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.

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.


Tuesday, August 28, 2012

I'm Calling Bullshit on the Republicans.

As I continue to watch the campaigns, the economy, and the news in general, one thing has become plainly obvious: the Republicans just don't get it. Or if they do get it, they just don't give a rat's ass and are being deliberately deceptive. The Democrats kind of get it, but they are naive and don't seem to get just how deep the greed and cynicism is running. Things truly are getting to look more and more like what we fought the Revolution to get the hell away from - a ruling class is re-establishing itself, the corporations have a louder voice than the people. Remember the East India Company? Yeah, we're seeing a return to that... and those who oppose are being labeled "anti-business" or "anti-capitalism" or "Socialist."

For my own part, I am damned well none of those. I like capitalism, as it is freedom in one of its purest forms. What I'm seeing now though is a corrupted form of capitalism - as I said, a return of a ruling class with a widening income gap while the rich are perpetually whining for more and more. Wall Street is at its highest levels in years - as I write this, DOW is at 13,102. I remember when staying above the 10,000 mark was a big deal. So yeah, the rich ain't hurting. Yet, where the fuck are the jobs? Where the fuck is the money?

The money is lining the pockets of the rich. The money is in off-shore bank accounts and blind trusts. While the rich still whine for more and more. "We need more tax breaks!" Or, something that's also become amusing that I've been hearing about more lately - "Congratulations, employees! We just hit record profits! We will now be cutting your hours/wages/benefits/making lay-off's." It's pure greed. It's not a matter of hating people for being rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich. It's a matter of hating people for being greedy and fucking over the ones that got them there.

Then the Republicans have the nerve to call their opponents hateful. Just because the Republicans are smiling during their speeches doesn't make them less hateful - it just makes them more smug in their hate. When various people are being bashed, they will eventually fight back. Even the most loyal of dogs will bite if it's been smacked around one time too many. And this after they were exposed for plotting to sabotage Obama at all costs! The peasants American people were made into pawns for their damned political game. They hurt the American people so they could blame Obama! These are the men who sold the world.

I normally don't get this angry in my blog posts, but this truly is the purest bullshit. While I do like Gary Johnson, I'm becoming more and more inclined to again give Obama my vote. I wish this election were one just between Johnson and Obama, as I'd consider either candidate to be a victory for America.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Circumcision


So, a study was recently done that claims circumcision to be a good thing, saying that it cuts down on the risks for various diseases and the like. It suggests that the decline in circumcision will raise healthcare costs - something like four billion dollars in the coming years.

I used to be kind of neutral on the subject until fairly recently when I did more research on it. Having done that, I have to call bullshit on the study.

First of all, the medical justification behind circumcision is that nature screwed up by giving us a foreskin - a belief I find very arrogant. It took millions of years for us to evolve as we are, foreskin and all.

Secondly, what do y'all think of the female circumcisions done by some African tribes to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure felt by women? Horrible? Yeah... well, reducing sexual pleasure is the same reason it was done to men. The foreskin has a lot of nerve endings and glands for lubrication in it. Also, supposedly it discouraged or prevented masturbation. Let's not bullshit: the reason male circumcision became so widespread is because it is condoned/demanded by a couple popular and widely accepted religions. If said religions had demanded female circumcisions (I imagine the reason they don't is because the Hebrews had less understanding of the mechanics of a vagina), there would be similar studies talking about the health benefits in preventing diseases in female circumcision. Sure, having less to get diseased may prevent a disease, but that's not really a good reason to start cutting stuff off, is it? I mean, by removing a kidney, maybe you could cut your chances of kidney disease in half, but that doesn't mean you should do it.

Unfortunately, some do take kind of an arrogant approach to medicine with the mentality that nature screwed up, or that we've advanced beyond evolution. Until very recently, the appendix was thought to be a useless organ that would be removed in a heartbeat. While it's still routinely done, they have found that it does serve a purpose (a safe haven for the good intestinal flora when you have diarrhea and such like), and aren't quite as quick to remove it. Similarly, I don't believe the foreskin should be removed without legitimate medical reason. It serves a purpose, even if that purpose be taboo by the standards of some. It amounts simply to institutionalized genital mutilation.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Election Stuff

Ah, the smell of feces being hurled through the air! That can only mean one thing: campaign season!

The Republicans, if not for being such morons, would have had this election handed to them on a silver platter. And don't get me wrong - I'm not devoutly against Republicans as a whole. While I am liberal, I'm a moderate one. I vote based on the person, not the party. That said, yes, I do tend to cast a fair number of votes for Republicans. That does not change the fact that the Republicans are being bloody morons in this campaign season, though.

The TEA party is a big part to blame. Allow me to explain: the TEA Party is of course very politically active, and devoutly anti-Obama. In itself, not too big a deal. Hell, I was against Bush the lesser to the point of wanting a treason investigation on his administration. That's another story entirely however, and something I still stand by.

The TEA Party however is making its points largely by denying facts and obstructing. They tend to favor the most extreme candidates, usually religious fundamentalists (think Bachmann and O'Donnell). The candidate does well in rallies full of like-minded people, so they get the nomination. Then having the Republican party nomination, they do poorly in debates where there assertions and stances are actually questioned and exposed to contradicting facts.

Such extreme candidates tend to disgust moderates, even those who would otherwise be more inclined to vote against the liberal candidate. O'Donnell is a good example of this, as the one she ran against was openly socialist, if memory serves. Just let yourself consider that for a moment: people chose a Socialist over a Republican nominee. Republicans are in serious trouble.

Their presidential nominee does not help. Make no mistake - out of the choices of the ones that were allowed any exposure, Romney really was the best one, I think. But he still is an out of touch hypocrite.

Don't even get me started on the War on Women. That just keeps getting pushed further and further, with it now pretty much impossible to deny in good conscience that a War on Women is exactly what it is.

I think we may see in the near future the Republicans falling to the insignificance of "third party" status with the Libertarians rising up to their place. I don't know if it will be this election, but the way things are going now, that's what is coming.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Chick-Fil-A Doesn't Speak for its Employees

I linked this in the comments of my previous post, but I think that it may be worthy of its own follow-up post. The Chick-Fil-A anti-gay controversy is taking its toll on employees who don't necessarily agree with Cathy's stance.

According to the article, one of the biggest things that's hurting them is comments from their "supporters" today. I had vaguely anticipated this. When you put on a company's uniform, as far as most people are concerned, you ARE that company, not an individual who may or may not agree with the company's stance on any number of issues. It's also unfortunate that this issue goes both ways - those against Chick-Fil-A are also forgetting that those wearing the uniforms are individuals with their own opinions and are taking out their anger toward Dan Cathy on the employees.

Having worked for companies that I had little or no respect for, I searched on Google for stories about Chick-Fil-A employees that were more than a little disturbed by the comments of "support" they would likely be getting today, being Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. It didn't take long to find that above article. While Chick-Fil-A and its supporters may be considering today a huge success, I think there are many who would see things differently. It further polarized the sides. It made many of those who were trying to stay neutral pick a side. When you hear your "supporters" happily and unknowingly bashing yourself and/or your friends on the individual level, it does take a big toll. So, was this really a success for Chick-Fil-A? I kind of doubt it. Comparing this to a battle, the officers just pissed all over their infantry.

Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay?

I feel compelled to apologize for such a cliche headline that I'm sure has been used by mediocre journalists across the nation, but at the same time don't feel inclined to do so. At any rate, I figured I'd throw my two cents' worth in.

I like Chick-Fil-A - their food is frickin' awesome! Especially their spicy chicken deluxe with pepper jack cheese. They make great food, and I don't even care about their deeply religious roots. They are entitled to them. It is their right.

I'm already missing them. Chick-Fil-A's Dan Cathy: "Guilty as charged." Don't you just love the bit about Adam and Steve? Nice touch.

Yes, despite my own stances on religion, I didn't mind the fact that I was eating from a restaurant that's never made any secret of its deeply Christian roots. Those spicy chicken sandwiches never made me burst into flames, and I'm not sure I'd mind if they did. Spicy food is good!

But, here's the problem - the money I've been giving them to enjoy those sandwiches has been used against my gay friends. Not cool by me. My stance on the issue of gays and same-sex marriage is that it's really no different from the civil rights stuff from about fifty years ago, and similarly, kids thirty years from now will be thinking that the anti-gay people are a bunch of assholes as they learn about them in school.

Gays as a whole do nothing to harm society. They are, on the whole, decent people - the same as anyone else. They have hearts, they have brains. They experience the same emotions as the rest of us, just that they're more attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Not a big deal. And going by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we have no business denying them the same rights. The only arguments against gays are based in religion, and the Constitution makes it pretty clear that the church doesn't have business legislating for the state.

The problem with so many of the more vocal modern Christians is that they preach every part of the Bible, except for the teachings of Jesus. You know, that long-haired hippie that talked about peace and compassion? The one whom Christianity is named for? Yeah, that guy... who, coincidentally, didn't say a damned thing about gays. Or any number of other issues that false prophets are attaching his name to.

People seem to have a convenient memory when it comes to religion. The same part of the Bible that forbids homosexuality also forbids tattoos, eating pork or playing with the flesh of a dead pig (so much for tossing around the ol' pigskin, huh?), eating shellfish, and condones slavery and blood sacrifice. Perhaps these "God-fearing" Christians have good reason to fear their god - they preach hate in his name. I'd consider that a pretty serious insult.

At any rate, Chick-Fil-A and its supporters now are complaining about the "hateful" attempts to suppress their free speech. Here's the thing about free speech: it goes both ways. You have the right to be an idiot, and I have the right to call you an idiot. If a business is financing ideals that we don't agree with, then we have a right to withhold our money from said business, and advocating for others to do the same. So that being said, I support the boycotts and same-sex kiss-in's.

Almost forgot - here's a meme thing to re-post on facebook or whatever:


To repost the image, you can right-click it, click "view image," and copy and paste the URL to facebook or whatever it is you young'uns use these days. You can also copy it to your own photo albums, but the former is preferred, as it'll help me get more exposure.