or subscribe to our
Twitter service


Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See for full contents of our site

March 11, 2010


Sam Smith


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is about as 'liberal' as his predecessor.

One was an oil shill and the latter is a Wall Street shill.

Pipeline route roulette and unregulated Banksters.

How's this '2 party' thingy working out for ya?

March 11, 2010 6:03 PM  
Anonymous A more accurate picture of Obama and his fellow pimps. said...

The chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University (Donald J. Boudreaux) says that it is inaccurate to call politicians prostitutes. Specifically, he says that they are more correct to call them "pimps", since they are pimping out the American people to the financial giants:

Real whores, after all, personally supply the services their customers seek. Prostitutes do not steal; their customers pay them voluntarily. And their customers pay only with money belonging to these customers.

In contrast, members of Congress routinely truck and barter with other people's property...

Members of Congress are less like whores than they are like pimps for persons unwillingly conscripted to perform unpleasant services.


Politicians force taxpayers to pony it up -- just as the services rendered for a pimp's customers are rendered not by that pimp personally, but by the ladies under his charge. The pimp pockets the bulk of each payment; he's pleased with the transaction. His customer gets serviced well in return; he's pleased with the transaction. The only loser is the prostitute forced to share her precious assets with strangers whom she doesn't particularly care for and who care nothing for her.
Also like the ladies under pimps' power, taxpayers who resist being exploited risk serious consequences to their persons and pocketbooks. Uncle Sam doesn't treat kindly taxpayers who try to avoid the obligations that he assigns to them. Government is a great deal more powerful, and often nastier, than is the typical taxpayer. Practically speaking, the taxpayer has little choice but to perform as government demands.

So to call politicians "whores" is to unduly insult women who either choose or who are forced into the profession of prostitution. These women aggress against no one; like all other respectable human beings, they do their best to get by as well as they can without violating other people's rights.

The real villains in the prostitution arena are those pimps who coerce women into satisfying the lusts of strangers. Such pimps pocket most of the gains earned by the toil and risks involuntarily imposed upon the prostitutes they control. No one thinks this arrangement is fair or justified. No one gives pimps the title of "Honorable." Decent people don't care what pimps think or suppose that pimps have any special insights into what is good or bad for the women under their command. Decent people don't pretend that pimps act chiefly for the benefit of their prostitutes. Decent people believe that pimps should be in prison.

Yet Americans continue to imagine that the typical representative or senator is an upstanding citizen, a human being worthy of being feted and listened to as if he or she possesses some unusually high moral or intellectual stature.

It's closer to the truth to see politicians as pimps who force ordinary men and women to pony up freedoms and assets for the benefit of clients we call "special-interest groups."
George Wahingtons Blog

March 11, 2010 6:29 PM  
Anonymous robbie said...

I didn't vote for Obama.

March 11, 2010 7:18 PM  
Blogger Samson said...

Don't blame me.
I voted McKinney

Question of the day:

Is your typical deluded urban liberal who thinks Obama is great any quicker at figuring out they were conned than the typical deluded rural Republican was with Bush? Can an Obama supporting urban liberal show they are smarter than a Bush supporting redneck by figuring out they were conned quicker and doing something about it sooner?

Obama's numbers are following the same curve as Bush's, with the same trend of only being held up by loyal party loyalists but having already lost the independents by this stage in his presidency. Bush's support totally collapsed when the Republican loyalists lost faith in him, largely after Katrina in his second term. Will the Obama-bots figure it out any quicker?

Before the 2012 elections would be nice. Before this fall's elections would be wonderful. Or, are the Obama-bots actually slower on the uptake than a redneck Bush supporter and thus will believe and support the con all through both Obama terms.

Obama is doing everything Wall street wants right now, so this means under the political rules that we've played under for 25 years or so, Obama will have a second term. Of course, both our side and the Republicans would love to change those rules. Watch Wall street money as the key, which is why that's the threat they used against Obama in recent months. The rules up till now say which ever way Wall street money goes determines the winner.

Unless, for instance, people want to start a grassroots opposition to that any time soon.

March 13, 2010 12:21 PM  
Blogger Samson said...

Don't blame me
I voted McKinney

Don't blame me
I voted McKinney

There's a chant in there somewhere! :)

Of course, sadly, way too few of us can truthfully chant it. If the left tried to get a good crowd chant of this one going, Pinnochio like noses should start to grow on most of the assemblage.

And, even more sadly, to accuately reflect the political situation on the left, you need to go something very unpoetic like

"Don't blame me
I voted for McKinney or Nader or the Socialists or the Communists or the Labor Party or the Workers Party or some other little party you've never heard of."

Can't see that one taking off. Of course, neither did that screwed up mess of competing and conflicting leftist campaigns in the 2008 elections.

March 13, 2010 12:27 PM  
Blogger Samson said...

Hate to dominate the comments for a time, but you do a wonderful job of making me think. :)

"- He understands how to created transparent data but not how to create visible programs. No one knows why we're in Afghanistan, what's really in the healthcare bill, or what's being stimulated in their communities. It's hard to argue for things people can't see and it makes it easy for your opponents to claim that they're something awful. The best politics is the sort you can see and feel. "

The problem is that in the end, no good of any of these comes down to the citizens as anything good in their lives.

Sam Smith used to live in DC. I used to live in Atlanta. Both of us have seen how when federal money flows into these allegedly corrupt local governments full of the election machine, dang little actually flows out of the far end of the pipe to help citizens.

Obama's like Bush in another way in that he mainly exists to funnel federal money to his friends and supporters. The citizens don't get much, so thus over time, the politician is viewed as a liar by most as they end up not seeing what's promised to them as part of the con to convince them to allow their money to be funneled away.

Obama is different from Bush only that they switch the flood control gates around to direct money to different groups of friends and supporters. Although some key groups like both Wall Street and the oil companies get all they want no matter who's in control.

March 13, 2010 12:37 PM  
Blogger Daro said...

One thing though... It's all helped my bookmarks page by flushing out a few blogs I thought were pretty righteous but now have turned into pathological Obama defenders. "Aha!" sez I, now knowing who are just DNC shills and not really interested in advancing social justice of any sort.

March 14, 2010 5:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home