Sarah Palin America’s screeching Trailer Trash Barbie caricature just endorsed the GOP’s front runner Donald Trump America’s authoritarian ass weasel. I was subjected to her screeching, incoherent word salad on what seemed to be an endless loop on Fox News last night until I wanted to gouge my own eardrums out with an electric drill.
Seriously, I weep for America. The meatheads who are supporting Trump are now squealing with glee that he got the endorsement of a woman who is making a career of whipping up excitement among America’s fucktard confederacy while offering no substance whatever. She now has glommed on to the campaign offering her the most attention in an apparent attempt to evade irrelevancy.
So she got up on the stage with Trump, who looked part psychotic, and part constipated, and she spewed a few platitudes.
Well, I am here because like you I know that it is now or never. I’m in it to win it because we believe in America, and we love our freedom.
Well, if we in America love our freedom, why in dog’s name would we EVER support Trump?
Is it his contention that people who are put on the terrorist watchlist – without due process, and sometimes without actually having any affiliation to terrorism whatsoever – should be denied their rights?
Is it his use of eminent domain to line his own pockets while depriving Americans of their property?
Is it his refusal to rule out registration of people based on their faith?
Is it his desire to shut down parts of the Internet?
Or is it his latest promise to FORCE Apple to build computers in the United States?
Trump didn’t just single out Apple in his 45-minute speech – he also took a swipe at Ford, which produces many of its automobiles in Mexico.
“Free trade is good. But we have to do it [force them back to the US]. Or we won’t have a country left,” he said.
You know… for someone who claims to love freedom, Trump sure loves to use government force a lot! And for someone who claims to support freedom, Palin is certainly anxious to ride that authoritarian’s coattails out of obscurity and back into the spotlight.
Trump seems to comprehend economics about as well as Bernie Sanders does, that is to say not at all. Despite Palin’s glowing recommendation about Trump’s economic acumen, “Where, in the private sector, you actually have to balance budgets in order to prioritize,” Trump seems to have little understanding about what will keep companies from outsourcing.
If he wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States, perhaps making the conditions more attractive for companies to do so would make more sense. Making it more attractive for businesses involved in the supply chain to operate in the United States would probably help, since that’s part of the reason why Apple manufactures its phones in China. But what about the raw materials that are mined in China? Is Trump going to produce a magical unicorn to shit the raw materials needed to produce an iPhone here in the United States?
Force Apple to relocate its manufacturing facility back to the United States, and you’ve just increased the cost of making an iPhone, because raw materials have to be shipped from Asia to Apple’s factories here. Aren’t iPhones expensive enough already?
Plus, from what I’m reading, manufacturing in the United States is on the rise, not on the decline, and it is automation that is largely responsible for any reduction in American manufacturing jobs, not trade, but note how quickly Trump wants to kick free trade in the nuts.
Hey… spew enough platitudes without any coherent planning or strategy behind them, and the oaf contingency lines up to worship you!
Yeah, he’ll FORCE Mexico to pay for a wall to keep illegal aliens out.
Yeah, he’ll FORCE manufacturers to bring jobs back to the United States from overseas.
Yeah, he wants a “deportation FORCE.”
He’ll FORCE us to be great again.
And the fact that the simpletons who support him don’t see the contradictions in his statements or the vapid cluelessness in Palin’s screeching bromides makes me really wonder about the future of America.
Let me get this straight. Walmart is evil, right? They sell cheap goods, drive smaller businesses in the area out, and pay slave wages, right? That makes them a player in Satan’s team photo, right?
So why is it that DC residents are now complaining after Walmart has decided to divest them of its evil, odious presence?
Melinda Jones needed a Walmart badly. The 50-year-old lives in the far eastern corner of Washington, D.C. The closest grocery options are over the line in Maryland, well out of walking distance. Because any shopping trip is a production, she typically takes the train out to Virginia and carpools with family to a military commissary.
“There’s nowhere to shop around here. A Walmart would have been great,” Jones said. “I can’t believe it … This makes me want to cry.”
Jones was supposed to have her shiny new Walmart, at a site called Capitol Gateway, as part of a five-store deal hatched between the company and city officials in 2013. But late last week, the Arkansas-based retailer said it was scrapping plans for the two as-yet-unopened stores in the city. Faced with lagging sales, Walmart is closing 154 locations and laying off 10,000 employees in the U.S.
After all, the District was less than welcoming when Walmart initially proposed to build stores there, according to the Washington Post.
Pushed by labor unions, a majority of the D.C. Council at first pushed back against welcoming Walmart to the city. Opponents cited Walmart’s large profits and refusal to let workers unionize, as well as its reputation for low wages.
And then, there’s the District’s minimum wage, which is already high at $11.50/hour, which is apparently not enough for those who want to do minimum work and get paid like skilled labor, and the proposal proposal to require D.C. employers to pay into a fund for family and medical leave for employees, as well as a plan to require a minimum amount of hours for hourly workers.
Apparently, DC expects Walmart to run its business at a loss, as long as the entitled get theirs, including former DC Mayor Vincent Gray, who brokered the deal with Walmart and was hoping to use it to resurrect the carcass of his political career after some not so savory activities came to light.
Melinda Jones apparently can’t get fresh produce where she lives – at least not anywhere close – so she was counting on the Walmart to build its store there, so she would have somewhere to shop.
The residents in the neighborhoods where the two stores were to go up apparently expected the company to run those businesses at a loss, because they NEED them.
Another resident said he planned to get a job there. “Everybody around here probably would’ve tried to get a job,” Mayo said. “Here one minute, gone the next.” Were they hoping to get easy work for high pay, because DC politicians think they can continue fleecing “the rich” while getting themselves re-elected? Well, guess what! Instead of getting work at $7.25 per hour, getting much-needed experience, and perhaps moving on to better employment, these residents now have no jobs at all. And they can thank DC government that they put into positions of authority for that!
But Walmart is evil, horrible, and awful for not wanting to open more stores where they will undoubtedly make no profit, because apparently stores only exist for the benefit of those who want to work there (at inflated wages), those who want to shop there (at low wages), and the politicians who want to put said deal on their resumes.
So DC wants to force Walmart to pay higher wages for jobs that require few basic skills and practically no education, and are meant to be a gateway into the working world, not a lifestyle.
DC wants to force Walmart to keep employees on the clock even though it might not need them.
DC wants force Walmart to pay money into a pot for benefits it does not see fit to offer, because somehow everyone is entitled to them.
And now DC seems surprised and upset that Walmart doesn’t want to build two more locations in the city?
Someone in DC needs some lessons in basic economics.
Once again I have to ask: Have you ever seen something so stupid that it leaves you not only scratching your head until your scalp bleeds, but wondering if we’re at a point where the Sweet Meteor of Death (SMOD) would be the only remedy for the vast amounts of retardery put out into the world by the self-loathing social justice warrior set?
I know I’ve asked this question a lot, and sometimes I’m encouraged by what I read on the Internet. Today is not one of those days.
Yesterday, the Washington (Com)Post plucked a rumination out of its belly button lint examining whether Western nations are to blame for the rise of Daeshbag violence, because… Ready for this?
The (Com)Post admits that the idea is “controversial” and that this is a debate that’s “just beginning” even as it examines the brain droppings of one Thomas Piketty, whose entire academic existence revolves around proving how evil and horrible capitalism is and how its very nature will result in the growth the dreaded “wealth inequality” that will ostensibly create “a permanent, dynastic, global aristocracy, or an ‘endless inegalitarian spiral,’” according to Forbes. As an aside, Forbes also details how a grad student from MIT basically kicks Piketty in his shriveled, barely operational raisins by challenging the very premise of his poorly-reasoned “Capitalism is Teh Source of All Ebil™” mantra.
For the record, the debate is not just beginning. In my “Roots of Terrorism” Master’s level class in 2008 we explored (and tossed) the claim that poor people join terrorist groups en masse due to income inequality. The National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper in 2004 that looked at the determinants of terrorism at the country level. The paper showed that “terrorist risk is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once the effects of other country-specific characteristics such as the level of political freedom are taken into account.”
Princeton economics professor Alan Krueger, who has also advised the National Counterterrorism Center on the subject, also disagrees with this poverty = terrorism nonsense.
Why are better educated, more advantaged individuals more likely than others to join terrorist groups? I think of terrorism as a market, with a supply side and a demand side. Individuals, either in small groups or on their own, supply their services to terrorist organizations.
But… but… but… Piketty will whine, it’s ECONOMIC INEQUALITY!
If you look at the region between Egypt and Iran — which includes Syria — you find several oil monarchies controlling between 60 and 70 percent of wealth, while housing just a bit more than 10 percent of the 300 million people living in that area.
Within those monarchies, he continues, a small slice of people controls most of the wealth, while a large — including women and refugees — are kept in a state of “semi-slavery.” Those economic conditions, he says, have become justifications for jihadists, along with the casualties of a series of wars in the region perpetuated by Western powers.
The only problem is that the jihadists themselves have actually caused economic problems! They shut down businesses. They destroy livelihoods, leaving those who actually contribute to the economy with little choice but to join them, and leaving them with no economic options if they don’t. In addition, not a single sane investor in the world would put money into a shithole where Islamic terrorists are beheading people in the streets. Essentially, they have turned the economy into a recruiting tool, and by taking full control of the economy, they have wrested any ability to make a livelihood from merchants and businesspeople.
Before Islamic State militants overran her hometown of Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014, Fahima Omar ran a hairdressing salon. But ISIS gunmen made Omar close her business—and lose her only source of income. Salons like hers encouraged “debauchery,” the militants said.
Omar is one of many business owners—male and female—who say ISIS has forced them to shut up shop and lose their livelihoods in the process. The extremist group has also prevented those who refuse to join it from finding jobs, and has imposed heavy taxes on civilians.
Additionally, Daesh is the spawn of al Q’aida, which wasn’t exactly started by poor jihadists disillusioned with not getting their share of the economic pie.
The World Bank is trying to figure out the level of income inequality in the Middle East, and claims that due to lack of transparency, it’s extremely hard to gauge who has squirreled wealth away where and how much. The world’s understanding of income inequality in the Middle East until now has been pretty limited, and we actually thought that income inequality in the region was relatively low. World Bank economist Irina Ianchovichina says looking just at household income is insufficient (Piketty claims to rely on income tax information from those countries, but Ianchovichina says the World Bank hasn’t even been able to get that info).
Measuring wealth is much more complex than calculating income, so any one source gives us only a partial picture. The Forbes database of billionaires gives us information on the wealth and nationalities of billionaires, most of who either inherited their wealth or earned it themselves. This database suggests this sort of wealth in the region is not very high, except in Lebanon.
So what might we be missing? In many cases, it appears the amount of wealth accumulated by heads of state in the region is not trivial: information on this can be obtained from various sources, including Forbes. When we include the wealth of heads of state we find that wealth concentration increases in a number of countries, although in some of the wealthiest countries like Qatar and even Kuwait, this particular adjustment doesn’t make much difference.
Other recent evidence suggests that the nationals of many countries hide their wealth in bank accounts in tax havens and that, cumulatively, these accounts show up as a sizable share of a country’s Gross Domestic Product. Niels Johannesen and co-authors show that autocracies rich in resources like oil—many of them countries in the Arab world—account globally for a much larger share of hidden wealth than other types of countries. And now, data from the HSBC on such bank deposits by nationality shows that most Arab countries are among the top one third of countries ranked by the amount of money in their HSBC accounts.
In other words, that’s quite the assertion there, Sparky! Information on real wealth concentration is limited due to the lack of transparency in those nations, studies over the years have shown that economic factors have only limited impact on the rise in terrorism, and yet Piketty puts forth this claim.
I would guess it’s because it’s his bread and butter. He’s been harping on this income inequality thing for years. He promotes wealth redistribution through a
progressive progtarded global tax on wealth. While he claimed to have been converted to the virtues of capitalism and the free market after a 1991 trip to the USSR, it apparently didn’t stick. As a matter of fact he served as an economic adviser to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign, so I don’t know how anyone can claim with any seriousness that this guy is in any way objective or a reliable source of economic assessment. And yet, you can expect the usual prog suspects will glom on to this as an anchor for their feelings of Western guilt and their insistence that everyone who is rich be punished for it.
Oh, but the oil revenues of rich Arabic countries are not going to education, Piketty claims (link is in French)! Oil money is supposed to go to regional development, he claims! Well, I’m so glad he seems to consider himself the arbiter of how other nations should spend their money! Sure, every nosy socialist on the planet wants to tell others how to spend their wealth, because obviously their feminist studies degrees make them qualified adjudicators of allocation of revenues. And while spending on education is nice to have, there’s no indication that education, or lack thereof, is contributing to Daesh recruitment efforts. As a matter of fact, according to Dr. Krueger’s research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the exact opposite is true.
Not only that, but Daesh scumbags are incredibly rich. They’ve stolen oil and taken over its production, and they apparently have a waiting list of would-be terrorist assholes waiting to blow themselves up for Allah! Worse yet, rich Saudis are allowed to jump the queue, causing quite a bit of jealous discontent among the other murderous freaks. AH! Maybe that’s what Piketty means? They’re just jealous because the rich are being allowed to blow themselves quicker than they are! Yeah… that certainly sounds like supporting evidence for Piketty’s idiotic theory… NOT!
Here’s the thing. Terrorism is the buzzword of the decade. If you can link your claims to terrorism, you are almost sure to get a captive audience for even the most defective of claims. Piketty has been promoting his income inequality views for years, and even though the evidence done over the past decade shows no correlation between poverty, a lack of education, and a desire to become a terrorist or even support for terrorist views (quite the opposite appears to be true), he probably sees this as an opportunity to advance his redistributionist agenda.
So watch out, people! “Global warming” and “income inequality” will be the two catch phrases that will become the prog siren call as causes of terrorism. Just know it’s all a puerile scheme to relieve people of their earnings.
I hate air travel. I really do. I realize it’s sometimes necessary to cram myself into a gigantic metal tube with hundreds of my closest friends and feast on stale pretzels and flat soda, while it flies at a high rate of speed somewhere other than where I started, but I hate it. I hate the crowds, and the sometimes less than clean other passengers. I hate the TSA gropage (although, I do have TSA Pre, so that part of it is mostly painless nowadays). I hate the stale, recycled air and the fact that nearly every time I fly, I wind up with someone’s respiratory crud, and if not that, I usually get some kind of skin rash from the seat, which is always an unmitigated joy.
Flying is not fun.
That said, it appears someone with Special Snowflake Syndrome (SSS) has decided to invent another human right – the basic right to room on a plane. Christopher Elliott is a travel journalist and co-founder of something called Travelers United, whose mission is to “advocate in Washington, DC for all travelers. We educate travelers on their travel rights and we educate lawmakers and regulators on consumer issues.”
I will say this: anytime someone invents a group to “advocate in Washington, DC” about a right they just invented, I begin to worry, because that generally means that they want legisleeches to do something about said invented right that has allegedly been violated by a private company – a company no one compels you to use at the point of a gun – and with whom you deal willingly by paying money for their service. As soon as someone claims an invented right has been violated, politicians eager to be seen as doing something for their constituents spring into action to remedy said alleged violation. It’s the “doing something” that worries me, because generally, in their frothing zeal to look responsive, they fail to rationally think through the legislation they cram through the legislature, and wind up violating ACTUAL rights – not the right invented by the Special Snowflake, who desperately needs an education on the nature of a right. In this case, the Special Snowflake and crew want the government to regulate the minimum legroom the airline can give passengers in economy class.
Elliott notes that the average economy-class seat amount of passenger legroom, has declined over the years, from about 35 inches in the 1970s to about 31 inches today. Seat width has declined too, from around a high of 20 inches back in the 1980s to about 17-18 inches, according to USA Today.
OK, I get it. It’s uncomfortable. It sucks. Half the time, I spend my flight trying to jam myself into the corner of my seat to avoid the oversized bulk of adipose tissue that overflows into my seat from my uber large neighbor. But you know what I do if I really feel that a service doesn’t live up to my expectations? I certainly don’t try to get Congress involved! I either choose not to fly, and choose another mode of transportation, purchase an upgrade to a more comfortable seat, or I SUCK IT UP! I certainly don’t invent a right and then try to force Congress to impose an obligation on another private entity to help me exercise it!
Look up the difference between positive and negative rights, Snowflake, and then shut your yap.
You pay for a seat on a mode of transportation. It does not have to be comfortable. It just has to be a seat. If you don’t like it, don’t fly.
You know what happens when someone invents a right and then gets Congress involved? Well, let me smartsplain it to your dumb ass.
- You invent the right to more legroom on a plane.
- You take said invention to Congress, and Congress passes a law that obligates airline companies to give you said room.
- Airplane manufacturers start making wider seats with more legroom, thereby allowing fewer passengers aboard.
- Airline loses profits due to fewer passengers, charges your entitled ass more money to sit in a crappy economy seat.
- You start complaining about higher airline prices, invent right to lower prices.
- You take said invented right to Congress, and Congress passes a law to cap prices.
- Lower profits force airlines to cut jobs.
- And so on…
Get it yet? You have the right to travel. You have no right to force someone else to make that travel pleasant or comfortable.
You have the right to purchase a ticket on a specific airline. If said airline doesn’t meet your expectations, you have the right to take your business elsewhere. You don’t have the right to force another entity to conform to your subjective expectations at the point of a government gun.
You have the right to bitch and moan about your experience. Hell, I do so quite a bit when I experience crappy customer service. And miraculously, you know what happens? The provider of said crappy service normally does everything in its power to fix it, because the last thing it needs is to lose business to bad publicity.
And that works a whole lot better than running crying to the nanny state, because someone didn’t give you the warm fuzzy you think you deserve.