*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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012