Obama’s Inner Bracket

Recently, President Obama picked which teams he thought would advance in the NCAA Basketball Championship, a process known as filling out a bracket. The term “bracket” in this case comes from the shape of the round-by-round elimination chart which tracks which team won in each matchup.

That’s all very well and good, but one wonders: Don’t we all have what is essentially an “inner bracket” which delineates our personal hierarchy of priorities, beliefs, behaviors and traits? If there was a bracket which revealed the inner workings of Obama’s mind, what would it look like? And what trait would emerge dominant?

Behold: [click on image to view it in high resolution]

25 Responses to “Obama’s Inner Bracket”

  1. 1DCD-in-Indiana on Mar 29, 2011 at 6:36 am:

    You, Sir or Madam (whichever the case may be), are a flipping genius!

  2. 2Sean on Mar 29, 2011 at 7:33 am:

    You sir, put the Madness in March Madness! I was sad to see National Healthcare go out so early. Totally ruined my sheet…

  3. 3Buttered Biscuit on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:17 pm:

    I am sorry the prior poster soiled his sheets. This is indeed flippin fantastic. Cheers!

  4. 4Bakunin on Mar 29, 2011 at 7:24 pm:

    Only zombie knows how to pretend she knows exactly what Obama is thinking without any proof.

    It’s funny; Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon admits that trying to link Obama to “socialism” is “mischievous speculation” and that the socialism allegation was “rather far-fetched.” It must be really sad to be that cynical – or to not realize your being used by those in power without realizing it.

  5. 5zombie on Mar 29, 2011 at 9:54 pm:

    Bakunin, if you come on here parroting Media Matters’ lame talking points one more time, I’m going to make you sit in the corner with all the other pseudo-anarchists who take their marching orders from their liberal establishment masters.

    Tsk tsk tsk. I may disagree with a principled anarchist who holds true to his consistent worldview, but at least I can respect his consistency. But a pretend anarchist shilling for the very big government goons he claims to oppose? Shame!

  6. 6james conrad on Mar 30, 2011 at 2:30 am:

    LOL @ I’m going to make you sit in the corner , dead funny as is the Oball bracket picks

  7. 7I. Trevelyan on Mar 30, 2011 at 12:12 pm:

    Zom-master,

    Setting aside the fact that this post is off-the-charts hilarious, it is dead on with regard to ‘nutshelling’ the essence of “O”. This makes me to wonder if it wouldn’t also be a very useful tool, when applied to other prominent politicians, in helping the uninformed to scope out what makes them tick and where they stand (assuming they actually have a backbone) on the relevant issues of the day. Of course, we know that “Narcissism” will always make it to the final four, regardless, but I hope you grasp my point. Please, have at it, and skewer some other notable fellows (or gals).

  8. 8SiGraybeard on Mar 30, 2011 at 3:31 pm:

    You win the internetz for the day. This is fantastic, and will be linked back from my humble place shortly.

  9. 9Scott on Mar 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm:

    Fun stuff, Zombie! But you left out at least one thing from the early brackets: radical environmentalism. Still, hard to argue with outcome you’ve chosen. I also like your put down of our bone-headed pseudo-anarchist friend, Bakunin. He’s like those fool Brits with the kerchiefs over their faces trashing London in the name of…uhhhh…greater government control. Anarchy? More like theft. How brave, those masked anarchists in favor of more government control!!!! “Don’t know what I want but I know how to get it!!!”

  10. 10Gork on Mar 31, 2011 at 5:45 pm:

    Bakunin: Only zombie knows how to pretend she knows exactly what Obama is thinking without any proof.It’s funny; Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon admits that trying to link Obama to “socialism” is “mischievous speculation” and that the socialism allegation was “rather far-fetched.” It must be really sad to be that cynical – or to not realize your being used by those in power without realizing it.

    Bakunin, this is a much tamer sort of joke than what many leftists made of the previous president. If you can not see it for what it is, then I pity you for having a very poor sense of humor. Life must indeed be quite bleak for you.

  11. 11Bakunin on Apr 1, 2011 at 9:11 am:

    5zombie

    I guess you can only attack the messenger because it is irrefutable that Bill Sammon made those statements.

    I guess having a simplistic world view like you, it would be inconsistent. But, if you would have gone though even Political Science 101 you would know that anarchism is not simply Government = bad. It is an important part, but not the only. Another part is Big Business = bad, and local cooperation = good. NOW, one cannot be consistent and say “get rid of Big Government” when getting rid of Big Government is at the behest of Big Business and at the determinant of local cooperation.

    there is a third point and I think it would be the most important point: Truth and Reason. Ayn Rand said “If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” Is it reasonable to say that Obama is a socialist? Has Obama instituted a policy of expropriating the means of production and distribution and it’s ownership by government?

    I hear the cries coming “but that’s what he secretly wants to do!” But thinking you have secret knowledge is creating conspiracy theories. This would not be something new, as the right-wing is filled with anti-Obama conspiracy theories from birth certificate nonsense to secret Muslim craziness. You, Zombie, have even engaged in conspiracy theorizing; During the election, you *ahem* “speculated” that Obamas book was written by Bill Ayers (without proof) and that Obama *may or may not have* been involved in a weather underground BOMBING!

    “But socialism isn’t just the USSR! It’s in degrees!!!” except it’s not.

    Let’s look at the history of capitalist thought; the foundations of capitalism are based in Classical Liberalism, where individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.

    Reform Liberalism (also called Modern Liberalism) developed out of the 20th centuray realization that in come cases, the free market could not efficiently organize itself to provide the greatest possible reward. One famous example is Londons Great Stink of 1858. Because there was no profit motive in maintaining a sewer system, no company provided one, but health risks and stench soon galvanized the public that something needed to be down, and so the government intervened. Monopolies are another area where a laissez-faire produces inefficiency. Monopolies become price setters rather then price takers like in a perfectly competitive market, and as such gouge the consumer. That is why anti-trust laws are also called Competition laws, because they allow greater competition while brings prices back to there proper equilibrium price.

    Obama is a reform liberal, the Republicans are economically classical liberals (if they truly believed in smaller government they’d cut the military). The recession was a failure of the capitalist system to properly regulate itself, and as such needed state intervention in order to “unclog the pipes”. This what done not to expropriate the means of production and distribution or destroy capitalism (ie enforce socialism) but rather to save capitalism from itself.

    That is a reasonable understanding of Obama. You may disagree with reform liberalism and want classical liberal policies, but to fear monger about “socialism” is nothing but a cynical ploy. You might as well be going “where is Obamas birth certificate” and “Obama is a Muslim” like the rest of the Republican base.

    I would go so far to even say that it is an insult to Cubans, Koreans, Chinese, Loatians, and Vietnamese who are currently under the iron heal of actually socialist states to call Obama a socialist.

    I would rather have a government that does a proper and competent job in building workable, sensible policy then unregulated monopolies. It’s an issue of triage; a dictatorship of government where I can potentially hold the dictators accountable in a minor way ever 2-4 years is better then a dictatorship of capital that will never be held accountable (I can fire my congressperson, I can’t fire my boss).

  12. 12Bakunin on Apr 1, 2011 at 9:16 am:

    Scott: Fun stuff, Zombie!But you left out at least one thing from the early brackets: radical environmentalism.Still, hard to argue with outcome you’ve chosen.I also like your put down of our bone-headed pseudo-anarchist friend, Bakunin.He’s like those fool Brits with the kerchiefs over their faces trashing London in the name of…uhhhh…greater government control.Anarchy?More like theft.How brave, those masked anarchists in favor of more government control!!!!“Don’t know what I want but I know how to get it!!!”

    I know you wont dive into actually having a intellectual though beyond “drrr… anarchists want governeemtn controool hararhar”. But here’s a chunk of the statement of the UK Anarchist Federation on why they are against the austerity measures.

    “Why anarchists organise against the cuts: Our immediate aim is exactly the same as everyone’s: to stop this attack on our economic well-being. As we see it, what little we have as a class, we have won through struggle in previous generations. Now the state is strong enough to take it back again. So anarchists are part of the working class as it defends what it has.

    But anarchists don’t argue for a benevolent state, for state-ownership of industry and services. This is where we differ from the trades union leadership and most of the Left. We think we need to go further as a class, to achieve political freedom as well as economic equality. So whilst we are defending what we have, we are also attacking the state, threatening its legitimacy and suggesting to people that we would be better off without it.

    Under Thatcherism, as under repressive and uncaring regimes elsewhere and before it, the working class had to look after itself. It established voluntarily what it needed when things got really tough, out of mutual solidarity. So, in the 1980s, strike support groups were set up which made major industrial disputes sustainable. In areas of high unemployment, claimants unions emerged. Where racial minorities were marginalised in inner city ghettos, people gave their time freely to save their youth from self-destruction. In places where women experienced violence, rape crisis centres and refuges were set up. We did these things because no one did it for us.

    The re-election of Labour initially brought state funding for some of these projects and their workers got qualifications and wages – not a bad thing in itself. But New Labour started eroding the autonomy of radical projects. Grants were cut but Lottery funding – the great sop – was denied to ‘political’ projects. And what remains of the professionalised voluntary sector is now being demolished by the ConDems.

    So this is about us, starting again from scratch, yet again, and with nothing. That’s why anarchists don’t trust state provision: what it gives with one hand, it can take back with the other. That is why we don’t see a contradiction between defending state provision and opposing the state. We all have short-term needs and have to fight to get them met however we can. The process of fighting gives us strength and confidence but also reminds us that all we have is one another. Let’s make the most we can of that fact.”

  13. 13SchrodingersCat on Apr 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm:

    Bakunin:

    there is a third point and I think it would be the most important point: Truth and Reason. Ayn Rand said “If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”

    I find it rather repulsive that you would quote Ayn Rand in an attempt to justify a push towards the anarchist worldview, which in your own words is “Government = bad, Big Business = bad and local cooperation = good”.

    Rand was not against governments nor was she against business – quite the contrary in fact. What she was against was limitless governments that went beyond what she believed to be the proper role of government – namely, the protection of its citizens from outside threats (military), from inside threats to freedom of expression, the pursuit of happiness and ownership of property (the police), and a non violent means in which to solve internal disputes (the court/justice system). In short, she is about as antithetical to your views as one might get and quoting her only serves to demonstrate your own superficial and simplistic view of the world and her.

    Now, on the subject of capitalism and some of the points you make about it:

    Reform Liberalism (also called Modern Liberalism) developed out of the 20th century realization that in come [sic] cases, the free market could not efficiently organize itself to provide the greatest possible reward. One famous example is Londons Great Stink of 1858. Because there was no profit motive in maintaining a sewer system, no company provided one, but health risks and stench soon galvanized the public that something needed to be down, and so the government intervened.

    Your argument is rather flawed, primarily since London did not have laissez-faire capitalism or anything remotely similar back in 1858. For that matter, it still doesn’t have it today either, so exactly what profit motive are you talking about? The profit motive is only applicable in a truly free society where your earnings (i.e. profits) are guaranteed to remain your own (property rights).

    Monopolies are another area where a laissez-faire produces inefficiency. Monopolies become price setters rather then price takers like in a perfectly competitive market, and as such gouge the consumer. That is why anti-trust laws are also called Competition laws, because they allow greater competition while brings prices back to there proper equilibrium price.

    Monopolies cannot exist without the help of the government. In a truly free market, you could not have a monopoly, because as soon as you tried to, someone else would come and offer the same or similar service for less, stealing your business. The only way you can stop them, is by having the government step in and give you special protection. In other words, it is governments and their attempt to regulate the free market that creates monopolies, not the free market itself.

    Not convinced? Take any example of a government regulated industry and compare it to one where there is little or no regulation. Take a look at cell phone producers for example, how many different cell phones are there on the market? There are so many, it’s hard to even imagine. Now take a look at the companies providing you phone services as they are somewhat more regulated and there are fewer choices.

    An even better comparison is for the same industry – telecom, but in two different countries – namely the US and Canada (where I am from). In Canada, there are only 3 large telecom companies and they are all in bed with the CRTC -the government regulator for the industry. They are now trying to impose UBB (Usage Based Billing) not just on their direct clients (which they have been doing for years now), but also on smaller ISPs that rent their lines from them. These smaller ISPs currently offer unlimited bandwidth (a pretty standard offering the US from my understanding, but one which is only offered by these small ISPs currently in Canada – and only in select regions) to their clients. If you are not in their service area, you have no choice but to sign up with the big 3 and pay them for each and every gigabyte you go over the amount they specified in your package (which, by the way, are also far more expensive than they are in the US). This could not happen without the “help” of government regulation.

    Obama is a reform liberal, the Republicans are economically classical liberals (if they truly believed in smaller government they’d cut the military). The recession was a failure of the capitalist system to properly regulate itself, and as such needed state intervention in order to “unclog the pipes”. This what done not to expropriate the means of production and distribution or destroy capitalism (ie enforce socialism) but rather to save capitalism from itself.

    No, the recession was a failure of government in effectively regulating the free market. More government intervention is hardly the answer, and socialism is wholesale government intervention and regulation, so any leader advocating for more of it can reasonably be said to be steering us in that direction. Republicans largely support the military because they rightly understand that it is one of the few proper things for government to invest in. Without guaranteeing our safety from both internal and external threats, a free society and a free market are impossible to achieve. Capitalism doesn’t need any saving, and least of all from itself. It works just fine, as long as you leave it alone and let the market sort itself out.

  14. 14turn on Apr 1, 2011 at 7:19 pm:

    “Don’t we all have what is essentially an “inner bracket” which delineates our personal hierarchy of priorities, beliefs, behaviors and traits?”

    yes, next question … ha!

    dang zombie …

    so glad for your success (keep up the great work while I lurk at no cost ha)…

    well the decision not to partner up with SOB might have been a good decision after all …

    best of luck …

    turn

  15. 15turn on Apr 1, 2011 at 7:39 pm:

    narcissism … hey let me think of another “leader” that may have had that trait

    no hold on folks, I’m not going there

    just a post to remind folks about H’s use of “I” , “me”, “my” .. oh and let me clear …

  16. 16Scott on Apr 2, 2011 at 6:45 am:

    Bakunin: You are a fake. Here is the evidence: the definition of anarchy: 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. Your definition of anarchy is either incorrect, or you are a total fake.

    Here is your statement:

    Why anarchists organise against the cuts: Our immediate aim is exactly the same as everyone’s: to stop this attack on our economic well-being.

    Now, let’s delve into this a little deeper. Our economic well-being…who is “our”? Have you ever thought about that? Certainly it isn’t the “rich” for whom you hold nothing but disdain. Working class people? Who are they? Union people? In the United States, the Union leadership ARE the rich, and more importantly, the powerful. People like Obama MAKE them that way. They “fight” for the “rights” of the so-called working class. Over decades of time, these people have become TOO powerful, and we see now what is happening in Wisconsin and several other states where it is assumed, perhaps I’ll go as far as DEMANDED that the status quo of unending benefits and salaries be retained while state governments become insolvent. Scott Walker and the Republican congressional majority is cutting the Union’s ability to hold Wisconsin’s government hostage. So the aim of these people, and by these people I mean UNION teachers, fire fighters, police, state adminstrators, etc…is to keep their tenure, their salaries, their mandated COLA, and benefits and pensions, in perpetuity. To them, it doesn’t matter if good people get fired in this process, or that the producers are taxed at 50, 75, 90%…they want it all FOR THEMSELVES. It is a classic case of greed. And they are using the courts to enforce their greed, as we’ve seen. Empty-headed liberal justices stopping the legislative process over opinion that is based neither in judicial nor economic reality.

    So, the same story is true in Great Britain. The government doesn’t have the ability to suck the producers dry any more, because it will cause economic collapse. Did you know that the Irish banking sector is pretty much gone? Yet these pseudo-anarchists are DEMANDING the status quo. MORE benefits. MORE salary. MORE PENSIONS. GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE. If they were anarchists, they’d be ovethrowing the government and causing chaos, but instead,they are siding with the greedy class and assaulting the police, causing them harm, mind you…there is no caring/sharing there….in the name of more for me, less for you. Of course, what liberals and so-called anarchists DON’T understand is that government exists because of the producers. Big business as you call it. But we’ve managed to follow Europe down their dark and unforgiving path of socialism, and they are but a few years ahead of us…check the status in Greece, Ireland, etc. We’re going right there, too, and Obama, his radical cabinent and czars are simply accelerating our decent.

    So-called anarchists throwing dangerous substances at the police doesn’t follow this principle: cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups Death threats against Republican legislators and their families doesn’t follow that either. Fake. There is no such thing as an anarchist who destroys other people’s property and causes physical harm to individuals, WORKING CLASS individuals, by the way, while demanding more from their government, which has run out of money and the ability to suck it out of the producers. They are simply called criminals. Should our society follow these people into the abyss, all is lost.

  17. 17Bakunin on Apr 2, 2011 at 11:02 am:

    Scott.

    Your a crazy person.

  18. 18Bakunin on Apr 2, 2011 at 11:52 am:

    sorry, that was rude. I don’t take it back, but I should keep to ripping apart your points instead.

    1. Who appointed you the dictionary?

    2.I have no doubt that the union LEADERSHIP is rich, but union MEMBERS are not; they are just regular people like you or me. Like Big Business and Big Government, I want to wrestle control from Big Union and put it in the directly democratic hands of the majority. The union I’m a member of, the IWW, is working on building rank-and-file autonomy for individual members to act on there own. If you noticed on that statement I posted, it said “The process of fighting gives us strength and confidence but also reminds us that all we have is one another.” It is fighting a struggle for well-being for the majority of members of society against authority (be it Governors or union Beurocrats ) that will empower power to build cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups (isn’t a voluntary association of individuals what a union really is?).

    3. Since when has greed been bad? We’ve been told by your side that greed is good, greed is what fuels the system. I guess it is only the greed of the rich that you support, but the few crumbs scratched out by working teachers, firefighters, administrators, the desire to keep those crumbs, to live a simple life, a life of the American dream, that is somehow evil. Pla-leez. Just so the Kochs can have a no-bid contract on power generators.
    4. No, we realize that Government exist because of Big Business. Government is there to protect big business from the real rage of the people. Essentially, it comes down to the government telling people “You must sacrifice during the recession” and handing bajillions to the banking sector. Are you for bailouts?
    5. Property is theft. I have no problem with groups for social change smashing windows to make a point. The situation we have is a one sided class war with the rich and the powerful and the government in one side and the majority of people in the other. The suffergettes smashed windows and women got the vote.
    6. Cops and military aren’t working class. They are a part of the state. If you where for “small government” you’d cut the military budget by 50%.
    7. You are for a dictatorship of the rich. Let’s put it as plainly as possible; you hate poor people and want to see them suffer.

  19. 19Bakunin on Apr 2, 2011 at 12:49 pm:

    Hey Scrodinger; thanks for your well thought out response. It’s a welcome change from the usual loony-big crazyness one gets from folks like scott.

    I find it rather repulsive that you would quote Ayn Rand in an attempt to justify a push towards the anarchist worldview, which in your own words is “Government = bad, Big Business = bad and local cooperation = good”.

    I only quote Ayn Rand ask an act of détournement, nor does quoting someone when they are right imply any sort of support for their ideas or their support for my ideas. I quote because if reason is the highest ideal and all else follows, that we should be reasonable in our arguments rather than impassioned/fear-mongering. I find Rand politically and personally repulsive (considering her infatuation with a child killer and blatant hypocrisy on taking Medicare).

    Now, on the subject of capitalism and some of the points you make about it:

    Your argument is rather flawed, primarily since London did not have laissez-faire capitalism or anything remotely similar back in 1858. For that matter, it still doesn’t have it today either, so exactly what profit motive are you talking about? The profit motive is only applicable in a truly free society where your earnings (i.e. profits) are guaranteed to remain your own (property rights).

    If that is the case, then there has never been capitalism anywhere ever, as long as governments exist the guarantee of property remaining your own is non-existent.

    The majority of people in the world would say that America, UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc are organized on the basis of a capitalist system. The only people who don’t are ultra-specific libertarians, which are a very very small minority in the world.

    To make debate easier, can we agree that capitalism exists? That there is profit motive; that one has the freedom to accumulate capital; and that private ownership of the means of production and distribution are the norm in the majority of society.

    If laissez-faire capitalism does exist, how would you suggest handling an externality where there is no profit motive to fix but is detrimental to the majority of populace?

    Monopolies cannot exist without the help of the government. In a truly free market, you could not have a monopoly, because as soon as you tried to, someone else would come and offer the same or similar service for less, stealing your business. The only way you can stop them, is by having the government step in and give you special protection. In other words, it is governments and their attempt to regulate the free market that creates monopolies, not the free market itself.

    Not convinced? Take any example of a government regulated industry and compare it to one where there is little or no regulation. Take a look at cell phone producers for example, how many different cell phones are there on the market? There are so many, it’s hard to even imagine. Now take a look at the companies providing you phone services as they are somewhat more regulated and there are fewer choices.

    An even better comparison is for the same industry – telecom, but in two different countries – namely the US and Canada (where I am from). In Canada, there are only 3 large telecom companies and they are all in bed with the CRTC -the government regulator for the industry. They are now trying to impose UBB (Usage Based Billing) not just on their direct clients (which they have been doing for years now), but also on smaller ISPs that rent their lines from them. These smaller ISPs currently offer unlimited bandwidth (a pretty standard offering the US from my understanding, but one which is only offered by these small ISPs currently in Canada – and only in select regions) to their clients. If you are not in their service area, you have no choice but to sign up with the big 3 and pay them for each and every gigabyte you go over the amount they specified in your package (which, by the way, are also far more expensive than they are in the US). This could not happen without the “help” of government regulation.

    You are talking about perfectly competitive markets, where in firms can enter and exit so long as they have the capital and ability to do so. But not all markets are perfectly competitive. But there are limitations to perfectly competitive markets. Due to economic barriers, Capital requirements: Technological superiority, etc entry to into a market dominated by a monopoly. The major trusts in the U.S.A. when there was much fewer regulations then there is today where mostly in Natural Resources (timber, mines, etc) because control of these resources are critical to the production of final good and are not infinite. While you could start an independent timber company if you had the land, but you would open yourself to your share holders being convinced (ie coerced) to convey their shares to a board of trustees.
    In the kind of Perfectly competitive market firms have zero market power when it comes to setting prices. All firms in a PC market are price takers. If a PC firm attempted to raise prices above the market level all its “customers” would abandon the firm and purchase at the market price from other firms. A monopoly is a price maker. Because the monopoly is the market and prices are set by the monopolist if you where to try to undermined the monopoly, it will undermined you in order to ensure that you can no longer make a profit unless you are bought out.

    Telecommunications competition in the United States is a direct result of government intervention against monopolies. When AT&T, a monopoly previously protected by force of law, was broken up into the “Baby Bell” components in 1984, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market.

    No, the recession was a failure of government in effectively regulating the free market.More government intervention is hardly the answer, and socialism is wholesale government intervention and regulation, so any leader advocating for more of it can reasonably be said to be steering us in that direction. Republicans largely support the military because they rightly understand that it is one of the few proper things for government to invest in. Without guaranteeing our safety from both internal and external threats, a free society and a free market are impossible to achieve. Capitalism doesn’t need any saving, and least of all from itself. It works just fine, as long as you leave it alone and let the market sort itself out.

    Recessions are an integral part of the capitalist system.

    It’s called the Business cycle. You may not realize it, but recessions are very unpopular. “capitalism figuring out for itself” means that for long periods of time, thousands of people will not be able to feed families. This is what your policies look like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg

    Socialism is wholesale government ownership of the economy. FULL STOP. A mixed economy (also known appropriately as a balanced economy) is the norm thought out the capitalist world, and moving towards a more equitable balance in a mixed economy is not socialism. It is Keynesian, not Marxist. That is, where there are private sector inefficiencies, a robust and active policy response by the public sector is needed, including fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle (ie, low-tax/save during booms, high-tax/spend during busts).

    Now, you may disagree the need for a mixed economy and would rather have a mythical perfectly competitive laissez-faire capitalist economy, but rather then fear-mongering with unfounded cries of “socialism! Communism! Marxism! Fascism!” why don’t you present a case against simple mixed economies for “pure unregulated capitalism”?

    I suspect it is because such an argument would get you weird stares and laughed at by the majority of people. I don’t know about you, but it seems most folks think that if your house is on fire, the fireman should put it out, rather then demand a fee first.

  20. 20Scott on Apr 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm:

    Poor old Bakunin.

    1. Nobody appointed me the dictionary, but you should probably understand what an anarchist is before proclaiming yourself one. You are NOT an anarchist. I made my point, and you proved it.
    2. Union members, specifically those involved with this Wisconsin melee, are doing quite well, thank you. Given their salaries and benefits (combined…you have to pay attention to the entire cost of the employee) they are being compensated well over $100,000 annually. The teachers are working 9 months of the year. That is a VERY handsome hourly wage. In addition, there are union workers in sectors making over $200,000, and access to their jobs is strictly limited. I am not referring to leadership or lawyers, either. Unions have ceased serving the useful purpose they did 110 years ago.
    3. I never told you greed was good or bad. I will say that you have drawn a conclusion based on a line delivered by Michael Douglas in a movie. BALANCE is what we need, and the scales have very much tipped…power has left the large corporations and moved to greedy unions AND their members, trial lawyers and liberal politicians. We need to move it back into the center. IWW isn’t interested in that.
    4. Since property is theft, you won’t have a problem with me taking everything you have then? Theft is OK to you too. AGAIN, you’ve proven yourself a fake.
    5. Since cops are part of the state, but the state is made up of the people, then they must all be rogue and therefore unaccountable since they oppress the people. Your logic then dictates that we can cut them off the dole, and certainly strip them of the right to unionize. I tell you what: you deliver that message. We’ll see how long you and your IWW membership will keep you alive. As far as the military goes, I actually am for cutting the military. But you really aren’t too interested in the truth or what I have to say.
    6. You’ve lept to a false conclusion. A dictatorship by the rich is EXACTLY what we have today, and exactly what I want to destroy. Notice, for instance, how Obama has appointed czars to carry out his agenda. These czars are unelected and unaccoutable. This is a move toward a dictatorship. The EPA’s selective imposition of rules governing the emission of CO2 is another government power grab. There is no accountability to the people in the EPA. This has been carefully orchestrated over decades of time by radical leftists, and I hate to tell you, Bakunin, you have been brainwashed by these people.

    Thus, your so-called anarchist independence is in fact a total lie, and you live in a world of illusion. You hate the rich. You claim property is theft, yet you have property. You want more power through your union. You want to cut the military. You hate greedy corporations, yet the very government upon which you depend is dependent on corporations. I’ve heard it too many times, bud, and I’m simply pointing out the facts to you. That I’m pointing this out to someone who will never wake up perhaps does make me crazy. But I am a bit of an optimist. Are you beyond saving Bakunin?

  21. 21johnbrown on Apr 10, 2011 at 7:47 am:

    Bakunin…? Reminds me of ice 9 koolaid. Bay Area acepted, how many “anatchists” left in this country ??? The minority imposing its will on the majority through acts of destruction of property and in your face intolerance. Was just over at Indy media and God hrlp us if those self-absorbed punks are the future…

  22. 22Scott on Apr 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm:

    Here you go, Bakunin. Reality rears its ugly head:

    …OEA employees were paid an average of $96,182.81 from 09/01/2009 to 08/31/2010. The Ohio Education Association’s fiscal 2010 report to the Department of Labor lists 235 employees – nearly half were paid in excess of $100,000. These are Dept of labor statistics numbers, BTW, in case you believe it to be Rethuglican propaganda:

    LARRY N WICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: $210,858.00
    DOUG K CRAWFORD, LRC: $189,832.00
    CECELIA M WELDON, LRC: $187,405.00
    JAMES E MARTIN, AED BUSINESS SERVICES: $171,528.00
    KEVIN M FLANAGAN, AED MEMBER SERVICES-FIELD: $169,761.00
    MICHAEL N MCEACHERN, LRC: $169,298.00
    SUSAN M BABCOCK, AED STRATEGIC/WORKFORCE: $169,148.00
    RACHELLE N JOHNSON, AED MEMBER SERVICES-PROGR: $164,525.00
    MARK E LINDER, LRC: $161,756.00
    VENITA N SHOULDERS, LRC: $158,432.00
    WILLIAM A OTTEN, LRC: $155,873.00
    PATRICIA N COLLINS, DIRECTOR REGION 1: $155,551.00
    FRITZ N FEKETE, DIRECTOR I/S & RESEARCH: $154,635.00
    MARY E SUCHY, DIRECTOR OF MEMBERSHIP: $152,636.00
    RANDALL V FLORA, DIRECTOR EI&I: $152,114.00
    RODNEY E BIRD, LRC: $152,058.00
    JEFFREY L KESTNER, LRC: $150,739.00

    This list doesn’t include officers…the president ($190,000), vice-president ($186,471), and secretary-treasurer ($180,310)…

    And, oddly enough, the OEA is a fan of Progressive think tanks…$20,000 apiece for Policy Matters Ohio and Progress Ohio.

    So you see, Bakunin, this is a dictatorship by the rich, endorsed by you. Here is what the union said when Senate Bill 5 passed the house committee to manipulate its constituents and their supporters:

    As you know, this bill is a serious attack on the students you serve and the communities we live in.
    After the spending cut bill passed the senate, OEA distributed this beauty:

    As you know, the bill is a clear attempt to gut the ability of educators, nurses, firefighters, police and all public employees to have a voice on the job. Senate Bill 5 does nothing to create jobs and instead gives politicians free reign to cut public education in Ohio.

    This is but one Union with too much power using the youth of America to manipulate the public and its very own constituents. The average private Ohio employee is paid around $40,000 annually. The average Ohio teacher is paid $50,000+ (paying much of their hard earned money to the OEA to distribute manipulative propaganda and contribute to “progressive” think tanks like the above.) and the average OEA employee is paid around $90,000. Who are the rich now????

    Time to bust the unions, and the good folks in the mid west are starting to do just that. Amen to freedom.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks:

  1. Cold Fury » Savior nailed to cross

    Pingback on Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 am
  2. Would that it were only March Madness « Tequila & Javalinas

    Pingback on Mar 29, 2011 at 9:06 am
  3. Best Bracket Ever | Hoystory

    Pingback on Mar 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm