Google is At It Again!

Some time ago, in a post, joejolly said:

GOOGLE IS GOOD!

GOOGLE IS GOOD FOR YOU!

GOOGLE IS GOOD FOR ME!

GOOGLE IS GOOD FOR MANKIND!

And now in Slashdot we see the article, “Google Fiber Comes To Kansas City“. From cars that drive themselves to web pages that makes good use of Java Script, Google has been about creating new things and finding new ways to use old things. Google has done well for itself and for mankind.

So, one would have to wonder why one could hear this about Google:

Murdoch: Google is mortal and together we can kill it Or at least tame it

And who is the “we” that the speaker refers to?

While it would be difficult to “Kill” a fully functioning Google, attacking Google’s birthplace might yield “killing” results. After that, perhaps,  there would be no more births of “Googles”.

Prior to 1980 and even sometime thereafter, Stanford University ranked high in the acm icpc programming contests. Google was born. But in 2010 Stanford University ranked 14th. Many other American colleges and universities were also clustered in 14th place while China achieved number one ranking and Russia number two.

When it comes to either national or international competition America’s neocons don’t seem to fare too well – except in wars. And they inherited the resources to engage in wars. There is little that one can point to and say “ATTA BOY” neocons.

While the promise of future Googles may look bleak, the world can look at the output of the current Google and say: “Google is Good”!

The Same Party That Had No Exit Strategy For the Iraq War or Guantanamo Wants one for Libya

THE HILL is running a news story entitled, “GOP rejects Obama’s Libya explanation“.

Imagine that!!!!!!!!!!

Seven years after the neocons started their Iraq war, America has not been told, truthfully,  why they started it or when they intended to end it. Instead, the neocons changed their name. Organizations have two basic reasons for changing their name – to make a gain or to avoid a lost(just like motivation). You can’t MAKE IBM or Microsoft change their names. But Blackwater, that  ”fried chicken” organization and the neocons did change their names.

The neocons name changing tactic did not impact the neocons’ TAX CUT fever, their  lusts for America’s riches, their  hatred of labor, their  Reaganomics country killing “fiscal” policies nor their tending toward wars.

Not only do the “name changed neocons” tend toward international wars – they have taken the war idea one step further – to a war against their own country. The “name changed” neocons have  warned America of a war against America – a civil war. But the definition of civil war was “moderated”  before being inserted into America’s “current events” news pool. Changing the meaning of English words for political reasons could be thought of as an identifying “mark” of the neocons – old or new.

The neocons entered America into their Iraq war. That war action fit the definition of AGGRESSION until the neocons, for political reasons, changed the meaning of AGGRESSION to PRE-EMPTIVE SELF DEFENSE. Adolf Hitler did to Poland what Amrica’s neocons did to Iraq but apparently the NAZIs did not have a “linguistic” department defining their Poland effort.

And the neocons are now BIG MOUTHING America’s intervention in Libya on behalf of Libya’s  non-combatant citizens. The neocons’ Iraq war ignored the deathly plight of Iraq’s non-combatants.

Days after the unexpected Libya event, the neocons are asking why America entered, when will it end and what is the exit strategy. And the press, with  a straight face ,  printed that political garbage. If America today, 7 years after the neocons’ Iraq war, were asked: why was it started they would have to answer – I don’t know. If  America was asked today, 7 years after the neocons’ Iraq war, what was the exit strategy – America would have to answer – I don’t know.

The GOP did not present an ENTRY STRATEGY nor EXIT STRATEGY for their Iraq war. The GOP did not present an ENTRY STRATEGY nor EXIT STRATEGY for their “Guantanamo caper”. Do they feel comfortable playing their DOUBLE-STANDARD game? The GOP has been playing their DOUBLE-STANDARD game since they impeached President Bill Clinton for not revealing facts about personal, non-threatening, non-war starting behavior and did not impeach President George W. Bush for starting a war that has no official, validated reason for starting.

What kind of political environment allows for twenty-some-odd years of political double-standards? Is the political environment “well informed”? In the case of America, the neocon press, born out of a desire to challenge the liberal press, has grown to a magnitude that can have an impact on the political knowledge of Americans. Has that political knowledge been helpful in eliminating a double-standard in the world of American politics?

In 2006 America’s ombudsmen(voters) voted to rid America of the double-standard. But what should have happened, as a result of that election, did not happen. And the double standard in impeachment remained. Perhaps America’s ombudsmen(voters) lost faith? Something seems to have changed the political minds of America’s ombudsmen(voters).

Did America’s press, honored in America’s Constitution, fail to deliver quality news to America’s “current events” news pool? Has the “current events” news pool been a positive effect on America’s political knowledge base? Did America’s current events knowledge base filter out propaganda and other forms of news garbage? Was Kipling’s 6 honest serving men serving America’s ombudsmen(voters)? Is there a “secret” political agenda underway in America?

It is no surprise to see the flames of fascism still burning in America. For some Americans the idea of sharing America’s resources with a few trumps the idea of sharing with many.

Greed knows no boundaries. It is a surprise to see democratic America not oppose, vigorously, the bone-headed idea of being ruled by something other than democracy. Grade schoolers know America is not a true democracy but one current day politician wants to change the name to republic so that the neocons won’t have to say “democrat”. WOW – ain’t that cute political news. That is the type of politics you put forth when you can’t talk about your party’s political performance. And you can’t MAKE neocons talk about their political/economic performance.

Apparently, America’s political knowledge has been reduced to the point where the neocons can “straight-face” something that should be exceedingly embarrassing to say. The word Libya should be exceedingly embarrassing for neocons to say. But, perhaps if the Obama Administration promised Libya’s oil to America’s BIG OIL, the brand new neocons might shut up?

But then again, the Obama Administration’s reaction to Libya is more like George H.W. Bush’s reaction  in the Gulf War.  After the Gulf War Iraq’s oil remained Iraq’s oil. And the United Nations could be proud of that. But the Iraq war saw the neocons start and manage that war. It was a disaster for all but BIG OIL.  BIG OIL, while accepting the spoils of war,  was responsible for its bottom line only. The SOCIAL STRUCTURE suffered the massive loss. Now that’s business friendly!

Will the “Do Not Call” Program Meet the Neocon Axe?

America’s DO NOT CALL program may meet the neocon’s criteria for “killing”. While that program has been a great tool for discouraging harassing business calls to private citizens – big business might not feel that way.

Did anyone get those sales calls every-other day from a business that seemed to say, “wanna stop these harassing sales’ calls?” Buy our service or product!!!

Will some enterprising person approach business with the idea of killing the government’s DO NOT CALL program? The “political content” of America’s neocon government might be amenable to making DO NOT CALL “business friendly”.

And the timing couldn’t be better! While America is focused on the recession – important neocon things like TAX CUTS and killing LABOR’S JOBS are being addressed by neocons. Will the Do Not Call program be “de-funded” to – er save money – neocon style?

China ‘to overtake US on science’ in two years

BBC NEWS

David Shukman

Science and environment Correspondent, BBC News

China is on course to overtake the US in scientific output possibly as soon as 2013 – far earlier than expected.

That is the conclusion of a major new study by the Royal Society, the UK’s national science academy.

The country that invented the compass, gunpowder, paper and printing is set for a globally important comeback.

An analysis of published research – one of the key measures of scientific effort – reveals an “especially striking” rise by Chinese science.

The study, Knowledge, Networks and Nations, charts the challenge to the traditional dominance of the United States, Europe and Japan.

The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier.

‘No surprise’
In 1996, the first year of the analysis, the US published 292,513 papers – more than 10 times China’s 25,474.

By 2008, the US total had increased very slightly to 316,317 while China’s had surged more than seven-fold to 184,080. [...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12885271

Every country has its share of idiots, imbeciles and morons. Many of the young, if left to their own devices, will chose a behavior that makes one of those three destinations likely. Political parties, if they are smart, will understand and provide the resources necessary to keep young people on the road to academic excellence. China seems to be focused on its young people for academic reasons. America’s neocons seems to be focused on its young people for political reasons.

America’s neocons after twenty-some-odd years of “train-wreck” performances need idiots, imbeciles and morons in their wider political base. Idiots, imbeciles and morons are easier to persuade that Iraq had stashed weapons of mass destruction. They are also easier to persuade that there is no R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N when the body that defines recessions clearly says there is.

And the neocons, called by a different name today, have shown their disdain for the intellectual by “acting a fool” over the email of a member of an educational institution – in Senator McCarthy’s Wisconsin. The “old” neocons even attacked the early advances of young children of  Sesame Street.

Even after the neocons changed their name they are still doing battle with the organization whose news don’t follow the neocons’ party-line. Anything the government funds must follow the neocons party-line. The neocons wants, as potential neocon voters,  America’s  young from Sesame Street age through the social network age.

A political party that has a performance record like the neocons may not want a smart country. That could mean that a political party puts itself above the country it is supposed to be managing. And that, for democratic America, is BAD WRONG.

So how do the neocons, by which ever name they call themselves, intend to maintain America’s influence in the world? To get an answer to that question, one need go no further than the “latter-day neocons”.

To enable and maintain America’s influence in outer space – a Doctrine was created. It defined outer space. One news source called that neocon move “BOLD”. Others likely had a  different description. But China messed that news source’s  definition up. China shot down one of its outer space aging satallites – without first getting permission from the latter-day neocons.

And once again, the TAX CUT people(neocons) found America playing “catch-up”. Shooting down a space object had not been publically admitted by the neocons. So they did it – publically. Another attempt to “contain” China might have been the show of BATTLE SHIPS near Hong Kong.

The latter-day neocons sent two battleships into China’s sphere of influence – requesting “docking in Hong Kong”. The request was denied. Joejolly, at that time, published a post listing a series of things the neocons attempted against China while China had significant financial investments in America. America, itself, seemed to take a back-seat to the neocons’ political party.

Can  America’s neocons compete, intellectually, with China?

Can a bear fly?

When the “intellectual votes” are counted in America, how will the neocons fare? The neocons have been accused of caging in their quest to win American elections. Poll Taxes used to do what modern day caging does. The neocons knew they needed to pull out all stops to get American votes. “Bottom surfing” America’s majority population and caging America’s minority population seemed to be within neocon ethics. And the intellectual loss could be replaced by battleship activity. And wars are what the neocons are made of.

If you were China, what would you do in the face of twenty-some-odd years of war-mongering by a country that was run by neocons? If China had voted with Reagan 80% of the time, China might have been considered a friend of Reagan and thus a friend of the neocons.

China’s new economic power fans fear, BBC poll finds

BBC

27 March 2011

By Andrew Walker

Economics correspodent, BBC World Service

Public concern is growing about China’s economic power, according to a poll conducted for the BBC World Service.

The survey was carried out by the international polling firm GlobeScan/PIPA among more than 28,000 people in 27 countries.

It reveals that the respondees who say that China becoming more powerful economically is a bad thing have increased substantially.

The concerns are found across a number of China’s key trading partners.

They are especially prominent among wealthier nations.

Compared to BBC World Service polling in 2005, negative views of China’s growing economic power rose – and are now in the majority – in the US, France, Canada, Germany and Italy.[...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12867892

China’s leadership and America’s neocon leadership are quite different – and it shows in more ways than one.

Ideology aside, lets look at the common sense activities of both nations. One will pass “muster” and the other will fail.

For whatever reason, China has focused on EDUCATION while America’s neocons have focused on TAX CUTS. Both nations can claim successes in their chosen activity categories. China won first place in the 2010 world finals acm ICPC contest while America’s neocons’ have set records for TAX CUTS. Wikipedia says:

[...]“Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[16]“[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

The neocons, from the first one in 1980 to the last one in 2011, have focused on TAX CUTS. China focused on EDUCATION.

And along with China’s focus on education comes what appears to be a payoff for their educational investment. China is said to be close to building its own super-computer. Also there has been talk of China’s radar evading stealth fighter. And it has been said that many of China’s top leaders have degrees in fields like engineering. Apparently skills and ideology can find companionship – in China.

Reality is late coming to America’s neocons. The America they inherited twenty-some-odd years ago and the America their leadership created are world’s apart. Nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum at the top leadership of the world will get filled by others if America abdicates.

Competition outside the system of capitalism is growing. And the neocons’ war tool(from civil war to WWIII) is not a solution to continuing their lust for TAX CUTS.

Heaven or Hell – Which Way is America Heading?

America has helped provide illegal cocaine to minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California. The motivation was to support an adopted war in the jungles of South America. America has helped provide the “platform” for attacks on the genitals of terror SUSPECTS. The motivation was to rid the world of terrorists. America has provided the resources to “pour water up the noses” of suspected terrorists. The motivation was to make them “convict themselves” prior to being tried in a court of law.

The path the neocons are taking does not appear to show heavenly “benchmarks” along its route. But yet, current day neocons have spoken of having their “kind” emulate the neocon President who presided over America during the distribution of the illegal drug cocaine. One can picture Satan presiding over the distribution of cocaine but not Christ.

And yet the neocons spoke of party purity. Perhaps a party can be pure Heaven or pure Hell.

But if anyone can make an idol out of Reagan, the press can. With the heavy footprint of the neocon press it appears that the effort is underway. History tells us how effective press propaganda can be. Remember – much of the Western world sees the Palestinians – not the Zionist Jews as terrorists. That took a massive amount of Western press propaganda to portray the victims of land theft as terrorists.

America took a sharp turn to the right in 1980. The road being travelled is unlikely to have heaven as its destination. Why Reagan as the “essence” of the Republican party?

[William Buckley Jr. is said to be the father of that movement that began in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. Why isn't William Buckley or perhaps George H.W. Bush the "standard bearer" of this "out of control" far right wing of the Republican Party?

The likely reason is that neither of those two gentlemen exhibit the kind of "mentality" that the neocons can "identify" with. Any American, regardless of party affiliation, could see America in William Buckley Jr. And a second strike against him is he was an intellectual. Neocons don't seem to like intellectuals. And a quick glance at the quality of neocon "train wreck" work performances can easily show why.

William Buckley Jr. called the Iraq war a mistake. He called the antics of the neocons when they were neck-deep in their "ethics cesspool" pitiful. That was about the time that a Chicago columnist, from a newspaper that used to be owned by News Corp,  was trying  to persuade then Senator Obama to "wade into the Republican's ethics cesspool and put an arm around their shoulders. This act would show the American people Democrat-Republican solidarity. But then Senator Obama did not wade into the "ethics cesspool".]

What is Corporate Social Responsibility?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, social performance, or sustainable responsible business)[1] is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms. The goal of CSR is to embrace responsibility for the company’s actions and encourage a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. Furthermore, CSR-focused businesses would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality. CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, that is the core business of the company or firm, and the honouring of a triple bottom line: people, planet, profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility

And lets re-read this part:

Furthermore, CSR-focused businesses would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality. CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, that is the core business of the company or firm, and the honouring of a triple bottom line: people, planet, profit.

But over at the Wall Street Journal, a business publication now owned by News Corp., we saw opposition to CSR via this post: “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility“.

The idea that business should have a responsibility to people, planet and profit seems to be foreign to the neocon political mindset. And for twenty-some-odd years, the anti-CSR attitude has been evident. People and planet have taken a backseat to profit.

Joejolly saw this as, “business is responsible for its bottom line only“.

The neocons’ Iraqi war brought death and destruction to people and planet but the second largest known reserves of oil to business profits.

Japan is currently dealing with the aftermath of a decision(business?) to build a nuclear power station “in harm’s way”. But this one is so tragic it is likely to have a negative impact on business profits. The tragedy suffered by people and the planet far outweighs the loss of business profits.

In neocon America people-matters and planet-matters take a backseat to business-matters. And do not, for one minute believe, that today’s business and pre-1980 business are driven by the same “code of ethics”.

T.J. Watson would roll over in his grave if he saw a recent news article about his company. But if there is an atmosphere of that kind of behavior going on – good companies are not likely to give competing companies a business advantage.

There is a relationship among businesses, people and the planet. This relationship can be ignored by neocon politics but it is not likely to be ignored by reality.

However, the neocons seems to have had a problem with reality for twenty-some-odd years. Why? Don’t Know. But surely “any left over cocaine”, from the Reagan era’s sale of cocaine to minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California, has been disposed of in accordance with law.

As Rabid About Labor And “Liberals” As They Were About Communism?

While America struggles with finding jobs for Americans, Wisconsin takes America back to the days of McCarthyism. The witch-hunt against labor by the G.O.P. seems to be center-stage in the land that gave America Senator Joseph McCarthy – a Wisconsin G.O.P. Senator of the 50′s.

Wikipedia describes McCarthyism this way:

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

The neocons are now taking an interest in the emails of a Wisconsin Professor. While Americans suffer the loss of jobs, the neocons are after removing opposition to their “way of managing” America.

The neocons, when they headed America’s Government, could have been co-operative about government emails. But they were not. While a Wisconsin Professor’s emails could be considered private, emails relating to the neocons handling of government matters, could be considered government emails. Here are some headlines concerning government emails while the neocons headed America’s government:

E-Mails Show Rove’s Role in U.S. Attorney Firings

Bush White House e-mail controversy

What is the current status of the U.S. Attorney firings? The current status, after many years, is “OPEN” – the same as it was “day 1″. It is the same status as a TON of questions that the neocons “accrued” over their twenty-some-odd year rein over the government of the United States of America.

America’s ombudsmen(voters) just gave the neocons an opportunity to put their “trademark”, perhaps indelibly, on America’s Government. And America’s Government is back to the “witch hunting” days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. And the neocons government managing style is likely to remain focused on “demolition” rather than “construction”. Their twenty-some-odd years of “leadership” shows more “demolition” than “construction”. And the neocons do seem to be “Hell bent” on starting their “civil war”.

A fool and his country may have already parted.

Was President Ronald Reagan the Last Neocon President to Define a Path to Neocon Economic Happiness?

The original neocon’s “economic map” to economic happiness was the brain-child of Ronald Reagan who, of course, borrowed from existing ideas. Wikipedia published President Reagan’s economic ideas – called Reaganomics:

Reaganomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reaganomics (a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey[1]) refers to the economic policies promoted by the U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s, also known as supply-side economics and pejoratively as trickle-down economics. The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy were to:

1. Reduce Government spending.
2. Reduce Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
3. Reduce Government regulation.
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

In his stated intention to increase defense spending while lowering taxes, Reagan’s approach was a departure from his immediate predecessors. Reagan enacted lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with simplified income tax codes and continued deregulation. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[3] The federal deficit in Reagan’s final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[2] The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2]

William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, summarizes the policy as “Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped,” and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, and there was a “major reversal in the tax treatment of business income,” with effect of “reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment.”

Roger Porter, another architect of the program, acknowledges that the program was weakened by the many hands that changed the President’s calculus, such as Congress.[2][4] The effect was primarily a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments, with comparatively small effect on overall tax revenue: the changes “reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989,” a 1% reduction. [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Did you really read this part?

The effect was primarily a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments, with comparatively small effect on overall tax revenue: the changes “reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989,” a 1% reduction.

At best – this kind of attempted reformation of America’s economy would require talent and skills of a high degree.  Joejolly thought this reformation attempt should have first been modelled in a “clean room” by highly qualified people wearing “clean room attire”. Instead, the reformation attempt was made by neocons. And the result of step # 1 looked like this:

File: USDebt.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As one looks at the above graphs, one cannot help but notice the “humongous” change in trend during 1980! What happened in 1980? Well – the neocons got hold of America’s government.

It would take an extremely high GULLIBILITY FACTOR to believe that “fiscal conservatives” started guiding America’s economic engine in 1980.

Prior to 1980 Democrats and Republicans were guiding America’s economy as one might expect responsible leaders to do. But all HELL BROKE LOOSE after 1980.

So, how would you grade the neocons on step # 1 of  Reaganomics?

The brand new neocons have not yet signed-in on what economic engine they intend to use to take America to its next economic destination. But, if it is the same engine as used by the original neocons in 1980, you have to wonder why today’s neocons bothered to change their name. It would be nice to say they are not fooling anyone – but …

A fool and his country may have already parted.

Boehner Presses Obama on Libya Action

The New York Times

By CARL HULSE

March 23, 2011

WASHINGTON – The House speaker, John A. Boehner, on Wednesday pressed President Obama to clarify what the administration hoped to achieve through military intervention in Libya, as top Senate Democrats defended the president’s handling of the crisis.[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/politics/24congress.html?_r=1&hp

President Obama’s action in Libya is quite different from the neocons’ 2003 actions in Iraq:

In Libya America is REACTING to a situation that is deadly to civilian non-combatants.

In 2003 Iraq, America’s neocons were the cause of a situation that was deadly to civilian non-combatants.

Referencing the British involvement in the Iraq war, here is how Sir Jeremy Greenstock saw the situation in Iraq:

[...] In the starkest language concerning the failure of the Government to anticipate the insurgency, Sir Jeremy said: “In the days following the victory of 9 April [2003] no one, it seems to me, was instructed to put the security of Iraq first. To put law and order on the streets first. There was no police force. There was no constituted army except the victorious invaders.

“And there was no American general that I could … establish who was given the accountable responsibility to make sure that the first duty of any government – and we were the government – was to keep law and order on the streets. There was a vacuum from the beginning in which looters, saboteurs, the criminals, the insurgents moved very quickly.”[...]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543458/Top-aides-damning-attack-on-Blairs-Iraq-war.html

Oil Rich Iraq has suffered two wars under the neocons’ rein. While the Gulf War saw Iraq retain its oil, the Iraq war saw Iraq loose its oil. Both wars were conducted by the same political party. But the same political party exhibited two different outcomes on Iraq’s oil.

The radical conservatism of the neocons did not seem to take a strategic hold on America’s Presidents until the “latter-day” neocons. The 1950′s neocons were said to have ended America’s cold war with Russia. But those neocons did not have control of America’s Presidency. It was said that both economies, Russia’s and America’s, crashed as the cold war ended. But crashing economies is typical behavior for the neocons. The neocons are much better at demolition than at construction.

Only in neocon America can one expect to find a “demolition crew” playing the role of a “construction crew”. How could an election put a demolition crew in office?

America’s “current events” news pool – well populated with neocon news sources, neocon bloggers, and neocon mouth-pieces can take considerable credit for America’s knowledge of its political landscape. The “political knowledge base” of many of America’s ombudsmen(voters) seemed in need of attention after polls queried Americans on current events and found “shocking” scores.

Scores (Failing) as high as 86%(14% out of 100% correct) have been achieved. That information came from a post whose text content is no longer available: “Most still confused about health care, poll says Only 14 percent knew about changes coming Sept. 23, survey found“.

One would be hardpressed to find a neocon who took responsibility for his political/economic train wrecks. But one thing is certain in America’s Democracy: the buck stops at America’s ombudsmen(voters) desks.