But as the US became a huge economic juggernaut, US corporations wanted to export our goods to the rest of the world. Those corporations fought against tariffs and demanded “free” trade. They wanted to sell our goods to foreign lands without additional costs and impediments.

This system worked for a while. Because we were the world’s largest exporter, we we able to sell tons of our stuff to the rest of the world. However, it finally came back to bite us. Starting in the 60s Japan got really good at building quality products and used our lack of tariffs to import them at dirt cheap prices. Now we don’t make any electronics in the US.

But, for corporations, it was still a great system. US corporations simply moved production to third world countries such as Mexico and to former second world countries such as China. So now we don’t build much of anything in the US.

What I find so deliciously ironic is that a corporation is actually complaining about this system.

Jim D’Addario, the CEO of guitar string manufacturer D’Addario, is complaining about China. He’s complaining that the Chinese are able to produce cheaper strings and sell them for less and he’s losing money on it. He defends using the United States government his own private police force as follows:

How is possible for the public to ask the legitimate manufacturers to bear the role of the government and police every instance of (trademark infringement) with a law suit?

First, if you cannot compete in this “free” market, you should go out of business. Second, if the only way you can compete is by spending my tax dollars, you should go out of business.

Corporations rammed down our collective throats that a “free” market system works best. Now it’s killing you because you’re utterly inefficient. You want my tax dollars used to protect your trademarks?! What the frick do I get out of it? Do I get a share of your profits. Frick no. I get nothing while you get richer.

Jim, I have a solution for you which would benefit all of us. If you want government protection, demand tariffs on imported goods. You benefit because the cheap labor China relies upon and environmental laws it ignores are balanced by the collection of tariffs. I benefit because the federal government would no longer need to tax me as much. So I’d have more money to spend on your strings.

Jim, if you want protection. Ask for tariffs. Not a hand out. Thanks!

Share this:

Well, moderates did take a stand, in the Middle East nonetheless…

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon.

Share this:

The major health insurance companies around the country are reporting a significant increase in small businesses offering health care benefits to their employees.

Why?

Because the tax cut created in the new health care reform law providing small businesses with an incentive to give health benefits to employees is working.

Damn socialist small business owners, trying to help people live better lives. I hope they burn in HELL!

Share this:

David Jungerman represents this new GOP view. He’s a farmer and placed a sign on his tractor which stated:

“Are you a Producer or Parasite” “Democrats – Party of the Parasites”

What’s so bad about that? He’s a farmer. In the 10 years prior he received over a million bucks in federal farm subsidies.

In his “me” world it’s perfectly acceptable to take $100,000 a year from the federal government while simultaneously bitching about families living off $180 a month in food stamps.

As long as you’re not a Democrat, it’s perfectly acceptable to cry “me me me!”

Share this:

As you likely know, as of late the Right has a profound hatred for elites. Anne points out that Americans have always hated its leaders. However, in previous times the leaders came into power not because of their skills, but by birthright. In decades past, you didn’t get into an ivy league school because of your grades, but because your father was an alum.

That changed in the 70s and suddenly your parental lineage didn’t keep you from becoming an elite, nor did it guarantee you to become one. Suddenly, Clarence Thomas, a son of a domestic servant and a farm worker, could attend and graduate from Yale Law School and become a Supreme Court justice.

So why do teabaggers hate elites so much? In the old days people could blame the unfair system for their position in life. Nowadays, that’s no longer true. If you didn’t better yourself through education and become an elite yourself, you’re a failure. And it’s all your fault. You can’t blame the system, your race, society, or your parents. Only yourself.

That’s pissing off whites who used to be able to be able to coast on their color, but are now held accountable to their failures.

So while the original tea party protest was about unjust taxation, taxation without representation. And while the civil rights riots were about fixing an inherently unfair and unjust system. Apparently teabag protests are just self-centered expressions of anger over their own failures. So much for the party who praises self-sufficiency so highly.

Update: 10-21-2010:

Great Quote on the Right’s view of Elitism from the New York Times:

On Saturday, at a G.O.P. rally in Anaheim, Calif., Palin mockingly noted that you won’t find her invoking Mao or Saul Alinsky. She says she believes in American exceptionalism. But when it comes to the people running the country, exceptionalism is suspect; leaders should be — as Palin, O’Donnell and Angle keep saying — just like you.

Share this:

In the end the bill which was passed was not what Obama or the Left wanted. Despite having a clear majority, the plan he wanted was destined to fail because of his desire to explain and compromise and build a consensus with those who oppose him.

A friend of mine responded in the comments to defend Obama and wrote that Obama did not want to be accused of pushing a plan down America’s throat.

The fact that Obama went WAY out of his way to have a bipartisan bill which the Republican unanimously rejected anyway will hurt the Republicans more than it will hurt Obama.

But that’s not how the Right operates. They don’t look at situations and facts objectively. 18% still believe that Obama is a Muslim, despite all the objective evidence against it and the complete lack of objective evidence in favor of it.

The Right doesn’t give a shit about compromise or building a consensus. It’s their way or nothing. (example 1, 2 and 3, 4) To them their positions are correct, and if you disagree with them, you’re guilty of treason.

Stephen Dodson is a Rightwinger who is angry about the health care bill which was eventually passed. He supports the Repeal Amendment which would allow the legislatures of 2/3 of the states to repeal any federal law or regulation. He says:

“There has to be some ways to control what the government is doing,” Dodson said. “It seems like right now they are not listening to what the voters are saying. It seems they are doing more things behind our backs and behind closed doors.”

See! That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Despite the fact that Obama bent over backwards trying not to shove anything down anyone’s throat, that’s exactly what the Right is accusing him of. It simply does not matter how much bending over the Left does. It will never be enough. To the Right any plan initiated by the Left is by definition the wrong plan.

When will the Left learn this? Until they do, the Right will always be in power in the US. Even with a majority in the House and in the Senate and a President in the White House, the Left is still powerless.

Update: You can find a great comic on this topic right here.

Share this:

U2′s manager Paul McGuinness asked Apple boss Steve Jobs to create a business model for the music industry:

Steve is the guy who has always magically known what the consumer wants before the consumer even knows it. I wish he would put that great mind and that great corporation of his to work devising a model that finally allows artists and creators to get properly rewarded for their work. Maybe he’s working on it right now. I hope so.

Paul McGuinness has been in the music industry nearly his entire life. But he cannot figure out a way to make money from it? Heck, it’s even worse than that. According to McGuinness, no one in the music industry knows how to make money running a business. Does that make any sense at all?

Unfortunately, it makes perfect sense.

Most people think that copyright is a property right. It is not.

Copyright is a government granted monopoly. The government grants monopolies over music, movies, photographs, etc., and then middlemen make money off of them. That’s how Paul McGuinness makes his money. Acting as a middleman between U2 and its fans.

Every time the copyright industry is faced with competition, they sue. If they cannot sue, they have laws passed so they can sue. If they cannot have federal laws passed to suit their needs, they have state laws passed instead. If they can’t get a government to pass the laws they want, they have treaties enacted which force all governments to pass the laws they want.

What I described above has happened countless times in the history of copyright. For a great example we have to travel back into time to when the player piano was first introduced. Back then the monopoly granted by copyright did not cover performances, only published sheet music.

So anyone could play any song he or she wanted without paying a dime. The music industry made money selling sheet music to musicians.

The player piano eliminated both paying for published sheet music and eliminated the musician who would have bought the sheet music.

So, as I said, the music industry of the 1800s sued. They lost because, as I said, copyright did not cover performances.

So the music industry went to Congress and had copyright laws changed to cover performances. So when the music industry sued again, they won. Of course they won. They always win.

I have to stress, the player piano was perfectly legal. The music industry could have competed with it just like restaurants compete with each other all the time. They could have advertised the fact that music played by real musicians constitutes a better product. That full bands are better than a mere piano. Etc.

However, at no point does the copyright industry ever simply roll up its sleeves to compete in a free market. Their “solution” to legal competition was and is to make the competition illegal. That’s why the music and movie industries have no problem suing their customers. The copyright industry doesn’t really have customers. They have tolls which we, by law, are required to pay under certain circumstances. When competition is created via new technology, they have new tolls added to the new technology. That’s a completely different mindset from someone running a business such as a restaurant.

So when I hear about someone who lived off the teet of copyright for his entire life, but who’s unable to come up with a business model that works in a free market, I’m not surprised at all. People like Paul McGuinness are not businessmen. They’re middlemen who live off what the government grants them. They never create. They never innovate. They merely take their cut. When their cut gets too small, they blame everyone but themselves. They even go as far as to sue their own customers or demand to have them kicked off the internet. As if that would magically make them start paying the old tolls again. People like McGuinness think this way because they don’t understand how businesses or markets work. And because they know of no other way.

Share this:

Since most GOP voters have jobs, it makes sense for the GOP to attack the unemployed. They’ve been doing that for years. Heck, centuries. Which is ironic, because the Right actually loves high unemployment because it lowers wages and benefits.

But the GOP’s latest move is to attack the employed. Not the unemployed, but the employed. According to an article on the Huffington Post, GOP politicians are promising to ensure that public servants such as teachers, the police, and firefighters lose their jobs.

The GOP are promising to get voters fired and to increase the unemployment rate. But yet the GOP has a rabid and large support base?! Thomas Frank asked, What’s the matter with Kansas? I’m asking, what’s the matter with the US?

The answer is that the Right has become the new “me generation.” It’s all about them and protecting what they have and what they feel they deserve. Their hopes and dreams for the future are crumbling. They know their country is worse off now than when they were kids. But instead of actually working to make our society and community better, they make scapegoats out of the weakest and most unfortunate and demand via protests that the government take action to help them.

I’m sure you’ve seen the video of Tea Baggers attacking a man with Parkinson’s. To the Tea Baggers the guy is worthless because he cannot carry his own weight and wants things for free.

Do they know the guy? Are they certain he didn’t pay for insurance but was arbitrarily denied by an insurance company death panel? Do they know he’s not a veteran who is not getting the care he deserves because the GOP has turned its back on veteran hospitals?

No they don’t. They’re just attacking him because they feel he’s “taking” from them. And as I said, it’s all about them.

The same is true of healthcare reform. Do you know why the vast majority of people on the Right feel that healthcare reform is not needed? It’s real simple.

It’s because the vast majority of people on the Right are healthy. That’s it. When you’re healthy, health insurance works because you’ve never given your insurance company any reason to arbitrarily deny a claim. So for the vast majority of people in the Right, they feel that health insurance works.

And since it’s all about them, they don’t want to change anything to help people who are not being served by health insurance. Even though the new system would not change anything in their lives, and would drastically change the lives of the uninsured. Even though it would remove a huge burden of paying for insurance from the private sector and place it on those who actually use it. Which is normally something the Right loves. Even though it would simplify the process by eliminating redundant red tape and bureaucracy, something else the Right loves to do.

But the Right is against it. Because it’s all about them. They’d rather have 20% of the population unable to work to save a few dollars a year on their taxes. They’d rather have children die from lack of food and medical care rather than settle for a 42″ TV instead of a 46″. It’s about their money, not someone else’s livelihood or life.

And the Right justifies their anger by blaming anyone who is not fortunate. Did the guy with Parkinson’s go out of his way to get that disease? Was it his fault? Nope. But as far as the Right is concerned, the worst sin is not being able to support yourself. If a child dies from lack of medical attention, it’s the lazy drug addicted parent’s fault.

It is never the Right’s fault.

I’m reminded of a drive I made to Colorado. I stopped in a small mid-western town and read one of those historical plaques. Back in the 1800s the town was formed by Christians. It was a farming commune. Everyone farmed for the common good. Everything you grew was for the community. The old and less fortunate were taken care of, including health care. Schools were provided by the community for the entire community.

About a 100 years ago Christianity was about community. Heck, my grandparents met at a communist hall in the UP. Back then not being concerned with your own selfish wants and desires was very Christian. Working for the common goal of helping your community was very Christian back then. I think the word I’m looking for is sacrifice. Back then it was common for Christians to sacrifice their own wants and desires for the greater community. (It seems there was some famous Jewish carpenter who sacrificed his life for the greater good. What was his name again?!) Anyway, those days are gone. It’s all about “me” now. What can the government do for “me”?

Share this:

A small publishing company by the name of Wilder Publications has placed the above warning on reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others.

Of course Right-Wing nuts are going ballistic. This guy goes on a Left-bashing tirade in his blog saying,

If you have any doubt that liberals are trying to radically change this great nation, look no further than Wilder Publications. The company, which the Constitution, prints among the historical documents, with a disclaimer that essentially provides founding documents America are no longer valid.

Although I can’t help but think that blog post is satire. Nowadays it’s hard to tell the difference between what a Right-Wing nut says and a joke. Real hard.

Anyway, my guess is that the publisher puts this “warning” on all of its public domain/ancient republications. Certainly the warning should not have been used in these instances, but I highly doubt there was any nefarious intent in using it.

What gets my blood boiling is the publisher’s claim of ownership of these documents in its “all rights reserved” section. Do the lawyers at Wilder Publications seriously believe no one can copy the US Constitution?

Share this:

The person should be stripped completely naked, taken deep into the Amazon rain forest, securely hung from a tree by his feet, his hands securely handcuffed behind his back, his body covered with copious amounts of honey, and then left alone.

In a perfect world Dick Cheney would die in this manner.

Share this: