Occupy: Increasing the Ranks of the Poor in the Name of Equality

The Occupy protests, oh my. They have creative slogans and names for themselves, like "The 99%." I find that very telling.

They call themselves The 99% because they feel as though they are part of and represent 99% of Americans who are not uber-wealthy. I think it means more of what they are after: 99% of everything created, made and earned by the so-called 1%.

If one follows their math, the 1% are at the top of the financial food chain and make the most money - obscene amounts of money. However, the 1% are also the people whose work product are things which enrich our lives, such as iPhones used by the Occupiers, communication networks used by the Occupiers, the internet used by the Occupiers, the clothing worn by the Occupiers, the food eaten by the Occupiers, even the tents occupied by the Occupiers. In short, the 1%, because of their capitalization and the way capitalism works, created everything of value in this country - even everything of necessity. That they made it super-rich is a definitive by-product of all of it.

It's capitalism, baby; were the Occupiers stoned when they covered that in school? And this is where their attack is: not at the rich, but at the heart of capitalism. The Occupiers want it all, not just the things made by the 1%, but all their profits as well. The 1% will be among the poor. We will then have "The 100%," none of whom have anything - no product because the wealthy have no capital with which to produce things, and no wealth because they have nothing to sell. Everyone is equal; there is nothing built, there is nothing to buy. Everyone has nothing.

So the hypocrisy of the left is rich once again. Let's take everything that the rich have, and give it to everyone else, and expect the formerly-rich to continue to make the things that make us happy, then strip them of their profit once again. That's even if they have any remaining capital to create anything.  Capitalism is the the goose that laid the golden egg, and will be long dead.

If you did that to my dog - if you took away his bone - you'd have stitches.

As it should be.

The Politics of Filmmaking

So I'm watching a documentary on PBS just now. America Beyond the Color Line: Hollywood.  A major producer (I didn't catch the name) is being interviewed.  It being PBS, of course they pursue a racial angle in which whites and males are bad. Especially, the producer says that a film with black stars will gross half as much as white stars. "Why"  Producer says: "I don't know... Hillbillies?"  A black star complains that women are not respected and therefore not paid as much. Tell all this to Oprah, who by the way is both black and female, and is the the highest paid person in the industry. And Lucille Ball, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, and on and on.

It all pissed me off, major.

1st thing: the psychology of film teaches us that watching a film creates a dream-like state; it's the reason we are able to suspend disbelief as much as necessary for a film to work in our minds. But in particular, a film requires the viewer to identify with some aspect of the film, hopefully the lead characters. In our subconscious, it's just not feasible to ask our minds to identify with a character outside of what we look like, and how we behave. Some call this racist, I call it reality; so would Freud.

2nd thing: those hillbillies are the guys who made that producer a billionaire. And he wants to denigrate them?  But yes, he denigrates his customers.

Remember this the next time you go to the movies:
1. That the people making the film don't think much of you
2. They are happy to make the thing they think you want, irrespective of what they themselves think; a question of integrity, maybe?
3. They are happy to take your money and complain about you all the way to the bank.

Why Overseas Manufacture Makes Better Sense

It's because the American government is the enemy of American manufacturing. Read below, and you'll see why it just makes for an easier row to hoe for storied American companies like Gibson Guitars to fire all the American employees and build in India.

According to the Indian government, fingerboard "blanks" -- the wood that will eventually become a guitar's fretboard -- are legal to export.

"Fingerboard is a finished product and not wood in primary form," Vinod Srivastava, India's deputy director-general of foreign trade, stipulated in a letter dated Sept. 16. "The foreign trade policy of the government of India allows free export of such finished products of wood."

The U.S. government disagrees. In its affidavit to search Gibson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers fingerboard blanks to be raw materials, not finished product -- illegal to export from India and, therefore, illegal to import into the United States.

What's more, according to the complaint, the Gibson wood was imported with an incorrect tariff code, which was off by one digit from the correct code. Luthiers Mercantile International, the company that imports the wood for Gibson, claims that was a simple clerical error. The difference in the codes refers to the thickness of the wood -- more than or less than six millimeters in thickness.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/05/after-gibson-raid-other-guitar-makers-at-risk-breaking-law/?test=latestnews#ixzz1a0W9ZIfg

The Freedom of Common Sense

I've posted a few things that are political, but I want to be clear why I do it: It's not to promote one side or the other, but instead to point out how outrageously crazy - a bizarre mix of simultaneously overreaching and ineffective - our government has become. It's like all government programs - the mantra is "grow or die." It just keeps doing things out of control in an order to justify its existence.

So IMO the only way to brings thing back to some form of normalcy is to cut the size of government. This will force them to focus on things that are relatively important (nothing will ever make them efficient, it's not in government's nature).

For example, most of what happens at the DOJ is ideological nonsense; they pick and choose the laws to enforce. So cut their budget and make them defend why they are doing what they want to do. Stop them from suing states that are trying to deal with local issues. Keep them in check by not funding their excesses.

Ergo, cutting taxes = cutting the size and scope of government, which in turn allows the freedom of the common sense of the American people to flourish.

Repercussions for Rioters

The British are facing horrendous riots at the hands of opportunists who are piggybacking their desire to steal goods on the outrage of those protesting actions by the London Metro Police. Businesses have been stripped of their wares, and nearly entire blocks of businesses have burned to the ground for no other reason than thieves want the things for sale in the shops. Gangs - a perennial problem in London - have emerged as a major problem in the looting. The British police have responded in good order.

They have asked for help from America (the British government, not the looters); they'd like to know how we handle these things. But it seems to me that they're doing a mighty good job on their own, even better than us. Here in America we have problems from gangs that defy solution, yet the British seem to have come up with one approach that will at least cramp the gangs' style: eviction.

The Brits are arresting everyone with even a suspicion of looting. And now they're developing a series of repercussions that will punish those - and their families, if the looters are found to be minors - convicted of rioting. The first step is to remove them from public housing, and it seems the next step will be to also evict them from private housing, causing them to move elsewhere. The thinking seems to be that if individuals are found to be involved in gang-related activity, then breaking them up and forcing them to move to other locales might disrupt the gang activity too. It's a plausible scenario; make it tougher for the gangs to assemble, and you make it tougher for them to do their gang-related crap.

I sure wish lawmakers in the US had this sense of social duty. But in America we have too many rights - for example, "rights" to public housing, etc, and the politicians and lawmakers here would never have the fortitude (AKA, balls) to take such action. Such is a pity, to cater to the lowest class in favor of the voter. And the voters here seem to know no difference.


BBC News - David Cameron back councils planning to evict rioters:

Corruption by Design?

I'm pretty well sick of government in general and politicians in particular. I ain't alone. There are lots of reasons, but the one that gets me is the corruption that is tolerated as normal business for Washington.

What do I mean by corruption?  Most Americans imagine backdoor deals and envelopes filled with cash.  There's certainly enough of that (right Spiro?). But I mean more of the regular sort taken beyond the pale by the likes of Rod Blagoevich.

Blago tried to use his position and influence to enrich himself personally - not with cash, but with power.  Even though disgusting, what he did was somewhat common; but he went to extremes, and was stupid in his being overt in his actions.  But being so overt means one thing: He didn't fear any repercussions if he was caught; it's just the way he knew politics is conducted.

Would it be shocking to consider that the same is true in national politics (Blago was using a US Senate seat, after all)?  Enter what the left likes to call "special interests." There are enough of those to go around on all political sides many times over, but why do we tolerate it? Why don't we see it in the same light as Blagoevich, as the corruption that it actually is?

It's clear how the mechanics of this type of corruption work: one interest uses it's power (money, position, whatever) to put in office it's "guy," who then effects all sorts of laws tailored to benefit that interest. As an example, look at the AFL-CIO; they donate heavily to a lawmaker's campaign, and push it's members to do likewise. They say it's in their long term interest.  Millions of dollars in campaign donations fall from heaven, and then at some decent interval post-election, the union's lawmaker acts on the behalf of "labor" (they always try to elevate their corruption using general terms like that), and the subterfuge is complete.  The union guys themselves even are fooled by it, deluded by union propaganda into thinking it's good for the country, when in reality the only people it benefits are the union leaders (they get to keep their jobs with enormous salaries), and the politicians (re-elected based on the ruse that they are acting on behalf of "the little guy").

A specific example: CardCheck, designed by the unions to enlarge their base, and pushed by the Democratic party who was put in power by the unions.

And the question remains: why can't we see this as corruption? It's because we are desensitized to it, and come to accept it as the way of Politics.  But it shouldn't be. It doesn't have to be.

In evaluating legal ethics and best practices, there is the notion of recusal: if one is too close to an issue, they remove themself from any decision-making part of the issue that might taint it with a conflict of interest.  The Supreme Court does it.  Judges do it.  But it seems to stop there - because in politics, there are no repercussions.

My answer in Harryland: I'd love to see a law where a politician was forced to recuse himself from any action of any kind on any matter involving anyone who donates money to him or his campaign.  Can you imagine? It would be honorable, but I suspect that nothing would get done - much like it is now. The Senate, for certain, would never reach a quorum. However, at least it would be moral, and probably cost taxpayers a lot less, too. It might not fix the problem entirely, either - other lawmakers voting on behalf of their pals is one way they might work around it.  But that, too, could be made illegal. Then we ask: Do we have enough jail space? Or would they just vote for better jails for themselves? That, I'd vote for!

I don't think the world will end any time soon because of corruption. However, this idea of politicians not voting for their political donors might cause the earth to explode. 

hd

Rating the Liar in Chief

I don't like being lied to, nor do I like being treated like an idiot. Obama did that last night. He does it to the American people often, but I never thought his notion of transparency would extend to seeing through his lies. Last night was a real pip; he obviously does not understand the problem, nor what what the voters want; he only understands what he thinks he can get away with to get re-elected. Liberal presidents can be fine, but it's reached a point where it's glaringly obvious that Obama is incompetent.

Don't Bore Him with the Numbers

Maybe we have an explanation for why the country is in a financial mess.

During the campaign in 2007, Obama referred to the US as having 52 states. Now he can't keep his daughter's age straight. So if he can't even get those numbers right, how can anyone expect him to manage the $14-plus trillion deficit?

Maybe next time we should elect someone who passed arithmetic in the third grade.


Oops! Obama messes up his daughter’s age - TODAY People - TODAY.com:

"WASHINGTON —In a news conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama twice referred to his oldest daughter, Malia, as being 13 years old.

Not quite. She's 12.

Pulitzer-Winning Journalist Admits He's an Illegal Immigrant - but what about the citizens?

Ok, it's a nice story. Americans are a heartfelt people, and no warm-blooded American could turn a cold eye on it. But...

When I read about Vargas' educational scholarships and multiple high-level internships, I couldn't help but wonder about the other young and talented American citizens who worked equally hard, dreamed of these placements, and would have availed themselves of these opportunities. It's not like the guy is the only person who could have come up through the ranks to win a Pulitzer - it happens all the time. But this guy was an illegal alien - about which he was fully aware and didn't keep secret - who was abetted in evading federal law by a lot of people along the way.

So here we have a story that tugs at the hearts of all Americans - not because he's an illegal, but because he came from humble roots to become a success through hard work. But to read the story, the melodramatic tone ignores the fact that there are many other citizens, born in America or legally naturalized, who have the precise same story.

What pulls on my heart even more is how diminished has become the American Tale. Our great story of optimism and opportunity it is now used to push the idea that America's rightful desire to protect it's citizens through immigration law is somehow "evil," because it would not promote the efforts of those in country illegally.

Something doesn't add up there.

Pulitzer-Winning Journalist Admits He's an Illegal Immigrant - FoxNews.com: "- Sent usin Google Toolbar"

Oops: White House Corrects Job Creation “Laughter” Line in Transcript

I don't recall who said it, but the saying, "There are no accidents," seems particularly appropriate:

At a fundraising event Monday night, Obama said, according to the White House's official release sent a couple hours later, this line that was noted to be apparently funny to the crowd:

"Over the last 15 months we've created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter), " the release stated.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/21/oops-white-house-corrects-job-creation-laughter-line-transcript#ixzz1Py6zzXWE

Who's up for Slavery?

OK, so we all knew the Obama Traveling Socialist Roadshow was trying to get everyone into the dance by making them dependent on gumment handouts, but man, this one is a real pip! MediCaid for everyone! That's better than a chicken in every pot! And we know how that chicken turned out - his goose was cooked before he was even plucked.

Or maybe it's a turnaround ploy about slavery - making white middle class America enslave itself to the government, without as much as a shot fired or a whip cracked.

AP Exclusive: Medicaid for the middle class? - Yahoo! News:

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

After initially downplaying any concern, the Obama administration said late Tuesday it would look for a fix.

Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.

Matthews Calls Conservative Women ‘Broads’ - Chris Matthews - Fox Nation

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about liberals is their treatment of women. To them, it seems the only women worthy of treating with respect are those who share their ideology. But if a woman utters a single sigh of conservatism, she is treated with the same disdain, disregard and outright misogyny usually reserved for 1%er biker gangs toward their women.

Matthews Calls Conservative Women ‘Broads’ - Chris Matthews - Fox Nation: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"