve malfunction" that sent reportedly 10,000 gallons of raw crude oil (Daily Record says 50,000) into the streets of Los Angeles, actually resembles one of those 80s, LA based scifi movies. Unfortunately, its not fiction, and it will affect real people's lives for years to come. Right in one of our most populated cities.

I'm curious. Do Americans have a memory that extends beyond the 1 week news cycle? Comedian Billy Connolly used to do a bit about goldfish's memories  only lasting 10 seconds. The punchline was he would repeat the joke every 10 seconds. The audience would laugh and laugh..

How many spills/disasters have we had now? Over the last 12 months? What is happening here?

Could it be that the "too big to fail" policy now applies to energy producers, no matter how small? Could it be that the regulators, prosecutors, and all the other government officials whose job it is to hold corporations accountable routinely look the other way?

Could it be that far from making "progress", our country is going backwards?

How long are liberal Democrats going to sit around while big business and Wall Street owned corporations poison our streets and water.

What the fuck year is this?

Discuss

I got an email from a friend with an image comparing two news reports on the big FCC vote that moves us closer to gutting net neutrality. After reading the Times' quote, it was so shockingly dishonest that my first response was, "it must be fake."

Wow. So I went to the NY Times website to confirm, because even I, who have known for years that the Times was nothing but a PR operation for the 1%, couldn't believe they fallen this low.

But it was real. The version they have up now is slightly scrubbed. But the version in the image apparently went out on the Times' wire service and is still available from scores of small newspapers.

Here's the cited quote again:

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.
The rest of the article is just as bad, with little gems like this one:
While the rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data, they would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. Some opponents of the plan, those considered net neutrality purists, argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against other content.
Hey, the New York Times is employing the technique of propagandist assholes everywhere by calling their opponents "purists". I'm impressed.

Of course, the real asshollery of that last paragraph is claiming that the "rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data."

This is just a blatant, transparent, and indisputable lie..

The New York Times is no better than Fox News. In fact, it's actually worse. Because they are perceived to be credible. "The Gray Lady" and all that rubbish. As such, they do far more damage than Fox will ever do.

Well, if you had any doubt, this should put an end to it. The New York Times is just another lying piece of propaganda, at best. At worst, it is strangely similar to a troll on an internet forum. And the sooner it dies, the better off we'll be.

Which reminds me. What happened to all that? I thought informing the people just "wasn't profitable anymore in the internet age" and all these papers were going to have to shut their doors?

Well?

Discuss

When up is down.

I have to admit, I've never read the USPS Operation Manual. But I'm pretty sure there's nothing in it about massacring baby birds.

But that's what the title of a recommended diary here effectively says. "USPS Perpetrates Massacre".

Turns out it was a private contractor that did the massacring. I sincerely hope they get prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if the USPS employee who hired the contractor was involved, I hope that employee gets it too.

But said diary doesn't condemn the actions of individuals. It uses this tragedy to smear the entire United States Postal Service. And that's something I've been seeing a lot lately - though I shouldn't expect to see it on a Democratic site.

But it's worse. The diarist even channels Ronald Reagan and blames this travesty on the evil "bureaucracy".

Hearing the Postal Service and "bureacrats" together again was like reliving Newt Gingrich's Contract on America. And it gave me the same nasty feeling.

Now, normally, I would let this slide. But there are two thing that piss me off about this.

1. The USPS is under attack right now by Wall Street whose agenda is to privatize everything in site and loot the Commonwealth which, for some of you younger readers, means your fucking property. As Americans, this is your shit. You own it. But, as far as I can see, you're letting the bankers (the same ones you just committed your great grandchildren to bail out) steal it - your roads, bridges, parking lots on PUBLIC property, the airwaves and digital bandwidth, your natural resources, you country.

2. And this one actually affects me more because it's personal, but I actually know my local postal workers. They're good people. They don't massacre things. And they do a great fucking job. Yes, the USPS is a bureaucracy. But it tgot its shit together back in the 90s. Now it's a lean mean machine and a great source of some of the last remaining stable, living wage jobs in this country.

Now I understand the desire, when something tragic and stupid like this occurs, to see heads roll. But be careful where you point the finger. If Wall Street gets its way, the price of shipping everything will skyrocket without our good old Postal Service there to keep prices down.

And on a side note, can Democrats actually, you know, defend the People's government for a change? Is that possible?

Discuss
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site