propagandized and bludgeoned

whores first:
in the last week i have been subject to visclosky's revenge more times the bush II mispronouced "nuclear"...on the eighteenth senator kristen gillibrand from new york told me how horrible the economy would be if the republicans and their populist tea party drones gained control of the country by staging an electoral coup in the senate...on the twenty-first senator barbra mikulski from the swamps of maryland told me pretty much the same thing...on the twenty-second dick durbin from illinois stuck his ugly mug into my yahoo account (damn visclosky!) and pounded home the same point in the somewhat more oleagenous style of illinois politics...today harry reid and some low level aparatchik named jason rosenbaum have further aggravated my already overburdened patience with the same damned tired old panic stricken bullshit gibberish...let me say i do not care if the republicans control the empire in perpetuity because there is NO substantive difference between them, the democrats, or the whores-in-waiting from the tea party...if the degenerate bastards had provided and "unsubscribe" link i would have sent them packing but that freak visclosky saw to it that the link was "misplaced" on my emails...thoroughly buried in the graphics or something...just wait til i see that fucker again.

unions and philosophers: (as incongruous as the diad seems there is a tenuous connection)

"starting with this consciousness of scarcity the (european) 'manualist' groups have been led to practicing solidarity, to an insistance on an 'ownership' by the group of a whole of the totality of economic opportunity extant, to a 'rationing' by the group of such opportunity among the individuals constituting it, to a control by the group over its memebers in relation to the conditions upon which they as individuals are permitted to occupy a portion of that opportunity-in brief a 'communism of opportunity.'...but, in this country, due to the fact that here the 'manualist' found an abundance of opportunity, in unoccupied land ( nothing eurocentric or racist about that, huh coach?)and in a pioneer social condition, his economic thinking therefore had issued, not from the scarcity premise but from the premise of abundance. it thus resulted in a social philosophy which was more akin to he businessmen's than to the trade unionists' or the guildsmen's. accordingly the american labor movement, which long remained unaware of any distinctions between itself and the 'producing classes' in general-which also included farmers, small manufacturers, and small businessmen,- continued to worship at the shrine of indivdualistic 'anti monopoly.' "

"the typical manualist is aware of his lack of native capacity for availing himself of economic opportunities as they lie amidst the the complesx and ever shifiting situations of modern business. he knows himself neither for a born taker of risks nor for the possesor of a suficiently agile mind to ever feel at home in the midst of the uncertain game of competitive business...basically the businessman is an economic individualist par excellence...his indivdualism shows up clearest during periods of great economic expansion. when markets are becoming rapidly extended and technology revolutionized; in other words when opportunity is expanding by leaps and bounds, then his competitiveness approaches the ruthlessness of a darwinian struggle for his exisitence. the elder rockerfeller and andrew carnegie, moral men who raised competitiveness to an ethic, are indeed excellent examples."

selig perlman from " a theory of the labor movemement"
(just coincidence that i received my dues receipt form the business union i belong to as i read old selig?)


i have always loathed selig perlman and defy any of you to convince me that he was anything but an apologist for greed...he idealized workers and capitalists in to simple and utterly laughable stereotypes that so distort the reality of labor relations and the motivations involved that it is patently impossible to take it seriously...he sprang fully loaded from the head of that saint of capitalist rationalizations, john r commons and the biased creep never looked back...one would have hoped that wall street's recent attempts to make something out of nothing in an attempt to ensure "continued growth" would have shown that true economy is a zero sum game with finite limits where someone has more because someone else has less...this would seem to indicate greed more than ability as a motivator in acquisition of wealth...only a complete moron could help but prosper in "periods of great economic expansion" when "opportunity is expanding by leaps and bounds"...figuring out how to do more with less and injecting some resilience into an economic system that has reached its limits of "easy" growth and has little to do but contract will take a somewhat different mentality... in purely evolutionary terms "fittest" means those individuals best adapted to their environment and able to pass their traits on through sexual selection...not who has the biggest claws, best appetite, and no fucking scruples...only capitalists admire this shit...rockerfeller and carnegie ethical?...i almost puked when i read that twenty years ago and it still makes my gorge rise...rockerfeller bilked the federal government during the civil war and carnegie let frick do the dirty work so he could pretend to be a philanthropist while living like the laird he was...august fourteenth is the annivrsary of selig's demise...party at my house.