I will say that life gets very frustrating from time to time. It sometimes feels as though I'm standing on a mountain, futilely screaming at the top of my lungs. No one hears me. No one cares. They don't want to listen to what I say... I know a few too many truths that people aren't ready for. I know things that make people look bad.
No, I'm not going on an ego trip.
The attack by Adam Lanza has saturated every bit of news in every way. Some are scared. What's stopping this from happening to their kids? Others cry for the cameras... it's a photo-op. They use it to push their agendas, and to shout anyone down to cowering shame who tries to stop their agendas.
When Columbine happened, my high school banned wearing too much black. I suppose they somehow figured that it would prevent another such attack. It was easier than actually addressing any of the real problems, though.
There are always scapegoats... and make no mistake, blaming guns is no different than blaming music or entertainment, video games, lack of religion, lack of beating the crap out of kids. It's all the same.
If you actually give a rat's ass about preventing such incidents in the future... forget the damned scapegoats. Forget trying to appease the opportunists - they don't fucking deserve it.
Instead, look closer to the attacker. What would motivate someone to do this? Was he abused? If so, I doubt we'll ever hear about it... while I do support single moms, I also know from personal experience that there are some who get a lot more praise than they deserve. Was he bullied? Good chance of it. Again though, nobody is likely to come forward with such info. Anyone try to reach out to him? Of course, a lot of people will say they did. And who the hell neglected to pay attention to his cries for help beforehand?
Oh, what's that? People say there weren't any cries for help? Seems to me that he was rather twitchy and isolated. Are those not cries for help? How did those around him respond to him? Gossiping, calling him creepy? Circulating some rumors? You know, I recall those who knew him saying they weren't really surprised. Did they stand and gawk? Do you really think that someone goes on a suicidal rampage without making a few cries for help first?
None of that justifies what he did. Were I there, I would have put him down myself. What I'm pointing out is what the opportunists are ignoring. No, no... nothing to see here. Just keep focused on those scary guns. Don't pay any attention to the man behind the guns. He's such a great guy to give the anti-gun opportunists so much fuel, isn't he? I wonder if they are thanking god for him and the dead children much like Westboro thanks god for dead soldiers.
Who the hell am I to call out society like this? I'm one of those bullying and abuse victims. A son of a single mother who would hit me, insult me, demean me, and try to turn friends against me. One who would turn on the waterworks to sob about how she tried so hard with me, but the devil reached me through my music and the like. One who threw me under the bus to save face. One who made everyone think I was a lying brat. One who isolated me. One who made me an easy target for a molester.
I am not homicidal or anywhere near it... but I am one who slipped through the cracks and saw the grimy underside of society. That's who I am. That's why I can speak with some knowledge as to why these events happen. But again, few actually want to know. Not many people want to look inside themselves.
Politics and life
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
*Facepalm*
Let us all give a moment's silence for that delicious, slightly greasy, cream-filled sponge cake known as the Twinkie.
Yeah, I'll miss them every once in awhile.
But, as much as I believe unions are just as corrupt as those they theoretically protect us from, the blame for this does not rest on the unions. It does not rest on the 18,500 workers being laid off from Hostess.
I blame the leadership!
So... you go into a company that is supposedly already ailing, then the execs get nearly an 80% pay raise, and the CEO a 300% pay raise, and you can't afford to do jack shit for the workers? Then you blame them and the unions.
Bad leadership is easier to replace than one good, skilled worker. And this is 18,500 people out of a job because of a handful of greedy, already rich people boarding an already sinking ship and plundering it. They've got theirs, screw the workers.
So again, the rich people are whining about how they are suffering so much while they make themselves richer by screwing over the very people who got them there. Any of this sinking in yet?
Yeah, I'll miss them every once in awhile.
But, as much as I believe unions are just as corrupt as those they theoretically protect us from, the blame for this does not rest on the unions. It does not rest on the 18,500 workers being laid off from Hostess.
I blame the leadership!
So... you go into a company that is supposedly already ailing, then the execs get nearly an 80% pay raise, and the CEO a 300% pay raise, and you can't afford to do jack shit for the workers? Then you blame them and the unions.
Bad leadership is easier to replace than one good, skilled worker. And this is 18,500 people out of a job because of a handful of greedy, already rich people boarding an already sinking ship and plundering it. They've got theirs, screw the workers.
So again, the rich people are whining about how they are suffering so much while they make themselves richer by screwing over the very people who got them there. Any of this sinking in yet?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Tax Increase on the Wealthy
This probably won't be a long post, but I had a thought occur to me and nag at me just as I was on my way to bed after reading this article: Obama won't back down on raising taxes for the rich.
Basically, the taxes were lowered with an idea that it would "trickle-down." Doesn't seem like a bad idea, does it? Except that trickling down certainly wasn't a condition of being given said tax breaks. And the WTF moment comes when you realize that around this time, corporations were being given tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. Then it becomes very easy to question the benevolence of the tax breaks.
The deficit getting out of control the way it is can be attributed to any number of reasons. Government spending? Sure. Decrease in the value of a dollar? Why not. But, here's a big reason for you: less people are working, and more people are under-employed. Keep in mind that taxes are based on a percentage of one's income, and 15% of, say, $30,000 is less than 15% of, say, $50,000. And for the unemployed (as opposed to under-employed), 15% of 0 is 0.
But, the rich are doing just fine. They are holding onto their money and making record profits, and the stock market has done well in the recent years.
Hmm... people are profiting, but it's not making its way down to the middle class or poor, and we have a growing deficit which it is getting increasingly difficult to keep up with.
Here's the deal, wealthy people: either employ more people and pay better wages so that they can share the tax burden, or pay higher taxes yourself. Pick one. The ball is in your court.
Basically, the taxes were lowered with an idea that it would "trickle-down." Doesn't seem like a bad idea, does it? Except that trickling down certainly wasn't a condition of being given said tax breaks. And the WTF moment comes when you realize that around this time, corporations were being given tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. Then it becomes very easy to question the benevolence of the tax breaks.
The deficit getting out of control the way it is can be attributed to any number of reasons. Government spending? Sure. Decrease in the value of a dollar? Why not. But, here's a big reason for you: less people are working, and more people are under-employed. Keep in mind that taxes are based on a percentage of one's income, and 15% of, say, $30,000 is less than 15% of, say, $50,000. And for the unemployed (as opposed to under-employed), 15% of 0 is 0.
But, the rich are doing just fine. They are holding onto their money and making record profits, and the stock market has done well in the recent years.
Hmm... people are profiting, but it's not making its way down to the middle class or poor, and we have a growing deficit which it is getting increasingly difficult to keep up with.
Here's the deal, wealthy people: either employ more people and pay better wages so that they can share the tax burden, or pay higher taxes yourself. Pick one. The ball is in your court.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Rich People Problems
So, Obama is president for another four years. Predictably, there are a bunch of blowhards talking about leaving the US, seceding from the US, or even assassination or armed Revolution. For my part, I'm happy to see him re-elected. In doing so, it's possible that we staved off an armed revolution. Romney would have continued and likely strengthened the policies that were inching us closer and closer to one.
The fact is that we are dangerously close to the same circumstances that did cause the American revolution. We probably have been closer in the past, such as perhaps in the Great Depression, or maybe before the birth of labor unions. But that doesn't change the fact now - the only thing that's changed is the people's willingness to take up arms compared to in the past. But what has also changed is how quickly and widespread information travels.
But let me go back to how close we are to the same circumstances that led to the Revolution. I've spoken before about the East India Company, and its role in the actual Boston Tea Party, and thus, in the American Revolution as a whole. To review, the East India Company had gotten so big that it pretty much owned the British monarchy. They had bought representation, had their own private armies, you name it. So, they had gotten too big for their britches and were about to crash. The monarchy took the taxes off tea from the East India Company while leaving taxes on all competitors' tea. A corporate tax break and a bailout at the cost of all smaller competitors.
Next, we have whining like this:
"People who don't have money don't understand the stress."
...and this:
Papa John's CEO says he'll cut hours in response to Obama being re-elected.
I mean, really? His own math comes out to a cost of fourteen cents per pizza. Big deal... I can dig fourteen cents out of my couch cushions. And have you seen the guy's house?
Casa de Papa John
I won't pick on Papa John too much here, partially because I do love their pizza, but mostly because he isn't the exception, he's actually a good example of the norm in corporate whining.
Call it class warfare if you want... but the fact is that in America, there weren't supposed to be any firm social classes. Remember that part about "no titles of nobility" in the Constitution? Well, we do have those again... just without the official titles. The rich are making sure they stay rich, regardless of whether they are successful or failures. And if they are failures, it's the ones under them who suffer. It's the ones below them who lose their jobs and all sense of financial security. The guy may as well have said, "you peasants don't understand our sacrifices!"
And that mentality is pervading the Republican Party right now.
A Rush Limbaugh rant.
If you're reading the news, it also seems they're trying to find new ways (or revive old ways) of keeping people who don't side with them from voting.
Supreme Court to hear challenge to the Voter Rights Act.
Scared yet? There may be good reason to be at this point, and I don't say that often.
The people have spoken decisively - we prefer Obama's approach over that of the Republicans. The Republicans don't care - they still want things done their way, and only their way. They say the common person is not educated enough to know what's best. Again, that sounds like something we'd hear from a monarchy, not a democracy (or even a representative republic). The rich are basically locking themselves into that status, as though a title of nobility, and are not downwardly mobile. Only upward. Everyone else can go up or down, and that's just capitalism. The rich ones get the bailouts and golden parachutes if they fail. The regular people just get walking orders and maybe unemployment checks.
The fact is that we are dangerously close to the same circumstances that did cause the American revolution. We probably have been closer in the past, such as perhaps in the Great Depression, or maybe before the birth of labor unions. But that doesn't change the fact now - the only thing that's changed is the people's willingness to take up arms compared to in the past. But what has also changed is how quickly and widespread information travels.
But let me go back to how close we are to the same circumstances that led to the Revolution. I've spoken before about the East India Company, and its role in the actual Boston Tea Party, and thus, in the American Revolution as a whole. To review, the East India Company had gotten so big that it pretty much owned the British monarchy. They had bought representation, had their own private armies, you name it. So, they had gotten too big for their britches and were about to crash. The monarchy took the taxes off tea from the East India Company while leaving taxes on all competitors' tea. A corporate tax break and a bailout at the cost of all smaller competitors.
Next, we have whining like this:
"People who don't have money don't understand the stress."
...and this:
Papa John's CEO says he'll cut hours in response to Obama being re-elected.
I mean, really? His own math comes out to a cost of fourteen cents per pizza. Big deal... I can dig fourteen cents out of my couch cushions. And have you seen the guy's house?
Casa de Papa John
I won't pick on Papa John too much here, partially because I do love their pizza, but mostly because he isn't the exception, he's actually a good example of the norm in corporate whining.
Call it class warfare if you want... but the fact is that in America, there weren't supposed to be any firm social classes. Remember that part about "no titles of nobility" in the Constitution? Well, we do have those again... just without the official titles. The rich are making sure they stay rich, regardless of whether they are successful or failures. And if they are failures, it's the ones under them who suffer. It's the ones below them who lose their jobs and all sense of financial security. The guy may as well have said, "you peasants don't understand our sacrifices!"
And that mentality is pervading the Republican Party right now.
A Rush Limbaugh rant.
If you're reading the news, it also seems they're trying to find new ways (or revive old ways) of keeping people who don't side with them from voting.
Supreme Court to hear challenge to the Voter Rights Act.
Scared yet? There may be good reason to be at this point, and I don't say that often.
The people have spoken decisively - we prefer Obama's approach over that of the Republicans. The Republicans don't care - they still want things done their way, and only their way. They say the common person is not educated enough to know what's best. Again, that sounds like something we'd hear from a monarchy, not a democracy (or even a representative republic). The rich are basically locking themselves into that status, as though a title of nobility, and are not downwardly mobile. Only upward. Everyone else can go up or down, and that's just capitalism. The rich ones get the bailouts and golden parachutes if they fail. The regular people just get walking orders and maybe unemployment checks.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Obama won! But what does eet mean, man!?
Well, if you ask Fox News, it means that mainstream media (except for Fox News, of course - they're the only ones we can trust) has brainwashed us into a bunch of sheep, bleeting praises of Obama, and that it's the end of America as we know it. If you ask Rush Limbaugh, it means the rich, white men are being oppressed and all the people waiting in line for government handouts (the 47%?) tipped the scales for Obama... and oh yeah, it's the end of America as we know it.
Apparently, Wall Street feels much the same, as the stock market took a dive. I'm anticipating it to continue to dive a bit further down and bottom out for a few weeks, maybe a couple months, then start to go back up as people get tired of not making money. Keep in mind that the market was doing the best it had in a long time under Obama's watch.
Right now, think of Republicans as sullen children who refuse to play with the other kids, because the other kids won't bow to their rules. "No fair! You're cheating! I'm not playing anymore!" Much like in said scenario, the Republicans will get bored if largely ignored and start playing again. Meanwhile, I see Wall Street as a buyer's market. I bought some shares last night, actually. If you want to join in the fun, I actually use and recommend sharebuilder.com. Pretty simple and straightforward, not a lot of bullshit, and I've been using them and trusting them for years. And no, as far as I know, they're not paying me to plug them... although I quite honestly would accept it if they did.
Here's what it actually means: another four years of Obama. Some things will change - I like that he's come out in support of same-sex marriage. And he does seem to be on the right track economically, if the Republicans would stop their obstructionism. On the other hand, some things won't change. I don't like that he's kept quiet about the issues I really want him to address: things like NDAA and the Patriot Act. They need to go - sooner rather than later. But, it's not the end of the world. It wouldn't even be the end of the world if Romney was elected (although I probably would be pissed - I really don't want the fifties to make a comeback)
Obama's not perfect; I don't see him as anything resembling a messiah. But, he's a smart guy with good intentions. I'm sure Romney had good intentions too, at least from his own point of view... but as I've said, he is painfully out of touch. And it seems that the Republican party as a whole... well, any moderate voices have been drowned out by the extremists. And I'm also not saying that all who oppose Obama are racist, but I damn well know there wouldn't be this much fuss about him if he was white, or his name didn't sound middle-eastern.
Anyway, I hope that now the Republicans can settle down and actually play nice with the other side of the aisle, as they took a hell of a beating last night... but I'm not counting on it. Please, please prove me wrong, Republicans.
Of course, the other possibility is a cheerful one: people get pissed about the extremism and whining from the Republicans, they fall into third party status, and the Libertarians step up in their place. Gary Johnson 2016!!! Hey, I can dream... and it is doable.
Apparently, Wall Street feels much the same, as the stock market took a dive. I'm anticipating it to continue to dive a bit further down and bottom out for a few weeks, maybe a couple months, then start to go back up as people get tired of not making money. Keep in mind that the market was doing the best it had in a long time under Obama's watch.
Right now, think of Republicans as sullen children who refuse to play with the other kids, because the other kids won't bow to their rules. "No fair! You're cheating! I'm not playing anymore!" Much like in said scenario, the Republicans will get bored if largely ignored and start playing again. Meanwhile, I see Wall Street as a buyer's market. I bought some shares last night, actually. If you want to join in the fun, I actually use and recommend sharebuilder.com. Pretty simple and straightforward, not a lot of bullshit, and I've been using them and trusting them for years. And no, as far as I know, they're not paying me to plug them... although I quite honestly would accept it if they did.
Here's what it actually means: another four years of Obama. Some things will change - I like that he's come out in support of same-sex marriage. And he does seem to be on the right track economically, if the Republicans would stop their obstructionism. On the other hand, some things won't change. I don't like that he's kept quiet about the issues I really want him to address: things like NDAA and the Patriot Act. They need to go - sooner rather than later. But, it's not the end of the world. It wouldn't even be the end of the world if Romney was elected (although I probably would be pissed - I really don't want the fifties to make a comeback)
Obama's not perfect; I don't see him as anything resembling a messiah. But, he's a smart guy with good intentions. I'm sure Romney had good intentions too, at least from his own point of view... but as I've said, he is painfully out of touch. And it seems that the Republican party as a whole... well, any moderate voices have been drowned out by the extremists. And I'm also not saying that all who oppose Obama are racist, but I damn well know there wouldn't be this much fuss about him if he was white, or his name didn't sound middle-eastern.
Anyway, I hope that now the Republicans can settle down and actually play nice with the other side of the aisle, as they took a hell of a beating last night... but I'm not counting on it. Please, please prove me wrong, Republicans.
Of course, the other possibility is a cheerful one: people get pissed about the extremism and whining from the Republicans, they fall into third party status, and the Libertarians step up in their place. Gary Johnson 2016!!! Hey, I can dream... and it is doable.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Election Day
While I was watching the news and Family Guy tonight, I noticed that it seemed like every single commercial was campaign stuff, back-to-back. It all followed a certain pattern: if it was local, it was about who spent the most time in the area, who grew up where, who hated/loved their hometowns, who was more corrupt. I even saw one local ad making issue of the fact the opponent had never married. That's getting rather personal and frivolous, in my opinion.
On the national level, the biggest issue of choice more predictably is the economy. I really wish I saw more about how Obama broke his promise on killing the Patriot Act... but of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by the Republicans, who introduced it and signed it into law. The ones who rightfully would make issue of it were never taken seriously by the media: the Libertarians.
Between the Democrats and Republicans, I find myself siding more with the Democrats. And ultimately, that's who I voted for (my state has early voting): Obama. Contrary to what Republicans would have us believe, he's proven himself a moderate. Perhaps too much for my liking. That's not to say I want an extreme liberal - I do not. What I want is a leader who keeps promises, stands up for what's right, and won't make the country move backwards. Obama has tried, although like I said, I'm deeply disappointed in him for the Patriot Act and NDAA.
I think I've mentioned before that the one and only reason my vote went to Obama instead of Johnson is because I want the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to have a chance to work.
Meanwhile, the Republican ads are reminding me of that one relative or frienemy that we all have. You know the one - they preach responsibility while doing every stupid and irresponsible thing you can imagine, and are probably on welfare while they do so. Nothing against welfare, but to preach responsibility while using welfare like a piggy bank... yeah. Pretty hypocritical.
You see, the Republicans have consistently increased government spending. While increasing spending, they cut taxes, particularly on the rich. This sounds nice, I guess. Work less, spend more.
That's exactly what it is. And we know as working Americans that this doesn't work. Bush started his presidency with tax rebates, tax cuts, followed by a war on two fronts, more tax cuts, and I think more rebates. That there's some "fuzzy math." And this is the party of fiscal responsibility? Really?
Come on, I like keeping my money just as much as anyone else. But, if I get a flat tire on my car, it has to be fixed, and I have to pay for it. Similarly, the government does provide services on a wide range of things. To break it down in private sector terms, the government provides security, insurance, transportation, infrastructure, etc. And as with the private sector, it's not free. Unless you want to tell a soldier why you don't think he deserves a paycheck or healthcare.
We all get several benefits from taxes that we take so much for granted that we don't even see them. And even if such benefits are pointed out to many nay-sayers, they will childishly say, "well, I don't benefit from it," or "I didn't ask for it."
Well, that's the way things work. With Hurricane Sandy, I didn't see any Republicans turning down help from the government. Even Chris Christie was happy to accept help, even going so far as to thank Obama. That took a lot of guts (and I will refrain from making a joke about Christie's ample gut... or does that in itself count as one? Damn). Of course, the more partisan Republicans (and Fox News) turned on him for doing so. But, let's be honest: these same ones that were graciously accepting help were griping about such government programs a month or so earlier. Wasn't Romney wanting to privatize and profit off emergency response stuff?
How does one profit off this? By gouging those who already lost everything?
Anyway, this is the start of election day. If you can do so, vote. Vote your conscience, and know the truth.
On the national level, the biggest issue of choice more predictably is the economy. I really wish I saw more about how Obama broke his promise on killing the Patriot Act... but of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by the Republicans, who introduced it and signed it into law. The ones who rightfully would make issue of it were never taken seriously by the media: the Libertarians.
Between the Democrats and Republicans, I find myself siding more with the Democrats. And ultimately, that's who I voted for (my state has early voting): Obama. Contrary to what Republicans would have us believe, he's proven himself a moderate. Perhaps too much for my liking. That's not to say I want an extreme liberal - I do not. What I want is a leader who keeps promises, stands up for what's right, and won't make the country move backwards. Obama has tried, although like I said, I'm deeply disappointed in him for the Patriot Act and NDAA.
I think I've mentioned before that the one and only reason my vote went to Obama instead of Johnson is because I want the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to have a chance to work.
Meanwhile, the Republican ads are reminding me of that one relative or frienemy that we all have. You know the one - they preach responsibility while doing every stupid and irresponsible thing you can imagine, and are probably on welfare while they do so. Nothing against welfare, but to preach responsibility while using welfare like a piggy bank... yeah. Pretty hypocritical.
You see, the Republicans have consistently increased government spending. While increasing spending, they cut taxes, particularly on the rich. This sounds nice, I guess. Work less, spend more.
That's exactly what it is. And we know as working Americans that this doesn't work. Bush started his presidency with tax rebates, tax cuts, followed by a war on two fronts, more tax cuts, and I think more rebates. That there's some "fuzzy math." And this is the party of fiscal responsibility? Really?
Come on, I like keeping my money just as much as anyone else. But, if I get a flat tire on my car, it has to be fixed, and I have to pay for it. Similarly, the government does provide services on a wide range of things. To break it down in private sector terms, the government provides security, insurance, transportation, infrastructure, etc. And as with the private sector, it's not free. Unless you want to tell a soldier why you don't think he deserves a paycheck or healthcare.
We all get several benefits from taxes that we take so much for granted that we don't even see them. And even if such benefits are pointed out to many nay-sayers, they will childishly say, "well, I don't benefit from it," or "I didn't ask for it."
Well, that's the way things work. With Hurricane Sandy, I didn't see any Republicans turning down help from the government. Even Chris Christie was happy to accept help, even going so far as to thank Obama. That took a lot of guts (and I will refrain from making a joke about Christie's ample gut... or does that in itself count as one? Damn). Of course, the more partisan Republicans (and Fox News) turned on him for doing so. But, let's be honest: these same ones that were graciously accepting help were griping about such government programs a month or so earlier. Wasn't Romney wanting to privatize and profit off emergency response stuff?
How does one profit off this? By gouging those who already lost everything?
Anyway, this is the start of election day. If you can do so, vote. Vote your conscience, and know the truth.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Voter Intimidation
Romney tells employers how to threaten employees with lay-offs if Obama wins.
Anyone else see a proposal that employers be entitled to vote on behalf of their employees in the not-to-distant future? "...but the workers don't understand what's best for them."
Anyone else see a proposal that employers be entitled to vote on behalf of their employees in the not-to-distant future? "...but the workers don't understand what's best for them."
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Media Bias
I won't bullshit here - media bias is a real thing. And not just in Fox News. It'd be impossible to enforce a rule that the media must report without bias. The media can happily have whatever bias they please. They can do this overtly, or covertly through more subtle means, such as choosing what to report on, or choices of words used when reporting. However, they generally are not allowed to outright lie, else they do risk legal consequences - libel and the like.
The more often complained about bias is that of the "liberal media." I have seen some things to support such a claim, although it's often debatable as to whether it's actual bias, or simply trolling for ratings. Or sometimes, such perceived bias is actually a sense of common decency. People who think of war as a feel-good family show aren't going to want to see pictures of the actual carnage and destruction, along with the very human faces of those suffering the most from it. Therefore, news stories such as that might be painted as having a liberal bias, as many of today's conservatives choose to see the "enemies" as less than human.
Nonetheless, the media bias in this election cycle, as well as the accusations of such, have been amusing to say the least. Quoting Romney is now "liberal bias" coming from the media. One wouldn't expect that from a supposedly conservative candidate, but hey - I'm just a know-nothing know-it-all hack with a blog. What do I know?
On the other hand, we have everyone's favorite, Fox News! They're fair and balanced. It says so right in their logo, so it has to be true. I was watching them scramble on their website to fact check and somehow discredit Obama. I also heard that Fox News is blaming Romney's loss of the debate on the audience. Aren't they the ones the debate is supposed to be about? I haven't found mention of this on the Fox News website, though.
One thing that just rubs me wrong, though. Romney's opportunism as far as the Libya thing. First of all, it's never right to use a tragedy for political gain. This is why I was pissed off at Bush well before the 2004 election came. Anyway, the complaint didn't even have real substance to it - there was so much made of whether or not Obama labeled it as a terror attack fast enough. First of all, yes, he did do so in that speech in the rose garden, although Fox News says that's debatable.
Next, though... what the fuck does it matter? Seriously. People were killed. Does calling it a terrorist attack make them any less dead? It seems like Romney's camp is doing its best to harp on about gestures. Personally, I like my leaders to be more concerned with action rather than getting in a pissing contest over who feels more tragic anguish over such a thing.
But, maybe it's the best the Romney camp has to offer. "Gee, I won't get anything done, but I'll sure do my best to convince you that I cry myself to sleep over it!"
The more often complained about bias is that of the "liberal media." I have seen some things to support such a claim, although it's often debatable as to whether it's actual bias, or simply trolling for ratings. Or sometimes, such perceived bias is actually a sense of common decency. People who think of war as a feel-good family show aren't going to want to see pictures of the actual carnage and destruction, along with the very human faces of those suffering the most from it. Therefore, news stories such as that might be painted as having a liberal bias, as many of today's conservatives choose to see the "enemies" as less than human.
Nonetheless, the media bias in this election cycle, as well as the accusations of such, have been amusing to say the least. Quoting Romney is now "liberal bias" coming from the media. One wouldn't expect that from a supposedly conservative candidate, but hey - I'm just a know-nothing know-it-all hack with a blog. What do I know?
On the other hand, we have everyone's favorite, Fox News! They're fair and balanced. It says so right in their logo, so it has to be true. I was watching them scramble on their website to fact check and somehow discredit Obama. I also heard that Fox News is blaming Romney's loss of the debate on the audience. Aren't they the ones the debate is supposed to be about? I haven't found mention of this on the Fox News website, though.
One thing that just rubs me wrong, though. Romney's opportunism as far as the Libya thing. First of all, it's never right to use a tragedy for political gain. This is why I was pissed off at Bush well before the 2004 election came. Anyway, the complaint didn't even have real substance to it - there was so much made of whether or not Obama labeled it as a terror attack fast enough. First of all, yes, he did do so in that speech in the rose garden, although Fox News says that's debatable.
Next, though... what the fuck does it matter? Seriously. People were killed. Does calling it a terrorist attack make them any less dead? It seems like Romney's camp is doing its best to harp on about gestures. Personally, I like my leaders to be more concerned with action rather than getting in a pissing contest over who feels more tragic anguish over such a thing.
But, maybe it's the best the Romney camp has to offer. "Gee, I won't get anything done, but I'll sure do my best to convince you that I cry myself to sleep over it!"
Thursday, October 4, 2012
How disappointing...
Chick-fil-A still using bible to justify hate, your money to fund it.
Guess my money's going elsewhere.
Guess my money's going elsewhere.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Breast Cancer Awareness
I have to wonder... what's the point of an awareness campaign if you post a bunch of vague, nonsensical stuff on Facebook in the intention of being secretive, and perhaps excluding a whole gender? To me, that seems counter-productive and even childish. It does little or nothing to raise awareness and has more the feel of junior high school girls making up secrets just to annoy the guys.
For those wondering, if you're seeing strange Facebook statuses, usually with numbers, it's probably part of the awareness thing. For instance, a recent one is "x inches :-(". The x is to be replaced by the person's shoe size. In the name of breast cancer awareness. I could see how a bra size might be relevant, but...?
Anyway, I do fully support breast cancer awareness, along with awareness of any cancer. And while I do think that breast cancer perhaps gets a disproportionate amount of attention, I'm not going to make this a battle of the sexes thing. By all means, save the boobies!
With all the attention, it becomes increasingly easy to contribute. If you like yogurt (yes, I'm manly enough to admit I love the stuff, at least in some flavors), Yoplait is running their Save Lids to Save Lives campaign. Real simple - just buy yogurt, eat it, then go to the website, enter your e-mail address, zip code, and the code on the underside of the lids. For each code submitted, they contribute ten cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Not my favorite foundation after they've chosen to end their partnership with Planned Parenthood... I'm aware of the politics, but it was mutually beneficial. Planned Parenthood provides a lot of women's health services. But anyway, it's not going to hurt. You aren't contributing to the Westboro Baptist Church or the Romney Campaign or anything like that. If you're aware of other good breast cancer groups, by all means, name them in the comments.
And women, get screened. After all...
For those wondering, if you're seeing strange Facebook statuses, usually with numbers, it's probably part of the awareness thing. For instance, a recent one is "x inches :-(". The x is to be replaced by the person's shoe size. In the name of breast cancer awareness. I could see how a bra size might be relevant, but...?
Anyway, I do fully support breast cancer awareness, along with awareness of any cancer. And while I do think that breast cancer perhaps gets a disproportionate amount of attention, I'm not going to make this a battle of the sexes thing. By all means, save the boobies!
With all the attention, it becomes increasingly easy to contribute. If you like yogurt (yes, I'm manly enough to admit I love the stuff, at least in some flavors), Yoplait is running their Save Lids to Save Lives campaign. Real simple - just buy yogurt, eat it, then go to the website, enter your e-mail address, zip code, and the code on the underside of the lids. For each code submitted, they contribute ten cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Not my favorite foundation after they've chosen to end their partnership with Planned Parenthood... I'm aware of the politics, but it was mutually beneficial. Planned Parenthood provides a lot of women's health services. But anyway, it's not going to hurt. You aren't contributing to the Westboro Baptist Church or the Romney Campaign or anything like that. If you're aware of other good breast cancer groups, by all means, name them in the comments.
And women, get screened. After all...
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Dafuq!?
Sigh... Okay, I'd never intended to go on about celebrities in this blog, but I'd say that this does warrant a mention in my blog, as it's something I'd meant to address for quite awhile now.
Pasta-loving Lady Gaga puts on 25 pounds.
Dafuq!?
Okay, I'm not particularly a Lady Gaga fan... that is to say, I don't have any of her CD's, nor are there at present any songs of hers in my iTunes. But I do generally enjoy her music when I hear it. The lyrics are intelligently written and have a depth uncommon in much of today's pop music, and I especially like how out-spoken she is on the issues.
But what this post is about is going to be body image issues... and how society is fucking up generations of people, women and men.
But, I digress. Let's take a look at Lady Gaga. This picture is from 2011, before the weight gain:
...and here she is with some meat on her bones (pun intended):
Now, Lady Gaga is so kind as to not overdress so that we may fullyadmire analyze her body on this subject. Purely analytical. Yeah. Now, I'm not so sure about the meat-wrapping... but to me, she is still as hot as ever. But, it's in the news as some kind of world-changing, life-altering event. But she still is, and always will be Lady Gaga - the musician, the advocate, and the beauty.
The problem is that society's idea of beauty is such that people should be popped out of a mold. Society as a whole doesn't seem to appreciate beauty in uniqueness, but in sameness. And Lady Gaga, except for being skinny, never really fit that mold. She was never really the empty-headed pop star, staying close to the edge but never really crossing it, that society has come to appreciate. She jumped off that edge. Early on, a lot of half-wits were suggesting that she was in fact a he. Considering that she doesn't seem to own a single pair of pants, I'd say such an assertion is easily debunked.
Now, I'm only using her as an example, so let's step away from the Gaga.
You're still looking for dirty pictures of her on Google, aren't ya?
Well dammit, at least wipe the keyboard!
Anyway, we see it all the damned time. First, it was the models. Okay, we know that those are "beautiful people." Regardless, more and more people started measuring themselves by models' standards. Obviously, that didn't work out so well. Then other people measuring them up to models' standards. Again, didn't work out so well.
The media started outright saying that if we didn't look like those models, we were grossly obese. We started seeing all kinds of articles with titles like "the Girth of a Nation." Articles from sources that people trust were now calling them fat, disgusting slobs.
Of course, like I often say, this is nothing new. We've been seeing the body image issues being passed down from generation to generation... just that now, it's getting especially vicious. We see concern-trolling mothers telling their daughters that they're just so worried that they seem to be putting on a couple pounds, or not losing those couple pounds. If you mention your body image issues to a doctor or even to a psychiatrist, rather than telling you to first learn to love the body you have, they give you exercise and diet advice. Understandable if the weight is a real health issue... heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I'm specifically talking about ideas of what beauty is. And the ones giving the exercise or diet advice don't even realize that they're contributing to the problem. The psychiatrists/counselors in particular, their area of expertise is supposed to be mental illness and emotional healing. By giving exercise and dieting advice to a patient with body image issues, they are only validating the issues.
I've seen cases where a girl is hospitalized for starving herself almost to death, and those closest to her are saying things like, "but I don't understand - she was doing so well!" Obviously not. Obviously there's a big problem here.
Then there's the idea that models are no different from anyone else; if they can do it, so can we. Perhaps true, but not without some major risks. Eating disorders are fairly routine in the modeling industry and quietly encouraged. I hear of models going on all-liquid diets. A friend of mine who used to be in modeling has said that watching a certain popular fashion show has made her regret every carb she ever ate. Last I knew, this friend was already a size 4 with a body most women would kill for, but she's still not happy.
I do have to give Lady Gaga props for this: Lady Gaga has no intention of dieting to combat weight gain, wants fans to love themselves for what they are.
Sounds good to me.
Pasta-loving Lady Gaga puts on 25 pounds.
Dafuq!?
Okay, I'm not particularly a Lady Gaga fan... that is to say, I don't have any of her CD's, nor are there at present any songs of hers in my iTunes. But I do generally enjoy her music when I hear it. The lyrics are intelligently written and have a depth uncommon in much of today's pop music, and I especially like how out-spoken she is on the issues.
But what this post is about is going to be body image issues... and how society is fucking up generations of people, women and men.
But, I digress. Let's take a look at Lady Gaga. This picture is from 2011, before the weight gain:
...and here she is with some meat on her bones (pun intended):
Now, Lady Gaga is so kind as to not overdress so that we may fully
The problem is that society's idea of beauty is such that people should be popped out of a mold. Society as a whole doesn't seem to appreciate beauty in uniqueness, but in sameness. And Lady Gaga, except for being skinny, never really fit that mold. She was never really the empty-headed pop star, staying close to the edge but never really crossing it, that society has come to appreciate. She jumped off that edge. Early on, a lot of half-wits were suggesting that she was in fact a he. Considering that she doesn't seem to own a single pair of pants, I'd say such an assertion is easily debunked.
Now, I'm only using her as an example, so let's step away from the Gaga.
You're still looking for dirty pictures of her on Google, aren't ya?
Well dammit, at least wipe the keyboard!
Anyway, we see it all the damned time. First, it was the models. Okay, we know that those are "beautiful people." Regardless, more and more people started measuring themselves by models' standards. Obviously, that didn't work out so well. Then other people measuring them up to models' standards. Again, didn't work out so well.
The media started outright saying that if we didn't look like those models, we were grossly obese. We started seeing all kinds of articles with titles like "the Girth of a Nation." Articles from sources that people trust were now calling them fat, disgusting slobs.
Of course, like I often say, this is nothing new. We've been seeing the body image issues being passed down from generation to generation... just that now, it's getting especially vicious. We see concern-trolling mothers telling their daughters that they're just so worried that they seem to be putting on a couple pounds, or not losing those couple pounds. If you mention your body image issues to a doctor or even to a psychiatrist, rather than telling you to first learn to love the body you have, they give you exercise and diet advice. Understandable if the weight is a real health issue... heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I'm specifically talking about ideas of what beauty is. And the ones giving the exercise or diet advice don't even realize that they're contributing to the problem. The psychiatrists/counselors in particular, their area of expertise is supposed to be mental illness and emotional healing. By giving exercise and dieting advice to a patient with body image issues, they are only validating the issues.
I've seen cases where a girl is hospitalized for starving herself almost to death, and those closest to her are saying things like, "but I don't understand - she was doing so well!" Obviously not. Obviously there's a big problem here.
Then there's the idea that models are no different from anyone else; if they can do it, so can we. Perhaps true, but not without some major risks. Eating disorders are fairly routine in the modeling industry and quietly encouraged. I hear of models going on all-liquid diets. A friend of mine who used to be in modeling has said that watching a certain popular fashion show has made her regret every carb she ever ate. Last I knew, this friend was already a size 4 with a body most women would kill for, but she's still not happy.
I do have to give Lady Gaga props for this: Lady Gaga has no intention of dieting to combat weight gain, wants fans to love themselves for what they are.
Sounds good to me.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
We'll just leave that part out...
Thought for the night: just as Jesus would probably be pissed at the stuff being done in his name, this nation's founders would be pissed about the stuff their names are being attached to.
I'm still pissed about the TEA Partiers and their blatant ignorance to history. The original Tea Party (you know, that one back in the 1700's) wasn't because of being taxed too much. It was because of a big corporate tax break - the East India Company wasn't being taxed at all while everyone else still had to pay taxes. The corporation controlled the government.
Does any of this sound familiar? Corporations buying politicians? Whining for more and more corporate tax breaks? People getting pissed?
The irony is just wacky.
Meanwhile, while the corporations get more, the average American is getting less. The income gap continues to widen - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This isn't capitalism, it's greed!
And the ignorance isn't quite as complete as I wish it was. Ignorance in itself is forgivable, as the ignorant can be taught. However, there are instead active misinformation campaigns. The TEA Party of today kept trying to change Wikipedia to make history closer fit their view of things. Texas chooses to mostly leave Thomas Jefferson out of the curriculum because his views differ from their own as to what America is supposed to be.
History is being silenced. Just as many Christians shun the teachings of Jesus, many self-described patriots choose to shun the founders, only acknowledging the parts that fit their views. So the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 said that America was not in any sense founded on Christianity? That's fine, we'll leave that out of history lessons and make damned sure that "under god" stays in the pledge, and "in god we trust" stays on the currency. Corporate tax breaks were a big part of why we fought the Revolution? We'll just leave out that little detail and say it was because of taxes and tyranny.
If you care (and you damn well should), then it's your duty to make sure history is not silenced. Make no mistake, it is repeating itself. The only differences are in technology and in scale.
If I had a larger following and it didn't seem such a cliche, I'd be tempted to launch my own campaign to "take back the TEA Party," aimed at educating people as to what it was really about.
I'm still pissed about the TEA Partiers and their blatant ignorance to history. The original Tea Party (you know, that one back in the 1700's) wasn't because of being taxed too much. It was because of a big corporate tax break - the East India Company wasn't being taxed at all while everyone else still had to pay taxes. The corporation controlled the government.
Does any of this sound familiar? Corporations buying politicians? Whining for more and more corporate tax breaks? People getting pissed?
The irony is just wacky.
Meanwhile, while the corporations get more, the average American is getting less. The income gap continues to widen - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This isn't capitalism, it's greed!
And the ignorance isn't quite as complete as I wish it was. Ignorance in itself is forgivable, as the ignorant can be taught. However, there are instead active misinformation campaigns. The TEA Party of today kept trying to change Wikipedia to make history closer fit their view of things. Texas chooses to mostly leave Thomas Jefferson out of the curriculum because his views differ from their own as to what America is supposed to be.
History is being silenced. Just as many Christians shun the teachings of Jesus, many self-described patriots choose to shun the founders, only acknowledging the parts that fit their views. So the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 said that America was not in any sense founded on Christianity? That's fine, we'll leave that out of history lessons and make damned sure that "under god" stays in the pledge, and "in god we trust" stays on the currency. Corporate tax breaks were a big part of why we fought the Revolution? We'll just leave out that little detail and say it was because of taxes and tyranny.
If you care (and you damn well should), then it's your duty to make sure history is not silenced. Make no mistake, it is repeating itself. The only differences are in technology and in scale.
If I had a larger following and it didn't seem such a cliche, I'd be tempted to launch my own campaign to "take back the TEA Party," aimed at educating people as to what it was really about.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Bai Mai Stuff!!!
You may have noticed the little graphic there at the upper right hand corner. Yes, I have opened a CafePress store for this blog for the sole purpose of getting all your money spreading my ideas and promoting my blog. Hey, I am a capitalist after all. So since Dodge is being cheap and ignoring my repeated requests for that nice, black Challenger (come on, guys... I promise I'll keep shamelessly plugging you!), maybe you all can help toward that goal. I even put this one on a nice, easy to remove car magnet in case you're driving through Texas... or parts of Arizona.
Anyway, click on the "Bai Mai Stuff!!!" graphic, or there's this URL: http://www.cafepress.com/hackwithablog ... it's still under construction, but it's functional.
Anyway, click on the "Bai Mai Stuff!!!" graphic, or there's this URL: http://www.cafepress.com/hackwithablog ... it's still under construction, but it's functional.
Chick-fil-A (again)
Well, I actually got a happy bit of news today: Chick-fil-A agrees to stop funding anti-gay organizations. To me, this is great news, and having started my personal boycott on my own terms, I am now ending it on my own terms, assuming they don't do something else to piss me off. Dan Cathy, that means no more attaching your God's name to your homophobic sentiments. Also, it of course means keeping true to the agreement of no longer passing our money on to anti-gay groups. I won't begrudge people of their rights to their personal beliefs... but I do expect them to return the favor. I'll respect their beliefs as much as they respect everyone else's, and talking about God's judgement if you're anyone other than God is disrespectful. Be honest and identify it as your own judgement. I know, it lacks the convenient excuse of passing your prejudice on to a higher power, thereby avoiding responsibility... but if you actually believe in any god, one would think you'd be afraid to take it upon yourself to speak for Him.
As one might guess, some of the more fundamentalist Christians (probably the same ones who went in and said, "I support your company, because your company hates the gays") are pissed. Take a look at their Facebook page: Chick-fil-A on Facebook. The same Christians who were saying the boycott was childish and anti-capitalism are now talking about doing their own boycott.
Me, I don't care about whether the motive for the change of heart was a financial or moral one. First of all, I think it was the right choice. While I doubt Dan Cathy's personal views have changed, he's realized that people who disagree with him matter, too. This move demonstrates that fact. Next, bear in mind that not everyone who works for Chick-fil-A has shared his views. He doesn't speak for them - he's buying their time, not their souls.
Anyway, to show my support for their change in policy, I happily went over to one of their restaurants and had a couple sandwiches. I did miss that tasty food!
As one might guess, some of the more fundamentalist Christians (probably the same ones who went in and said, "I support your company, because your company hates the gays") are pissed. Take a look at their Facebook page: Chick-fil-A on Facebook. The same Christians who were saying the boycott was childish and anti-capitalism are now talking about doing their own boycott.
Me, I don't care about whether the motive for the change of heart was a financial or moral one. First of all, I think it was the right choice. While I doubt Dan Cathy's personal views have changed, he's realized that people who disagree with him matter, too. This move demonstrates that fact. Next, bear in mind that not everyone who works for Chick-fil-A has shared his views. He doesn't speak for them - he's buying their time, not their souls.
Anyway, to show my support for their change in policy, I happily went over to one of their restaurants and had a couple sandwiches. I did miss that tasty food!
Monday, September 17, 2012
"The Innocence of Muslims"
Well, after watching events unfold, I figured I'd weigh in on the situation with the American ambassador in Libya being killed. Romney wasted no time in taking advantage of the situation for political gain, something that even some of his fellow Republicans have tried to distance themselves from. Of course, Islamophobes see themselves as the big winners in this, despite the fact that most Muslims, while being very offended by the video in question, were quick to condemn the attack.
The video in question is titled "the Innocence of Muslims," and as I understand, YouTube is taking it down. I watched what I believe to be the video myself - it's about fourteen minutes, and has all the grace and reliability of a badly-made Nazi propaganda film against Jews. It basically goes over the old anti-Islam propaganda, then makes it more offensive with crappy acting telling a crappier story.
Here's the video for those curious. Watch it now, as I don't know how much longer it will remain on YouTube:
The importance of watching it is easily explained: much like the deniers of the holocaust, it seems some are already suggesting that this video never happened... like our old "friend," Rush Limbaugh.
I am not saying the attack was entirely because of the video. That may not even be the main reason behind it. But, if I were to make a similar anti-Christian video (and believe me, there is plenty of material in the Bible to be used for such a video), there'd be many calling for my death. And, it wouldn't be anything new to me. Not on this blog, but I have had death threats over religion on a number of occasions. For my insistence on keeping church and state separate. For my defending people of all faiths as a whole, and pointing out similarities between certain religions that they'd rather not think about. It's always, "but we're right and they're wrong!" Horse shit! Anyone who truly has faith in their own religion doesn't feel a need to make everyone else believe it. To need everyone else believe as you do implies one (or both) of two things: 1) you're insecure in your faith and need everyone else to do it, too, or 2) you're twisting a religion to your own beliefs to gain control and dominion. This goes for atheists or anti-theists, too.
Others are saying that we are blaming the victim in this. After all, we do respect freedom of speech, yes? And this video is only an exercise of such, yes? Well, that depends. I've often pointed out the double standards many hold when exercising freedom of speech. Consider that it's been determined that the Ku Klux Klan is protected by free speech. But what about the Black Panthers? The two really aren't any different. And of course we're well familiar with extremist Christians who say that anyone else asserting rights to their own beliefs are violating the Christians' rights.
But, if you announce you're going to go kill someone, the police will certainly have a talk with you about that. If you slander someone or print lies about them, you can be sued, to say the least. I think it would be interested if some of the minority religions actually did start suing Christian organizations and authors for libel. So basically, freedom of speech ends where you start infringing on the rights of others... whether it be threats or character assassination by lies. As such, yes, I believe that those who lie to incite violence (whether intended or not) do have some blood on their hands.
Personally, I say that the videos should be left up, simply because of the deniers already coming out. It's a reminder of the ignorance the Muslims are working against. Remember what I said about 9/11 being a wake-up call? Same with this - wake up!
All the bullshit aside, this is the work of extremists. If their motive was purely that video, well, that's about as pitiful as a constipated chihuahua. I doubt that's the case, though. Many people in the Middle East do like us to some extent - I hear the ambassador was actually well-liked in Libya. However, others see our presence as a violation of their sovereignty, and still others are merely desperate and easily fired up.
The video in question is titled "the Innocence of Muslims," and as I understand, YouTube is taking it down. I watched what I believe to be the video myself - it's about fourteen minutes, and has all the grace and reliability of a badly-made Nazi propaganda film against Jews. It basically goes over the old anti-Islam propaganda, then makes it more offensive with crappy acting telling a crappier story.
Here's the video for those curious. Watch it now, as I don't know how much longer it will remain on YouTube:
The importance of watching it is easily explained: much like the deniers of the holocaust, it seems some are already suggesting that this video never happened... like our old "friend," Rush Limbaugh.
I am not saying the attack was entirely because of the video. That may not even be the main reason behind it. But, if I were to make a similar anti-Christian video (and believe me, there is plenty of material in the Bible to be used for such a video), there'd be many calling for my death. And, it wouldn't be anything new to me. Not on this blog, but I have had death threats over religion on a number of occasions. For my insistence on keeping church and state separate. For my defending people of all faiths as a whole, and pointing out similarities between certain religions that they'd rather not think about. It's always, "but we're right and they're wrong!" Horse shit! Anyone who truly has faith in their own religion doesn't feel a need to make everyone else believe it. To need everyone else believe as you do implies one (or both) of two things: 1) you're insecure in your faith and need everyone else to do it, too, or 2) you're twisting a religion to your own beliefs to gain control and dominion. This goes for atheists or anti-theists, too.
Others are saying that we are blaming the victim in this. After all, we do respect freedom of speech, yes? And this video is only an exercise of such, yes? Well, that depends. I've often pointed out the double standards many hold when exercising freedom of speech. Consider that it's been determined that the Ku Klux Klan is protected by free speech. But what about the Black Panthers? The two really aren't any different. And of course we're well familiar with extremist Christians who say that anyone else asserting rights to their own beliefs are violating the Christians' rights.
But, if you announce you're going to go kill someone, the police will certainly have a talk with you about that. If you slander someone or print lies about them, you can be sued, to say the least. I think it would be interested if some of the minority religions actually did start suing Christian organizations and authors for libel. So basically, freedom of speech ends where you start infringing on the rights of others... whether it be threats or character assassination by lies. As such, yes, I believe that those who lie to incite violence (whether intended or not) do have some blood on their hands.
Personally, I say that the videos should be left up, simply because of the deniers already coming out. It's a reminder of the ignorance the Muslims are working against. Remember what I said about 9/11 being a wake-up call? Same with this - wake up!
All the bullshit aside, this is the work of extremists. If their motive was purely that video, well, that's about as pitiful as a constipated chihuahua. I doubt that's the case, though. Many people in the Middle East do like us to some extent - I hear the ambassador was actually well-liked in Libya. However, others see our presence as a violation of their sovereignty, and still others are merely desperate and easily fired up.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
"Corporations are People"
There is a trend on both sides that annoys me - if a candidate on the other side says something that sounds bad out of context, or sounds the least bit stupid, they latch onto it like a hungry snake. One that the left really latched onto is the, "corporations are people, my friend." Out of context, it sounds like a dumb out of touch rich guy (fair description of Romney, perhaps) saying quite literally that corporations as a whole deserve all the same rights as people.
That's not quite what he was saying, though. Let's put in the rest of what he said for context (thanks to Washington Post for the text):
“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”
That much is true. I won't argue that point. But, contrary to what Romney said, corporations indeed are not people. They are made of people, but in themselves are not people. What the businessmen built were not people, but businesses. Made of people, from the lowly customer service type people who will likely side with the ones who say they're underpaid (liberals) to the execs and business owners who will side with whoever will let them keep the larger portion of their wealth (conservatives) and everyone in-between.
What Romney was saying here was that giving tax cuts to a corporation is the same as giving tax cuts to people as a whole. I'm guessing that he figures it will trickle down. But, remember what I keep saying: the rich really like to just keep their money. Why trickle it down when they could just keep it instead? It's not like there's any limit on how much money they can have.
Yeah, they'll spend some money, and that will help keep other businesses in business... but in general, they will not hire more workers than they really have to, and they will not pay said workers much more than they have to. Raise the legal wages? Fine, they'll raise prices and lay off workers, then keep even more profits to themselves. That's the way it works. Trickle Down is a rotten lie. But, in general, the rich like it. It moves their responsibilities to a "good faith" footing.
Hey, Republicans - don't look at me like that. I said I was putting the quote in context, not that I was defending Romney.
That's not quite what he was saying, though. Let's put in the rest of what he said for context (thanks to Washington Post for the text):
“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”
That much is true. I won't argue that point. But, contrary to what Romney said, corporations indeed are not people. They are made of people, but in themselves are not people. What the businessmen built were not people, but businesses. Made of people, from the lowly customer service type people who will likely side with the ones who say they're underpaid (liberals) to the execs and business owners who will side with whoever will let them keep the larger portion of their wealth (conservatives) and everyone in-between.
What Romney was saying here was that giving tax cuts to a corporation is the same as giving tax cuts to people as a whole. I'm guessing that he figures it will trickle down. But, remember what I keep saying: the rich really like to just keep their money. Why trickle it down when they could just keep it instead? It's not like there's any limit on how much money they can have.
Yeah, they'll spend some money, and that will help keep other businesses in business... but in general, they will not hire more workers than they really have to, and they will not pay said workers much more than they have to. Raise the legal wages? Fine, they'll raise prices and lay off workers, then keep even more profits to themselves. That's the way it works. Trickle Down is a rotten lie. But, in general, the rich like it. It moves their responsibilities to a "good faith" footing.
Hey, Republicans - don't look at me like that. I said I was putting the quote in context, not that I was defending Romney.
The Obligatory 9/11 Post
I actually hadn't planned on doing a 9/11 post, and was leaning against doing so. Not because I don't care... but more for the same reason I dislike Valentine's Day and Christmas - as they have become overly-commercialized, 9/11 has become overly-politicized... well, perhaps it always has been rather than having become.
Shortly after it, in a surprisingly short time really, the Patriot Act was created. The name itself draws criticism to those who would oppose it, so most didn't even bother reading it - the nation was still in shock that we'd been attacked on our own soil. Historically, pretty rare. America has the luxury of only having two major nations nearby, along with a few smaller island nations. So we don't live under the constant threat of attack like many other nations, such as in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa. In parts of the Middle East or Africa, such attacks sometimes seem like an everyday occurrence. Often, we have a part in that fact. Many Americans cheer when they hear it. Then they don't understand how someone else can be pissed at us for it.
The fact is that many of us are ignorant. We don't pay attention to world events. We treat war like a football game - we wear our teams colors and cheer as the other guys get their butts kicked. I'd say that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, but I'm not sure that one in five could tell you about the six day war, or why the Palestinians would be pissed at them. I guess it's easier to cheer when you don't know the facts. It's much easier to say "bad guys/good guys" than it is to learn actual motives.
That said, 9/11 was definitely a tragedy. A lot of people died who didn't deserve to. I'm not going to play devil's advocate for bin Laden, he doesn't deserve it, and I'm glad he's finally out of the equation. There were a lot of heroes who risked and in many cases sacrificed their lives to save others. They won't be and shouldn't be forgotten.
On that same note though, let's see war and death for what it really is. It's pain, it's death. Those who have the least to lose are the most willing to die... think of the suicide bombers. Seriously, a vague promise of 72 virgins after death really wouldn't seem that appealing to someone enjoying life who isn't seeing death all around anyway. If you're going to die anyway, then why not with glory, right?
We should not surrender to or negotiate with terrorists. But, we also have to accept that people are going to be pissed when we ignorantly and unquestioningly cheer for foreign policy that affects them negatively. Learn the facts, then decide from there.
Shortly after it, in a surprisingly short time really, the Patriot Act was created. The name itself draws criticism to those who would oppose it, so most didn't even bother reading it - the nation was still in shock that we'd been attacked on our own soil. Historically, pretty rare. America has the luxury of only having two major nations nearby, along with a few smaller island nations. So we don't live under the constant threat of attack like many other nations, such as in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa. In parts of the Middle East or Africa, such attacks sometimes seem like an everyday occurrence. Often, we have a part in that fact. Many Americans cheer when they hear it. Then they don't understand how someone else can be pissed at us for it.
The fact is that many of us are ignorant. We don't pay attention to world events. We treat war like a football game - we wear our teams colors and cheer as the other guys get their butts kicked. I'd say that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, but I'm not sure that one in five could tell you about the six day war, or why the Palestinians would be pissed at them. I guess it's easier to cheer when you don't know the facts. It's much easier to say "bad guys/good guys" than it is to learn actual motives.
That said, 9/11 was definitely a tragedy. A lot of people died who didn't deserve to. I'm not going to play devil's advocate for bin Laden, he doesn't deserve it, and I'm glad he's finally out of the equation. There were a lot of heroes who risked and in many cases sacrificed their lives to save others. They won't be and shouldn't be forgotten.
On that same note though, let's see war and death for what it really is. It's pain, it's death. Those who have the least to lose are the most willing to die... think of the suicide bombers. Seriously, a vague promise of 72 virgins after death really wouldn't seem that appealing to someone enjoying life who isn't seeing death all around anyway. If you're going to die anyway, then why not with glory, right?
We should not surrender to or negotiate with terrorists. But, we also have to accept that people are going to be pissed when we ignorantly and unquestioningly cheer for foreign policy that affects them negatively. Learn the facts, then decide from there.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Living Wage
This is something that's been getting increasingly common, and is supported by liberals and hated by conservatives. For my part, I'm generally seen as fairly liberal, but I don't love it or hate it. The idea behind the living wage is pretty simple - some areas are more expensive to live in than others, so the federal minimum wage simply doesn't cut it. Of course, that is likely the case nationwide - that the federal minimum wage doesn't cut it. But, as I've said before, wage increases simply don't work like we'd like them to. Rather than execs or business owners taking a cut in their pay, they lay off workers and raise prices, thus causing more unemployment and higher cost of living across the board, thus being a self-perpetuating problem. It's ugly, but that's the way it works. A city raising its living wage also will encourage businesses to either open up just outside of town or to move just outside of town to avoid having to pay the living wage.
That is not to say however that current, even living wages, are sufficient to get by on, as many Republicans suggest. For my part, I live in the southwest, so that's the area I'm most familiar with. The federal minimum wage is, if memory serves, $7.50/hour. The Santa Fe living wage is $10.29/hour - the highest in the nation, or so I've heard. Now, Santa Fe has always had a high cost of living - that's no secret. A big part of it is that they have ordinances saying that it shall always remain a small city, no buildings over two or three stories without a special permit, that sort of thing. It's for the tourists.
So, let's do the math here:
$10.29/hour ˣ 40 hours per week = $411.60 per week, or if we go by the average 2 week pay period, $823.20 per pay period. Using two pay periods (4 weeks) to represent a month, as most bills are due monthly, that's $1,646.40 per month.
That's before taxes.
For filing single, the federal income tax looks to be about 15% in this bracket. So, $1,646.40 ˣ 0.15 = $246.96. So, we subtract that from our original figure: $1,646.40 - 246.96 = $1,399.44. But, we're not done yet. Let's look at the state income tax. The state income tax for New Mexico is 4.9%, so subtract 4.9% from the original figure: $1,646.40 ˣ 0.049 = $80.67, so let's go ahead and take that out of the $1,399.44 figure = $1,318.77. Looking around online, it seems that the Social Security withholding is 6.2%, although I think it's probably more. We'll go with the 6.2% though. $1,646.40 ˣ 0.062 = $102.08. So, let's take that out of the 1,318.77 = $1,216.69. There are other deductions, but the big three will work as a jumping-off point. We already know that Santa Fe has a high cost of living, so let's apply there living wage numbers to a nearby larger city with a lower cost of living. Because I have some experience with it, I'll use Albuquerque as an example.
I used to have a low income apartment there, where they got their profits in part from tax credits for providing the low income housing for qualified tenants. I was paying $600/month for a one-bedroom apartment, all utilities included. Not bad... so let's take that out of the $1.216.69 = $616.69. Me, I don't have car payments - my car was bought straight-away from a private individual rather than a dealership, and I get pretty reasonable mileage. But, if you have car payments, that can take anywhere from another $200-$400 out of that $616.69... and someone with this kind of income, well... often, the predatory types are the only ones who will sell a vaguely modern/reliable car to someone with this sort of income. Let's do kind of a conservative estimate and say payments are $250, and take that out of the remaining monthly income = $366.69. Insurance is probably another $70/month, roughly, so that brings us down to $296.69. $200 a month seems about right for groceries, right? Assuming one's not going on an all-Ramen/mac and cheese diet (really unhealthy). How about gas? Right now, it's about $3.70/gallon.
Well, with those figures, you'll be lucky to break even... that's assuming no incidentals, like medical bills, car repairs, etc. With those, hopefully you'll have some savings, but not too likely. Your option then is to get a roommate or to find a cheaper apartment. Like I said, that was already a low income apartment. Maybe find a studio? Maybe a cheaper part of town (like the war zone)? And roommates aren't often all that great, either. I've known best friends to turn into worst enemies for that.
"But minimum wage is just for people flipping burgers!" Not really. People working call centers/customer service make about that Santa Fe living wage. As do many people working in the medical field with "certified" or "assistant" in their titles - medical assistants, certified pharmacy techs, certified nurse's assistants, etc. They often have to take more than one job to make ends meet, and their hours don't always make it easy to plan around to have another job. Also think of your waitresses - they generally make below minimum wage (there are special exceptions for jobs that get tips), and survive off their tips. Bank tellers also make around that Santa Fe living wage.
Yet, with all that financial stress of their own, all these people are nonetheless expected to show up every day dressed nice and with a smile and cheerful attitude to help you out.
While a living wage is not the answer for the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts as well as toward the beginning of this post, I think that we do need to find an answer.
That is not to say however that current, even living wages, are sufficient to get by on, as many Republicans suggest. For my part, I live in the southwest, so that's the area I'm most familiar with. The federal minimum wage is, if memory serves, $7.50/hour. The Santa Fe living wage is $10.29/hour - the highest in the nation, or so I've heard. Now, Santa Fe has always had a high cost of living - that's no secret. A big part of it is that they have ordinances saying that it shall always remain a small city, no buildings over two or three stories without a special permit, that sort of thing. It's for the tourists.
So, let's do the math here:
$10.29/hour ˣ 40 hours per week = $411.60 per week, or if we go by the average 2 week pay period, $823.20 per pay period. Using two pay periods (4 weeks) to represent a month, as most bills are due monthly, that's $1,646.40 per month.
That's before taxes.
For filing single, the federal income tax looks to be about 15% in this bracket. So, $1,646.40 ˣ 0.15 = $246.96. So, we subtract that from our original figure: $1,646.40 - 246.96 = $1,399.44. But, we're not done yet. Let's look at the state income tax. The state income tax for New Mexico is 4.9%, so subtract 4.9% from the original figure: $1,646.40 ˣ 0.049 = $80.67, so let's go ahead and take that out of the $1,399.44 figure = $1,318.77. Looking around online, it seems that the Social Security withholding is 6.2%, although I think it's probably more. We'll go with the 6.2% though. $1,646.40 ˣ 0.062 = $102.08. So, let's take that out of the 1,318.77 = $1,216.69. There are other deductions, but the big three will work as a jumping-off point. We already know that Santa Fe has a high cost of living, so let's apply there living wage numbers to a nearby larger city with a lower cost of living. Because I have some experience with it, I'll use Albuquerque as an example.
I used to have a low income apartment there, where they got their profits in part from tax credits for providing the low income housing for qualified tenants. I was paying $600/month for a one-bedroom apartment, all utilities included. Not bad... so let's take that out of the $1.216.69 = $616.69. Me, I don't have car payments - my car was bought straight-away from a private individual rather than a dealership, and I get pretty reasonable mileage. But, if you have car payments, that can take anywhere from another $200-$400 out of that $616.69... and someone with this kind of income, well... often, the predatory types are the only ones who will sell a vaguely modern/reliable car to someone with this sort of income. Let's do kind of a conservative estimate and say payments are $250, and take that out of the remaining monthly income = $366.69. Insurance is probably another $70/month, roughly, so that brings us down to $296.69. $200 a month seems about right for groceries, right? Assuming one's not going on an all-Ramen/mac and cheese diet (really unhealthy). How about gas? Right now, it's about $3.70/gallon.
Well, with those figures, you'll be lucky to break even... that's assuming no incidentals, like medical bills, car repairs, etc. With those, hopefully you'll have some savings, but not too likely. Your option then is to get a roommate or to find a cheaper apartment. Like I said, that was already a low income apartment. Maybe find a studio? Maybe a cheaper part of town (like the war zone)? And roommates aren't often all that great, either. I've known best friends to turn into worst enemies for that.
"But minimum wage is just for people flipping burgers!" Not really. People working call centers/customer service make about that Santa Fe living wage. As do many people working in the medical field with "certified" or "assistant" in their titles - medical assistants, certified pharmacy techs, certified nurse's assistants, etc. They often have to take more than one job to make ends meet, and their hours don't always make it easy to plan around to have another job. Also think of your waitresses - they generally make below minimum wage (there are special exceptions for jobs that get tips), and survive off their tips. Bank tellers also make around that Santa Fe living wage.
Yet, with all that financial stress of their own, all these people are nonetheless expected to show up every day dressed nice and with a smile and cheerful attitude to help you out.
While a living wage is not the answer for the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts as well as toward the beginning of this post, I think that we do need to find an answer.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Have I gone nuts or something?
Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?
This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.
On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.
The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.
The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.
The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.
Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:
How the hell can I support Obamacare?
Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?
Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.
Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever.
As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.
I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?
This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.
On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.
The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.
The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.
The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.
Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:
How the hell can I support Obamacare?
Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?
Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.
Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever.
As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.
I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.
Friday, August 31, 2012
"You didn't build that"
This post was sparked in part by this article: "Drink less, work more," says heiress.
You see, that quote, "you didn't build that," that the Republicans are doing their damnedest to use against Obama is of course very much taken out of context. It doesn't mean they didn't build their businesses, it means they didn't get their on their own. The government does provide small business incentives, loans, grants and the like. Then there's the infrastructure that keeps your business in business. Then, if you aren't the only one working there, there's your employees. The construction workers who made your building, too. As for the grants, incentives, loans, infrastructure... guess where they come from? Taxes. Sure, no one likes to pay taxes... but then again, that shoplifter you just busted didn't want to pay your costs, either. Are you punishing the poor by busting that shoplifter? No. Just like we're not punishing the rich by asking they pay their share. They didn't get there on their own.
The simple fact is that no one does this work entirely by themselves. This would be particularly true of the mining heiress in the above linked article (though she isn't American, the point remains). She sure the hell didn't get there by herself - the key word is "heiress." And she's staying there on the backs of her workers, most of which she's never even met or seen the names of. It's especially easy for her to not know how hard it is to break through class barriers, because she was born to it.
Yes, it is possible for poor people to become rich. Very difficult, but possible. It's not about hating people for being rich. It's about people who are greedy. It's about people who don't want to pay their fair share, the same as the metaphorical shoplifter. Yet, many of the very rich are pushing for less environmental regulations and lowering their workers' minimum wages, all the while whining for more tax breaks. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer - but don't hate the rich, it's your own damn fault for being poor, right? Some of them have more in common with that shoplifter than they would care to admit.
You see, that quote, "you didn't build that," that the Republicans are doing their damnedest to use against Obama is of course very much taken out of context. It doesn't mean they didn't build their businesses, it means they didn't get their on their own. The government does provide small business incentives, loans, grants and the like. Then there's the infrastructure that keeps your business in business. Then, if you aren't the only one working there, there's your employees. The construction workers who made your building, too. As for the grants, incentives, loans, infrastructure... guess where they come from? Taxes. Sure, no one likes to pay taxes... but then again, that shoplifter you just busted didn't want to pay your costs, either. Are you punishing the poor by busting that shoplifter? No. Just like we're not punishing the rich by asking they pay their share. They didn't get there on their own.
The simple fact is that no one does this work entirely by themselves. This would be particularly true of the mining heiress in the above linked article (though she isn't American, the point remains). She sure the hell didn't get there by herself - the key word is "heiress." And she's staying there on the backs of her workers, most of which she's never even met or seen the names of. It's especially easy for her to not know how hard it is to break through class barriers, because she was born to it.
Yes, it is possible for poor people to become rich. Very difficult, but possible. It's not about hating people for being rich. It's about people who are greedy. It's about people who don't want to pay their fair share, the same as the metaphorical shoplifter. Yet, many of the very rich are pushing for less environmental regulations and lowering their workers' minimum wages, all the while whining for more tax breaks. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer - but don't hate the rich, it's your own damn fault for being poor, right? Some of them have more in common with that shoplifter than they would care to admit.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The "real" Tea Party
A lot on my mind tonight (or this morning) and perhaps I've had more home brewed beer and Irish whiskey than is good for me. Anyway, quick history lesson for those who don't know the whole story about the Boston Tea Party (something modern TEA Partiers often hide). The original Tea party was a response to a corporate tax break for a huge corporation that had gained control of the monarchy - the East India Company. You may recognize the name from the Pirates of the Carribean series, but make no mistake - it was a very real corporation, and they had a large role in the reason why America's founders decided revolution was justified.
You see, the English monarchy had exempted said corporation from taxes. But, they didn't exempt smaller businesses or individuals from taxes. This was obvious favoritism for those who could buy votes/representation, and it made smaller businesses unable to compete. Because they still had to pay taxes, their prices were no longer competitive. So, they threw the East India Company's tea into the harbor. This was true corporate government, as the monarchy was granting special favors. This is also something we see coming especially from the Republicans - "give more tax breaks!" they say. "Don't hate the rich" they say. "Don't turn this into class warfare!" they say.
They vilify anger and those who oppose them by throwing around terms that have become dirty words. "Class warfare." Really? Perhaps the "class warfare" has been around longer than they care to admit, and they throw this "dirty word" at their opposition to discredit them. To portray them as simply being jealous and perhaps lazy. Anger itself has become a dirty word. Is it not justified?
I'm not going to call for violence or destruction - only for realization. Realization that we've been lied to and manipulated. While the Democrats sure as hell aren't innocent, the Republicans have made themselves the aggressors. They keep using the same, worn-down "trickle-down" theory - make the rich richer to the point where they don't know what to do with their money, and they might pass some down to the poor. "Don't hate the rich," they say. I honestly don't. I have the American dream - work hard to achieve success and be wealthy. Is that not the American dream? Equal opportunity?
While it may not be openly institutionalized as it once was, there are established social classes. And it's not as easy to move between them as our founders would have liked. As in the past, the super-rich buy politicians. There remain some few altruistic people, but mostly, the wealthy are inclined to simply protect their wealth. Romney is an unfortunate prime example. He did decent things in the past, such as inspiring the Affordable Care Act (read: ObamaCare), but is controlled by his desire to maintain his wealth and power, and the support of those who provide him it.
Anyway, here's a meme to post to Facebook and the like. For easy viewing, I'd recommend saving to your own album and sharing - I've already got my blog linked on the meme. But, you can still always right click, "view image," and post the link on Facebook. Still always looking to expand my audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)