Man, it just keeps getting more depressing....
With "Liberal" media like this, who needs enemies? Jesus Christ, the Catfood Commission's recommendations don't make me queasy, they make me feel hopeless for the country's future. There is nothing in them except more gifts for the wealthy. What part of the American people aren't interested in cuts, raising the retirement age, and favor raising the ceiling on Social Security's imposition of taxes don't these ignorant mother fuckers understand? For the life of me, is there no one who understands that we couldn't care less about the deficit? It's fucking jobs, fucking jobs, fucking jobs. Period.
Even more depressing is this--Republicans are now more trusted on Social Security than Democrats. The people who want to destroy it, or turn it over to the whims of the hookers and coke crowd on wall street is more trusted than the party that created it and has saved it for nearly eighty years--think about that. Ahem...maybe it's best you don't.
There's more: the gop has blocked an extension of unemployment benefits for what will probably be the first of many times (and they don't even have control of the House yet) which means there's a good chance the children of nearly two million families won't be seeing presents from Santa under their trees this year--and since spending drives our economy, it will likely be in park for a while longer. Seven hundred billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, but no Christmas presents for the kids of the middle class--and Americans decided to put these pinheads in charge for the next two years. I would have thought...coke and hookers for wall street on one hand...goodies from Santa on the other...would have been a no brainer, but what the fuck do I know? I just actually, you know, give a fuck about my fellow Americans. More important that Obama is a one-term President (not that he doesn't deserve it) than the poor and middle class, uh, eat.
Finally, this piece and this one, show us that we're about to be taken to the cleaners again by the "less taxes on the wealthy mean jobs and prosperity for the rest of us" crowd. No evidence, no past success, but we'll be suffering with less for the great lie. I lived through Reagan's trickle down bullshit, lived through George W.'s less taxes on millionaires is good economic policy, and all I saw through both of them was the wealthier getting wealthier, and the rest of us stagnating. You'll pardon fucking me if I just can't fucking wait for the next round--I'll probably end up with a cut in pay and no health benefits so my company's CEO can own ten houses instead of six. In my favorite words...fuck you, next idiot please!
But the week wasn't entirely lost (brace yourselves): a Free Press columnist, Brian Dickerson, actually calls out republicans for their lie about the cost of Obama's recent trip to Asia--though, being a professional columnist and all, he doesn't call them liars. Nope, he just calls them fucking idiots (in a nice professional columnist sort of way). Good times....
How pathetic is that? The only hope I can find is a relatively calm column chastising republicans for their idiocy. In the immortal words of one Boz Scaggs: "Danger, there's a breakdown dead ahead...."
Peace,
emaycee
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Stupid is as stupid does
I couldn't begin to explain this--in the just completed midterms, the LGBT community doubled their support of republican candidates over 2008. Now Terkel's piece makes a few good points--some LGBT constituents no doubt voted their pocketbooks, and some have to be disappointed by the inability of the Obama administration to make many inroads on LGBT issues. But still...how in the hell can any LGBT member vote for a party that routinely denies their lifestyle is hard-wired, will never vote for any issue of concern for their lifestyle (discrimination, DADT, hate crimes), and will fight to their death to make sure same-sex marriage never happens anywhere? How can you deny your basic self that way? How can disappointment or money be more important than your basic civil rights? How in the hell can you vote for a party that hates you? Hell, I'd be willing to bet that if someone proposed sending all LGBT Americans to Madagascar and ridding America of LGBTs forever, 90% of republicans would be in favor.
Swear to God--it's as if America is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And when it occurs, it isn't going to be pretty.
Peace,
emaycee
Swear to God--it's as if America is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And when it occurs, it isn't going to be pretty.
Peace,
emaycee
Just give me money, that's what I want...
Every year since I moved to the great state of Michigan, the Free Press runs a business piece on the top places to work in southeast Michigan. And also every year, they do a poll on what are the most important workplace factors to employees...and every year, pay and benefits end up at the bottom (only 48% this year considered it an important factor, trailing direction, execution, conditions, career, and managers). And every year...I am amazed. I mean truthfully, the only reason I work is that I get paid--if someone would pay me the pittance I get paid to sit on my ass at home, I'm outta there.
I never really understood it until I read Matthew Stewart's The Management Myth. In a nutshell, Shepherd discusses one Frederick Winslow Taylor, who in the 1920s was commissioned by the Rockefellers to find out what motivates workers to be more productive. Taylor's research initially showed that what motivates workers to be more productive is money. The Rockefellers, being the greedy bastards they were (are), were less than pleased (surprise, surprise) with the outcome. So Taylor, keenly aware of where his paycheck was coming from, rigged the process so the outcome became "workplace culture" (anyone stuck working for a corporation these days is all too familiar with this bullshit). Though Taylor's work has been thoroughly discredited through the years, management still continues to subscribe to the false outcome (again, surprise, surprise--more for the top, less for the people who actually do the work)--and people, being the lemmings that far too many of us are, have pretty much succumbed to the falsehood.
A couple of things I'd like to see in future polls (about as likely as me doing a vertical jump and landing on the moon--the business pages are for businesses, not truth, justice, and the American way): 1) A breakdown of the salaries for which people thought culture (or its derivatives) was more important than pay and benefits--it seems entirely possible that someone making six figures plus would find money less important than someone making $35-40,000 a year. 2) Some follow-up questions, such as: If you had the outside means, would you do your job for free? What if your company cut your pay $10,000 (needless to say, we'd need to leave minimum wage workers out of this question because they'd basically be working for free) per year (or $25,000 to $50,000 for people making $100-200,000 per year): Would money be more important than the other factors at that point? Would you look for a new job? Would you work as hard? Would you still consider your company a great workplace? 3) And how to explain this: only 46% of those polled thought their pay was fair for the work they do, and even less (32%) thought favorably of their benefit package. How can you reconcile money not being more important than culture when you don't think you're being paid (or receiving benefits) fairly?
In the end, I think this is just another case of flawed polling, and the working class getting fucked in the continuing class war.
Peace,
emaycee
I never really understood it until I read Matthew Stewart's The Management Myth. In a nutshell, Shepherd discusses one Frederick Winslow Taylor, who in the 1920s was commissioned by the Rockefellers to find out what motivates workers to be more productive. Taylor's research initially showed that what motivates workers to be more productive is money. The Rockefellers, being the greedy bastards they were (are), were less than pleased (surprise, surprise) with the outcome. So Taylor, keenly aware of where his paycheck was coming from, rigged the process so the outcome became "workplace culture" (anyone stuck working for a corporation these days is all too familiar with this bullshit). Though Taylor's work has been thoroughly discredited through the years, management still continues to subscribe to the false outcome (again, surprise, surprise--more for the top, less for the people who actually do the work)--and people, being the lemmings that far too many of us are, have pretty much succumbed to the falsehood.
A couple of things I'd like to see in future polls (about as likely as me doing a vertical jump and landing on the moon--the business pages are for businesses, not truth, justice, and the American way): 1) A breakdown of the salaries for which people thought culture (or its derivatives) was more important than pay and benefits--it seems entirely possible that someone making six figures plus would find money less important than someone making $35-40,000 a year. 2) Some follow-up questions, such as: If you had the outside means, would you do your job for free? What if your company cut your pay $10,000 (needless to say, we'd need to leave minimum wage workers out of this question because they'd basically be working for free) per year (or $25,000 to $50,000 for people making $100-200,000 per year): Would money be more important than the other factors at that point? Would you look for a new job? Would you work as hard? Would you still consider your company a great workplace? 3) And how to explain this: only 46% of those polled thought their pay was fair for the work they do, and even less (32%) thought favorably of their benefit package. How can you reconcile money not being more important than culture when you don't think you're being paid (or receiving benefits) fairly?
In the end, I think this is just another case of flawed polling, and the working class getting fucked in the continuing class war.
Peace,
emaycee
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Teach your children well
And whatever you do, keep them away from traditional media....
As I've noted before, I really enjoy Leonard Pitts' columns, and don't necessarily always agree with him--but in this one, he's just a little too defensive, and a lot mistaken.
I never really thought much about whether or not Keith Olbermann made political donations, but if I had, I probably would have been more surprised that he didn't make contributions to Liberal leaning candidates than the fact that he has. Mr. Pitts seems to be overly bothered by Olbermann's contributions, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Keith Olbermann--like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or even a peon like the Detroit News' Nolan Finley and his appearances at tea party functions--is not committed to the appearance of impartiality. He is an advocate for the cause of Liberalism, much as the previously noted conservative commentators are advocates for whatever bullshit is passing as thought in republican/tea party circles these days. The claim that he was supposed to have asked permission is, frankly, silly. If Keith Olbermann was peddling conservative drivel like the aforementioned dolts, I wouldn't watch ten seconds of his show. I watch because he's Liberal--and I expect him to put his money where his mouth (so to speak) is.
In the end, I think Mr. Pitts outrage is more his own embarrassment than an integrity issue. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall him writing a column complaining about the O'Reillys and Hannities making political contributions (for the record, I have no problems with them making donations either, other than being a good waste of cash). Perhaps this is because it's much easier to debunk the arguments they make (and about the supposed Liberal media bias) because they live in an alternate reality (which means more or less, they believe it, it's true, facts be damned). It's a lot harder to debunk Mr. Olbermann (or Rachel Maddow or Ed Schulz) for spending the last several years showing us again and again how the media have failed the American people again and again--and in the interest of impartiality, have let a false narrative worsen the lives of Americans, and lessen our nation.
Peace,
emaycee
As I've noted before, I really enjoy Leonard Pitts' columns, and don't necessarily always agree with him--but in this one, he's just a little too defensive, and a lot mistaken.
I never really thought much about whether or not Keith Olbermann made political donations, but if I had, I probably would have been more surprised that he didn't make contributions to Liberal leaning candidates than the fact that he has. Mr. Pitts seems to be overly bothered by Olbermann's contributions, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Keith Olbermann--like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or even a peon like the Detroit News' Nolan Finley and his appearances at tea party functions--is not committed to the appearance of impartiality. He is an advocate for the cause of Liberalism, much as the previously noted conservative commentators are advocates for whatever bullshit is passing as thought in republican/tea party circles these days. The claim that he was supposed to have asked permission is, frankly, silly. If Keith Olbermann was peddling conservative drivel like the aforementioned dolts, I wouldn't watch ten seconds of his show. I watch because he's Liberal--and I expect him to put his money where his mouth (so to speak) is.
In the end, I think Mr. Pitts outrage is more his own embarrassment than an integrity issue. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall him writing a column complaining about the O'Reillys and Hannities making political contributions (for the record, I have no problems with them making donations either, other than being a good waste of cash). Perhaps this is because it's much easier to debunk the arguments they make (and about the supposed Liberal media bias) because they live in an alternate reality (which means more or less, they believe it, it's true, facts be damned). It's a lot harder to debunk Mr. Olbermann (or Rachel Maddow or Ed Schulz) for spending the last several years showing us again and again how the media have failed the American people again and again--and in the interest of impartiality, have let a false narrative worsen the lives of Americans, and lessen our nation.
Peace,
emaycee
Across the Pond
Congratulations, our British neighbors! Thanks to your prime minister David Cameron's austerity measures, you, too, can live the American Dream: working two or three jobs for a pittance in wages, for a company that will want to have a say in every aspect of your private life and make your job as tedious as possible without giving you any say in it, living just above the poverty level while the wealth of your nation will be concentrated on the few. And even better, watching the wealthy and their enablers (you know who are are--just take that wealthy guy's penis out of your mouth and speak up with pride at your pitiful financial state despite all the blowjobs) tell you it's all your own damn fault.
Enjoy!
Peace,
emaycee
Enjoy!
Peace,
emaycee
The revolution will not be televised
Or even occur, for that matter.
It seems the Catfood Commission has laid out some "bold" ideas--bad ideas would be a more apt description. In fairness, the odds of this passing even the Catfood Commission itself is slim, but let's take a peek at some of these "ideas:" 1) Increase Social Security retirement age--Why? Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. 2) Eliminate popular tax deductions such as the child tax credit and mortgage interest--see end point. 3) Cut income tax rates from 35% to 23%--because that worked so fucking well under George W., with the deficit setting records, the slowest job growth since fucking Hoover, and wages stagnating. What the fuck? 4) Raise gas tax 15 cents a gallon--see end point, again. 5) Freeze pay of most (one assumes big shots and congress would be exempt) federal employees for three years and cut federal work force by 10%--once again, at end point. 6) Limit or end the tax-free status of employer-provided healthcare--end point.
The endpoint: does anyone but me notice a theme here? The entire fucking exercise is on the backs of the middle class and one would be hard pressed to find one area where the wealthy are going to have to cut anything--and stand to only get wealthier. In a few words, fuck you, next idiot please! Who the fuck hired these people--the Koch brothers? Thank God for Nancy Pelosi, who may be the only sane politician left in this country, who said the ideas as set forth are "unacceptable." This set of proposals is utter bullshit and continues those of us who make up the middle class on the losing side of the class war.
Want more proof the revolution is finito? The gutless Obama administration has already given up the next two years and intends to play defense. Yeah, that ought to inspire us to get out and vote in 2012. The bankers are already licking their chops for the incoming republican house--hard to imagine the banks could fuck us over even more than they did under George W., but thanks to Citizen's United, there's even more money to be had by republicans for fellating the bankers at our expense. Oh, and Heath Shuler is still mulling a run against Pelosi for minority leader, calling Pelosi's tenure "unacceptable." Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha--if the Democratic Party wants to head to its extinction, it really needs to listen to people like Shuler.
I really like this piece about rebuilding the Democratic Party, but after 34 years of watching it fail to live up to its ideals, I'm not holding my breath. Charlie Brown may have never given up hope that Lucy would actually let him kick the damn football, but I pretty much have.
Peace,
emaycee
It seems the Catfood Commission has laid out some "bold" ideas--bad ideas would be a more apt description. In fairness, the odds of this passing even the Catfood Commission itself is slim, but let's take a peek at some of these "ideas:" 1) Increase Social Security retirement age--Why? Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. 2) Eliminate popular tax deductions such as the child tax credit and mortgage interest--see end point. 3) Cut income tax rates from 35% to 23%--because that worked so fucking well under George W., with the deficit setting records, the slowest job growth since fucking Hoover, and wages stagnating. What the fuck? 4) Raise gas tax 15 cents a gallon--see end point, again. 5) Freeze pay of most (one assumes big shots and congress would be exempt) federal employees for three years and cut federal work force by 10%--once again, at end point. 6) Limit or end the tax-free status of employer-provided healthcare--end point.
The endpoint: does anyone but me notice a theme here? The entire fucking exercise is on the backs of the middle class and one would be hard pressed to find one area where the wealthy are going to have to cut anything--and stand to only get wealthier. In a few words, fuck you, next idiot please! Who the fuck hired these people--the Koch brothers? Thank God for Nancy Pelosi, who may be the only sane politician left in this country, who said the ideas as set forth are "unacceptable." This set of proposals is utter bullshit and continues those of us who make up the middle class on the losing side of the class war.
Want more proof the revolution is finito? The gutless Obama administration has already given up the next two years and intends to play defense. Yeah, that ought to inspire us to get out and vote in 2012. The bankers are already licking their chops for the incoming republican house--hard to imagine the banks could fuck us over even more than they did under George W., but thanks to Citizen's United, there's even more money to be had by republicans for fellating the bankers at our expense. Oh, and Heath Shuler is still mulling a run against Pelosi for minority leader, calling Pelosi's tenure "unacceptable." Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha--if the Democratic Party wants to head to its extinction, it really needs to listen to people like Shuler.
I really like this piece about rebuilding the Democratic Party, but after 34 years of watching it fail to live up to its ideals, I'm not holding my breath. Charlie Brown may have never given up hope that Lucy would actually let him kick the damn football, but I pretty much have.
Peace,
emaycee
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
No, really--Hitler says 'Jews are the salt of the earth'
As one might expect from a newspaper that once killed a union (so much for it being a liberal rag--if memory serves, liberals support unions), the Free Press is having an orgasm over the coming destruction of the labor union movement at the hands of the new gop majority.
But this, well this is just a bit much: "The U. S. Chamber of Commerce released exit poll data showing just more than half the electorate believes it will hurt the economy if unions have more say in how business operates."
What the fuck? I mean--superlatively--what the fuck? How in the world can any knowledgeable reporter take this poll seriously? The fucking chamber of commerce? The one that's the most anti-worker, pro-corporate, pro-wall street organization in the world? As someone who, you know, actually has a brain, the first thing I thought upon reading this was, "How come the chamber of commerce didn't ask people as they left the polls if they thought their wages would be hurt by unions having more say in how business operates? Or their benefit levels?" It's no surprise people don't support unions when they're given polling data that's dubious at best, and a lie at worst by an organization that actively seeks to see that they get paid as little as possible and have as few benefits as possible, lest the CEOs might make a few dollars less.
For the record, I actually believe the chamber's poll results. I also believe that the end of the world is near, and it will come at the hands of an obese, balding, forty-three year old Texan who will destroy the earth by blowing mountains of flame out of his ass....
Peace,
emaycee
But this, well this is just a bit much: "The U. S. Chamber of Commerce released exit poll data showing just more than half the electorate believes it will hurt the economy if unions have more say in how business operates."
What the fuck? I mean--superlatively--what the fuck? How in the world can any knowledgeable reporter take this poll seriously? The fucking chamber of commerce? The one that's the most anti-worker, pro-corporate, pro-wall street organization in the world? As someone who, you know, actually has a brain, the first thing I thought upon reading this was, "How come the chamber of commerce didn't ask people as they left the polls if they thought their wages would be hurt by unions having more say in how business operates? Or their benefit levels?" It's no surprise people don't support unions when they're given polling data that's dubious at best, and a lie at worst by an organization that actively seeks to see that they get paid as little as possible and have as few benefits as possible, lest the CEOs might make a few dollars less.
For the record, I actually believe the chamber's poll results. I also believe that the end of the world is near, and it will come at the hands of an obese, balding, forty-three year old Texan who will destroy the earth by blowing mountains of flame out of his ass....
Peace,
emaycee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
