Leave a comment

Google Starts to Act Like Republicans?!

Boy, talk about the height of hypocrisy!  All the left-wing companies that poured money into President Obama’s campaign for re-election are avoiding federal taxes by funneling their profits offshore to low tax havens like Bermuda.   I thought they loved the Democrat platform of higher taxes on the rich and taxing corporations for their “fair share.”  But it seems it is okay to tax small business profits, but when it comes to large  corporations, they seem to be buying their special favors with large donations:

Image representing Google as depicted in Crunc...

University of California $1,092,906
Microsoft Corp $761,343
Google Inc $737,055
Harvard University $602,992

Google was a huge Obama supporter.  Yet why are they acting exactly like Romney and Bain Capital if what Romney was doing was so wrong?  Did they callously donate just so that could use that influence to avoid inquiries into their tax avoidance schemes?

If taxes are so right, then Google also ought to pay up, just like they want the little guy making $250,000 to do. My point?  You can stir up emotions and think you are voting to help the common man, but the whole system is still rigged by powerful special interests and large corporations, using their money to buy influence and power, and it has nothing to do with justice or “fairness” for the middle class.  At least the Republicans are honest about it; while the Democrats just act like Republicans but pretend to be all in for the common man.

 

Leave a comment

Why Going Over the Fiscal Cliff is a Good Idea… maybe…

(fear) the Fiscal Cliff...

(fear) the Fiscal Cliff… (Photo credit: MyEyeSees)

Politics aside, (mostly ?),  going over the Fiscal Cliff may not be such a bad idea. Obviously the President is ready to do so, and has said as much, through Tim Geithner. Why would the President want to do that? Because after taxes go up, it is easier to propose a reduction in taxes for some as part of a deal, rather than raising them. After the Cliff, taxes will go up on everyone, and then any proposed tax decreases, if only on the middle class, would be a step forward.

The Cliff also forces entitlement and defense cuts, which are impossible to pass positively with normal legislation. But by enforcing those cuts, every new budget would have to work from this lowered baseline. Just passing a stop-gap fiscal measure will apparently to nothing to cut either defense or entitlements. There is a “no cost benefit” for both Democrat and Republican for passively allowing cuts to entitlements. Since anyone who proposes cuts to Social Security or Medicare immediately becomes the target of the left, neither Democrat or Republican can afford the consequence. Every time Republicans have tried, they have lost big time: in 2006 and 2012. Entitlements are the Democrats’ bread and butter and can’t ever vote for any cuts.  So, if Obama starts with the cuts and then proposes raises to spending, if not the full raises in the current system, he looks like a hero. Plus, he can blame the Republicans for any fallout.

If the Cliff happens, the President thinks he will have more leverage and can blame Republicans for tax increases on the middle class and a slowing economy. It is a win-win for him… that is, unless of course, the economy completely implodes and causes a depression, for which he will try to blame Republicans, but such a course may end up backfiring. The fact that he wouldn’t compromise may come back to bite him. If there is no recovery and we are thrown into another four years of crises, it may be hard to pin the blame on the House of Representatives. Of course, with all the help the pandering media is sure to give him, he may succeed. After all, finding a scapegoat for all the world’s evils is a proven political strategy. Just ask Adolph.

On the positive side, if the Cliff happens,  the rich are taxed more, along with the middle class, entitlements and defense are cut, and austerity is forced upon us, and it seems like a better place to start balancing the budget than just extending current spending and tax rates with patchwork agreements. The course of extending the current system will only ensure unsustainable, unbalanced budgets for years to come, leading to eventual inflation or economic collapse.

5 Comments

Why Merit Pay for Teachers is an Incredibly Stupid Idea.

I previously wrote an article detailing the potentially disastrous consequences for Special Education students using a merit pay system. I wanted to post a short followup to that article, since it is again being discussed in the media.

"Teacher Appreciation" featured phot...I want to address something that is rarely discussed and is probably a social taboo: the welfare system and single parenthood, which both create problems for a viable educational system. Politicians talk as if throwing more money at education will fix the educational system, but that philosophy fails to address the underlying societal ills that are causing the disintegration of system in the first place.  My wife has told me of many students whose greatest ambition is to get to reach 16, have babies and go on welfare “like my mother.”  They say, “I don’t need to study, because I won’t need to.”   I don’t  know how many of you think that this is a very disturbing situation, but I certainly do. And it reveals an underlying breakdown of the society as a whole.  The encouragement to single parenthood, through the welfare system without a work-fare requirement, is creating an entire class of dependents in society. It encourages a complete abandonment of personal responsibility, and it destroys the incentive for education and achievement. Why work when everything you need is provided for you?

The main reason merit pay for teachers is a bad idea is that it provides absolutely zero consideration for parental irresponsibility. Thirty years ago, parents were expected to help children with homework, add discipline to correct misbehavior, and they generally supported teachers and the school system with just punishments and consequences for misbehaviors like lying, cheating, stealing, talking back and disrespecting authority. Today, as I stated before, parents have said to my wife, a teacher, that they shouldn’t have to do homework with their children because “that’s your job,”  meaning “the teacher’s.”  With no reinforcement at home, no practice, no discipline, how can you even hope to measure a teacher’s performance?

This situation brings me to the broader consideration of the divorce culture, where up to 50% of marriages end in divorce. Many studies show that divorce and pervasive single parenthood increase poverty and other attendant social ills. Fatherless children produce a society of children raising children. Having never had parental guidance, they do not know how to guide their own children.  Teen pregnancy, with its lack of proper guidance and direction, becomes endemic… or should I say, pandemic. Yet no one considers that the moral and social breakdown of the society as a whole will put stresses upon the educational system of the United States, leading to lower and lower performance no matter how much money is thrown at the system. Using merit pay as a means of pacifying the faltering conscience of the American public is merely putting a band-aid on a 6″ knife wound to the gut of American culture.  What we are witnessing is a social disintegration brought about by a rejection of traditional family and moral values, encouraged by a welfare system that has no accountability, and the abandonment of personal responsibility made possible by political pandering; all leading to the desire to blame or burden, in this case, teachers for our social ills and make them responsible for our betterment.  The problem is that they cannot do it alone, even if they are the best teachers on earth. Teachers cannot fix what is wrong with us as a people. They do not have the resources or the power to make adults behave like responsible adults.

As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Related Article: Principals revolt against merit pay based upon abstract standards

3 Comments

Why Republicans Have Nothing to Lose Over the Fiscal Cliff

English: Peter F. Rothermel's "Patrick He...

English: Peter F. Rothermel’s “Patrick Henry Before the Virginia House of Burgesses”, a painting of Patrick Henry’s “If this be treason, make the most of it!” speech against the Stamp Act of 1765 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Republicans were soundly beaten in the last election with the marketing campaign strategies of the Obama administration. Fiscal Conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty, in the freedom from government mandates, all lost in the battle for the hearts of the majority of the American people. Now the Obama Machine is setting up to blame the Republicans for the fiscal cliff if they do not surrender everything: higher taxes on the middle class (Yes Virginia, $250,000 – $500,000 is now the middle to upper middle  depending on where you live.),  no real spending cuts on entitlements, and no real progress on reducing the unsustainable national debt.  The Machine plans to blame the Republicans for a shattered economy for refusing to cave on all these issues and just do what the President wants. He is already out campaigning on these issues.  You would think that if the Republicans had any hope for the future, they would just yield on taxes and give the President everything he wants. He would then, indeed, totally own the economy and its consequences.

However, there are times when you are pushed to the wall and you have nothing to lose, and it is a mistake for an attacker to think he has the upper hand. If your wife and children were being attacked by a street gang, you may have no hope of winning a fight, but by God, it would be better to die in their defense than watch idly and helplessly from the sidelines. The Democrats don’t understand that they have pushed Republicans to the wall. The Republican cause is lost. They have nothing more to lose except their principles, for which it is better to die nobly than to surrender. It is better to die for what you believe than be a slave for the rest of your life. If the economy crashes and the Republicans are blamed, so be it. But if the Republicans hope to come out of this battle with one ounce of respect, they had better go down fighting rather than give up.

Chuck Schumer proposed a compromise that the Republicans could possibly live with: taxing millionaires and up a bit more, but it seems this administration wants all or nothing, which is really the stance of an emperor and not a president. He is willing to go over the cliff, if it works for some long term political advantage. If the Republicans do surrender on all these issues, we really are a one party State and not a democracy.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry
US orator, patriot, & politician in American Revolution (1736 – 1799)

Leave a comment

Taxing the Rich? Who is Rich?

The President wants to tax the rich  so that they pay their “fair share.”

The problem I believe is that many people no longer think $250,000 a year is rich.  The cost of living in NYC or D.C. or San Francisco, with minimum housing at $500k, is just really overwhelming.  A decent house (or a postage stamp in San Francisco for $500k), 2 cars, student loan debt, or tuition, and what’s left?

Plus, it seems that all the proposed tax increases on the “rich” will only run the government for 8 days. That does nothing to tackle the $16 trillion debt.

Just saying… you can stir up the spirit of envy and use emotion to paint the mildly successful as the “evil rich who aren’t paying their fair share.” But that doesn’t solve the deficit problem.

Comparison of inflation of college tuition and...

Comparison of inflation of college tuition and fees, medical costs, and cost of living from 1978 to 2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Leave a comment

Facebook Starts a Rebellion with it’s new policies

Star Trek - Borg

(Update) Apparently, the copyright issue stated below is only a rumor. The real issue to the changes of Facebook Policy are privacy issues. 

See here!

Facebook has created user backlash with its new “WE OWN EVERYTHING YOU POST” policies.  I suspect many people will be dropping Facebook. Consider how all business pages’ content will now be owned and distributed by Facebook.  Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg,  or should I say, Mark “Sucker” BORG…  “You will be assimilated” ?

In response, please post the following message on your Facebook pages:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, posts, commentary, illustrations, comics, paintings, photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).

For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.

Recent Facebook Policy Concerns in the News:

http://www.albanytribune.com/24112012-new-facebook-policy-raises-concerns-over-sharing-of-user-data/#.ULOjpqV8oiY

Leave a comment

The Big Losers in Tuesday’s Election? Social Conservatives (Part 2)

In the previous article, I noted that the big loser in Tuesday’s election was fiscal conservatism based upon the fact that the Democrat strategy of class warfare against the rich was the resounding winner. But there was another loser in this fight: social conservatives. It is clear that the majority of Americans considered economic self-interest more important than any traditional moral, social or religious value. People were more willing to vote against the rich than to consider any moral issue. If social conservatives are indeed a majority, they are not principled enough to put those values ahead of self-interest, or are not so committed to those values that they will make them primary in their decisions. Consider what values the Democrat Party espoused:

  • Homosexual Marriage
  • Denying Churches the right to their moral and religious values (under Obamacare)
  • Removing God from the Party platform
  • Nearly voting to abandon Israel
  • Pro-abortion
  • Banning Guns (the unspoken agenda witnessed in the UN Arms Treaty)
  • Welfare benefits over work and accountability
  • Illegal Immigration
  • Lack of transparency over things like Fast and Furious.
English: Sarah Palin addressing the 2008 Repub...

English: Sarah Palin addressing the 2008 Republican National Convention in Saint Paul (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Democrat views were supported by the majority vote. Now, even if the majority didn’t believe in all those things, they did not consider these issues important enough to change their vote or overrule their economic self-interest.

What I am saying is that in the political arena at least, social conservatives have lost the battle for the culture. They are not winning issues. They are in the minority. Their hope for political reform is now pretty much dead. Their hope for natural remedies is evaporating.

I think conservative Christians feel pretty much defeated right now. I was reminded by a friend of the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. The disciples had been expecting Jesus to be a political and military Messiah who would “redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). Jesus had gained great popularity with the people. He was challenging the corrupt politicians and religious leaders of his day. He was on a roll, but then in the night, he was captured and tried in secret, handed over to the Romans and put to death on Passover. The disciples felt lost, and they felt like they had lost. Their hope in Jesus had been crushed and Jesus had been executed. Their Messiah was dead. They were wandering in a wilderness of sadness and sorrow. Jesus had told them that his kingdom was not of this world, but they didn’t understand that. They looked for an earthly kingdom of righteousness and liberation from Roman oppressors. When Jesus was resurrected, their view of victory changed, but they still had to live under Roman oppression, many dying for their faith, without ever having a hope of transforming or changing the culture at large. That is where social conservatives find themselves now… a minority in a secular culture, as unable to reform the nation as early Christians were in ancient Rome.

True social conservatives are committed to their faith and values, no matter what the cost and no matter if they are victorious or not. They will not betray their core beliefs or compromise on essential moral values. So, in essence, they are excluded from the political process by the establishment Republicans who want to use them for political gain but not embrace their moral agenda. For the Republican Party, it is a lose lose situation. If the Party continues to appoint morally indifferent, supposedly “centrist”, candidates whose only interest is economics, they will lose the social conservatives, and lose elections. However, as things stand, they are so opposed to social conservatives, that they are loath to nominate anyone with true socially conservative values. The establishment will seek to destroy them. Witness what happened to Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. Sarah was hated as much by establishment Republicans as she was by Leftist Democrats, and they were glad she was destroyed. Santorum fared little better. But apparently from these election results, fiscal conservatism itself is also a losing proposition. The American populace is now firmly socialist.

The Republican establishment has a vision of prosperity without a moral foundation; a secular Tower of Babel. But without a moral foundation, covetousness, envy, and class warfare are acceptable attitudes that justify government intervention by any means necessary, and so undermine any claim to the justice of fiscal conservatism.

It says in Proverbs (14:34) that “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any land.” It is a mistake to think you can build a secure and prosperous nation without God. There is an inevitable consequence for ignoring God’s law.

“As nations cannot be punished or rewarded in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects Providence punished National sins by National calamities.” – George Mason

Hello Sandy and Katrina! What is next?

Leave a comment

The Big Losers in Tuesday’s Election? Blue Blood Republicans. (Part 1)

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in Ashland today

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

One thing is clear in the election results from Tuesday: fiscal conservatism is the big loser. Class warfare against the rich, represented in the popular mind individually by Romney and by corporations in Bain Capital, worked. The idea that fiscal conservatism is a winning agenda is dead. Taxing the rich to pay for more benefits for the poor is the idea that won. The Blue Blood Republicans, the “moderates,” are fond of naming the religious right and social values voters as the “problem” for the Republican party, and if they could just get rid of these “Christians,” and vote purely on economic issues, they would win elections hands down.

Well, that isn’t true. Surely there were many votes cast against Romney by radical feminists and homosexual marriage advocates, but they are Democrats anyway from way back. But what really lost was the failure of the message of fiscal restraint and smaller government. The people voted for socialized medicine and higher taxes on the “rich.” They voted for benefits.

The other message is also clear: socially conservative voters were not convinced that Romney shared their values, and they had no enthusiasm for him. They did not turn out. The base did not go all in for Romney. The fact that Republican turn out for Romney was even less than for John McCain tells you something about the failure of the Blue Blood strategy. The moderates alienated their socially conservative base; and they thought they could win without them, going centrist and after the independents. They picked a safe, moderate, middle of the road candidate, whose wavering on every fiscal and social issue allowed him to be painted with whatever brush the Democrats wanted to use on him. What they did though is convince the social conservative voter of Romney’s insincerity.

Now many socially conservative voters voted against Obama, but many stayed home, not wanting just to settle for the lesser of two evils. Perhaps his Mormonism was a factor, but I think it was deeper. It was his flip-flopping on every social and fiscal issue just to get elected that caused the principled conservatives to drop out.

My prediction is that over the next four years the Republican Party will split. The Ron Paul coalition will have had it with both the failure and the compromise of the moderate, secular, Republicans. There are probably a lot more populist Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats that are also socially conservative than there are economic conservatives. I believe that if the Blue Bloods start blaming the social conservatives for this loss, the Ron Paul constituency will be done with the Republicans once and for all. After all, why keep voting for the same Party than attacks your values and then proceeds to lose elections? If the Republican party then decides to endorse homosexuality, abortion, and illegal immigration to “expand” the base, they will lose what is left of the social conservatives. Fiscal conservatism alone is not a winning platform, as well demonstrated by the results of this election.

4 Comments

The Politics of Envy and a Culture of Greed

Seven Deadly Sins by Rox Steady

Seven Deadly Sins by Rox Steady (Photo credit: dingler1109)

 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife… or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” –  Exodus 20:17

To covet is to desire to possess what rightfully belongs to another. It is not simply admiring what another has, but is the desire to take it. Covetousness is a form of greed. You don’t have to be rich to be greedy. You can be poor and greedy, and you can be poor and envy what others have.   We now have an entire political party dedicated to stoking the fires of envy and greed. It is called the Democrat party, and its chief strategy is intent on dividing Americans by stirring up envy towards the rich. It also appeals to people’s greed, because it promises to take what others have and give it to those who have “less.” This is covetousness, pure and simple, and that means the entire Democrat strategy is built upon a violation of the Ten Commandments: You shall not steal (take what belongs to another) and you shall not covet (desire to take what belongs to another). Anything built upon the evil of sin cannot be good.

I am a populist. The fact that there is injustice in the financial system is unquestionable. The problem is: what is the just remedy?  Obviously, there is a need for government protection from monopolistic power of corporations, and I think many of our trade agreements are bad for American workers. Any trade agreement ought to start with a level playing field: equivalent wages, equal environmental requirements, etc.* But it will take more than changing a president to fix that mess. Why? Well, consider that the biggest contributors to Barak Obama’s 2008 campaign were companies like Goldman Sachs, a company that orchestrated the bailout and one that controls oil market trading throughout the world.

English: Logo of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc....

Goldman Sachs wants Cap and Trade for carbon dioxide emissions, and it stands to make billions of dollars on a Cap and Trade market.  Cap and Trade will drive up energy costs for millions of the poor in this country. Who stands to make money from such a policy? Not the middle class, but the same banking interests that paid for the president. So while the Democrats appeal to the sense of injustice towards the poor, they are working with huge corporations to put the poor further in debt through taxes. Health insurance companies supported Obamacare because they stand to make a lot of money through forced participation in insurance plans. What I am saying is to follow the money: not words, but deeds. The game is rigged against the middle class by the Democrats as much as it is by the Republicans, except for the fact that the Republicans want to free small businesses from regulation and provide more opportunities for everyone to become rich; and they want to reduce the size of government so that the people and businesses are not destroyed by excessive taxation.

President Obama said Mitt Romney’s tax plan amounts to “Robin Hood in reverse” because it would take money from the poor to help the rich.

The Democrats say it is an issue of “fairness,” but if you look at the way it is portrayed by the President, it is not fairness he preaches. It is resentment towards the rich, as if by being rich, the rich are somehow automatically guilty of being unjust and unfair.  It is the same tactic Hitler used to stoke animosity towards the Jews in Germany. It is picking a group of people and making them out to be evil, the cause of all that is wrong in society, so as to justify hatred and retribution towards them by the majority. It is class warfare. It is turning people against one another on the basis of economics or race or perceived success. Yesterday, it was the Jews, now it is the rich who are evil, backbiting thieves and the scum of the earth.

1941 Nazi propaganda poster in the Lithuanian ...

Who are these egoists? Each one of them merely defends the interests of his class. Behind them all stands either the Jew or their own moneybags. They are all nothing but money-grubbers, living on the profits of this war. . The Jew is said to be gifted. His only gift is that of juggling with other people’s property and swindling each and everyone. Suppose I find by chance a picture that I believe to be a Titian. I tell the owner what I think of it, and I offer him a price. In a similar case, the Jew begins by declaring that the picture is valueless, he buys it for a song and sells it at a profit of 5000 per cent.

–      Adoph Hitler 1941

What I am saying is that attacking the rich because they are successful or rich, is like attacking Jews because they are Jews.  Rhetoric is easy; solutions are hard. Stirring up animosity by appealing to the emotions is easy, and it is how Hitler manipulated the masses. He stirred up hatred and played upon the feelings of injustice. It is also a very dangerous practice.

* And I don’t have a solution except to add tariffs to foreign goods where they use child labor, 80 hour work weeks, and pollute the environment with hazardous chemicals (not talking about CO2). Tariffs in that situation would make American products competitive. Possibly limiting H-1B visas, so that companies in the US would be forced to offer living wages to our trained and skilled labor. 

Leave a comment

Paypal, Hacked-ID’s, Banks, & Lockouts – Verification Options are Terrible

I recently read in Forbes Magazine online about a PayPal user whose ID was hacked via mobile transactions, and the hacker used available credit in her bank account to make purchases because of the linkage. In a move of caution, I disconnected my bank from my PayPal account, but when I tried to make a purchase with money I already have in PayPal, the purchase was denied because I am no longer “verified.” I’ve been a member for years with no problems, and this situation really is unacceptable. I have credit cards linked to my account, but I don’t need to pay for the item with a credit card, since I have PayPal money. Yet to be verified I need to either get a PayPal credit card or add my bank back in, which I will not do.

I would like to be verified with my existing credit cards and do not want another credit card.
PayPal needs to change its verification to allow for non-Paypal cards to be used as a verification, or some way to allow users to use existing funds for purchases without linking to a back account.

What are the existing solutions? Use Google Pay instead?