America's Ruling Class Part 1

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” reads Article I of the Constitution.

The founders of this country left the monarchal system of government found in England, and were very quick and clear in the constitution to declare that we wanted no part of that here in America. People should be elected or appointed based on their personal qualifications... not due to their name, class, status, or lineage. There would be no Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, Knights, Esquire, Gentleman in the US colonies. We would have free society where each individual, based on his personal merits, could succeed or fail.

Or so they thought...(?)






The obsession with Hollywood has definately got to be one form of an Aristocracy. A new form of American nobility. I wouldn't so much call these people a ruling class, I'm not sure how much (true) power they hold, besides the fanfare they receive. But, its not always about power, its also about priviledge... and wealth. There is a channel, you know its name, and its dedicated solely to Hollywood. Everything you want to know or see about the stars. Get your fix.

"See how rich they are! Dont you wish you had a house like that? Oh, you so want to be this person. Come along! Make yourself crazy by wishing to emulate the person you created!"

People interested in every facet of these peoples lives, as if they're really different. I'm not sure what people are expecting to here.

"George Clooney says he just wants to eat a burger and fries sometimes... wow... he's just like me."

Are people expecting him to say he goes out on an expedition and hunts down his food, just like some part he played in a movie once? And why do people care what he eats anyway. His body digests food the same way yours does. What exactly is suppose to happen if you're in the same room with a celebrity. Im not a fan of photographers who try to find the makeup free photos to embarass celebs, but they do prove a point. (click here) These are regular people. They dont come from the planet Krypton... they haven't been bitten by radio-active spiders... yet people hyperventilate because of them. There seems to be a weird symbiotic relationship between fan and "star."

1) They entertain Americans, some just play regular people in movies or tv. (how ironic)
2) People view them as angels come down to earth.
3) People want to know and see everything about them.
4) Paparazzi follows these people all around 24/7.
5) Entertainers begin to hate the attention and the obsession.
6) People (some who have always been jealous) begin to resent the (perceived?) attitude of those they've built up.

And boy do people enjoy taking them down. I've never been into Britney Spears, so... I never understood the adulation, and perhaps even more so, I never understood the, almost anticipatory glee at watching her self-destruct. In some weird way, its like a good portion of people who keep up with Hollywood liked the idea of watching her come back down to Earth. A preverse circle of life?





But these people have no real power... they're just figure heads... similar to the position of Queen of England, after the Prime Minister's position was created. Princess Diana had no real power, but she was "loved", adored and obsessed over, just like a Hollywood celebrity. By that time in England, the power had moved to the Prime Minister and the Parliament. If we're talking... TRUE POWER... the true power in America is held in the Legislature. You get two/thirds of both the House and Senate to think with one mind, it doesn't matter what the President wants. At that point, there is no president. Just an oligarchy. And guess who wants in...?





Caroline Kennedy. Who? Yeah, um... my thoughts exactly. One of JFK's kids. She wants to be appointed to Hillary Clinton's not vacant Senate seat. Say what? Not city council... Not State Comptroller... Not State Representative... Not State Senator... Not US Representative (1 of 435)... she wants to be APPOINTED to the United States Senate. Um... what??? Talk about nobility and entitlement. If she wants to wait until for the next term, and run for it in an election, so be it. But since Clinton is stepping down, mid term, she wants the Governor of NY to appoint her. What are her qualifications? What experience does she have in government? NONE. There are only 100 Senators in the nation. The Senate is the more powerful of the two Houses of Congress. And she wants to be given a seat there. Right at the top. And there are people, like Harry Reid, a leading Democratic who works with her uncle (Ted Kennedy) in the Senate, who think this is a good idea. Now, Im not here, to try to condemn her as not intelligent, but surely, there has got to be SOMEONE... I dunno... with soooooooooome government experience, who would be better qualified for this special appointment to the Senate. I'm surprised this was even a news story. There was actually debate about it.

But then again... what about her predecessor?



(Hillary Clinton protecting a girl from sniper fire)



This is a picture of Hillary Clinton using her body, as a wall to protect the little girl from the onslaught of bullets. I must also commend Sinbad the comedian, and Chelsea Clinton for being so brave as to accompany the First Lady on such a dangerous mission. Was Madelyn Albright sick? On vacation? The president's wife was on a special mission? Its hilarious how Hillary Clinton tried to turn herself into Madelyn Albright on the campaign trail this year. As if she were the one with the title of Secretary of State in the 90's.

She said that Barack Obama doesn't have experience, and I will grant you that he doesn't have a lot of experience (nor was it his claim to fame), but how many people know he has more years in political office than she does? She's a first term Senator, just like he is... but, he actually worked in the state legislature for 8 years. She... what? What exactly has she done? The kicker... she's not even from New York. Her election to the Senate in 2002, is perhaps the biggest joke in political history.

"Nu-uh, thats not true... she was... she was... kinda... sorta... not really sleeping with the guy who was the President!"




(Jesse Jackson, Jr)


I dont get how people in this country (all nations?) grant experience based on association. If I need my taxes done, and my accountant is in the hospital... I'm not going to ask his wife to do them... Im going to a different accountant! If my doctor is ill, and she can't see me... I'm not going to ask her husband to perform the surgery, Im going to get another surgeon. If politics is as important as people say... why are we applying someone else's talents to the people who were around them. Okay, you were married to the guy who was Governor for 8 years and President for 8 more. Thats not 16 years of experience for you!!! You're not in ANY of the high security meetings. Is this a joke? The sniper fire fiasco was suppose to embody the absurdity of her political career... again... I was caught expecting too much from the American people.


And I dont care what your daddy use to do... I dont believe your genetics are special. What about all the bright, hardworking, diligent, self-depriving, altruistic, people out there, who work there butts off... day in and day out... but dont have a "famous" or "recognizable" last name. Are we serious? Are we really serious? This is the best the people can do? Identify a last name they've seen before. The other person could do it, so cleary the new person with the same name can do it?

I'd better see you fly... or shoot heat vision... or pick up a car... or get gravely ill when you're around kryptonite... before you can convince me that these "abilities" of previous leaders are just passed down to those around them. Its as the people dont want to be bothered. Its clear why there have been so few democracies in human history. This isn't even a PURE DEMOCRACY... heaven help us. This is just a representative democracy, and we still can't get it right.

(southern small town country accent)

"They want me to vote... and to... watch the news... and keep up with stuff... and all that-that there bullcorn... and um... i got.. uraah.. i gots important stuff to do m'self... y'understand? First off... I got this dang-blasted bowling tournament going on... and I gotsta get my trophy back. I gotta keep up with American Idol... a few of those foreign lookin' fellerz can sing... and I gotta keep up with my fantasy football... Peyton Manning is my Lord and Savior... so um... I really, dont have time, to be keepin up with no politics... isn't that what we voted fer 4 years ago? Shoot... Bush... yeah... thats a name I know... Im sure that'll be good. Im supposed to already be at the bowlin alley... i gotsta go!"


And we all know how some priviledged off-spring feel about the "masses" who are stupid enough to vote for them.

(*sigh* Someone tell this moron the camera is still rolling)

Give Thanks Part 2: Black Friday

Black Friday is the first shopping day after Thanksgiving where a lot of stores have their anticipated "post-Thanksgiving" sales. It was originally called "black" Friday because this was the day that a lot of companies finally broke into "profitability" for the year. Out of the red, and into the black. But this past Friday was black for a different reason. Today, in Valley Stream, New York (20m east of Manhattan)... the day after Black Friday, police are investigating camera footage from a Wal-Mart where a customer stampede led to the death of an employee.

It is not uncommon for some people to wait outside stores at 5am, waiting for the first "Christmas sales" of the year. Gotta get those gifts. Gotta buy stuff. Gotta meet all those expectations. After all, thats what Christmas is all about! Right...? I take it these were people who were not of the mind (as mentioned in my last blog) to just give out hugs and tell people that God loves them.

So, the store opens at 5am, and the crowd of people dont wanna disappoint all those people who are expecting presents. Dont wanna miss their gift. Dont want to see someone else walking off with the last of the Plasma-TV's. So, everyone LITERALLY bum-rushes the door... trampelling the guy who unlocked the door. Four other coworkers were hurt as they attempted to help the guy who was stampeded. Even a pregnant woman had to be taken to the hospital to undergo observations.

And if you find that hard to believe, AFTER THE MAN HAD BEEN REPORTED DEAD... shoppers became irate when they were told that the store would be closing for a few hours.

"I've been waiting on line since yesterday morning!"
(one person was quoted as saying)

Aaaaaaaah... Christmas is here. What a great season! I just feel it in the air. Mmmmmm... you can almost just breathe it in. Smell that love and sharing atmosphere? (Me neither) Aren't people just all-around in better moods? Helping each other? Lending a hand? Not focused on things of little importance? Sacrificing for the benefit of others. Gosh, I love Christmas. Mmm mmmm! It just makes me warm and tingly inside... so much so that I sometimes just break out in song...

"Its the most... wonderful time... of the yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaar!!!"

Give Thanks Part 1

Just a few words this day before Thanksgivings. I often think of us as Americans... and think of Jesus' parable about the Pharisee and the Publican.

Jesus is speaking to his followers... and tells them a story of two men who go up to the temple to pray. One a Pharisee, and one a publican. Pharisee's being the men of the day who lived lives in strict adherence to the Law. Like the Sadducees, religious men of the highest respect. In perception of first century Palestine, models of how one should live a good life in the eyes of God. The publicans, on the other hand, were the tax collectors. They were despised of their brethren. The Jews of Jesus' day did not control their country, they were under imperial Roman rule... and the publicans were Jews who collaborated with the Roman empire in taxing the people. So, in choosing these two men for his parable... in the ears of his immediate audience, there is already a clear distinction... as far as how the people would perceive these two men.

The Pharisee goes up and says:

'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

The publican is said to have "stood afar off." He wouldn't even look his head up to heaven. He merely asked:

'God be merciful to me a sinner.'

And Jesus ends the parable by saying,

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

This would have seemed shocking to the people listening... How can a miserable slimy publican be "justified" rather than the Pharisee? The Pharisee's entire life is the work of God. He focuses on living a life in accordance to the Law of Moses. He is the religious leader of the day. This makes no sense.

Jesus didn't say, God forgave them both yet preferred the Publicans prayer more, but rather he said, the Publican went home "justified"(forgiven of sin) rather than the Pharisee. There was no humility in the heart of the Pharisee. He tilted his head upward to heaven, looked up to God and said "I am so glad that you made me like this... and not like him." The tone of his prayer was offensive. The stench of HUBRIS permeated his prayer. "I've done this... and this... and this... look at how good I am, Lord... not like that wretch in the back of the church."

If it was a problem in the poor socio-economic climate of first century Palestine(Israel), then surely it is always a problem the world over. But, as the richest nation on the planet, and as many say... the richest nation the world has ever known, we are ESPECIALLY susceptible to this thinking. I think each person must be ever vigilant! Many a person you talk to do not know humility, and have not seen or heard from him in many many years.

Many a person who holds the poor or impoverished in contempt...

"why can't they work harder like me..."

Many a religious person who holds the sinner in contempt...

"I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers..."

People who look upon what they've done... or who they are... and take great pride in themselves. Who look upon others and hold them in contempt.

Im not a fan of holidays, neither their original (usually PAGAN) incarnation or the silly way they have evolved and are conducted today... ESPECIALLY CHRISTMAS... however, at the heart of it... I do like the concept of Thanksgiving. Not just because of the football, though that is always a plus... but its not decayed and corrupted as the materialism centered Christmas.

If you dont believe me... dont give a single gift to anyone expecting one on Christmas, take any that are given to you, say "I pray that God blesses you" and give a smile and a hug, and see how "Jesus centered" all your closest friends will be then. Yeah, I didn't think so either. But, at the heart of it, Thanksgiving is suppose to be about giving thanks, being humble and appreciative. I can get with that.

So, I hope everyone thinks about that... not just on Thanksgiving, but everyday. To know the difference between sympathy and EMPATHY... to be able to see and understand everyone else's situation... to only go before God with a meek and humble heart... and to take no pride in ourselves... or our actions...

We must always keep a humble heart and think like Paul did when he struggled with his brethren, the children of God... the Israelites... who, unlike himself, had rejected the Christ... rather than judge them or hold them in contempt... he merely thought...

"if not for the grace of God... there... go... I..."

The Beggar's Waltz (REVISITED)

While watching Bill Moyers Journal (click here) the week immediately following my blog about growing wealth disparities in this nation, Bill referenced an OECD press conference that came out on October 21st addressing world wide poverty and wealth inequality. (Full press release here and the US specific data here) It was so weird, like a sad official confirmation of my concerns about inequality... and only a week after I mentioned the same subject! But, what is the OECD? To be honest, I had no clue at that time, but the OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, currently consistening of THIRTY countries, regularly giving cumulative data and suggestions about improving the quality of life around the world.

The United States had the 3rd highest inequality level and poverty rate only behind Mexico and Turkey. Some people did not believe my claim that one third of Americans (not in 1928, but in 2008!) make less than $15,000 per year. Thats one out of every three Americans. Musical chairs anyone? That is scary to me. Per the OECD findings, the bottom 10% of Americans earn $5,800/yr... which was 20% lower than the average earning of the bottom 10% in all other OECD nations. Wealth disparities have jumped 20% since the 80's. [Good ole' trickle down Reaganomics] Redistribution of wealth in America by the government is the second lowest of all OECD nations, behind only South Korea. Because our middle class leaders like Joe the Plumber are waaaaaaaaaaay too smart to fall for that liberal government intervention nonsense called "socialism." You can check the "click here" links for more of the (depressing?) news. Go free market capitalism!

The question is... where do we go from here. The current economic crisis has been compared to the stock market collapse of 1929, and there are some similarities and differences. First, lets point out that, at its peak... in the early 30's unemployment reached 25%. So, the severity of today is far lower. The most interesting similarity that I've noticed is that both financial collapses were preceeded by periods of great economic inequality. (I shall not point out which party was in control during both of these periods.) Those periods being... the 1910's and 20's, and our current period from the 1970's until today. The less evenly the wealth is distributed, the more the working class of America is forced to rely on credit. We've all heard of the roaring 20's, but was it "roaring" for everyone or just a select aristocratic upper class? After Herbert Hoover was thrown out of office in 1932, FDR came in and the size of the government ("the New Deal") increased dramatically. [And all the Republicans grimaced!] There was Social Security for all Americans, there were new jobs created as attempted modernization put many Americans to work, & (as I've mentioned many times) the GI Bill. Various government interventions helped CREATE a "middle class" where once we only had a working class and upper class.

The wealth gap decreased from the 1930's all the way through the 1970's. Then in the 70's it began to grow again until we got to where we are now. According to the Department of Labor's (click here) October 2008 summary, America lost a quarter MILLION jobs in October alone. We lost 284,000 jobs in September, and we lost 127,000 jobs in August. According to the Department of Labor, 1.2 million jobs have been lost in the United States in the first 10 months of 2008. There are 300 million Americans. How many are of working age? 200 million people? More than a million jobs have left our nation in the last ten months. Wow!

In the 40's, Europe's post war decimation (and restoration) cost it lots of jobs, a gread deal being manufacturing. Jobs the rest of the (modernizing?) world was not yet in a position to fill. After WWII, America was the worlds largest manufactuer, which helped to boost our economy and grow our fledgling "middle class." I remember having a shirt that just said "Made in the USA." That was the logo, not just something on the sticker inside the shirt. But what about today? Compared to 60 years ago, manufacturing jobs can now leave for all different parts of the world, and with cheaper wages overseas, jobs that were once in Europe, and then in America, and are now gone... I dont foresee coming back.

Hopefully we will seize the green technology movement (if Obama sees this as his new millenium version of "the New Deal"?) and create "green jobs" and become a leader there, or else, I fear we will lose more jobs to places with universal healthcare (because the employer in other nations saves a lot of money when he doesn't have to pay his employees health beneifts) and generally lower wages. With stagnant wages, higher unemployment, and rising costs of living here in the US... this current crisis is largely a product of higher dependency on credit and the inability to afford (i.e. homes)...

...but who is addressing our growing inequality in this nation and the cause of people relying more on credit. Aside from reading print, like US News and World Report, (good mag, by the way) I have not heard ONE commentary from a single mainstream news outlet even MENTION rising income and wealth disparities in our nation and this trend we've experienced over the last 35+ years. Will we once again become a nation with a very large working class, few middle class and a select few upper class aristocrats?

Dont make me speculate on it :*(

Mickey Mouse Wont Comment on Voter Fraud

Well, the election is over, and there are so many things that could be said, but I will only comment on one thing. I was at the polls, and I kept looking, and I was quite shocked. Disappointed even... I was sure I was going to see Mickey Mouse trying to steal the election.




(Mickey when asked about his ties to ACORN)

Dont let that cute exterior fool you. I watched enough CNN reports to know that this Hollywood liberal was going to do everything in his power to vote in our election. My other concern was people who registered to vote 80 times, who would then clone themselves, and try to vote at the same polling place 80 times. Voter registration fraud is wrong, but, the real concern is VOTER fraud. And since this was a story on the news EVERY... SINGLE... DAY... I know it must have been extremely important. Now, I'm still not quite sure how Mickey Mouse got himself on the voter rolls, and in how many counties he was able to do this, but he'll be walking his 2foot self in the door of all these different polling stations across the nation (that guy runs, REALLY fast) and showing his driver's license(s?), and there will be no stopping him. I know what you're thinking... yes, Mickey Mouse carries thousands of different drivers licenses. Cartoon pants pockets have limitless space in them.

Mickey Mouse, I understand, Im still worried about his nefarious schemes... the people who registered 80times, hmmm... Im still not quite sure how that works, but CNN reported on it, so Im sure there must be some way to vote in the same county 80 times. I think... I'm not sure, but I think the guy clones himself 81 times... dresses one of his clones up like a beligerant homeless person, and the homeless clone causes a distraction while the clone who is at the sign-in table erases his previous signature so it looks like this is his first time in the polling station. Yes, those clones are very cunning. They all carry smudge proof erasable ink pens.

Okay, whew... good, I feel better now. At first, I thought this was just another "trash" entertainment-based news story by the "liberal"(???) media trying to shock/scare people for ratings, but after rationalizing out how a guy can vote in the same precinct 80times in the same day, I really feel this was a legitimate story and Im glad CNN chose to report on it every single day. See, what I initially thought, was that, the leaders of ACORN were just stupid for paying people "per registration," however, in actuality, there was a true plot between Mickey Mouse and ACORN to have fictional animated characters trans-materialize in our carbon-based matter world with all their necessary voting/identification information, walk into voting booths all across the nation, and swing the election. Thats rational. I feel so much better now. Even more so for the intellect of the nation who CLEARLY grasped this and saw the significance of this issue long before I did. I'm so slow...

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE49K0A120081021
[ Californian who registered voters charged with fraud ]

For some strange reason, I was concerned about people like Mark Jacoby, who lives in Arizona but travelled to California to register people in a state he no longer lives in (which is illegal) AND purposely decieved them into registering as Republicans without their concent. Silly me... even though this man was ARRESTED the "liberal" media didn't cover this story, OF COURSE ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. Of course...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html
[ States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal ]

I was concerned about states dropping thousands and thousands of people from their voter rolls days before the election as reported by the New York Times, so that when they go to the polls to vote, they find out they are no longer registered to vote.

And the days leading up and the day of the election (JUST LIKE PREVIOUS ELECTIONS) people reported receiving "voter suppression" calls that either their polling place had changed, or that the election date had change. There are many, many, many, many, many, many, examples of such activities. Not only this time around, but especially in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004.

None of this reported in the mainstream. And if so, only in passing. Clearly... CLEARLY, the "liberal" media knows that these stories are trash. The Real story of voter fraud in America is the collusion between Mickey Mouse and ACORN in their plans to steal the election from the American people.

The Beggar's Waltz

"The comfort of the rich depends on an abundance of the poor." - Voltaire



And we the people... continue to dance the dance... of the Beggar's Waltz. The current Presidential debates on certain issues such as tax rates, middle class income, "socialism", and wealth distribution got me thinking about the actual numbers. What are the figures about the socio-economic make up of America?

First, let me point out, I will make reference to two separate terms... "average income" and "median household income." The first referring to each invididual PERSON, the second referring to each collective home, be it a home with one sole bread winner, or multiple people with their own separate sources of income coming into that home. I make that distinction because though the median household income in this nation is barely creeping upwards, if not alltogether stagnant, the average salary in this country is going down. Between 1974 and 2004, the average individual salary of an American male dropped 12.5%. The median household income has not reflected this, ONLY because over the last 35 years, there have been more and more women entering the workforce.

John McCain has said many times on the campaign trail, and I've heard it in other places (such as my arch-nemesis Rush Limbaugh), that 40% of Americans do not pay any taxes. They are, of course, taken out as federal withholdings on every paychecks, however about 40% of the American population gets a full refund during the April tax season. What noone ever mentions, is why they dont pay tax. Consider it some small minute resemblance of compassion for the poorest Americans. But 40% is a large portion of our total population. According to a tax study cited on Lou Dobbs one third of American workers earn less than $15,000 per year. 33% of our entire work force! Which seems in line with the Republican talking point that 40% of American workers pay no taxes. And according to the same study, 76% of American workers make less than $50,000 a year. And, of course, 95% of the American people make less than $250,000 per year, but no shock there. So, when there is mention of the upper middle class, Americans need to understand this is a very, very minute percentage of the entire United States population. Though they FULLY know better, the way these Republican pundits talk to the American people, some of these nitwits would give you the impression that...

a) Avg person makes about $50K/yr (untrue)
b) Avg household brings in about $75K/yr (untrue)
c) There is only about 5-8% of the population (all lazy) who make less than $15K/yr (untrue)

All, three are total... utter... garbage.

I've made mention on several previous occasions that after World War 2, America benefited from the decimation of Europe by becoming the leading world manufacturer. While Europe had to rebuild its infrustructure, all those displaced labor jobs came here. And though economic inequality was at one of its highest peaks right before the stock market crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression, government programs (FDR's new deal) and new (relatively) high wage manufacturing markets helped to bridge the economic gap.

However, in recent decades, we have begun to see a trend of manufacturing jobs outsourced to other nations at a significantly lower wage rate. We have also seen an influx of low wage "service" jobs, while simultaneously seeing dramatic increases in CEO compensation.

If it wasn't so blood-boiling, it would almost be humorous how supporters of big business, like to claim that raising wages, or returning business tax rates to pre-Bush levels will cause businesses to fail. Look at the above chart. While they keep "selling" the talking point to people of all income levels who are against tax increases, they have also began to hoard more and more of the total profits for themselves on the upper management level. How is it possible that the Average American male earns 12.5% less from 1974 to 2004 (click here for full story) while CEO's went from making 27 times to 262 times the average salary of their employees over roughly the exact same period?!!! How is this possible? Your wages go down and upper management compensation grows exponentially? But raising wages or a slight tax increase would kill jobs? Yeah... okay... sure. You tell that to the double-digit IQ'ed hamsters walking around. The only thing wage and/or tax hikes would kill are these (morally anathema) OPTIMIZED profit margins and personal wealth that has been skyrocketing for the very select few over the last 30 years.

And the fact that "a certain party" has continued to vote against raising the minimum wage... wow! I dont get why average Americans dont care about this issue. The minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum earning a single person can sustain themselves on alone. It may not directly affect you, but it gives you the mindset of those who are making decisions, and those OTHER decisions will affect you. I know the Democrats finally FORCED a bill through, but this should be noted. If you look at the above chart, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is at its lowest levels since the mid 1950's! And the minimum wage has depreciated (in purchasing power) by 35% since its peak in 1968! I guess that was too much "spreading the wealth." And noone ever mentions the rising COST of living, in comparison to the standard of living. Compared to previous generations, I wonder why noone ever factors that in. University costs (college is free in Europe, btw) outpace inflation. Healthcare costs outpace inflation. However, if you look at the chart below, you can see that the "median" household income hasn't change at all over the last 40 years, while the top 5% keeps collecting more... and more... and more... and more... of the pie.

The cause of this issue (besides an uninformed/uninvolved electorate) is the laissez-faire capitalism that America has embraced. Every defense about business is profit. "You can't get the government involved... it will ruin profit." Everyone speaks about the invisible hand that automatically guides the markets to a place of equilibrium. The facts [that anyone can look up] clearly do not represent that. There is a corporate fascism going on. Institutionalized inequality... where big business DICTATES the earnings of the people. Fascist in terms of corporate decision making... corporate influence over government. Lobbying, we'll say... where there is enough influence to kill certain bills that most Americans dont keep up with, like the 8 previous minimum wage bills that died after Republican's killed legislation. Fighting government regulation, which helps companies police themselves... suppressing wage increases, busting up unionization and the buying/absorbtion of small businesses.

The American dream was not to go to work for some corporation. That is not a bad job or choice for a career in many cases, however, the American dream was entrepreneurship. Self-employment creates wealth. Ownership. The guy who owns a small burger restaurants earns more money than the guy who manages the McDonald's franchise, even though McDonald's is bringing in FAR more money. Why? Because McDonald's has a lot of boardroom executives that are taking home a large chunk of that money, where as, even though the guy who owns Chuck's Burgers grosses less, he's personally keeping more. There are small businesses that thrive but most markets, most workers, most cash flow goes through the "hands" of major corporations, and these corporations compensate the executive disproprotinately more than the average employee. In essence, the corporations are the source of most inequality... hoarding the majority of American wealth for the very, very few.

What is the difference between wealth and income? Income would be considered your earnings, whereas wealth would be what you currently OWN which can be appropriated or exchanged at some type of monetary value. Your paycheck reflects income. A Roth IRA reflects wealth. Home ownership (though not very liquid) reflects wealth. Business assets, financial securities, yachts... all examples of wealth. The above graph shows that the WEALTH in this nation has been secured by the hands of a very... very few. Wealth in the United States is far more disproportionate than income. The top 1% of Americans control 34.3% of US wealth. The top 10% own SEVENTY ONE PERCENT of all wealth. And if you look at the "smidget" on the far right, you will see the bottom 40%... all those evil evil people... those lazy people... who dont pay taxes, they have less than 1% of the wealth in this nation. The bottom 40% of Americans control .02% to be exact! Not 2% of the wealth... .02%. And these numbers count home ownership. If you dont count OWNER-occupied homes, the wealth disparity is even more scary. Why is that? Well, according to the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finance (click here), the top 10% owns 85% of all outstanding stock, 85% of all financial securities and 90% of all business assets.

The above chart shows the differences in income and wealth per economic group in America. We usually talk about INCOME, and with 76 out of every 100 Americans earning less than $50,000 per year... and 95 out of every 100 Americans earning less than $250,000 per year... there are major INCOME inequalities... but when you look at wealth, or the lack thereof... that should offend every American! We talk about the American dream and I would ask if the dream is dead. Dream deferred? Or dream denied. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS THE LARGEST WEALTH DISPARITY OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD. The "closest" would be England, where our top 1% controls 34.3% of all wealth, whereas in England the top 1% controls about 22%. And we can only use the term "closest" if you consider America's top one percent controlling 150% as much as England's top 1%... "close."

Maybe... just maybe, we will have more compassion the next time we're interacting with one of the low wage service jobs that make up a larger and larger portion of our workforce. 33% of Americans earn less than $15,000 per year. Be it... security guard, cashier, dry cleaning employee, fast foot worker, airport bagger, department store employee, grocery clerk, grocery stocker, janitor, house cleaner, gas station attendant, waitress, waiter, restaurant host, retail store clerk or any of the myriad of other low wage employees we interact with on regular basis.

When asked in an interview about the negative affects of inequal wealth distribution affecting the United States, NYU economic professor Edward Wolff said this:

"Typically when countries are more equal, education achievement and benfits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlannds, Germany or even France. So the level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance." (entire article here)

IF... and I mean... IF... if there was a class war, as Republicans try to scare people with it, that war is over. People, might I add, who are on the wrong side of the that class war. We lost. Hopefully, the battle will begin anew. Until then.. we all... continued to dance the dance... as dictated to us... the Beggar's Waltz

McCain Needs Bush to Issue a Terror Alert (Pt 2)

*More of the "interesting" terror alert timeline. It worked so well, with all the problems affecting McCain's campaign, he could really use a Terror Alert as a subject changer. More ways how it helped President George W. Retard...

• Feb 6, 2003 - Powell pleads with the UN Security Council for a first strike against Iraq.
• Feb 9, 2003 - Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level Friday to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack. (This is when we were told to get that chemical warfare repelling duct tape. This was also a week before MAJOR anti-war demonstrations)
  
  
• May 12, 2003 - Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who was the top civil administrator in Iraq, left his post and other senior officials were also replaced. [For those who've read on the subject, you know Jay Garner was forced out for opposing Rumsfeld decisions (like disbanding the Iraqi army, among other) that would later prove devastating to the goal or rebuilding Iraq.]
• May 20, 2003 - The United States raises the nation's terror threat level Tuesday, saying the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda has entered an "operational period worldwide" and might attack within the US.
  
  
  
• Jul 25, 2003 - After the Bush admin delayed its publication for months, Congress releases its 9/11 findings. The govt also deletes 28 pages of the report BELIEVED to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11.
• Jul 28, 2003 - US troops charged with beating Iraqi POWs.
• Jul 29, 2003 - Department of Homeland Security issues a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes.

• Sept 4, 2003 - The New York Times and Vanity Fair start investigating allegations that top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded.
• Sept 5, 2003 - A Department of Homeland Security advisory warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States.

• Dec 18, 2003 - 9/11 Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable.
• Dec. 19, 2003 - A fed appeals court ruled the govt can not detain U.S. citizen Jose Padilla indefinitely without pressing charges against him or allowing him access to the courts.
• Dec. 19, 2003 - The Wall Street Journal reports that auditors at the Pentagon are accusing Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that the oil service company overcharged the U.S. government in Iraq. (David Kay quits in Iraq, having found no WMD)
• Dec. 21, 2003 - Ridge raises the terror threat level.
  
  
• Mar 15, 2004 - Military families organize together to oppose the war
• Mar 17, 2004 - Condoleeza opts out of 9/11 Commission hearings. She repeats her refusal several times during the week, and later on appears on "60 Minutes" to explain her position.
• Mar 18, 2004 - News report that a "high target" Al Qaeda leader has been "surrounded" in the border with Pakistan. CNN suggests it may be Bin Laden or al-Zawahri. After fighting stops, its revealed there were no "high value" targets.
• Mar 21, 2004 - The State Department issues a terror alert.
  


• Mar 21, 2004 - (Bush critic) Richard Clarke gives an exclusive to 60 Minutes about his book “Against All Enemies” just days before he is due to testify before the 9/11 Commission. In the show, he claims Bush immediately asked for a link to be found between Iraq and 9/11, even after being told there was none.
• March 30, 2004 - Rice continues to refuse to testify publicly in front of 9/11 Commission.
• Apr 1, 2004 - US contractors (mercenaries from Blackwater) killed and mutilated in Iraq. Same day that Richard Clarke is all over the news and the Pentagon issues a report that medical evacuations in Iraq hit 18,000.
• Apr 2, 2004 - A bulletin sent from the FBI & Homeland Security warn of terrorists that may try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer.

• May 10, 2004 - Bush approval rating hits lowest point (46%)
• May 18, 2004 - Colin Powell tells Meet the Press that he was deliberately mislead about WMD information. Powell's aide tries to cut him off mid-air. (Surprisingly, he wasn't apart of the 2nd Bush term!!!)
• May 18, 2004 – Former Abu Ghraib Intel Staffer Says Army Concealed Involvement in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal.
• May 19, 2004 - Newsweek reports that President Bush's top lawyer warned two years ago that Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of how his administration was fighting the war on terror.
• May 19, 2004 - Tom Ridge testifies before 9/11 Commission on this second day of hearings in NYC.
• May 19, 2004 - Nothing but bad news about prisoner abuse in Iraq, including breaking news that the Pentagon was told about the abuses back in November. Senate Armed Forces Committee holds hearings on Abu Ghraib abuses.
• May 25, 2004 - Homeland Security issues a terror alert: Major terror attack possible this summer.
  
  
  
• Jun 7, 2004 - The Wall Street Journal publishes exclusive report demonstrating that the Pentagon provided legal rationales and loopholes in 2003 to use torture and methods of near-torture, and how to avoid various international treaties and US laws.
• Jun 14, 2004 - VP Dick Cheney is caught lying about the alleged ties of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Cheney is unable to provide any evidence to his assertions after journalists inquire. On June 15, Bush defends Cheney's unsourced assertions but does not provide any evidence either that there was a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks.
• Jun 15, 2004 - The Justice Department announces to the press they have thwarted an imminent terror plot to bomb malls in Ohio. Somali immigrant arrested and charged on the case. [Its later revealed the man was arrested in Nov, 2003 in relation to a plot from March 2000. That doesn't sound imminent.]
  
  
• Jul 6, 2004 - Kerry names Edwards as his running mate.
• Jul 8, 2004 - Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions.
• Jul 11, 2004 - Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack.
  
  
  
• July 22, 2004 - The 9/11 Commission releases their findings.
• July 26-29 - Democratic Convention
• Aug 1, 2004 - White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever.
• Aug 2, 2004 - The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas.
  

And the most important of all the Terror Alert charts... This is the one you'll NEVER get to see, they one they keep in some high level Republican campaign office...





"Yeah, um... the election is in a few days... lets go ahead and crank that thing all the way up to high. Yeah, just crank it up. Then, I'll go out there ask the American people... who do you trust to handle a crisis..."


McCain needs to plead with the Bush Administration... I'm sure they'll just go in the back room... where some dude is eating sandwiches and playing Playstation. Get a few towels... dust that sucker off... (remember, there have been almost no terror alerts in almost 4 years!!!) and get back to the basics.

McCain Needs Bush to Issue a Terror Alert (Pt 1)

John McCain needs to BEG the Bush administration to bring back the terror alerts! According to most polls, he is approximately 10points behind on the national level. But, national polls are irrelovent (ask, Gore), the issue are the state races, and in terms of electoral college votes, Obama is currently ahead. ALL of the toss up states are states that went Republican last election. McCain and Obama are fighting to win states which are currently toss-ups... like Colorado, Virginia, and a few other SouthEastern ("bible-belt") states which haven't gone Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. They say "haven't gone Democrat since '64" a lot on cable news when talking about state races. What they DONT mention is that LBJ voted for the CIVIL RIGHTS ACTand told his advisers right after signing it, that he would lose certain Southern states to the Republicans for a full generation. Actually, its been two generations, but thats a topic I've already addressed. But, if McCain is fighting to hold these type of states... you can see why his campaign has come out SWINGING the last two weeks. Some terror alerts might be just what the doctor ordered.






Lets say I'm wrong... and that the terror alert chart hasn't always been a joke, a way to scare double-digit IQ's into voting simplistically. Lets assume for a moment that they were serious and pivotal to informing the general public. THEN HOW DO THEY GO AWAY? I could be wrong, but, it seems that these "random" alarms totally disappeared after the 2004 Presidential election. Have we already won the war of hearts and minds? Did the terrorists give up after Bush won re-election?

"Curses, that Bush son... he defeated us... lets go home, Achmed!"

I mean, once you start giving out this information and claiming its vital... without saying the war on terror (a retard philosophy in and of itself) is over, how can these alerts cease to be important?




And what exactly are you supposed to do with that information anyway? The entire Terror Alert system is useless information if ever there was any. You do your day as normal at "Yummy Mummy" or "Fruit Brute" levels, but "Count Chocula" levels make you reconsider where you're going? "Frankenberry" is where you only go to school or work and immediately come home home... and "Booberry" is where we all hide under school desks and cry?

Most people dont keep up with politics, so, I know why these people do what they do. Willful ignorance of the American people. Who watched/remembers Bush debating McCain (fall 2000) and claiming that an America under George Bush's leadership will not engage in NATION BUILDING. Very interesting, in hindsight. Even, though, McCain stated over and over earlier in this campaign that he would not use his military service as a campaign tool, over the last month, its been one of the primary themes of his campaign. "He's the only man in this campaign who has fought for YOU!" (and all the hamsters clap) As a military man, the Terror Alerts would perhaps help him even more than they did Bush in 2004. Besides... everyone knows... his opponent is secretly a terrorist.

LETS TAKE A TRIP DOWN TERROR ALERT MEMORY LANE:

• Jan 10, 2002 - Bush questioned about connection to Ken Lay after Enron Collapse
• Feb 5, 2002 - Ken Lay is served a congressional subpoena. Journalists inquire about Enron's close ties to the Bush administration.
• Feb 12, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack.

• May 22, 2002 - Bush formally opposes independent investigation of 9/11, after a two day Congressional hearing with FBI director Robert Meuller and the agent who wrote the "Phoenix Memo" warning about Arab students in aviation schools having ties to militant groups.
• May 22, 2002 - The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee votes to issue subpoenas to the Bush administration for information on its contacts with bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp.
• May 24, 2002 - Railroad and other transit systems across the country received a Transportation Department warning based on "an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report", and were told to "remain in a heightened state of alert". Earlier this week, the government issued warnings about the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to tightened security at an around those New York City locations.

• June 9, 2002 -- FBI Whistleblower Coleen Rowley talks to congress. Testifies she tried to notify her superiors about the suspicious flight students before 9/11. She compared the agency's bureaucracy to the "Little Shop Of Horrors," telling Congress the FBI could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
• June 10, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft conducts an unusual and urgent press conference from Russia announcing the arrest of Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb" suspect. Padilla [who had ACTUALLY been in secret custody since May 8th] had been captured, and transferred to the custody of the DOD from the Justice Department.

• Sept 20, 2002 - Bush decides to support an independent investigation after Congressional 9/11 inquiries, but the White House refuses to cooperate with documents about what they knew.
• Sept 20, 2002 - Bush administration is grilled by families of victims of 9/11 about their relunctance to cooperate with the 9/11 investigation.
• Sept 21, 2002 - The Pentagon completes and delivers to President Bush a highly detailed set of military options for attacking Iraq, said the New York Times, quoting Pentagon and White House officials on Saturday.
• Sept 23, 2002 - Former Vice President Al Gore warns that President Bush's doctrine allowing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq could create a global "reign of fear."
• Sept 23, 2002 - Victory for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ruling coalition came after a campaign in which he emphasized his strong opposition to a US war with Iraq.
• Sept 10-24, 2002 - The attorney general elevates the terror alert. Later on, based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council has made the decision to return the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or "yellow" level.

Whats With America and Guns?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If ever a topic needed logic and reason applied to it. This is really a non-issue for me, I slmost started not to blog about it. I dont even get where the debate is. Guns serve one purpose: to kill. We want less people killing each other. Therefore, guns should be illegal. There... I solved it already. Dont stir that mortar... I dont need any busts made in my image. I do this kinda stuff for free.

Here's the thing, when we did something as a collective in Elementary school, and one or a few people couldn't behave, we all lost that priviledge. Now, unlike the Right wing of America, I'm against guns, and think (actually, I know) they serve NO purpose, but, lets say you're one of those Christian Conservatives who likes to hunt. Well, okay, here's my answer "sorry Bobby... we gave Jimmy a warning... but Jimmy kept killing his playmates... you guys know the rules. If you guys can't handle the freedom, then Im going to take it away."

So, even if I gave some credence to this barbaric, simplistic desire to hunt... WHICH I DONT... I'd still say, too bad... the greater good out weighs your drive to shoot Bambi in the head. Sorry, get a new hobby. Paintball... Laser tag or something. Yeah... laser tag... its been 20 years, bring it back.

And then there's the protection argument, which is a circular argument. You need protection from who... oh, the other guy who has a gun. But, you wouldn't need protection from him if firearms were illegal and he didn't have access to guns either. Not to mention, if just having a firearm were to become illegal... that could open up grounds for easier warrants, fines and arrests helping prosecution of potential criminals.

Do people in France need such protection?

If you look at the murder rate per capita (click here), you will see that the United States is pretty high on the list. With a murder rate triple that of most Western European countries with laws against private ownership of firearms. People want to perpetuate the lie that no guns equals lawlessness "i need to protect myself", but, then... what exactly are the police for? Some, might be silly enough to say, "hey, we're not that high... we're only #24." Well, um... okay, if you want to compare our violence to places like, Columbia, South Africa, Russia, Mexico and Zimbabwe, well, i guess its not that bad. But, I would say... if we'd rather compare the United States violence to a country like Zimbabwe, than to say... Italy, thats not exactly a comforting sign, is it? Population, obviously plays into any list that is NOT per capita, however, we our fourth highest in the world in the number of deaths per year from firearms. (click here) We're third in the world in terms of total population. You may say, well, thats not that bad, 3rd most in people... 4th most in deaths... not bad eh? Well, not exactly. India and China are not leading the Robert Blake race. Interesting since their populations DWARF our own. But, if you look at that second chart, you see this noticeable drop out after #5, and this HUGE drop off after #8.

I wont use this as a time to praise all the hard-core Jesus pastors who vehemently support Republicans (who are the pro gun party) , and sometimes hint that voting for Democrats can be non-Christian. Just another example of Republicans doing God's will. (Divine Population control?)

Meanwhile, in London... they're having a problem of their own...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25543275/

[ Knife crimes rip through city, overtaking terrorism as top priority ]

To anyone living in America, this has got to be a joke... right? Stabbings? Knife crimes? This sounds like traveling 400 years into the past. Jack the Ripper? Oh no... knives... run for your lives. Unless you're Julius Caesar... you're probably not too concerned with knife crimes. When stabbings are your main crime problem, as far as I'm concerned... you dont have a crime problem. The point is: Guns are too easy. Crimes of passion have too much potential. Those with ill intent have the ability to inflict far more violence with a gun, compared to a knife. Im not really worried about Jack the Ripper... but America has had many instances of mass murder committed by citizens who exercized their right to bear arms.

And, let me also, say, the NRA and their powerful lobby (praise, Jesus!) have done everything in their power to make gun ownership as easy as possible. Doesn't Christianity say something about the love of money...? Even the ban on assault rifles has lifted and has not been re-established. C'mon hunters. Unless you're hunting T-Rex... Velociraptors... or... taking on a pride of Lion on your own... what does the average American need with an AK-47? This sense of "freedom"... um... you can be TOO free... one of the fundamental roles of government is to supply security and control. Hard to do when the government is helping to flood the streets chaos creating weapons. Hallelujah!

And last but not least, lets not forget the people who hold to the "its the 2nd amendment!" retort. Um... so, what? Amend it. Amendments have been... AMENDED before. Amendments have either complimented, added to, or outright contradicted something that was previously law of the land. I got my other 2/5's of a person back! So it can be done. Now, I cooooooooould be wrong... however, it stands to reason, certain things that were necessary or believed in 1776, might not be practical as law in 232 years later. Just a thought...

When the amendment was written, we were a fledgling country. Remember, we had no police departments. No real army, just small militias that were dealing with the threat of Imperial Britain. But now... um... we have the Army... the Navy... the Marines... the Airforce... the city Police... the CIA... the FBI... the State Troopers... the county police [Sheriffs]... the National Guard... etc... etc..

I think... even without citizens with guns... we, will be fine. Just a thought.

- Charles Whitman (1966) was the ex-Marine who murdered several people from the UT Tower in Austin, Texas. His suicide note requested an autopsy, which interestingly enough showed a large lump at the base of his brain.

- James Huberty went on a killing spree in a South California McDonald's letting off 300 rounds. He tried to call a mental illness hotline the day before, but didn't recieve a callback because his name was misspelled.

- George Harnard (1991) committed the "Luby's Cafe Massacre" in Killeen, Texas when he backed his truck into a Luby's restaurant and started opening fire a shotgun, killing customers as they hid behind tables. He left 22 dead and killed himself after being shot once by a police officer.
- The "Brown's Chicken Massacre" (1993) left 7 people dead in a Chicago suburb as Juan Luna and Jim Digorski decided to add some excitement to their life by planning to shoot some people.

- Colin Ferguson (1994) was the man behind the "Long Island Railroad Massacre" when he randomly started opening fire on people on a NY train.

- Jennifer San Marco (2006) was a former postal worker who went back to her job and killed 5, including herself.

- Solomon Talevic killed 5 in Salt Lake City in the "Trolley Square Mall Shooting" where he entered the mall and randomly opened fire.

- Charles Roberts (2006), angry at God at the death of his infant daghter, committed the "Amish School Massacre" killing 5 in a Amish school for girls.

- Robert Hawkins (2007), who had a history of mental illness, stole his stepdad's assault rifle and committed the "West Roads Mall Shooting" in Omaha, Nebraska leaving 8 dead.

Columbine... the DC Sniper... and the Virginia Tech massacre dont even need to be mentioned... let alone the violence many people see on their tv sets every evenings.

RIP John Edward's Political Career

Simple minded people need to get a grip! Now, its unfortunate that John Edward's cheated on his wife... and unfortunate (as most in his position do) that he lied about it, and unfortunate that he's probably still lying about the details of what happened. However, what does this have to do with politics? This is absurdity to the fullest.

Now people who have heard me speak about politics PROBABLY know that John Edwards was my guy. I thought that Hillary Clinton did a better job than Barack Obama of "courting" Edwards' supporters, however, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, John Edwards was the only politician from either political party (sorry, Ralph, you dont count) who repeatedly talked about poverty and the (unspoken) social class warfare going on in America. I wont go into the details, but his platform is what being a democrat use to be about. Its the reason that workers unions support Democrats unconditionally... because they believe that Democrats, more than Republicans will look out for them and their members... regular working class Americans. After he dropped out of the race (partly because people are simple and dont listen to the "message" but instead focused on the popularity of Obama and Clinton) that message about growing socio-economic disparities slowly started to die down.

I thought we learned after Bush. Assuming that George Bush is the perfect husband, who really believes he's been a better president than Bill Clinton. The point? What does his personal life matter. This story, which shouldn't even be a major story (by the so-called "liberal" media), has been perused beyond comprehension. Who cares? Actually... I can answer that... His wife should care. His children should care. His minister should care. His in-laws should care. We should NOT. This wouldn't even be a story in Europe. What does his personal life have to do with how he works?!!!

Gaaaaaaaawd... are you serious? The leap in logic that "good husband equals good president"... as ludicrous as that would be, even in a vacuum... should be even more so after this last guy came in promising to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Every country that Bush visits, there are 1000's of their citizens protesting. Good job with the restoration of honor and integrity, you functioning retard. "You're doing a heck of a job, Bushie." Let me tell you something... if every man who cheated on his wife lost his job... there would be a lot of unemployed Joe's walking the streets of America.

Now, as a BIG John Edwards guy, I was shocked to hear about the affair. But, from our perspective, its just an affair. Thats a home issue. I could see if he were illegally spying on Americans, rolling back US civil liberties, setting up secret prisons and ignoring the Geneva convention. Now, that I care about.. now THAT'S an American public issue. Oh, but thats boring... that isn't "news." Simple-minded people need to get a grip...

Did You Know There Were ELECTRIC Cars?

Did you know there were electric cars? Not hybrids, but purely electric cars. I'm pretty sure I was aware of the theory, but did you know that there were electric cars on the streets of America? Now, I do say "were" because, unfortunately, such is no longer the case. There are a few individuals and small companies who have created their own, however, in terms of major automakers: they no longer exist.

More than a hundred years ago, electric outnumbered the gas cars on the streets. As the 1900's rolled in, automatic starters and cheaper gas prices gave a strong advantage to gasoline-fueled automobiles. But the gas car has come at a price. We now are keenly aware of its negative impacts... that is to say... the pollution of our breathable air quality, and its affect on global warming through the emissions of CO2. Starting perhaps in the 1970's, a few "alternative" energy ideas were kicked around but nothing took hold.

In 1987, GM partook in a contest known as the World Solar Challenge in Australia. They built a car with solar panels on it (similar to the picture below) that ran on an electric battery.

After the success of winning first place, GM inquired of that same engineering team to create another electric car... a practical automobile for Americans. Alan Cocconi, a GM engineer, built the advanced electric engine (100K Watts) in his garage. Its his prototye that was used for GM's electric vehicles.

Helped by news of GM's research and development (R & D) of the electric automobile, California passed the 1990 "Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate." It forced car companies to dedicate a small amount of their production line to electric vehicles that required no gasoline. The plan was, it would increase every several years. So, perhaps 2% in 1994... 5% of production in 1999, 10% in 2003, so on and so forth.

General Motors named their electric vehicle... seen above... the EV-1. (electric vehicle - the first?) Afterwards, other automakers (in California) started to comply. The car, which in practical usage terms, was no different than other automobiles [even in terms of speed], got approximately 60-70miles per charge. The average american is said to drive about 29miles per day. It came with a battery recharger you could keep in your garage that allowed you to recharge it every night. Now, taking a trip out of town... er... that... I dont know.

However, from the very beginning, oil companies fought the making of electric stations and paid for editorials against electric vehicles. They also donated money in the fight against the 1990 California mandate for creating electric cars. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) which pushed for the law, went into negotiations with the American Automakers based on the outside pressure they were recieving. The "mandate" was now based on demand. That is to say, if the automakers didn't make electric cars, there were no repercussions, they just had to show that the demand for electric cars was not there.

And LARGE demand there was not. Critics say GM didn't aggressively market the car to the American people. GM counters by saying that it did spend money on advertisements, but the response was very small. GM would eventually close its EV-1 division in 2001.

Automakers would later sue the California Air Resources Board with the support of the curent Bush Administration. Bush would also offer the automotive industry $1.2BILLION for R&D for hydrogen cell development. With talks about the "potential" of the hydrogen fuel cells now in the forefront, the CARB had to vote on the future of the electric cars. The mandate, as a whole, was killed in 2003. Consequently, all of the electric cars that were on the streets in the hands of regular consumers were leased, not owned. There was no option to buy. Slowly, ALL of the EV-1's were being seized by GM. The other automakers would do the same. There was a mass recall of every single electrical car. Not one was spared. Once the lease was up, the car company was reclaiming the car, with threat of being charged with felony theft if not allowed to repossess their vehicles. In June 2004, the very last electric car was taken off the streets. In February 2005, GM had only 78 EV-1's locked in storage in Burbank, California. Environmental activists raised 1.9 million dollars to buy the remaining cars, but GM didn't respond. However, the electric cars would not end up on that lot. They would later find a new home.

It is true that, even though you could fully recharge the battery EVERY DAY, some consumers had concern about the mileage (60-80miles per recharge) of the cars, though... unless taken a road trip, it wouldn't be an issue for most drivers. Iris and Stanford Ovshinsky, inventors in Michigan, created a new superior type of technology for batteries. The first EV1 used standard lead acid batteries. GM, consequently, would buy majority share of Ovshinsky's company. After the purchase, Ovshinsky began to feel that GM wasn't eager to actually use his battery. GM would even censure Ovshinsky for publicizing his battery without GM's permission and was told not to run advertisements in national publications. Stanford's battery would not actually be used in the EV-1 for more than two years after its creation. What would the perception have been if the electric car was initially marketed with much higher mileage potential? Who knows. It is interesting to note that GM would later sell control of Ovshinsky's battery company to the clear competitor of electric cars: Chevron.

There was a 1995 memo from the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association that shows they sought to hire a public relations firm to manage what they considered a "grassroots and education campaign" to create a climate to repeal the 1990 mandate. The memo explicitly states their challenge was greater consumer acceptance of electric vehicles. This is the auto industry, not the oil industry. Why would automakers fight electric cars? Was it just because they didn't like being told what to do? Was it a fear of just losing profits on cars sitting in the showroom? The way that American automotive companies thought that smaller hybrid/fuel-efficient cars weren't profitable in the late 90's? The EV-1 doesn't require a combustible engine either. The replacement and maintenance of combustible engine parts (and labor) makes up a large share of a car companies annual revenue. The electric cars require no oil... no oil filters... no alternators, etc, etc. The question should be asked, would it be in the best interest of the automakers to make electric cars? We know they CAN make it... do they want to? Creating a clean car also subliminally sends a message about all the other vehicles they create. Simultaneously, GM began to promote the Hummer brand. In 2002, there was a economic stimulus package that featured a $6,000 tax break for small business owners to buy Hummers. GM took ownership of Hummer from AM General in December 1999 and (coincidentally) shut down its plant-line for the EV-1 a month later.

What about the current administration? We all know Bush is an oil man. Dick Cheney is a former CEO of Halliburton. Condoleeza Rice is a former member of the Board of Directors of Chevron. Andy Card is a former VP for General Motors. He was also President and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association at the time they campaigned to kill the 1990 California Mandate. So, we know where this current crew's loyalty lays. Where have previous administrations been on this issue?

In October 1973, OPEC placed an embargo on the United States and Western Europe, refusing to transport oil as punishment for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The price of a barrel of oil subsequently went from $3/per barrel (wow!!!) to $15/per barrel in 1979. In June of 1979 it jumped again to $20/barrel.

In response to the OPEC embargo, the United States government created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. From 1975 to 1985, the fuel standards of vehicles nearly doubled from about 15mpg to about 27-28mpg. It hasn't changed in the last Twenty years! As the US suffered in the late 70's from the OPEC issue, gas prices rose, inflation swelled and the American people grew angry. Jimmy Carter's approval rating dropped to 25%, lower than Nixon during Watergate! He gave what has now been coined his "malaise" speech in July of 1979 (shortly after oil jumped another $5 to 20/barrel). The speech was about energy, but as well, the current status of the country and American confidence. It was the Carter administration that pushed to get the higher fuel standards. In this speech, he talked not only of what we could do as individual Americans (more public transportation, less driving, watching our thermostats) but also of our view of the country. How we could cheer ourselves up. How to raise our confidence of the country. It came across with a dreary tone. It helped lose him the election of 1980. Reagan had a different view. There was nothing wrong with America... just something wrong with the former leader. He coined his now famous "Its Morning in America" as an optimistic view of the status of the nation. And to some degree, it definately changed the perception of a lot of people, but substantively, it meant we weren't going to take any aggressive action to wean ourselves off foreign oil. Carter said we wouldn't import more oil than we were at that particular time in the 70's. Reagan had no such ambition. He would even go so far as to remove the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put up as a symbol of aggressive energy reform.

There was going to be deregulation. Reagan didn't believe in telling corporations what to do. Also, the mid 1980's saw the OPEC nations agree to lower the price of oil which made energy reform even less enticing. Its hard to get off heroine when your drug dealer keeps lowering your price.

The Clinton administration essentially cut a deal with the automakers. Reagan (being a Republican) flatly ignored raising fuel standards on car companies, the Clinton administration compromised. The auto industry would spend "some" time looking at hybrid (gas/electric) cars and the Administration would not push to increase fuel standards. The government poured in money but the US automakers didn't put any hybrids on the road in the 90's. And when the younger Bush took the White House in 2001, they totally walked away from R&D of hybrids. Ironically, the Japanese saw the money the former Clinton administration put into hybrids and (worried about being behind the curve), it was the Japanese car makers who were the first to create hybrids. This isn't the topic at hand, but when I talk to people about US automakers laying off thousands of workers, shutting down entire plants and scrapping/restructuring retirement packages... and they want to complain about competing with countries with lower waged workers and no health benefits to pay out (while both true), they can not avoid the blatant incompetence on their part that has cost their companies BILLIONS of dollars. Thats not done by regular workers, its done by EXTREMELY OVERPAID corporate heads who take none of the blame.

When will we FINALLY see a hydrogen car on the streets? WE'RE STILL WAITING!!! That was part of the "reasoning" for killing the electric cars. Fuel cells aren't more efficient. Estimates say they would take 3 to 4 times the energy of the electric battery, but fundamentally, there were 5 major problems with hydrogen cars:

1) the current cost for the hydrogen fuel cell is near a million dollars

2) a regular sized car doesn't have enough room to store the fuel required for practical driving

3) hydrogen fuel costs 2 to 3 times as much as gasoline

4) we'd have to create a new infrastructure across the nation of "hydrogen" stations

5) competing technologies will still remain more practical

The automotive industry doesn't want change. This is one reason why de-regulation doesn't work. I wont turn this into an anti-Republican blog, there will be time for that MANY a time in the future... but companies aren't going to do whats in our best interest... only their own. Remember...

seat belts ----------------- > had to become law FIRST

higher standards --------- > had to become law FIRST

air bags ------------------- > had to become law FIRST