Search This Blog

Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Right vs Left / Conservatism vs Liberalism

Earlier today this image appeared in my Facebook timeline:



The second half, the response, to this is the type of bullshit that allows right-wing extremism to think that are in the right.

The KKK was, in fact, started by people of the Democratic Party. This cannot be disputed and no one really wants to (ok, lots of people WANT to, but facts are facts).

BUT....

The same people, like "Greg Curtner" above, refuse to acknowledge a VERY important fact: after The Civil War the platforms of the Republicans and the Democrats reversed polarity. Any Democrat from pre-Civil War was, by today's platform, a Republican, and vice-versa.

This means that the PEOPLE who brought us the KKK are more similar to TODAY'S Republicans than to today's Democrats.... regardless of the party names.

The blurry time between ~1900 and WWII generates a lot of confusion as to which platform was trying to accomplish what... but, it doesn't really matter. They were dealing with massive industrialization roll-outs, the "War to End All Wars" and then the Great Depression. There was plenty for everyone to be distracted by without the need for political party finger-pointing.

The New Deal is what cemented the rolls of the parties in the direction they are currently heading.

So, Republicans, OWN it. Your PLATFORM brought us the KKK even if the Democratic Party was the group running it at the time.

Now let's get into the concept of the weekend.
For starters - the earliest use of the word pre-dates Henry Ford. So the concept existed before him, thus IMMEDIATELY proving Mr. Curtner wrong.
BUT, if we're going to go with the idea of the weekend as we know it now and date it to Henry Ford's time - Mr. Curtner is STILL wrong. The concept started in New England textile mills in 1908 to allow Jewish workers Saturdays off for religious observance (that's right - thank the Jews that you get Saturdays off).

Now, if we're going to look at the 1908 era, and examine the labor movement from that time (from which things like the weekend, 40-hours work weeks, the ability to Unionize, etc come from) we get MANY examples where THE PEOPLE fought for the additional rights AGAINST capitalism.
The Coal Miner's Strike was about working conditions, time in the mines, time off, pay rates, and the ability to collectively bargain....
The machinists strike was similarly motivated..

Pretty much ANY strike... EVER... was based on the laborers demanding better treatment from those who owned the resources/job providing agents.

Randomly look up any of them. Wikipedia has tons of links on them, all of which have linked resources in their bibliography.
Google can point you toward other resources.

And guess who is fighting for those same things today? The Left.
Guess who is fighting AGAINST higher wages and shorter hours and greater benefits? The Right.

That's it. End of story. The political party names are completely worthless - it's the IDEOLOGY that matters. The LEFT is filled with people who want the elite oligarchies and aristocracies to NOT have all the power and for the people to be treated fairly. It's contiguous throughout all of recorded history.

If you want people to get paid fairly for their work - and fairly being defined as enough for a full-time job to live on: you're supporting a view that is "on the left." If you feel that ANY jobs are not worth paying people a living wage then you're "on the right." You're saying that those jobs need to be done but whomever does them doesn't deserve to be paid enough to live on.

If you feel that the rich have enough and shouldn't have it all - you're "on the left." If you feel that the rich deserve whatever they can take because they built the businesses then you're "on the right."

There are other traits that correlate to the sides of the spectrum.... and, of course, both sides have extremist idiots... but those are the core stances that HAVE ALWAYS BEEN.

End of story.




Now - for the claim on Henry Ford...

Henry Ford did, in fact, have a HUGE impact in raising the standard in this country.

He did it NOT by giving time off, but by giving high wages.

The legend has it that he increased the pay of his workers so that they could afford the very automobiles that they were making. If it were that simple them everyone who puts up this example should be fighting for EVERYONE to be paid enough to consume the goods/services they provide. For example: McDonald's workers should be paid enough to eat McDonald's for every meal (do the math - they're not).

When workers are paid enough to consume they do - this grows the economy. When workers are paid NOT enough to consume they starve and the economy does, too. If the legend of Henry Ford is true, and he is to be used as an example then EVERY Capitalist of today should be honoring that Legend by fighting FOR higher minimum wages.... Like.. DOUBLE. That's right, Henry Ford DOUBLED the average worker wage. What's that like?

Oh, right... that's like paying people in minimum wage jobs now $15/hour.

But, let's move onward to the real reason. The REAL reason was turnover. The grueling conditions of the plant, coupled with the pay, had men walking off the job to get other jobs that were easier for the same average wages. Since the job of manufacturing automobiles was training intensive and required a "ramp up" time for the workers to be productive enough to be profitable the high turnover rate was hurting the company.

The turnover rate was 728% at the average pay rate.

When they doubled the pay the turnover rate went WAY down and the production went up 32%

That's how Ford contributed... and why. It wasn't the goodness of his heart - it was because he was treating workers so poorly he was losing money....
And he put tyrannical and excessive authoritarian stipulations on anyone who received the higher wages; restricting their freedoms. That's NOT fighting for their rights and betterment.

So, in conclusion, check your history before you make claims that are WRONG.

Also - who gives a shit what history says about which party did what?
Look at what they are doing NOW to determine who is right:

Conservatives:
Trying to rescind healthcare for 20M people.
Backing a tyrant in office who is subverting the very pillars our country was founded on at every turn.
Actively working to crush workers' rights and give tax breaks to the rich.
Actively working to suppress the rights of anyone who is different under the guise of it being a threat to their way of life.

Liberals:
Trying to boost the middle class by raising wages for the middle class and the poor.
Trying to make healthcare affordable for everyone.
Trying to ensure everyone has equal rights based on their skin color and gender and whose genitals they want to (or not to) touch.



As if to really highlight my points on current PLATFORM stances we have the Governor of Missouri, a Republican, working toward removing basic, common-sense protections for women. Should this new law pass it will be legal for employers to fire women for getting pregnant out of marriage, for using contraceptives, or for getting an abortion. Likewise, if this law goes into effect, it will be legal for landlords to evict women for any of these "offenses" as well.

That's right. The Republicans of Missouri are trying to make it legal for a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, who is being responsible by taking the pill (or other contraceptives - OR is taking the pill for non-contraceptive medical reasons) to be made homeless and unemployed for the audacity of the decision... AND they are, literally, trying to make it legal to fire pregnant women and throw them out of the street JUST FOR BEING PREGNANT. THIS is the PLATFORM of the Conservative side of the spectrum.
This is the PLATFORM of the CURRENT Republican Party.

Current actions speak louder than history. If you take steps to reform yourself and be a better person people notice; likewise, if you take steps to abuse, offend, and demean others they will take notice.








REFERENCES:
Ku Klux Klan
*Wikipedia is no worse than any other encyclopedia. Yes, anyone can edit it - but the number of eyes, and the tracking done on it, keeps it pretty accurate. It cites primary sources and secondary sources constantly. MULTIPLE tests have been done of it that show it is a AT LEAST, if not MORE accurate than World Book and Encyclopedia Britannica.
So, Yes, I will use it as a basic resource.

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms

Where Did the Five Day Workweek Come From

Timeline of Labor Issues and Events

The Machinists' Strike, 1900

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

Annual inspections of abortion clinics, pre-empting St. Louis ordinance part of House proposal








Spoiler alert:

Liberals always win in the end.... if they didn't there would be no progress.

Another spoiler alert:
When the conservatives take too much and upset the balance of rights and wealth too greatly it leads to violent revolt, pushing the pendulum too far in the other direction. History shows us this over and over again.... the reverse is never true.

When the pendulum goes too far it flips the polarity on what LOOKS like conservatism and liberalism....

Militantly enforced socialism is NOT liberalism - it is the few controlling everything at the expense of the many....
Militant communism is also not liberalism - it is the few controlling everything at the expense of the many.

Liberalism is the equitable distribution of resources and wealth so that the many have enough.... after that anyone can work their asses off to get more.

Conservatism leads to the few having all the power and all the wealth for their own luxury.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

I Told You So - The Beginning Has Arrived

My country just elected a white supremacist to the highest single-office in the land.
I understand the desire for change and I felt it strongly, too. The desire for change is why I backed Bernie Sanders. The wild success of both Trump and Bernie are CLEAR indicators that the American people have had enough of the political bullshit from the status quo politicians in Washington. Enough is enough. Change is needed and that is why good people voted for Trump...

BUT

His rampant messages of hatred, bigotry, and racism SHOULD have been a deal-breaker for anyone who is a good person.

That said -

I'm a little bit racist - and so are you.
It's ok to acknowledge it to yourself; in fact, that is the only way to stop being tacitly, passively racist. It is nearly, if not entirely, impossible to be completely and totally unaffected by the rampant presence of systemic racism in our world.
The root of it is the fear of "the other" and it is a theme in society since before the time of the written word. Beowolf is one example of "the other" in ancient literature, as are several points along the journey of Odysseus. Examples can be found from ancient Egyptian and ancient Indian literature and the Hopi have tales of "the other" descending from the heavens to become their gods. The Other is an idea that is firmly rooted in our mammalian cores as something to fear and that fear manifests in several ways: usually as something to be reviled and hated or something to be obeyed and worshipped.
I choose to acknowledge the snippets of racism that float around within the programming society has given me and then, summarily, reject them. I choose to NOT accept that black people are more inclined to be criminals because of their race. I choose to NOT accept that white people are superior. I choose to NOT accept that asians are bad drivers. I choose to NOT accept that asians are inherently better at mathematics. I choose to NOT accept ANYTHING that starts with a categorical compartmentalization of people based on their race, their color, their religion, their gender, their sexuality, or any other broad category.

This is how I combat racism within myself: by accepting that it IS there and actively rejecting it. To do anything else would be to lie and deceive myself and, as a consequence, to let the tiniest fragments of racism that I have been unable to avoid take root and grow. I will not allow that and neither should you.


This has been an everyday problem since the dawn of groups clashing - from the earliest clans of mankind onward; perhaps even farther back into different social groups of proto-man. It's so ingrained in our culture that many, literally, cannot comprehend that it is a problem.

Which is where racism collides with current politics and where the title of this post comes in to play.

47% of the people who voted in the election voted for Donald Trump. Many did so based on his platforms and their desperation for change but many also did so because they are voting for his message of hate. Those did the former are complicit unless they actively fight the hatred in every way possible (you cannot convince me otherwise - either you actively combat the hate or you ARE the "good men" spoken of in "all that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"). Whether you intended to vote for the hatred by casting your vote for Trump is irrelevant: your vote showed those who voted for the hatred that their views are shared and accepted.

I spent a week after the election putting forth various "this is what you voted for" posts on facebook. I felt one week of "I told you so" was warranted since I had been warning of it for a year. Just shy of that week I received a comment from someone who shares my ideas, fears, etc of the topic outlining that I am, likely, alienating those who voted for Trump and making them defensive rather than getting my message across because they, who agrees with me, is tired of seeing it.
There is some validity in that comment but, more importantly: tough shit.
As white, straight, cis people we CAN turn off the messaging of hate: it's not pointed at us. We CAN change the channel. We CAN ignore it.

Everyone in the crosshairs canNOT. There has been a verifiable spike in hate crimes since Trump hit the 270 Electoral College (anticipated - the actual Electoral vote does not take place until 12/19) mark. Literally, on Day 0, there were physical assaults issued on people for being black and gay because "Trump won - we don't have to put up with you anymore."

Yes, literally.

Yet people who did not vote FOR the hatred and violence refuse to acknowledge the spike or, worse, they point to unverifiable reports and images of Trump supporters getting harassed and/or assaulted as proof that it is equally on both sides. It IS NOT. The majority of Trump supporters who are victims of vandalism and/or assault is significantly lower than those who are violated BY Trump supporters AND many of those are verified as fake.

Moving forward we have the mainstreaming of racial divides and hatred being brought up as news on sources such as CNN. Yes, really.

This is reinforced by the appointments he is making to his cabinet and transition team: mostly all people who represent special interests, homophobia, racism, sexism, and anti-trans mentalities.

Many people who voted for him, despite the fact that the rampant messages of hate SHOULD have been a deal-breaker for anyone, did so based on his policies and his views on what needs to happen; but, even if we put all of hate aside, what they voted for is STILL terrible.

Let's summarize his campaign points:
1 - Make America Great Again
2 - Make a wall to stop Mexicans
3 - Get rid of illegal immigrants
4 - Stop terrorism
5 - Get rid of special interest corruption in Washington
6 - Bring back jobs / stop free trade
7 - Protect free speech and freedom of religious choice and exemptions
8 - Hillary is a crook and cannot be trusted
9 - Label China a "currency manipulator"

To start with I understand the sentiment of #1. I understand the perspective that allows this to resonate greatly. Many liberals see that phrase and say "when was America Great?" in an attempt to force Trumpites to define it in terms that they can tear down. That is a bullshit approach. Greatness is a relative term and America was, for two generations, the greatest nation on the planet. It had many problems but the opportunities it provided for most far exceeded the problems. It had rampant systemic racism but, as a whole, America had the highest quality of life and standard of living of anywhere on the planet for a generation without any real competition. During that time America rebuilt Japan and was the first to provide aid to anywhere in the world that needed it; America was the first to arrive and bring help when tyrannical regimes tried to take power (unless, of course, we were backing the regimes - they fuck you, people). Couple this very real scenario with the power of nostalgia and it is easy to get behind the message of Trump's campaign slogan but there is one very real problem with it: how? I've asked MANY Trumpites (in random places online) "how?" and the closest answers recite the subsequent points. NONE of them have any idea HOW to "Make America Great Again" nor how Trump plans to do so (news flash: he has no plan).

Which brings us to a systemic analysis of each of the subsequent points of his campaign.

2 - Make a wall to stop Mexicans
This one started with a blatant racist comment about Mexicans all being racists and drug dealers and went into a promise to build a wall that spans the entire US-Mexico border. That promise in itself is not so odd but, what is, is that Trump promised to make Mexico pay for that wall and his supporters all bought into that idea.

My question, again, is "How?" How will he get Mexico to pay for a wall to protect us from them ESPECIALLY after insulting them so terribly?

Trump's answer is "trade deals." What he means by "trade deals" is that he wants to destroy the trade deals that allow for manufacturing that is done in Mexico to bring goods into the US without any tariffs (we'll only touch on the fact that he said tariff wars are a bad idea when talking about how to handle China).  Globalization happened - it cannot be undone without unraveling the entire world economy. There is no way to stop it without destroying that which you are trying to protect. If Trump were to alter the trade deals that allow manufacturing in Mexico at Mexican labor rates for cheaper products in the US there are two ways those trades deals can be changed: source-costs and destination-costs. Either the sender pays a tariff to get the product through the border or the recipient does; there are no other options.

This brings us to the appropriate time to introduce a metaphor that can be used to explain what will REALLY happen if that wall is built.

Let's examine Joe, a hypothetical dump truck driver.
Joe's company moves lots of things in the dump truck, mostly dirt and stone.
Joe does A LOT of dumps per day with his truck. Joe's company pays their employees and they pay their taxes and they do good work.
A politician decides that dump trucks inflict the most damage on the road so he promises to fix the roads and make dump trucks pay for it. Everyone applauds. A new tax is levied that requires every dump truck dump to incur a $5 fee to the department of transportation.
Joe's company is now responsible for paying $5 every time they dump a load of anything.
The revenue stream from this new fee IS, in fact, helping pay for the roads. To paraphrase Obi-Wan: it's true, from a certain point of view.
But the reality is very different. Joe's company is not going to eat the $5 charge per load. They will increase their costs accordingly. In effect, everyone who uses Joe's company's service will pay this fee.

This metaphor explains what will happen if Trump builds a wall and uses tariffs to pay for it: the cost will be added to the goods and those who consume the goods will end up paying for the wall: it won't be Mexico that pays for it.

Furthermore - Newt Gingrich, a GOP hero, has come out and admitted the wall is an empty promise that was a really great campaign tactic. So, that entire point was a blatant lie.

3 - Get rid of illegal immigrants
Again - HOW?
I live in an area where illegal immigrants are not a huge problem. They're not "stealing jobs" here but I can acknowledge that the data outlines that there are places where workers are being replaced by illegal immigrants due to the availability of the immigrants and their willingness to work for less money. Side note: the same people who complain about this also complain about the existence of the minimum wage and argue that workers will be paid what the employer thinks they are worth and it shouldn't be forced on the employer by the government. This duality is hypocritical because the reason that the immigrants are "stealing" the jobs is because the employer will ALWAYS try to pay less. They get the same value from an illegal immigrant as they would from the legal counterpart but they can get it for less through the illegal immigrant. This is why minimum wages are necessary: to prevent the legal exploitation of workers when there is a surplus of workers.

Trump has proposed an active hunt to round up illegal immigrants and deport them all. This proposal is met with cheers from his supporters but none of them have even contemplated the cost. To enhance ICE to the point where it could actively seek out and find all of the illegal immigrants in this country would carry an enormous, crippling cost and raises a question of "what do they do when they are done?" When the illegal immigrant problem is solved we would have a MASSIVE, federal police force equipped with monitoring and research equipment and the legal authority to abduct and detain people on the suspicion of their citizenship - it's not far from them being turned into a Trumpian Gestapo.

I'm for enforcing the laws we have. I'm for detaining illegal immigrants and forcing them to leave the country when they are blatantly flaunting the laws. I'm also for making a path for them to redeem themselves if they have a job and/or a legal family here.

Grouped in with this point, because it doesn't fit anywhere else, is the topic of illegal immigrants and taxes. Any illegal immigrant that consumes services here is paying the applicable taxes on those services. Any illegal immigrant that is working "under the table" is not making enough to pay any income tax on their income. Any illegal immigrant that is working but NOT working "under the table" is using fraudulent papers and a fraudulent social security number. This SSN is credited for the taxes paid by the illegal worker without ANY hope of a refund from the government on that earned money; furthermore, the true owner of the SSN is never aware of the use of the number (unless/until it is used in identify theft in other ways) so they, too, cannot claim the taxes paid - basically, any illegal worker using a fraudulent SSN is giving the IRS free money. The idea that illegal immigrants are not paying their share of taxes is bogus - unlike Trump, who has managed to utilize every shady loophole to avoid paying taxes for the majority of my life. Which brings me to another logical hypocrisy utilized by Trumpites: he's a savvy business man for ABUSING the system to avoid taxes but anyone who USES the system to get social assistance is a freeloader. If Trump's abuse means he's a smart man for getting the most out of the system then EVERY person who abuses the social support structure is also a smart person for getting the most out of the system. You cannot applaud one and condemn the other without being a hypocrite.

4 - Stop terrorism
This, like all the others, is a "how" question.
The problem with terrorism is that the actions we take to combat it radicalize more people and make them want to avenge the actions taken. WE created Al Queda, WE created the Taliban, and WE created the situation for ISIS to bloom. Our efforts to eradicate them have killed civilians and made America look like the horrible villain that we see when we look at them. They have every reason to hate us.
The path to eliminating terrorism is not to radicalize MORE people - it's to back off and stop giving them recruitment fuel.
There is no path that uses drones and mass deployments that will stop this problem. There is no political solution. The only solution is to quarantine any and all interactions with the hosting lands. We need to have a solid intelligence presence and pinpoint accuracy target removal of 100% positively identified individuals when they are in appropriate locales (NOT family barbecues or weddings). We need to utilize the intelligence network to stop attacks from being brought TO us and our allies without taking the attacks TO them. This is the only way to end the disease of radicalized extremism: through attrition. Even then, we still have problems like the "alt-right" in this country and the ultra-radicalized "christian" individuals who commit mass murders here. If we treated that population the same way we treat the Arab world we would have a MUCH larger problem of domestic terrorism than we have.
So, I ask, what is Donald's plan? Is it to do what I outlined? I doubt it. He said we should nuke them and deliberately go after the families of suspected terrorist operators. This is how we make MORE of them and make them MORE desirous to kill us and our way of life. It is the OPPOSITE or what we need to to.

5 - Get rid of special interest corruption in Washington
This one needs very little context other than to identify, and explain, whom Donald has already appointed to his staff but, since this is continuously being updated I cannot accurately list them all here.
What we do know is that he has chosen a Vice President who believe you can torture the gay out of someone; a man who says he is a Christian and a Republican in that order.
We know he has appointed a known racist and misogynist, and preeminent figure in the "alt-right" (an attempt to hide naziism under a new label) media to his staff.
We know he has brought in multiple lobbyists who represent the special interests and corpratocracy that Trump's followers wanted out of their government. That, of course, was the entire point of the "drain the swamp" rhetoric. It appears, with the appointment of these people, that he is trying to drain the swamp of Washington by digging a channel into the White House. Furthermore, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (GOP), thinks that the people don't care about "draining the swamp" and that they don't feel it affects them. Despite that being one of the core pillars of Trump's campaign.
His pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was denied a seat as a federal judge for being too blatantly racist in 1986.
The Security Advisor candidate, former Army Lt. Michael Flynn, is blatantly anti Islam.
More recently than the others Trump appointed an anti-public-education, anti-science, creationist to the head of the Department of Education. Her main qualification? She donated $9.5M to his campaign. Of course, this is after Trump promised to eliminate the department altogether or, at least, "tear it to shreds." I guess appointing an anti-education billionaire will accomplish the latter.
Furthermore, most of the members of this team, and a few others, are blatantly homophobic which brings one to question how they will work with the gay racists that Trump is also bringing in.

Bottom line: there is no elimination of special interests in Trump's plan: there is a reinforcement of supporting Trump's interests and those of big business at the expense of the people.

6 - Bring back jobs / stop free trade
There is plenty of research that indicates that globalization is inevitable. There is plenty of past precedent that shows that labor slides to the cheapest source: always.
Jobs that leave to cheaper labor DO NOT COME BACK.
In order for the jobs to come back to the US the prices of consumer goods, which all the people who would work the jobs, would skyrocket. These people complain about the idea of a minimum wage inflating prices but then argue about bringing jobs that are currently being paid out at $.10 an hour being converted to $20/hr+ here.... The jobs moved because of the costs of labor here. End of story.
If the manufacturing comes back it will be dramatically reduced in the number of jobs it creates because automation will have replaced many of the jobs that once were and, eventually, it will replace us all. THE JOBS WILL NOT COME BACK.
Instead of looking backward to having plentiful jobs we need to look forward to the industries that will create new jobs. This is what the middle class needs; not a futile effort to bring back their old jobs.
Voting to bring back the old jobs is a "pipe dream" that cannot solve any of their problems.

7 - Protect free speech and freedom of religious choice and exemptions
I need not say anything more than that Trump is advocating to imprison people for a year or revoke their citizenship if they burn a US flag. I acknowledge the desire to honor the flag but those who do have taken an oath to protect the very right to protest against that flag. Any person, ESPECIALLY of the military, who wants to impede the RIGHT to protest the government through flag burning is a traitor. They are trying to suppress the first right found in the Bill of Rights; the military personnel took an oath to protect that right against enemies foreign and domestic and, by trying to impede it, they are becoming that enemy.
They don't have to like it: I don't like a lot of what people think and say; but, they have the LEGAL right to their expressions. If I dislike someone burning the flag I have the right to tell them that it is inconsiderate, rude, and unpatriotic: that is MY right.... but the government does not have the right to tell them they can't do it.

8 - Hillary is a crook and cannot be trusted
She is a crook but she can be trusted to serve her own self interest (so can Trump) but that means keeping the status quo because that is what supports her power and wallet.  I don't like her and I believe, strongly, that she has been playing the long game such that suspect things are NOT coincidence and that they were all planned moves on the chessboard leading to her run for the White House. I also believe that there will not be any proof of any of it in her lifetime and, if ever there is enough evidence for wrong-doing, it will point to someone else whom she has setup to be the scapegoat.
Let's start by giving a brief outline of the scandalous items that involve Hillary:
USA Today found 900 suits filed against Hillary, the vast majority of which were filed by prisoners who filed lawsuits en-masse against high-ranking government officials (this is a fairly common practice for people who have nothing better to do but seek a pardon through any means possible).
The media likes to focus on two, fairly recent, scandals that are completely pointless: Benghazi and her emails. Benghazi is an event where the embassy was attacked and the security detail at it was insufficient to protect the Americans there - the Republicans controlled the committee that allocated security resources to this embassy. Her famous quote that has been twisted to mean she didn't care about the people is the opposite of that: she was outlining the hopelessness of the scenario because she could not get anyone there in time to help them; the news did her no good. As for the emails - Bush's presidency made use of private email servers and actively destroyed official records that, by law, were to be kept. Saying that she is evil for doing something that the GOP politicians generated precedent for is disingenuous and hypocritical. The third scandal, which has taken a back seat to these two, is the potential conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation. It is alleged that money was donated to it as a means to persuade her and/or compensate her for actions in office.
The rest of her scandals don't amount to anywhere near what Trump has accomplished in his career...

Now we can move on to the same evidence for Trump which CLEARLY shows he is at least an order of magnitude worse that she could ever be.

For starters, Trump says he is never sued and that he never settles lawsuits for fear of encouraging more. Both of these are untrue. There are at least 3500 lawsuits filed against him in some form and more than 100 recent ones were settled rather than going to court. His legal entanglements outnumber the next five-highest real estate developer entanglements COMBINED. This means he is so crooked that the next five highest real estate crooks COMBINED are not equal to Trump.
Trump insulates himself so that his business partners are left "holding the bag" whenever a deal falls apart. EVERY TIME. The American people are now his business partner for the duration of his presidency. He will arrange for us to be left "holding the bag" so he can profit.
In the recent suit about Trump University he defrauded students for $175M and walked away paying $25M in fees: that's right, he pocketed $150M of the fraudulent transactions' revenue.
Because I mentioned the Clinton Foundation it is only fair to mention that Trump, also, has a foundation setup for charitable purposes. The Clintons have ALLEGED conflicts of interest whereas Trump has PROVEN violations, including using the foundations assets to pay personal legal defense expenses.
Many of Trump's lawsuits are for scenarios where services were rendered and then he flat-out refused to pay the vendor. I have even heard a radio interview (which I cannot locate now) where Trump outlined that the greatest business thrill is brokering a deal and then defaulting on it and having the debt he owes go to collection so that he can buy the debt at a discount from the collection agency and then forgive it so that he can write the forgiven debt off on his taxes (if you find this PLEASE let me know so I can link to it below).
There are many suits still open, including 75 that USA Today says could distract from his Presidency.
Additionally, some of the suits are for reprehensible behaviors, such as raping a 13 year old (the case was dropped because the plaintiff received numerous death threats during his campaign).

Let's compare this to a list of suits filed against the person who SHOULD be the President-elect, Bernie Sanders:



That's right. If there are any they are incredibly difficult to find. Googling results shows suits filed against the DNC because of the way they handled Sanders and, essentially, gave the election to Trump.



9 - Label China a "currency manipulator"
There is disagreement as to whether this is true, though the financial and business experts say the current scenario does not meet the official criteria. Setting aside the actual disagreement and assuming that the label is applied -
But what will this actually DO? How will the official label actually change anything?
I'd like to have formal explanations on what the label allows our country to do about it because we can say it all we want - but what does it allow us to DO?


Furthermore -
Trump's candidacy is costing the taxpayers of NYC $1M a day in additional protection details. That cost will transfer to the Secret Service when Trump is elected because he has outlined intent to stay in Trump Tower rather than the White House. All of the rents for those facilities is revenue directly to his ownership of the tower.
Trump also says that the government can never run out of money because they are in charge of printing it. Obviously he is not aware of what happens when governments print more money in an effort to fix recessions and government debt.


History shows -
Trump's rhetoric is familiar to many who have a modicum of historical knowledge because it mirrors the same rhetoric used by future dictators when they are seeking to get elected. The most notable of these is Adolf Hitler. Godwin's Law aside, the parallels between Trump's campaign and Hitler's rise to power are disturbing.
Germany lost WWI and the economic cost of it ruined their economy because of the investment in the war and the following economic reparations forced upon the country by those it had victimized. This crushed the middle class and led to a rise in nationalism against anyone who was not a German; specifically, the Jews. All of the problems were placed on the immigrants and Jews and hatred for them grew. Over the course of 4 years, starting in 1925, the Nazi party exploded - more than quadrupling in membership as the hard times affected more people and the right-wing ideologies of hating "the other" spread. The Great Depression was felt around the developed world and it generated further economic troubles on the German middle classes than they had already been experiencing. The Nazi Party won seats in their version of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the following election awarded them greater voice including Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship. Less than a month later the Reichstag (their version of the Capital Building) was torched in an act of arson resulting in emergency powers and restrictions of personal liberties AND the first of the concentration camps. This was 1933. This is parallel to Trump being elected; he just needs an attack on a government building to seize emergency powers sometime in February.
From 1933 to 1937 the Jews were forced to register and wear the Stars of David on their clothing and stripped of their legal personhood. Following this was the invasion of Austria and Poland. In 1939 TIME Magazine named Hitler the Man of the Year and applauded his actions and there was a rise in Nazi sentiments in the US - people applauding the suppression of non-Christians and wanting to bring it to the US.

WWII stopped that from being socially acceptable and "The Greatest Generation" sent hundreds of thousands of young men to die in a fight against the Nazi war machine.... to fight fascism.

Now their children have elected to bring that same sentiment to this country.

History shows
Societies collapse. It happens. There is ample evidence to prove this.
Societies collapse after they have become too powerful and living in luxury, or, at least, those at the top.
The collapse of Germany into the fascist state has already been presented and, clearly, has economic ties. The French Revolution was the ultimate end of the aristocracy outpacing the financial means to support them at the expense of the peasantry. Lenin led the Bolsheviks to topple the monarchy in Russia because of their financial oppression. The success of the Bolsheviks emboldened those who felt oppressed in China and led to a revolution there which led to modern day Chinese Communism.
The USSR failed to recover from a stagnant economy despite massive changes in policy and, as a result, fell apart.
Currently there are multiple economic depressions in place that have citizenry who are rebelling against the rich overlords. The Ukraine is one example, or it was until Putin rolled tanks and the Russia military in to be "peacekeepers" (conquerors) and Venezuela is another. There are many articles examining the current state of income inequality in Brazil which, due to the various conditions there, had the worst Olympic Games conditions of the modern era. If we examine ourselves then it is apparent that the US is also on the brink of a financially-induced collapse because the own too much and their wealth is growing while the middle class is regressing and the poor slide further into oblivion.
Nick Hanauer wrote a great article, as a billionaire, about how the rich need to change BEFORE the inevitable financially-induced revolution happens. The outrageous support for Trump and the success of Bernie are the voice of the people who will be that force for revolution if the politicians do not fix it.
Jared Diamond did a TED talk about why societies collapse. Watch it. Parse it. Look at the reality that the mid 80s was the apex of America. We're approaching the second generation after the apex.


The lens through which all of trump's activities can easily be viewed to make sense.
1 - How will the action directly benefit Trump?
2 - How will the action indirectly benefit Trump?
3 - How will the action benefit Trump's peripheral interests?
4 - How will the action forward Trump's racist and misogynist philosophies?

ANY action taken by Trump, since he started his career, can EASILY be explained using those four points. If you disagree find evidence for me to review.


------


Trump is, literally, following the Hitler playbook (one of his exes even said he kept Hitler's books on his nightstand).
He may seem like a buffoon but he is not. He is doing this in a perfectly planned execution to gain control through fear and misdirection by seeding distrust in the very sources who can undermine him.

I am terrified for anyone who is not a white, straight, cis person. I am saddened for anyone who is not that AND male (because the step after oppressing the not-white, cis, straight population is to "put women in their place").

I am also fully, and acutely, aware that I am high up on the list of targets because I am willing to speak out against the regime AND I am an atheist so I cannot be controlled by distorting my faith through warped religious logic.

My willingness to speak up puts me in danger of being interred, too - despite my gender, sexuality, and the color of my skin.

Predictions
I, truly, believe that WWIII is about to happen and, if not, the 2nd American Civil War will. WWIII is about the only thing that can stop a second Civil War but that is not even a guarantee.

The path is laid out before us by history and it is perfectly clear to me and I cannot see any way to escape it.

The home front, domestic, small-scale terrorism is bad enough (and, yes, the violence based on race and gender and country of origin IS terrorist activity) and is terrifying because it is the people who LIVE around us doing the horrible things…. But the fear of the war is that it won't stop with conventional warfare. The world has moved beyond that.
The core psychological differences between our lifestyle and that of the Muslim extremists is the only reason they have failed to break our way of life..... BUT... once they figure that out it is how the war will be conducted. All sides will resort to the tactics needed to crush the other and that method is NOT the way we currently do war. War will change as much for the next major conflict as it did during the American Revolution, when lining up in orderly lines to face each other stopped being the correct way to fight.

The internal struggle will increase as more and more middle class people struggle against the slide into poverty and lose. They will blame the government and the immigrants because it is easier than reflecting on themselves and how easy they used to have it. Internal violence will increase until those who seek to defend the rights of the oppressed stand up for them as allies. The government will roll over them in an effort to appease the militant group of disenfranchised white people - don't believe it? Look at the Dakota Access Pipeline where the federal government is letting the state government and county law enforcement roll over all those defending the LEGAL rights of the native people ON THEIR OWN LAND for the sake of the profits of the oil companies.
Enough will be enough and war will break out.

Infantry will give way to biological and chemicals as our infrastructures are attacked. Mass attacks will follow. After, if not parallel to those, will be the feats that I know will cripple the culture that America IS. The same culture that Canada IS and that most of  “the West” is.

Society will not survive intact. We will be forced to re-cut politics and political boundaries and re-draft nations. Barring complete destruction of humanity the human species will continue…. but it will be as changed as it has been after any major, and massive, upheaval that destroys nations.

The world of 2100 will not resemble the geopolitical boundaries of today and those people will have forgotten what, and who, we all are as much as we can’t name the entirety of the countries that existed pre WWI in Europe.

But I think this is going to generate a combination of WWII, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War - leading to a new European Theatre conflict where the US, the UK, and France are an anvil and Russia is a hammer that tries to crush the middle of the continent - the resistance, ironically, will be led by Germany. Our country will then bifurcate with a new "shot heard round the world" as the liberal half of our country stands against the tyranny of Trumps regime and becomes a loosely disorganized set of geographically separated states who align with Germany to undermine the US involvement in Europe.

The end will have a new Holocaust of Muslims - further radicalizing those in the Middle East against "the West" and a Europe and America wading through debris and economic disaster. The extremist Arab states will benefit from this, as will China.

If we are lucky we will end up with the Northeast of the US, and the west coast, being annexed by Canada while the rest of the US implodes and Europe scrambles to stop the encroaching extremist culture that they are so afraid of.... I can't decide if China will march their million-man army in conquest or not.... there are too many factors at play to determine it.


I told you so before and I will have to say it again.
If you voted for him THIS is what you voted for.

If you don't start standing up against the tyranny as it appears you are complicit in it continuing; doubly so if you voted for the tyrannical powers to take office.








References:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/ (this is a list of links, not a primary source in itself)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/this_anti_lgbt_trump_bumper_sticker_is_going_viral
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/20/us/hate-crime-unit-new-york/
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37945386
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Array-of-Hate-Crimes-Reported-Day-After-Trumps-Election-400711591.html
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/trump-hate-crimes-violence-election-hoax-fake-donald-muslims-supporters-attacks-protests-riots-islam-racist-graffiti-nazi-california-new-york-louisiana-philadelphia-chicago-video-photos/
http://fox40.com/2016/11/11/hate-crimes-after-trumps-election-happening-across-the-country/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrich-alex-jones-and-the-other-bricks-in-trumps-wall-of-shame/2016/10/28/bb652aee-9d09-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

Even super-"alt-right" sites are acknowledging the increase in hate speech but are downplaying it:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/13/wave-fake-hate-crimes-sweeps-anti-trump-imaginations/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWL7V6twoiM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/12/fake-protests-anti-trump/93665092/

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a50906/are-jews-people-was-a-real/

http://theweek.com/speedreads/661335/newt-gingrich-admits-trump-probably-cant-mexico-pay-wall-but-great-campaign-device

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-10/trump-shows-every-sign-of-carrying-out-sweeping-immigration-crackdown

http://time.com/4569636/donald-trump-steve-bannon-reince-priebus/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-drain-the-swamp_us_5835fbafe4b09b60560014cf

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/23/trump-picks-head-education-department-promising-eliminate-campaign.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/18/trump-staff-picks-disappoint-alarm-minority-groups.html (yes, it's so bad even FOX News is reporting on how bad it is)

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/28/trump-may-not-be-anti-gay-but-much-of-his-senior-staff-is/

https://ourfuture.org/20140622/what-is-currency-manipulation

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/trump-to-brand-china-currency-manipulator-treasury-veteran-says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/13/trumpd-right-china-is-a-currency-manipulator-but-theyre-manipulating-the-yuan-up/#7bbceb7927a6

http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-china-a-currency-manipulator-data-say-no-1479255305

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-14/china-no-currency-manipulator-obama-treasury-says-for-last-time

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/12/481718785/clinton-scandals-a-guide-from-whitewater-to-the-clinton-foundation

http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/above-the-law-hillarys-huge-scandal-list-explodes-to-25/ (this site is anti-Clinton apply every one of their statements to Trump's history and see if it looks better).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/44-reasons-to-not-elect-hillary/ (also an anti-Hillary site - again, compare their list to the things Trump has done and said).

http://fortune.com/2016/07/20/clinton-trump-lawsuits-facebook-live/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/25/pending-lawsuits-donald-trump-presidency/92666382/

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-trump-lawsuits/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/01/mainstream-media-ignoring-75-lawsuits-trump-focus-clinton-emails.html

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-investigated-donald-trump-is-named-in-at-least-169-federal-lawsuits/

http://archinect.com/news/article/149956644/hillary-clinton-campaign-ad-highlights-architect-screwed-by-trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/politics/secret-service-trump-tower/

http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/new-york-city-police-nypd-donald-trump-tower-security/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-national-debt-strategy/

https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2019712_2019694_2019588,00.html

http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/american-nazi-organization-rally-madison-square-garden-1939/

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151s03/french_rev_causes_consequences.htm

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151s03/french_rev_causes_consequences.htm

http://www.history.com/topics/russian-revolution

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/#3eeb64d33ab3 (not everyone agrees with Nick.... but the path is following what he predicted and not what they did... so they're, obviously, not as smart as they think they are nor is he as ignorant as they make him out to be... afterall HE'S the mostly self-made billionaire, not them)

https://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse?language=en

Sunday, August 3, 2014

And Then They Came for My Reese's - fiction

It's no secret that the last four generations have seen a geometric increase in fatal allergies.

Friday, July 25, 2014

The Chip - fiction

When they perfected the chip they said it would only be used on criminals; that it would be their price for reintroduction to society.

Monday, May 12, 2014

This Crowded Earth - By Robert Bloch - Review

This morning I finished "This Crowded Earth" by Robert Bloch.

For a story written in 1958 it has a lot of commentary that is valuable today.

It does, however, fall into a deadly trap of making firm predictions which went wildly off base.

It predicted that 6 billion people would lead to space quotas and limitations on transport that made 15 miles per hour in a private vehicle seem immensely fast and a luxury.

It predicted contraception through oral means about 50 years later than it actually happened which is incredibly ironic as it was already in clinical trials as Bloch was writing this book and became available as a contraceptive two years later.

If one ignores these nit-picky details one can view this work for the social commentary that it truly is. In this regard this work is a masterwork. It touches on nearly every aspect of social structure that makes civilization a complicated mess -
Birth control, over-population, eugenics, overt genetic manipulation, human testing, mistreatment of prisoners, transportation, housing, etc etc etc... Pretty much all of the topics that are worth discussing make an appearance in one form or another in this book.

Despite the minor aspects that are problems this work should be read by any distopia fan or science fiction fans in general.

It's an important work in shaping the core foundation of science fiction upon which many other authors placed their works.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Space Viking - review

Despite the terrible title Space Viking, by H. Beam Piper is actually a fantastic novel.
It's a solid space adventure story through the eyes of a singular character who is also on a personal journey through the path of vengeance for destruction brought into his life.

What makes it even better is the metaphorical analysis of government styles and the collapse of civilization that Piper has wrought into this story in a tapestry that makes perfect sense for the context.

This novel has made me decide that, like Heinlein, I need to find everything Piper wrote and consume it.

Monday, April 7, 2014

Divergent - review

Over the weekend I saw the movie Divergent.

The short version of this review is that I feel I need to acquire and read the books now.

The longer version is that the world created for this story is an interesting post-apocalyptic future. Humanity has become divergent in itself such that five major personality traits have become accentuated and everyone needs to force themselves into the molds that those traits create. Anyone not "making the cut" ends up problematic and homeless.

Over generations this system hones people into the five characteristic "factions" such that the core traits are reinforced. Anyone who is not clearly one trait of another is "divergent" from the society and is a terrible risk to the stability of the society.

The movie generates a lot of questions to be asked about the reality and the setup and a variety of other pieces of the world. The movie leaves a lot of holes to be filled. Allegedly, the book fills many of these holes in.

I enjoyed the film. It was paced well and many people won't notice the subtle things that I, and the group of people I went to see it with, nitpicked (or, if they see them they won't care).

Saturday, May 25, 2013

A Quick and Easy Fix for the Anti-Business Environment in My State

I'm not a politician.
I never will be.
I will never run for public office because I know I would not accomplish anything.
Getting elected would simply be a waste of my time.
It would be a waste of my time because the career politicians would try to block any changes I would try to make that threatened their power base. The stupid people would try to undo any changes I tried to make for the long-term good that threatened a short-term benefit. Both entrenched political parties would try to stop me from accomplishing anything useful because it would make their inability to do so look bad.

Because I cannot accomplish anything if I were ever to get elected I will not try.


This, of course, frustrates me beyond all comprehension because I have some good ideas that are incredibly simple which would improve things in this state. They might even be applicable elsewhere to improve things in this country.

One of these ideas for this state is a way to make it less hostile to business.
This state has a reputation for VERY aggressively collecting any and all taxes that it thinks anyone owes it. It has aggressive taxation for the residents and more aggressive taxation for businesses. This has to change if it is ever to bring more business and more employment here. The way things are at this moment it is driving away good jobs and leaving the remainder to pay higher taxation on the services being applied.

Here's a quick and easy way to increase business presence (and thus, jobs) in this state:
Offer a five year 50% tax reduction for any company that creates new jobs (only applicable on the percentage of their company that the new jobs reflect). If they have employees and hire a tenth they get 50% tax cut on 10% of their profit. If they have no presence in this state and they open a factory or call center or retail outlet they get 50% tax break on the entire facility that they open. Attach a rider to this tax break: any company opting into this break MUST retain the affected positions for a total of 10 years. Failure to retain the positions for 10 years means the company must pay back the discount PLUS INTEREST.

The state government is unable to see past the "lost revenue" created by the cut to see why this is beneficial even though it is VERY SIMPLE.
Its simplicity is its beauty: some money is better than no money.
The newly created jobs will, usually, generate more taxable income for the company. That additional income will be taxed at a discounted rate, but if the company had not expanded then it wouldn't have any new revenue to tax in the first place. Some new revenue is better than no new revenue.
The newly created job will go to a person. That person will have income. That income, which did not exist before, will be taxed by the income tax. Some revenue is better than no revenue.
The newly created job will have income. That income will be used to purchase more goods and services in the state. Those goods and services are taxed. Some revenue is better than no revenue.
The person who holds this job may or may not have been unemployed before. If they were they no longer will be. This means that they will be earning their money instead of receiving an hand-out from the state while they seek a new job. No negative revenue is better than some negative revenue.
Locking in a new job for 10 years is a boon to the general economy. The tax cut is a boon to the companies that are on the edge of creating a new job but who can't quite afford it right now.
Locking in the new jobs for 10 years locks the employers into the state for that time. It makes it easier to get in and get started but harder to exit.

Since what we need is to reverse the trend of it being easy to exit and hard to start we should examine this.

Any politician is welcome to use this idea so long as they openly admit it is not their own and direct people here if they are asked whose idea if is.
Any politician who likes this idea is free to comment on the post. I am happy to share many other ideas that I think would improve the quality and diversity of available services while holding costs steady OR reducing costs while holding the quality and diversity of services constant. It's REALLY hard to reduce costs AND increase services but I even have a few ideas about where that can be done.

Yes, I think to much about everything.

Monday, November 5, 2012

"Traditional Marriage"

Someone I know posted this video.
It took me nearly an hour to watch it so that I could tear it apart.
Below the video are the comments I made on the post that my acquaintance made on facebook and which I, in turn, posted on my facebook wall.



So, to point out - one can view this as the government over-ruling YOUR religion... but it can, and more rightly so, be viewed as YOUR religion trying to override the rights of people who do not believe in it. Marriage is, at its origin, a legal contract; religious components came later. If the legal contract of it is to exist then it is blatantly discriminatory to not allow people to marry whom they want to marry due to gender. This is the ONLY legal contract that is limited to a particular gender set as eligibility requirements and that is simply wrong.

The above is my commentary before starting the video... below is my commentary, written as I am watching it in the order that the video presents it.

As for stabilizing our society - bullshit. People who live together now will continue to do so. All that will change, in a societal viewpoint is that a discriminatory practice is removed from the lawbooks and the people who are currently demoted to second-class citizens will have the LEGAL right to be the default heir of their chosen partners. Currently the biological relatives of those people can bar them from visiting an incapacitated loved one in prison and can challenge any legal property directives easily in the event of an unexpected death with no will. If they are married then that goes away and the loved one has those LEGAL protections. I, honestly and bluntly, don't care one iota what individual churches do nor do I care if any of them are willing to perform a wedding ceremony in their facilities - this is entirely about the LAW.
As for comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia as a society-harming item: explain to me, simply and concisely, how allowing same-sex couples to have a LEGAL standing that does not change the behavior that the government "permits" to exist will change ANYTHING in public society.
And for the next points:
1 - if that EXCUSE is used then ALL hetero-sexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry unless they intend, and succeed at having children. Many people do not want children and/or cannot have them. Unless you are willing to state, and make actions toward revoking their LEGAL right to marry this point is null and void on this issue.
2 - Show me the data on this. Show me the data that unequivocally outlines that parents from a heterosexual, two-parent home do better than single parents and better than gay parents. Be sure to include the data of marriages that failed part-way through the children's lives and marriages of people who got married because they felt they HAD to but HATE being married. Be sure to include data on parents who don't like their children and data on those who have too many children. Be sure to include all of this in addition to the data that is reinforcing of the idea. Also - be sure to include data on same-sex couples who CHOOSE to have a child and raise that child. Be sure to compare those "successful" child raising values against the heterosexual numbers and do a solid numerical comparison on percentages of children who are detriments to society. The numbers will tell the story that is counter to this video's claim.
3 - How does allowing ONLY heterosexual marriage protect women? My girlfriend, when presented with this statement quickly and easily claimed she doesn't feel traditional marriage protects her... and even asked "protects me from what?"
4 - How does it civilize men? As an unmarried man in this country I find this idea repugnant and derogatory.

The data outlines that most incidents of violence against women are actually perpetrated against them by their significant others and, often, that means their HUSBANDS. How is it that that data can be true AND points 3 and 4 be true? It can't be. Points 3 and 4 are, like the ones before them, based entirely on perception and an idealized state of society that simply does not exist.

5 - Show me the data. I know that being married will lower one's car insruance because, typically, married people spend more time at home than un-married people. The rest rest of these things need data to back them up... and that data needs to be cleansed of any trends that have stronger correlations that could lead to those statistics... such as neighborhoods, familial income, number of children, etc.

The claim that same-sex marriage creates NO benefit is blatantly wrong. It allows for the full equality of everyone in the eyes of the law. Discrimination is a slippery slope and it can be applied to anyone; if it s allowed for anyone. This also allows people to decide who is their default next of kin which is an important means of passing along accumulated wealth and deciding on what care is best for someone who is sick.
For that matter, if one actually assumes that all of the points above are valid then: 1 & 2 - Married homosexual couples who choose to adopt (and make no mistake, they can adopt now) will generate a two-parent household that brings the same benefits to children that heterosexual married couples bring.
3 & 4 - If married men are inherently more civilized and married women are inherently protected (from what?) then we should strive for as many married men and women as we can get. Right now we are eliminated 10% of the population from being ALLOWED to marry. That means that, at least, 10% of women are unprotected and 10% of men are uncivilized because they are unmarried. Allowing them to marry will reduce that number.
5 - The same things that might generate those societal improvements in neighborhoods due to married couples will also apply to married homosexual couples.

Essentially, it allows the same benefits to society that traditional marriage provides to society. EXACTLY THE SAME benefits. All of the benefits outlined above can be applied equally to ANY married couple regardless of their gender.

Claiming that homosexual marriage "merely validates sex partners" is a hollow argument as heterosexual marriage does EXACTLY the same thing if the couple has no intention of raising children..... and, on top of that, being married does not magically make you a good parent. There are plenty of married people who are TERRIBLE parents. This argument is invalid. I thinkthe people behind this video would be surprised to find that more and more couples are forming where children are not the primary motivating force and more and more of them are forming where children happen, despite not wanting them and more and more children are happening outside of wedlock because more and more people just don't care about the traditional structure that RELIGION says is best for the children.

When the video states that the childless marriages are the exception and not the rule and, therefore, shouldn't be considered it invalidates that argument by using exceptions to what happens in the legal world to make it's point. One cannot simultaneously decry exceptions and invalid and then use them to support one's own argument.

The idea that schools with teach kids to be gay is ridiculous. The argument over whether or not this should be allowed has been a far greater introduction to the topic of homosexual marriage than it EVER would be on its own. Schools, at most, will treat it like it is what it is - something that sometimes happens and that it's fine. Let the people who have a difference preference than you be the way they are; it's none of anyone else's business.

As for the video's comment that the law treats everyone equally because everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex is garbage. That's like saying everyone can invest in google; in theory everyone can but the cost of the stocks prohibits most from being able to. Marrying someone of the opposite gender isn't the point - marrying someone whom you love and want to spend the rest of your life with IS the point. That is the ENTIRE point. A large group of people are prohibited from doing that. To say otherwise is to hold onto ideals of marriage that have changed over time repeatedly... and, thus, invalidates the idea that that is the core reason for marriage. I cannot buy a wife in exchange for livestock. I cannot sell a daughter into marriage. I cannot take a virgin military captive as a wife. I cannot force my brother's widow to become my wife. I cannot take multiple wives. All of these things are part of "traditional" marriage yet none of them are held true in law in 2012. What is so special about THIS barrier? It is that this barrier scares homophobic people. This barrier makes people think that equality is only for "normal" people.

As for discriminating against behaviors - that is completely correct. The government is discriminating against behaviors; but also against sexual organs. It is saying that it is the business of the government to determine who is allowed to bump genitalia together in the privacy of their own home. It is saying that consenting adults have no privacy when it comes to sex. It is saying that the comfort of some should outweigh the freedom of others. It is saying that if the government does;t like your behavior it can prevent you from having legal rights because of it… even when that behavior hurts no one and should be left alone. This argument is ludicrous because it really boils down to - the government is allowed to tell you whom you can have sex with in the privacy of your own home.

And to bring it back - people who are BARRED from marrying their loved one ARE being discriminated against. If one is unconscious and hospitalized then that one's blood relatives (even if they haven't spoken in YEARS) have a greater right under the LAW than the person who may have lived with the person for decades. Who is better equipped to make decisions for that person that correspond to their wishes? The estranged family or the loved one who cohabitants with them? If one member of a couple is run over by a bus and killed and the house and vehicles are in their name but both partners paid equally for them the family can the ALL of that away; is that fair? No. Marriage protects the rights of property and the rights of visitation in the hospital. Marriage protects other rights, too.

As for the same-sex marriage advocates needing to be more tolerant - simply not true. The instances where they are not are, again, the outliers and they are smaller in number than the instances where people who want to have a homosexual marriage are being discriminated against in some form or another. The raw disallowance of being ABLE to get married to a loved one is a constant discrimination against homosexual people. They experience it daily. People supporting "traditional" marriage are only experiencing intolerance when they voice their ideas on this continued hatred and bigotry to people who will, ultimately, be found to stand on the right side of history.

"Homosexual relationships are ALREADY TOLERATED" - this, alone, summarizes the entire video. It also summarizes exactly why both sides feel they have a position to support. I don't want to be "tolerated" - its derogatory. You wouldn't want your child to be "tolerated" at school or anywhere else. You wouldn't want your pets to be "tolerated" you wouldn't want yourself to be "tolerated." Toleration is not enough because it is not equality. The supporters of "traditional" marriage think this is enough because they can't see how allowing same-sex marriage licenses will not harm them at all but will grant equal rights to an entire segment of the population that is still constantly under attack by RELIGION.

I'll also point out that many of the same arguments presented in this video are similar to those presented against allowing interracial marriages and, dating back further, to allowing non-white people the opportunity to be recognized as people… and dating back further to discriminate against left-handed people. They are empty arguments that come from a place of fear and hatred of things that are different rather than a place of reason and rationality.

So, I challenge those supporting this video, as I have challenged supported of "traditional" marriage in the past - explain it to me. Convince me. Please. Explain it to me like a child... and in a way that I cannot argue. I have been asking, since the first time this came up on the ballot in Maine, for people to explain to me why this is wrong in a logical and concise manner that I cannot argue with using logical points to invalidate the arguments presented to me... Thus far NO ONE has been able to do it. The answers ALWAYS boil down to "because God is against it" (or some paraphrasing of that) or "because I don't like it." - Neither of those are good reasons for LAW. Separation of church and state outlines the former and what you feel is not the same as what others feel is the latter...

Lastly - All of this text comes from someone who thinks marriage, in any form, is a foolish and inefficient way of imparting legal rights to another person. I, personally, think it should be completely abolished from the law books and that NO ONE should be allowed to get marriages because they simply should not exist. There is a MUCH simpler way to handle all of these rights-granting permissions without all the hoopla and garbage that comes along with marriage.

Please, if you support "traiditonal" marriage than be PERFECTLY blunt... and perfectly selfish. Tell me how allowing others the right to marry their loved one will harm YOU in any way. How will it change YOUR life if two women or two men go to city hall and pay the fee for their marriage license and then pay an officiant to marry them? How will that slight economic boost to the local municipality and an officiant hurt YOU in any way? How will it change your life in any manner other than force you to go "OH NO THOSE GAY PEOPLE MIGHT BE MARRIED NOW?"
Really. Tell me. I want to know how it will damage your life.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

OWS Needs Demands

I have been thinking a lot about the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I understand the core grievances of the people who are participating.
I understand the core causes of what led the economy to generate enough momentum for those people to accumulate at ever-increasing numbers.
I understand the feelings of fear and hatred that the movement is generating among others.
I see the current situation as INCREDIBLY dangerous.
It is dangerous for the participants.
It is dangerous for the "1%."
It is dangerous for the police.
It is dangerous because each incident of police brutality adds more pressure to the situation.
Each incident of peacefully gathered protesters being abused, assaulted, brutalized and injured by the police is causing more and more anger from the population over the situation. It WILL lead to more violence. History has shown MANY examples where military force being used on the civilian population (and make no mistake in judgment; the type of police tactics being deployed warrants calling them a military force) leading to violence against the ruling individuals and the military force supporting them. In previous posts I have cited many examples where economic forces pushed the poor majority to violently overthrow the rich minority. Almost all of those examples included the abuse of power by a domestic police/military force against the civilian population in an effort to stop the revolution. In addition to those examples there are also the recent examples of Egypt and Libya and, slightly less recently, the civilian over-throw of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Oppressing the civilian population does NOT work as a lasting solution.
In many countries it can work for generations, but it most likely will NOT work in this country.
This country's founding concepts are being violated by the police occupation of our rights and we won't put up with it. Unlike the other countries who survived for generations under a totalitarian regime this country has tasted freedom and will not surrender it to a military rule easily.
Continuing this course of action WILL result in an eventual flashpoint where the peaceful protesters suddenly convert into an angry and vengeful mob. When that happens ANY police officer on the streets will die. They will die horribly. They will, literally, be ripped apart and/or beaten to death with whatever is available. No number of firearms, pepper spray, mace, batons, non-lethal projectiles, tear gas, etc will stop an angry and driven mob from doing it will do. Each effort of defense by the police will drive the overall mob onward. The fatalities among the protesters will greatly outnumber those of the police, but ALL of the police will die. The numbers are too great in favor of the protesters and each and every police officer that succumbs to the violence will provide weapons to make the mob more efficient.
 Make no mistake in judgment here.
We are on the precipice of the most dangerous situation this country has faced in nearly a century. One event like the Kent State University catastrophe will ignore a wildfire among the entire population. People across the country will know what is happening before it is done happening. The slaughter there will spark a huge blow-back on the local force that committed the atrocity AND decrease the tolerance level in every other "OWS" protest around the country.
When the first locale falls the rest will go like dominoes.

 I see only one way out of this situation. The OWS movement needs to organize. It needs to generate a list of rules and a means of generating order amongst its encampments. Most importantly it needs to generate a list of goals and demands that can be accomplished. Without all of these points NOTHING will get done. NOTHING productive will happen.
Without all of these items being put in place the entire movement will only serve to destabilize the entire country (and world) with no benefit for anyone.

If I were in charge of the OWS movement these are the demands I would start with.
I would have EVERYONE publish them and memorize them.
I would deliver them through any channel available to any authority figure available.

1. Restitution for police brutality.

  • A. Each and every police officer who committed ANY act of violence against a protester be investigated. Their act(s) reviews and any/all evidence of their act(s) be evaluated by a neutral jury of people who know neither the officer nor the victim(s) of the act(s). Each and every act deemed to exceed acceptable force for the situation will be stripped of the protection of being an act conducted by an active-duty police officer enforcing the law. Each act stripped of that protection will then be tried in a court of law as though the offending party were one citizen assaulting another with no cause. Any/all penalties of law that could be applied to a conventional citizen who committed the same acts shall be applied to the police officer as though they were such a normal citizen. Any officer whose action(s) are deemed to be appropriate to their duties and situation shall retain the exemption and protection against assault/battery/etc based on their active performance of their duties. 
  • B. Any officer who commanded officers to perform acts that were deemed outside the acceptable actions for the situation (as stated above) shall be tried on a conspiracy charge and stripped of the ability to EVER hold a police force, military force or security position for the remainder of their lives. 
  •  C. Any officers who were present who are documented to be standing by without making any attempt to stop the brutality (as outlined in section A) shall be discharged from the current police force without any continuing benefit of having served. They may be eligible for police, military or security positions if any police organization is willing to hire them. 
 2. Corporate Citizenship

  • A. Corporations are NOT citizens. There is no accountability if a corporation misbehaves. Legislation shall be drafted that makes all "chief" level officers and all vice-president level officers and all members of a board PERSONALLY liable for actions conducted by a corporation. In the event that there is a dissenting minority vote all those who submit, in writing, a dissenting opinion to the HR department of the corporation AND to the Attorney General of the applicable geographic region shall be exempted from legal penalty. All those who do NOT dissent in the corporation conducting illegal actions shall be considered equally liable for the damages caused. The corporation itself shall be responsible for repaying any and all damages resulting from the illegal actions and the parties being held PERSONALLY responsible shall be responsible for submitting payments to cover the jury-awarded "pain and suffering" that the illegal actions generated. In addition, those held PERSONALLY responsible will be tried for any criminal offenses that the company has brought against it AND they shall be discharged from the employment of the company. Additionally, they shall be barred from EVERY holding an officership / board position on corporation for the remainder of their lives (after they complete their prison sentences). 
  •  B. Corporations cannot be considered a person for legal purposes. 
3. Separation of Church, State and Corporation

  • A. No political campaign or office shall be able to accept ANY donation from any non-person.
  • B. No single source can contribute more than 1% of any political campaign fund. 
  • C. No corporation may submit any legislation request for consideration; corporations are limited to filing formal protests against legislation being enacted that may damage their business model or customer base. 
  • D. Politicians shall be required to present an analysis of how any legislation or decision they are making shall affect their constituents directly. 
4. Lobbying Reform

  • A. Each and every politician shall be required to conduct a poll of random constituents for each and every legal issue to generate a baseline of opinion. 
  • B. No politician shall be allowed to entertain speakers speaking on the behalf of a non-person. The behalf of shall be determined by the funding of the speaker. Investigation of indirect funding channels shall be allowed. 
  • C. Non-person entities shall be permitted to present their opposition or support of proposed legislation ONLY in the public hearings. 
5. Reparations

  • A. Investigations shall be conducted into the causes of the economic collapse leading to the OWS movement. 
  • B. Those found to be responsible shall be indicted for their actions in the same manner that those who caused economic turmoil in previous economically hard times were indicted and tried for their role in the damage. 
  • C. Politicians shall not be exempted from the investigations. 
6. Transparency and equality

  • A. ALL publicly-funded budgets shall be EASILY and readily available by any citizen for review. 
  • B. ALL publicly-funded programs shall make use of the same non-salary compensation programs available to every private entity. 
  • C. ALL political offices shall be paid ONLY while the politician is serving. There is no post-serving compensation. 
  • D. Non-salary benefits for those serving in political office shall be similar to the constituents that they serve (e.g. no special health care programs or retirement planning). 
  • E. Public servants shall NOT be eligible for bonuses. 
  • F. Public servants are not eligible to receive gifts of any sort that may be affiliated with their position from any source. 
7. Compensation

  • A. There shall be enacted a limit to the salary that the highest-paid executive may earn within a company. That limit shall be based on the comparator between highest-paid employee and lowest-paid employee in all developed nations. Any highest-paid employee within a corporation shall not exceed the pay of the lowest-paid employee by more than the ratio found at the 67th percentile of the developed nations comparison chart. 
  • B. There shall be no cap on the performance-based incentives that a company wishes to bestow on any employee so long as the performance-based pay incentives operate in both a positive and negative direction. 
  • C. Corporations shall have complete employee termination powers of any employee found to be using the company resources or acting on behalf of the company in an illegal manner. The employer found to be acting in an illegal manner (as determined by a court of law) shall have NO RECOURSE (even if they had a contract) against the company. This includes executives. In the event that an employee is terminated for illegal actions (as determined in a court of law) their severance package shall be used to mitigate the damages awards from the court case and/or applied to the charity that is selected by the wronged parties. 
This is an extremely rough draft. I am sure there are plenty of edits and refinements that are needed. But it is a starting point for the things that could be asked for by the OWS movement.
If these items were started and finished the OWS movement would fade away into the non-existent state that it had prior to the first mobilization.
Enacting something similar to the set of demands above would be the fastest way to avoid a nation-wide civilian uprising.
I hope someone manages to put something together similar to this soon.
I welcome any comments.

Note: edited for formatting 5/5/17 (formatting issues discovered 5/4/17). Content unchanged.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The Shortcomings of the OWS Movement

The more I think about the OWS movement the more I see some shortcomings that will need to be addressed for anything to come out of this.

The first is the lack of a specific agenda.
At the moment the core message of the movement is to simply inform our political representation that We, The People, are ANGRY about the economic developments of recent years and that we really want SOMETHING done before it is too late. This is a fantastic STARTING POINT.
The longer this situation continues the greater the need for a cohesive request to be made of our law-makers. A cohesive request to benefit the people and to stop the pendulum swing in the direction of bankrupting the masses in favor of sequestering wealth with the already super-rich.

Sadly, I have no ideas on how such a cohesive action could be made. The current movement, by its very nature, is a chaotic yelling match. It is many voices yelling a variety of specific messages that, at times, conflict with each other.

I would like to see a new political party come to the forefront on this. Perhaps not one that gain office but one which would be able to speak for the masses and voice the concerns of the many rather than providing sound bites that protect the wealthy or pretend (this is important as many things that APPEAR to help the many are actually ineffective) to benefit the masses. I would like to see some sort of group emerge who the government fears and whom the average person hears from daily if they pay attention to any media. I would like to see a group appear that does not advocate for an increase in spending while advocating for a decrease in taxation. I would like to see a group emerge whose sole point in existence is to provide a reasonable voice to the government on actions that will benefit the WORKING people of this country. Not benefit the people who choose to under-work (or not work at all) and certainly not the people who earn a living by exploiting those less fortunate than them. I want to see a group emerge that creates sound bites and proposes plans that are based on the mathematics of revenue collection and general expenditures and examines rules for the social hand-out systems to propose better ways of streamlining those systems.
Sadly, I believe that there are several groups whose purpose is to do exactly what I have outlined, but they are all ineffective are reaching the mass audiences.

Perhaps, if we are lucky, the groups whose purpose is to make things better for the average working person will, in fact, start having their voices heard by the core media.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Regulation versus fear of regulation

I am a Libertarian.
I dislike the idea of big governments.
I dislike the idea of the waste generated by bureaucracy.
I dislike the idea of rigid rule structures that CANNOT meet all the unique circumstances among the population.
I hate the idea of loopholes in rule structures that allow people to go free.
I believe that the larger the government, the worse things are for the people governed.

All of that said I can truly say that there is one thing I fear more than large government and that is the complete lack of government at all.

This is because the complete lack of government allows for the total and complete exploitation of the people by any powerful entity. That entity could be an individual, it could be a violent gang of thugs or it could be a large, multi-national corporation.

The one thing that government is truly excellent at is generating fear among the corporations under its control. This is because the giant, unwieldy nature of governmental regulation is terrifying to any organization that wants to earn money. The larger the government the more terrifying the thought of it regulating your business. The more technically-based the company the more terrifying the slowness of government regulation is.

The LAST thing companies want is for governmental regulators casting their eyes in the direction of the industry that a particular company works within. The way most industries avoid government regulation is to self-regulate. They operate under the philosophy that they may misbehave to a specific line but if they step over that line their freedom to operate will be impinged greatly through forced rules by the government. This is the reason that companies are so completely against "Net Neutrality" regulations by the government. This is the reason that the MPAA has a ratings board to rate movies. This is the reason that the video game industry has a self-ratings system.

This system works well to minimize the exploitation of customers by companies through fear of the government. What happens when this fear is not present? Economic crisis.

Each and every time there have been insufficient governmental controls on the banking and finance industry the end result has been economic chaos. The result is that the bottom 99% of the population end up losing more and more of the money that represents their hard work and the rich become even richer. Each and every time the government has failed to act on this particular industry's failure to self-govern the people who are crushed under the weight of the industry leaders' incomes are impoverished.

This is the cause of the financial crisis that launched the Dark Ages (Italy, 1300s), this is the cause of the French Revolution. This is the cause of the recent Icelandic revolution. This is the cause of Occupy Wall Street.

Is the fix governmental regulation? I hope not because that will take nearly as much capital away from the middle class but, instead of depositing it into the pockets of the top 1% it will grind it away in the inefficient bureaucracy of the regulations.

A far more effective tool to manage the financial industry would be the true and complete fear of governmental regulation. We need to generate a situation where the fear of governmental regulation is so terrifying that the people in charge of the financial industry actually behave themselves and treat their customers with some modicum of respect and fairness. I believe it would be great if the regulations presented ideas to the effect of wronged parties are compensated for and the bankers who did the wronging were bankrupted in the process. I am certain that this would strike fear into the hearts of the financial industry's leaders; fear great enough to avoid such regulations from being enacted.

What's the benefit of generating more government? Safety from greedy corporations? What is the drawback? Greedy politicians and terrible waste.

The fix for the greedy politicians is to craft a government where, by design, the politicians are afraid of the people they serve rather than the other way around and for the same reasons that the corporations should fear the government.

What keeps the population in line if the government fears them? The fear that the government won't always fear them.

The fear chain in society should look like this:

Corporations fear the government which fears the people. The people fear losing their livelihoods, financial independence and freedom.

The government can destroy any of the things the people should fear and corporations can destroy two of those things. There needs to be no action on the part of either a corporation nor the government to enhance and increase those fears. The very idea of a governing body should generate the fears automatically.

So, people sacrifice the complete freedom and independence for the protections against bullying entities and, in exchange they have a government. The government needs to heed its people in exchange for its survival and it's job is to protect the people whom it should fear.

It is a simple system. Perhaps too simple, perhaps not.

A system based on checks and balances of fear might work far better than anything we have in service today.

What we have today is a system where many key people in the government are tied to the wealth generated by the financial system. The financial system does not fear the government because the people in the government benefit too greatly from the existing financial system.

The change that Occupy Wall Street is clamoring for revolves around the imbalance created by these ties.

The change is coming; the question is in what form will it arrive? Hopefully the government and financial industries will awaken to realize that they are both in danger if they don't change to serve the majority of the people rather than the minority.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

The Root Cause of "Occupy Wall Street"

The idea of a finances-based revolution is not new. It actually happening is also not new.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is the beginning of such a revolution in this country.
If we, the people, are lucky it will end with policy change within our existing legal structure; if we are not lucky it will either end with no change or with a complete governmental collapse. Either of these outcomes has potential to be far more beneficial to the majority of people but carries greater likelihood and potential for far worse outcomes.

To understand this movement one must first understand that there are three main components to wealth: wealth itself, rate of increasing wealth and the rate of change of the rate of wealth increase (for mathematicians: these are obviously connected through calculus as the rate of increasing wealth is an integral of wealth itself and the rate of change of the increase in wealth is an integral of that).

If you take any ONE of these factors for an individual at any given point in time you have a very small picture of their financial health. If you take any ONE of them over a span of time you have a much clearer picture of the trend of their financial health. When you add all three factors, over a period of time, you get a solid picture of the financial health of the subject. But what will that picture MEAN? Nothing. Wealth is an abstract concept and, because it is abstract, it means nothing unless you have a frame of reference. Therefore one needs to match the same data sets within the same time period to other subjects for any of the data to have actual MEANING. The larger the data set the greater the potential meaning.
Now that there is an understanding on what this data means there can be a presentation on the data that has driven the people to occupy the symbolic center of banking within the US and protest the way that the bottom 99% of people have had their financial lives drained.

Without doing an exhaustive review of many difference sources it is difficult to get a full picture of any of these data sets and, even then, many of the sources appear to be in conflict with each other. This is because wealth is an abstract concept that is open to some interpretation AND people are reluctant to fully divulge their financial information. The end result is that only a general picture can be built across the full population.

In all four categories below I was interesting in links with data charts and graphs far more than links with large blocks of text. I admit that I did almost no reading unless I found data on the charts that conflicted with my current understanding of the greater picture.


1. Wealth in the US
Estimates range on this but generally all show approximately half of the financial wealth of the USA being owned and controlled by the top 1% of the population.

Here is the google search I used: http://www.google.com/search?q=wealth+in+the+usa

Here are a few links I looked at:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution-in-the-united-states/
http://www.alternet.org/economy/145705/the_richest_1%25_have_captured_america%27s_wealth_--_what%27s_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

2. Growth in Wealth in the US
The pattern here becomes clearer. Growth of wealth is increasing in all sectors of the USA, but the rate of that growth is not equal. The top 1% have their wealth growth growing faster than any other. To put the growth of wealth into perspective one could cross-reference the cost increase for living in each of the salary ranges listed to see how limited the growth actually is for several ranges.

Here is the google search I used: http://www.google.com/search?q=wealth+in+the+usa

And here are some articles that I looked at that were useful:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_pie_is_sliced
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

3. Change in the Rate of Growth in Wealth in the US
This is the most disturbing of the figures for it shows how quickly the growth rate is changing in favor of exterminating the wealth of the poorest 9% of the population. The faster this is the faster the existing middle class will be destroyed and the harder it will be to build a healthy financial future for anyone who is not born into one.

Here is the google search I used: http://www.google.com/search?q=wealth+in+the+usa

All of the relevant links for this data point have already been shared above.


4. Current Snapshot of Wealth Distribution in the US Versus Other Countries
There are lots of ways to examine distribution of wealth. When one examines the per-capita wealth of a nation one will get a figure that usually does not represent the average person in that country. Distribution of wealth within that country as compared to the distribution of wealth in other countries coupled with the per-capita figure show a better picture. For example, a country where the top 1% own 75% of the wealth of the country will misrepresent the per-capita more than a nation where the top 1% control only 25% of the wealth. The more out of balance the internal distribution, the more the per-capita figure is out of alignment with the average person in the country.
There are not very many ways to compare this quickly and concisely.
Here are some links to graphs that demonstrate CEO pay versus that of the average worker:
http://www.phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CEO-pay-versus-wages1.gif
http://motherjones.com/files/legacy/news/exhibit/2006/05/exhibit_chart1_265x181.gif
http://tmotr.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/table_sm.jpg?w=250&h=221

Here are some additional links for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://www.lcurve.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/detailed-look-global-wealth-distribution
http://ecolocalizer.com/2010/04/12/plutocracy-reborn-wealth-inequality-gap-largest-since-1928/


It is important to note that some of the figures on wealth divergence are very similar to those seen just before the Great Depression. In a time where all of the wealth is locked up in the hands of a small number they purchase what they need, supplying jobs to only the suppliers of those goods. If no one else has any money to purchase goods or services then no one can hire anyone to provide those services (e.g. and earn money to purchase those services). The economy is a lot like streets in a city in this regard; as long as everyone keeps moving everything works well but when things stop moving gridlock occurs and no one can move anything.

These four data components demonstrate that the wealthiest people in the US have altered the wealth-accumulation patterns in their own favor at an ever-increasing rate. There is a finite amount of wealth (the economy runs not on the volume of wealth but rather on the movement of that volume) which will grow, but it grows at a rate that is much smaller than the rate of monetary movement. The end result is that as the wealthiest people leverage the markets to grow their wealth more rapidly they are, in essence, stealing the potential to do so away from the people who need the monetary growth the most. This process is flattening the middle class from both ends and will, eventually, wear it down until it no longer exists. If you are reading this you are probably a part of the middle class. Most everyone you know is probably a part of the middle class. Think about how difficult it is for you to get ahead financially. Think about what $100 / month invested into low-yield savings account would do for you if you could leave it there for 30 years. Now think about a slightly higher-yield account of some sort and how that would benefit you in 30 years. If you were able to bring home an additional $100 / month (after taxes) and then you took the initiative to save it think about how much money that would be when you retire. Now think about the factors that are preventing you from either saving that money now or preventing your employer from paying it to you. Now look at the pay-divergence chart above. Where do you think that extra $100 per month that you could be saving has gone? And that $100 / month that I could be saving? and that $100 / month that all of your friends and acquaintances and family members could be saving?

I do think it is important to note that the current US wealth distribution closely mirrors that of the overall world wealth distribution. But, as pointed out above, that is not the complete picture. How fast each group is gaining wealth in comparison to the other groups is more important than that current snapshop. What is more important than the current rate of change is the change in that rate. The US market is changing in favor of the wealthiest 1% gaining an ever-increasing share at an ever-increasing pace. At the current rate, if nothing changes, the US wealth distribution will not mirror that of the world for very long; it will continue to aggregate its wealth into the top 1% until it is able to affect the worldwide average instead of being a point on the spectrum.

I am not a communist. I am not a socialist. I think Capitalism is the system that has proven, time and again, to be the best at managing market forces. The problem with it is that it also breeds greed. And greed is what allows us ALL to become stupid with money and to allow situations to occur where 99% of a population are put into a financial depression because the other 1% want more and more for themselves and are willing to take it from anyone. Capitalism, unrestrained is as bad as any other means of managing an economy. Bloated government interfering with the economy is no better than a complete lack of controls.

The real conundrum is how can we fix what we have now in such a way as to provide the proper governmental controls to prevent the 99% from being "robbed blind" by the 1% while still allowing the market to work smoothly to meet demands where possible? I think that the only answer there is to have smart people in government. Smart people who want to make things better for everyone rather than people who want the power and respect of being a Senator or Congressperson. Smart people who will work toward fixes rather than fighting along party lines just to prevent the other party from getting a good idea credited to them first......