Here is a news story that illustrates the sheer greed of some people taking advantage of each other and the legal system.
Read this shocking story:
GOP Congressman: Lawmakers Must “Put On Our Big Boy and Big Girl Pants” and Let Americans DieAccording to Rep. Trey Hollingsworth, between dying of the coronavirus and a recession, dying “is the lesser of two evils.”
Even as the novel coronavirus continues to kill an incomprehensible number of people, many a policymaker, business leader, and president alike want to know one thing: How soon can we get people back to work and everyday life, and can it be sooner than whenever you’re going to tell me because honestly that doesn’t really work for my schedule or the economic platform I was hoping to run for reelection on. While Donald Trump wants to “reopen” the country as soon as possible, actually knowledgable person Dr. Anthony Fauci has said the government is “not there yet” when it comes to having measures in place that could conceivably allow some businesses to safely reopen, like significantly expanded testing capacities and the ability to trace every individual who has been infected.
Also urging caution are a number of Democratic governors, including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, California’s Gavin Newsom, and their counterparts in Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, and Connecticut, who have said that many other conditions will have to be met before relaxing restrictions, including the ability of hospitals to handle a spike in patients; a reduction in the exposure of vulnerable groups; a plan for businesses, schools, and other groups to implement social distancing measures; and a plan to reimpose restrictions if infections begin to rise again. And while we would absolutely hate to draw some sort of distinction between the approach of the two political parties, it would appear that whereas Democrats are urging vigilance, science, and an emphasis on preserving human life, the general take of Republicans might be summed up as: Screw it, some people are going to have to take one for the team. You’ve had a good run, but them’s the breaks.
On Tuesday, that take was summed up by Indiana congressman Trey Hollingsworth, who told a radio-show host that it’s Congress’s job to sit Americans down and explain to them that dying in a pandemic isn’t as bad as the havoc said pandemic is wreaking on the economy. “We are going to have to look Americans in the eye and say, ‘We are making the best decisions for the most Americans possible,’” Hollingsworth told WIBC. “And the answer to that is unequivocally to get Americans back to work, to get Americans back to their businesses.”
Asked by host Tony Katz how he will respond to the critics who will inevitably say he’s anti-science and is going to get people killed, Hollingsworth—who strangely did not mention which of his family members he’d be willing to let the virus knock off for the greater good—replied: “It is policymakers’ decision to put on our big boy and big girl pants and say, ‘This is the lesser of these two evils. And it is not zero evil, but it is the lesser of these evils, and we intend to move forward in that direction.’ That is our responsibility, and to abdicate that is to insult the Americans that voted us into office.” Sure, some might argue that the bigger insult is to suggest that people should be willing to die to save the economy—which won’t be in a great place if infections and deaths start surging again as a result of relaxed restrictions—but potato, potahto.
Hollingsworth—whose parents must have had a sixth sense that he’d give this interview one day when they named him Trey—is of course far from the only member of the Grand Old Party making such proclamations. In March, White House National Economic Council chairman Larry Kudlow said in an interview that “The cure can’t be worse than the disease, and we’re gonna have to make some difficult trade-offs” because the “economic cost to individuals is just too great.” Later in the month, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick claimed on live television that “lots of grandparents” are willing to “take a chance” on their survival for the good of the economy, saying “Those of us who are 70-plus, we’ll take care of ourselves. But don’t sacrifice the country, don’t do that, don’t ruin this great America.” After all, it’s like the founding fathers said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and sorry if you’re over 70 or have asthma but I refuse to spend another Saturday not strolling the aisles of Bob’s Big Lots followed by a dine-in experience at the Cheesecake Factory, you selfish pricks.”
Bankruptcy and unemployment are lesser evils than DEATH, you bastard? Absolutely not so. If you are bankrupt, unemployed, or even homeless, you can reverse these problems. But you cannot rise yourself from the dead. And even sacrificing your lives would make sense if we were being invaded by an enemy army, instead of an extremely contagious virus. The best way to combat the virus is to stay home and avoid contact with people. Rep. Trey Hollingsworth(less) is actually a TRAITOR!
We need to start auditing our politicians, because I suspect most of them, especially the Republican ones, own stock in corporations that are losing money in this present crisis. So……they want others to sacrifice their very lives so they can continue to make profits?! We should make it illegal for state and federal representatives to own stock in such corporations, to end the obvious conflicts of interests that result from them owning some of the very private companies the government is supposed to regulate on behalf of the people.
I can’t wait for November to come! #voteoutallrepublicans
Well, it finally happened!
New era for divided Britain as it leaves EU
London (AFP) – Britain on Friday ended almost half a century of European Union membership, making a historic exit after years of bitter arguments to chart its own uncertain path in the world.
There were celebrations and tears across the country as the EU’s often reluctant member became the first to leave an organisation set up to forge unity among nations after the horrors of World War II.
Thousands of people waving Union Jack flags packed London’s Parliament Square to mark the moment of Brexit at 11 pm (2300 GMT) — midnight in Brussels.
“We did it!” declared Nigel Farage, the former member of the European Parliament who has campaigned for Brexit for years, before the crowd began singing the national anthem.
But Britons remain as divided as they were nearly four years ago, when 52 percent voted to leave and 48 percent voted to remain in the EU.
“Rise and shine… It’s a glorious new Britain” said the Brexit-supporting Daily Express. The i, in contrast, headlined: “What next?”
In Scotland, where a majority voted to stay in 2016, Brexit has revived calls for independence and there were protests Friday outside parliament.
And in a sign of potential constitutional trouble ahead First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “Scotland will return to the heart of Europe as an independent country — #LeaveALightOnForScotland.”
In Northern Ireland, where there are fears Brexit could destabilise a hard-won peace after decades of conflict over British rule, a billboard read: “This island rejects Brexit.”
Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney tweeted: “Goodbye & good luck.”
– ‘Glad it’s over’ –
Johnson, who remains a polarising figure accused of glossing over the complexity of leaving the EU, has avoided any big official celebrations that might exacerbate divisions.
“What happens now marks the point of no return. Once we have left, we are never, ever going back,” Farage told the crowd of cheering supporters.
At a “Big Brexit Bash” in Morley, northern England, Raymond Stott described the four years since the referendum as “a right cock-up”.
“I am just glad it’s all over. We will look after ourselves. We don’t need Europe,” said the 66-year-old.
But for many pro-Europeans, Friday marks a day they hoped would never come.
“Today is a day of mourning,” said Katrina Graham, 31, an Irish women’s rights activist who lives in Brussels, at a protest in central London.
If I had to choose between staying in the EU and leaving it only to have the UK itself fall apart, I’d choose to remain in the EU.
Only an idiot (or an English hypernationalist, which might be one and the same) can expect the Scots to take this insult to them lying down. The problem with nationalism is that it can apply to Scots as much as to the English.
Since both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, their defection from the UK will most likely cause the Union Jack to be retired, due to it representing a combination of the Scottish, English and Irish flags.
It will likely be replaced by something like a combination of the original English and Welsh flags.
A smaller version of the Welsh flag might appear in the upper left of the new UK flag (Wales is not even represented at all in the present Union Jack).
As for the United States, my contempt for the concept of “states’ rights”, which started the American Civil War, has only intensified, to the point that I no longer want to see states represented in the U S flag. Instead, I want only the Union to be shown as one brilliant sun. Like this:
Because a united, peaceful people, in either North America or Europe, is preferable to conflict resulting in chaos, death, destruction and tyranny over minorities.
It is common knowledge that ads placed by large corporations make up a large part of the revenue of major printed, online, and television publications. And that has some serious consequences.
With the middle class in the USA almost completely broken down due to repeated tax cuts for the rich combined with the refusal to raise the minimum wage by conservatives, it is interesting that a recent song perfectly captures the ironic despair of their victims. The catchy nature of this song makes it even more effective.
Sears as a corporation has been dying for many years. This past week it finally filed for bankruptcy, even though it was once one of the largest companies in the entire world. Just as the Roman Empire was once a superpower but fell into ruin in 476 AD.
Here’s a video from two years ago showing how bad things were even then:
One of the biggest outright lies politicians have ever told their people was told by Republicans under the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, that cutting taxes would enable the rich to invest more and result in a stronger and more active economy. But that is not realistic. Ironically, conservatives want to cut welfare programs because poor people getting money from the government is supposed to make them lazy……so why would allowing the rich to keep more money due to lower taxation make them invest more? The opposite should be expected, because the whole point of investing is to make more money and they don’t need to so much if their taxes are lessened! And despite those repeated tax cuts, we keep having recessions repeatedly too.
Just as a poor person working even while getting welfare would be considered GREED, so would the rich investing more after getting a tax cut! And we should condemn both.
I would like right wing conservatives to read the following. It explains my beliefs in a nutshell and in an even tempered, logical way.
Let’s break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of conservatives lying about what liberalism is or should be. Spoiler alert: Not every Liberal is the same, though the majority of Liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period. No one is disposable, period!
I just discovered some photos that were posted on Facebook. I will reproduce them here for the sake of discussion.
The same idiotic impulses that drove American voters to elect Donald Trump to the Presidency seems to have fueled the vote last year in the United Kingdom over “Brexit”, the possible departure of the UK from the European Union. The EU was formed to promote free trade and end travel and residence restrictions between its members. Many British people hate the EU because it seemed to be a threat to British sovereignty. But just as the rights of INDIVIDUALS in the USA should be more important than that of its STATES (that’s what the American Civil War was all about), so should that same issue be in Europe! People matter, countries do not!
Some in Britain may have realized that and are making a backlash against that earlier vote. Read this story:
UK General Election: Political turmoil awaits after shock results
London (CNN) UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s future is looking uncertain after her election gamble appears to have backfired. The opposition Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, has performed far better than polls indicated and has cost May her majority in the UK Parliament.
Britain has been plunged into political chaos overnight.
- The ruling Conservative Party lost its majority, resulting in a hung parliament.
- With 646 of the 650 seats declared, the Conservatives have 315 and Labour has 261. See the full results here.
- PM Theresa May called the election to strengthen the Conservatives ahead of Brexit talks. That gamble failed, calling her future into question.
- The Conservatives will have to link up with other parties – most likely Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party — to form a majority.
- Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has done far better than expected, but is unlikely to be able to form a coalition.
- Leading political figures including former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and former Deputy PM Nick Clegg lost their seats.
- The results could derail upcoming Brexit negotiations, which are due to start in just 10 days time.
- The pound fell sharply against the dollar, dropping about 2% as investors were spooked by the growing political uncertainty.
Theresa May favored Brexit and she is clearly a moron for taking so strongly a position that made her country look like a hotbed of bigotry.
Record number of female MPs
As well as being an astonishing election, it has also been a record breaking one with more than 200 women elected to Parliament, the highest number in history.
In 1918 only one of the 707 Members of Parliament (MPs) elected was a woman. That was Sinn Feinn’s Constance Markievicz, who did not take up her seat.
For the curious, Nancy Astor was the first woman to take up a seat at Westminster after winning a by-election in 1919.
In 2012, 145 out of 650 MPs were female, while in 2015 a then record number of 196 women were elected in the general election and subsequent by-elections.
Britain also elected its first female Sikh MP Thursday when Labour’s Preet Kaur Gill won the Birmingham Edgbaston seat.
Women tend to be more liberal/progressive than men, so this shows the actual trend in British politics. But that one woman that is the current Prime Minister has got to go!
Ironically, the overwhelming majority of the people in Scotland voted AGAINST Brexit. Wouldn’t it be fitting if the UK did leave the EU only to have Scotland revolt and leave the UK? What goes around comes around!
Slavery was abolished, right? Not really…….it was just made less cruel.
As I see it, there are two reasons why so many in the general public come across as “low-information”, often appearing to ignore or even deny what seems clear to those who are more knowledgeable.
First, many of us have what I call an ahistorical view. This means that if you were born in a certain year, like 1969 in my case, anything that happened before that is irrelevant to you and may be ignored. That is why you see so many white people argue, “I had nothing to do with slavery before the Civil War! Don’t blame me for that!” Or, “I did not kill all those Native Americans back then and take their land, it’s not my responsibility for them now!” See this earlier blog entry for an expression of that ignorance by an actual celebrity:
Read this outrageous story (emphasis mine):
EpiPen maker’s stock value plunges nearly $3 billion as investors panic
Look at this web page:
This is Thailand’s Most Beautiful Island!
Read this silly article on a right-wing propaganda website. The article itself will be in red and my direct responses will be in blue .
Although we do try to report on hard-hitting issues, we’re not above a few good laughs at the expense of far-left nutjobs like Hillary Clinton. Here’s an amazing anecdote about the difference between a conservative and liberal, attributed to Jim Spivey on Facebook.
Right from the start, this writer starts misrepresenting one of her political opponents. Hillary, like her husband Bill, is not far-left. She is actually a fairly conservative Democrat. It is Bernie Sanders, who is also running as a Democrat for the Presidency, who can be called a “far-left nutjob” because he professes to be a democratic SOCIALIST. Yet he seems to have far more integrity than most other politicians, including Hillary herself.
It sums everything up perfectly:
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. Trump gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
Uh, NO! Usually when you fill out a job application, you must state your home address, thus preventing a homeless person from getting a job anywhere. This is exactly why being homeless is such a terrible trap!
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Trump’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.00.
Welfare offices DO serve homeless people in ways that private industry does not. And the implication here is that liberals must “steal” from the rich in order to give away money and other gifts to the poor. But that is a lie on several levels: First, taxation by legal definition is NOT and can never be theft. Second, government officials must eat too, so they do have to be paid for their services. Or would you rather try to live without them and rely only on for-profit businesses for all your services? You will end up even poorer as a result! And why would the writer say $15 for administrative fees and not a more reasonable amount like $5? For hyperbole, of course. Note to right-wingers: Private industry MUST make a profit to function, while governments do not!
Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal progressive?
No, but I know a bigoted LIAR when I see one! Of course, the incident never happened anyway!
Seeing this news story made me laugh.
The most hated companies in America have a knack for angering people. Whether it’s due to inept management, subpar products, poor service, or lackluster stock performance, these businesses earn the wrath of customers, employees, and shareholders alike.
The basic conflict between conservatives and liberals can be illustrated by the following pie charts.
In the first, we see a typical arrangement in which a certain class that is privileged gets most of what they want, leaving only a little for members of a non-privileged class.
Maybe that explains this: https://dalehusband.com/2009/07/13/the-absurd-scam-of-reaganomics/
Until the American Civil War ended, slavery was a common institution in the United States. Often portrayed as cheap, it still had costs associated with it. These included:
1. Obtaining the slaves: They were often kidnapped from Africa and shipped across the Atlantic Ocean under cramped conditions. That cost money. The slave trade was eventually abolished long before slavery ended, but that had the effect of making the slaves already in America more valuable.
2. Buying the slaves.
3. Giving the slaves food, water, clothing and shelter.
4. Treating the slaves of illnesses and injuries.
4. Guarding the slaves to prevent them from revolting or escaping.
5. Burying or cremating the slaves after they died.
Now compare that with people who work today at minimum wage. If you can only afford food to feed yourself and your children, a place to live at, medical expenses, and to pay for your funeral when you die, how are you any better off, materially speaking, than slaves 200 years ago?
And if you wonder why some want the minimum wage increased, that is why!
Read this article:
By ALYSSA NEWCOMB
The cupcake empire Chloe Stirling built out of her home kitchen has come crumbling down after Illinois health officials said the sixth-grader wasn’t in compliance with local laws.
Chloe, 11, said she was told by health officials in Madison County, Ill., that if she wants to continue selling cupcakes she will need to buy a bakery or build a separate kitchen.
“It bummed me out because I wanted to keep baking,” Chloe told ABCNews.com. “I had a bunch of orders and they said I had to cancel them all.”
Stirling, who is in sixth grade, has operated “Hey Cupcake” out of her family’s kitchen in Troy, Ill., for the past two years. And it appears her success may have invited the scrutiny of regulators.
The cupcake mogul said she’s raked in some serious dough for a kid her age, charging $10 for a dozen cupcakes and $2 each for the more elaborate treats, such as cakes that look like high heel shoes.
“It felt good because with all my money I could buy stuff I wanted and didn’t have to wait until my birthday or Christmas,” Chloe said, adding that she was also saving money for a car.
Her mother, Heather Stirling, told ABCNews.com she’s meeting with officials from the health department and the state attorney next week in hopes of finding a way to help Chloe re-open Hey Cupcake.
“This is her niche. You have kids who are good at baseball and soccer and this is what they pursue,” Stirling said. “Chloe is one of a kind. No one else does this at her age. There are a lot of hoops we’re going to have to jump through.”
Toni Corona, a spokeswoman for the Madison County Department of Health, told ABCNews.com in a statement that the laws are “applied uniformly and without discrimination.”
She said the department “applauds the entrepreneurial spirit” of Chloe and “joins with her many fans in hoping she will find a location for her cupcake enterprise that complies with state laws.”
Do you see something missing in this article? How about any evidence that anyone was sickened by any of the products produced by this girl’s baking business?
Shutting down her business for failing to comply with state health regulations even with no complaint from customers about her products serves one purpose: Eliminating competition with the corporations that dominate our economy and both force people to work for them instead of working for themselves and force them to buy their products instead of creating their own. This is bullying of the worst sort and it goes against our legal standard of “innocent until proven guilty”. The State of Illinois and the officials of Madison County should be ashamed of themselves!
Take a look at this video:
There are several issues here that the video does not address.
First, Islamic immigrants who come to a Western nation tend to be more moderate in their views even upon arrival, and their children and grandchildren may become even more liberal in turn. The only reason why some Muslims may become radicalized later is because they are treated as second-class citizens in a country they were born in because they are Muslim.
Second, immigrants are allowed into a European country because its native population is falling or not growing fast enough already, and such a situation results in workers becoming more valued for their labor, thus labor movements become stronger and workers’ wages will increase, making it harder for business owners to get extremely rich. To counter this, corporations that dominate an industry will seek to increase the workers’ population through encouraging immigration. But doing this means introducing new people with different cultures. And this is a problem? Only for bigots.
Third, European nations seemed to have no problem invading and taking over Islamic parts of the world in the past. In particular, France not only conquered areas like Algeria and Tunisia, it legally made Algeria a part of France, not just a colony, and the Algerians had to fight long and hard to throw off French rule.
Note that immigration of Latinos to the United States is also mentioned in the video. Bigotry against Hispanic culture also fuels immigration restrictions in the USA. Also, the USA conquered and still holds land once controlled by Mexico.
You cannot take in millions of people to lower workers’ value, then turn around and scream about those workers being different from you. That sort of crock needs to be put down.
If you expel the Muslims from Europe, then the workers remaining will demand greater wages because there are fewer of them. Are you prepared to pay them more?
If you keep the Muslims in Europe, then treat them as equals, and accept that your demographics will change.
Also, people raised in Muslim families do not necessarily stay Muslim forever. There are plenty of former Muslims:
Need I also mention that the idea that a culture will die out because its population growth drops and reverses itself is bull$#it? You can have a culture evolving and prospering no matter what the size of the families that make it up. You just pass on that culture to the fewer children you have, period.
Here are a series of illustrations I have made to demonstrate why capitalist economies that are supposed to be free markets inevitably degenerate into fascist-corporatist tyrannies that deprive the people of freedom of choice in the end.
Stage one: Here is a free market economy represented by dozens of small circles, each circle representing a small business. Of course, some of them are more successful than others, but no single business dominates the industry and there is plenty of competition. Note that three such businesses have been singled out and designated “A”, “B”, and “C”.
Stage two: After a period of time, many of the small businesses have collapsed and the remaining ones have tended to grow larger and more powerful. Companies “A” and “B” have merged and this soon enables the new company “AB” to becomes more powerful still, and it begins to crush its competitors.
Stage three: Another generation or so has passed. Now companies “AB” and “C” have merged together, forming an even more powerful union. Meanwhile, the forces of competition have served to eliminate most of the smaller companies we saw earlier. However, a new company, named “D” has been established, showing that at this time there is still room for innovation and diversity, which is the essence of freedom.
Stage four: Sadly, company “D” isn’t able to last long, and it is soon bought out and taken over, resulting in company “ABCD”, so powerful that it eventually forms a virtual monopoly, and other companies are at a total disadvantage and will never have a chance to rival what ABCD has gained.
There are four lies that “free market” advocates tell that need to be slammed down.
First, they claim that in a free market it would be a simple matter for people dissatisfied with a company to start and run one of their own. But in the present American system, the vast majority of new businesses that are established fail within a few years. The reason is simple: the already established and larger companies are always able to take advantage of their larger capital and the fact that people are already familiar with them to crush their new and smaller competition.
Second, it is not government action that creates corporatism out of free market economies. Rather, it is the already formed corporatism that prompts government to prop up failing giant corporations due to a recession. Why? Because if those corporations go out of business, millions of people would be thrown out of work, reducing economic activity further. That’s exactly why both Presidents Bush Jr and Obama chose to endorse corporate bailouts; if they had not, we would most likely be in a Second Great Depression now with even less competition than before as bankrupt companies are bought and taken over by bigger ones. A better policy would have been for government to prevent those corporations from growing so big in the first place……but then we wouldn’t have a free market.
Third, socialism or communism as envisioned by Karl Marx was not supposed to be a one-man dictatorship. Stalin and many of those who came after him were responsible for that perversion, not Marx himself. In reality, Marx wanted a collective rule that would actually be more like a democracy, with the workers (which he assumed would be the vast majority in any industrial economy) ruling through elections in both the government and the corporations. This was what would later make possible the gradual dissolving of the state leaving only the worker run companies. The reason “Communism” failed was because after the death of Lenin in 1924, real Communism was never tried. No one-man totalitarian state can be rightfully called Communist or Socialist. It’s Fascism instead!
Fourth, the whole point of democratic socialist, liberal, or progressive politics in industrialized countries is to prevent a disruptive revolution by the workers against the capitalists by gradually making reforms to keep the workers happy. By opposing them, Conservatives like Presidents Reagan and both Bushes, along with their Republican allies in Congress, were setting the stage for the actual long-term downfall of America through their idiotic short sighted policies to disempower labor unions and deregulate Big Business. This in turn, will actually INCREASE the likelihood of a real Communist revolution later! The repeated cycles of economic surges (which enrich those who are already wealthy) followed by recessions (which hurt the middle and working classes the most) can only weaken capitalism until it falls. The outsourcing of manufacturing by American companies to other countries like China for their cheap labor only delays this gradual breakdown, while threatening the independence of America. China’s lax labor, safety and trade policies have resulted in a great many inferior products being shipped over here. Meanwhile, millions of Americans can no longer get manufacturing jobs and end up with lower paying ones, locking them into dependence on Chinese goods. Thus American consumers are forced to keep buying the Chinese made products when they wear out.
Wake up, Americans! We need liberalism, socialism, and progressivism NOW. Free markets in a strict sense are a dream, never a reality that we can have forever.
For a long time, I’ve been concerned about how popular music trends tend to make teenagers look stupid and shallow. Now, pop music seems to have hit rock bottom with THIS video by Rebecca Black:
There are lot of things just WRONG about her “Friday” song that together make it worthless, though those faults might be forgiven if they appeared individually in other pop songs. Her singing is awful, the subject matter of the song is pointless, the lyrics are profoundly stupid, and the video is creepy because it features a black rapper following the white girl around (which is actually a racist stereotype; why tolerate that?).
The basic goal of all businesses in a free market capitalist system is to make as much profit as possible. Of course, there is nothing wrong with making money, as long as you are honest and fair about it. But sometimes companies look at only ONE issue of making a profit and fail to see the big picture. Consider these stories:
Micheal was hired to be a delivery assistant for Southside Deliveries in mid-November, doing what he was told would be a temporary job that would last until Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, he was terminated after just two weeks (early December) and the excuse the company gave was “You are too slow.” Micheal was so disgusted at being tossed so quickly that he vowed never to even use Southside Deliveries as a customer. Thus Southside Deliveries, by firing him to save profits, actually lost profits they might have made from him over the next few years.
Mary was a loyal customer of Blue River Energy for years, so she reasoned that she would be an ideal employee for it as well. She was hired to be one of its Sales Representatives and was sent to public places like shopping malls, grocery stores, convention centers, and electronics stores. At these places, she set up her booth and tried to persuade people coming there for other things to switch to using Blue River Energy as their electricity retailer. Despite her going by the book over a two month period, she never sold enough policies to satisfy management, and she was suddenly terminated by her supervisor when she went out to do another day’s work. He simply took her materials and table from her and left her in shock. Soon afterwards, she switched to another electric company, AP Power, because she felt totally betrayed.
Henry signed up for employment with a temp agency, and was sent out a week later to do work at a factory owned by Masters Manufacturing. He worked hard all day, and never got the impression from the supervisors that anything was amiss. But the next day, he got a call from the temp agency that Masters Manufacturing had rejected him. “They said you were too slow, ” was all Henry was told. Henry felt that was unjust, since he’d only done as he was told by those same people who rejected him….and vowed never to buy another cell phone or other electronic device made by Masters Manufacturing.
Now, there is nothing wrong with firing a worker who commits acts of direct insubordination or disrespect for either management or customers, vandalism, assault of another employee, theft, drunkeness or drug abuse on the job, or some other illegal activity. In my opinion, those should be the reasons to fire employees and nothing else. Terminating someone because he is slightly less productive than someone else is a form of discrimination. What if this is due to a mental or physical disability, rather than laziness? What if the employee is new and just needs time to get used to his job? What if the employee’s contributions still count for something, as does the decision of the former employee to boycott the business after his termination?
Workers need to get together and stop letting companies bully them into ruin. They can do that by boycotting any company that treats them as disposable. Maybe if enough people start doing that, then the companies will start treating workers with more respect!
- You Cannot Tolerate Talented Terrors – Here’s How to Fire Them (appliedhumanresources.wordpress.com)
- Termination of Employment & Updaterules for the Department of Business Development In Thailand [Lily Tran] (ecademy.com)
- Is this clause in my temp agency agreement fair? (ask.metafilter.com)
- Rewards for “Good” Business Ethics (businessethicsreview.wordpress.com)
There is a common delusion in the USA that in the capitalist system, everyone can rise up the social ladder from poverty to wealth and that once you do, you should enjoy the rewards of your own labor, or the incentive to better one’s life would disappear. The reason this is a delusion is because those who are already wealthy would have an unfair advantage over those who are poor. Sure, the rich and their giant corporations DO provide jobs for the poor, but only to make themselves even richer, while keeping the poor working for small change, thus limiting actual economic growth. If anyone doubts this, think about why we Americans got Social Security, Medicare and minimum wage laws in the first place. It was because THE CAPTIALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS NOT SELF SUSTAINING! If it is not moderated by the government, it will fail. That’s why we had a Great Depression and that’s why we keep having so many recessions since Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. Capitalism by itself DOES NOT PROVIDE PROSPERITY FOR ALL!
As an Honorable Skeptic, I never assume that anyone or anything is infallible, not individuals like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow nor websites like Politifact. So when there is an actual conflict between them, one must look at the actual facts to judge who or what is right. Facts, not ideology. FACTS, not personal preferences.
Look at this claim:
“Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year.”
Rachel Maddow on Thursday, February 17th, 2011 in a segment on her television talk show
Here’s the bottom line:
There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.
We rate Maddow’s take False.
The quote attributed to Maddow is indeed hers. But it was taken out of context.
Imagine my absolute shock when I saw this:
The United States spends over six times more on its military than China, which is the second largest military spender.
Scroll down to the chart titled Leading Foreign Holders of US Treasury Securities (November 2010). See which country holds more of our debt than any other? CHINA!
Why the hell are we spending so much on our military instead of paying down our debt??? This is a clear case of us doing something we don’t need to do, which actually puts us in greater danger. If China decides to force us to pay most of our debt immediately to it, all of our overbuilt military won’t amount to much. Our independence will be threatened anyway, due to the vast economic ties we have to China.
Which is why we should have listened to President Eisenhower, himself an army general and war hero, who warned us about the “military/industrial complex” before leaving office.
Eisenhower was, in my opinion, the last honorable Republican to hold the Presidency. All the others who came after him were IDIOTS AND HYPOCRITES!!!
First, see this earlier blog entry:
It has occurred to me that if acts of prostitution were legalized for both genders and all sexual orientations, then men and women who are otherwise unemployed could offer their bodies to the sexual services of others who are employed and have plenty of money, get paid for it, and thus never need to engage in harmful and even violent activities, such as bank robbing, and they would not have to go on welfare either. Eventually, the unemployed could find jobs and not need to sell their bodies anymore, though they may still choose to do so.
And it need not involve strangers either. Male and female friends and neighbors could engage in sex with each other in exchange for money, as a means of mutual support. I know if I were out of work and a woman offered me money for sex so I could pay my monthly bills, I wouldn’t hesitate to accept the offer, provided I thought she was trustworthy.
It is exactly because prostitution is illegal in most places that so much abuse is associated with it. Legalizing it would result in a less violent and more generous and tolerant society.
Take a look at this op-ed piece by Wayne Allyn Root, who ran for Vice-President in 2008 under the Libertarian ticket. It might explain the Tea Party and its anti-Obama madness that has possessed so much of the American population. I will post parts of it and respond directly to it here (the numbers refer to my answers).
For decades, China has tried to solve its overpopulation problem via a one-child per couple policy that has indeed stabilized its population size at about 1.3 billion. This has resulted in the population aging over time. But at the same time, China has been encouraging more and more foreign businesses to outsource their manufacturing labor to China to take advantage of the vast amount of cheap labor there.
That will soon come to an end, because you cannot have it both ways for long. As population growth stops and eventually starts to decline, China will be forced to devote more economic resources to care for its elderly, which will grow in numbers at the expense of the younger workers. And Chinese workers will feel they are worth more and start organizing and even striking for better pay and work conditions, resulting in the era of cheap labor in China coming to an end. Meanwhile….
In the next few decades, India, the world’s second most populous country is expected to surpass China in population. By 2040, India’s population is expected to be 1.52 billion; that same year, China’s will be 1.45 billion and India will become the world’s most populous country. As of 2005, India has a total fertility rate of 2.8, well above replacement value, so it is growing much more quickly than China.
The result will most likely be a shift in outsourcing from China to India, at the very time China’s social and economic systems will be most dependent on the younger workers there to support welfare for the retired workers. So that will cause vast unemployment in China and poverty for all ages there, instead of the economic prosperity it has been striving for. We will see more and more products that say, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”, “Made in India”. And India will suffer from both overpopulation and increased pollution that will dwarf what China is suffering now.
Poor China! It would have been better not to have accepted the outsourcing in the first place!