Affirmative action is decried by some because they view that people are hired based on e.g., skin color or gender, rather than by their skills. This is of course true - this is the meaning of the phrase.
However the wider question is why do these people never complain about discrimination?
Mitt Romney wasn't hired by Bain to run Bain Capital because he was smart; in fact, Romney turned Bain down because he feared he didnt have the skills and worried that if it collapsed, it would reflect badly on him (Romney was no risk-taker, in other words). So Bain not only assured Romney that if he failed, he would get his old job back, he would also engineer a cover story that exonerated Romney. If this were a regular person who expressed doubts about his own competence in an interview like this, do you think he would get the job? Of course not. So Romney was affirmatively hired not because he was black, but because his Dad was a senator. Other such affirmative action applies throughout Society - affirmatively hiring classmates, friends, the sons of friends, and so on. Whether you hire in favor of blacks or Harvard men, its still affirmative action. I'm not meaning the hiring of people from Harvard over someone without a degree here, because thats a matter of demonstrated skill, but hiring someone from Harvard over someone from Stanford because you're part of an old boy network.
Of course you might just be affirmatively hiring whites over blacks, straight people over gays, Christians over atheists. Its still affirmative action.
The only time that people seem to get upset about affirmative action is when it is applied to non-privileged classes.
Isn't that strange?
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Healthcare options for America
There are four options for healthcare in America:
(1) Let poor people die because we are too greedy to heal them.
(2) Treat people for free at the emergency room if they cant pay
(3) Have a government program that treats all Americans when they get sick, like in most other civilized nations and
(4) Force people to buy insurance from private insurance companies.
Option 2 is where we were; you paid for poor people who got sick at high costs.
Option 3 is where liberals are at
Option 4 is a republican idea, and insisted on by republicans vetoing 3
Option 1 is what Christians in America seem to think is the ideal solution,
(1) Let poor people die because we are too greedy to heal them.
(2) Treat people for free at the emergency room if they cant pay
(3) Have a government program that treats all Americans when they get sick, like in most other civilized nations and
(4) Force people to buy insurance from private insurance companies.
Option 2 is where we were; you paid for poor people who got sick at high costs.
Option 3 is where liberals are at
Option 4 is a republican idea, and insisted on by republicans vetoing 3
Option 1 is what Christians in America seem to think is the ideal solution,
Thursday, December 26, 2013
America; the home of theocracy
Only in America, can you find a congressman ( Paul Broun (R-Ga.)) who says
"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."
Broun, as a Christian, has four wives, although three of these have been divorced so far.
Needless to say, America being America, this anti-science ignoramus is on the House Science Committee, the body that governs science policy in America.
Because, you know, we have a wall of separation between America and Reason.
He is of course joined there by Todd Akin, who is in a position to advise the House that women who are "legitimately" raped rarely get pregnant because " the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), who suggest that Americans “join together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions”, and Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), who wants teachers to teach “theories that contradict the theory of evolution".
I dont know which is more frightening; to think that these people are setting science policy for the greatest world superpower or to think that these people are actually elected - democratically elected - into positions where they get to decide on science policy? Do Americans really put religion over science? I mean religion is all fine and dandy, but when you are low on gas, do you say a prayer or pull into a gas station? I'm beginning to think that Americans do the former.
Of course, American religion being what it is, they worship money rather than support the social justice teachings of Jesus, and they support war over peace, the death penalty over Jesus' admonishment to turn the other cheek and to stop stoning the woman to death. So they cant get religion right either.
Basically, America is a theocracy based on a Luciferian goal of greed, revenge and hatred of minorities. Sort of like Iran, except that Iran doesnt worship greed quite so much.
"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."
Broun, as a Christian, has four wives, although three of these have been divorced so far.
Needless to say, America being America, this anti-science ignoramus is on the House Science Committee, the body that governs science policy in America.
Because, you know, we have a wall of separation between America and Reason.
He is of course joined there by Todd Akin, who is in a position to advise the House that women who are "legitimately" raped rarely get pregnant because " the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), who suggest that Americans “join together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions”, and Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), who wants teachers to teach “theories that contradict the theory of evolution".
I dont know which is more frightening; to think that these people are setting science policy for the greatest world superpower or to think that these people are actually elected - democratically elected - into positions where they get to decide on science policy? Do Americans really put religion over science? I mean religion is all fine and dandy, but when you are low on gas, do you say a prayer or pull into a gas station? I'm beginning to think that Americans do the former.
Of course, American religion being what it is, they worship money rather than support the social justice teachings of Jesus, and they support war over peace, the death penalty over Jesus' admonishment to turn the other cheek and to stop stoning the woman to death. So they cant get religion right either.
Basically, America is a theocracy based on a Luciferian goal of greed, revenge and hatred of minorities. Sort of like Iran, except that Iran doesnt worship greed quite so much.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Basic truths about the deficit, the debt, and America
If you turn on the TV to a political channel, or read a webpage, you're likely to come across some sort of comment such as "We need to cut spending because the debt is too high". However, this masks a basic reality. This is not about the debt, it is about the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the poor.
(1) To decrease the deficits and consequently, debt, there are two and only two methods:
* Cut Spending
* Increase Revenues (largely taxes).
Anyone seriously concerned with decreasing the debt must therefore consider both options. If someone comes up to you and says "we have to cut spending to decrease the debt" or "we have to increase taxes to decrease the debt', they arent telling you the full truth. What they should say first is "We need to decrease the debt, and all options are on the table".
Once we have this basic agreement (which pretty much exists), then we move on to question 2:
(2) To decrease the debt, who do we take the money from?
Its a simple point. If there is a debt, someone must stump up the cash. Who will that be? We could take it from Muslims, or from Jews, or from Catholics, or from gays, or from Amish, or from telephone sanitizers, or indeed from all of the above. But because we are talking about money, lets divide people according to their wealth (Ideally wealth, not income). So the options are
(1) The poor
(2) The middle class
(3) The rich
(4) Some combination of the above.
This is a real choice, and it represents a difference in party ideology. The left prefer to take the money from the rich, the right prefer to take the money from the middle class and poor.
Of course, the right wont ever tell you that they prefer to take money from the middle class and poor, but all their policies are pointing in that direction:
*Decreasing taxes on corporations (wealthy)
*Decreasing taxes on investment income (mainly earned by the wealthy)
*Cutting Social Security (mainly hurting the middle class)
*Against Universal Healthcare (mainly hurting the middle class and poor)
*Opposed to the minimum wage (hurting the poor)
*Introducing a 9% national sales tax (Hermann Cain) (a tax that would be mainly paid by the middle class).
These are simple facts: Republicans and Tea Party want to protect the wealth of billionaires and take away "welfare" and "entitlements" from the middle class and poor.
(3) Once we have had a national debate on which economic class we want to make pay, then we can progress. But at the moment, many in the debate are lying about their true motives - a wholesale transfer of wealth between the economic classes.
If you're worried about the debt, you shouldn't be taking tax increases on the wealthy off the table, BECAUSE IT WOULD DECREASE THE DEBT.
Oh of course, if we tax the rich they will leave. Really? Somalia is a 0% tax regime. See anyone moving there? Will high taxes kill business? IKEA says no. The fact is that the rich like living in a nation where the government provides peace and security, infrastructure, and educated workers. They like fine restuarants and clean air. So the rich arent going anywhere. If they move their financial assets abroad, revoke their citizenship and have them move their asses where their assets are. You can live in the Caymans if you like, but you have to apply for a visa to visit San Francisco or New York.
But to see how silly this argument is, consider about how the minimum wage affects the workforce. Why arent our workers moving to high-wage economies, if people just follow their financial interests? Plenty of European countries have much higher minimum wages and better social security nets. Yet they are not moving. The reality is that people do not like to move. Its why people who live in Flint Michigan or Detroit dont move to rich areas.
REALITY:
The reality is that the real motive is to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.
To do this, republicans drive up the debt so that they can scare people about the debt. Then, once the debt is high, they say we need to cut spending (never increase revenues - that is always off the table). Then, once we have balanced the books again, we need more debt for round two, so we give away the savings to the rich as tax cuts, and then we scream about the debt all over again. Its a nice little scam, and because of that scam, the middle class are continually getting poorer while the rich are getting richer.
You dont believe this?
Reagan/Bush drove up the debt.
Clinton/GOP cut spending and balanced the budget
Bush II immediately complained that this was "the people's surplus" and rather than use the money to pay down the debt, gave it all away in a $2 trillion tax spree for the rich.
When the deficit explodes again as a result, is the solution to repeal the tax cuts that exploded the deficit? Nope. Of course the answer is to once again have the middle class pay in reduced spending.
And so we go.
Spending cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy.
The debt is only used as a weapon to drive this transfer of wealth.
Why the middle class put up with this is beyond me.
Maybe its just that the rich can afford to advertise their scam like crazy.
(1) To decrease the deficits and consequently, debt, there are two and only two methods:
* Cut Spending
* Increase Revenues (largely taxes).
Anyone seriously concerned with decreasing the debt must therefore consider both options. If someone comes up to you and says "we have to cut spending to decrease the debt" or "we have to increase taxes to decrease the debt', they arent telling you the full truth. What they should say first is "We need to decrease the debt, and all options are on the table".
Once we have this basic agreement (which pretty much exists), then we move on to question 2:
(2) To decrease the debt, who do we take the money from?
Its a simple point. If there is a debt, someone must stump up the cash. Who will that be? We could take it from Muslims, or from Jews, or from Catholics, or from gays, or from Amish, or from telephone sanitizers, or indeed from all of the above. But because we are talking about money, lets divide people according to their wealth (Ideally wealth, not income). So the options are
(1) The poor
(2) The middle class
(3) The rich
(4) Some combination of the above.
This is a real choice, and it represents a difference in party ideology. The left prefer to take the money from the rich, the right prefer to take the money from the middle class and poor.
Of course, the right wont ever tell you that they prefer to take money from the middle class and poor, but all their policies are pointing in that direction:
*Decreasing taxes on corporations (wealthy)
*Decreasing taxes on investment income (mainly earned by the wealthy)
*Cutting Social Security (mainly hurting the middle class)
*Against Universal Healthcare (mainly hurting the middle class and poor)
*Opposed to the minimum wage (hurting the poor)
*Introducing a 9% national sales tax (Hermann Cain) (a tax that would be mainly paid by the middle class).
These are simple facts: Republicans and Tea Party want to protect the wealth of billionaires and take away "welfare" and "entitlements" from the middle class and poor.
(3) Once we have had a national debate on which economic class we want to make pay, then we can progress. But at the moment, many in the debate are lying about their true motives - a wholesale transfer of wealth between the economic classes.
If you're worried about the debt, you shouldn't be taking tax increases on the wealthy off the table, BECAUSE IT WOULD DECREASE THE DEBT.
Oh of course, if we tax the rich they will leave. Really? Somalia is a 0% tax regime. See anyone moving there? Will high taxes kill business? IKEA says no. The fact is that the rich like living in a nation where the government provides peace and security, infrastructure, and educated workers. They like fine restuarants and clean air. So the rich arent going anywhere. If they move their financial assets abroad, revoke their citizenship and have them move their asses where their assets are. You can live in the Caymans if you like, but you have to apply for a visa to visit San Francisco or New York.
But to see how silly this argument is, consider about how the minimum wage affects the workforce. Why arent our workers moving to high-wage economies, if people just follow their financial interests? Plenty of European countries have much higher minimum wages and better social security nets. Yet they are not moving. The reality is that people do not like to move. Its why people who live in Flint Michigan or Detroit dont move to rich areas.
REALITY:
The reality is that the real motive is to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.
To do this, republicans drive up the debt so that they can scare people about the debt. Then, once the debt is high, they say we need to cut spending (never increase revenues - that is always off the table). Then, once we have balanced the books again, we need more debt for round two, so we give away the savings to the rich as tax cuts, and then we scream about the debt all over again. Its a nice little scam, and because of that scam, the middle class are continually getting poorer while the rich are getting richer.
You dont believe this?
Reagan/Bush drove up the debt.
Clinton/GOP cut spending and balanced the budget
Bush II immediately complained that this was "the people's surplus" and rather than use the money to pay down the debt, gave it all away in a $2 trillion tax spree for the rich.
When the deficit explodes again as a result, is the solution to repeal the tax cuts that exploded the deficit? Nope. Of course the answer is to once again have the middle class pay in reduced spending.
And so we go.
Spending cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy.
The debt is only used as a weapon to drive this transfer of wealth.
Why the middle class put up with this is beyond me.
Maybe its just that the rich can afford to advertise their scam like crazy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)