Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Paul Krugman: Banging the Drum for Communism... Again

 
Income Inequality is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's favorite hobby horse. For decades, Krugman has assailed the increasing gap in pay between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest.

In Mother Jones, he complains:

What few people realize is that this vast gap between the affluent few and the bulk of ordinary Americans is a relatively new fixture on our social landscape. People believe these scenes are nothing new, even that it is utopian to imagine it could be otherwise.

Did I forget to mention this article was written more than a decade ago? In 1996? Let's continue reading.

...Why has America ceased to be a middle-class nation? And, more important, what can be done to make it a middle-class nation again?

What, indeed? I know that -- in my city at least -- there are only two types of neighborhood: the first is a crumbling, decaying urban core where the poor live in huddled masses, yearning to be rich. The second are the gated communities of the ultra-wealthy. There is literally no middle class to speak of. I'm sure your city or town is similar.

...America is by far the least heavily taxed of Western nations and could easily find the resources to pay for a major expansion of programs aimed at limiting inequality...

Once you add up federal, state, local, property, sales, and other miscellaneous taxes, it would not be surprising to find most Americans -- middle class Americans, mind you -- pay well more than 50% of their gross wages in taxes.

According to Krugman, that's not nearly enough.

In particular, we also need to apply strategic thinking to the union movement. Union leaders and liberal intellectuals often don't like each other very much, and union victories are often of dubious value to the economy. Nonetheless, if you are worried about the cycle of polarization in this country, you should support policies that make unions stronger, and vociferously oppose those that weaken them... There are some stirrings of life in the union movement -- a new, younger leadership... They must be supported, almost regardless of the merits of their particular case. Unions are one of the few political counterweights to the power of wealth...

Let's recall: this article was written by Krugman in 1996. I'll be kind and just say that he's no Kreskin.

The last decade has demonstrated the utter irrelevance of unions. A plethora of government agencies -- from the EEOC to OSHA to the National Council on Disability -- protect every aspect of America's work-force.

As for the growth in "income inequality", Forbes' Dan Seligman writes:

Given the editorialists’ recurring objections to George Bush’s tax cuts, their implication here was clear: The Bush Administration has been especially awful in creating inequality. That implication is wrong. The reality is that measured inequality has been rising steadily for close to 30 years and hit successive new highs in the Carter, Reagan, elder Bush and Clinton administrations before doing the exact same thing under the younger Bush.

The standard measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient, signifying the extent to which a society deviates from absolute equality. If everybody has the same income, the coefficient is 0; if the entire GDP belongs to one person, the coefficient is 1. In the U.S. the latest reported coefficient is 0.466. In case you are wondering, it rose more under Clinton–from 0.433 to 0.462–than under any of those other chaps. It rose by only 0.004 during George W. Bush’s first four years. In case you are also wondering how many times Times editorialists complained about Clinton’s inequality record, the answer is zero.

…. Recent figures for Japan have been 0.249, for Germany 0.283, for France 0.327. But those countries have paid heavy prices for their relative income equality. Just about all of them have had lower growth rates than the U.S., and most of them (an exception is Japan) have far higher unemployment rates. The reality is that in democratic free-market societies, more inequality tends to mean more growth.

….. And in periods of boundless technological innovation, like the present, brains and talent are suddenly worth a lot more. The demand for mental skills has exploded. The total U.S. labor force has grown by a little more than one-third in the past two decades, but managerial and professional jobs have roughly doubled, from 24 million to more than 48 million.

Damn, Paul -- that sounds like a middle-class to me!

Let's do a little thought experiment to highlight the stupidity of Krugman's mental excretions. Consider Bellevue, Washington in the storied seventies -- the era of pure equality that Krugman so frequently and lovingly recalls. Bellevue was a sleepy little Seattle suburb that was more rural than urban.

The decade of the Eighties and Nineties saw the rise of Microsoft in nearby Redmond. Microsoft's growth spawned tens of thousands of jobs; grew many hundreds of regional businesses; and has transformed the Seattle suburbs into engines of opportunity.

But if Krugman is right, the income inequality represented by the Microsoft billionaire boys club -- Gates, Allen, and Ballmer among them -- is downright horrifying. In Krugman's bizarre world view, Redmond would have been better off had Microsoft never located nearby because the "income equality" of the Seventies would have lived on indefinitely.

And since Kreskin Krugman wrote his ironic 1996 treatise on the disastrous inequality of Palo Alto, California, two students changed the area forever. Larry Page and Sergey Brin created Google -- with a market capitalization approaching $200 billion dollars. They certainly increased "income inequality" greatly (Page and Brin are currently worth about $20 billion apiece), but they ended up creating scores of millionaires, many of whom were straight out of Krugman's missing middle class.

Put simply, Krugman's like a broken record. For decades, he's sung the same off-key tune using raw statistics... but no knowledge. Income inequality is a great thing. Tom Blumer at Bizzyblog writes:

Income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is:

– Primarily the result of economic efforts.
– There is a safety net for people in unfortunate low-income circumstances.
– There is (as is generally true in the US) real opportunity for people to move up the economic ladder through education, hard work, and creativity, with as few as possible barriers to success.

The fact that low-income children have lacked the same educational opportunity as upper-income children is probably the biggest barrier to sustaining future economic mobility, which is why initiatives like No Child Left Behind, charter schools, school vouchers, and the like are so important. Conservatives tend to favor these initiatives; liberals, especially teachers’ organizations [Ed: a nice word for teachers' unions], usually oppose them.

Attempts to reduce income inequality through higher taxes on higher earners have not only failed to reduce income inequality, but have held back economic growth from what it could have been (see: Western Europe). It also should be noted that the standard of living enjoyed by most US citizens in the bottom income quintile is significantly higher than that of most of the rest of the industrialized world.

Remember all of this the next time you hear whining about how “unfair” income inequality is. The very people who bemoan income inequality ignore the remarkable economic mobility in this country, and are the same ones who oppose the educational reforms that would make even more upward mobility possible...

In short, Krugman lobbies for a kinder, gentler Communism. He advocates the simple redistribution of wealth and lauds a centralized command-and-control system to ensure a consistent income for all.

You'd think that one hundred million fatalities -- the result of the world's last major foray into Communism -- would have taught Krugman a powerful lesson. That murderous form of government leveraged political repression, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and man-made famines to slaughter innocents at a record pace.

Oh, I forgot -- Krugman's a liberal with a conscience.

Update: Omri at The Astute Bloggers gangs up on the Washington Post. Watch one intellectual take on a rabid pack of mental midgets on the same topic.

Hat tips: Gateway Pundit and Larwyn

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Email from my Dad

 
Just received this from my Dad: Here is the hostess of an Italian talk show.

Here is the hostess of an American talk show.

While there's no doubt that America is the greatest country on Earth, this is indisputable proof that our talk shows are the worst in the world.


The old man's still got it!

The Media Falsehood Hall of Fame

 
Randall Hoven, writing at the irreplaceable American Thinker, offers a fascinating list of the top media fabrications of all-time. The top ten?

1. ABC, Food Lion story (1992). Fraudulent techniques and probable fabrication. Two ABC producers lied on their resumes to get jobs at Food Lion. They each wore a wig hiding a tiny lipstick-sized camera, and each carried a concealed microphone. It's possible they shot footage of mishandled food by doing the mishandling themselves. Food Lion sued ABC and a jury awarded it $5.5 million.


2. ABC 20/20 "Exploding Fords" story (1978). Staged footage. Similar to the later NBC "exploding" GM trucks episode, ABC aired "grossly misleading crash videos and simulations, withheld the same sorts of material facts about the tests, and relied on the same dubious experts with the same ties to the plaintiffs bar... viewers were shown a crash fire and explosion without being told it had been started by an incendiary device."

3. ABC 20/20, "Buckwheat" (of the Little Rascals) story. (1990). Fell for hoax. "In 1990 the ABC program 20/20 was hoaxed into believing that Billy "Buckwheat" Thomas was alive and working as a grocery bagger in Tempe, Arizona. (Thomas actually died in 1980.) A segment broadcast October 5 with narrator Hugh Downs featured an impostor."

4. AFP/Yahoo News  (2007). Fell for hoax/lie. Ran a picture with the caption "An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City." But the picture was of unfired cartridges, which could only have "hit her house" if they were thrown at it.

5. Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press (2005). Lying/fabricating. In his sports column, he described alumni players at a basketball game who were not even there.


6. Stephen Ambrose, historian/author (2002). Plagiarism. He was almost a book "factory", writing eight books in five years. But that apparently came easier when parts were copied from other books, without attribution.

7. Pham Xuan An, Time (1960's). Communist spy reporter. Pham Xuan An was a "Viet Cong colonel who worked as a reporter for U.S. news organizations during the Vietnam War while also spying for the communists... He was the first Vietnamese to be a full-time staff correspondent for a major U.S. publication, working primarily for Time magazine... his job as a spy was to uncover and report the plans of the South Vietnamese and U.S. military... he was considered the best Vietnamese reporter in the press corps." He died in Viet Nam in 2006, where he had been "promoted to major general and was named a Hero of the People's Armed Forces, with four military-exploit medals."


8. Peter Arnett, CNN, NBC, National Geographic (1999-2003). Lying, bias, treasonous behavior. CNN fired him in 1999 for his reporting the Operation Tailwind story (see below). NBC and National Geographic fired him in March 2003 for being interviewed on Iraqi TV during war, in which he stated that the U.S. war plan had failed. "It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war," said NBC.

9. Associated Press (AP) (2005). Fell for hoax and phony photo. The AP ran a story, with a photo, about a soldier held hostage in Iraq. The photo turned out to be that of an action figure doll; there was no such soldier.

10. Doug Bandow, columnist (2005). Failure to disclose potential conflict of interest. "The Copley News Service revealed it had suspended syndicated columnist Doug Bandow for allegedly accepting payments from Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write positive stories about Abramoff's clients." Bandow said, "It was a lapse of judgment on my part, and I take full responsibility for it."

Read it all.

Hoven's headline -- Media Dishonesty Matters -- is perfect.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Viacom: We're sticking with (brain-damaged) DRM

 
Recording giant Viacom says it's sticking with Digital Rights Management (DRM). DRM is a catch-all term, which refers to various security techniques that attempt to limit the use of electronic files -- typically music or videos. The media conglomerate's head says the DRM antipiracy efforts "will usher in an unprecedented period of creative output across the globe."

The only wave of creativity unleashed by this effort will be that of the thousands of engineers and developers who demonstrate -- yet again -- that bits are inherently copyable.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

The Secret Chamber

 
Master, your apprentice seeks an audience.

Allow him to enter.

May your supplicant rise?

Stand, knave --- and speak.

Your excellency, I have an idea for the defeat of the Dark Witch in the coming war.

Continue.

I feel we can plant an idea in her campaign. An idea so twisted, so bizarre, that they will believe it is compelling and...

Yes?

...and... sir... the idea will backfire, exposing them for what they truly are.

Go on.

It will expose their desire for Marxism, their hope that they can overthrow capitalism through a communist revolution.

Sounds promising. So what is this brilliant idea?

We plant the following idea: that they propose giving every child born in the United States $5,000 from the government to help pay for college, a home, or whatever they want later in life.

That's your idea?

Er -- y- y- y- es, your excellency...

That's the brilliant scheme you've come up with after all of this time? An idea so profoundly dim that even Bob Shrum would be able to figure it out? Giving every child, even those parented by illegal aliens, would be hugely unpopular and cost billions every year! Why not a tax credit? Or something reasonable? Hell, why not give every baby a hundred thousand dollars?

B- b- b- but, sir -- I --

Even Carville, or Matthews, or Beckel, anyone could figure this...

Actually, sir, we were thinking of planting the idea with Markos Moulitas...

Proceed.

* * * * * * * * *


With sincere apologies to the brilliant Tim Blair

Harry Reid demands that Rush Limbaugh apologize

 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the Senate floor today to demand that conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh apologize for his "phony soldiers'' commentary. The faux controversy appears to have been manufactured by far left PR group Media Matters.

Observers point out that Limbaugh's comments referred to discredited liberal mini-celebs and not the troops:

From Jesse MacBeth to Scott Thomas Beauchamp, liberals and anti-war moonbats have suspended logic and reason to embrace people because they liked what they had to say, regardless of whether the tales made sense, or their credentials were as they claimed.

Was this a simple diversionary tactic? It would appear so.

Recall:

* Democratic front-group MorOn.org called General General David Petraeus "General Betray-us" and Hillary Clinton essentially called the decorated veteran a liar.

* “Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American Soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaida said to these tribes: We have to fight Al-Qaida ourselves.” -- Sen. Charles Schumer

* “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything…” -- Senator Harry Reid

* “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans [Soldiers] had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” -- Senator Dick Durbin

* “There was no firefight, there was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops [Haditha Marines] overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. ” -- Representative John Murtha

* “Shamefully we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.” -- Senator Ted Kennedy

* "And there is no reason… that young American Soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs.” -- Senator John Kerry (in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn)

* “The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.” – Former Senator, Former Vice Presidential candidate, Presidential Candidate John Edwards

News flash for Reid and MorOn.org: Rush will apologize when Schumer, Reid, Durbin, Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, and Edwards apologize for their egregious remarks.

Hat tip for most quotes: J. D. Pendry

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Mark Levin: Media Matters is a Criminal Enterprise

 
Radio host Mark Levin was on a tear Friday (via Hot Air):

This MoveOn.org, which was created specifically as the brown-shirts of the Clinton crime family... they have these phony think-tanks... and we get to this group, run by David Brock, called Media Matters... I knew David Brock when he was conservative and Republican...

Media Matters claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt organization... it's not allowed to get involved in politics... because you and I are subsidizing it, because it's tax exempt... yet they have never criticized a leftist talk show host on Air America, ever. They have never criticized Keith Olbermann, never. They only criticize the meda when the media does a story that is unfavorable to the [Clinton] crime family leaders...

I believe they are in clear violation of the Internal Revenue Code, the 501(c)(3) status that's been conferred on them... I believe every time they file a tax return, telling the government that 'we're non-political, non-partisan' and that they sign the tax-return on penalty of perjury, I believe that they're committing perjury.

If there was ever a lawsuit against this group, and there was full discovery of emails, phone logs, and testimony under oath or in depositions, the whole game would be up and they'd be completely exposed for what they are. Which is: a criminal enterprise, in the sense that they are, in my view... violating the tax code...

Until listening to Hot Air's replay of Levin's comments, I had never realized how politically active Media Matters really is. Do a search on Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney on the MM site and you'll see a stunning, one-sided theme that gives every appearance of a Clinton front site.

Here's a quick -- but by no means complete -- gallery of items from the Media Matters site captured in just the last week.




From the looks of things, Hillary's scared to death of Mitt Romney.

So, exactly what are the tax-exemption requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations -- as Media Matters claims it is? The IRS describes them this way:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3)... it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates...

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct...

For a 501(c)(3) organization, the IRS neatly defines "Political Campaign Activity."

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax... voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Check and mate, morons.

Please go to the IRS site and do what I did: report Media Matters' utterly partisan activities as suspected tax fraud. You may be entitled to a reward for the report.

It's high time that taxpayers stopped subsidizing a political action committee for Hillary Clinton.

Also see: Flopping Aces, The Shadow Party

Best of the August and September Posts

 
We'll be revamping the blog's sidebar shortly. In the mean time, here's a quick and illustrated digest of some popular posts (i.e., they received more than twelve hits) from the last couple of months.




Hillary's Own Stain and Body Remover





Read the Disclaimers before Voting



Berger to Host 9/11 Truther Special



Latest Bin Laden Transcript - Illustrated



A free Seattle postcard for you



Hillary Clinton's A-List Donors



Ten worst branding decisions of all-time



Hurricane Paul threatens Hill's campaign



The Adventures of Barack Obama



First annual Celebrity Hostage Draft!