The Consequences of Bad Ambassadoring

Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences -- Robert Louis Stevenson (11/13/1850 to 12/3/1894) a Scottish novelist, poet, essayist, and travel writer. His most famous works are Treasure Island, Kidnapped, and Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

As I dashed though the front door of The Quarry, I fumbled for my keys, wanting to unlock my car and get on the road as quickly as possible. I had just left a dinner meeting with a colleague who was convinced he could broker a peace between me and a bitter enemy, a guy Joe Truth (the colleague) insisted was a closet liberal.

Joe told me he wanted to apologize for calling me frigging nuts, but it was just a ruse to get me to meet with William Hartenbaum, a d-bag I wanted to avoid at all costs. Which is why I ran out of there as soon as Truth revealed his deception but before Hartenbaum showed his ugly mug.

Making it to the parking lot, I saw my vehicle and extended my arm, pointing the controller at it to unlock the doors. I had almost made it to my car, which was quite a distance due to the Quarry being packed, when someone popped up from behind my Ford Focus. What the hell is going on, I thought? Suddenly a muscular arm wrapped around my neck, and before I knew it I was in a secure chokehold.

"Recognize my voice, a**hole?" the man standing behind my car shouted. It was Dennis Marks, a dirtbag I had filed a restraining order against due to him calling my home hundreds of times a day to swear at me and threaten my life - because he harbored a grudge after I left some disagreeable comments on his blog (comments he lied about on the blog of his buddy William, insisting I was the one who swore).

"Hold still or I'll snap your neck", the person who had me in the chokehold barked. I recognized his voice as belonging to Tony Hawkins, an individual I'd had a previous bad encounter with.

I heard a car door open nearby and a few seconds later William Hartenbaum and I were face to face. "Glad you decided to meet with Joe Truth", Hartenbaum sneered. "Yes, I convinced that dumbass to trick you into showing up so we could ambush you". After addressing me, William turned to Dennis Marks and asked, "Why is he struggling so much, didn't you inject his steak with the syringe I gave you? He should be unconscious by now".

"Yes, I injected it, AFTER giving it a good rubdown with my dick", Dennis replied. "I hope you enjoyed my special sauce", Marks laughed, his comment directed at me. "And I was careful so none of the other chefs or boss Leeds saw", Marks added, his comment now directed at Hartenbaum. "By the way, I still don't understand why your buddy Slade isn't a party to our little practical joke".

"I explained that to you already", William shot back. "No way I was involving The Quarry's owner in our hijinks. He'd have nixed assaulting a customer, even if that customer is a worthless little bastard like Dervish. Besides, Slade isn't nearly as moderate as we are. I suspect he may be kicked out of the Higher-Ordered Person's Society any day".

Despite Marks' and Hartenbaum's conversation about drugging me, I didn't feel drowsy at all. However, deciding some subterfuge might work in my favor given the circumstances, I went limp and pretended to fall asleep. "I think the sedatives just kicked in", Tony Hawkins observed. "OK. let's get him into his trunk", William directed. "Where are his keys?"

It was then that Hawkins released me from the choke hold, although he still had one arm wrapped around my waist. Sensing my opportunity had arrived, I removed the taser from the inside breast pocket of my suit jacket, jammed the contact points down on Hawkins' arm, and pressed the button. Hawkins immediately fell to the ground, his body twitching as 4.5 million volts coursed though his body. I retrieved my keys from where I had dropped them whilst attempting to free myself from Hawkins' grasp, pushed the button to relock my car, then turned and sprinted back to the restaurant.

"Get him!" a surprised Hartenbaum yelled. I'd like to have stuck around and tased the rest of my assaulters but decided not to take any chances. It had been months since the post-traumatic vertigo I suffered from as a result of a pistol-whipping administered by Tony Hawkins had disappeared, but I did not want to risk another beatdown. Two-on-one were not favorable odds. Plus I didn't know if Hartenbaum or Marks had any weapons on them.

Back inside the Quarry, I returned to the table where I had just dined with Joe Truth. Sitting down I noticed Joe was resting his head on top of his folded arms, fast asleep. Did our waiter mix up the plates and give Joe the steak intended for me? I shook him violently, but still he slumbered. Fantastic, I thought, the urge to barf that had come over me as soon as Marks described what he had done to my steak passed. Seeing as it was Truth who was unconscious, it must mean he (and not I) ate the meat Marks had given such special attention to. I guess there are consequences for bad ambassadoring.

Using my cell phone I called my assistant Janeane Garner and asked if she could pick me up. I didn't want to return to the parking lot if my adversaries were there waiting for me. Also, I didn't bother calling the police, as our city didn't have any -- not since the Emergency Financial Manager replaced them with a private security firm (a firm Tony Hawkins worked for).

After hearing of my predicament, Janeane agreed to come get me right away. She drove up to the back entrance and opened her car door. Seeing Janeane, I exited with a crowd of people leaving and returning to their cars in the rear parking lot. Sliding in the backseat I found another passenger there. It was Rusty Farber, the head of security at the Progressive Ideology Foundation.

"Don't worry, Mr. Dervish. I'm here to protect you", Rusty assured me. "Let's drive around to the front and check on your car". Janeane, who was driving, followed Rusty's directions and circled the establishment. I was relieved to see my car undamaged. I had worried Hartenbaum and Marks may have vandalized it. They probably did not due to their buddy Slade Leeds owning The Quarry (and not wanting his establishment to be named in an insurance claim).

Rusty drew his stun gun and covered me as I returned to my vehicle, then escorted me home. We didn't see Hartenbaum or Marks again that night, but I knew this wasn't the end of our feud. They were, most likely, plotting revenge. I'm sure Joe Truth, who I had left asleep at a table inside the Quarry, was fine.

I did not intend on letting him know what had happened, or that Hartenbaum thought he was a dumbass though. I very much doubted he would believe me, given the fact he still thought Hartenbaum was a Lefty, even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 swtd-127. polfi-14.  Previous. Next.

Said I Was Frigging Nuts, But Meant in The Good Way

Behold, their valiant ones shall cry without: the ambassadors of peace shall weep bitterly -- Quote from the Christian Bible, Isaiah 33:7.

I was sitting at my desk at the Progressive Ideology Foundation, the Liberal think tank where I am employed as a senior fellow. My work done, I was currently writing a post for my blog. Just then the intercom on my desk beeped and the voice of my assistant Janeane Garner asked, "I have a Joe Truth on the line. Do you want to take his call?"

Joe Truth? I hadn't heard from him for a while. Not since our falling out. "OK", I responded. "Put him through". I picked up my phone when the light lit up indicating there was someone on the line. "Hello" I said. "Hey, is that you Dervish?" Joe Truth asked. "Yes", I answered. "How can I help you Joe?"

"Dervish, you might be surprised to be hearing from me, since we stopped speaking after I insulted you by calling you a frigging nut". "Yeah, that was more than a year ago now", I acknowledged.

"Well, the reason I'm contacting you is because I want to apologize. I'm dreadfully sorry about saying you're nuts. Please let me take you out to dinner to make it up to you. I'll be eternally grateful if you'll grant me this opportunity to rekindle our friendship".

How odd, I thought. Joe Truth and I had never actually been friends. Not close ones, in any case. Perhaps we could be referred to as associates, since he was also a Lefty blogger. His blog had actually been quite successful, but all that went south when he closed it down - and then reopened it. Several times. He said the people he worked with didn't approve of the Liberal beliefs he expressed online. Apparently he was now some kind of high-powered businessman who worked at a very Conservative firm.

"OK", I agreed. "I'll meet you". I had some sympathy for the guy, although not a lot, since he had never explained why he had slandered me. Even worse, he had spoken about me behind my back with an a-hole from the Higher-Ordered Person's Society -- a organization comprised of phony moderates that think they're better than everyone else. But, even if the apology wasn't adequate, I was up for a free meal.

"Where and when do you want to meet?" I queried. "How about tomorrow night at 8? I've made reservations at the Quarry". "No way" I replied. "The Quarry is where the Higher-Ordered Person's Society meets". "Don't worry buddy. I was briefly associated with that group, but no longer. I know you don't like them. Besides, they aren't meeting there tomorrow", Joe protested. "And the Quarry is one of the finest restaurants in town. Surf and Turf. My treat", Joe added.

"I guess", I relented. "But I'll take my apology first, and you can grovel some more when we meet". "I'm really sorry", Joe pleaded. "Please meet me". So, against my better judgment I agreed to meet Joe. A free meal and some groveling from an individual who wronged me does not happen very often.

The next evening I drove my Ford Focus to the meeting with Joe Truth, arriving a few minutes early. Leaving my vehicle in the parking lot, I entered the Quarry and approached the hostess. "Can you tell me if Joe Truth is here?" I asked the woman behind the counter.

"Let me check" the woman responded, scanning her records. "Yes, I have a table for the Truth party. You must be Mr. Dervish?" I nodded and she led me to a table. "Mr. Truth is at the bar", the hostess said, explaining why Joe was absent. "I'll let him know you're here" she said, and left.

A few minutes later Truth joined me. "I pre-ordered our Surf and Turf", Joe said, pulling out a chair and sitting down. "The hostess told me our waiter should be bringing it over momentarily". "Great", I said. "I've been looking forward to this. The meal AND the groveling". "Sure", replied Joe. "But let's eat first. I also ordered an expensive bottle of wine".

"Wow! That was a great meal", an obviously sated Joe Truth sighed after polishing off his dinner. "Now for the bad news", Joe continued. "I'm not going to grovel. In fact, I'm going to retract my earlier apology. Now, before you storm off, let me explain. It's the least you could do, considering the money I just spent feeding you".

I glared at Joe as he continued speaking. "No apology because I still think you're totally nuts, although I mean that in a good way. The real reason I wanted to meet was to broker a peace between you and William Hartenbaum". "F*ck that", I growled angrily. "I don't want to have anything to do with that d-bag". (Hartenbaum is the previously mentioned a-hole from the Higher-Ordered Person's Society).

"Now, wait a minute", Joe protested. "As you probably know, I recently appointed myself Ambassador of Blogistan. I need to broker this peace to bolster my bona fides. Also, William isn't a d-bag, nor is he a phony moderate. I believe he is actually a closet Liberal".

"You're the one who is nuts", I exclaimed. "This doofus you're oddly enamored of is in no way a Liberal. He's a conservative Democrat at best. Does a closet liberal rail against the minimum wage, complain about progressives saying the rich should pay their fair share, and write literally DOZENS of blog posts about how bad green energy is and how climate change isn't happening?"

"Right, a closet liberal", Joe Truth said with a straight face. "Bet you didn't know he's also in favor of marriage equality and allowing the bush tax cuts to expire?". "No, I knew about those two things", I replied, giving up trying to reason with Truth. "Thanks for the grub", I concluded, "but I've got to be going. By the way, Hartenbaum isn't here, is he?".

"As a matter of fact..." Truth began to admit, but I quickly jumped from my seat and ran toward the exit. "See you on the internet but don't call me again", I added in parting. If Hartenbaum was here I wanted to not be here as soon as possible. Hopefully I could make it out the door without encountering him.

 swtd-126. polfi-13.  Previous. Next.

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

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.

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.

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.

I Agree With Paul Ryan, Says "Moderate" Idiot

There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending ~ VP candidate and United States Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district Paul_Ryan (dob 1/21/1970) dissembles during the VP debate on 10/11/1012.

The following from blogger Willis Hart, a self described "Moderate", regarding the VP debate on Thursday 10/11/2012...

Willis Hart: Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Biden a very simple question tonight. She asked him what, other than raising taxes on the wealthy, would the Obama administration do to reduce the budget deficit. His hysterical response... was, "Just let the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires expire!" That was it. ...if [Biden] thinks that that's all that's necessary, then he is a total frigging idiot. (10/11/2013 AT 7:29pm).

Why? Because of the simple fact that raising taxes on the wealthy won't come close to making up the budget shortfall (he agrees with Paul Ryan, in other words). But what this "Moderate" fails to take into account is the positive effect that raising taxes on the wealthy will have on the economy. The government needs this money for programs to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Historical data shows that during the times when taxes were the highest the economy did the best. In a 7/10/2010 article that asked the question, are low taxes exacerbating the recession, David Sirota points out that, "though the Reagan zeitgeist created the illusion that taxes stunt economic growth, the numbers prove that higher marginal tax rates generate more resources for the job-creating, wage-generating public investments (roads, bridges, broadband, etc.) that sustain an economy.

They also create economic incentives for economy-sustaining capital investment [because] the easiest way wealthy business owners can avoid high-bracket tax rates is by plowing their profits back into their businesses and taking the corresponding write-off rather than simply pocketing the excess cash and paying an IRS levy".

So, no, Joe Biden was not an idiot to emphasize the fact that raising taxes on the wealthy would reduce the budget deficit. It would, in fact, raise much more than the 70 billion dollars a year that the "Moderate" says can't possibly make much of a difference. This "Moderate" is in favor of gutting entitlements, raising the retirement age, and otherwise placing the burden of paying our debts largely onto the backs of the middle class and poor.

This "Moderate" fully endorses the Bowles-Simpson proposal that includes cutting the corporate tax rate and benefits for seniors. Regarding the proposal, commission member Rep. Jan Schakowsky said "Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of hard choice we need to be making". Schakowsky concluded "we should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income".

Schakowsky presented her own plan that increased government investments to grow the economy. This represents the Liberal perspective regarding capitalism. Capitalism is a flawed system of which results in wealth concentrating at the top. The solution isn't the other extreme (socialism), but a mixed system in which the government intervenes to level the playing field and prevent total plutocracy via redistributive programs.

Yet "Moderates" and Conservatives still buy into the fairy tale that is supply-side economics. Even though Reagan's OMB director David Stockman admitted that Reagan's tax cut was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate", we keep voting Republicans into office who want to cut taxes and deregulate. bush did it and the result was the Great Recession. Now Romney says that, because Obama didn't turn things around fast enough, the answer is more failed voodoo economics!

Although "Moderates" seek to strike a balance between raising taxes and slashing entitlement programs. But I agree with Rep. Schakowsky, who said "the plan [Bowles-Simpson] is anything but balanced". Any plan that proposes small tax increases (nobody dares suggest anything higher than the Clinton rates) and cuts in investments and entitlement programs isn't balanced or "moderate" in my opinion. It's Conservative.

Joe Biden was right to emphasize the necessity of raising taxes, especially with the fiscal cliff looming. The Democrats MUST not buckle under again and make a deal that does not include tax INCREASES on the wealthy, although drastically cutting military spending is, I think, a close second (so Joe Biden could have mentioned that, and did not). But that isn't what the "Moderate" wanted to hear. In his mind the only "serious" solution to bringing down the deficit is to cut entitlement cuts and raise the retirement age; and with that assessment I must disagree completely.

Proposals like Bowles-Simpson would hurt the middle class and negatively impact the economy, but the "Moderate" instead focuses on the "unfairness" of "taking" too much of a wealthy individual's income (it is, in fact, the primary focus of his blog). Me, I don't know how someone can call themselves "moderate" when they worry SO MUCH about the wealthy being "overtaxed". That's what Conservatives do.

That is one of the responses the "Moderate" post received. A conservative who calls himself "dmarks" described Obama's desire for the tax rates (at least for the wealthy) to go back to where they were under Clinton as "unnecessary" and "greedy". I say it is greedy to cut programs that benefit the middle class and poor, whether the advocate for that course of action is a "Moderate" who thinks taxes could be raised a few percentage points (but entitlement cuts are a necessity) or a Conservative who is dead set against any tax increase (and plans on voting for Romney and tax cuts).

SWTD #121, wDel #13.

The Left Does Not Need to Lie to Make Romney Look Bad

When you express an attitude that half the country considers itself victims, that somehow they want to be dependent on government, my thinking is maybe you haven't gotten around a lot ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) 44th president of the United States, responding to a question about Romney's bogus and insulting claim that 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax and believe they are victims and entitled to an array of federal benefits at a Univision town hall-style forum on 9/20/2012.

On 9/22/2012 self-described "Moderate" blogger Willis Hart asked the question, "still don't think that MSNBC lies like Fox?". The title of the post was a link to Youtube video of some remarks by Mitt Romney that were supposedly deceptively edited by NBC's Andrea Mitchell to enforce the Left's narrative that Mitt is a rich out-of-touch douche (Youtube video title: "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Caught Blatantly Lying & Distorting The Truth About Mitt Romney").

My response, which I cannot make on his blog because he recently banned me, would have been that I don't think Andrea Mitchell lied. Primarily because lying to make Mittens look bad isn't necessary. Yes, the video was edited, and yes the edit did make it appear he was confused by the "amazing" technology he witnessed at a sandwich making business he had recently visited (Wawas of PA). After airing the edited video on her MSNBC program Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell "suggested this might be Romney's supermarket scanner moment". The point he was actually making was that government is behind in using technology to improve it's efficiency because government has no competition.

So, the video WAS edited, and those edits did make it appear that Romney's comments are an example of him being rich and "out of touch" with the common man. However, when viewed in their full context, it is clear his comments are not an example of this. So, why do I doubt Andrea Mitchell lied? Because there are numerous other Romney quotes that the Left can use to "make Romney look bad". There is NO NEED for them to fabricate any. I suspect someone else edited the video and handed it off to someone at MSNBC. Andrea Mitchell did not lie... although an argument can be made that this is an example of poor reporting. Whoever put the story together (not necessarily Andrea Mitchell) did a bad job of confirming if the (out of context) quote was what it really appeared to be.

Regarding those quotes that actually do make Romney look bad (and make it completely unnecessary for the Left to have to fabricate any), two examples that recently were reported on include Romney making it clear he has no idea what a dirty bomb is, and that Romney thinks it would be a good idea for people to be able to open windows in airplanes (in case of a fire). The first comment I've transcribed from the 9/18/2012 broadcast of Rachel Maddow Show and is as follows (it is IN CONTEXT, BTW)...

(The quote is from the same video in which Romney disparages the 47 percent of people who refuse to take personal responsibility... according to him.)

Mitt Romney: I mean, if I were Iran and a crazed fanatic, I'd say, "Let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah and have them carry it to Chicago or some other place. And then if anything goes wrong or America starts acting up, we'll say, guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're gonna let off a dirty bomb.

Rachel Maddow: OK... Mitt Romney doesn't know what a dirty bomb is. A dirty bomb is not a nuclear explosion... you do not need to have a nuclear program in order to make a dirty bomb possible. You do not need fissile material from somebody's nuclear weapons program in order to put together a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is just a regular bomb that explodes the regular way - except that it's been packed with radioactive material - and that radioactive material can come from anywhere. From medical waste, from a nuclear power plant (which Iran has)... Every country in the world has access to the radioactive material necessary to make a dirty bomb. By singling out a nuclear armed Iran as a threat to the US in terms of what it would take to make a dirty bomb, Mitt Romney has just display profound ignorance on a really important subject.

Back to my commentary: As has been pointed out, these 47 percent of people who don't pay income taxes include a lot of likely Romney voters (who may not be Romney voters anymore after hearing these remarks). Senior citizens, military personal, and voters who live in southern states (states that receive more in federal money than they pay in, as opposed to northern states that tend to vote democratic and pay in more than they get back). On the other hand, these people probably aren't paying attention (or seen this reported on Fox Nooz) so they'll probably still vote for Romney despite the utter contempt Romney clearly has for these people.

Now, on to my second example of Romney saying something dumb that makes it unnecessary for the Left to fabricate anything to support their "narrative" that Romney is out-of-touch, makes dumb gaffes, and is otherwise not qualified to be president.

As reported by the Huffington Post (and numerous other "less biased" news sources), a fire broke out on a private plane carrying Mitt Romney's wife Anne (which was then forced to make an emergency landing). Speaking about the incident, Romney said, "the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous". According to Romney, it's "dangerous" because "you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft...".

There are several problems with this statement. First of all, there is less oxygen at high altitudes, oxygen feeds a fire, and the pressure outside the plane isn't the same as inside it. Although, regarding the oxygen issue, Romney was concerned about the occupants of the plane being able to breath (I guess it didn't occur to him that fire needs oxygen to burn). The cabin pressure issue, I think, really makes this a super dumb statement. Or, perhaps he was just joking, as, according to the NYT writer who first filed on the comments, "it was clear from the context that he was not being serious".

If a "joke" then I agree with the Telegraph reporter who said Romney has "[a] sense of humour that no one else quite gets". In any case, we still have two examples of Romney making stupid gaffes that make it completely unnecessary for the Left to have to fabricate any. He disparaged the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax, even though this number includes members of the Republican base, and his complete lack of understanding regarding what a dirty bomb is (and the fact that individuals in Iran could construct one absent Iran having a nuclear weapons program.

Andrea Mitchell lied? Why? There's no reason for her to lie; all the Left needs to do is tell the truth to make Romney look bad. Lie, and you can get caught, so why do it when it isn't necessary?

Also, who uses a link as the title of a blog post as Willis Hart of Contra O'Reilly does? Links are supposed to be embedded in your post. Try learning a little basic HTML. Failing that, don't use a frigging LINK as the TITLE of a blog post (put it in the body)! It just looks dumb.

SWTD #120

Republican Rigging Benefits Wealthy, Hurts Everyone Else

The fact that Romney may be viewed as wealthy doesn't necessarily pose problems for his candidacy. The challenge for Romney lies more in the fact that large majorities say if he is elected president, his policies would likely benefit the wealthy ~ Kim Parker, associate director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends. (Quote excerpted from the article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen of the AP, 8/27/2012).

The following is an excerpt from the 9/2/2012 broadcast of MSNBC's Weekends With Alex Witt, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Alex Witt and guest Carmen Wong Ulrich discuss a new Pew poll that finds 75 percent of Americans believe the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Alex Witt: Now a new study that paints a fascinating picture of what Americans really think about rich people. Carmen Wong Ulrich is a personal finance expert and the president of Alta Wealth Management, so she's making people rich with that company.

As we get to this survey, it's from the Pew Research Center, it says people see those who are wealthy as more intelligent, more hard working, yet also greedy and less honest. Where does this come from?

Carmen: Well, here's the thing. If you break it along party lines... Democrats are much more likely to say that people who are rich are basically more greedy and less honest. Republicans are more likely to say they're intelligent and hard working. So it really cuts across party lines.

But a third to 50 percent of Americans said it doesn't matter if you're wealthy. That doesn't make you more intelligent or less likely to be honest. It doesn't matter at all. So it's a big number that said it doesn't matter.

Alex Witt: OK, let's get to taxes. This one shows, that when it comes to paying them, 58 percent said [the] rich pay too little, 26 percent said they pay their fair share, and just 8 percent say they pay too much. Anything here surprise you?

Carmen: No... Again, this split along party lines. 78 percent of Democrats say the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. Only 33 percent of Republicans said the same thing.

Alex Witt: On the campaign trail wealth is certainly one of the big issues. What's the takeaway from what the study tells us... do you think this tells us more about how people view the rich...

Carmen: What it really showed is there is a belief that there is a huge income gap between the wealthy and the poor. 65 percent of Americans say that gap exists. The study asked, "do you believe the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? Over 75 percent of Americans agreed. If you're a Democrat it's 92 percent, while if you're a Republican it's still over 50 percent. So, no matter what party they're in, people are saying America is changing and the rich are getting richer.

My Commentary: "Perception is reality", is one of the lines (I didn't quote) that Carmen used in commenting on this poll. I don't know if that means she does not believe the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, but I believe it is true. I know it isn't only a "perception", but that the facts show this is the case. I also agree with the people who responded to the poll who said the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent (50 percent) or harder working (34 percent).

But, if the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent or harder working then why are they getting richer while the rest of us are getting poorer? Certainly, being wealthy is a huge advantage, as making money after you already have money is a lot easier, but I strongly believe the reason is (in huge part) because our economic system is rigged to favor the wealthy.

This is an assertion that I have been ridiculed for on a Conservative blog I used to comment on. One commenter even claimed that this assertion was one of the reasons I was viewed as a "laughingstock" by the other people who frequent that blog. According to these people, those who complain of a rigged system (like the Occupy Movement) are simply jealous, lazy and greedy individuals who are looking for government handouts.

However, as Liberal talk show radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out (in a 10/26/2006 article), "what's normal in a free and unfettered economy is the rapid evolution of a small but fabulously wealthy ownership class, and a large but poor working class". Historical evidence shows us that (under normal conditions[1]) only governmental economic and social policy can sustain a large and growing middle class.

Pew also found that "63 percent of Americans say the GOP favors the rich over the middle class and poor"[2]. I think the results of this poll make it clear that most people realize governmental policy supports the middle class, and that the reason it is currently in decline is due to a rigging of our economic system by the GOP. Here's hoping that translates into a win for Barack Obama in November.

Footnotes
[1] The other method by which a middle class can arise is by, "a sudden change in the relationship between population and resources. After the Black Death wiped out more than a third of the population in 14th century Europe, the increased demand for labor drove up the price of labor to the point when a middle class emerged in some places. Many historians identify this as one of the factors that brought about the Renaissance". (Excerpt from the 10/26/2006 Thom Hartmann article, "There's Nothing Normal About A Middle Class").
[2] From the AP article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen, 8/27/2012.

SWTD #119

Romney's Tax Plan Would Complete Reagan's Dream of an American Oligarchy

Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of those excesses ~ Aristotle (384 BC to 322 BC) a Greek philosopher who was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy.

The Walton family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. The top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Between 2009 and 2010 93 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, the other 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent. The United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any industrialized nation on earth and it is worse now than since the 1920s. The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. [source: Bernie Sanders on the 8/3/2012 Stephanie Miller Show].

In response John Fugelsang asked: "if 60 percent of the population controls only 2 percent of the wealth, does that mean that the top 40 percent needs to pay 98 percent of the taxes?" [John Fugelsang is a friday regular on the Stephanie Miller Show].

The rigged tax system of the United States has been moving up toward oligarchy for the past 30 years - ever since Ronald Reagan set us on that path. According to a non-partisan analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center, "...a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible".

Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes across the board, but in reality his elimination of deductions would RAISE taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers. The Brookings/Tax Policy analysis says, "[Romney's] tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers. Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000)... while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130)".

In other words: Romney wants YOU to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy! Unless you're rich and greedy, why would you cast your ballot for Mitt Romney? Barack Obama should win re-election in a landslide, but we all know he won't. It's going to be close. Why? I've been declared "arrogant" for saying so, but I'm convinced that a lot of voters are allowing themselves to be tricked into voting for oligarchy.

SWTD #118