Archive for the ‘Business’ Category
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2016 at 1:30 am
In 2014, President Barack Obama issued an executive order, declaring that illegal aliens living in the United States since 2010 could become citizens or lawful residents, thus shielding them from deportation.
Texas challenged that executive order, claiming that Obama had acted unconstitutionally by encroaching on the duties of Congress. Another 25 Republican states joined the lawsuit.
The case went to the Supreme Court–which, on June 23, blocked the implementation of Obama’s executive order.
The Justices deadlocked on the issue 4-4, thus returning the case to the lower court in Texas that ruled against the administration’s carrying out the policy.
U.S. Supreme Court
In doing so, the Justices denied at least 4 million illegal aliens the right to remain in the country without fear of deportation.
For Republicans, the ruling upheld the separation of powers.
Donald Trump–the presumptive Republican nominee for President–issued a statement: “Today’s 4-4 Supreme Court ruling has blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.”
And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis) declared:
“The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and voice. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Obama quickly expressed his disappointment, saying that the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
Other Democrats were equally upset by the Court’s decision.
One of these was Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who wrote on Twitter: “Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!”
Another was Hillary Clinton–the presumed Democratic Presidential nominee–who used the Court’s decision as a way to troll for Hispanic votes.
“[Donald] Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office,” Clinton said.
“He has called Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘murderers.’ He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes. I believe we are stronger together.”
Both Lee’s and Clinton’s accusations ignored a blunt reality: Families of illegal aliens did not have to break up.
Some members did not have to stay in the United States while others were deported. Instead, they could leave together and live together in the Latin or Central American country of their origin.
Illegal immigration has always been a highly emotional issue for conservatives. But it’s been given added impetus this year.
For years, Republicans and Democrats have clashed over the subject of illegal immigration.
Democrats favor wholesale grants of unearned citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who brazenly violated the law when they sneaked across American borders.
And Republicans favor beefing up security against future waves of such invaders.
But the brutal truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans truly want to end these invasions. Nor do they want to deport the millions of illegals who have already taken up residence here.
They don’t care that these illegals:
- Flood the United States with millions of poor non-citizens who don’t speak English.
- Overwhelm the public school system with children–who also don’t speak English–who require bilingual education.
- Overwhelm the public healthcare system–especially emergency rooms–with poor illegal aliens. As a result, urgently-needed medical care is often denied to legal American citizens.
Democrats, primarily governed by liberal ideology, believe it’s racist for whites to demand control of their own national borders. They also see illegal aliens as a huge constituency.
And Republicans want them as low-skilled, low-wage fodder for their major campaign contributors–such as corporate-farms and retail outlets like Wal-Mart.
Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans like to feign outrage at the presence of so many illegal aliens within their midst.
It’s the Republican base that’s demanding an end to illegal immigration.
Those masses of alienated and angry whites who find themselves living in a nation that’s increasingly alien from themselves. And who have made Donald Trump their overwhelming choice for President in 2016.
Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans ignore a blunt reality: Mexico–America’s largest source of illegal aliens–strictly enforces control of its own borders.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Meanwhile, Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
ABC NEWS, ADVICE, BAY OF PIGS, CBS NEWS, CNN, CORPORATIONS, CUBA, FACEBOOK, FIDEL CASTRO, JOHN F. KENNEDY, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, POLITICS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DISCOURSES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics on June 23, 2016 at 1:14 am
On the rare occasion when most people think of Niccolo Machiavelli, the image of the devil comes to mind.
Niccolo Machiavelli
In fact, “The Old Nick” became an English term used to describe Satan and slander Machiavelli at the same time.
The truth, however, is more complex. Machiavelli was a passionate Republican, who spent most of his adult life in the service of his beloved city-state, Florence.
The years he spent as a diplomat were tumultuous ones for Italy–with men like Pope Julius II and Caesare Borgia vying for power and plunging Italy into one bloodbath after another.
Machiavelli is best-known for his writing of The Prince, a pamphlet on the arts of gaining and holding power. Its admirers have included Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin.
But his longer and more thoughtful work is The Discourses, in which he offers advice on how to maintain liberty within a republic. Among its admirers were many of the men who framed the Constitution of the United States.
Also contrary to what most people believe about Machiavelli, he did not advocate evil for its own sake. Rather, he recognized that sometimes there is no perfect–or perfectly good–solution to a problem.
Sometimes it’s necessary to take stern–even brutal–action to stop an evil (such as a riot) before it becomes widespread.
His counsel remains as relevant today as it did during his lifetime (1469 – 1527)–especially for politicians.
But plenty of ordinary citizens can also benefit from the advice he has to offer–such as those who are asked to give advice to more powerful superiors.
Machiavelli warns there is danger in urging rulers to take a particular course of action:
“For men only judge of matters by the result, all the blame of failure is charged upon him who first advised it, while in case of success he receives commendations. But the reward never equals the punishment.”
This puts would-be counselors in a difficult position: “If they do not advise what seems to them for the good of the republic or the prince, regardless of the consequences to themselves, then they fail to do their duty.
“And if they do advise it, then it is at the risk of their position and their lives, for all men are blind in thus, that they judge of good or evil counsels only by the results.”
Thus, Machiavelli warns that an adviser should “take things moderately, and not to undertake to advocate any enterprise with too much zeal, but to give one’s advice calmly and modestly.”
The person who asked for the advice may follow it, or not, as of his own choice, and not because he was led or forced into it by the adviser.
Above all, the adviser must avoid the danger of urging a course of action that runs “contrary to the wishes of the many.
“For the danger arises when your advice has caused the many to be contravened. In that case, when the result is unfortunate, they all concur in your destruction.”
Or, as President John F. Kennedy famously said after the disastrous invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in April, 1961: “Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.”
John F. Kennedy
By “not advocating any enterprise with too much zeal,” the adviser gains two advantages:
“The first is, you avoid all danger.
“And the second consists in the great credit which you will have if, after having modestly advised a certain course, your counsel is rejected, and the adoption of a different course results unfortunately.”
Finally, the time to give advice is before a catastrophe occurs, not after. Machiavelli gives a vivid example of what can happen if this rule is ignored.
King Perseus of Macedon had gone to war with Paulus Aemilius–and suffered a humiliating defeat. Fleeing the battlefield with a handful of his men, he later bewailed the disaster that had overtaken him.
Suddenly, one of his lieutenants began to lecture Perseus on the many errors he had committed, which had led to his ruin.
“Traitor,” raged the king, turning upon him, “you have waited until now to tell me all this, when there is no longer any time to remedy it–” And Perseus slew him with his own hands.
Niccolo Machiavelli sums up the lesson as this:
“Thus was this man punished for having been silent when he should have spoken, and for having spoken when he should have been silent.”
Be careful that you don’t make the same mistake.
ABC NEWS, AIRLINE PASSENGER RIGHTS, AIRLINES, AIRTRAN, AMERICAN AIRLINES, AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX, BUSINESS INSIDER, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMPLAINT LETTERS, CONSUMER RIGHTS, DAVE CARROLL, DELTA AIRLINES, FACEBOOK, ITUNES, JETBLUE AIRWAYS, KGB, LEISHA HAILEY, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIRWAYS, UNITED BREAKS GUITARS, US AIRWAYS, YOUTUBE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Self-Help, Social commentary on June 10, 2016 at 12:21 am
The concept of “consumer rights” has not yet reached the airline industry.
Under Federal law, as enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration, airline passengers have only the following guaranteed rights:
If your flight is delayed (such as by bad weather) and you’re stuck on the tarnac:
- Tarnac delays cannot exceed three hours. You can leave the plane if you choose after that.
- Food and water must be available after the plane has been stuck on the tarnac for two hours.
- The airline must service toilets, keep air conditioning on, and keep trash cans clean.
In addition, the U.S. government mandates these “rights” for air travelers:
- Compensation when you’re bumped due to overbooking –and for no other reason.
- An airline must accept lost/damaged baggage liability up to $3,000 in depreciated value per passenger for a domestic flight (limits on international flights are either about $1,700 or $635, depending on which rule applies).
Beyond those, all you can claim is what’s in each airline’s “contract of carriage.” Those contracts are–naturally–heavily biased toward airlines, not customers.
Unfortunately, the law–and the Congressmen who create it–is still largely owned by the airlines. Thus you, as a customer, are forced to make do with the weapons at hand.
These essentially boil down to two:
- Threatening the airlines with bad publicity; and
- Threatening the airlines with a private or class-action lawsuit.
In both cases, it’s best to first contact the highest-ranking officials in the airline company.
There are two reasons for this:
- They have the most to lose, and
- They have the power to redress your complaint.
You can try to reach the CEO or one of his assistants during the time of the incident. But, most likely, this will happen afterwards.
If a mini-Hitler of an airline steward decides to eject you because s/he doesn’t like your clothes or request for help, there’s nothing you can do about it.
If you physically resist, you will almost certainly be arrested and charged with some version of domestic terrorism. You’ll be shipped off to jail and forced to defend yourself against the bogus charge.
Even if the authorities decide to not prosecute, you’ll have to spend at least several hundred dollars on legal representation.
And, of course, the airlines won’t care. They won’t be spending a dime on your prosecution–that will be paid for by the local U.S. Attorney’s (federal prosecutor’s) office.
Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, wisely advised in The Prince:
“A prince…must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to avoid traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”
This is definitely the time to take on the trappings of a fox. However painful it is to swallow the insult at the time it’s given, don’t give the airlines an excuse to have you arrested.
Take your revenge afterward. That’s what musician Dave Carroll did.
Carroll alleged that, in 2008, he and fellow passengers saw United Airlines’ baggage-handling crew throwing guitars on the tarmac in Chicago O’Hare. He arrived at Omaha, Nebraska, his destination to discover that the neck of his $3,500 Taylor guitar had been broken.
Carroll complained to three United employees, but they proved indifferent. He filed a claim with the airline–but was told he was ineligible for compensation.
The reason? He had not filed the claim within the company’s stipulated “standard 24-hour timeframe.”
Carroll turned to his musical roots for a remedy. He wrote a song, “United Breaks Guitars,” and turned it into a music video which he posted on YouTube and iTunes in July, 2009.
Click here: United Breaks Guitars – YouTube
The song went viral, and became a public relations nightmare for the airline.
The Sunday Times reported that, four days after the video’s posting, United Airlines’ stock price fell 10% costing stockholders about $180 million in value.
Most customers, admittedly, aren’t musicians. For them–short of suing–the weapons of choice will be:
- The phone
- Letters
- The Internet
- Consumer protection organizations that can be enlisted
Let’s start with the first: The phone.
Most customers assume the place to take their anger is the airline Customer Service desk. And the airlines encourage people to do just that.
Don’t do it.
Customer Service is staffed by people who may ooze compassion but who aren’t authorized to do anything on your behalf. And of course they’ll be well-versed in the standard airline excuses for why your request is denied.
(Think of Dave Carroll and the excuse United’s reps offered him: You didn’t file your claim within 24 hours.)
Even if they truly want to help you, they’ll find themselves outranked at every level.
So take your complaint to someone who has the authority to resolve it. This means, preferably, the CEO of the airline, or at least one of his executive colleagues.
The other above-mentioned remedies will be discussed in my coming series, “KGB Airways: Fighting Airline Arrogance.”
ABC NEWS, AIRLINE PASSENGER RIGHTS, AIRLINES, AIRTRAN, AMERICAN AIRLINES, AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX, BUSINESS INSIDER, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMPLAINT LETTERS, CONSUMER RIGHTS, DAVE CARROLL, DELTA AIRLINES, FACEBOOK, ITUNES, JETBLUE AIRWAYS, KGB, LEISHA HAILEY, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIRWAYS, UNITED BREAKS GUITARS, US AIRWAYS, YOUTUBE
In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Self-Help, Social commentary on June 9, 2016 at 12:07 am
When Leisha Hailey and her girlfriend kissed aboard a Southwest Airlines flight to Los Angeles, they quickly found themselves in trouble.
Leisha Hailey
A flight attendant told them that Southwest was “a family airline.” When they argued they were targets of homophobia, the attendant ejected them from the plane.
Hailey–the star of Showtime’s The L-Word (and a lesbian)–posted her experience on Twitter. Calling for a boycott of Southwest, she tweeted:
“I want to know what Southwest Airlines considers as ‘family.’ I know plenty of wonderful same-sex families I would like to introduce them to. Boycott @SouthwestAir if you are gay. They don’t like us.”
Naturally, Southwest had its own explanation for what had happened:
“…We received several passenger complaints characterizing the behavior as excessive. Our crew, responsible for the comfort of all Customers on board, approached the passengers based solely on behavior and not gender. The conversation escalated to a level that was better resolved on the ground, as opposed to in flight.”
In short, the situation was “better resolved on the ground” by forcing two unarmed, non-threatening women to leave the plane rather than having the airline honor their high-priced tickets.
Now, a quick question: When does a camera become a dangerous weapon?
When you snap a picture of an especially rude airline employee.
- A Miami photographer was escorted off a US Airways plane and deemed a “security risk” after she did this at Philadelphia International Airport in July, 2011.
Sandy DeWitt believed the employee, Tonialla G., was being rude to several passengers in the boarding area of the flight to Miami.
So DeWitt, a professional photographer, used her iPhone to snap a picture of G.’s nametag. She intended to file a complaint with US Airways and wanted the picture as evidence.
As DeWitt settled into her seat, preparing for take-off, G. entered the plane and confronted her.
She ordered DeWitt to delete the photo.
DeWitt had already turned off her iPhone, as required before take-off. She turned the phone back on to prove that the photo hadn’t come out. Even so, she deleted the too-dark picture.
G. then walked into the cockpit to inform the pilot that DeWitt was a “security risk.”
Suddenly, DeWitt found herself being escorted off the plane by two flight attendants. Her husband followed.
Speaking with Michael Lofton, a US Airways manager at Philadelphia International Airport, she learned that she would not be allowed back on the plane.
The reason: She was a “security risk.”
But that didn’t keep Lofton from directing her to American Airlines for a flight back to Miami.
But that flight had already departed and it was already after 7 p.m. And there were no other flights back to Miami until the following morning.
“We were expecting to spend the night at the airport,” she said.
They eventually boarded a Southwest Airlines flight to Fort Lauderdale at 11 p.m.
Apparently, Southwest didn’t consider her to be a “security risk.”
Naturally, US Airways had a cover-story to explain what had happened.
Todd Lehmacher, a spokesman for US Airways, told msnbc.com that DeWitt was removed for being “disruptive.”
“Once onboard, she was using foul and explicit language,” Lehmacher said. “She was removed at the request of the captain.”
Apparently, “disruptive” means whatever an airline official claims it to mean.
Business Insider ranked US Airways sixth in a list of the 19 Most Hated Companies in America.
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is an economic indicator that measures the satisfaction of consumers across the United States. It is produced by the American Customer Satisfaction Index, a private company based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The ACSI interviews about 80,000 Americans annually and asks about their satisfaction with the goods and services they have consumed. And Americans’ most-hated companies include large banks, airlines, power and telecom companies.
David VanAmburg, managing director at ACSI, offered a critical insight into why these companies are so detested.
“These are not terribly competitive industries, as the switching barriers for most of them are quite high,” he told Business Insider in June, 2011.
“In other industries, like the food or clothing sector, the competition is huge. They bend over backwards to make customers happy, because they have to.”
That certainly does not apply to applies to airlines–whose numbers are limited and continue to shrink due to mergers and the occasionally rising cost of fuel.
For the airline industry generally, the former slogan of United Airlines–”Fly the Friendly Skies–has unofficially been replaced with: “We don’t care. We don’t have to.”
So–when you’re facing a would-be KGB agent masquerading as an airline employee–what do you do?
First, you recognize that the concept of “consumer rights” has not yet reached the airline industry.
Then you do what you can to see that it does.
ABC NEWS, AIRLINE PASSENGER RIGHTS, AIRLINES, AIRTRAN, AMERICAN AIRLINES, AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX, BUSINESS INSIDER, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMPLAINT LETTERS, CONSUMER RIGHTS, DAVE CARROLL, DELTA AIRLINES, FACEBOOK, ITUNES, JETBLUE AIRWAYS, KGB, LEISHA HAILEY, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIRWAYS, UNITED BREAKS GUITARS, US AIRWAYS, YOUTUBE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Self-Help, Social commentary on June 8, 2016 at 12:14 am
The First Amendment of the American Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.
But some airline employees haven’t gotten the word.
Click here: 3 Easy Ways to Tell If a Business Puts Its Customers First – DailyFinance
Yes, what you say can get you thrown off an airplane–or worse. And it doesn’t have to be anything even remotely like a threat.
- In May, 2011, a US Airways flight was due to depart San Francisco International Airport for Charlotte, North Carolina at 1:20 p.m. But due to bad weather, passengers boarded the plane after 2 p.m.
Once on the plane, a flight attendant told customers over the intercom to hurry up and put their carry-ons in bins so they could take off and make their connecting flight in Charlotte.
One of the passengers, Luke Hazlewood, turned to the person next to him and said it was the airline’s fault they were late, “so don’t get mad at us.”
The flight attendant rushed out of the galley demanding to know who had said that. Once she determined it was Hazlewood, she told him he would have to leave for being disruptive and a threat to the plane.
Sandra Kraus, a former flight attendant, came to Hazlewood’s defense–and the flight attendant told her to get off the plane as well.
Both passengers asked to speak with the captain but he refused to speak with them.
Kraus was put on another flight. Hazlewood and his accompanying girlfriend (who had left the plane with him) found that US Airways wouldn’t compensate them for a hotel room.
The airline refused to answer questions about the matter. Its written statement said “The passengers interfered with the flight crew and in the interest of safety they had to be removed.”
It’s a truism in both journalism and police work: When people refuse to answer questions, it’s nearly always because they know they have something to hide.
And the airline’s response came in the classic voice of the all-powerful dictator: “They refused to treat me like God and so they had to be eliminated.”
Business Insider ranked US Airways #6 on a list of Click here: The 19 Most Hated Companies In America – Business Insider
- In December, 2011, three middle-aged women were thrown off an AirTran flight at Palm Beach International Airport after a steward began roughly handling the luggage of one of them.
Marilyn Miller, a lawyer, was buckled in for takeoff when the attendant mishandled her overhead luggage. “I have breakables in that,” she said.
The attendant ignored her and kept shoving other bags into hers.
Another passenger, Carol Gray, a retired travel agent, asked the same attendant for help, saying that her seat was broken.
“I’m not talking to you,” said the attendant, and poked her in the arm. He then threatened to throw Miller and Gray off the plane.
“You’ve got to be kidding me,” said Miller.
“Well, you’re getting off,” said the attendant.
Two sheriff’s deputies and airline staff arrived to remove them.
A third passenger, a therapist named Karyn Schoor, spoke up in their defense: “This is crazy, they didn’t do anything. Why are you doing this to them?”
“Throw her off too,”’ ordered the attendant.
All three women were marched off the plane and back into the terminal.
The women were offered flights on other airlines paid for by AirTran.
And the official explanation given by AirTran?
“Our employees are responsible for the safety and comfort of everyone onboard a flight. Our goal is always to mitigate any uncomfortable situation prior to departure.”
Uncomfortable for whom–the passenger who doesn’t want her luggage roughly treated? Or the attendant whose ego gets bent out of shape at the slightest objection?
- In July, 2010, Southwest Airlines removed a slender, five-foot-four woman from a plane to accomodate an obese passenger.
The woman was flying standby from Las Vegas to Sacramento. She had paid full fare for the last available seat, boarded and stowed her bags–and was told she must deplane immediately.
The reason: A late-arriving, 14-year-old passenger required two seats because of her girth.
When the woman asked Southwest personnel why she was being removed her from the flight, they berated her for daring to question their decision.
The temporarily stranded passenger managed to catch the next flight out to Sacramento.
- You don’t have to assault someone to be thrown off an airplane. Even kissing your partner will do.
Southwest Airlines kicked Leisha Hailey–who not only played a lesbian in Showtime’s The L-Word series but is one–and her girlfriend off a flight to Los Angeles.
Their crime? Kissing.
A flight attendant told them that Southwest was “a family airline.” When they argued they were targets of homophobia, the attendant ejected them from the plane.
ABC NEWS, AIRLINE PASSENGER RIGHTS, AIRLINES, AIRTRAN, AMERICAN AIRLINES, AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX, BUSINESS INSIDER, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMPLAINT LETTERS, CONSUMER RIGHTS, DAVE CARROLL, DELTA AIRLINES, FACEBOOK, ITUNES, JETBLUE AIRWAYS, KGB, LEISHA HAILEY, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIRWAYS, UNITED BREAKS GUITARS, US AIRWAYS, YOUTUBE
In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Self-Help, Social commentary on June 7, 2016 at 12:02 am
With the summer tourism season now on, tens of thousands of Americans will be flying across the country to visit with loved ones.
And many of them will become the victims of KGB Airways.
In truth, many airline personnel treat passengers the way KGB agents once treated Soviet citizens–with the arrogance that comes from holding near-absolute power over the lives of others.
Consider the following:
- From the website of American Airlines:
ESSENTIAL NEEDS DURING EXTRAORDINARY DELAYS
In the case of extraordinary events that result in very lengthy onboard delays, American will make every reasonable effort to ensure that essential needs of food (snack bar such as Nutri-Grain®), water, restroom facilities, and basic medical assistance are met.
We are not responsible for any special, incidental or consequential damages if we do not meet this commitment.
Translation: On one hand, American promises that it will try to ensure that “essential needs of food, water, restroom facilities and basic medical assistance are met” during “very lengthy onboard delays.” On the other hand, if they “do not meet this commitment,” that’s just the passengers’ tough luck.
ACCEPTANCE OF PASSENGERS
American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to:
- Compliance with government requisition of space.
- Action necessary or advisable due to weather, or other conditions beyond American’s control.
- Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances.
- Refusal to produce positive identification upon request.
- Your physical or mental condition is such that in American’s sole opinion, you are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an attendant.
- Your conduct is disorderly, abusive or violent.
- Appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.
- Attempt to interfere with any member of the flight crew.
- Have a communicable disease that has been determined by a federal public health authority to be transmissible to other persons in the normal course of flight.
- Refuse to obey instructions from any flight crew member.
- Have an offensive odor not caused by a disability or illness.
- Are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers or are barefoot.
- Engage in any action, voluntary or involuntary, that might jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or any of its occupants.
Translation: “American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point” for just about any reason it wants to give.
Click here: Conditions of carriage – Contract of transportation – American Airlines
DELAYS, CANCELLATIONS AND DIVERSIONS
American Airlines will provide customers at the airport and onboard an affected aircraft with timely and frequent updates regarding known delays, cancellations and diversions and will strive to provide the best available information concerning the duration of delays and to the extent available, the flight’s anticipated departure time.
We are not responsible for any special, incidental or consequential damages if we do not meet this commitment.
Translation: On one hand, American promises to give customers “timely and frequent updates regarding known delays, cancellations and diversions.” On the other hand, American absolves itself from any damages “if we do not meet this commitment.”
And how does all this translate into action?
- In late March, 2012, a woman was barred from boarding an American Airlines flight because its staff disliked her choice of clothing. She was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words: “IF I WANTED THE GOVERNMENT IN MY WOMB, I’D F— A SENATOR.”
After taking a seat she was told by a flight attendant that she needed to speak with the captain, who found the T-shirt “offensive.” He said she would have to change before she could re-board the plane.
The passenger claims this interaction caused her to miss her connection: Her luggage was checked and “changing shirts without spending money wasn’t an option.”
Business Insider ranked American Airlines 8th on a list of The 19 Most Hated Companies In America.
- In July, 2011, Malinda Knowles, a 27-year-old financial consultant, was kicked off a JetBlue flight at JFK Airport in New York because of her attire–a baggy blue T-shirt and denim shorts.
A male JetBlue employee walking down the aisle noticed Knowles. He told her he didn’t think she was wearing enough clothing. An argument erupted when the employee put his walkie-talkie between her legs to see if she was wearing shorts underneath. When Knowles objected, the JetBlue worker brought her off the plane and to a hangar.
There she modeled for the employees, showing that she was wearing shorts. She returned to the plane, but the same employee once again approached her and said: “The captain is refusing to fly you today. We need to remove you from the flight.”
After waiting four hours for another flight, she arrived in Florida. Apparently the crew of that plane didn’t have any problem with her attire.
Knowles has since filed a lawsuit against JetBlue.
1992 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, ABC NEWS, ABORTION, ADULTERY, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BOB LIVINGSTON, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA), DEFICITS, DENNIS HASTERT, ECONOMY, EDWIN MEESE, FAMILY VALUES, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HOMOSEXUALITY, HUFFINGTON POST, JERRY FALWELL, MEDIA MATTERS, MIA FARROW, MONICA LEWINSKY, MORAL MAJORITY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PORNOGRAPHY, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TARGET CORPORATION, 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, TRANSGENDERS, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WOODY ALLEN, WORLD WAR 11
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on May 26, 2016 at 12:33 am
In 1992, Republicans wanted to re-elect President George H.W. Bush, who had succeeded Ronald Reagan in 1989.
But they had a problem: Whipping up voter enthusiasm for him.
Bush wasn’t charismatic like Reagan, so he didn’t inspire the intense loyalty Reagan had. He was seen as drab, even wimpy.
George H.W. Bush
Ironically, Bush had performed heroically during World War II.
On August 1, 1944, Bush piloted one of four aircraft that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima.
Bush’s aircraft was hit by flak and his engine caught on fire. Despite this, Bush completed his attack and released bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits.
Reagan, by contrast, spent World War II on a Hollywood sound stage as part of the First Motion Picture Unit, turning out propaganda films to boost civilian morale.
Yet he was seen by millions as a genuine war hero.
Then there was the stalled economy.
Early in his term, Bush faced leftover deficits spawned by the Reagan years. Reagan had given tax-cuts to the rich, bloated the military budget and cut government programs to aid the poor and middle class.
As a result, the deficit had grown by 1990 to $220 billion, three times its size since 1980.
In 1991, many corporations, claiming the need to reorganize, laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, who had believed that their jobs were secure.
By mid-year, the unemployment rate reached 7.8%, the highest since 1984. In September 1992, the Census Bureau reported that 14.2% of all Americans lived in poverty.
Bush’s Democratic challenger in 1992 was Bill Clinton, who had been the Governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992. At 45, Clinton was young, vigorous, and for many evoked memories of an equally young and vigorous John F. Kennedy.
To overcome these disadvantages, Republicans needed a way to generate enthusiasm among their base.
The answer: “Family values.”
Supposedly this meant support for values traditionally learned or reinforced within a family, such as those of high moral standards and discipline.
In reality, it was a Right-wing excuse for the failed economic policies of the Reagan-Bush years.
By citing “a decline in family values,” Bush’s re-election team could blame jobless Americans for their own misery: “If only you had lived up to the high standards set by your Republican superiors, you wouldn’t now be in this position.”
“Family values” carried a sexual subtext as well. Since abortion had became legal in 1973, Republicans had appropriated re-criminalizing it as their pet sex-related issue.
During the Reagan years, Attorney General Edwin Meese had launched a crackdown on pornography. And much of Reagan’s support had come from sexually-obsessed Christian Right evangelists such as Jerry Falwell of the “Moral Majority.”
Thus, a Bush supporter held up a sign reading, “Woody Allen is Clinton’s Adviser on Family Values,” at the 1992 Republican Presidential convention. Allen had recently become notorious for an affair with the adopted stepdaughter of his lover, actress Mia Farrow.
The slogan wasn’t enough to get Bush re-elected. Bill Clinton was elected President.
But “family values” lived on for decades as Republican code language for: “Only Republicans are sexually upright.”
Throughout the eight-year Clinton Presidency, Republicans focused on his longtime reputation as a sex-crazed Rasputin. When the news broke that Clinton had been diddling a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, Republicans demanded his resignation.
When Clinton refused to resign, they unsuccessfully tried to impeach him. Meanwhile, they ignored the extramarital affairs of their own members—such as then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich had been boffing a mistress while demanding Clinton’s impeachment for similar adultery. After Gingrich resigned from the House of Representatives in 1999, his would-be successor, Bob Livingston, was forced to resign from Congress. He had been outed by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt as a serial philanderer.
In 1996, Republicans pushed through Congress the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. It allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states.
DOMA was advertised as a necessary defense against “predatory homosexuals” who, like vampires, were thought to be preying on innocent heterosexuals.
A major backer of anti-gay legislation was Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of the House from 1999 to 1007.
Dennis Hastert
In 2006, Hastert spearheaded a bill to toughen punishments for sex crimes against children.
“We’ve all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children,” said Hastert. “Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists.”
On April 29, 2016, a federal judge repeatedly damned Hastert as a “serial child molester” for sexually abusing several boys he coached on the Yorkville High School wrestling team in the 1960s and 1970s.
Having targeted the poor, blacks, Hispanics, women and gays, Republicans are now training their sights on transgenders.
And Target Corporation’s April 19 announcement that its customers could pick the bathroom that “matched their gender identity” gave Republicans a new venue for their attacks on sex-related issues.
There is no known epidemic of transgender attacks on heterosexuals in bathrooms. But Republicans will ride this issue so long as there are citizens willing to believe it.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANCIENT ROME, ANTONIN SCALIA, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, CBS NEWS, CITIZENS UNITED, CLEOPATRA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FORECLOSURES, GLADIATORS, JULIUS CAESAR, KIRK DOUGLAS, LAURENCE OLIVER, MARCUS CRASSUS, MEIN KAMPF, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, SHELDON ADELSON, SPARTACUS, SUPREME COURT, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on May 24, 2016 at 12:56 am
The 1960 Kirk Douglas epic, Spartacus, may soon prove to be more than great entertainment. It may also turn out to be a prophecy of the end of the American Republic.
In the movie, Spartacus (Douglas), a Roman slave, entertains Marcus Crassus (Laurence Oliver) the richest man in Rome. He does so by fighting to the death as a gladiator.
Poster for Spartacus
While Spartacus and his fellow gladiator/friend, Draba, slash and stab at each other in the arena, Crassus idly chats with his crony, Marcus Glabrus.
Crassus has just secured Glabrus’ appointment as commander of the garrison of Rome. Glabrus is grateful, but curious as to how he did it.
After all, Gaius Gracchus, the leader of the Roman Senate, hates Crassus, and stands ever ready to oppose his every move.
“I fought fire with oil,” says Crassus. “I purchased the Senate behind his back.”
Draba defeats Spartacus in their gladiatorial bout, but refuses to kill him. Instead, he throws his spear at Crassus and is immediately slaughtered by Roman guards.
Soon afterward, Spartacus leads 70 other gladiators against their Roman masters, forms an army of freed slaves, and marches against Rome.
Just as Crassus bought the Roman Senate in Spartacus, so, too, are billionaires now buying the 2016 Presidential election.
In 2016, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, ran as the pet candidate of casino billionaire Sheldon G. Adelson. Since 2007, Adelson had spent millions in support of Gingrich and his causes.
Newt Gingrich
Adelson put up seed money and, ultimately, $7.7 million between 2006 and 2010 for a nonprofit group that served as a precursor to Gingrich’s presidential campaign.
Sheldon Adelson
Such a contribution is no small amount to the average American. But Adelson is listed by Forbes as the eighth-wealthiest American, with a net worth of $21.5 billion.
Naturally, Adelson denied he had any selfish motives for shelling out so much money to a candidate for the most powerful office in the world:
“My motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that my wife Miriam and I hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy.”
Unfortunately, Gingrich was not the only candidate of the rich, by the rich and for the rich seeking the Presidency.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney relied heavily on a small group of millionaires and billionaires for support.
By February, 2012, a quarter of the money amassed by Romney’s campaign came from just 41 people. Each contributor gave more than $100,000, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure data. Nearly a dozen of the donors had contributed $1 million or more.
Some of Romney’s biggest supporters included executives at Bain Capital, his former firm; bankers at Goldman Sachs; and a hedge fund mogul who made billions betting on the housing crash.
Like Adelson, Bain has directly profited from the losses of others.
Fast forward to 2016:
In early May, Adelson met privately with Republican Presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald Trump. Nevertheless, at least this much has leaked:
Adelson promised to contribute more to secure Trump’s election than he had contributed to any previous campaign. This could exceed $100 million.
Meanwhile, Trump is bragging that he’s “not beholden” to any “special interests” because “I’m really rich.” This myth has been a main reason for his popularity as a candidate.
Donald Trump
All of this can be directly traced to the 2010 “Citizens United” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ended limits in corporate contributions to political campaigns. The decision is so named for the group that successfully sued over federal campaign finance laws.
The 5-4 decision led to the rise of Super PACs–outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the candidate. The overwhelming majority of this money goes for negative ads–that slander opponents without saying anything about what a candidate proposes to do.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brushed aside criticism of the corrupting role money played in politics: Change the channel or turn off the TV.
“I don’t care who is doing the speech–the more the merrier,” Scalia said. “People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”
On the contrary: A fundamental principle of propaganda holds that most people are stupid–or can be made to behave stupidly. If they are ceaselessly bombarded with mind-numbing lies, they will eventually substitute these for reality.
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler laid out his formula for successful propaganda: “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials.
“These must be expressed as far as possible in stereotypical formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”
During the early 1960s a series of movies about the Roman Empire–like Spartacus and Cleopatra–hit the big screen. In these, rich criminals like Marcus Crassus openly bought the favors of ambitious politicians like Julius Caesar.
No doubt millions of moviegoers thought, “Boy, I’m glad that couldn’t happen here.” But it has happened here–and it’s happening right now.
ABC NEWS, ANITA STAVER, BATHROOMS, BOYCOTTS, CBS NEWS, CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, CHRISTIAN RIGHT, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, LIBERTY COUNCIL, NBC NEWS, PACE UNIVERSITY'S LUBIN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, PROTESTS, RESTROOMS, RIGHT-WINGERS, TARGET DEPARTMENT STORES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TRANSGENDERS, TWITTER, VIOLENCE, YOUGOV BRANDINDEX
In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on May 18, 2016 at 12:20 am
“Attention, Target customers. Do not be deceived. Target would have you believe that they love mothers and children. This is a deception.
“This is not love, and they’ve [Target] proven it by opening their bathrooms to perverted men.
“I am a mother of 12, and I am very disgusted by this wicked practice. Target does not protect mothers and children.”
So screamed a fundamentalist Christian woman as she waved a Bible and strolled through an unnamed Target department store.
Her rants were captured on a video posted to YouTube on May 12.
Click here: Mother Marches Through Target With Her Family To Protest Transgender Bathroom Policy! – YouTube
They were triggered by the chain’s announced policy on April 19 that its customers can use any bathroom or fitting room that matches their gender identity.
“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
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 April 19 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.
But 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 been holding protests at Target stores across the country. And they 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.”
Continuing with the video:
The porcine, pony-tailed woman, wearing a purple blouse, and accompanied by about a half-dozen children and adults, continued to yell as she strode through a Target store.
Her movements and shouts were filmed–clearly by a member of the group.
“Mothers, get your children out of this store. Mothers, have enough decency to get out of this store. It’s a dangerous place.”
“This is not loving. What Target has done is very hateful. It’s hateful towards families. It’s hateful towards mothers. It’s hateful towards children.
“America, when are you going to wake up? When are you going to stand up for the right things, America?”
Sales may drop for at least a short period, speculated YouGov BrandIndex, a firm that measures consumer perceptions of major brands on a daily basis.
Before the boycott, 42% of consumers said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they had to visit a department store. In the last two weeks, that share has fallen to 36%.
But the boycott may prove short-lived.
Eighty million Americans shop at Target’s stores every month. So a loss of 1.2 million shoppers would amount to 1.5% of Target’s customers.
And being able to buy affordable goods will eventually overcome the boycott, said Larry Chiagouris, a professor of marketing at Pace University’s Lubin School of Business in New York:
“The boycott is not going to last very long. 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.”
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, she posted on Twitter: “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard. #BoycottTarget @Target“
Meanwhile, the Bible-waving Christian fundamentalist angrily strode out the Target store, still shouting:
“Are you going to let the Devil rape your children, America? It’s time to stand up and have a voice instead of bowing to the homosexual perverted agenda that’s taking over this nation!
“You need to run and flee this place. I wouldn’t spend a penny of my money here.
“This is wicked. This is confusion. This is twisted. This is abominable in the sight of God.”
With Donald Trump, the presumed Republican nominee for President, making hatred and violence socially acceptable for the Right, a peaceful resolution of this controversy is by no means assured.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ATOMIC BOMB, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BEIRUT BOMBING, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, COMMUNISM, CROOKS AND LIARS, CULTS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, ECONOMICS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARDBALL, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, IRAN, IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH STALIN, MEDIA MATTERS, MEET THE PRESS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, POLLUTION, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, Secret Service, SLATE, SOVIET NUCLEAR PHYSICS, SOVIET UNION, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TAX CUTS, TERRORISM, 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, THIS WEEK, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, Vladimir Lenin, X
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on May 11, 2016 at 12:01 am
On February 6, 2011, Ronald Reagan, if he had been alive, would have been 100 years old.
Publishers rushed to put out worshipful tributes to his eight years as President. Network political programs such as “This Week” and “Meet the Press” assembled surviving members of his administration to re-live the “glory days” of Reagan’s—and their—time in power.
This is where it all started going wrong for America—a Right-wing legacy of huge Federal deficits, tax-cuts for the rich, bloated military budgets and cutbacks in government programs to aid the poor and middle-class.
Ronald Reagan
The Republican party, of course, has done the most to create and promote this “cult of Reagan.” And it has done so for the same reason the Communist party of the Soviet Union created and fostered the “cult of Lenin.”
No two men could have been more different than Vladimir Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Lenin created the Soviet Union in 1917 and became its first in a series of absolute dictators. Reagan spent his life fighting Communism, most notably as President.
Vladimir Lenin
So it’s ironic that both men, in death, got essentially the same funeral—and for the same reason: To sanctify and legitimize their respective organizations—and the authority of their potential successors.
Lenin died in 1924 and was immediately succeeded by Joseph Stalin. Stalin knew that, despite Communism’s official atheistic stance, most Russians remained loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church.
So in giving Lenin’s funeral oration, Stalin used the language of religion to confer sainthood upon a militant atheist–and upon his successor, Stalin himself.
Funeral for Vladimir Lenin
Stalin and his fellow Communists immediately launched the “cult of Lenin,” depicting him as a fatherly, all-wise leader whose genius could only be bestowed upon his closest disciples.
Lenin’s extensive political writings were treated as divine writ, and were used to justify everything Stalin and his own successors wanted to do.
A classic example: Although Lenin died 20 years before the American creation of the atomic bomb, Lenin was hailed by the Soviets as the “father” of “Soviet nuclear physics.”
Similarly, the Republican party wasted no time turning its own former leader, Ronald Reagan, into a modern-day saint of mythical proportions.
They have done so for the same reason that Stalin deliberately forged a cult around the dead Lenin—to create a “holy” figure of whom other Republicans can claim to be true disciples.
Funeral for Ronald Reagan
These deliberate fictions conveniently ignore a series of ugly truths:
- Reagan was only one of a series of Presidents who held the line against the Soviet Union.
- His budgets were just as stained with red ink as those of all previous Presidents.
- Far from standing up to Iranian terrorists, Reagan sold them our most sophisticated missiles in a weak-kneed exchange for American hostages. Then he went on television and brazenly lied that any such “arms for hostages” deal had ever happened.
- By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been investigated, indicted or convicted for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.
- His “trickle-down” Reganomics brought prosperity to only the wealthiest 1% of Americans, proving that “a rising tide lifted some yachts.”
- By drastically shrinking the tax-base, bloating the defense budget and destroying programs to benefit the poor and middle-class, Reagan produced a $1 trillion deficit—which only the Clinton Administration eliminated.
- Reagan believed that government should not help the impoverished. Those who lacked wealth to buy such necessities as housing and medical insurance were written off as unimportant.
- John F. Kennedy had praised government service as an honor. Reagan repeatedly said that “the best and the brightest” could be found only in business.
- This denigration of government service continues among Republicans to this day–defaming the very institutions they lust to control.
- Although he often berated the poor for their “laziness,” Reagan adhered to a “banker’s hours” schedule: During his working hours in the Oval Office, he often had blocks of free time–two to three hours. He would call for his fan mail and answer it.
- Reagan saw no need to protect America’s fragile environment against corporate polluters, eager to enrich themselves at its expense: “Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”
Reagan famously attacked “welfare queens” and sought to deny government benefits for the poor. But he didn’t hesitate to enrich himself at public expense.
- Before his Presidency ended, 18 wealthy Californians contributed $156,000 apiece to buy him a 7,200 square-foot mansion overlooking Beverly Hills.
- Reagan signed a multi-million dollar deal to write his Presidential memoirs and publish a collection of his speeches.
- He signed an exclusive contract with a Washington lecture bureau, which paid him $50,000 per speech given in the United States and $100,000 overseas. This made him the highest-paid speaker in the country.
- These monies came in addition to his Presidential pension of $99,500 a year for life and his $30,000 annual pension as a former governor of California.
- At a cost to the government of $10 million annually, Reagan—a millionaire who could afford private security—continued to receive lifetime Secret Service protection from 40 fulltime agents.
The “cult of Lenin” died when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The “cult of Reagan” continues to flourish, and will do so for as long as the Republican party finds voters willing to believe in it.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
TAKING BACK OUR BORDERS: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2016 at 1:30 amIn 2014, President Barack Obama issued an executive order, declaring that illegal aliens living in the United States since 2010 could become citizens or lawful residents, thus shielding them from deportation.
Texas challenged that executive order, claiming that Obama had acted unconstitutionally by encroaching on the duties of Congress. Another 25 Republican states joined the lawsuit.
The case went to the Supreme Court–which, on June 23, blocked the implementation of Obama’s executive order.
The Justices deadlocked on the issue 4-4, thus returning the case to the lower court in Texas that ruled against the administration’s carrying out the policy.
U.S. Supreme Court
In doing so, the Justices denied at least 4 million illegal aliens the right to remain in the country without fear of deportation.
For Republicans, the ruling upheld the separation of powers.
Donald Trump–the presumptive Republican nominee for President–issued a statement: “Today’s 4-4 Supreme Court ruling has blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.”
And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis) declared:
“The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and voice. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Obama quickly expressed his disappointment, saying that the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
Other Democrats were equally upset by the Court’s decision.
One of these was Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who wrote on Twitter: “Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!”
Another was Hillary Clinton–the presumed Democratic Presidential nominee–who used the Court’s decision as a way to troll for Hispanic votes.
“[Donald] Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office,” Clinton said.
“He has called Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘murderers.’ He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes. I believe we are stronger together.”
Both Lee’s and Clinton’s accusations ignored a blunt reality: Families of illegal aliens did not have to break up.
Some members did not have to stay in the United States while others were deported. Instead, they could leave together and live together in the Latin or Central American country of their origin.
Illegal immigration has always been a highly emotional issue for conservatives. But it’s been given added impetus this year.
For years, Republicans and Democrats have clashed over the subject of illegal immigration.
Democrats favor wholesale grants of unearned citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who brazenly violated the law when they sneaked across American borders.
And Republicans favor beefing up security against future waves of such invaders.
But the brutal truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans truly want to end these invasions. Nor do they want to deport the millions of illegals who have already taken up residence here.
They don’t care that these illegals:
Democrats, primarily governed by liberal ideology, believe it’s racist for whites to demand control of their own national borders. They also see illegal aliens as a huge constituency.
And Republicans want them as low-skilled, low-wage fodder for their major campaign contributors–such as corporate-farms and retail outlets like Wal-Mart.
Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans like to feign outrage at the presence of so many illegal aliens within their midst.
It’s the Republican base that’s demanding an end to illegal immigration.
Those masses of alienated and angry whites who find themselves living in a nation that’s increasingly alien from themselves. And who have made Donald Trump their overwhelming choice for President in 2016.
Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans ignore a blunt reality: Mexico–America’s largest source of illegal aliens–strictly enforces control of its own borders.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
The law also ensures that:
Meanwhile, Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Share this: