Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Dylan Stableford of Yahoo! News Nauseating Sean Hannity Butt-Kissing

A brown-noser is a person who acts favorably to his or her peers to gain stasis or fancy that will eventually be used to their advantage. Such as a raise, promotion, or acceptance in a group. Usually brown nosers will do anything to gain the approval of their person of choice ~ A definition from the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases". Time magazine included it in a list of the "50 best websites of 2008".

I just saw a article on Yahoo! News that shocked me. I'd never seen a story from this organization with such a blantant partisan slant. Wikipedia says that Yahoo! News is an aggregator that gets it's content from a variety of sources, including Fox. However, they also note that "Since 2011 Yahoo! has expanded its focus to include original content, as part of its plans to become a major media organization".

Dylan Stableford is employed by Yahoo! News. The Business Insider reported on 5/6/2011 that "Yahoo snags media reporter Dylan Stableford". The "story" I'm objecting to is original content authored by him. Apparently the piece is from a Yahoo! News blog, so I guess Mr. Stableford sharing his opinions is appropriate. What he wrote sure as hell isn't straight news, that's for sure.

Following are some excerpts from the Stableford "story" (which concerns an appearance by the awesome progressive Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district, Keith Ellison on the 2/26/2012 airing of Fox Nooz's "Hannity") and my commentary regarding said excerpts...

Dylan Stableford: Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison exploded during a live interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday, calling the Fox News host the "worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen" and a "shill for the Republican Party". [Ellison] was on the program to discuss President Barack Obama's remarks on the sequester when he launched into a tirade aimed at Hannity, who [said] "The president is more concerned with fearmongering than finding a solution to the problem he created".

My Commentary: Oh, he "exploded" did he? I'd say Ellison took Hannity to task for his lies. The sequester isn't a problem the President created. Remember when Speaker Boner said "I got 98 percent of what I wanted in the debt deal"? The deal Boner was referring to was the deal that set up the sequester. But, instead of bringing this up, Stableford slimes Ellison by suggesting he "exploded".

Dylan Stableford: When Ellison called Hannity a "shill" for the GOP, the Fox News host tried to correct him. "I'm a registered conservative", Hannity said.

My Commentary: No, Dlyan, Hannity did not try to "correct" him. Ellison said Hannity is "the worst excuse for a journalist I have ever seen", and that Hannity is guilty of "yellow journalism". How could Hannity possibly correct Ellison regarding things the Representative GOT RIGHT?

Next Stableford reported that Hannity said, "Keep ranting", and Stableford wrote...

Dylan Stableford: Ellison did, and Hannity eventually ended the interview.

My Commentary: Wrong again, Dlyan. Ellison did not "keep ranting", he continued to take Hannity to task for his yellow journalism. Wikipedia defines yellow journalism as "a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers", and that "techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism".

This is EXACTLY what Fox Nooz does.

Stableford ends his article by quoting Hannity who dismissed Rep. Ellison by saying, "Congressman, you are a total waste of time... We're moving on, because our audience deserves better".

By ending with this quote how can one NOT conclude that Stableford agrees with Hannity - that Keith Ellison is "a total waste of time"? Snagging a hack like Stableford is part of Yahoo's plan to "become a major media organization"? Is Stableford angling for a job at Fox Nooz, or just a hardline partisan brown-noser? Either way, this progressive's stomach is churning. Egads! Could this Stableford fellow get his nose any further up Hannity's behind?

SWTD #125

Monday, February 25, 2013

Saying Goodbye Because I'm Going to Be Kicked Off Blogger

You say Goodbye and I say Hello ~ Paul McCartney (dob 6/18/1942) of The Beatles (1960 to 1970) "Hello, Goodbye" is a song by the Beatles. The song was released as a single on 11/24/1967, and topped the charts in the United States, the United Kingdom. Though the songwriting credit is Lennon–McCartney, it was written solely by Paul McCartney.

I just learned that my blogger account is about to be blocked. Seeing as that will result in this blog being shuttered, I'd like to take the opportunity to say goodbye to my followers. If any of them still read my blog, that is. Apparently I broke Blogger's rules, and for that I will be banished. The individual who reported my infraction explains...

dmarks: The troll [w-dervish] doesn't deserve the light of day anywhere after his many penis-lengthening spams on my blog. ... I forwarded all his comments to Google as spam, which often results in them classifying an account as spam and blocking it. (2/24/2013 AT 11:55am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

While it is true that I submitted some links to dmarks' blog of the sort he refers to (For approval. He had comment moderation on and they were never published), the reason I did so was not because I was "spamming" him.

This started awhile ago when dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) demonstrated that he was incapable of debating honestly. Instead of letting his "facts" speak for themselves, Mr. Marks felt the need to engage in vicious ad hominem. Dennis has accused me of "[lying] about child abuse and anti-Semitism", claiming that I defended individuals guilty of these crimes. But neither of these things happened.

Dennis even went so far as to insist that I "defend and support Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children". I brought up Scott Ritter during a discussion of Iraq's WMD program. Scott Ritter, along with numerous other IAEA inspectors looked for, and found no WMD. They reported this BEFORE bush decided to invade Iraq in order to "disarm" Saddam.

The reason for these vile accusations from Mr. Marks? Scott Ritter was caught in "police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature" (two separate incidents). These incidents, however, occurred many years after Scott Ritter left the IAEA. The charges Mr. Ritter was convicted of have absolutely nothing to do with the WMD Scott Ritter did not find in Iraq. The truth is that other members of the IAEA, including David Kay, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, all said Iraq was disarmed and that the bush administrations claim that Iraq had WMD was a "deliberate deception".

But, of course these facts do not matter to Dennis. This is what he does. If you ever quote anyone with anything questionable in their history - he will "discredit" anything you say after that by bringing up the individual-in-question's misdeeds (real or imagined) over and over. Whatever other proof you may present to back up your argument DOES NOT MATTER.

Another example of this is a time when I quoted Francis Boyle in a discussion of bush's war crimes. According to Dennis, Francis Boyle is an "anti-Semite" (TADM #4). Because, in addition to believing George W. bush is a war criminal, Boyle has voiced disagreement with Israel's policies regarding Palestine. Frankly, I think that Mr. Boyle's views on this matter go a little too far, and I don't agree with them. But I do happen to agree with him about bush being guilty of war crimes. And, as before, I do not base my case for bush being a war criminal solely on anything Mr. Boyle said or did (I quoted other people and introduced other facts).

Regardless, Dennis (again) concluded that he had decimated my argument (by digging up "dirt" on an individual I quoted) and that, because I had quoted the "anti-Semite" Francis Boyle, that I must be an anti-semite too.

But, that isn't the end of it. After Dennis accused me of "defending and supporting... sex crimes against children", he accused me of doing the same in regards to spousal abuse (in a discussion concerning baseless charges of wife-beating against MSNBC host Ed Schultz). And, when another commentator who calls himself Rusty commented that - if I were to discover that Jerry Sandusky was a Liberal Democrat - I'd defend him as well. Rusty concluded, "based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior, one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior".

Dennis agreed with Rusty's comments, adding that he believes I am an "apologist and supporter of domestic violence" (SWTD #232).

Ever since he slung these ridiculous and ugly ad hominem lies I've had an extremely low opinion of this fellow. None the less, I continued to engage him. If this jackass had been someone I encountered in real life - I'd have gone out of my way to steer clear of him. But words on a blog from an individual I'll never meet don't really concern me. Also, it's more than a little funny how insane much of what he says is.

Anyway, back to the story of what Dennis is now calling my "penis spams"... the incident was triggered when he posted an article to his blog titled, "Detroit: A case against gun control", I responded by calling him a "gun nut". I based my comment on the fact that he brought up the much referred to (on the Right) fictitious scenario in which numerous criminals break into the home of a single woman. But the fact is that these Republicans can't cite an actual case in which a single woman needed a large capacity clip to ward off a home invasion. Because it's never happened.

Dennis deleted my comment and claimed I was "spamming" him. I responded to Dennis' "spam" claim by pointing out that, while my comment was disagreeable, it was not spam. It wasn't as if I posted a link to a male enhancement website, I wrote. But none of those comments remain. Dennis deleted both mine and his comments and replaced them with a comment that said, "Spams and trolls and other low-content comments will be deleted".

Of course, being his blog, Dennis can delete any comment he pleases, but what I wrote wasn't a spam. Perhaps my remarks could be categorized as a "troll" or "low-content", but it wasn't spam. Figuring Dennis was completely unfamiliar with what spam actually looked like, I decided to provide him with a couple of examples. At the time he had comment moderation enabled, so I knew only he would see this "spam", and he would delete it and not publish it. I wouldn't have submitted it otherwise, as it would only make me look bad to others who knew nothing about our "feud".

My comments included links and info regarding male enhancement and was intended as a JOKE and in response to him falsely accusing me of spamming him. I thought it was pretty funny, and given how torqued off it appears it made Dennis, I still think it is.

I also think it's pretty funny how confident Dennis appears to be that his "reporting" my comments will result in Google classifying my account as spam and blocking it. I looked into it and it appears to me that Google's policy it not to involve itself in such matters. If they determine your site is what they call a spam blog, they will disable it. But my writings most definitely do not fit the bill. This is not a "spam blog".

However, in the unlikely event of my blog's demise, I'll take the opportunity now to say goodbye. It was a mediocre to pathetic run while it lasted (given most of my posts receive zero comments). And screw you, Dennis. I was only attempting to be helpful (in educating you as to what actual spam looks like).

See Also: Perverted Phallophile's Homoerotic Homoerotica Featuring Noam Chomsky Nude, DSD #12.

SWTD #124, dDel #2.

Friday, February 22, 2013

A Disgusting Attack On Children And Adults Living In Poverty From A Sick Conservative Mind

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him... They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market... It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live... It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune... These men... [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free? ~ Simon Linguet (7/14/1736 to 6/27/1794) French journalist and advocate, 1763.

I have, in comments on a Conservative blog referred to workers toiling for low amounts of money as "wage slaves. In response, a sick individual who calls himself dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: "Wave slave" is one of those phrases made up by people completely ignorant of economics that does two bad things... 1) it levels a nasty insult at working people. 2) It trivializes real slavery, by implying that experience of real slaves isn't any worse than that of some kid from a well-fed family working at Starbucks whose only worry that he might not be able to afford trading in his iPhone 4S for an iPhone 5. (2/21/2013 AT 4:14pm).

This is really sick, disgusting stuff. It trivializes poverty. Wage slavery is real. Wikipedia describes it as "a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery, where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate".

For individuals living in poverty, a low-paying job CAN accurately be described as "wage slavery", as the dependence on their wages are total and immediate. But notice that Mr. Marks denies the fact that poverty even exists, claiming that the troubles of a person earning a low salary have to do with them needlessly and foolishly upgrading their iPhone!

This is what Conservatives usually do when confronted with the ugly realities their self-centered greedy worldview (when put into practice by Republican legislators) creates. First they deny that poverty exists, by talking about the "poor" having things like microwaves and refrigerators (to start. Then they go to another level by claiming that poor people are buying widescreen TVs and iPhones).

This is what is known as blaming the victim. If the victim is responsible for their own predicament (those making low wages made - and continue to make - poor life choices), then the greedy Conservative is absolved of any responsibility or uncomfortable guilty feelings. There is no need for any compassion what-so-ever.

However, An article on the National Center for Law and Economic Justice website (a national non-profit organization dedicated to "advancing the cause of economic justice for low-income families, individuals, and communities across the country") reports, that "Census figures released in September 2012 reveal record-high numbers of people continue to live in poverty in the United States".

According to the report, "46.2 million people, [or] One out of seven people... were living in poverty in the United States in 2011 - the largest number of persons counted as poor in the 53 years of poverty measurements".

Shameful, huh? The wealthiest country on the planet and poverty is at an all time high. Yet, we have Conservatives like Dennis denying that poverty even exists! He further makes light of my use of the term "wage slave" by referring to a minimum wage earner's child as "well-fed". The truth is that 21.9 percent of children live in poverty, and "more than 20 million US children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry" (20 Facts About Child Hunger).

The reason Conservatives like Dennis deny the plight of the working poor is because they do not wish to pay slightly higher taxes to combat poverty. They also do not want to pay slightly more for their goods and services, so they rail against raising the minimum wage (many even call for eliminating it all together). They claim that a minimum wage HURTS low wage earners (because employers will be "forced" to fire them, or not hire them at all). This is categorically false, as I pointed out in my previous post. (It is also why they support job-destroying free trade agreements).

So why do these individuals deny the facts so emphatically? The answer is greed, plain and simple. Dennis' feigning concern over the trivialization of slavery is SO transparent. The term "wage slave" does NOT imply that the experience of real slaves wasn't (or isn't) worse, but his rejection of the term DOES trivialize poverty.

In Dennis' world slavery is awesome when the slave masters have no need for any concern at all regarding whether or not their slaves have adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Clearly empathy is a completely foreign concept to these individuals, which is why they have to pretend to be offended on behalf of people living in bondage, or pretend Liberals are jingoistic when they express concern about the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs (yes, this is another ridiculous claim Dennis regularly makes).

When Conservatives like Dennis spout this nonsense it is because they are trying to cover for their selfishness and greed - it's the same reason they accuse the president of being a "socialist" when he's actually a Conservative Democrat.

SWTD #123, dDel #1.

Monday, February 18, 2013

The Truth About the Minimum Wage

There are people who would like to get rid of minimum wage. But we have to have it, because if we didn't some people would not get paid money. They would work all week for two loaves of bread and some Spam ~ Chris Rock (dob 2/7/1965) an American comedian, actor, screenwriter, television producer, film producer, and director.

The following from a self described "Moderate" regarding President Obama's call for an increase in the minimum wage...

Willis Hart: The minimum wage hurts low-skilled workers and freezes them out of entry level opportunities. A young kid (and that's who generally make minimum wage; youngsters, retired folks, second-wager earners - and even they're only 3-5% of the work force - virtually ZERO bread-winners make the minimum wage and you really have to wonder about the wisdom of a person making minimum wage having kids) who I might be willing to give a chance at $5 an hour but not at $9 an hour (the idiotic suggestion by Obama) - that's the person who ends up getting hurt by the meddling of government. (2/18/2013 AT 2:55pm).

In response I say "baloney". Everything Mr. Hart asserts is completely false. They're Conservative talking points (from a "Moderate") designed to justify the payment of substandard wages (so the wealthy can put that money in their pocket). In my opinion this wage slavery is a form of theft - the most pervasive one that exists in the world.

What follows is an excerpt from the 2/16/2013 broadcast of MSNBC's Up With Chris Hayes, which supports my position (edited for brevity and clarity)...

Chris Hayes: One of the biggest surprises in President Obama's State of the Union address this week was his call for an increase in the federal minimum wage, up to $9 an hour from it's current level of $7.25. The president also called for indexing the minimum wage to inflation to ensure it rises in line with the cost of living.

[Video Excerpt] President Obama, from his SOTU address: Tonight let's declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour (Democrats applaud. Biden stands and applauds while Boner remains seated).

*Edit* (to cut down on the long applause, I presume). This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank. Rent or eviction. Scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. [End Obama SOTU excerpt]

Chris Hayes: Republicans and business groups immediately began lining up against increasing the minimum wage. Here's House Speaker John Boehner the next day...

[Video Excerpt] John Boner, lying about the minimum wage: When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it. ...what happens when you take away the first couple of rungs on the economic ladder? You make it harder for people to get on the ladder. [End video clip of Boner lying so wealthy employers can continue stealing from workers]

Chris Hayes: John Boehner was channeling what conventional wisdom and economics 101 textbooks have told us for decades - that increasing the cost of employment causes reductions in employment. But, as it turns out that isn't the case. There's a growing body of strong empirical evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage - within a certain range - have no negative effect on employment. In fact, minimum wage increases may actually boost worker efficiency and add new demand to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of low wage workers.

The common GOP trope about those low wage workers is that many of them are teenagers, part-time, or summer jobs. But, in fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute are over 20 years old. Nearly half of those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase are full time workers, and over 54 percent have a combined family income of less than 40 thousand dollars a year.

Joining me now [is] Arindrajit Dube, assistant professor of economics, UMASS Amherst, who has done seminal research on the employment effects of minimum wage increases [and] Lew Prince, owner of Vintage Vinyl, a small business in St. Louis. He met with President Obama at the White House in November as part of a group of small business owners.

Great to have you here. ... if the government mandated that businesses sell a loaf of bread for $5, what we would see is less bread being sold. Because it was more expensive households would consume less of it. This [theory] was applied many years to the minimum wage... then empirical work started being done... Arin, can you walk us through what the research says about what the effect of the minimum wage is?

Arindrajit Dube: Starting in the early 90s, we started seeing a lot of variation [in the minimum wage] across states because the federal minimum wage was stagnant for so long... [this allowed researchers] to study the effects of the [differing] minimum wages. ...starting in the early 90s a set of studies looked at these variations and asked what happens when the minimum wage rises?

The famous one, of course, is by David Card and Alan Krueger [the 1992 study showed "that raising the minimum wage did not necessarily cost jobs"].

Chris Hayes: [Your research] where you have this massive database, 16 years of data... you correlate that - controlling for other factors - with employment, and you find?

Arindrajit Dube: No evidence of job loss in minimum wage jobs in the last 20 years. Whereas there is no reduction in jobs, we find, actually, a strong reduction in turnover.

Chris Hayes: Lew, does that jibe with your experience as a small business owner?

Lew Prince: Absolutely. One of the reason that I never paid a minimum wage is because it is very expensive to find and train good people. By paying more I can retain them. I can demand more of them, and it turns out they demand more of themselves.

Chris Hayes: This is known in economics as the efficiency wage. If you pay a wage above the market-clearing rate, you can actually induce more productivity. You can induce better work in the workers.

My Commentary: You can induce better work from workers by paying them a higher wage than the bare-minimum because people like it when their work is appreciated. Workers who know their work is appreciated will try harder for their employers. This is contrary to what Conservatives believe, which is a wage is only "fair" if it is as low a wage as the employer can possibly pay. That low wage is what the "market" determines... or so says the Conservative. They CLAIM that if the wage is to low that workers will go elsewhere.

What the Conservative IGNORES is the fact that the norm is for there to be an oversupply of workers relative to jobs. So, what happens when the supply of something is in excess of what is needed? The price is driven down! A lot of people looking for work doesn't make the value of their work less! It just makes it easier for employers to screw workers by offering substandard wages.

It's a take it or starve situation. Some people WOULD work for bread and Spam, which is fine by Conservatives (as it means the wealthy business owners can put more money in their pockets), and ensures them (they think) lower-priced goods and services (they always wildly exaggerate how much prices would go up with a higher minimum wage).

SWTD #122, wDel #14.