That old canard.

[meus_ovatio]

A random article became interesting because of the recent Wisconsin fight over public-sector compensation. UnitedHealth CEO makes 48.8 million.

This article sparks many interesting questions. They are:

Comments

[mrbogey]

The biggest cognitive dissonance in American politics is how CEO's earn too much but we still need to bail them out.

Let them fail if their board is that reckless with money.

I feel like the dog that is getting his nose rubbed in a mess he not only didn't create but barked loudly about when it was being created.

[anosognosia]

I too find it a bit odd that letting them fail was evil capitalism back when the bailout was being discussed, and now that it's said and done, the bailout is evil capitalism.

The oddest thing about it is that both sides of the popular debate seem to have happily switched sides without even nicking a seam.

It's gorgeous in a horrifying way.

[mrbogey]

I haven't switched. I've been right here all along.

[anosognosia]

Hey, credit given man. Free game.

[rasilio]

I think you will be VERY hard pressed to find anyone who supported both of those positions.

[anosognosia]

Well it would be weird if you were right about this, given your track record. So that makes sense.

[underlankers]

Remember when criticizing a President in time of war was treason and when the Imperial Presidency meant that Christian Brownshirts would be marching in perfect goosesteps shouting "Heil Busch?" Nowadays criticizing Presidents in wartime is OK (especially if the President's Kenyan Islamist Nyarlathotep) and the Imperial Presidency is perfectly fine, move along, nothing to see here?

Yeah, this is the general trend with US politics. The issues themselves don't have any real meaning except as footballs to ensure one side gets power and the other side retakes it. Welcome to reality. Ain't it a beaut?

[mrbogey]

You're attacking a strawman as that wasn't the case at all.

It'd be like me saying you keep insisting Obama can do no wrong.

[underlankers]

Which as I recall is one of your standard arguing points with me. You never argue against what I actually say, but against what you've read me to say. I do that too, but it's easier to treat stupid responses with more stupidity than to bang my head against a brick wall, as GIFT is something I try to minimize.

I'm not actually attacking what you've said, I'm merely illustrating the thesis I hold that nothing of principle exists in US politics except to return the side out of control of Congress and the Executive to control of them. The Tea Party is a rare case where one side's being expected to actually mean what they say and say what they mean. Of course the side in question are the "Obama's Nyarlathotep and going to bring on the End Times" crowd who expect their politicians to follow that perfectly sensible and rational logic.....