about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Rethuglican Karen Handel says this in response to whether she would raise the minimum wage, after
Jon Ossoff says he would. She states a list of talking points.
This is an example of the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative. I do not
support a livable wage. What I support is making sure that we have an economy that is … is robust
with low taxes and less regulation so that those small businesses that would be dramatically hurt if
you impose higher minimum wages on them … are able to do what they do best : grow jobs and create
good paying jobs for people in this sixth district.
She is correct. This is an example of "the fundamental difference between a liberal and a
making sure that we have an economy that is … is robust
with low taxes and less regulation
How would you "make sure" this happens?
Low taxes assumes the trickle down theory works.
Less regulation for who?
It's as if the "robust" economy happens automatically when you lower taxes and cut regulations.
Except that is not true. It's also not supported by the historical record. Tax cuts for
corporations and wealthy people do not automatically become investments in the infrastructure.
Caymen Island bank accounts and frivolous spending diminish the power of this assumption. Cutting
regulations can also create massive future costs at the expense of a short term gain -- such as when a
company is allowed to externalize the costs of production in the forms of pollution and shoddy
safety procedures, creating costs on society that are not felt by the non-regulated industries.
small businesses that would be dramatically hurt if
you impose higher minimum wages on them
Except it's not true. Look at Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles and anywhere else where the
urban minimum wage was raised. Small businesses were not "dramatically hurt" at all.
able to do what they do best : grow jobs and create
good paying jobs
How do you "grow jobs"? What fertilizer do you use to "grow" these "good paying jobs" ? It's like
these things automatically happen when you lower taxes and cut regulations, and so that's why Mrs.
Handel makes these statements about "growing" in relation to the job market.
Are Google, MacIntosh, and Microsoft paying low wages as they "grow"?
Entrepreneurs take chances when they perceive opportunities to make money. The cost of labor is a
social decision, and does not inhibit the motivations of businesses in a local environment because
all employers have the same labor costs. If there is a concern that local businesses might not be
able to compete with non-local businesses, than that is a matter than is better addressed in other
ways. The minimum wage of labor is not related at all to the ability to grow jobs because it is
society and social norms which set this foundation. This is why the minimum wage laws were
established in the first place, because society decided there should be a basic floor. Those who
disagree with this position use the nonsense argument that this inhibits business growth and
expansion, despite being refuted by every single historical reference to the matter.
She has her talking points and sticks with them. Throw out the red herring arguments and prop up
this pretense of statesmen or stateswomen ship with empty nouns and phrases that sound good to the
ignorant, those deluded on the bunk economical philosophy of trickle down deregulation economics.
Friday, 9 June 2017 at 18h 6m 49s
Go Keith Go
Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 20h 6m 58s
A brief review of the last 3 weeks
It amazes me that this is from the Morning Joe, which is the most Conservative of Mainstream
outlets. When Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski (daughter of the Jimmy Carter's National Security
Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski ) are hammering down, you know you have crossed the moral
equivalent of common sense.
Thank you Mika and Joe.
Friday, 26 May 2017 at 23h 42m 1s
Today's event at my high school
A truck was stationed outside of my high school this morning. A man and his older son were
stationed with their vehicles back to back, a jeep and a truck. On the back of the truck was an
improvised wooden structure draped with a white bedsheet upon which their was a statement that
called a student at the high school “a liar”. I will not state the student’s name.
I approached the area and spoke with the father immediately, asking him, “Do you realize you are
harassing a minor?”
The man, quite seriously defended himself by saying that he has “first amendment rights”, and that
his vehicle was his own “private property”. I told him that “harassing a minor” pre-empts those
other rights, and that as far as his first amendment free speech rights are concerned, “you can’t
yell fire in a theater” or “call people vicious demeaning words simply because you have free speech”.
At that point the man broke down and admitted to me that he was angry because the parents of the
student hit his vehicle in a recent automobile accident, and were refusing to pay. I didn’t get
into the nitty gritty of these matters, but I said that I “understood” because last year some mother
fucker actually ran into my car and then decided to blame me. I said that “some people are assholes
but you don’t have to stoop to their level. You are better than that. Aren’t you better than that.”
Then I reminded him that the police were going to come and he was probably going to be in a lot of
trouble. In fact, I said that the only reason the Pacifica police aren’t here is because they were
having a staff meeting. I said that “I am just trying to do you a favor man” and that the only
thing he is really gonna do is “cause a whole lot of commotion on the last day of school. Aren’t
you better than that?”
That appeared to be the winning argument. The man took the construction down and then left the
I find that you have to respect the reasons why people do things when you approach them and explain
to them why it is actually in their best interest to reconsider. In this case the man was
reasonable. He actually has a student at Terra Nova.
Financial distress causes people to make poor choices because their emotions get the best of them.
All of us are equally vulnerable to this phenomenon.
Friday, 26 May 2017 at 23h 17m 45s
The Office of Management and Budget
"Mick" Mulvaney is a good ole boy from the deep south who has sold his integrity to the larger
vulgar forces of destruction, learning this truth when he was a lawyer from 1992 to 1997, connecting
with wealthy patrons who needed his services in the courts. Welcome to the modern world.
David Stockman held this
position for Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1985.
I just watched a very cleanly edited rant evolved around the attempted smear of Jeremy Corbyn based
upon what a parsed editorial comment said on a magazine he wrote for 30 something years ago.
I know right? Weak. Very weak. But that's the currency these people use to take down legitimate
spokespersons for the people.
you don't know, Jeremy Corbin is running against Theresa May in a General election in the UK that is
on the 8th of June.
As is mentioned in the youtube video below, the fucking pathetic US
press made hay out of the usage of the word "rape" in something Bernie Sander's wrote back in 1972
when he wrote an essay about gender ambiguity. To be more precise, the comment concerned the
substance of how some women actually fantasize about being raped, a comment which is not condoning
or saying rape is acceptable. It's just stating the truth. A very small segment of the female
population actually do fantasize about being taken by a man in a playful but rough manner. That's
why fur enhanced handcuffs are sold. Saying this in no way indicates I or anyone else deserves the
actually vicious act of criminal behavior. It's just simply saying that sometimes consenting adults
have a desire to indulge in kinky sexual activity. There is no intention of doing harm or hurting
other people for psychotic or sociopathic ends.
But alas, if you can't attack the ideas, and baring the lack of systematic ongoing behavior, you
have to find some reason to attack the person.
Again, if you can't attack the ideas, you have to find some reason to attack the person.
Oh how I wish we had a Parliamentary system. When the governing party fails a vote, they have to
have a new election. If that happened here, we would be re-voting for the President after the first
AHCA repeal that failed. Which is why that demented proportion of our elite love this system of
government. It is easily manipulated by dispersed wealthy, and can be clogged up by the intricate
court system, because in the end it relies upon imperfect humans who will decide the cases and make
the interpretations of what is falsely always called "blind" justice.
Justice is not blind. Those lawyers, those prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges see quite well
what is going on, and sometimes they also see who it is that will provide for them the best long
term employment prospects. Anyone who has paid attention to history, and sees without ideological
eyes, can see this quite clearly. You think the current Supreme Court is ideological. Whoa man,
look up the justices who tried the Dred Scott case. Look up the justices who decided corporations
were people back in the latter 1880's and early 1890's based upon a comment of a rather obscure
clerk concerning a railroad corporations taxation on property. Waving the bloody shirt was a sure
fire way to stir up the masses by the corporate stooges who ran the various state governments and
Congress during the post civil war era up until perhaps the 1890's when the populists began to take
over state governments in droves.
The usage of bias, innuendo, and human prejudice is nothing new. You should read the screeds in the
urban newspapers about the "radicalism" of William Jennings Bryant that ultimately led to the
destruction of the farmer's revolt and the election of William McKinley -- and the Spanish-American
War, with all of the aftermath.
Wednesday, 24 May 2017 at 22h 18m 1s
Defining Deviancy Downward
This is Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor for President Clinton from 1993 to 1997. Click here for a wikipedia
He has an interesting biography, according to the wikipedia source
From 1973 to 1974 he served as law clerk to Judge Frank M. Coffin, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, and from 1974 to 1976 was Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General,
Robert Bork. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed him Director of the Policy Planning Staff at
the Federal Trade Commission.
Wait. What? He was an assistant to Robert Bork during the Ford administration after Nixon resigned?
Wednesday, 24 May 2017 at 21h 36m 25s
Keith is a beast
Keith speaking about the pathetic Fox news and Sean Hannity falsely smearing the Democrats on the
death of a man who was murdered in a robbery. Fucking assholes.
And then came Sean Hannity. I have mentioned before that I used to know him. I used to work in a
radio studio adjoining his a New York City and that he marveled to me about how seriously people
took what he said and how anybody thought it was anything more than a job to him and how they would
expect that he hated me when I would slam him when in fact the publicity would increase his ratings
and he said with a laugh all he cared about were his ratings.