I really wouldn't have a problem if Obama sent a death squad to take out those 2 worthless Kochs.

WhyteRaven74: propasaurus: Do tell.

There's a nice run down of what's going on written by someone from Cato here (new window)

FTA: Hinderaker has written, "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

I just puked.

Jim_Callahan: Kibbler: The poor, misunderstood, noble, patriotic Koch brothers. An eagle sheds a tear.

Meh, it's a press release by the company in question, I don't think it's particularly a big deal that it takes a stance favoring said company. It might be shady if, say, it was put up by a front company or something, but it's the company directly stating its position without pretending to be someone else, and I'm fine with that.

The bit about "value creation" was a little over the top and should have set off just about anyone's BS warning light but, yeah, it was a typical corporate PR response.

I don't have a problem with the Koch brothers being wealthier than Croesus. To a certain extent I even understand their pursuit of power now that they have enough wealth that they could buy a new house every day for the rest of their lives and burn it to the ground after their morning bowel movement rather than flushing. What I find troubling is the means by which the pursue that power.

1. Announce major funding for the creation of a PAC designed to oppose Obama

2. Cry when his campaign talks about it

WhyteRaven74: BTW the Koch brothers are trying to take over the Cato Institute, and the people at Cato are none too happy about it.

Source? I am interested in this. Cato puts out lots of material that I don't agree with in the least, but seeing them taken over by the Cocks is the last thing I would want to see happen.

cman: cameroncrazy1984: MaudlinMutantMollusk: This time?

Those other times, it was racial.

I hope you are trolling

No, I'm pretty sure he's serious.

\you mad?

CanisNoir: Jim_Callahan: And the reason the mods linked us to a shiatty third-party blogging site instead of the actual primary source with identical content (kochfacts.com or whatever) was...

Because the knee-jerk reaction by most Fark LibrulsTM would be to dismiss the source or baitch about being linked to a Koch website. KOS on the other hand, they'll eat up like it's fresh biscuits and gravy.

The Rush apology must have dissipated more than expected if they're going back to rolling out the old Koch Bogey man again.

What is a "Fark Librul^TM"?

Liberals are not afraid to call themselves liberals. It's cowards like yourself who claim you are "Independents" yet all your ideology falls squarely in the conservative Republican vein, hence: FARK Independents^TM.

If any of you air heads ever had an original idea of your own, it'd kill you.

You know who else opposed the power-grabs of entitled plutocrats?

WhyteRaven74: Very. Also, why the hell would the Kochs want control of Cato? It's not like very many people really pay attention to much of what comes out of Cato.

My guess is that the reports from the "Cato Institute" are seen to have more credibility than reports coming from "Americans for Prosperity". AFP can send out a press release with some dubious findings. Cato can then either repeat AFP or add some addition 'facts' to reinforce the AFP paper. The Kochs controlling a 'think tank' would allow them to control the messages in the RWNJ echo chamber. What I don't understand is what part of the RWNJ message that they think isn't getting communicated.

I can't believe the benefactors of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Lincoln Center could ever be so nasty, but I guess the Arts bring out the savage beast in all of us.

I'm glad those institutions don't need my paltry contribution.

Jake Havechek: CanisNoir: Jim_Callahan: And the reason the mods linked us to a shiatty third-party blogging site instead of the actual primary source with identical content (kochfacts.com or whatever) was...

Because the knee-jerk reaction by most Fark LibrulsTM would be to dismiss the source or baitch about being linked to a Koch website. KOS on the other hand, they'll eat up like it's fresh biscuits and gravy.

The Rush apology must have dissipated more than expected if they're going back to rolling out the old Koch Bogey man again.

What is a "Fark LibrulTM"?

Liberals are not afraid to call themselves liberals. It's cowards like yourself who claim you are "Independents" yet all your ideology falls squarely in the conservative Republican vein, hence: FARK IndependentsTM.

If any of you air heads ever had an original idea of your own, it'd kill you.

I'm rubber you're glue... Really that's the best argument you can come up with? You're not helping your cause.

Most don't know that there are FOUR Koch brothers.

And considering these two are willing to go after the other two to get what they want...company control,
what makes you think they would not use every Machiavellian play in the book against Obama?

Words are just another mask to them...tools to leverage.

/btw, the true oldest Koch, is a bleeding-heart liberal...or so it seems from his background.

Mearen: Jake Havechek: CanisNoir: Jim_Callahan: And the reason the mods linked us to a shiatty third-party blogging site instead of the actual primary source with identical content (kochfacts.com or whatever) was...

Because the knee-jerk reaction by most Fark LibrulsTM would be to dismiss the source or baitch about being linked to a Koch website. KOS on the other hand, they'll eat up like it's fresh biscuits and gravy.

The Rush apology must have dissipated more than expected if they're going back to rolling out the old Koch Bogey man again.

What is a "Fark LibrulTM"?

Liberals are not afraid to call themselves liberals. It's cowards like yourself who claim you are "Independents" yet all your ideology falls squarely in the conservative Republican vein, hence: FARK IndependentsTM.

If any of you air heads ever had an original idea of your own, it'd kill you.

I'm rubber you're glue... Really that's the best argument you can come up with? You're not helping your cause.

What cause? Are you farking 5 years old?

Jim_Callahan: Meh, it's a press release by the company in question, I don't think it's particularly a big deal that it takes a stance favoring said company. It might be shady if, say, it was put up by a front company or something, but it's the company directly stating its position without pretending to be someone else, and I'm fine with that.

There's a difference between being okay with somebody saying something and being okay with the content of what they said. I have no problem, either, with them exercising their right to free speech. What I have a problem with is the fact that they've done it using as weaselly words as they possibly can to try and gloss over the fact that, materially, every charge laid against them which they took exception too is, in fact, accurate.

PR piece or not, it's disingenuous bullshiat that deftly skirts the line between outright lying and "hiding the truth" and, as such, should be called exactly what it is: disingenuous bullshiat.

Muta: WhyteRaven74: Very. Also, why the hell would the Kochs want control of Cato? It's not like very many people really pay attention to much of what comes out of Cato.

My guess is that the reports from the "Cato Institute" are seen to have more credibility than reports coming from "Americans for Prosperity". AFP can send out a press release with some dubious findings. Cato can then either repeat AFP or add some addition 'facts' to reinforce the AFP paper. The Kochs controlling a 'think tank' would allow them to control the messages in the RWNJ echo chamber. What I don't understand is what part of the RWNJ message that they think isn't getting communicated.

It's hilarious if you get Cato's material. I'm on their mailing list since I weaseled a free book out of them (gods, that was fun) and their position echoes the shiat we've been subjected to since 2010. I use most of it for fire kindling, if I'm honest.

Wow. KOS and various liberal groups sure do have a fascination with Koch.

NTTAWWT, but when did a fetish become a political position?

trotsky: Muta: WhyteRaven74: Very. Also, why the hell would the Kochs want control of Cato? It's not like very many people really pay attention to much of what comes out of Cato.

My guess is that the reports from the "Cato Institute" are seen to have more credibility than reports coming from "Americans for Prosperity". AFP can send out a press release with some dubious findings. Cato can then either repeat AFP or add some addition 'facts' to reinforce the AFP paper. The Kochs controlling a 'think tank' would allow them to control the messages in the RWNJ echo chamber. What I don't understand is what part of the RWNJ message that they think isn't getting communicated.

It's hilarious if you get Cato's material. I'm on their mailing list since I weaseled a free book out of them (gods, that was fun) and their position echoes the shiat we've been subjected to since 2010. I use most of it for fire kindling, if I'm honest.

If you were honest you would not have 'weaseled a free book out of them'.

So why should we trust anything you say after that proud admission of dishonesty?

Nurglitch: You know who else opposed the power-grabs of entitled plutocrats?

Milton Friedman?

WhyteRaven74: BTW the Koch brothers are trying to take over the Cato Institute, and the people at Cato are none too happy about it.

Yeah, that whole thing just puzzles me. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes to cause such a public argument.

This will probably cause the end of CATO, which would be a bad thing over-all.

apoptotic: WhyteRaven74: CanisNoir: The Rush apology must have dissipated more than expected if they're going back to rolling out the old Koch Bogey man again.

Well the Kochs are trying to take over the Cato Institute for some reason or other. They're not exactly what one could call virtuous.

I wonder if maybe once they have control of Cato they plan to take over the Libertarian party and leave the Republican banner to the evangelicals?

That might actually be a gain. We need at LEAST one more party in this country. Someone should sponsor the Greens as well and kick start them.

tomWright: Wow. KOS and various liberal groups sure do have a fascination with Koch.

NTTAWWT, but when did a fetish become a political position?

Money is speech, which explains why these two never shut up.

quatchi: WhyteRaven74: propasaurus: Do tell.

There's a nice run down of what's going on written by someone from Cato here (new window)

TY for link. So the Kochs are two board members shy of controlling Cato after filling the place with their lackeys even though they've only ponied up 8% of the total monies the Institute has collected over the years? Wow, that's farked up.

Really, who can blame them? They're just trying to maximize their return on investment by incrementally taking over the organization, thus directly benefiting not only from the money others have invested but the cachet of name too. In other contexts, this might be considered the most brazen of thefts, but that's old morality talking.

Besides--and this is the part of that link that I find funniest--the Cato Institute purports to be a libertarian think-tank. This takeover is a direct result of the Free Market speaking, isn't it? And if they claim it isn't, then isn't that an indictment of a wide swath of libertarian dogma?

Soros?

tomWright: WhyteRaven74: BTW the Koch brothers are trying to take over the Cato Institute, and the people at Cato are none too happy about it.

Yeah, that whole thing just puzzles me. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes to cause such a public argument.

This will probably cause the end of CATO, which would be a bad thing over-all.

They speak ill of republicans, and the Brothers Koch have invested too much in to GOP politics to have anything they're a part of conflict with GOP messaging. (new window)

I like that libertarians are upset about being pushed aside by people with money though. Hand of the market isn't so cool when it's fisting you.

buckler: I'm still consistently amazed that PBS accepts Koch money for shows like Nova.

"You can't taste the racism."

Three Crooked Squirrels: That was a very interesting post. I wasn't sure exactly what parts of the letters I was supposed to be paying extra attention to, until I realized the blogger was helpful enough to point things out. Thanks, Mr. Bloggerman.

Sincerely,

Three Crooked Squirrels

Did Frank Miller write their press release?

Wait, clearly not. No mention of whores.

Value creation = cutting back on their refining capacity to drive the price up

Value creation = investing in politicians who like to rattle sabres at Iran

Value creation = investing in the oil futures speculation market.

Value creation = investing in politicians who will cut your competition off at the knees

apoptotic: WhyteRaven74: CanisNoir: The Rush apology must have dissipated more than expected if they're going back to rolling out the old Koch Bogey man again.

Well the Kochs are trying to take over the Cato Institute for some reason or other. They're not exactly what one could call virtuous.

I wonder if maybe once they have control of Cato they plan to take over the Libertarian party and leave the Republican banner to the evangelicals?

David Koch was the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential nomination in 1980. So, been there done that I guess.

propasaurus: WhyteRaven74: BTW the Koch brothers are trying to take over the Cato Institute, and the people at Cato are none too happy about it.

Do tell.

Well first some back story, From Wikipedia:

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States.[4][5] It changed its name to the Cato Institute in December 1976

The interesting part is this: The Cato institute is governed by a board of directors like a corporation. Some member or board member or some such left his shares of the Cato institute to his wife when he died. This means that there is resistance to total Koch control of the institute at this point. The Koch brothers don't like this and are suing the widow for her shares, saying that the contract her late husband signed said he couldn't leave them to her.

In business this would amount to a hostile takeover. It would seem they want the institute to do something that at least one controlling member doesn't want it to do.

Evilsmurf: apoptotic: WhyteRaven74: CanisNoir: The Rush apology must have dissipated more than expected if they're going back to rolling out the old Koch Bogey man again.

Well the Kochs are trying to take over the Cato Institute for some reason or other. They're not exactly what one could call virtuous.

I wonder if maybe once they have control of Cato they plan to take over the Libertarian party and leave the Republican banner to the evangelicals?

David Koch was the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential nomination in 1980. So, been there done that I guess.

Yeah, I heard he got half a percent of the vote or so. Which is why he went with 'think tanks' after that, to push his unpopular ideas.

Hobodeluxe: Value creation = cutting back on their refining capacity to drive the price up

The very word value creation cuts to the inherent wrongness of modern business practicess.

What are you creating? "Value." Not goods, not services, nothing of any use. You're taking something and making it more valuable. That's the opposite of providing anything of use to society. It's hoarding and speculation. It's manipulating markets with numbers to get more wealth to you on paper without bothering to create anything that actually has value in the real world.

Alphax: EyeballKid: For example, it is false that our "business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump."

Apparently, this memo was written on Opposite Day.

By Joe Izuzu.

It smells more of Flanagan to me.

Does that old saying go "You can buy all of the politicians some of the time, and some of the politicians all of the time but you can not buy all of the politicians all of the time"?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I really wouldn't have a problem if Obama sent a death squad to take out those 2 worthless Kochs.

Obama has SEAL Team Six on speed dial.

/So he's got that going for him.
//Which is nice.

Bloody William: Hobodeluxe: Value creation = cutting back on their refining capacity to drive the price up

The very word value creation cuts to the inherent wrongness of modern business practicess.

What are you creating? "Value." Not goods, not services, nothing of any use. You're taking something and making it more valuable. That's the opposite of providing anything of use to society. It's hoarding and speculation. It's manipulating markets with numbers to get more wealth to you on paper without bothering to create anything that actually has value in the real world.

what we need is job creation. not value creation. this very practice destroys jobs to create them more wealth.

Hobodeluxe: what we need is job creation. not value creation. this very practice destroys jobs to create them more wealth.

Of course, we can't rely on "job creators" to actually "create jobs." Because no matter how much we worship them and appease them with burnt offerings of tax cuts and weakened regulations, they can't generate the demand that necessitates more jobs.

These are the two guys Obama is actually running against this year.

The problem really is that the term 'value creation' is a lot like the term 'demand'.

As my econ 111 professor said : want without money is nothing in economics. a want with money to back it up? That's demand.

Similarly , in the most universal sense, value is a universal rating or preference process that is universal. Just like the term 'demand' , however, economists (and most importantly, businesspeople) have chosen a more limited definition that relies on the inclusion of money. the only Value they really recognize is one that relates to money - and that serves those with money.

For example: I might meet a starving man with a cow, give him a bowl of cereal in trade for the cow, then take it to a meat processing plant and have it milked, skinned, butchered, tanned, rendered, and composted.

I have certainly increased the 'value' of the situation, but nobody, except me, is better off. In fact, you might argue that I took a low-performing asset that makes milk and fertilizer and turned it into a high-yield asset that produced meat, leather, buttons, glue, guitar strings, menudo, cheese, and sweetbreads!

But the wickedness of this situation isn't that the cow was slaughtered, or or even that I bought the cow from the man, but that I bought it for a price that he would not have paid if not under the duress of starvation. But in the eyes of my investors, I could not make any other deal, or I would be stealing from them.

tomWright: Wow. KOS WND and various liberal Conservative groups sure do have a fascination with Koch Soros.

NTTAWWT, but when did a fetish become a political position?