The Monopoly game analogy
Let’s let go for a minute of the fact that creating conditions that were very favorable to big business is what got us into this economic mess to begin with, and move on to what it takes to get us out. I keep hearing politicians’ (and even many Democratic ones seem to accept this premise) various claims that nurturing big business will, somehow, lead to economic recovery. Dubious would be an understatement. It won’t work. And the best way I can think of to explain it is a polite reminder that we’re a consumer-based economy and the following analogy:
When you’re playing Monopoly, the fun part is the beginning when everybody has money to spend, and can buy and own something. You’re landing on their stuff and paying them, they’re landing on your stuff and paying you. Everyone has money lined up in front of them, a little hope and a plan. You’re looking forward to purchasing that first home.
But, at some point, the dice hit just right for someone and they begin to take off from everyone else. Not only are they buying up everything good on the board, but they’re forcing you to sell off yours just so you can make it around the board. And eventually there comes that point in the game where one person has so much control of the board that none of the other players can really do anything anymore. You cross your fingers and roll the dice but, mainly, you’re just going around the board hoping to not land on anything bad. When you land on something and don’t have the money to pay, sometimes the winning person will let you borrow money so you can pay him. You collect your $200 when passing GO and then immediately pay it out to whoever’s winning. When nobody has anything, all they can do is close their eyes, roll the dice and hope to survive the next trip around the board.
Historically, companies have used their power and wealth – not to mention preferential treatment from our politicians – to gain as much control of the board as they have now. Corporate America already has many (if not most) people paying their earnings back out as soon as they collect them, borrowing so they can pay, just going around the board hoping nothing bad happens or it’s game-over. If we give big business yet more power now, they’ll freeze the board. And in a consumer-based economy, if the consumers are just going around the board, it will never get any better.
As it is, Corporate America doesn’t really need Americans anymore anyway. They’ve been investing overseas. They can have their products manufactured elsewhere. They can sell the stuff elsewhere. If they freeze this board, they’ll just go in search of a new one. All they need from us is to keep voting for politicians who do what they want – a thing that’s nearly guaranteed what with our gullible populace and the state of campaign financing – oh, and the fact that there are no real anti-corporate candidates.
We’re nearly there, folks. Our last few trips around the board are almost upon us. The only way out of it is to change the rules of the game to prevent the richest in the game from taking control of the whole board and sticking it to the rest of us.
In the state this country is in, sadly (but not surprisingly), the Republicans have chosen for their nominee, someone who is part of the problem. Mitt’s the nominee. It proves what I said about how the corporate greed wing of the Republican Party over-rules and holds veto power over all the other wings.
And, now, the Republicans have the most pro-wealthy, corporate-greed-centric presidential candidate in history. If he wins, corporate America will go from sticking it to the American people so badly that they’ve frozen our consumer-based economy, to reducing the country to a serfdom where smaller corporations will be the new middle class and all the people of America will be peasants merely serving their corporate masters.
Yes, we know Mitt’s rich. He knows it’s a weakness and, as if Karl Rove himself were at the wheel, his only choice will be to steer into it until everyone goes into “So what if he’s rich?” mode. In fact, the media and Democrats have already beat people over the head with it so much, people are already tired of hearing about it. And then Mitt will play the “you can be like me” card. He’ll be shamefully pro-business in a way we’ve not seen in decades – if ever.
This is bound to move the center to the right. Why? Because there exists no yang to Mitt’s pro-corporate yin. If we had a real man-of-the-people populist on our side that would be one thing, but we have Barack Obama. Mr. find-the-middle-between-any-two-positions, just keep the peace, weenie Obama. If Mitt tried to steal our shoes, Obama would offer him one of our shoes, claim to be the bigger man, and leave us all walking funny. That’s been his M.O. so far.
With that in mind, you can bet the national conversation won’t be WHAT to do about income disparity but WHETHER to do anything at all. It won’t be about WHAT kind of programs we’ll have for the poor but WHETHER it’s the government’s job. It won’t be about HOW to protect the environment but WHETHER doing so will harm the economy. Climate change? Get real.
And Obama, always willing to accept whatever premise conservatives present and concede control of the conversation to wherever the Republicans want to take it, will be forced to have these very arguments in debates and on the campaign trail. When negotiating with Congress over policy this is a very bad place to be. But what about in a general election?
Ironically, this will get him re-elected. Because, despite everything Republicans claim about him, Obama is a centrist. He claimed the middle ground early in his presidency and has occupied it ever since. Obama forces Mitt to take unreasonably pro-business rightwing positions because he’s occupied the middle all along. Mitt has no choice but to embrace his richy-rich roots.
The Republicans’ only choice is to move to the right – well to the right – of Obama, and that’s a bad place to be in a general election.
Believe me, it’s easier for Obama to argue with Mitt over doing something or nothing than it is to dicker over the details and what to do with a surplus, as Gore had to do with Bush.
With Obama occupying the actual center, Republican strategists will try to create a new one – one considerably to the right of the current one which was established by Republicans moving ever-further right over the past three years. But how many voters occupy that new space? Not many.
Mitt will embrace the richie-rich label. His campaign will likely come up with some version of a “Don’t you want to be rich like Mitt?” slogan. He will try to convince everyone he intends to make everyone rich. He’ll enjoy enthusiastic support from a minority of people while raking in the cash from corporate benefactors who hope to overcome his unpopularity with well-marketed and well-distributed lies. But when your weakness is wealth, I’m not sure a high-priced campaign and ad blitz helps that image.
His only other choice would be a populist gimmick. But, ultimately, he’s going to have to come up with something new that both hasn’t already been tried by Republicans in the past and isn’t transparently pro-corporate. Romney will have to find something truly populist to be FOR to pull it off. Something that would actually benefit regular folks. And there just isn’t anything available to him because his corporate donors know that the whole point of wanting Mitt to be president in the first place is for him to be doing the opposite of whatever that might be.
[Read Part I HERE: The GOP never learns]
Will schools reveal creationist magic?
A magician can saw a woman in half and put her back together. And if you ask him, I’ll bet he’ll tell you he’s better than the greatest surgeon. After all, the best surgeons can only occasionally reattach someone’s hand or foot. But this comparison only lasts as long as the magician gets to keep his secrets. It only works if you don’t get to see behind the curtain or under his table. Does the magician stand a chance in a hospital – in an operating theatre? In this way, creationists will come to regret insisting that their nonsense be brought within the walls of learning institutions.
Tennessee seeks to question evolution in bill | The Raw Story.
US conservative Christians and science advocates are clashing again, this time in Tennessee over a bill that would allow debate in public schools over theories like evolution.
Lawmakers from the southeastern US state home to a strong base of ultraconservative “Tea Party” activists have approved the bill, which now awaits the signature of Governor Bill Haslam, a Republican.
The measure, which could pass by a Tuesday deadline, would allow public schoolteachers to challenge accepted science on topics such as climate change and evolution in their classrooms without facing sanctions.
Creationists like to say that Evolution is just a “theory”, and perhaps over a picnic table at a backyard barbeque, they may manage to convince a few people. But what happens when it’s tried in a science classroom where students learn that a scientific theory is much different than the more casual use of the word “theory” that the Intelligent Design crowd would like you to think it is?
At the heart of Creationism is the notion that the Earth is only a few thousands years old. How does that hold up in a classroom lined with shelves and cabinets full of rock and mineral specimens that the students have previously learned the ages of?
Intelligent debate will certainly open up a wide chasm in classrooms between the students who embrace science and those who persist in believing what they already believe – what their parents told them to believe – stubbornly rejecting the arguments of others, perhaps even quoting the bible and otherwise creating a spectacle of themselves as others – including the few undecideds – look on. Will this really benefit the supporters of Intelligent Design? Have they thought this through?
Isn’t the main motiv operandi of creationists to create a false equivalency? How is that to work in a learning institution where you can’t control the other person’s facts? If asked in the church parking lot, they would have you believe “evolutionists” think people evolved from monkeys who magically turned into people. Far from it, we and monkeys evolved from common ancestors. You literally have to fail science in order to begin to argue on behalf of Intelligent Design and, I can guarantee you, the “F” student isn’t going to be allowed to lead the class.
Pitting creationism against evolution in the weakened form it’s taught by creationists is the ultimate straw man. Evolution as it’s taught in the classroom is much different than the version taught in church basements.
Rational people wince at the idea of creationism being taught in schools the way a surgeon would decline a magician’s offer to take a crack at sewing on a patient’s hand. But in this comparison, the creationist isn’t capable of nearly as much harm. So, I say let them try it. Sure, go ahead, sew on the hand! If it doesn’t stick, there will be someone there with real skills ready to sew it on right.
Obama’s Jobs Bill Bait and Switch
So we have a jobs bill and it doesn’t even loosely resemble all the marvelous things advertised in his speech on the issue.
“Because of this bill, start-ups and small business will now have access to a big, new pool of potential investors — namely, the American people. For the first time, ordinary Americans will be able to go online and invest in entrepreneurs that they believe in,” the president said in a Rose Garden signing ceremony.
Investors? INVESTORS? The problem with the economy is that regular people don’t have money to even pay their bills. Investors? Consumers don’t have money with which to CONSUME things in this consumer-based economy. Investors? Obama is reaching out to those few people who have EXTRA money they don’t know what to do with so they’re looking to invest it somewhere? Isn’t the whole point of needing a jobs bill to help people don’t have any money? He “made it easier for investors.” Good grief!
The president said the JOBS Act would make it easier for business owners to take their companies public, noting “that’s a big deal because going public is a major step toward expanding and hiring more workers.”
Bull! I hate it that Obama always seems to buy into whatever premise Wall Street and the business community offers up. That which is good for stock holders is always bad for workers and employees. Going public is exactly what causes good companies to go bad.
What happened to his good ideas like giving companies incentives to give their employees raises? Where did that go? I don’t remember a public debate over that. When did he stand up and say, “Republicans are against giving people raises!” When did he fight for that?
This is just another example of how he went down without a fight, compromised down to nothing but watered-down crap that won’t work but has a nice-sounding name on it that’ll allow him to say later that he did something. He passed a jobs bill. Just like he did with the credit card act, with the stimulus, with health care. Watered-down poo, all of it. He can run on it and brag that he did something and got something passed, but it won’t actually do what it’s supposed to do and, ultimately, that only hurts our cause.
If a Republican President was trying to pass a jobs bill with the current make up of Congress, he would have started with lots of give-aways for big business, would have had to compromise with the Democrat-held Senate and we would have ended up with the same bill we have now. So how did we end up with this?
Things like this make me want to write-in Bernie Sanders when I go vote in November.
Defeating the Diversity Search
I don’t fundamentally disagree with diversity programs in hiring. I get it. Even the private sector has finally come around to embracing diversity for their own – albeit selfish – reasons. When everyone at a company is more or less the same, they think the same. And that’s bad for innovation. Having people from differing races, cultures and backgrounds also creates a diversity of thought, which leads to better and more creative problem solving. Diversity in hiring at a company contributes to their intellectual gene pool, if you will. Diversity programs may have begun for reasons of equality and social justice, but now they exist on their own merit. They make companys better. And when executed properly, and legally, it’s a reasonably-equitable system. If you have two candidates who’ve made it past the initial interviews, you’re at the final round and it’s time to choose — when both candidates are equally qualified but one contributes to the diversity in your company and the other does not — it’s perfectly reasonable to choose the diversity candidate. It’s the right thing to do. It’s how the system should work.
However, I disagree with how these diversity programs are now being executed and the tools employed. Job posting sites such as Monster.com allow recruiters to do “diversity searches” that, in effect, filter out white people. There are sites intended to be comprised only of diversity candidates. All of this enables employers to, in effect, search for candidates among a pool of ONLY diversity candidates. This is not how it’s supposed to work. Focusing on or filtering out certain groups of people goes against the very fiber of what we’re trying to overcome.
So fight the system. If you’re white, add yourself to the diversity searches. For the websites specializing in diversity candidates, add your resume anyway. When you’re asked to identify your own race, choose “other” or “mixed race” – they’re not allowed to ask you anyway. And when you show up at the job interview and they look at you funny because you’re not what they expected, let them. At that point they’re not allowed to discriminate.
But if you believe in equality and social justice, how can you justify doing such a thing? Because if the methods aren’t just, they only contribute to the problem. And because diversity can mean a lot of things.
After a stint of being unemployed for six months, I became the only non-minority at the place I was hired. I WAS the diversity candidate. Hiring a white male contributed to the diversity at this business.
Clicking the question mark gives you this
Monster.com asks you to check a box which will either include or disclude you from search results when recruiters do these “diversity searches”. They justify it by claiming that diversity means different things to different people. Make them mean it. No matter what, check the box.
The job market is too tough for it to not be equitable and recruiters aren’t supposed to be filtering anyone out of their searches anyway. Don’t do anything that helps them do it. Your phone will ring more often.
4 Theories to Explain the Attacks on Women’s Rights
The media, never missing an opportunity to brand our outrage, have dubbed it “The War on Women”. Many news outlets have even designed their own logos for it (vaginas with Patriot Missiles shooting out of them and the like). It’s hard to blame them. As attacks on women’s rights go, there’s been so many of them lately, it’s hard not to see a pattern. Ever since the original Virginia Transvaginal invasion attempt, the resulting Blunt Amendment and the Rush Limbaugh hoopla, the GOP have opened the anti-woman busybody floodgates. We now have bills: forcing ultrasounds and sonograms on women (even forcing them to look), requiring women to get permission slips from their men, redefining rape, giving womens’ bosses access to their medical information, waiting periods, encouraging doctors to lie, and public humiliation. Not to mention the general idiocy of Republicans out there saying stupid things of all sorts. And that’s just for starters.
So, what gives? Why this? Why now? Well, Jaundice James likes to ferret out ulterior motives, so here are a few theories:
Theory #1: It’s a military-like strategy to create too many moving targets so that some can slip through. When the Virginia transvaginal shit hit the fan, millions of people took to Twitter, Facebook, their phones and the streets to spread awareness — and outrage. It was on every nightly news broadcast, every radio news break and, as these things tend to do, filled entire days worth of cable news time. And the bill was stopped. But it was only stopped because it was alone at the time — which caused it to receive so much attention. Now, the GOP has set off a cluster bomb to prevent us from doing that again. The idea is to create so many targets that our attention, efforts and outrage will be divided and, therefore, lessened — watered down. They’re hoping it makes us weary. They’re hoping for outrage overload. Burnout. And it will work. Just within the last election cycle, it has worked with voter disenfranchisement. It worked with union busting. And it will work with this.
Theory #2: They’re crazier than they let on. It’s entirely possible that each of these crazy Republican ideas are actual REAL pet ideas dreamt up by each of these individual Republican legislators. It’s just that, before now, they just didn’t want to seem crazy or draw attention to themselves by introducing these bills in a vacuum. But now that Virginia broke the seal, now that there are already other crazy ideas LIKE theirs are out there, they feel like it’s a safe environment to put forth their own pet ideas.
Theory #3: It’s a competition. Since sometime in 2008, the world of right-wing wackery has become highly competitive. These days it takes a lot to stand out from the crowd. And if you want to move up the ranks within the Republican party, become recognized and eventually selected for a chairmanship, leadership position, or some great honor like giving the Republican response to one of the President’s speeches or whathaveyou, you need to first get yourself noticed. Michele Bachmann was practically unheard of until she went on Hardball and McCarthyesquely called for Democrats to be investigated for Anti-Americanism. Rand Paul was just another Libertarian in just another red state until he was heard saying he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act. If you’re ambitious, it’s just no good to just sit back on your laurels, and be a regular Republican if you expect to get anywhere. If you want to get noticed in a GOP full of crazy, you need a hit. It’s just like Kid Rock wrote, “It’s been a couple of months in this smokey room — eatin’ shrooms, drinking Boone’s, writin’ tunes and hopin’ to get one of these motherfuckin’ songs to hit.”
Theory #4: They’re trying to move the center to the right for something ELSE they want to do. This is the “tell your parents you got an ‘F’ so they’ll be relieved at the ‘C’ on your report card” theory. During the lead-up to the Iraq War, there were actual conversations on FOX News and the like about whether pre-emptively nuking another country was a thing America could do. When pre-emptively using nuclear weapons is part of the conversation, the middle has moved far enough right to permit an invasion on scant evidence. Right now, I think the GOP is trying to make you so afraid of the thought of John Boehner up to his sternum in your hooha, that what they’re willing to accept as a compromise will seem tame in comparison. And it’s that thing that they’re really after. My guess is that it’s something that creates a loophole in Obamacare and they’ll do it with something like the Blundt Amendment. Something that’ll poke a loophole in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act big enough that employers and insurance carriers can team up to avoid the law entirely. And if you don’t think loopholes can’t be exploited that effectively, just know that Goldman Sachs pays a 1% tax rate and GE has exploited tax loopholes so well it manages to pay zero taxes on its 10 billion dollar profits. You think smart armies of well-funded lawyers can’t tailor “moral reasons” language in a bill so that it will be exploitable later? If employers can decide not to provide coverage of something by declaring it immoral, then what’s to say they can’t call all of Obamacare immoral in order to declare themselves exempt? If America sees the GOP making a big stink over birth control and trying to stick a wand up their cooter, granting them that “moral exception” will seem like a pretty good deal. And this blogger believes that’s precisely their plan.
Like this:
Why Obama will win, Part 1: The GOP never learns
Reasonable people look at the GOP and just shake their heads at all the absolutely bat-shit craziness they can get up to. When it comes, it comes in waves, each building and building – one layer on top of the next until the craziness reaches a crescendo pitch and comes crashing down like a foamy breaker on a rocky beach, exploding into oblivion — only to be slowly gathered up and repackaged for another try.
The craziness loses them elections but they just never learn. Why? Because their bat-shit craziness comes from so many directions and they’re always up to so many different kinds of crazy shit at once that they never know which brand of craziness led to a loss.
There was a ton of GOP craziness in the lead up to the 2008 election. So, which turned off the most voters? Which won’t they repeat? They have no idea and neither do I, but let’s recap:
Was it all those crazy and/or racist people at the McCain/Palin rallies with their “I don’t recognize my country anymore?”, “He’s not one of us!” bullshit, or that all other Republicans did nothing but look the other way?
Was it Sarah Palin, the politically talented and charismatic, yet under-cooked milf goddess from the great-white north that was used as more of a mascot, like Chester Cheetah or Tony Tiger, than a person, in what was clearly the hail-mary pass of 2008?
Was it the, “Obama’s going to raise your taxes!” craziness that they tried using as a last-ditch messaging effort when nothing else was sticking to the wall – even though Obama had already clearly stated who, exactly, would get their taxes raised? (Incomes over $250,000/yr.)
Was it Joe Wurzelbacher, the angry six-pack-carrying plumber, who wouldn’t have gotten his taxes raised under Obama’s plan, but hoped of becoming a millionaire within the next four years and was planning ahead?
Was it all the assassination innuendo that necessitated Obama receiving Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate in history – and then kept the Secret Service busier than they’ve ever been in history?
Who knows.
But they’re doomed to repeat the craziness. Why? Because they think Obama won simply because America was excited to elect their first black president — not because of anything any Republican ever did. And it’s that lack of self-awareness that’ll lose them this election, too.
November is too far off to see what’s truly on the menu, but let’s look at the appetizers we’ve been served, shall we?
We have the “Poor people are only poor because they don’t work” craziness — never mind that most of them do have jobs (many of them multiple jobs) and that when the economy crashed the biggest and most persistent idea coming out of the GOP was/is eliminating the minimum wage.
We have the religious “war on Christianity” craziness birthed on the campaign trail by more than one candidate already — a subject that’s usually reserved for right-wing radio pundits — a brand of craziness that insists what this country needs right now is a for more evangelical government.
We have the social conservative craziness taking center stage as of late — and this time it’s not just about gays — proving once again that the GOP wants to peep in your bedroom window, your medical records, your purse… your vagina.
We have a ”debate” over birth control — which is really it’s very own separate thing because, only if you’re one of those echo-chamber Republicans who are only exposed only to other severe right wingers, is the issue of birth control not a long-settled issue. (This is another of those time-machine issues where the Republicans still have a chip on their shoulder from a battle they lost to progress a long time ago.)
We have the always-dependable, “Obama is going to take your guns!” craziness, with the added twist that, apparently, everything that’s happened so far is part of a grand conspiracy so he can take your guns in his second term.
We have the, “Obama is a socialist!” craziness – and I’m not sure that “socialist”-crying has ever worked but this time they’re going for broke.
And, of course, added as a thin glaze over everything is the, “He’s not one of us” subtext that comes in assorted flavors: foreigner, negro, Muslim or elitist, depending on what you’re most afraid of.
Who knows what the next few months holds but I’m sure Mitt will win and we’ll see a new kind of craziness like we’ve never seen before. My guess is that the GOP will try and steer into the income-disparity skid by trying to convince us we all can be rich like Mitt if only we would just stop being so… well, like the Democrats.
And, when they lose, they’ll all claim it was because he just wasn’t conservative enough and begin to regather their craziness for the next one.
Like this:
Why 99% vs. 1% is off the mark
I support the Occupy Movement — even marched with them. They’re about a lot of the same things Jaundice James is about and, believe me, I was excited to see them when this movement began. That said, I think theirs and my radar are calibrated just a bit differently. I understand where the 99 vs. 1% thing comes from; I just think it’s a little off the mark and misses a few important points along the way (ones I will be making presently.) I would discourage placing too much emphasis on that particular slogan, instead placing a more on educating people as to the sources of our problems.
The 1% is off the mark
By placing too much emphasis on personal wealth I think it misses the point that our plight actually comes from bad corporate behavior. It’s not so much that an exec takes home millions a year — it’s that the company that pays his salary has become so adept at controlling the salaries of the people down the income scale. In fact, I’m sure if people were earning a fair living instead of having seen their salaries go down relative to the cost of living all these years, we wouldn’t have heard “boo” about what CEOs make. We don’t care so much that rich people are so rich. We care that the corporate world takes from the rest of us to make them rich.
Do you believe only 1% of Americans have greed-motivated actions harmful to our economy? Not that the Occupy movement is making that claim, but the success of this slogan helps conceal the truth. People who dabble in the stock market seldom care if their gains were got because of layoffs, price hikes, mergers or any number of other corporate activities that are bad for workers and consumers. And don’t forget, when BP’s stock plummeted during the oil spill, pensioners in the UK became angry at Obama and America — they were far more concerned about the health of their bank accounts than the health of American shores. Anyone with a 401K is capable of condoning the behavior that funnels wealth to the top because their accounts are part of the same system.
The 99% is off the mark
Are 99% of Americans completely innocent of the injustices inflicted upon us by the corporate world? If only that were true. The truth is that our problems are systemic — that many of the harmful corporate policies that pull things over on American employees and consumers are enforced by ambitious middle managers who are nowhere near the 1% — but aspire to be.
When someone is under so much pressure to complete an unreasonable amount of work without logging overtime that they clock out and return to work for fear of losing their job, that pressure is probably not coming from the CEO (at least not directly). It’s generated by some middle manager who is trying to impress his boss. The CEO is (perhaps intentionally) blissfully unaware, having implemented some sort of corporate “value system” or “ethics” policy that allows him to maintain plausible deny-ability. “Everyone knows our ethics policy” he’ll say, and then reward those who produce specious results without asking questions.
What about the methods? Hidden fees, default interest rates, salary surveys, non-compete agreements, automatic renewals, cancellation obstacles, rebate scams, fine print, enormous disclaimers, arbitration, misleading marketing, false advertising — the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, the bad business behavior that people have gotten so used to that they don’t even question it anymore wasn’t created by a couple rich pricks at the top — all the tricks and tactics that contribute to the problem were cooked up by ambitious people without conscience far below.
And what about those who go though life blissfully unaware that they’re part of the problem? I’ve seen them — mindless drones in business casual — so gosh-darn enthusiastic about embracing the “goals” of their corporate masters, all the while hoping that this year’s raise will be more like four percent instead of two. And the quiet people who are annoyed by rabble-rousers like us — those whose slice of the pie is just large enough to keep them content and looking the other way – or perhaps they’re just too distracted by reality TV or what team will make it to the playoffs — between trips to Home Depot. They’ll vote Republican because they’re afraid someone will take their guns or because they think gay people are icky. Ninty-nine percent, indeed.
Sure, it would be nice if it were only the 1% we had to defeat — that all we had to do was take away whatever magical powers they must have that allows them to do it — but the sad truth of it is that the world is full enablers, enforcers and suckers who facilitate the flow of wealth to the top.
I appreciate the Occupy movement for what it is, or was — the spark that created a nationwide populist movement that’s now warming up to insist we stop letting the wealthy screw rest of us. But what we really need is that national populist movement. And in order to have that, we need to rely more heavily on good explanations as to the sources of our problems than misleading slogans.
Like this:
Dear Republican Voters,
I hate to break it to ya, folks, but this primary you’re so unhappy with – you know the one – you hope another candidate enters because you don’t like your choices. Well, I’ve got news for you. This Republican primary is a mirror, and it’s too bad you don’t like what you see because this IS the Republican Party.
The thing is, the party isn’t reflected in each of the candidates – the party is actually all these candidates crammed together. You just don’t like what you see when all the elements are separated out and spotlighted individually.
Here, let me spell it out for ya. Here are (or were) your candidates:
Rick Santorum
Rick represents the religious busy-body personality of the party. This is the part that wants the government to impose religious morals on the American citizenry. This part of the party wants to tell you what you should be doing with your body, when, where, how and with whom to have sex with, which organs and orifices you’re allowed to use, and whether or not you should use birth control. They want some control over what happens in your doctor’s office and want access to your medical records. They want a say in how many kids you have, who can adopt them and under what circumstances. They want a hand in what you teach your kids and what they’re allowed to learn in school. The religious busy-body personality is also the keeper of the keys to the party’s enormous hypocrisy vault, and utterly lacking any sense of irony. For a group who claims to be the authority of what’s most godly, they somehow manage to turn a blind eye to all the evils this party prioritizes – according to recent presidential history – far above the agenda items of the religious busy bodies.
Newt Gingrich
Newt represents the party’s mean spirit. All that snide crap that passes for wisdom to you people like because it rhymes or fits on a bumper sticker – that’s Newt. This is why the made-up phrase “compassionate conservative” is an oxymoron. This is the part that thinks poor people just need to get a job while trying their damnedest to keep the minimum wage down so the job they do have won’t pay the rent. This is the part of the party that’s most successful at persuading you to vote against your own financial interests. They will point to something that annoys you and you will forget that your stingy employer donated to their campaign. This part of the party knows that anger is a powerful motivator and will shamelessly and opportunistically appeal to people’s darker instincts.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul represents the psudo-intellectual anti-government part of the party that picks and chooses from our founding documents the way that religious zealots thinly slice the bible. These are the ones with magical theories that have never, can never, and should never be tested. It’s easier to believe something to be true if it can never be tested. Would America be better if we had no environmental regulations, no income taxes and allowed businesses to police themselves? Gratefully, we’ll never know. But these Republicans know that as long as you’re arguing over these far-fetched notions at dinner parties instead of focusing on, say, tax loopholes, they’ll be far, far better off.
Rick Perry
Two words: Yeee haaa! The Texas down-home, coyote-shooting, execution-happy, boot-up-your ass, with-us-or-against-us, let ‘em all die in hospital waiting rooms and sort ‘em out later wing of the party. To these people, the world is black and white. Good versus evil. Pick a principal that feels good and, by golly, follow it in all cases. If the world worked like a Bruce Willis movie you might have something here, but it doesn’t. The real world sometimes requires a more nuanced approach. In the real world, sometimes you just have to bring yourself to say two little words that Republicans NEVER seem to be able to say, “It depends.”
Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain
I’m going to lump them together because they’re sort of the same, and by that, I mean crazy. You do have a crazy-people wing of the party. Yeah, the left has crazy people too, but you elect your crazy people. Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell all won Republican primaries. You guys have a knack for electing crazy people. (Why do you do that, by the way?) I’m not going to say that all the women and African Americans in your party are crazy, but sometimes it sort of looks like all the women and African Americans in your party are crazy. Do you not understand diversity? You know you don’t have to pick someone just because they’re black or female, right? George Bush actually led on this issue with the most diverse cabinet in history. If you could figure out how to do that on an electoral level, you’d benefit from having fewer Pokemon and serial-killer related political stories in the news.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Now, before we get to Mitt, I’d like to pause a moment to point something out. The Grand Ole’ Party is mostly organized around the idea of preserving or “conserving” the old ways of doing things. You reminisce about a time when men were men, women vacuumed in heels and boys brought BB guns to school. And, progress be damned, anything that’s happened since then has only made us soft. Which makes it sort of odd that you’ve embraced corporatism the way you have. Because this stuff is kind of new. Back then, taxes on the wealthy were much higher, a family could survive thrive on one salary and they couldn’t have even imagined half of what big business is up to now. Corporatism took away all the things you miss far more than liberalism ever did and yet, here we are. Perhaps it’s because, without all that corporate money funding their campaigns, they’d never be able to convince you to follow them back to such an old way of thinking. And this brings us to…
Mitt Romney
Mitt represents the corporate greed wing of your party. This is the wing of the party that would allow big business to sell your children for food if it turned a good profit. There’s nothing they won’t allow someone to do if it generates profit. Environment, regulations, worker or consumer well being, are all in the way. This wing has become so successful that they barely need to conceal their intentions. With a straight face, they blatantly favor the well off at the expense of everyone else. And this is where the mirror becomes hard for you to look at because, until now, it’s been clear to everyone but you that this wing over-rules and holds veto power over every other wing of the party. Oh, he’s not old-fashionedy-conservative enough for you? He’ll say anything to get elected? He has only one purpose and, unless you earn over a million a year, that purpose isn’t yours. Don’t forget, George W. Bush was the folksy, godly, would-like-to-have-a-beer-with-him cowboy, and when he got elected, what was the first thing he did? That’s right, tax cuts for the wealthy. And when he left office eight years later, all the other wings of the party were left holding an empty bag. So, yeah. He’s fake, he’s slimy, he’ll say or do anything to get elected because his priorities are different than yours or all the other wings. And, if he gets elected, you’ll work for him. By embracing corporatism, you made a deal with the devil and now the devil controls the cards.
And those are (or were) your candidates. Did you see anything you recognize? You should. Because when you mash ‘em all together you get the Republican Party.
So, you don’t have a candidate that excites you and I can’t say that I feel sorry for you. For four years you stood by while while people in your party called Obama every nasty thing that they could think of and then invented a few more. You tolerated it when they opposed him on even the things they had supported when it wasn’t him doing the asking. You looked the other way when they carried guns to political rallies and chuckled at all the assassination innuendo. But now, you’re getting what you deserve. They threw a primary and you don’t like your choices. Well, fuck you. Stop voting Republican if you don’t like it.
Like this:
I call bullshit on religious exceptions to govt. regulations
Religious hospitals and universities have to pay for health insurance that covers birth control and, because of this, half the country loses its mind? After a week of manufactured outrage where even some Democrats and left-leaning pundits took the side of the Catholic church, I’d like to take a moment to point out why this whole thing was and is a big load of bull.
There are two ways to call bullshit on this “issue.” I’ll take them in turn:
- This is a business regulation. Just like regulations about what factories can dump in the rivers or paint toys with. Just like regulations about putting ingredients and warnings on retail packages. Just like paying employees overtime and making sure their workplaces are safe, this is a regulation on businesses. Insurance companies are now required to cover birth control. For many years they would pay for the drugs that made old mens’ dicks hard but wouldn’t pay for birth control pills for women. It was unfair and Obama made them fix it. Businesses must also now provide their employees with health insurance. Well, guess what? Catholic hospitals and universities ARE businesses. They employ tens of thousands of people. They hire doctors and teachers and secretaries and janitors. And they don’t just hire Catholics either; they’re not allowed to discriminate and wouldn’t if they could - qualified people come in all shapes and sizes. They hire Mormons and Muslims and Hindus and Jehovah’s Witnesses and atheists and Latter Day Saints. The organizations in question here are employers of American people and they have to obey the rules that all employers are subject to. (And so do their insurance companies.) So, the question is, if we allow them to declare themselves exempt from this, then where does it end? What other regulations do religion-run businesses get to declare exemption to on ideological grounds? I can tell you right now, some religions don’t believe we need to protect the environment or preserve our natural resources at all, because if we use them up god will come down and replenish them for us. If they believe that, do they get to ignore the Endangered Species Act? Can they dump hospital waste into our rivers? And, I remind you, some religions don’t even believe in medicine at all; they pray their ills away. I’d hate to slip on the ice in front of one of their bookstores. I call bullshit.
- It’s selective outrage. Religions seem to be very selective about which violations of their tenets they’re willing to tolerate and even pay for versus which ones to get all outraged about. Do you remember that minor Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill?” Do you also remember Rick Perry nearly getting a standing ovation when he announced how many people he’d executed as governor of Texas? Sodium pentathol isn’t free. Where’s the outrage? And what of all our wars? What about the military industrial complex and all those nukes we have sitting idle, built for the express purpose of destroying the world? And what about poverty? Where’s the outrage from the Catholic church when Republicans want to cut programs for the poor? Did you know that the bible calls eating shellfish an abomination? Gee, that’s the same justification they’ve used for going after gay rights all this time. Why don’t those assholes from Kansas who protest at military funerals go stand on the docks and yell at lobster fishermen? The government subsidizes oyster farms and, as far as I know, it’s never made political headlines. I call bullshit.
So, let’s stop pretending like there’s some delicate balance between church and state. It’s not so delicate. We have a secular government on one side that needs to learn to ignore the bullshit artists on the other.
Like this:
The Ulterior Motives for Cramming the Keystone Pipeline
Like this:
Against Mitt, tougher but bigger win for Dems
I’m of the school of thought that it would be more fun run against Newt or Rick Santorum than Mitt simply because Newt and Rick are just crazy enough to say what they really think. On the other hand, Mitt would mislead his way into the presidency just like G.W. did.
It makes for a more fair contest for a right-winger to stand at a podium, saying what he really thinks, and then having to defend it. Does Newt want to abolish the minimum wage and do away with child labor laws? Great. Let’s talk about that. Is Rick Santorum against birth control? Fine. Let’s let him explain to America why it’s any of his business. That’s the kind of debate you like to have. That’s the kind of debate you want to have.
But it’s infuriating to watch a candidate convince people he’s different than what we know he is. We watched in horror as Bush convinced America in 2000 that he was folksy and reasonable “family values” kind of guy. He said he was going to make sure regular people would have more money in their pockets and be able to afford their own homes. Do you remember them asking him about gun control and affirmative action during the debates? “I believe in reasonable gun control.” ”I just don’t believe in quotas.” As if he’d found a magical middle-ground known only to himself, while those of us who knew better and looked on in horror. And, once elected, what was the first thing he went after? That’s right, tax cuts for the wealthy! And in 2008 all those “values voters” were left scratching their heads, trying to remember what they’d gotten out of two terms. Good ole’ you’d-like-to-have-a-beer-with-him George W. Bush gave us an economy custom-tailored to benefit the wealthy while putting everyone else out of work and out of their homes. Mr. “compassionate conservative” snuck one past the plate. Make that two.
You can expect the same from Mitt. No doubt, he’ll run on the premise (or promise) to make everyone as wealthy as he. “Why should I be embarrassed about my wealth? I just got what you want, and I’ll help you get it!”, he’ll declare as if hawking some get-rich-quick scheme on late-night TV for three easy payments of $19.95 (but it’ll cost us more than that, you can be sure). I know a lot of people think Mitt’s wealth will be his liability and that he’ll be easy to beat because he’s so out of touch, but Republicans have a way of steering into these things, and coming out on top. Karl Rove Politics 101 says he should try and turn it into a strength, and I’m betting that’s what he does. And it may work. If four years of slumping economy has done anything, it’s caused people to long for some wealth of their own, even at the expense of their values. If Obama’s going to beat Mitt, he’ll have to remind everyone it’s not their income Mitt’s looking out for. He’ll have to do more than inspire hope. He’ll have to plant some serious suspicion about what will surly be a wily opponent.
But having Mitt on the ticket does do one thing for Democrats – it takes the wind out of the sails of the same conservatives George W. Bush and Carl Rove felt were the key to everything: their base. And with those staunch conservatives staying home, unenthusiastic occupying the sofa on Election Day, it not only means victory for Obama, it means Democrats take back the House. If Mitt becomes the nominee, it may mean a more difficult and tricky election for Obama, but it also guarantees a low turnout election for Republicans.
Like this:
Are Republicans Ever Right About the Media?
As much as we groan and roll our eyes every time Republicans bitch about the “liberal media”, we complain a lot about the media, too. I mean, Republicans have them so cowed that they can’t report an inconvenient fact about Republicans anymore without the “Democrats say…” qualifier or inviting some propaganda-spreading GOP strategist on to distort the issue.
So, it pains me to say this but Newt was sort of right about the CNN debate moderator asking him about his ex-wife:
(Forward to 2:15)
I hate Newt, but I think I’m a pretty objective thinker and I gotta tell ya’ – I’d be pissed off too!
Debates are supposed to be so that each candidate can answer the SAME questions so the viewer can decide between them. But it seems, as of very recently, that they’ve morphed into a series of gotcha questions directed at particular candidates.
And why do news outlets get to host debates anyway? They have motives and priorities that have nothing to do with the purpose of debates. In fact, you can say their motives are counter to what viewers of a debate hope to get out of it. News outlets are interested in ratings only. I wish I could say they were interested in ratings AND their reputation as a news organization, but that is evidently not true either.
If there were real debates hosted by an organization other than the news networks, the networks would still broadcast them. In fact, they would likely ALL carry the debate instead of each of them having exclusive rights to it like we have now.
Shouldn’t Republicans be hosting the Republican debate? They’re the ones who need to figure out who to choose, and I know their criteria are different than what the cable news hosts are asking in these debates because when these candidates show up to talk to primary voters in person, they get entirely different questions.
I know a lot of left-leaning folks are greatly entertained by what they’re seeing in these debates, but remember, cable news networks never get better; they only get worse! We’re next! Some day our favorite candidates will have to stand there and allow some cable news personality to play games and ask them each customized and personal gotcha questions right after another, right down the line.
The cable news networks have single-handedly, and in a short order, completely RUINED political debates! They’ve abused the privilidge of hosting them. We need to take it away from them and force them to go back to reporting ON the debate instead (as if they could even do that).
That’s it, you blew it! From now on, primary debates should be held by the political parties themselves. And what of the Presidential Debates for the General? Well, maybe they could be held in High School gymnasiums and hosted by student debate squads. I’m sure they’d do a better job.
Oh, and by the way, afterwards CNN had the nerve to refer to the GOP Primary as a “Soap Opera” on their website:
Alternet Gets it Wrong on Cable TV
Alternet is one of my most beloved news sites – has been for many years – and a frequent go-to, especially as an excellent alternative to “business news” sources.
But on this subject, I’ve got to disagree, and I hope they see it my way:
Sucker: How Cable Companies Make You Pay For Channels You’ll Never Watch | | AlterNet
An excerpt:
Since I still only consume 1% of what Comcast provides, my bill should not be $1500 a year but $15. Oh, I know the cable companies could not afford to provide service for that, so I’d happily raise it to $150 a year for my five channels of free market choice.
But you can’t get A La Carte service from cable/satellite providers. Even though anti-trust laws say these companies can’t coordinate their business plans, they do. None of them offer an A La Carte menu allowing their “customers”to pick and choose what programs they like and want to purchase, as in that old fashioned notion of “supply and demand,” and letting the market place decide which products move to the top and which fail because not enough people want or like them. That’s capitalism, and the cable/satellite companies want no part of it. And they’ve spent lavishly on politicians, federal, state and – most importantly, local, to assure they never will have to be subject to the efficiencies of a true free market.
I get the anti-trust, they’re-lobbying-against-consumers spirit of the piece, truly I do, but in this case, I have to caution against the notion of A La Carte service as a solution, as I did years ago when I wrote the following:
Cable TV: Buffet vs. Al A Carte « Jaundice James
An excerpt:
The knee-jerk reaction of most people, I think, would be to push for having the option of selecting (and paying for) only the channels they would watch, while opting out of the ones they wouldn’t. It is, really, a reasonable thing to want — in a perfect world. However, I think what most people fail to realize is that if we were to take this route, we would end up with fewer available options, and the ones we would be left with would be largely driven by ratings and popular demand.
What Pizzo defines as a benefit, citing “letting the marketplace decide” would clearly not be benficial when you consider the decisions the marketplace makes when it comes to our TV watching choices.
I prescribe a refresher on my piece, stated above. It’s always been a “Best of” on this site. I promise it’s a good read.
Radical Idea #6 : Put a Hold on Work Visas for a While
High unemployment doesn’t just mean there aren’t enough jobs. It also means there are too many of us. Jobs that non-Americans are hired for could and should be done by one of the millions of Americans who are out of work.
We hate outsourcing. And we’re not afraid of speaking up when a company is sending “our jobs” “over there”. But what about when those workers come here? How many jobs are being outsourced right under our noses?
Look around you. Millions of jobs that used to be done by young Americans are now being done by non-Americans. Fast food restaurants, the grocery store, the car wash, the copy shop. You name it. People used to work their way through college working at fast food restaurants. How often do you even see an American working in a fast food restaurant these days? It’s because this trend has the effect of lowering wages for everyone. These jobs are no longer paying enough to cover rent while someone goes to school.
“They do jobs Americans won’t do.” That’s what we’re told. We’re told that the higher labor costs would be passed along to the consumer. It’s all a lie. Companies choose to pay less for these jobs in favor of higher profits. And it works. Companies are making record profits, in part, because they’re paying record low wages in relation to their intake. It used to be that Americans worked cash registers, vacuumed floors and made copies. The difference is that their bosses weren’t flying around in private jets. They are now. Big business knows that if they paid Americans a living wage, consumers wouldn’t stand for those costs being passed along to them. So, if they hire Americans at decent wages, it comes straight out of their profits.
Some who used to be against immigration now sell it politically as a symbol of American opportunity. And it’s no wonder why. It’s not an opportunity for people so much as it is corporate opportunism. If America is still the land of opportunity for immigrants, it is just barely. When America was a land of milk and honey, we were right to welcome them all. We’re no longer a land of opportunity and prosperity for all. Instead, we’re largely limited to what the wealthiest among us allow us to have after they decide how much to keep for themselves.
Current dogma on immigration says that immigration only makes us stronger, but that largely depends on one’s definition of “stronger”. The business world has a good supply of recent immigrants who are willing to work for less than their American counterparts and, no-doubt, some view this as a strength. But we’re only the 5th most competitive country now (1.Switzerland, 2.Singapore, 3.Sweden, 4.Finland) [Source: World Economic Forum] Perhaps immigrants looking for a better life have better choices than the United States. Immigrants used to come here because we had the most. Now they come here because we’re the most willing to give up our jobs.
The economy is much stronger for Americans during periods of worker shortages. We are in the midst of an upheaval, and hopeful that we can rearrange our system to be more equitable for everyone. We hope to persuade American businesses to re-begin behaving in ways that are good for America. Until we do, we need to stop enabling them by importing cheap labor and flooding the American job market with people who aren’t Americans.
If this country ever again becomes a land of milk and honey, opportunity and upward mobility for all, then we should once again use our wealth for the betterment of others by allowing people to come here and share in that opportunity. But that is not currently the case, and we should put things on hold until we can re-tune our system.
Read more Radical Ideas.
12 Sarcastic Predictions for 2012
- The obesity epidemic ends - On January first, 132 million Americans made New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, and this year they’ll be keeping them. Grocery stores will sell out of fruits and vegetables, Health Clubs will begin hiring bouncers, and your Weight Watchers meetings will look like a Black Keys concert with general admission seating. Ben & Jerry are discovered in an apparent murder/suicide.
- Cable news short circuits – One day this year Pat Robertson will get caught having sex with Bruce Jenner in the back of Rick Perry’s campaign bus and TV cable boxes will catch fire in living rooms all across the nation. The FCC will have to declare cable news a fire hazard, require networks to cover more than one story per day and mandate that news actually be news.
- Fox News changes its business plan – Convinced their viewers will buy anything, Fox News morphs into a home shopping network. “Fox News” soon becomes shorthand for a diet drug and penis enlargement empire. “It was right under our noses all along”, declares Bill Ayers “These people can be convinced of anything!”
- Republicans are finished – Between opposing the payroll tax cut and nearly shutting down the government to protect tax breaks for private jets, the American people have had it. Republicans will never win another election. No longer will people vote against their own best interests just because Republicans mention “God” more often or because gay people give them the willies.
- The 1% give up – The 1% begin regretting the day they were born. They’re sorry they ever messed with us and promise to trim their stock portfolios and, instead, start giving Christmas bonuses again. They decide to just go enjoy their riches and sail their yachts out into international waters where they stay out of politics entirely.
- Obama loses his temper – Tired of not being able to have a bowel movement without Republican obstruction, President Obama finally loses his shit, ending his State of the Union Address with ”Ya’all can go suck it!”, and kicking over the podium while giving the finger. He installs Bernie Sanders as Attorney General with a recess appointment.
- Health insurers take up murder for hire – Health insurance companies discover that it’s cost effective to put contracts on the heads of people with pre-existing conditions. Bodies begin washing up on beaches, their pockets still full of statin drugs and asthma medication.
- The NRA will give up the act – In 2008 they said Obama would come and take your guns away, spurring the largest gun-buying spree in American history, but failing to prevent him from being elected. Now, after a half-hearted attempt at a “if-he-gets-re-elected-this-time-he-really-will-take-’em” campaign, they finally give up the ghost. “Oh, fuck it” Wayne LaPierre will be heard saying, “We never really gave a shit about gun rights – we were just a fund-raising scam for the Republicans all along. Oh, well, you got us. I guess we’ll have to go back to teaching gun safety and marksmanship like we did in the olden days.”
- There will be a marketing revolution – Some marketing genius will discover that it’s better to research what consumers want and give them that than it is to invent shit and convince people they need it. Cell phones will soon work if they’re dropped or gotten wet, and fast food restaurants will stop selling money orders and taking passport photos to move the lines along faster.
- Movie concessions will evolve even further – As ticket sales continue to fall, concession stands at movie theatres will begin to have such offerings as fresh lobster, sushi or sizzling fajitas served at your seat. Loan officers will be available at the customer service desk.
- Postal employees learn empathy – Faced with the prospect of losing their jobs without political support from the public, postal employees start pretending to care how long their lines are, sometimes even appearing to have a sense of urgency, or moving their bodies faster in attempt to gain public sympathy.
- America gets a raise - Rather than opening new operations in China, purchasing robots or enriching stockholders, American companies will use some of the cash they’ve been hording to provide value and give raises to the American consumers and employees who made them successful in the first place.
Take-Backsies – A Public “Oops” or New, Sinister, Type of PR?
First, it was Netflix that made the big “oops” of raising their prices and then being forced to back peddle after losing 800,000 customers. And they had the nerve to imply that all those customers had simply misunderstood what they were trying to do.
Next, Verizon had begun to implement a plan to charge its customers a $2 fee to pay their bills. These types of fees, by the way, are a perfect example of stealth inflation – something I like to rant about at length. (What Verizon was likely trying to do was herd people into another trap I’ve tried to familiarize my readers with, called “automatic payment”.)
Now, Verizon says it’s changed its mind about charging people the fee in response to customer outrage. And they had the nerve to try and make it sound like they were trying to do something good and it was the customers who blew it.
“At Verizon, we take great care to listen to our customers,” said Dan Mead, Verizon Wireless’ president and CEO, in a statement. “Based on their input, we believe the best path forward is to encourage customers to take advantage of the best and most efficient options, eliminating the need to institute the fee at this time.”
The decision to not implement the controversial fee came down “in response to customer feedback about the plan, which was designed to improve the efficiency of those transactions,” Verizon said in the statement.
Something funny is afoot! What is this, all of a sudden, with companies trying to get away with something, and then when it spurs outrage, acting like they should get credit for stopping whatever it was? Is this some new, sick, kind of PR?
Notice no one ever gets fired over these big, oopsies. That’s because it wasn’t a mistake so much as that they got caught.
Or, if I were to be really cynical (and I am) one could suppose these “we’re-sorry-see-we’re-really-listening” hooplas are occasionally, in fact, planned gimmicks – ones we’ll see more of in the future. Companies do benefit from such things; Coke-cola never sold as much Coke “Classic” as they did after they took New Coke off the market.
I’ve long known that business behavior gets worse as they see what each other are getting away with. Is this merely an extension of that trend? It’s easier to apologize than to ask permission? “Let’s try and sneak one by them, and if they notice and get angry, we’ll just apologize and make it look like their fault.”
It’s too soon to tell. The key, here is what happens next. No doubt, businesses are watching the results of Netflix’s and Verizon’s public apologies and trying to determine if there was a net gain or loss. The answer to that question determines how much more of it we see.
Radical Idea #5 : Require ballots to be paper and marked by hand
The notion that each State – even locality – can decide their own method for holding elections is ludicrous and rife with corruption. The Constitution should be Amended to forbid voting by electronic or mechanical means.
All the immediacy that was gained has now been lost due to voter irregularities and problems with electronic voting machines holding up the polls. When you consider that (except for mail-ins and early voting) we are able to get half the population of the United States herded through polling locations in one day, surely we can count those votes in less time. Is the following afternoon really too long to wait for the results? The immediacy of knowing who won the night of the election is unnecessary, especially since, due to election tampering and irregularities, it is often not possible. Electronic – even mechanical – methods of voting only lead to irregularities and facilitate tampering.
A ballot should be as simple as a card with check boxes which are marked by hand.
10 Reasons for Income Disparity – A Blogger’s View
I’m tired of seeing wealth disparity explained by politicians, TV journalists and economists who think it can be demonstrated in a lab – people who drive to the office each day in luxury cars and are mostly shielded from its effects. If you’re employed in a way that has a camera pointed at you or your name in the newspaper every day, odds are you just don’t get it. It’s hard to understand income disparity when your stock portfolio depends on you not understanding it.
So try this on for size: a blogger’s perspective on the reasons why. From an observer who’s been experiencing it as a consumer and employee. Someone who has been paying attention for the last 10 years, not just since it became en vogue.
So here you are, my blog list for the year:
10 Reasons for Income Disparity – Why the Rich Get Richer While Everyone Else Suffers
- Wall Street & investment culture - When stockholders are happy, most of the rest of us are suffering. When a company does massive layoffs, their stock goes up. When a company raises prices, their stock goes up. When a company figures out creative new ways to screw their customers, or otherwise give their customers less for their money, their stock goes up. Companies use investors’ dollars to purchase machines, robots and technologies that take jobs and drive salaries down. And because investors don’t care what companies do to their customers or employees so long as they continue to “earn” millions while lounging by the pool, the harmful behavior persists. In this way, Wall Street slowly leaches financial well being from the majority of Americans.
- Mergers - All those fast food chain restaurants that line the highways and strip malls used to be separate companies. (Kentucky Fried Chicken wasn’t always a KFC/Pizza Hut/Taco Bell.) Now they’re all owned by one or two big companies. Same with the media, service providers and retail chains. When there were more companies that weren’t owned by other companies, their owners weren’t nearly as high on the economic scale. If more money is being funneled to the top, mergers and buyouts mean the wide end of the funnel is getting wider and the skinny end is getting skinnier. Small business owners don’t have anyone to funnel money up to. But, as any small business owner who’s tried to stay afloat in a town where a big box store opened can tell you, you don’t have to put money in the funnel on purpose for it to flow to the top.
- Wage control - Stop saying “Wages are stagnant.” It makes it sound like an accident. Wages aren’t stagnant. They’re being systematically controlled. Whether it’s the salary surveys that corporate employers use (basically a form of price fixing), or outsourcing, or exploiting immigrants, or taking advantage of unemployment, employers have been driving wages down (relative to the cost of living) for decades. The income gap between the wealthy and the rest us of grows because the wealthy choose to pay us less.
- Stealth inflation – When prices go up, it’s considered inflation – and we’re “supposed” to get a salary increase to accommodate it. When we’re given a new cost – something we didn’t have to pay for before – in lieu of raising a price, it’s not considered inflation. We call this “Stealth inflation”. (Perfect examples would be airline baggage fees, or the difference between the advertised price for cellular service and what appears on a bill.) We haven’t gotten a raise to account for all the new things we’re being charged for and it’s killing us.
- Consumer prices – Hasn’t anyone noticed that prices haven’t really gone down during this recession? I don’t know about you, but my rent has gone up $50/year since 2008. The cost of groceries, clothing. Phone and internet service. The prices on restaurant menus. All up. And “luxury items” like movie tickets and concessions? Forget it. Except for a sale here and there, or the occasional desperate small business owner, this has been a bargainless recession. Prices have just gone up and up like they always have. And people wonder why wealthier Americans never felt the pain of the recession. Why would they? The way many businesses avoided feeling the pain (or disappointing stockholders) was to simply raise their prices.
- Corporate greed - When a company announces there will be no raises and then builds a new production plant, that’s a choice. McDonalds is the biggest beneficiary of political pressure to not raise the minimum wage. During the health card debate, they invented a creative new way to limit what they spend on their employees’ health insurance. Yet, they’ve announced plans to build a restaurant a day in China. Companies choose to take money that could have gone to employee pay and benefits and use it, instead, in ways that expands wealth at the top.
- Politics – Big business funds political campaigns so we end up with less of their profit. It’s as simple as that. Big political donors aren’t donating so they can keep air and water cleaner, give their employees more and face more competition in the marketplace. The money given to politicians is designed to keep profits from trickling down.
- Credit rating and personal debt – The agencies who decide our credit scores are paid by the banks who give us credit. The banks prefer it if we have a lower credit score because they can charge us higher interest rates, so the agencies who decide our credit scores mainly utilize criteria that drives scores down (missed payments, high balances) and ignore criteria that may raise scores (income increases, paying off and closing accounts). This only contributes to what is already a major problem: personal debt. For a decade at least, when people’s incomes didn’t meet their expenses (especially for emergencies like medical bills or car repairs) they covered the gap by using credit cards or taking out loans. As interest rates crept upward, so have their balances. Caught in the catch-22 of using credit cards to cover gaps, and having high credit card payments taking larger chunks of the income they do have, they spiral ever downward.
- The banking system – It used to be that banks earned their money by loaning people money and earning interest on that money. No more. Now banks earn most of their money by charging fees and penalties – or more to the point, tricking people into falling into traps that result in fees and penalties. And who do you suppose pays the majority of those fees and penalties? Is it the people with high account balances and no debt? No. It’s the people already living on the edge – people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck and have it so tight that they occasionally miss a payment or go over their limit. But this is where the record bank profits we’ve been seeing comes from – much to the joy of shareholders, I might add.
- Regressive cost of living – The cost of living is regressive. When an executive making 100K/yr. drives into the city and has to pay an $6.00 toll (both ways) he may complain about about it, but at 3% of his daily pay it hardly affects his life. When a waitress earning 20K/yr. has to pay the same toll in and out of the city, it saps a whopping 15% of her daily pay. In order for the executive to feel that kind of sting, he’d have to be paying a daily toll of $57.75. It’s the same with gas prices, groceries, cigarettes, internet access – whatever the costs, those at the bottom of the income scale feel their costs more, and when those costs rise – even a little – they feel it disproportionately.
So there you have it. Can we now stop pretending like income inequality is some magical mystery that nobody can do anything about? Can we stop dreaming up ridiculous solutions like “entrepreneurship” and “patent reform”?
The simple truth of the matter is that most of us are getting screwed in ways that are easy to understand.
