Rush Limbaugh...

Is a miserable fathead!

Prime example of why abortion should be legal, free, and encouraged for white bread scarfing franzia guzzling neocon trash.

but he needs to stay alive and healthy as the perfect demonstration of ignorance.

Crossloop support from an ubuntu workstation

www.crossloop.com

If you are running Ubuntu 8.XX,

install wine from the wine repos (add them to your software sources)

install winetricks from the link off winehq

install IE6 via winetricks(necessary for accepting their eula/tos)

install Crossloop via their executable.

and thats it, it should work out of the box.

at the moment you can only remote others' desktops, not share yours.

to share a linux desktop you use ssh with a reverse tunnel and vnc server on your end..

you type:
ssh -R 5900:127.0.0.1:59000 -p 22 username@their-ip-addr.

they then point their vnc viewer to 127.0.0.1:59000 and log in with the password for your local vnc server.

Hilary Duff vs. Faye Dunaway: Catfight!

Hilary Duff vs. Faye Dunaway: Catfight!

Posted by ExtraTV Staff on February 4, 2009 5:54 AM

Getty Images/Extra Composite

Former Disney teen Hilary Duff is set to play the role of Bonnie in a remake of the classic "Bonnie and Clyde" -- and original bad girl Faye Dunaway is not happy about her successor!

Dunaway, who portrayed the bank robber in the 1967 original, was reportedly miffed when she heard that Duff had landed the role -- reportedly saying, "Couldn't they at least cast a real actress?"

When Duff heard what Dunaway said about her, the claws came out -- and she suggested that Faye's days in the spotlight were up! "I think that my fans that are going to see the movie don't even know who she is," Hilary told E! News, "So you know, I think it was a little unnecessary, but I might be mad if I looked like that now too." Mrrrrrrrrrrrow!

"The Story of Bonnie and Clyde" is scheduled to be released in 2010, plenty of time for this feud to play out!




It is absolutely horrid that they casted Hillary Duff in a remake of such a classic. Hillary Duff. I would love to see anyone tell me with a straight face that she is a legitimate actress. Name one movie where she delivered a performance that was even watchable let alone good. She’s a sub par singer and an even worse actress. She’s the worst possible teen fluff and this isn’t some sort of stupid teens looking to get a girl movie so what is she doing in it? The movie will fail, they will realize they screwed up and this mistake will never be made again. Go away Hillary, spare yourself and those unfortunate enough to watch this.

- Jonathan
Posted 02/04/09 08:29 AM


I agree with Jonathan (and Faye) and go farther to say that the disney stable in the last 20 has been proof that with enough marketing, a cast that yells to act(like oxy clean guy), and neon colors onscreen, anyone can be a STAAAAHH.. no matter how incompetent they are. and Disney channel is the single most irritating channel i am aware of b/c of this.

Kudos to Faye for a well earned career.

Ill be surprised if they think about hiwwowy duff in 5 years let alone the 40 that Faye has..

idiot teeners

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:48 PM, <---------@---------.---> wrote:
> I challenge an assertion you make.
>
> Odds are that if legislation grants legal status to gay "marriages" then those refusing to perform those marriages on ethical/moral/religious/"law of Nature" grounds could indeed have legal action brought against them. Such legal standing is precisely what that camp is vying for - in many arenas.

a judge is as far as I know more or less required to marry anyone with
a license showing that they meet the requirements.. a priest or a
rabbi or whoever is not (I don't believe) bound by law to perform a
marriage, otherwise Pastor King of Adrian Church of God could be sued
for not marrying a couple where the man is a Mormon and the woman is a
Pentecostal - that happened (thankfully) to me. I will not be suing
him or being angry with him at all. I thanked him for saving my
posterior from a Really Dumb Mistake... like a Tall Building Jumping
From A Window class screwup [SPLAT!].

>
> ----- then a point or two to ponder -------
>
> The family - meaning a married Mom & Dad and their natural or adopted children IS the fundamental unit of society. So what happens then IF we redefine what a family is? Does this not cause a GREAT deal of confusion among the young who contend with much confusion already?
>
> Personally while I don't believe we should make legislation that would make homosexuality a punishable crime I also don't believe we should redefine what a family or a marriage is to include something so grossly against the laws of Nature - let alone the law of God.

I don't think it's ever been officially written down and codified in
secular society like not killing people or vandalism.. so any attempt
to define it is to (re)define it. I don't think public law should
define it. churches and cultures are free to define it as a norm. but
a law that has the intention of discrimination is one law closer to
George Orwell's Animal Farm or 1984. It is best not to go down that
slippery slope. Pretty soon people will be witch hunted because they
are gay, or not allowed to get married because they are mixed race.

Human beings are very powerful creatures in that we don't have to
follow many of the laws of nature. We can be or not be married and
have a family. We can self terminate. We can kill eachother for no
reason whatsoever, or commit random and senseless acts of beautiful
kindness. We can debate the meaning of our own existence, and that
meaning can change at a moments notice.

Free agency is a wonderful gift. And a terrible curse. And a grave
responsibility. The actions of one individual have potential to affect
the future of all humankind. Religion is a great tempering agent and
guide for the use of this powerful tool.. but it is not a law of the
land in America. Yet.

If I were a religious leader I would probably have to pass on
officiating these ceremonies, and forward a couple to someone else
with my blessings and best wishes.. honestly the thought of having to
make this decision hurts my head.

as a judge, my criteria would be to uphold and interpret the law as is
my power and job description. If the couple meets the requirements, I
would perform my duties honorably.

>
> While they frame this in terms of "civil rights" and "being a family" to reach out emotionally to the vast majority that find homosexuality the perversion it is --- my advice is "follow the money" because that is going to point out all sorts of things the emotional appeal is designed to blind you to.

very fair.. the same can also be said for the religious lobby or any
emotional self-defining way of life/thinking. I think that all people
with ulterior motives will get their due.

I think that the people in power who want this amendment stand to
benefit as well considering that if a gay person dies, any estate is
taxable, but if a married person dies, the estate goes to the spouse
without going through probate or any inheritance taxes. gay marriage
would increase the number of married inheritance transactions and
decrease $$$ for bridges to nowhere and other assorted pork (oo).

ultimately, an amendment of this type is the seeds of the American taliban.

do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

> It’s only the third day of Barack Obama’s presidency, but he just announced his aggressive plan to force Americans to accept homosexuality.
> His just-revealed gay rights agenda, posted on the Whitehouse.gov website, is a dream come true for the homosexual lobby. Our new president wants to force Americans to accept homosexuality in the workplace and in the military. Plus, he will push hard to pass hate crimes legislation and give marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

it apparently is also a nightmare for the neocon airport bathroom hookups lobby...


I don't see this as a bad thing.. My relationship with my GF or the marriage of my parents is of no less worth or value because two men or two
women can share the same love for one another.. frankly their supposed salvation is not my responsibility. I believe that homosexuality is the wrong path for me but it isn't my place to tell someone else that it's wrong for them. what happened to the golden rule? would you want them to legislate away some right or privilege because they said it was wrong? should the Muslim community be able to outlaw me eating pork or should I be able to say that its illegal for people to marry in a native American ceremony? I think the whole "make homosexuality illegal" thing is being spearheaded by people who are feeling insecure of their own sexuality and afraid that they might be a little funny themselves. I cite Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and countless other proponents of hating homosexuality. they so vehemently supported this cause because they hated themselves.

legislating discrimination is a very Un-American thing to do. this includes current implementations of affirmative action. If we say gays can't get married because its unchristian then Muslims and Jews can't either. lets ban Buddhists and atheists as well. Ultimately marriage is a legal contract. you can go be married by a judge. Not having anti gay legislation doesn't mean that anyone who performs marriages is REQUIRED to officiate marriages they don't approve of.

The Constitution is supposed to protect and ensure equal treatment for ALL people. It should not be changed to single out a group of people for different treatment. This anti-gay amendment discriminates by denying the rights and protections of marriage.

The only intent and effect of a Constitutional amendment like this is to deny basic rights and protections under the law to gay and lesbian people.
The anti-gay constitutional amendment does not defend marriage, it denies marriage rights to loving, committed couples. Thousands of children are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. Denying these parents the rights and protections of marriage leaves their children vulnerable.

love thy neighbor as thyself.

do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

honestly i think we need to worry more about the families in Alaska who can't heat their homes because of the cost of fuel in one of the most fuel rich states in the union.. about the displaced workers in Michigan who are in the same boat.. about our grandparents and some of our parents who have to choose between pills or food when the pharma companies are pulling record profits and selling north of the border at 1/2 the domestic prices.

you can't force a person or persons to accept anything. I am free to leave if someone starts smoking, drinking excessively or chewing with their mouth open.. I don't have to accept those behaviors no matter what any law says. If i did not like black people i have every right NOT to work in Pontiac, or if i couldn't stand KKK people I could choose not to attend a march :) .



>
> Here’s a short list of what our new president wants to do:
>
> Pass hate crimes legislation that will criminalize opposition to homosexuality.

it will criminalize opposition to homosexuality in the same manner that the civil rights act criminalized actions against black people, and employment law criminalizes opposition to not hiring someone because she's female.

> Allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions, which will “give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”

as Kinky Friedman said on Feb. 3, 2005, "I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us"

> Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

it doesn't defend marriage, marriage doesn't need defended. unless this "act" keeps people from killing brides or grooms before they can utter those two words.. but there are other laws that cover that.

> Oppose a federal constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

I dont think it's government's place to say what constitutes a marriage besides a contract two people who love each other. the sacredness aspect is upto their own beliefs. If a particular faith chooses to not recognize the marriage, that's their right to do so.

A legal marriage contract should not be confused with a temple sealing or a jewish wineglass smashing or a Hopi Qomi ceremony or etc..

> Repeal federal law to allow open homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.

it's just as inappropriate to talk about who you slept with whether its gay or straight activity if said activity offends those around you.

if advances are made on another person that are not desired, it's equally harassment, whether by a guy against a guy or a guy against a girl or a girl against a girl or whatever.

none of this behavior is appropriate for the job description of being a member of the armed forces.

again, laws should not be made to discriminate.

> Give homosexual couples the right to adopt young children.

will the child be..

fed?
clothed?
taught not to steal, swear, blaspheme, lie, cheat, kill?
taught to obey his/her parents?

if yes then what's wrong with that?

> Fight AIDS with sex education, condoms, and needle-exchange programs.

Sounds like a good practical way to do it...

Abstinence Ed made Sarah Palin a grandmother twice over.

>
> Right now, the President has the political wind at his back. Most in the media and Congress are cheering for him and his agenda to succeed.

That's because the social conservative movement has now had TWO double length administrations to prove that their way is better. this has been a dismal failure BOTH times. This movement has nearly dropped us into a 1930s class depression Twice. at the same time during it's leadership. 1986 and 2006. this way of leadership has driven us so far into debt and done so much damage to the environment and humanity that some damages could take a millenia to repair.

The social conservative movement of jerry fallwell and his contemporaries is a crime against humanity.


> That means he most likely will unless men and women of moral conviction and courage stand up and say “No!”

define morality?

whose morality?

flying spaghetti monster adherents?

word of wisdom adherents?

Qu'ran or Torah or Tripitaka or Veda followers?

who is to define right and wrong!?

I personally can never hope to be all knowing enough to do anything other than to define what right and wrong mean to me, and to defend the rights of others do the same for themselves.

This is why I believe that the ten commandments are a good thing. They say not to take what isn't yours, not to be dishonest, don't take your or other people's religious figures' names in vain, listen to your parents, don't have any gods before your god, dont kill people, etc. these are all great ideals to adhere to. by people of any faith.

>
> We have resources to help you understand these issues and to take action.
>
> Ten Truths About Hate Crime Laws shows why so-called “bias-crime laws” threaten free speech, religious liberty, and equal justice in America. And if you’re wondering What’s Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage?, Dr. Kennedy has the answer in his book by that title. Finally, if you’re looking for aid in thinking biblically about every area of life, Dr. Kennedy’s book, Lord of All: Developing a Christian World-and-Life View will give you scriptural perspectives on politics, education, human life, economics, marriage, and more.

should it be protected speech to

call someone a fag or a queer (slander)
write in a newspaper that Paul Wolfowitz is a filthy jew (libel)
burn a cross in a black person's yard(arson/property damage)
throw blood on a person in a fur coat(assault/battery)?

These instances of the parenthesized crimes are particularly heinous because they are grossly offensive to more than one person. there was a time when christians were treated as they want gays to be treated.. they should remember history in the first 500 years AD... and what happened to Christ himself. Christ being crucified, albeit necessary in christian lore, was a hate crime. an assassination to try to preserve the status quo. Christ was seen as a rabblerouser and heretic and he was murdered for it. All religions have these occurrences, so no religion should be against hate crime legislation.

>
> Thank you for your partnership with Coral Ridge Ministries! Your immediate online donation today will help us defend America’s moral heritage and bring God’s Word to bear on every area of life.
> And look for more details in coming days about what our new

President is doing to impose “change” on the nation – and what we, with your help, are doing to defend traditional, biblically based American virtues!

American values are no more directly biblically based than any other religion. they are technically masonic in similarity.

American values are possibly summed up with E Pluribus, Unum. Of/From many, One. All have an equal part in the whole. which infers that all people are to be respected equally and their rights protected.

American values have been hijacked in the 20th century by people who fear anything that is not the same as they are.

The founding fathers did not wear their religious beliefs like so much designer clothing or a fancy car. They allowed it to define how they lived their lives.

see, the thing here is, _I_ am not threatened by gay people or Jews or people with green eyes or left-facing cowlicks.. Other men might be so offended, but as was said by Salahuddin Ayyubi, I Am Not Those Men! I am comfortable in my own skin and have no fears of myself.

ultimately, ultraconservative homophobia is a fear of their own latent homosexuality or jealousy that someone might not be chained down by the same restrictions. now, anyone is free to ask someone to not do something or leave their property... or to walk away themselves.

An honorable person will respect that.

Truth and justice has won the day. the terorist-pleasing witch hunting lynch mob hysteria of post 911 is over. now we can go back to our true purpose, being the land of the free and the home of the brave, all being welcome here. the bigots can now go peacefully into the pages of history.

if it were only that easy.

IE Fans Beware: Hackers Are Exploiting a Serious Unpatched Flaw

Please dont use Inturdnet Exploder and plug up my inbox with spam and my firewall with mindless hammering when your crackheaded M$ Winders box gets trojaned and zombified! 80% of all spam is generated by infected Windows machines. Windows is a registered albatross of Micro$oft corp.

If you've never tried Firefox, Safari, Opera Google Chrome or other Internet Explorer alternatives, now might be a good time.
Micro$oft's flagship browser, the default choice on countless Windows machines, currently has a serious security flaw that affects all versions of the browser running on any version of Windows. The vulnerability allows hackers to gain access to any sensitive data on your PC.

Even more worrying, the exploit is already in the wild and no there's no fix in sight**, leading a number of security researchers to suggested that, in the interest of avoiding malicious software, users switch to another browser.

If you're the pry-it-out-of-my-cold-dead hands sort of IE fan, there is one bright side to news that some 10,000 sites are ready to pwn your PC: so far the sites are mostly Chinese and the malicious software is mainly after passwords for computer games, which can be sold on the black market.

But given the scope of the flaw and the fact that Microsoft has yet to release a patch**, don't expect that to last. Eventually far more sophisticated trojans will likely emerge with far more dangerous goals.

Obviously Microsoft isn't recommending you ditch IE (though the company didn't hesitate to suggest dumping Apple's Safari browser when it suffered from a far less serious vulnerability). Instead the company has released a security bulletin with possible workarounds, including running IE in Protected Mode and running Windows as an non-administrative user (to limit the damage an attacker can inflict).

Microsoft also says it is investigating the flaw and may push out an emergency software patch, rather than wait for the next monthly patch cycle to roll around.

**UPDATE - This has been patched. It took them far too long, but better late than never. Get the patch HERE

It is mentioned that other browsers have vulnerabilities... Yes that's true, but no other browser is so carelessly integrated with Windows as are Internet Explorer and the M$ HTML stack. When you look at your files and directories on your computer - IE libraries are accessed. The toolbar on Windows Explorer(what launches with "My Computer") uses IE libraries. IE is hooked by the shell and by a number of processes running with SYSTEM(higher than Administrator) level privileges such as Automatic Updates. Most people have to run Windows as a member of Administrators, thus, anything running as that user Runs As Administrator! And don't think just because you run Vista and you aren't running as admin, as numb to those G%#$amn (Confirm) (Deny) as people are, you're bound to _give_ permission to an app that needs it for world domination. As in WARGAMES, the only way to win the game, is not to play.

These were comments and my replies to those comments on the following /. story:

Apple Quietly Recommends Antivirus Software For Macs


Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 02, @08:59AM
from the wear-your-rubbers dept.
Security OS X Apple
Barence writes "After years of boasting about the Mac's near invincibility, Apple is now advising its customers to install security software on their computers. Apple — which has continually played on Windows' vulnerability to viruses in its advertising campaigns — issued the advice in a low-key message on its support forums. 'Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult.' It goes on to recommend a handful of products." Reader wild_berry points out the BBC's story on the unexpected recommendation.

===================================================

I wish people would stop parroting this fallacy all the time. Market share has nothing to do with how easy it is to break into a system.

Look at AROS [sourceforge.net]! It has no security whatsoever, not even memory management between processes, so despite only having a hundred or so users, it must have zillions of virusses. But, of course, it DOESN'T. So far as I'm aware, nobody's bothered to write one, and it's unlikely any AROS virus would actually be effective.

All viruses require a reasonable level of market share to operate, because one of the principles they rely upon is a network effect, and you just plain cannot get a network effect without a decent market share. So marketshare is, very much, a pre-requisite for a successful virus. It's not the only one, but when people say "Mac OS X hasn't been attacked yet because it doesn't have enough marketshare", they're right. That's one fundamental reason. And unless you can show that any other reasons apply, it's likely to be the only reason.

If you have something like windows where security is bolted on after the fact, and OS that was never meant to be a multi-user OS connected to the internet (all these were added as features later on and done poorly) then you will have a system that is much harder to keep secure.

UNIX on the other hand was designed from day one to be networked multi-user OS, and security and separation of concerns was there from beginning.

It's frankly hilarious that Unix, on which the first worms operated, can be held up as some system that had security built-in from the start. It's also untrue that Windows, that is, the operating system known as Windows today, was "never meant to be a multi-user OS connected to the internet". Unless you're talking about Windows Me and its predecessors (98, 95, 3.1, et al), then that's completely false. Current versions of Windows (XP, Vista, 2003, et al) are derived from Windows NT, which was designed, from the beginning, to be "a multi-user OS connected to the internet".

In fact, Windows NT and its successors have a more advanced security model than Unix, allowing more than a separation of users and groups.

The issue with Windows is two fold. First, marketshare. And second, an over complex user-environment where too much functionality is available on the "user" side of the security wall. Both of these issues affected Unix up until the mid nineties, where its disproportionate share of Internet nodes and the amount of stuff running as the default user (which in Unix was root, which also happened to be the account with the most rights.)

There's little reason to believe that Mac OS X is protected from viruses by anything other than its low market share at this point. There's not a large enough group of users for network effects to take over. It is not an inherently secure operating system. The default user is generally set up with administration privileges, and it just takes a buffer overflow or other ordinary vulnerability in a client application like a web browser plug-in for a virus or worm to have complete access to the user's files, and enough access to be able to modify many of the applications the user is likely to run.

Fundamentally, Mac OS X has the same problem as Windows, and the same problem the "run-everything-as-root" Unixes did in the eighties and early nineties: too much functionality available to the default user. To fix this, you need to change the model somewhat. The very least Apple could do is set Mac OS X up so that the installer actively discourages setting up the default user as an administrator.

AFAIK, OS-X processes run as the (nonprivileged) user, and only during software installation and system changes are user actions run as root. HAL implementations and things allow user interactions, such as a user being able to execute a dialup operation or to mount media. When a system update or a new piece of software is to be installed, or a system setting such as en/disabling a service, a dialog asks for the user's permission. Most better linux distros do this through sudo or it's guified variants. I almost NEVER am asked for permission to do something because I almost never make changes to the SYSTEM.

To play devils advocate, the same may be said for Fista, but Fista asks permission for EVERYTHING!! The user is so often annoyed by the stupid mother%$#@%%^# UAC bull%$#% that they no longer pay attention to whats going on requiring a priv elevation and just click (I agree)(I agree)(I agree)(I agree)WTF!?(I agree)(I agree)Leamme alone willya(I agree)(I agree)STFU i keel you(I agree)(I agree)(I agree)AGGGGGHHHHHHH THE %$#@!?(I agree)[DOOMSDAY] %&^%% NO CARRIER

That implementation is a recipe for disaster. I actually ship all Fista installs with UAC Off because it does no good anyway, plus, most remote control implementations don't work for %$%# under it.

Now, anything prior to Winders Fista, it's practically a hard REQUIREMENT to run as admin. Even something as harmless as Acrobat Reader will not run well without God privileges.


Oh and trojans and worms require dumb users and exploits, respectively. Virii require homogeneous platforms with consumer accessible scripting languages and universal admin access... Thusly Windows is the most fertile platform for pestilence of any and all kinds, due to by-design perfect availability of all these conditions.

Windows is a Norway rat or a smallpox blanket.

===============================================

Except the GP didn't say that it was easier to break into the system - he said that more people are going to try. I think he neglects to mention an underlying assumption that no software is perfect, and given enough time and effort, the chances of finding a security flaw that can be exploited is greater than zero in ANY piece of software. While this assumption won't always be true, it's completely reasonable for us to make it when considering the security of our systems - for we don't really have any way of disproving it for any particular piece of software.

Agreed, however this is still news because the platform is under such control by Apple. They could quietly and easily put not only hardware and software in place. But implement more effective procedures in their software process to make security tighter. And we wouldn't be the wiser.

Since it IS under such an Iron Curtain by the Turtlenecked-One, they could also just as easily just paint on some secure looking interfaces and in reality only have lukewarm porridge behind the scenes..

They could implement more effective procedures, but skilled programming requires either programmers whose input is revered and who are justly compensated, or it requires an open development model based on a meritocracy and peer review where people won't get shot at for finding, documenting, and responsibly disclosing flaws.

I had a boss who always said, "Don't just come to me with a problem, come to me with a 'how things are' and a 'what to do about it'."

=====================================================

I think he neglects to mention an underlying assumption that no software is perfect, and given enough time and effort, the chances of finding a security flaw that can be exploited is greater than zero in ANY piece of software.

I don't believe this to be true if enough focus on security is made.

Software can be made secure at the expense of functionality. Now this doesn't ever solve the problem of local access, but if you made your OS into a glorified terminal server, you can prevent automated attacks by restricted what the user can do by default.

Of course the user might be hindered somewhat, but sometimes that is the price to pay.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Not to mention that implementations denying users privileges has been annoying at best (UAC on Fista (VISTA), destroyed and removed while OS still called Longhorn LOL ) and often disastrous (the crypto used on DVD and BluRay (cracked a few months and a few weeks post release, respectively).

Doing these things makes ordinarily whitehat power users seethe. We then violently crack the protection on general principal. Some two-bit weenie in Redmond or Cupertino is NOT going to tell me what I can and can't do with MY system!

=======================================================

The Real Plumbers of Ohio

The Real Plumbers of Ohio


Article Tools Sponsored By [Killed-http://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/images/ADS/18/46/ad.184636//SLOB_banner_88x31_NOW.gif-by-size]
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 20, 2008
Paul Krugman
Columnist Page
Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal
Related
Times Topics: John McCain

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions — divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions — he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys — white guys, it went without saying — who didn’t like the social changes taking place.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times


It was a winning formula. And the great thing was that the new packaging didn’t require any change in the product’s actual contents — in fact, the G.O.P. was able to keep winning elections even as its actual policies became more pro-plutocrat, and less favorable to working Americans, than ever.

John McCain’s strategy, in this final stretch, is based on the belief that the old formula still has life in it.

Thus we have Sarah Palin expressing her joy at visiting the “pro-America” parts of the country — yep, we’re all traitors here in central New Jersey. Meanwhile we’ve got Mr. McCain making Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a k a Joe the Plumber — who had confronted Barack Obama on the campaign trail, alleging that the Democratic candidate would raise his taxes — the centerpiece of his attack on Mr. Obama’s economic proposals.

And when it turned out that the right’s new icon had a few issues, like not being licensed and comparing Mr. Obama to Sammy Davis Jr., conservatives played victim: see how much those snooty elitists hate the common man?

But what’s really happening to the plumbers of Ohio, and to working Americans in general?

First of all, they aren’t making a lot of money. You may recall that in one of the early Democratic debates Charles Gibson of ABC suggested that $200,000 a year was a middle-class income. Tell that to Ohio plumbers: according to the May 2007 occupational earnings report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual income of “plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters” in Ohio was $47,930.

Second, their real incomes have stagnated or fallen, even in supposedly good years. The Bush administration assured us that the economy was booming in 2007 — but the average Ohio plumber’s income in that 2007 report was only 15.5 percent higher than in the 2000 report, not enough to keep up with the 17.7 percent rise in consumer prices in the Midwest. As Ohio plumbers went, so went the nation: median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower in 2007 than it had been in 2000.

Third, Ohio plumbers have been having growing trouble getting health insurance, especially if, like many craftsmen, they work for small firms. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007 only 45 percent of companies with fewer than 10 employees offered health benefits, down from 57 percent in 2000.

And bear in mind that all these data pertain to 2007 — which was as good as it got in recent years. Now that the “Bush boom,” such as it was, is over, we can see that it achieved a dismal distinction: for the first time on record, an economic expansion failed to raise most Americans’ incomes above their previous peak.

Since then, of course, things have gone rapidly downhill, as millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and their homes. And all indicators suggest that things will get much worse in the months and years ahead.

So what does all this say about the candidates? Who’s really standing up for Ohio’s plumbers?

Mr. McCain claims that Mr. Obama’s policies would lead to economic disaster. But President Bush’s policies have already led to disaster — and whatever he may say, Mr. McCain proposes continuing Mr. Bush’s policies in all essential respects, and he shares Mr. Bush’s anti-government, anti-regulation philosophy.

What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets — and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.

Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama’s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains — America is a big country, and there’s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance.

I don’t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that’s the point. Whatever today’s G.O.P. is, it isn’t the party of working Americans.
More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on October 20, 2008, on page A29 of the New York edition.

Auto Company Buyouts:

Auto Company Buyouts:

It's perfectly ok to aid those companies who use American labor at a living wage, to produce product that's environmentally and economically responsible.

However, to those companies who get themselves in a jam by specializing in vehicles that take two parking spaces and have fuel consumption ratings in Gallons Per Mile,
--No Soup For YOU!!--

To those who manufacture their vehicles in CHINA or other human rights trampling tin-pot dictatorships, while Americans sit in the union hall or unemployment line or worse,
--No Soup For You!!--

Each vehicle component that is made or assembled overseas when there is labor and reasonable manufacturing capacity (skilled workers) to make it HERE, shall lose Double the us market value in Buyout Bucks.

For Example, A headlamp envelope made in the land of Chairman Mao for a vehicle that costs Joe The Plumber $200 to replace will be $400*the number of vehicles it's installed on. If there are 300000 Vibes made this year with this headlight assembly, thats $400*300000=$120,000,000 in buyout bucks that will be put into a fund to reward American job creation. If contractual agreements are made to remedy this within 3 years of buyout, waive the penalty and help facilitate this change. China won't see one more cent from any company that receives corporate welfare.

It should be considered embezzlement to hand out or receive golden parachutes while the company has it's hand out to the taxpayers for a bailout and is cutting wages, pensions, healthcare, and jobs. Go Corrupt? Your leadership goes for 30 years hard in Sing Sing F--- me in the A-- Prison - General Population with a Friendly(hehe) bunkmate.

...And no more coddling companies on fuel efficiency standards. If Honda can meet these standards with 70% of each vehicle made in the 'states, the Big 3 (2?) have _NO_ excuse!

Just a thought.

In order to fund healthcare

In order to fund healthcare,

Tax the following:
alcohol
tobacco
prepackaged shredded Iceberg lettuce
Compact Industrial Iceberg Shredders
(Yes, I am going directly after the cholesterol clogged testicles of McD, BK, the 'Bell, and all other health destroying fast food places which will cost healthcare bigtime..)
people making over $700,000(who should be eligible for this healthcare btw)
moving violations
gas guzzler SUVs owned by households of one or two people.

Oh and tariff the **** out of companies that export our jobs and import melamine milk, leaded toys, and shitty tinfoil cars. Basically Wal*Mart becomes TariffMart!

Bring the troops home, or start wantonly pumping oil out of IRAQ.

Award defense contracts to _ethical_ companies.
Contractor commits gouging, ethics violations or corrupt acts? Lose your contract and your leadership goes for 30 years hard in Sing Sing F--- me in the A-- Prison - General Population with a Friendly(hehe) bunkmate.
(Yep I'm gonna have Swedish Halliburton Balls for Breakfast.)

Punish companies who make it corporate policy to screw their employees and destroy other local businesses. Tax their leadership. Ultimately, a screwed employee is a burden on the taxpayers in food stamps, childcare, and medicaid. It becomes a double whammy when the employee makes such crappy pay as not to have to pay taxes themselves due to being under poverty level. If as a faith based nonprofit you do this to your people while your leadership makes hundreds of thousands or more? you lose your 501c3 status.
Awwh, Sam Walton's kids might have to forgo one less Astin Martin each this year to pay the screw your employees fine, and the Prayse Jaysus Nursing Home gets new leadership or gets the chair. [violins play a sad waah waah story tune]

People who don't work or at least try to find work are to receive no benefits. no more of this "sit on your butt and draw welfare" garbage! If I'm going to pay taxes to support your dead a**, abuse will be treated as garden variety theft or fraud! its Sing Sing for you too!

There are other places to find money for this, but these are the ones kicking around my head right now. And spend not one dime of this revenue stream on anything BUT healthcare!