Archive for the ‘Business’ Category
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, Kamala Harris, MEXICO, MICHELLE OBAMA, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, sanctuary cities, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, U.S.-MEXICO WALL, UPI, USA TODAY, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 17, 2018 at 12:56 am
The Federal Government is heading for a shutdown by January 19.
A major reason for this is Presidential Donald Trump’s demand that Congress fund a massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Its purpose: To end illegal immigration from Mexico.
And Democrats—seeing this as an election-year issue—are totally opposed to the wall.
During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly boasted: “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall.”
But there are serious obstacles to erecting such a barrier:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles—and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and alien smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States—as they are now doing.
There are, in fact, cheaper and more effective remedies for combating illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have passed ordinances that ban municipal funds or resources from being used to enforce federal immigration laws. As a result, police or municipal employees are not allowed to inquire about citizens’ immigration status.
(2) Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s United States Senator—created a secret and illegal program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
(3) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(4) CEOs whose companies—like Wal-Mart—systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 20 years.
Convicting a score of CEOs would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border.
Word would quickly get around—and CEOs across the nation would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
(5) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States can be prosecuted for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should—like their parents—be subject to deportation.
(6) The United States Government—from the President on down—should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
In 2010, Michelle Obama visited New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland.
A second-grader said: “My mom, she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.”
“Yeah, well, that’s something that we have to work on right?” replied Mrs. Obama. “To make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right?”
The girl then said: “But my mom doesn’t have any….”
Obama: “Well, we’ll have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody’s got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens.”
Mexico doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws. Neither should the United States.
(7) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language—Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(8) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries—such as China and Mexico—whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanted’s on the United States now comes at an unfavorably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CHERYL BEHYMER, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, EMPLOYERS, FACEBOOK, FISHER & PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GLASSDOOR, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, JERRY BROWN, JOB-SEEKERS, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALARY HISTORY, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SUSAN EGGMAN, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UNEMPLOYMENT, UPI, USA TODAY, USA TODAY NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, WAGE GAP, X
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on January 3, 2018 at 2:38 am
“All those who have written upon civil institutions demonstrate…that whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.
“If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time, it must be attributed to some unknown reason; and we must assume that it lacked occasion to show itself. But time, which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light.”
Niccolo Machiavelli knew what he was writing about.
And now, California legislators have wisely—if belatedly—acted on that warning by reigning in the vicious nature of corporate employers.
As of January 1, it is now illegal for California employers to ask job applicants about their former salaries and benefits.
Governor Jerry Brown signed a new state privacy bill into law during the last week of December, 2017.
This is good news for applicants who believe they shouldn’t be judged on how much—or little—money they earned in the past.
The truth is that, for decades, employers have used “salary histories” to discriminate against applicants who earned large—or small—salaries in their previous jobs.
For example: If an applicant had been paid a miserly wage even though he had performed major tasks for an employer, the new potential one would use that low salary as a weapon against him: “Well, it says here you earned $—– in your most recent job. Why should we pay you more than that?”
And if an applicant had earned a high salary, an employer would often use that against him: “We can’t afford to match that, let alone give you more than that.” In many cases, employers simply refused to give a reason for refusing to hire the applicant.
In either case, it was clearly an “I win/You lose” situation.
And, naturally, when employers whined about how expensive it was to pay a living wage to those who made their profits a reality, they never mentioned the exorbitant salary paid to their own CEO.
According to Glassdoor: “Across all companies, the average CEO pay was $13.8 million per year, the average median worker pay was about $77,800, and the average ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay was 204. In other words, on average, CEOs earn around 204 times what his or her median worker earns.” 
One job-seeking applicant tried to finesse the salary history demand by filling out the job application form except for the salary history part. He then attached a cover-letter, which read:
“I am interested in speaking with you or one of your representatives about the above-named position. I have filled out the required application—-with the exception of the box inquiring into my Current/last Income.
“I have in the past responded to ‘Salary History’ inquires and have found these have only one purpose: To elicit the lowest salary received, so that the salary to be offered can be adjusted to that level.
“I have been paid on a per-hour basis, a per-assignment basis, and on a bi-weekly basis. Each of these salaries was for a different job, and each job required a specific set of skills and efforts on my part.
“I am prepared to discuss in detail how my skills and experiences can prove of use to your company. But I do not discuss past salaries earned with anyone but the Internal Revenue Service.
“If you are prepared to hire on the basis of what I can do for your company, and not on the basis of what other employers have paid me in the past for assignments that had nothing to do with your company, please contact me at your earliest convenience.”
As of January 1, 2018, California job-seekers will no longer have to worry about that part of the application.
Supporters of the law believe it will help reduce the notorious wage-gap between male and female employees.
“Women negotiating a salary shouldn’t have to wrestle an entire history of wage disparity,” said the bill’s principal author, California Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman.
California’s new law also requires potential employers to disclose a salary range for the job in question, should an applicant ask about it.
This arms job seekers with valuable information because they will now know how much a company is willing to offer for that position.
In the past, employers held that information close to the vest as one more way of gaining control over their potential employee.
Although California has long been a trailblazer in employee/employer relations, it was not the first state to pass such a law. Oregon, Delaware and Massachusetts had already passed laws forbidding employers from asking about salary history.
Many employers and their paid shills believe that President Calvin Coolidge was right when he said: “The man who builds a factory builds a temple; the man who works there worships there.”
Cheryl Behymer, an attorney for the law firm Fisher & Phillips, which represents employers, said: “Here’s another point where the government is dictating to an employer how to conduct its business and employers resent that.”
As do all tyrants forced to relinquish any part of their tyranny.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ARMAGEDDON, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, FACEBOOK, JESUS CHRIST, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEW YEAR'S DAY, NEW YEAR'S EVE, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, RIOTS, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SOREN KIERKEGAARD, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE MILLENNIUM, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, Y2K
In Business, History, Social commentary on January 2, 2018 at 12:06 am
New Year’s Eve, 2017, now lies behind us.
But for those who consciously lived through December 31, 1999, there will never be another New Year’s Eve like it.
New Year’s Eve is traditionally a time for people to reflect on the major events of the previous 12 months. Some of these are highly personal. Others have been shared by the entire country.
Some of these remembrances inevitably bring pleasure. Others bring pain.
But at the heart of every New Year’s Eve celebration is the fantasy that you get to start fresh in a matter of hours. And with that fantasy comes hope—that, this time, you can put your sorrows and failures behind you.
New Year’s Eve, 1999, was marked far more by apprehension and fear than joy.
- Fear of Y2K—that our highly computerized, globally-interconnected world would crash when the “19″ at the start of every year was replaced with a “20″.
- Fear of Armageddon—that Jesus, after dying 2,000 years ago, would return to destroy mankind (except for those 144,000 righteous souls He deemed worthy of salvation).
- Fear of the Millennium itself—of ending not simply another decade and century but an entire thousand-year period of history, and thus losing our historical ties to the familiar highlights of our own (and America’s) past.
And, especially where Y2K was concerned, news commentators were quick to stoke our anxieties.
For those living on the West Coast of the United States on December 31, 1999, the day began with news reports of celebrations of the New Year in such distant countries as Australia and New Zealand.
“So far,” each of these reports ended, “there have been no reports of Y2K-related outages.”
But the underlying message was clear: Stay tuned—it could still happen. And this message kept blaring for the rest of the day and into the evening.
Long before New Year’s Eve, TV newscasters repeatedly warned that, when midnight struck on January 1, 2000, the three places you did not want to be were:
- In an airplane.
- In an elevator.
- In a hospital.
Countless numbers of people in America and around the world stocked up on food, water, batteries and other essentials for surviving an emergency.
Merchants and police feared widespread rioting and violence. If Y2K didn’t set it off, then fears of a heaven-sent Apocalypse might.
In San Francisco, along Powell Street—a major center of tourism and commerce—store owners boarded up their doors and windows as New Year’s Eve approached. Many closed earlier than usual that day.
At 9 p.m. California time, a friend of mine turned off a VCR and turned on a local news station to watch celebrations—or chaos—unfold in New York City.
If the lights went off in New York at midnight Eastern time, then, in three more hours, the same would happen in California.
When he saw lights glittering in Times Square, he felt reasonably certain that Y2K would probably be a dud.
Fortunately, no Y2K disasters occurred.
Three people I know decided to throw an “End of the World” party. They didn’t believe the world was coming to an end. But they decided to throw an “absolute last blast” party as though it were.
Among the items they stockpiled for this occasion:
- Country pork spareribs
- Yams
- Crabs
- Apple cidar
- Black olives
- Fresh cranberries
- Avacodos
- Chocolate chip ice cream
- Lambrusco
- Gin and tonic water
- Root beer
- Smoked cheese
- Artichoke hearts
- Pumpkin cream mousse cake
- Chocolate cake
- Pickles
- Asparagus
It was definitely an unforgettable night.
New Year’s Eve 1999 is now 18 years distant. But some lessons may still be learned from it:
Each year is a journey unto itself–filled with countless joys and sorrows. Many of these joys can’t be predicted. And many of these tragedies can’t be prevented.
Learn to tell real dangers from imaginary ones. Computers are real—and sometimes they crash. Men who died 2,000 years ago do not leap out of graveyards, no matter what their disciples predict.
Don’t expect any particular year to usher in the Apocalypse. In any given year there will be wars, famines, earthquakes, riots, floods and a host of other disasters. These have always been with us–and always will be. As Abraham Lincoln once said: “The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.”
Don’t expect some Great Leader to lead you to success. As Gaius Cassius says in William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”: “Men at some time are masters of their fate. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.”
Don’t expect any particular year or event to usher in your happiness. To again quote Lincoln: “Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.”
If your life seems to make no sense to you, consider this: The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once noted: “Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.”
1984, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRISTMAS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, FACEBOOK, FOX NEWS, GEORGE ORWELL, JESUS, MEGYN KELLY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SANTA CLAUS, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, STARBUCK'S, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WAR ON CHRISTMAS
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on December 28, 2017 at 12:22 am
The annual “war on Christmas” is over—for now.
Every December, Americans relive the traditions of the Christmas holiday season:
- Christmas trees
- Nativity scenes
- Singing carols
- Exchanging gifts with family and friends.
And if you’re an employee of Fox News, creating fresh ways to stir up controversy over a non-existent “war on Christmas.”
Stirring up false controversies is a daily assignment for the alleged reporters of Fox News, which is owned by Right-wing oligarch Rupert Murdoch.
But Christmas is special, so, each year, the executives at Fox find a new way to stir up emotions by resurrecting the “war on Christmas” slander.
In 2013, it fell to Fox hostess Megyn Kelly to carry the ball. And she did so on December 11 on “The Kelly File,” her then-popular Fox News program.
Referring to an article by Slate writer Aisha Harris on “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore,” she said:
“When I saw this headline, I kinda laughed and I said, ‘Oh, this is ridiculous. Yet another person claiming it’s racist to have a white Santa.’
“And by the way, for all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is maybe just arguing that we should also have a black Santa. But, you know, Santa is what he is, and just so you know, we’re just debating this because someone wrote about it, kids.”
Of course, Santa Claus is a completely fictional character. Arguing about his skin color is as pointless as arguing about his weight.
But Kelly wasn’t content to talk only about Santa. So she turned next to Jesus, a historical figure about whom we have not a single reference to his appearance, let alone a picture.
“Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change. You know, I mean, Jesus was a white man, too,” Kelly said.
“He was a historical figure; that’s a verifiable fact—as is Santa, I want you kids watching to know that—but my point is: How do you revise it, in the middle of the legacy of the story, and change Santa from white to black?”
Santa Claus a verifiable historical figure? Not even Charlie Brown, in the annually telecast “Peanuts” Christmas special, would make that claim.
Like Fox News, Donald Trump has found there’s a lot of support to be gained by claiming there’s a “war on Christmas.”
In 2015, Starbucks issued a plain red cup minus imagery, triggering a backlash among image-obsessed Christians, who saw it as an “attack” on Christmas.
When Trump—then running for President—learned of the change in Starbucks cups, he was outraged. Or claimed to be.
“Did you read about Starbucks?” Trump asked supporters during a rally in Springfield, Ill. “No more ‘Merry Christmas’ at Starbucks. No more. Maybe we should boycott Starbucks.
“If I become president, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again,” Trump told the crowd—as if, by becoming President, he could, like a king, issue such an order. “That I can tell you. That I can tell you! Unbelievable.”
Donald Trump
On November 17, 2016, a Trumpster using the screen name Baked Alaska came up with a new idea to intimidate Starbucks.
Going on Twitter, he advised fellow Trumpsters to proceed with “Operation #TrumpCup.” All they had to do was:
- Go to Starbucks & tell them your name is Trump.
- If they refuse take video
- Pls share and spread the word.
One Trumpster subsequently posted on Twitter the following: “I got my Starbucks with Trump name. He yelled Trump get your drink #TrumpCup“
Another one proudly tweeted: “@bakedalaska did this today. They didn’t want to, said it was too political. I reminded her the campaign was over & he’s our president now. pic.twitter.com/LHgi7Vqexh.”
And after Trump became President, his fanatical followers were quick to thank him for “allowing us to say ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”
They did so in a $1 million ad that began running after Christmas Day.
Sponsored by the pro-Trump political action committee, America First Policies, the ad features several “average Americans” thanking Trump in the style of a king’s subjects paying homage to an absolute monarch:
Narrator: “Every day, Americans are standing up to thank President Trump for making America great again.”
Man: “Thank you for cutting my taxes.”
Man: “Thank you for fixing our economy.”
Woman: “Thank you for keeping my family safe.”
Man: “Thank you for putting America first.”
And, at the end, a little girl says, “Thank you, President Trump, for letting us say ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”
In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, Oceania is always at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. Its citizens are kept in a constant state of frenzy as they’re directed to search for endless “enemies of the state.”
This, in turn, allows the unseen rulers of Oceania to run their dictatorship without interference.
It’s a blueprint for power not lost on the men who run Fox News.
Or on Donald Trump
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CLASS WARFARE, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DANA CARVEY, DICK CHENEY, ECONOMIC DISPARITY, FACEBOOK, FRANK CAPRA, GEORGE BAILEY, HENRY F. POTTER, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, JAMES STEWART, LIONEL BARRYMORE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MOVIES, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW Y ORK TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UNEMPLOYMENT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Business, Entertainment, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 25, 2017 at 12:01 am
Every Christmas, TV audiences find comfort and triumph in the rerunning of a black-and-white 1946 movie: It’s a Wonderful Life.
It’s the story of George Bailey (James Stewart), a decent husband and father who hovers on the brink of suicide—until his guardian angel, Clarence, suddenly intervenes.
Clarence reveals to George what his home town, Bedford Falls, New York, would be like if he had never been born. George finds himself shocked to learn:
- With no counterweight to the schemes of rapacious slumlord Henry F. Potter, Bedford Falls becomes Potterville, filled with pawn shops and sleazy nightclubs.
- With no George Bailey to save his younger brother, Harry, from drowning in a frozen pond, Harry drowns.
- With no Harry to live to become a Naval fighter pilot in World War II, he’s not on hand to shoot down two Japanese planes targeting an American troopship.
- As a result, the troopship and its crew are destroyed.
George is forced to face the significant role he has played in the lives of so many others.
Armed with this knowledge, he once again embraces life, running through the snow-covered streets of Bedford Falls and shouting “Merry Christmas!” to everyone he meets.
Audiences have hailed George Bailey as an Everyman hero—and the film as a life-affirming testament to the unique importance of each individual.
But there is another aspect of the movie that has not been so closely studied: The legacy of its villain, Henry F. Potter, who, as played by Lionel Barrymore, bears a striking resemblance to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Henry F. Potter
It is Potter—the richest man in Bedford Falls—whose insatiable greed threatens to destroy it. And it is Potter whose criminality drives George Bailey to the brink of suicide.
The antagonism between Bailey and Potter starts early in the movie. George dreams of leaving Bedford Falls and building skyscrapers. Meanwhile, he works at the Bailey Building and Loan Association, which plays a vital role in the life of the community.
Potter, a member of the Building and Loan Association board, tries to persuade the board of directors to dissolve the firm. He objects to their providing home loans for the working poor.
George persuades them to reject Potter’s proposal, but they agree only on condition that George run the Building and Loan. Reluctantly, George agrees.
Later, Potter tries to lure George away from the Building and Loan, offering him a $20,000 salary and the chance to visit Europe. George is briefly tempted.
But then he realizes that Potter intends to close down the Building and Loan and deny financial help to those who most need it. Angrily, he turns down Potter’s offer:
“You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn’t, Mr. Potter!
“In the whole vast configuration of things, I’d say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider.”
It is a setback for Potter, but he’s willing to bide his time for revenge.
On Christmas Eve morning, the town prepares a hero’s welcome for George’s brother, Harry. George’s scatter-brained Uncle Billy visits Potter’s bank to deposit $8,000 of the Building and Loan’s cash funds.
He taunts Potter by reading the newspaper headlines announcing the coming tribute. Potter snatches the paper, and Billy unthinkingly allows the money to be snatched with it.
When Billy leaves, Potter opens the paper and sees the money. He keeps it, knowing that misplacement of bank money will bankrupt the Building and Loan and bring criminal charges against George.
But at the last minute, word of George’s plight reaches his wide range of grateful friends. A flood of townspeople arrive with more than enough donations to save George and the Building and Loan.
The movie ends on a triumphant note, with George basking in the glow of love from his family and friends.
But no critic seems to have noticed that Henry Potter’s theft has gone unnoticed. (Uncle Billy can’t recall how he lost the money.) Potter is richer by $8,000. And ready to go on taking advantage of others.
Perhaps it’s time to see Potter’s actions in a new light—that of America’s richest 1%, ever ready to prey upon the weaknesses of others.
Justice never catches up with Potter in the movie. But the joke-writers at Saturday Night Live have conjured up a satisfactory punishment for his avarice.
In this version, Uncle Billy suddenly remembers that he left the money with Potter. Enraged, George Bailey (Dana Carvey) leads his crowd of avenging friends to Potter’s office.
Potter realizes the jig is up and offers to return the money. But George wants more than that—and he and his friends proceed to stomp and beat Potter to death.
The skit ends with with George and his friends singing “Auld Ang Syne”—as they do in the movie—as they finish off Potter with clubs.
America is rapidly a divided nation—one where the richest 1% lord it over an increasingly impoverished 99%.
The time may be coming when many Americans are ready to embrace the SNL approach to economic justice.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANITA STAVER, AP, BATHROOMS, BOYCOTTS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, CHRISTIAN RIGHT, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, LIBERTY COUNCIL, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PACE UNIVERSITY'S LUBIN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, POLITICO, PROTESTS, RAW STORY, RESTROOMS, REUTERS, RIGHT-WINGERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TARGET DEPARTMENT STORES, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TRANSGENDERS, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VIOLENCE
In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on November 23, 2017 at 11:09 am
On April 19, 2016, in a blog post, Target announced that its customers could use any bathroom or fitting room that matched the gender they thought they belonged to.
“We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity,” read the official Target statement.
“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”
Target corporate headquarters
Target posted its new policy in response to North Carolina’s HB2 law requiring men to use bathrooms marked “MEN” and women to use bathrooms marked “WOMEN”.
This was clearly a Politically Correct sop to the “transgender” community.
To drive home this point, Target converted half of its famous red bull’s-eye logo into a gay-pride rainbow.
The announcement won Target much praise on social media. On Target’s Facebook page, the following posts appeared:
“I want to tell you that I will forever be a Target shopper.”
“You have, again, shown that your stores are inclusive and meant to be a safe haven, and I intend to repay your loyalty with my own.”
But others were enraged, and made no effort to hide it.
“Shame on Target,” read one post. “Restrooms have placards depicting gender on them for a reason. I will not step foot in another Target.”
Since its 2016 announcement, more than 1.2 million people have signed a pledge to boycott the store owing to its transgender policy.
The protesters’ goal: Force Target to reverse its policy—or, failing that, to hit the retailer in its pocketbook by persuading customers to shop elsewhere.
So far, Target CEO Brian Cornell has refused to budge: “We took a stance and we are going to continue to embrace our belief of diversity and inclusion,” he said on CNBC.
Critics have held protests at Target stores across the country—and show no signs of ending.
Many are demanding access to bathrooms of the opposite sex to prove that “perverts” can now prey on women and children as a result of the policy.
One male protester entered a Target store and asked an employee if he could use the women’s bathroom because that’s where he felt comfortable. The employee gave him permission and said that if any women complained, “they can come and we will speak to that.”
Eighty million Americans shopped at Target’s stores every month before the bathroom policy change.
“The boycott is not going to last very long,” predicted Larry Chiagouris, a professor of marketing at Pace University’s Lubin School of Business in New York: “There is a big difference between signing a petition compared to not taking advantage of a big sale at Target. People will always take advantage of the sale.”
The boycott has cost Target millions in lost sales and added expenses. Shopper traffic and same-store sales started sliding for the first time in years after the revised bathroom policy announcement.
Target has been forced to spend $20 million installing single-occupancy bathrooms in all its stores to appease critics of the policy-change.
In 2016, sales fell nearly 6% in the three quarters after the announcement—compared with the same period in 2015. Same-store sales have dropped every quarter since the post.
Yet Target continues to stick to its revised bathroom-use policy.
Right-wingers have loudly claimed that Target’s bathroom policy puts women in danger. But they have refused to condemn their own leader—Donald Trump—for entering “women’s only” locker rooms.
Donald Trump
During an appearance on The Howard Stern Show in 2005, Trump described going backstage at the beauty pageants while the contestants were undressed.
“Before a show, I’ll go backstage and everyone’s getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. You know, I’m inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good.
“You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.”
According to a BuzzFeed story, Trump did just that in 1997 with former Miss Teen USA contestants. Four contestants—including one who was 15—said that Trump walked into the dressing area while they were changing.
One of them called it “shocking” and “creepy” and said she rushed to cover herself. Another recalled that the contestants were “just scrambling to grab stuff… whatever garments they had.”
And when insults, threats and boycotts fail to gain the results they desire, Right-wingers can always be counted on to resort to violence.
Anita Staver, president of the Orlando-based Liberty Council, a theocratic law group, says she will be taking her gun inside the restrooms at Target stores from now on.
On April 22, 2016, she posted on Twitter: “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard.” #BoycottTarget @Target
Those opposed to Target’s bathroom policy aren’t going to change their minds—no matter how Neanderthal this appears to Target’s management.
Eventually, the retailer will be forced to choose between placating the “needs” of a minority most Americans regard as perverted freaks—and its own bottom line.
ABC NEWS, AL PACINO, ALABAMA, ALTERNET, AP, BREITBART NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DOUG JONES, EMILIO BARZINI, FACEBOOK, FOX NEWS, FREDO CORLEONE, JAMES CCAN, JOHN CAZALE, MAFIA, MARLON BRANDO, MICHAEL CORELEONE, MITCH MCCONNELL, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PAUL RYAN, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, ROY MOORE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEXUAL PREDATORS, SLATE, SONNY CORLEONE, STEVE BANNON, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GODFATHER, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VITO CORELEONE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 16, 2017 at 12:17 am
In 1972, warfare erupted the between the two most powerful Mafia families of New York.
On one side: The Corleone Family, headed by “Don Vito” Corleone. On the other: The Barzini Family, whose boss was Emilio Barzini.
Moviegoers flooded theaters across the nation to make The Godfather the highest-grossing film of 1972—and, for a time, the highest-grossing film ever made.
Audiences rooted for the Corleones and thrilled whenever a Barzini “soldier” bit the concrete. And they moaned when Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) was shot and wounded at an outdoor market and Sonny Corleone (James Caan) got riddled by machine guns on a New Jersey causeway.
Why did so many moviegoers feel compelled to side with the Corleones?
One reason was that, early in the film, Don Corleone rejects an offer by the Barzini Family to enter the narcotics-trafficking business.
Many viewers saw this as proof that “Don Vito” was more honest than other Mafia chiefs who did enter the drug trade. In fact, Corleone made it clear that he wanted to stay out for completely practical reasons.
When speaking with Virgil Sollotzzo, the Turkish drug kingpin backed by the Barzinis, Corleone says: “It makes no difference to me what a man does for a living. But your business is a little dangerous.
“It’s true I have a lot of friends who are judges and politicians. And they don’t mind if people want to gamble, or drink, or even pay for a woman. But they wouldn’t be so friendly if they knew my business was drugs.”
In short, it wasn’t morality that led him to steer clear of narcotics trafficking. He simply didn’t want to go to prison.
The other reason so many viewers identified with the Corleones lay in the brilliant casting of their members.
- Marlon Brando—considered by many the greatest actor of his time—headed the cast.
- Al Pacino, then an unknown, aroused sympathy as Michael, the Family outsider forced by the shooting of his father to become the Boss of All Bosses.
- James Caan (as Sonny) is handsome and the defender of his brutalized sister, Connie, against her abusive husband, Carlo Rizzi.
- John Cazale (as Fredo) is riddled with insecurities and not very bright, won the audiences’ sympathy by his sheer helplessness when compared to his ruthless siblings.
But the fact remained that the Corleones—for all their homilies about “honor” and “loyalty”—were every bit as greedy and lethal as their Mafia competitors. They just played the game more ruthlessly—and successfully.
All of which brings us to the current Mafia-like struggle within the Republican party in Alabama.
On one side: Roy Moore, the twice-ousted former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, who is running for U.S. Senator.
Roy Moore
On the other: “Establishment” Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan.
The uproar started when four women, in a Washington Post story, accused Moore of seeking romantic relationships with four teenage girls while he was in his 30s, and even trolling malls for such dates.
The worst of these charges came from Leigh Corfman, who said that, when she was 14, Moore took off her “shirt and pants and removed his clothes,” touched her “over her bra and underpants” and “guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.”
One of Moore’s defenders is Steve Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News, an online Right-wing news, opinion and commentary website.
“This is nothing less than the politics of personal destruction,” he told Bloomberg News. “And they need to destroy him by any means necessary.”
Another is Sean Hannity, a talk show host on Fascistic Fox News. Interviewed on Hannity’s program, Moore said he did “not generally” remember dating teenagers when he was in his 30s.
Many Republicans want President Donald Trump to publicly urge Moore to step aside. But Trump is extremely reluctant to do so—and for good reason.
On October 12, 2016, The Palm Beach Post, The New York Times and People all published stories of women claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Trump. By October 14, at least 12 women had publicly accused Trump of sexually inappropriate behavior.
Trump, having become the poster boy of sexual harassment—if not predators—does not want the public once again reminded of his own repellent behavior.
There are several possible outcomes here—all of them disastrous for the Republican party.
- Moore could win—thus becoming a national embarrassment to Republicans.
- Moore could lose to his Democratic challenger, Doug Jones—thus giving Democrats one more Senator to oppose the Trump agenda.
- Moore could win—and be expelled from the Senate by his fellow Republicans. This would require a two-thirds majority vote. It would ignite a civil war among “establishment” Republicans like McConnell and “anti-establishment” Right-wingers like Bannon, Hannity and even Trump.
- No matter what Trump does, it will prove a lose/lose issue for Republicans. If he condemns Moore, he will be accused of hypocrisy. If he doesn’t, he will be accused of silently condoning sexually predatory behavior.
When predatory Mafiosi wipe each other out, honest citizens win. When Fascistic Republicans wage war on each other, democracy wins.
9/11, A FEW GOOD MEN, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, EARL BUTZ, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, JACK NICHOLSON, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PAT BOONE, PLUTARCH, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, ROLLING STONE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEX, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TOM CRUISE, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 9, 2017 at 1:18 am
In the 1992 courtroom drama, “A Few God Men,” Jack Nicholson, as Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup, utters a line that has since become famous.
When his prosecutor, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) demands the truth about the murder of a fellow Marine, Jessup shouts: “You can’t handle the truth!”
Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”
Apparently, many of those who work in the television news business feel the same way about their audience.
[WARNING: This column contains some words that some readers may find offensive. Read on at your own risk.]
On February 9, 2016, businessman Donald Trump scored a new blow at his Rafael “Ted” Cruz, his closest rival for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Speaking at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump attacked Cruz, the United States Senator from Texas, for being unwilling to support the widespread use of torture against America’s Islamic enemies.
“He’s a pussy!” yelled a woman in the crowd.
Apparently a certain portion of the attendees didn’t hear–or misheard–the insult. So Trump–pretending to be shocked–repeated it for them:
“She said–I never expect to hear that from you again! She said: ‘He’s a pussy.’ That’s terrible.”
“What kind of people do I have here?” joked Trump, clearly playing to the boisterous crowd.
Donald Trump
The incident went viral on social media. But all the major TV news outlets–for ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC–bleeped the word and/or coyly referred to it as “the P-word.”
It was as if they assumed their viewers would of course know what had been said despite the networks’ censorship of it. And if viewers didn’t already know what the woman–and Trump–had said, the networks weren’t going to enlighten them.
Of course, “the P-word” could just as easily have been “prick” or “pervert.” So it’s understandable that many viewers might have thought a very different word had been used.
No doubt the networks hoped to avoid offending large numbers of viewers.
But when the use of certain words becomes central to a news story, editors and reporters should have the courage to reveal just what was said. It should then be up to the audience to decide if the language was offensive–and, if so, if its user deserves condemnation.
The evening news is–supposedly–aimed at voting-age adults. And adults need–and deserve–the hard truth about the world they live in. Only then do they have a chance to reform it–if, in fact, they decide it needs reforming.
Those who wanted to learn–rather than guess–what Trump had repeated had to turn to the Internet or to a handful of news source such as Vox: Policy and Politics.
In their defense, the networks could argue that the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television, does not usually permit the word “pussy” to be aired between 6 am and 10 pm.
On the other hand, immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks, all the major TV networks endlessly replayed the destruction of the World Trade Center, with the resulting deaths of hundreds of men and women.
Censorship, then, tends to center on two types of subject material:
- Sex, or “obscenity,” which is sex-related; and
- Race, meaning racial slurs that would offend some minority group.
An example of race-related censorship occurred during the short-lived administration of President Gerald R. Ford.
During a lull in the 1976 Republican convention, entertainer Pat Boone asked Earl Butz, then Secretary of Agriculture: Why was the party of Lincoln having so much trouble winning black votes for its candidates?
“I’ll tell you what the coloreds want,” said Butz. “It’s three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit.”
Earl Butz
Unknown to Butz, a Rolling Stone reporter was standing nearby. When his comments became public, Butz was quickly forced to resign.
Meanwhile, most TV and print media struggled to protect their audiences from the truth of Butz’ racism. Many newspapers simply reported that Butz had said something too obscene to print. Some invited their readers to contact the editors if they wanted more information.
TV newsmen generally described Butz’ firing as stemming from “a racially-offensive remark,” which they refused to explain.
In short: A high-ranking government official had been fired, but audiences were not allowed to judge whether his language justified that termination.
Forty years later, TV news viewers were again prevented from reaching their own conclusions about Trump’s repetition of the slur aimed at his rival.
Nor is there any guarantee that such censorship will not occur again.
Censoring the truth has always been a hallmark of dictatorships. It has no place in a democracy–despite the motives of those doing the censoring.
The ancient historian, Plutarch, sounded a warning that remains timely:
“And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.”
In a democracy, citizens must be alert for those tell-tale expressions or jests. And this demands that the media, in turn, have the courage to bring those truths to their attention.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ARAB SHEIKS, “DROOPERS”, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLACKS, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUMS, BUZZFEED, CAITLYN JENNER, CBS NEWS, CNN, COSTUMES, CRAZED KILLERS, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, ESCAPED MENTAL PATIENTS, FACEBOOK, FAT PERSONS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEISHAS, HALLOWEEN, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HOMOSEXUALS, HUFFINGTON POST, ILLEGAL ALIENS, INDIAN SNAKE CHARMERS, MEDIA MATTERS, MEXICANS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAUGHTY PRIESTS, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, NURSES, PBS NEWSHOUR, PIMPS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, ROBERT E. LEE, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO CASTRO DISTRICT, SEATTLE TIMES, SEXY CONVICTS, SEXY HAREM SLAVES, SEXY PRISON GUARDS, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISTS, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY
In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on October 26, 2017 at 12:58 am
Halloween isn’t just for kids anymore.
In 2017, about 179 million Americans will participate in Halloween, and will spend an estimated $9.1 billion. Yes, that’s with a “b”. That will be up from 2016, when 171 million Americans spent $8.4 billion.
The average American will spend $25 on candy, $30 on Halloween decor, and costumes (men will spend $96 each, women $77).
Those putting out this avalanche of money will, of course, be adults. And a lot of those costumes will be worn by adults at parties across the nation.
This will be especially true in San Francisco.
In 1979, Halloween in its Castro District shifted from being a children’s event to a celebration among homosexuals.
The massive crowds quickly overwhelmed the streets, mass transit and due to the Castro’s location along two major transport corridors, disrupted traffic flow well outside the neighborhood.
In 2002, 500,000 people celebrated Halloween in the Castro and four people were stabbed.
It continued to grow into a massive annual street party until 2006, when a shooting wounded nine people and prompted the city to call off the event.
In 2007, 600 police were deployed in the Castro on Halloween. By 2010, San Francisco had banned the event in the Castro, directing celebrants to various balls and parties elsewhere.
But there’s another force working to suppress Halloween joy among its participants: Political Correctness.
A number of articles highlight a series of costumes it’s now Politically Incorrect to wear on Halloween. As a result, it’s now virtually impossible to enjoy this occasion without fearing that you’ll hurt the Politically Correct sensitivities of almost every group imaginable.
For example:
Adolf Hitler: PC types damn it as offensive and upsetting to many people—such as Jews generally and Holocaust survivors in particular. (The same could be said for any actor who portrays Hitler in a movie, such as Downfall or The Bunker.)
Homeless Persons: Such costumes will hurt the feelings of bums who won’t be attending Halloween parties anyway.
Illegal Alien: It’s not nice to spotlight people who constantly violate the immigration laws of the United States.
Terrorist: You might upset Islamics, who make up the vast majority of the world’s terrorists.
Others on the list of groups that uber-liberals believes it’s Politically Incorrect to dress up as include:
- Blacks (if you’re white).
- Naughty priests: It’s offensive to mock religious hypocrites who violate the bodies of children.
- Caitlyn Jenner: It’s cruel to make fun of a man who, as a man, won gold medals as an Olympic athlete—and then had sophisticated surgery to make himself look like a woman.
- Mexicans (such as a woman wearing a mariachi outfit or a man sporting a sombrero, serape and drooping moustache).
- Pimp: It’s offensive to blacks—especially those who make their living through the sale of women’s bodies.
- Sexy nurse: Because nursing is a serious profession—and everybody knows that nurses never enter into romances with doctors.
- Fat costumes: It will hurt the feelings of people who can barely fit into an airplane seat—many of them because they simply eat too much.
- Crazed Killer: Because it’s not fair to make fun of psychopathic murderers who prey on innocent men, women and children.
- Sexy Convict/Prison Guard: You could be accused of “trivializing” the United States prison system.
- The Wall: Wearing an imitation brick wall reminds people that millions of Hispanics have illegally violated America’s immigration laws—and millions more intend to.
- Arab Sheik: It’s not nice to dress like an OPEC board member in a long flowing robe and headdress.
- Sexy Harem Slave: Consider this the flip side of “Arab Sheik.” It’s uncool to remind people that women throughout the Islamic world are treated like chattel.
- “Droopers”: An obvious parody of the “Hooters” outfit, this features a fake pair of drooping breasts, thus winning it dual charges of “ageism” and “sexism.”
- Geisha: You could be accused of “cultural appropriation.”
- Hillary in Prison: Depicting a woman who often skirted the law as paying the price for it is anti-feminist.
- Robert E. Lee: Once a Southern icon of the Civil War, he is now damned as a racist defender of slavery.
- Escaped Mental Patient: Wearing an imitation straitjacket makes fun of real-life whackjobs who need to be restrained—for their own safety and that of others.
- Indian Snake Charmer: This costume supposedly appropriates Middle Eastern culture and has “disturbing sexual undertones”—if you equate snakes with penises.
If you follow the guidelines of these articles, you might as well skip Halloween altogether.
Yet no one objects to children—or adults—dressing up as pirates like Blackbeard, who once terrorized the oceans as modern-day terrorists menace the world.
No one objects to those who dress up like skeletons—when almost everyone has lost a friend or family member to death.
No one objects to those who dress up as witches, who have been associated with evil for hundreds of years.
No one objects to those who dress up as Satan—the literal personification of evil for millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims.
The whole idea of Halloween is to momentarily step into a character that’s utterly different from you.
So if you are a terrorist, try dressing up at Halloween as Dr. Albert Schweitzer or Florence Nightingale.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMAZON.COM, BED BATH AND BEYOND, BLOOMINGDALE’S, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY, BUZZFEED, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, CBS NEWS, CENTURY 21, CNN, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, FACEBOOK, FOUNDING FATHERS, GRAB YOUR WALLET, IVANKA TRUMP, JASON CHAFFETZ, JOE MCGINNIS, JOHN F. KENNEDY, KELLEYANNE CONWAY, LARRY NOBLE, LIBEL, MACY’S, MARSHALLS, MELANIA TRUMP, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEIMAN MARCUS, NEWS ALTERNET, NORDSTROM, NPR, POLITICO, PROSTITUTION, RAW STORY, ROSS, SAKS OFF FIFTH, SALON, SEAN SPICER, SEARS, SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT, SLATE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY MAIL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TJ MAXX, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, USA TODAY, WALMART, WEEK
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on October 25, 2017 at 12:42 am
President Donald Trump was furious.
Nordstrom department store had just dared to drop the clothing and accessories lines of his daughter, Ivanka.
So, true to form, on February 8 he took to Twitter to vent his displeasure: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person—always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!”
Donald Trump
He used his personal Twitter account—@realDonaldTrump—to send this message. In fact, he sent it 21 minutes into his daily Intelligence briefing.
Still not satisfied, he retweeted his attack on Nordstrom on his official POTUS (President of the United States) Twitter account.
In short, he used a taxpayer-funded account to benefit his daughter.
Not content to attack Nordstrom by himself, Trump enlisted other members of his administration as assailants.
One of these was his press secretary, Sean Spicer:
“There’s a targeting of her brand and it’s her name. She’s not directly running the company. It’s still her name on it. There are clearly efforts to undermine that name based on her father’s positions on particular policies that he’s taken. This is a direct attack on his policies and her name. Her because she is being maligned because they have a problem with his policies.”
Sean Spicer
Nordstrom retorted that its decision to drop the Ivanka Trump line was “based on performance.”
“Over the past year, and particularly in the last half of 2016, sales of the brand have steadily declined to the point where it didn’t make good business sense for us to continue with the line for now.
“We’ve had a great relationship with the Ivanka Trump team. We’ve had open conversations with them over the past year to share what we’ve seen and Ivanka was personally informed of our decision in early January.”
But for the Trumpinistas, that wasn’t the end of it.
On Februrary 9, Kelleyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Trump, became a TV shill for Ivanka.
Kelleyanne Conway
Appearing on the Right-wing Fox News Channel program, “Fox and Friends,” Kelleyanne spoke from no less prestigious a forum than the White House itself:
“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff. I hate shopping and I’m going to go get some myself today. It’s a wonderful line. I own some of it. I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”
For Democrats—and even some Republicans—Conway’s behavior was simply unacceptable.
Maryland Democratic Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, a member of the the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the committee.
In it, he requested a referral to the Office of Government Ethics for possible disciplinary action against Conway.
The office does not have investigative or enforcement authority, but officials there can contact and provide guidance to other enforcement agencies.
Chaffetz told the Associated Press that Conway’s behavior was “wrong, wrong, wrong, clearly over the line, unacceptable.”
Larry Noble, the general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization of election law experts, said Trump’s tweet was “totally out of line.”
“He should not be promoting his daughter’s line, he should not be attacking a company that has business dealings with his daughter, and it just shows the massive amount of problems we have with his business holdings and his family’s business holdings,” Noble said.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert, said the Nordstrom tweet could make other retailers hesitate to drop the Ivanka Trump brand. They may fear being similarly attacked by the President.
“The implicit threat was that he will use whatever authority he has to retaliate against Nordstrom, or anyone who crosses his interest,” said Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
* * * * *
In 1969, 25-year-old Joe McGinnis became famous overnight with the publication of his first book, The Selling of the President.
At the time, Americans were shocked to learn how Presidential candidate Richard Nixon had been sold to voters like any other product. In fact, the original book jacket featured Nixon’s face on a pack of cigarettes.
Today, Madison Avenue doesn’t simply sell Americans their Presidents. Now—with Donald J. Trump—Americans have a President determined to turn the White House into Trump, Inc.
A single example will serve to illustrate:
On January 27, Trump signed an executive order that:
- Suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days;
- Barred Syrian refugees indefinitely; and
- Blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Three countries not covered by Trump’s travel ban are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey.
Approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed by immigrants from these countries—most of them during the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Not-so-coincidentally, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey are all countries where President Trump has close business ties. His properties include two luxury towers in Turkey and golf courses in the United Arab Emirates.
The full dimensions of Trump’s holdings throughout the Middle East aren’t known because he has refused to release his tax returns.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, Kamala Harris, MEXICO, MICHELLE OBAMA, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, sanctuary cities, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, U.S.-MEXICO WALL, UPI, USA TODAY, WAL-MART
STOPPING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION—WITHOUT A WALL
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 17, 2018 at 12:56 amThe Federal Government is heading for a shutdown by January 19.
A major reason for this is Presidential Donald Trump’s demand that Congress fund a massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Its purpose: To end illegal immigration from Mexico.
And Democrats—seeing this as an election-year issue—are totally opposed to the wall.
During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly boasted: “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall.”
But there are serious obstacles to erecting such a barrier:
There are, in fact, cheaper and more effective remedies for combating illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have passed ordinances that ban municipal funds or resources from being used to enforce federal immigration laws. As a result, police or municipal employees are not allowed to inquire about citizens’ immigration status.
(2) Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s United States Senator—created a secret and illegal program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
(3) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(4) CEOs whose companies—like Wal-Mart—systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 20 years.
Convicting a score of CEOs would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border.
Word would quickly get around—and CEOs across the nation would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
(5) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States can be prosecuted for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should—like their parents—be subject to deportation.
(6) The United States Government—from the President on down—should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
In 2010, Michelle Obama visited New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland.
A second-grader said: “My mom, she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.”
“Yeah, well, that’s something that we have to work on right?” replied Mrs. Obama. “To make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right?”
The girl then said: “But my mom doesn’t have any….”
Obama: “Well, we’ll have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody’s got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens.”
Mexico doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws. Neither should the United States.
(7) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language—Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(8) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries—such as China and Mexico—whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanted’s on the United States now comes at an unfavorably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Share this: