Politics/Law/Government

Joseph Farah prays for Obama to fail

“Pray Obama Fails.” That’s the title of Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily “exclusive commentary” on the inauguration of now President Obama. Farah’s logic, if we can call it that, is this: Obama wants to replace “self-governance and constitutional republicanism” with a country “based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.” Riiiiiiight….

The kicker for me, though, this line:

I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God’s. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God’s straightforward Commandments.

Excuse me? Self-governance is mentioned where in the 10 Commandments, exactly? The three versions I’ve read today (Exodus 20, Exodus 34, and Deuteronomy 5) say nothing about government, or “constitutional republicanism” for that matter. And Farah’s immediate segue about “rendering unto Caesar” being invalid since everything Caesar owns is God’s first, well, that’s just an end-run to keep you from thinking about the fact that the Commandments say buptkus about government, centralized or not.

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t that quote above sound a little like Farah knows something we don’t? Not only does he apparently know God’s agenda perfectly, but he apparently knows Obama’s agenda perfectly too. After all, you can’t be “100 percent” sure that they’re in opposition unless you know both perfectly, right? That smacks of prophecy, though, maybe even witchcraft. And last I checked, both were frowned upon pretty seriously in the Bible.

And let’s not forget that pride is supposedly a sin. I can think of nothing more prideful than claiming to know God’s agenda and will….

70 replies »

  1. Organized Religion is a tool used by the ruling elite to control the ignorant masses. You can’t take anything a religious “leader” says seriously beyond expecting he’s trying to control people.

    Personal Religion is how you chose to live your life, and you have a right to that. You do not, however, have a right to use your personal religious views to control the lives of others. Logic and reason are used to design laws that protect as needed while keeping infringement to a minimum. Religion can’t do that.

    I laugh every time someone tries to tell me what god wants. To my understanding of the universe (rooted in logic and reason), there is no “god” as _they_ understand her to exist… so, to my understanding of the universe (rooted in logic and reason), they are deluded and aren’t qualified to dictate to anyone how to live.. and, in many cases, probably shouldn’t be left alone to try and figure out what they should be doing, since, clearly, they are deluded.

    When a kid talks to their imaginary friend too much, or “does things” that friend tells them to do, we bring them to someone that tries to explain the difference between reality and fantasy to them… when it’s adults, we drape them in robes and call them prophets.. I’ve never understood that.

  2. He’s not the only conservative hoping that Obama does poorly. Rush Limbaugh summed up his wish for the new president in four words: “I hope he fails.” http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

    But to hope that your president fails at being a good president means that you also hope your country fails. In Limbaugh and Farah’s world, ideology trumps country. They would rather see their world destroyed then their worldview changed. Someone needs to get their priorities straight.

  3. Great post Brian.

    Funny, I thought “render onto Caesar” talked about paying taxes, not whether or not one blindly follows a leader, or prays for their success. The most it can be expanded to cover is fulfilling civic duties (pay taxes, vote, don’t jaywalk, etc).

    I read the original article and I’m still trying to figure out how a centralist government (even assuming that’s what Barrack Obama wants, which I’m not) is equated with “evil”. Either he has a rather broad or rather limp definition of evil. The Jews had kings and one can’t get more centralist then that. Someone better go tell God that was evil, and he shouldn’t have been talking to David (guilt by association).

    I REALLY, REALLY HOPE the next Republican candidate has the middle name of Adolph. So we can write posts about David ADOLPH Jones. Because as we all know, middle names reveal the true character of person.

    Going to make sure no dictators were named Amber…oh crap, it’s comes from an Arabic word, I’m secretly Muslim!!!

    Lara Amber

  4. Lara,

    I believe that Yeshua the Nazarene was constantly and consistently saying that his followers should pay little attention to the physical world and focus on the spiritual one. In that context, “Render unto Caesar” would mean that taxes and, in fact, those thing that occupy our waking worlds are not important.

  5. JS,

    I would argue with that take on Jesus’s teachings. If those things that occupy our waking world are not important, then why bother with selfless acts? Why help the poor, etc.?

    Jesus does obey the Roman law in the Bible, in an earlier passage in Matthew he instructs his disciples to go catch a fish, and in it’s mouth they will find the coin needed to pay the temple tax. Between that and the “render unto Caesar” Jesus doesn’t seem to be fighting for discord with the local government (at a time when people were rioting and speaking out against the Romans and their taxes). He has several passages where he is submitting to an earthly authority of the government (even a disliked government like the Romans).

    The book of Romans (by Paul) is much more strongly worded about submitting to the authority of the state. Most churches I’ve attended have taught that these passages of the Bible teach that up until a government authority orders one to betray God to be obedient.

    Lara Amber

  6. Lara,

    I was imprecise. Of course Yeshua promoted taking care of the poor, the Golden Rule, etc. What I meant was that he consistently pointed people towards the Kingdom of God instead of focusing on the material world.

    Thanks for the correction.

    As for Paul … well … he’s certainly one of my least favorite people in history. I believe that there are very, very few Christians, but very, very many Paulists. To paraphrase Will Durant: “The Church represents Paul’s victory over Peter. Protestantism represents Paul’s victory over Christ.”

  7. I’m having fun reading the responses from the Arab press and other regions generally hostile to the US. For a man who hasn’t actually had the opportunity to do anything in office yet, he certainly has already angered (and pleased) a lot of people for things they’re promising us he will do (which he hasn’t done or expressed an opinion about).

    We should tally up the most outrageous of them and then keep “score” over the next few years.

    I nominate “Obama is no Martin Luther King” – the lead opinion piece from Aljazeera:

    http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/theobamapresidency/2009/01/200911917451334647.html

    Tens of millions of African-Americans – who did not choose the little-known Obama to be their champion, but supported him near-universally at the polls once his candidacy had been made “viable” – will celebrate a vicarious attainment of power when Obama is sworn in.

    Yet when confronted on Obama’s political agenda, enough of which has been put in motion and otherwise made plain since election day, few Black Obama supporters can mount a cogent defence.

    “Better than McCain” doesn’t cut it, anymore.

    When the New York Times describes the emerging Obama administration as “centre-right,” there is not much for an honest progressive to defend – and most African-Americans are progressive on economic issues and questions of war and peace.

    Beyond a ritual counting of the president-elect’s African-American appointees, most African-Americans seem oblivious to the political nature of his cabinet, his policy pronouncements and shameful silences.

  8. I wasn’t very happy with those guys wishing Obama failure. Frankly, I hope he does a good job as president, but that will probably mean abandoning his agenda.

    I have noticed in the liberal community a certain desire for Bush to fail (hell, some liberals went on record as wishing Bush would be assassinated), so I guess it’s tit for tat regarding Limbaugh etc.

    However, y’all won, so congratulations. Just be sure to be objective and not get caught up in the cult of personality that seems to be blinding the left.

    And stuff your money in your mattress.

    Jeff

  9. I don’t mind folks wishing Obama failure, but rather the sanctimonious attitude Farah displayed.

    I think Obama (and at least equally important, Congress) failing isn’t an option if we want to remain a power in the world for much longer.

  10. I’m not really comfortable with this “failure isn’t an option” mentality. The problem isn’t failure. It’s the unwillingness to learn from failure that’s the problem. If you’re not willing to risk failure at some point, you risk stagnation instead. I hope he takes enough risks that he DOES fail on occasion. Because without taking those risks, we’re not going anywhere. Of course, I also hope he’s really damned careful about who/what/where/when/how he takes those risks, too.

  11. I would just like to go on record that I never wished for Bush to be assassinated. I did however, fervently hope that he would be abducted by space aliens.

    Lara Amber

  12. I understand, Mike, and I didn’t nuance my statement sufficiently.

    Failure on one thing or another, temporary setbacks, that sort of thing I don’t care about. But on a couple of big things, I don’t feel we can afford total failure. The economy needs to be turned around, we need to get ourselves off of carbon-based energy supplies, we need to improve the education of our children, we need to develop a modern healthcare system that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg (and a house) – all those things need to happen. I don’t care if there are a few “two steps forward, one step back” moments in the process of those things happening, but at the end of the day, they all need to happen. And failure on those things should not be allowed or, if it happens, tolerated by the voters.

  13. I know that’s what you meant. 🙂 I just get annoyed with the whole concept. It’s a core issue in my personal faith/religion/philosophy, I guess. Failure implies an “End.” There is no End. An End is playing into Farah’s hands. Besides, all of the things you say can’t fail are actually processes. Adaptations in behavior. Steps in human evolution. There is no failure. Only risk management.

  14. It’s been noted throughout history that right-wing authoritarians often want what God wants, and vice versa. And after all, if God wants what you want, then you must be on the right track, right? Funny how these things work out…

  15. I would agree with JS @4 concerning Jesus’s mission and what he held important. This is particularly true if you read the texts that the Church (in all its manifestations) has been telling Christians not to read since 325. Though he would obviously have understood a need to live in the world. I would interpret the “render unto Caesar” in that regard.

    The Temple tax was paid to the Temple, not Caesar. That is probably a translation issue…there are a whole lot of those. But considering Jesus actions regarding the collectors of the temple tax, i’m not sure we can be sure that he meant to meekly do as we are told.

    That he said the coin in the fish’s mouth would pay for “thee and me” suggests a one shekel coin, but only half shekels were accepted. As he was known to speak rather cryptically and we can’t be sure if we have what he actually said, we have to accept the possibility that he planned on giving the Pharisee’s a half rotten fish head for their tax.

    The Bible is a very inaccurate measuring stick of either Jesus or Christ; it was put together with very specific needs in mind…few of them having to do with spirituality. Most of them having to do with politics. JS’s distinction between Paulists and Christians is important and defining.

  16. Brian,

    The economy will turn around if left to it’s own devices and without government interference. Corporate tax cuts, elimination of capital gains taxes, and an income tax cut will benefit the economy. Massive government spending, bailouts, etc will just prolong the problem. I disagree with any bailout, for any reason, period.

    Think of the economy like a forest. Sometimes there needs to be a fire to clean out the excessive undergrowth and the forest will grow back healthier. Politicians don’t do very well trying to manage economies and whole industries.

    Jeff

  17. I don’t recall ANY liberals or progressives actually coming out and saying that they wished that W failed. What I recall is lots of us completely exasperated that he DID fail, and did so at every opportunity.

    What I see in these righties is that they are doing exactly what I thought they would, which is that they are praying for the country to get even worse than it is now. And the better that things get for all of us, the more they will see it as a failure for themselves. Poor Limbaugh will actually have to pay a fair amount of taxes, for example, and that will just kill him if he doesn’t get even more of that $100 million he made the deal for. He really and truly hates this country and everyone in it that isn’t as well off as he is, and he has no isssues in proving that every time he opens his mouth.

    And just where does Christ say anything at all about one form of gov’t or another? I don’t recall reading any words from him about such things. He also didn’t say to starve the poor, to spit on them in the street, and to live like a selfish, greedy fool. Quite the opposite. He said, as i recall, that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. That doesn’t sound like the same Christ that the author of the piece of swill in question is talking about. I wonder what book he’s been reading, because it sure isn’t the same bible I grew up with.

  18. BTW, Jeff, where did you get your economics training? I suspect it’s the same place that W got his.

    Elimiation of the already unpaid business taxes will not do a thing to help this country. it won’t rebuild our infrastructure, which after 28 years of republicans ignoring the problem, is in disgraceful condition. Captial gains taxes are lower than they have been, and what do we get for that? You live in a world where things must be free, because you clearly don’t want things to be paid for by anyone. Business has been getting tax breaks for dismantling factories and sending them overseas, how well has that worked for the country? Lost any jobs, in the last 10 years? That is most likely why.

    You keep giving tax breaks to corporations, and soon YOU will be the only revenue stream for the gov’t to do anything with at all. And you can bet that those who have the money won’t be putting in their share of that, either. And that is right where we are, now. Gov’t has been spending everything on it’s illegal wars and not spending anything on the country at all. how does THAT equate to helping anyone but the rich?

    At this point, unless we DO spend money on ourselves, we will go even further down the toilet we are in now. And it’s exactly your foolish ideas of economics that brought us here. You want MORE of that? Good God, where DID you learn anything about economics? Ayn Rand is dead, and her policies almost destroyed this country. Get REAL. Your ideology has been proven to be a sham. There is NO such thing as the “free market”, there is just a screwing of the worker for the benefit of the ultra rich with your policy. You can either make the ultra rich even richer, at which point you have NO economy, or you can make sure, through policies enacted by gov’t, an economy that works for the majority of people. There is NO way to do the “free market” thing without policies that make things work for everyone without bankrupting your whole country.

    Learn some history, please. The last time these policies were in play, we had this little thing called the Great depression. It was also brought about by the ultra rich not wanting to share with anyone else. Don’t stand up for the very people who are trying to rob you of everything you own and leave you in the street. They will do it without thinking twice.

  19. WJM,

    I make my living trading the markets….what do you do? I presume you don’t trade for a living and have no more than a rudimentary understanding of how things really work.

    My sense of economics and market direction has served me well and I pay no heed to armchair economic pundits such as yourself. You might have your own theories and opinions, but that’s all they are. Get back to me when you put your money on the line.

    As far as Ayn Rand…..we haven’t embraced her philosophies in this country, ever. If you ever seriously studied Objectivism, you would realize this. What we need is more of her philosophy instead of less. Looting from the productive just doesn’t make sense, and isn’t fair.

    For an Ayn Rand primer, here’s a good link.

    http://www.atlassociety.org/

    By the way, most of the manufacturing jobs lost in the past 20 years has been due to productivity increases, not outsourcing.

    Jeff

  20. From what I’ve read, we need more bang for the buck than just tax cuts will provide. And as I’m more of a Keynsian (someone who believes that the government should step in when consumer and business spending can’t support the economy any more), I disagree most vehemently with your economic assessment, even if I don’t generally mind some churn in the economy. The question is how much is tolerable, and it’s abundantly clear to me that we’ve got too much right now.

    There’s no doubt that the economy will turn without help – but how long will it take? After causing how much damage to the economy as a whole, and employment in particular? Government spending, done intelligently (which, given we have an intelligent president who’s surrounded himself with intelligent advisers), will help. How much is a fair question, but contrary to your ideology, there are times when the government must step in for the good of everyone who isn’t blessed with a trader’s income.

  21. Yeah, all that talk of reaching out to the world, a new approach that all those former secretaries of state from both parties agreed makes sense, is so at odds with “god’s” way.

    If I were to get down on my knees at this guys request it would be to throw up.

    Bobby
    http://www.idlewordship.com

  22. Well, i was trying to find some information about government spending/debt (trying to verify some numbers before i typed them) and learned that the Obama administration seems to have scrubbed everything off the old whitehouse.gov site. They’re creating a “brand new” website…but don’t mention where all the old information went. Down the memory hole?

    Sorry for the Orwell reference when everyone’s feeling so happy and cathartic, but that’s all i could hear when he went rambling on about “securing peace” in Afghanistan…while he plans to send 30,000 combat troops and his almost SoS is calling the place a “narco-state”. Which it wasn’t until we showed up to fight our “good war”. And as far as i can tell, the narco part isn’t part of the “state”, which is a classic occupation puppet government that controls a few square blocks of Kabul.

    But i’m not at all impressed with his economic advisers, plan or stimulus package. To the banks goes the meat, and we’ll get to gnaw on some bones if any happen to fall off the table in the course of the feast. Most of what we do get (via the asinine tax breaks) will probably end up back with the banks as low to middle income people try and get out from underneath their debt, particularly of the credit card variety.

    His giant stimulus package is equal to one year of the DoD’s budget. The short answer to our financial problem is that we spend too much money blowing shit up. The DoD budget is equal too everything else we spend (removing SS and interest payments).

  23. Well, it is all very simple. Socialism, which is what Obama wants to implement, after all — that is, distributing the wealth and property of the people who are productive to those who are not productive or who have “failed” and therefore must be helped out with jobs, etc. — is merely STEALING from some to benefit others.

    The Ten Commandments include “Thou shalt not steal.” Have you all forgotten that? And any serious economic student understands that all wealth in this world is gotten through the application of hard work to natural resources. To FORCE (through taxation) one man to fork over the results of his labor to another is stealing.

    When the government “redistributes” the wealth, it does so through the power of the gun — that is coercion and force. That is stealing. It is condemned by God. It is what Obama will rely on. In that sense, he is 100 percent opposed to God.

  24. So then you never pay your taxes, then, Jennifer? After all, if Farah is right, then paying your taxes is against God’s commandments, and you have to obey the laws of God over the laws of men.

    Or do you agree with many Christians that paying taxes is what Jesus commanded with “rendering unto Caesar?” And if so, then isn’t paying taxes for what you’re claiming is “socialism” no different than paying taxes for defense or judicial contract enforcement or prisons?

  25. Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

    5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

    6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

    7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

  26. Jennifer said: Well, it is all very simple. Socialism, which is what Obama wants to implement, after all — that is, distributing the wealth and property of the people who are productive to those who are not productive or who have “failed” and therefore must be helped out with jobs, etc. — is merely STEALING from some to benefit others.

    That can easily be taken to extremes. When Brian feeds his kids, they are “stealing” from him because they sure didn’t do anything productive to pay for those chicken nuggets. Not being “productive” is not the same thing as “failed”. Unless you think being in car accident and losing your ability to do anything except turn your neck is a personal failure. How about being born cognitively deficient? Not exactly fair to call that person a failure 10 seconds after emerging from the womb. Yet both of these people will be kept out of a cardboard box or morgue thanks to government programs.

    What’s funny, is Jennifer’s quote above is not the definition of socialism I learned in PoliSci. Socialism is collective ownership. When Obama starts seizing companies and shuts down the stock market, let me know. Socialism, by the way, is not a scary evil word. It does work, on a very small scale: a commune, a town, a company, etc. It doesn’t scale up well. By the way, when companies do things like offer stock options, think of socialism. The idea is that you will work harder if you’re an owner of the means of production.

    Anyone who argues that the highest tax payers aren’t also receiving the most benefit simply aren’t paying attention. Which roads get resurfaced first? The ones in the nicer parts of town. Has the quickest response times from the cops? More likely to actually know the office holders and see them socially?

    There will always be things that are best to be left in the hands of the government: defense, roads, regulation of businesses, and primary education. Defense, so we still have a country. Roads, so interstate travel for goods & military equipment/troops is easy. Regulation of business, because self regulation of businesses works about as well as self regulation of teenagers. Primary education because there needs to be set standard of education so the newly minted adults can fulfill their duties as citizens.

    Lara Amber

  27. Some good comments here. My question is this: if Farah wants Obama to fail, is it because Obama offends God, or is it because Obama is a Democrat or (perhaps) a liberal?

  28. “Corporate tax cuts, elimination of capital gains taxes, and an income tax cut will benefit the economy.”

    Lie.. speculation, at best, but hasn’t been born out by the BIGGEST deficits this country (world?) have seen, and it’s happened BECAUSE of trying to implement “let the rich take it all” policies. The right-wing (and money grubbers in general) keep spewing the same illogical, unsubstantiated bullshit over and over hoping their delusion becomes true by will alone. Reality doesn’t work that way.

    “Massive government spending, bailouts, etc will just prolong the problem. I disagree with any bailout, for any reason, period.”

    The problems we have now are because the rich, ruling elite that controls the money fucked up. They did it with the help of moron “free markets fix everything” people bought and paid for in the government. It failed. Massively. Why? the “free market” doesn’t account for psychosis, which is what most companies run under. Yes, some leaders of some companies will destroy the company to get “more profits” because it looks good on paper.. when they do that, millions of lives are affected, but they care not. People die, lives are ruined, economies fail.. brought on by GREED and IGNORANCE. Regulations are simply rules for the people who would rather live by no rules at all.. chaos does not grow nations, order does.

    “Think of the economy like a forest. Sometimes there needs to be a fire to clean out the excessive undergrowth and the forest will grow back healthier. Politicians don’t do very well trying to manage economies and whole industries.”

    The “fire” you’re talking about, quite literally, is the death of millions upon millions of Americans. To expand that to the global arena, we’re talking billions upon billions of people having to “be cleared” if you want those remaining trees to “all be big and tall” (read: everyone is rich).

    Humans aren’t dead brush. Free markets don’t take into account the human costs of successful markets. The policies of the right-wing are such that they say it’s ok for people to die in the streets, by the millions. Until you idiots are willing to put the “ugly truth” on your politics, you should go sit in the corner and eat your bugars because you’re not offering anything up for consumption that the sane adults can use.

    And all this crap about “let companies have more money and they will invest more” is BULLSHIT.. guess how I know? Exxon/Mobile made over $40 BILLION on year, and they are still crying about not having any refineries.. of which, they could build a brand spanking new shiny one for about $9 billion. If they would “reinvest their profits”, they could increase their capacity.. instead, they complain about taxes and having to contribute to the society that allows them to survive (and thrive as the case may be). No, that extra money goes to the precious few ruling elite that control most things.. and to “stock holders”, of which only about 45% of our country participates. Hence, giving the minority most of the money while telling the other 55% to fuck off doesn’t seem very “decent human being-ish” to me.

    And, how does any of this tie back into some christo-fascist wishing the President “fails”? and not even on his economic policies! .. lol.. wow, you guys sure like to spin spin spin things.

    and not too many “talking head” “libruls” out there (if any) called for Bush to “fail” or “be assassinated”.. Sure, they called for him to be Impeached and prosecuted for his DOCUMENTED crimes.. but that’s a bit different beast, don’t you think?

  29. “Looting from the productive just doesn’t make sense, and isn’t fair.”

    Doesn’t make sense if everything else was equal. It’s not. And “fair” is a very relative term.. see, it’s not “fair” that some guy can shit on a toilet of gold that he bought because he moved his factory to some 3rd world nation where they let people die in the factories because it’s “more efficient”.

    your brain simply doesn’t work. You don’t take into account reality, human life, and the _ability_ for us all to live and have comfortable lives. You want to feed your greed and gluttony, and reality says that someone else must go without for that to happen. You ignore that “ugly truth” because to face it means you’re kind of an ugly person.. I’ve notice how the right-wing loves to sugar coat that turd and call it powered log treats, then try to feed it to the public.

    What’s not fair is that the average person it too stupid to care for themselves, and we’re over populated as a planet thanks to the brains (and science) of probably a few hundred humans. We have what we have, and we either try to work with it, or abandon our Humanity and let billions die so the few can live like kings. And since there’s no rhyme or reason to where someone is born, and we’re all humans, I don’t find it reasonable to shit on some people while letting others rig the game for their own benefit. Letting the “haves” make up all the rules doesn’t seem “fair”, to me.

  30. “There’s no doubt that the economy will turn without help – but how long will it take?”

    and how many people will die of starvation while we wait for it to finish turning, since we won’t (under certain plans) have any way for those people to get food (other than by lapping at the boots of the ruling elite)..

    Didn’t we evolve past the Medevil times?

  31. “Well, it is all very simple. Socialism, which is what Obama wants to implement, after all — that is, distributing the wealth and property of the people who are productive to those who are not productive or who have “failed” and therefore must be helped out with jobs, etc. — is merely STEALING from some to benefit others.”

    A) he’s not even close to wanting to implement Socialism, every time some idiot from the right-wing spews that ignorant lie I just want to punch their lights out. Stop listening to that drug addict Limbaugh for a minute, and learn some definitions.

    Secondly, even if he WAS trying to do that, he won the legal and binding vote of this country (as opposed to the Shrub, who clearly didn’t, either time) which means if the people want a Socialism, then that’s what we have. If the “producers” (another lie, since most of those profiting massively from the exploitation of the planet aren’t the ones putting labor into the process) don’t like that, they can get out of the country. In their vacuum, the “people” will take over. Socialism is only a dirty word to those selfish abusive jackasses who don’t mind other people suffering while they live in the lap of luxury. It’s called a lack of “humanity”.. be honest about what you are and the conversation would go much smoother.

    “The Ten Commandments include “Thou shalt not steal.” Have you all forgotten that? And any serious economic student understands that all wealth in this world is gotten through the application of hard work to natural resources. To FORCE (through taxation) one man to fork over the results of his labor to another is stealing.

    When the government “redistributes” the wealth, it does so through the power of the gun — that is coercion and force. That is stealing. It is condemned by God. It is what Obama will rely on. In that sense, he is 100 percent opposed to God.”

    You’re not “forced” to pay taxes, you’re welcome to leave this country and live anyplace you want. Go find some country where no individuals have to contribute, but there are lots and lots of systems in place to protect those individuals and give them access to a better life. ….. Oh.. you can’t? because people have to manipulate their environment to have a good life, and everyone wants a good life? and by right-wing standards, we should not have to contribute for that.. we should just sit back and let god give it all to us? .. ? .. what? Oh, right.. no one who’s sane ever accused the right-wing of making sense of things in a full picture context.

    and if there’s 10 commandments and someone breaks one, doesn’t that mean they are 10% opposed to god? .. but we all know I”m not an economist, so maybe there’s fuzzy math there I don’t get.

  32. Why am I surprised over and over again by the persistence of sheer unreasoning hatred of the other? If Farah and Rush mean what they say (or even understand the implications of their remarks)… they would rather be proven “right” by more poverty, more war and more despair than admit they were “wrong” as life becomes better for more of their fellow citizens?

    I have to believe that the fate of this country matters a bit more than the tender ego of a fat little pill-popping hypocrite with a mouth bigger than his brain.

  33. I didn’t read the article by Rush, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t agree with most of Obama’s policies. If Obama is pushing a policy change that Rush didn’t agree with, doesn’t it make sense that he’d hope Obama would fail to implement said policy change? That’s not quite the same thing as hoping the country fails, is it?

  34. There isn’t much that’s more hilarious than someone quoting chapter and verse of the Bible expecting that it’s like a thunderbolt from Zeus…argument settled.

    What is funnier though, is that person quoting books like Romans, written by a guy that even Peter didn’t trust. I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to do better than some bishop 1700 years ago deciding that Paul was, in fact, the word of God. Tell me what Jesus said, that’s who we’re supposed to be praying to right?

    And by the way, Jesus lived on a commune so we might be able to assume that he was a socialist…oh that’s right, never mind Jesus…listen to Paul. I’m not going to base my life on the ravings of a bat-shit-crazy-epileptic-used-car-salesman.

  35. That makes sense. Unfortunately, I’ve heard the same sentiment several times today with no qualifiers… what I’m hoping is that people just haven’t thought through what they’re saying.

    You know, though, I really don’t believe that’s what Tubby meant. He’s a nasty piece of work all around.

  36. Laura said,
    “Anyone who argues that the highest tax payers aren’t also receiving the most benefit simply aren’t paying attention. Which roads get resurfaced first? The ones in the nicer parts of town. Has the quickest response times from the cops? More likely to actually know the office holders and see them socially?”

    Of course the nicer areas are going to get better services. You’ve got to throw a bone to the rich in order to keep the money coming in.

    Savanster,
    Since you have a strong opinion on everything under the sun, and seem to take umbrage with success, why are you so bitter? Did you step up to the plate in the big leagues and strike out once?
    Just curious….what do you do for a living? The reason I ask is because I wish to understand the source of your hate.

    Brian,

    That trader’s income is a function of risk. For instance, yesterday I lost a fortune, but today I made a fortune. I deserve to be well compensated for having the stomach to perform a necessary function of society. You presumably have a job where you get a paycheck every week, probably have a 401-K, and medical benefits. I have none of that. If I don’t make money, I will ultimately fail. I have to pay the full cost of my insurance, fund my own retirement, and pay for my overhead whether I make or lose money. I have to live solely by my wits, my sagacity, and my willingness to accept risk, without any safety net whatsoever. Try that sometimes….do what I do for a year and you’ll feel grossly underpaid and over regulated.

    I understand you a little better knowing that you follow Keynes, with whom I vehemently disagree. I like the Chicago School myself, with a little dose of Smith thrown in for good measure. I was talking to a very influential house-hold financial name today and posed an interesting theory. I said that the government should guarantee 100% individual deposits in banks and then never do another bailout. The carnage would be quick, severe, and necessary. However, what sprouts up after will be stronger, better, and more secure. At least with my idea, the individuals would keep their savings. In earlier panics, the savers lost their entire nest eggs…this time they wouldn’t. However, there might be a world wide currency debasement in 11 months (~25-33% probability), so people might not want to hold any cash.

    Jeff

  37. WJM sajd,
    “BTW, Jeff, where did you get your economics training? I suspect it’s the same place that W got his.”

    GWB went to Andover, Yale, then Harvard. I went to Exeter, Lake Shore Academy, Hendrix College, and Northwestern. My PhD is in Chemistry….my economics training was in the wheat pit, which is a better foundation than any classroom experience or armchair quarterback could get.

  38. I said that the government should guarantee 100% individual deposits in banks and then never do another bailout. The carnage would be quick, severe, and necessary. However, what sprouts up after will be stronger, better, and more secure. At least with my idea, the individuals would keep their savings.

    Holy fucking shit. I completely agree with this.

  39. “Savanster,
    Since you have a strong opinion on everything under the sun, and seem to take umbrage with success, why are you so bitter? Did you step up to the plate in the big leagues and strike out once?
    Just curious….what do you do for a living? The reason I ask is because I wish to understand the source of your hate. ”

    A) we’re back you your baseless attacks that I must have failed, and became bitter, and that’s the only answer. That you can’t see alternatives is the exact definition of closed minded, it also feeds into ignorant.. and, amazingly, you read lots and lots of books (cherry picked to reinforce your beliefs, I’m sure) and still don’t have the ability to have your own creativity.

    B) I take no umbrage with success. The issue is the very definition of success, which decent human beings gauge by their comfort weighed against that of others, while your measure is how lush and extravagantly you live. I’m VERY successful when I have all my bills paid (presuming the economy that the “rich and entitled” totally fucked up doesn’t eat me, should be in a few years), have a quiet peaceful home to rest in after being out on the streets dealing with the incessant moronicism that is America today, have reliable “things” in decent repair (as much my control as buying new “junk” to replace old junk), and have time to enjoy those things. I don’t need shiny things that are big and flashy that I can dangle in the faces of others.. yet, that’s exactly what 90% of the right-wing types I’ve ever met call “success”.. “riches” and “more stuff than you”… and, ultimately, they boil that measure down to “net worth”. When you don’t care how much suffering you cause to have what you have, I don’t call that successful, I call that abusive and inhumane. .. ugly truth..

    C) Why is it “wrong” (since you used your passive aggressive tone in response to me, again) to have “strong opinions”? As long as they are well thought out, well informed, fairly educated opinions, why is that wrong? .. in fact, the only time I ever see my “strong opinions” being a problem are when the realities that back up most (and only most because, I, like everyone else on the planet, make mistakes and can be wrong) of my opinions crush the delusions of those I’m talking to. Mostly, they get defensive, change the subject, become very partisan, and either say “so and so did it too!!!!” or “because that’s what god wants”. At that point, I simply walk away.. you can’t cure stupid.

    My hate is rooted, ironically, in the fact that man can be so heinous to their brothers and sisters for no good reason, other than what seems to track back to the ancient instinct of preservation. We’re not shit flinging monkeys in the trees any more. We don’t have to grab a stick and beat the shit out of the guy next to us and steal his chunk of meat because we might starve to death if we don’t…. that was done thousands of years ago. We don’t live in caves and don’t need to fear the dark to survive like we did 10s of thousands of years ago.. so when I see people acting like cave men draped in modern backdrops, I get angry. Would you like an example?

    Republicans. .. hmm.. what? Oh.. you mean, “fuck you, I want nice stuff and I don’t care if you starve to death in the street so I can have it” isn’t a good political premise? Not a decent human being descriptor? Ugly truth.. but, where does that _come_ from? Why do you want all that stuff? why horde? why stash more and more crap that you can’t use while taking life giving resources from others?.. Seems that vestigial survival instinct overrunning the logic and reason and evolved parts of the brain, to me. You want shiny stuff for the same “animalistic instinctual drives” as birds that gather shiny bits and dance for girl birds… But, you’re supposed to be smarter than a bowerbird.. put the tail feathers down, buddy.. no one with a brain is impressed (oh.. right.. you’re not trying to impress brain, you’re trying to impress impulse and ego).

    And, again, you keep talking about how the markets regulate themselves.. but that’s in a vacuum of what destruction that causes to HUMANS while they “regulate”. See, people who get into high finance and big business aren’t usually “nice people” (as hard as that may be for you to understand). They lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to make money. You don’t let those people dictate how things will run.. at least, civilized intelligent people don’t let evolutionary kickbacks who can’t control their instinctual impulses control the country.

    “What I do” is program computers. I tell the machines how to behave so humans can be more productive… in my case, that means helping more indigent people be serviced on the fewer and fewer government staff that do the job. I help make our government smaller and more efficient.. while you leach off the efforts of others and call that “work” and then tout policies that lets you keep your gains while telling millions to go die in the streets if they can’t do what you do.

    I also use my brain, think, reason, and try to understand the Universe and my place in it.. without resorting to superstition or shitting on my fellow man. While doing that, I try to see how to maximize comfort and minimize suffering around the world for both humans and animals (they can’t do that for themselves, thankfully I have this big brain that can do it for them, if I only exert a modicum of energy).. unfortunately, that means some people will have to abandon their wanton gluttony and excesses (ironically, most of those same people profess to be Christians, and their god demands the same thing of them that my logic and reason dictate).

    And your condescension about how others “can’t do the instrumental service” you do is simply more of you deluding yourself. It’s neither an essential service nor is it “hard”.. you’re playing a game, and one that kills millions every year. You simply don’t care. .. that damn ugly truth again..

  40. “Of course the nicer areas are going to get better services. You’ve got to throw a bone to the rich in order to keep the money coming in.”

    And the kings of old felt it was ok to soil the new wife on her wedding night.. Just tossing the “god-chosen leader/family a bone”, right?

    And no, you do NOT have to pander to the rich to keep money coming in… are you kidding me?! The rich are NO BETTER than the POOR. And the intelligent poor (again, not trying to crush your delusion with reality, but poor != dumb) are not magically incapable of managing money or running businesses.

    Go read the definition of Socialism.. the people own (and therefore directly benefit from) the means of production. That means the PUBLIC are the share holders, not some 45% who happen to be lucky enough to be able to invest. People can survive, despite your delusions, without “rich folks to drive money making”. You keep touting policies that are rooted in lies designed to keep the ruling elite in power, not designed to make a better world for as many people as possible.

  41. in my case, that means helping more indigent people be serviced on the fewer and fewer government staff that do the job.

    I’ve had some recent experiences with government-provided services for the indigent, and I’m amazed at how dedicated and smart and just plain kind most of the people who’ve helped us have been. It is patently obvious that every one of them is deluged with more work than three people should have to do, and still so many have gone out of their way to help us navigate the system. They must be doing it out of love and duty or they wouldn’t survive a week at work.

    This female bird finds kindness, humor and patience much sexier than bits of metal and shiny rocks.

  42. Jeff, you choose to live the way you do. You don’t have to do live without any safety nets – you do it because you want to. Which means that you choose to feel “grossly underpaid and over-regulated.” If you don’t like it, change your career.

    I would have figured you for the Vienna school of economic thought, personally, but I can’t say I’m surprised that you’re a follower of the Chicago school of thought.

  43. I have problems with Von Mises and Hayek.

    Plus, Friedman’s monetary policy makes sense to me.,

    I wouldn’t change my career because I have freedom and am not chained to the grindstone like most of y’all. My career is my choice and I accept full responsibility for my actions. I ask nothing from anyone, nor do I expect to give anything to anyone except by my own choice.

    Savanster,

    You ought to post under your real name as that would give you a little more credibility, instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. You ought to get out more also.

    Jeff

  44. “Savanster,”

    I doubt you’d be able to spell that any more accurately..

    and if the name on the screen dilutes my credibility, but the name given to me by my parents “magically” add it, then I’d say it’s not me with the problem.

    And I don’t _want_ to be out more. Every time I go out, I have to dodge the mountains of feces being flung about by most of the “humans” I come across.. It’s tiring and draining and deleterious on my soul to have to interact with so many willfully ignorant chimps. You might find morons entertaining, but I don’t.

    and now you’re starting to sound like Palin, also. *wink*

  45. It’s also very telling how you never bother to address the facts presented, like how your “policy” leaves millions upon millions to die in the streets.. or explain how the “rich” deserve “better treatment”. That Ugly Truth(tm) just seems to keep smacking your “choices” all over the place.

    I don’t need to increase my credibility when the people I’m counterpointing already have zero. also.

  46. Savanster,

    So basically, your philosophy is that it’s OK to steal my money that I rightfully earned.

    Oh yeah, you’re a programmer….I hire people like you and have caught a couple with their hands in the cookie jar.

    Millions aren’t going to die in the street….there you go getting all drama queen again.

    As for not using your real name and hiding behind a pseudonym, one detects a bit of cowardice. All the other players on this site with real opinions use their names…why not you. Grow a pair and use your name.

    I’m glad I have zero credibility with you which means I must be doing something right.

    Jeff

  47. If Obama picked a Secretary of the Interwebs, do you think that person could bring peace to Watsonland and Savansterstan? And would Farah pray that that person would fail? Hehehe.

    /smartass off

  48. I actually don’t mind the debate. In fact, I encourage it. I’m glad you’re here and you have Savy as a foil. Its the tit for tat exchange of insults that gets old real quick. And, no. I don’t care who started it.

  49. “So basically, your philosophy is that it’s OK to steal my money that I rightfully earned. ”

    No, my philosophy is that your “rightfully earned” money is something that is up for debate. When you earn it by killing people, I don’t consider that “rightfully earned”, I consider that murder for gain. Pretending like you didn’t do it because you didn’t physically pull the trigger is a cop out. When you make rules that let you “rightfully earn” money while abusing others, you’ve used a double standard. The people make laws that protect them from abusers, and you call that unjust regulation…. but you clamor for regulation that prevents people from abusing you (inside trader laws, etc etc). In order for your world to exist, you must exercise hypocrisy day in and day out. That should be your first clue.

    To clarify my philosophy, we should, as enlightened beings, walk away from our ancient instinctual drives and try to make life comfortable, if not happy, for as many people as we can. Making profits at the costs of human lives and ability to function is counter to that, it’s that simple. There are 2 ends of the spectrum, everyone is cared for, or only those most vile thrive (by cheating, lying, stealing, killing, abusing, etc). I’m way left, you’re way right. Way left can be done, and is actually in keeping with what many religions preach (despite what this particular “man of faith” may wish on others) while the way right is what Jesus said should be faught against.

    Additionally, it’s not “stealing your money”, it’s paying dues for the club you _chose_ to belong to. You want to live in America and benefit from her defense systems, her infrastructure, her influence in the world? Pay taxes and contribute to her ability to function. If you want something else, live some place else. You’re [kind] is content to pay fees for the Country Club because it shows status, but you some how think taxes are a different matter.

    “Oh yeah, you’re a programmer….I hire people like you and have caught a couple with their hands in the cookie jar.”

    So, now I’m a thief because I work for a living? .. color me confused. Especially since “people like you” never take the cookie jar, mixing bowls, utensils, oven, and often the roof, too.. like

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/28793892/site/14081545?__source=yahoo|headline|quote|text|&par=yahoo

    who “rightfully earned” the right to abuse the stock holders and company in general.. Ken Lay, Skilling, Berny Ebbers.. the list goes on and on.. and not one of them was a “programmer” like me.. they were high-finance guys, like you.

    “Millions aren’t going to die in the street….there you go getting all drama queen again.”

    tell that to the people who die in other countries all the time, places with much closer to “free market principles” than America has.. tell it to the people, that despite what regulations we DO have here, lost their homes because their jobs are gone because companies are failing because bankers cheated over and over for the past 6 years and collapsed the economy. People _are_ dying in the streets, and your proposals offer nothing based in reality to change that. Letting companies run roughshod over the masses (like they did when we had _no_ worker protections in place, and little children were dying and being maimed for life in factories because it was “the most cost effective” plan) has been shown NOT to work.

    And we’ve been over the name thing. Petty ignorant power tripping jackasses who tend to gravitate toward management might ruin my chances for a career. You think it’s ok for someone to not be able to earn a living if they disagree with you or your views, but that’s not freedom, that’s intimidation. I’m smart enough to understand how people work, and will not put myself at extended risk to appease you. Why should I? I stand to lose everything and gain nothing. Not a “smart risk”, even by your deluded standards.

    Sorry Ann. I’ll shut up now.

  50. Ubertramp,

    Revisiting the record of the comments, it should be noted I didn’t start this little skirmish….the insults came from WJM after I mentioned tax cuts stimulating the economy . Brian then got a little snarky with the Vienna vs. Chicago thing, and Savanster went completely mentally unhinged and took it to a new personal low, even for this blog. The strong invective aimed my way surprised me. At least I learned a good lesson about myself from this thread…..I’m a greedy mass murderer who doesn’t give a fuck about humanity.

    Jeff

  51. Like I said, I don’t care who started it. If you’d guys would stick to the argument, it wouldn’t be so…pointless. I bet most of the readers gave up days ago. There are just a few die-hard lurkers trying to pick through the carnage for the occasional bit of insight, now. Believe it or not, I actually like the differences between Savy’s communist manifestos or your capitalist diatribes when you stick to economics. But when I have to dig through a virtual S&M circle jerk to find anything useful…I get tired.

  52. You can’t discuss economics without accounting for the wide reaching impacts. Even economists understand that their “theories” function in a vacuum and don’t readily transfer to the real world in a lot of situations. .. and until very recently, the global economy wasn’t even being looked at, free trade between nations with corporations being able to circumvent various checks and balances that would exist on the micro level have been mostly overlooked until recently. At least, that’s what I read from some economists.

    We’re in uncharted territory at this stage, and people seem to be ignoring the long term trends that appear to be starting. Of course, we can’t know what those trends are, or will be, but we can use our big brains to try and see what roads we would like to avoid going down….

    And with a planet that will quickly be beyond holding capacity (in say, 20 years we’ll be beyond 8 billion world wide), we really need to be trying to work on that global survivability problem, not the “can I get a bigger Lexus” problem. At least, in the interest of not having billions of people suffering that don’t need to, that’s what I think is most pressing.

  53. Michael, could you use “threadfuck” once or twice? I’m trying to get into Webster’s before I die. Thank you.

  54. OK, Savy, I shouldn’t have said “stick to economics.” I should have said “stick to socioeconomics.” I stand corrected. But that wasn’t my point. 🙂

  55. Ubertramp, I get your point, 100% 🙂

    My issue (problem) is that I don’t seem to be able to maintain civility in the face of the same ignorance being spewed not a second, not a third, but fourth, fifth, sixth, etc etc time.. When I know someone’s position, and I know it’s not based in reality, and I know where the pitfalls are, and knowing those have been drug out on the carpet repeatedly only to be consistently ignored, I see no point in being “nice” about repeating myself.. again.. heh

    I certainly didn’t mean to threadfuck this topic (does that help, Ann? :D), but I also have a bad habit of addressing all the fallacies that show up in someone’s comments. When someone says “it’s not my fault some Chinese factory abuses their workers”, I feel compelled to show them the direct, yet hidden path from their buying Chinese made junk to the abused person. The same applies to 90% of what Jeff talks about, so I fall into that trap of pointing things out that are clearly connected in my view, but people seem to willfully ignore.

    As an example:

    “I’m a greedy mass murderer who doesn’t give a fuck about humanity. ”

    That is, in fact, the “ugly truth”. Behaviors and policies have consequences, we’ll all agree to that I’m sure. So what you can’t do is just draw some arbitrary line in the air and say “but, my behaviors and policies stop having an effect on reality _here_ because that’s where it gets ugly”, and when people try to do that, I point out the denial they are trying to live under.

    By the same token, I fully accept that when I buy something “made in China” that I’m feeding into the problem.. the _difference_ is, I support _changing_ how we do things so we, as a matter of national policy, aren’t supporting such abuses. To say we should encourage more things to be made in China because it’s cheaper is to say, quite undeniably (at least in my ‘unhinged’ mind), “we value cheap stuff over pain and suffering of human beings”. I’m in a bind because most things for sale in America are no longer made here.. my options are limited, and some would say “then let your principles make you suffer without the amenities of life while I continue to abuse the masses”, but I chose, instead, to work toward changing things that are broke. My personal suffering won’t do that, nor will it noticeably reduce the suffering of anyone else.

    And I make no apologies about being offended when someone says they have more of a right to stuff than someone else has a right not to suffer in this life. I do, however, apologize for blowing up and making a scene in someone else’s house.

    From a socioeconomic standpoint, I am also willing to concede the reality that some people simply don’t want to invest in their own lives. I’ll concede that people that work harder deserve to be rewarded for that work. I’ll also concede that some people are “worth more” to society than others (the guy curing HIV has a higher value to society than your stereotypical “welfare queen”, but BOTH deserve a certain minimum standard of living, in my opinion). But I won’t condone allowing those perceived as “less worthy” for any given reason to suffer. Someone that is only capable of running a piece of equipment in a factory versus being a brain surgeon doesn’t all of a sudden deserve to not have food on their table.

    I’m a Socialist at heart.. I think the people should be able to provide for themselves, and share in the rewards of their combined efforts. That factory doesn’t make stuff “by itself”, so the guy that was fortunate enough to be born into a family who’s ancestors started it shouldn’t be the only one getting rewards from the produce of that factory.

    Societies started as a way for people to have better lives. Less work for more benefit, safety in numbers, easier lives. Socialism is the next step for advanced societies, clearly. More people having more free time to peruse more advanced subjects allows for more discovery and more general advancement of our species. And even if that aspect seems to lack, more people enjoying their lives more just seems to be “nicer” than more people working harder for less while the precious few take more and more from them.

    And in a Socialism, there’s nothing stopping people from engaging in capitalistic ideologies, either.. you can certainly perform services for other people and charge for that. Socialism becomes a minimum standard, not an exclusive province.

    • Savantster: Not sure. Sometimes WP simply refuses to acknowledge that a poster is legit. We have to go in and approve a majority of what you post, in fact. Same with a couple other regulars. Then there are the rest of the folks who get through just fine. What WP needs to develop a really good whitelist feature, but it hasn’t happened yet.

  56. “We’re in uncharted territory at this stage, and people seem to be ignoring the long term trends that appear to be starting. Of course, we can’t know what those trends are, or will be….”

    We’re not in uncharted territory at all, in fact one could superimpose a chart of this activity with other times and derive conclusions. There’s enough correlations with 1873-74 and 1907 that many papers have already been written .
    And as far as the trends are concerned, the trends are very obvious(higher energy, lower currencies, increased productivity, decline in stock prices, higher grain prices, etc.) to anyone with an IQ over 70. If one is willing to identify and act on these trends for their own self interest, at least they will do OK. Remember, the trend is your friend.

    Jeff

  57. “If one is willing to identify and act on these trends for their own self interest, at least they will do OK.”

    I do believe that is point made. To hell with everyone else, why bother trying to help everyone, just look out for yourself. Just like the cave men did before we started extended societies.

    “We’re not in uncharted territory at all, . . . the trends are very obvious . . . to anyone with an IQ over 70”

    So, when world class Economists say that this “global market system” is something that hasn’t been taken into account in traditional economics, they must have IQs under 70..? And, we’re talking how the mechanics of “global markets” work, not much narrower trends are behaving that you can exploit to your benefit while injecting suffering on others for your “own self interest”.

    And why did my long post not show up, and is being listed as a duplicate posting? I thought only posts with links or things caught by the filter were held up..

  58. k.. thanks Dr. Slammy. If there’s something I can do to help the system recognize me, let me know.

  59. Sam, Here’s a good question about WP. How do you ban someone entirely from posting? I have a couple of hecklers over on my blog that refuse to abide by my guidelines of civility. Now, I have to delete each post by hand, and wonder if there is a blanket ban feature to save me time. The spam thing doesn’t work unless they add a url to their comments, as all comments with url’s get sent to the spam filter by default on my version of WP.

    Jeff

  60. Savanster,

    Would you want a world class economist managing your money, or would you want a bantam rooster local pit trader managing your money? A smart person would opt for the latter. Economists aren’t very good with money in the real world. Most of them aren’t good with trends either, operating in 20/20 vision hindsight. And some economists, Krugman(cough…cough..) might not have IQ’s of 70, but maybe 85. Before you flame me, I’m joking.

    Jeff

  61. Savantster – the problem is that you haven’t attached an email to your comments. WP defines a cookie that includes username and email, and without an email (it doesn’t have to be real, but it does have to be consistent and look like a real email), the cookie doesn’t ID you as a previously moderated commenter. So we have to moderate everything you write. It doesn’t fix the “more than 3 URLs get’s tagged for moderation/spam” that catches even the posters here, but it should fix most of your usual posts.

    And then there are some posts that just get tagged because they hit the spam trap’s keyword detector or are too long or something. Those we’ll still need to pull out of the spam trap, but they’re generally pretty rare.

  62. Ann,

    For those of us following along at home, can you define “threadfuck”. Can’t get into the dictionary without a proper definition, and I’m always a stickler for using a word correctly down to the slightest nuance.

    Lara Amber – word slut