Class Warfare Blog

April 23, 2014

Inequality BS

The GOP’s take on income and wealth inequality is that it is basically a “good thing” which tells you everything you need to know about who is paying the GOP’s bills.

Their basic argument is that the wealthy are the “job creators” and so having the wealth in their hands means that jobs are created and people get to work, pay their bills, and everybody is happy. Now, they are not arguing that the wealthy are all creating jobs directly, many of the wealthy these days turn out to be corporate executives and they are not going to use their own money so their companies can hire more employees. Instead they invest that money in, for example, the stock market so other people can use that capital to hire folks and build things.

It is a nice story, but how is it actually playing out.

Let’s see: businesses are sitting on almost two trillion dollars worth of cash they aren’t using to build stuff and hire people.

Why is that?

Apparently there is not enough demand.

The wealthy are not good at spending money.”

Why is that?

Well people are in debt up to their necks and many don’t have jobs and those who do haven’t seen much if any growth in their income in decades while their expenses have gone up and up and up.

Why is that?

Basically it is because of the wealthy. You see they are very good at making and hoarding money but not so good at spending it. Do they spend their money by buying stocks in companies that are hiring and building? Not so much. Instead they invest in “securities” (such irony) trying to make as much money as possible and those “securities” are tied to activities that are more speculative than constructive, that is nothing real is created. And the return on investment in the form of tax breaks secured by bribing, uh, donating to the campaign funds, of politicians is undeniable.

The wealthy are not good at spending money. The poor and middle class are: they have no choice but to spend all they make. So, as wealth has been transferred from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, it has had the effect of increasing “savings” and decreasing “spending” which has created the lack of demand that created a stalled economy.

Why is that?

The wealthy think that their wealth makes them “special.” They don’t realize that they are “special” only in the sense of the Church Lady (look it up). They are using their wealth to rig the game to enable them to increase their own wealth because to them that is prestige. The fact that the other 99% of us think of them as just rich assholes is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is their ability to increase their own wealth and therefore their own prestige among their peers. And if they have to fuck over all of the rest of us to do that, well, so be it.

Why All of the Lies on the Right?

When I was younger I don’t remember conservatives peddling lies all the time, but that was then and this is now. There are enough examples of political exaggeration on all sides of issues to go around. Gross exaggerations by environmentalists in the early days of the environmental movement undermined the credibility of some of them when the abuses became more visible, for example. This is not an unusual practice as getting the attention of an information addled populace is not easy. (I have always suggested that the truth is the best approach because, if for no other reason, it is easier to remember.)

But of late Conservatives (yes, the capital “C” conservatives of today) have found that lies and overt deceptions are important tools, so important that they use them willy-nilly. As just a few examples:

Climate change is a hoax. A hoax, really? On what planet can a hoax be perpetrated with the willing participation of thousands of people in dozens of different countries?

Evolution is a lie. Again, you could have fooled me. On what planet can you get thousands of the most rational human beings to believe a lie upon which their credibility and income are contingent?

The wealthy are our job creators. Yeah, if you want to work for minimum wages. The real job creators are called “customers.” Without them, there are no jobs. Customers pay the bills and salaries of those hired, not the wealthy.

Benghazi is a scandal. Really? Not the eight embassy attacks and all of the deaths that occurred during the Bush administration, but the one attack and four deaths in Libya, of all places?

The IRS is targeting conservative groups. Gosh, I hope so, in that they are lying about their tax exempt status in droves. The fact that the IRS targeted progressive groups apparently doesn’t matter and, well, the fact that that is their job. And, the GOP instigated cuts in the IRS’s budget seem to have been the cause of the IRS needing to take shortcuts due to a lack of manpower may have had something to do with it. Oh, well, any sort of lie that undermines the IRS’s integrity is good for the GOP’s paymasters.

The President isn’t a citizen. That birth certificate is a fake!

Obamacare will result in “death panels!” Oh, for Pete’s sake.

Corporations are people. Somehow the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to convert a somewhat useful business fiction (that corporations have some aspects of people, mainly that they live and die) into a political nightmare is beyond comprehension.

I could go on (and on) but I won’t. I am sure you have some of your favorite Conservative Lies you can add to the list. Their approach to creating these is a fascinating one. In general, the propaganda arm of the GOP, Fox (sic) News, throws out lies rapid fire. Those that “stick,” that is resonate with the conservative base, are the one’s embraced by Conservative Politicians. having a “lie factory” as an industrial model is somehow fitting.

It is pure speculation, but I suspect that all of these overt lies have replaced the subtle lies of the past because a diminishment of the creative and logical powers of the conservative class. Any conservative worth his salt and with half a brain has fled the field. When I was young, the GOP had a liberal wing and a moderate wing. These folks overlapped with the more conservative democrats (like the Blue Dog Dems) and common ground was created, drawing the extremes of both parties toward the center. The flight of the GOP’s liberals and conservatives took not only that common ground with them but they took more than the average number of IQ points, too. The Bubbas remaining don’t have the sophistication to engage in subtle “untruths” and are much more comfortable with flat out lies.

April 22, 2014

Poll Shows Lack of Public Support for “The Big Bang”

Aw, c’mon, pollsters. This is stupid. A recent Associated Press (AP)-GfK poll came up with the following two responses (among others):

“The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.” 51% of the respondents answered with: “Not too/Not at All Confident” that this statement is true.

“The universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation.” 54% of the respondents answered that they were Extremely/Very Confident that this statement is true.

According to many in the commenting class these responses say a lot about Americans. But they don’t really say what. I am not so timid.

The Big Bang Theory is a relatively young theory and if an adult were not a fan of popular science programming on TV, just where would they acquire any information about what that theory was and whether it were true? The vast majority of Americans are not in a position to access or evaluate the data supporting this theory. So, for Americans to believe that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang” would require an act of faith, faith that many scientists believe it to be so, which must make it so.

On the other hand, many, many Americans are brought up in schools, in churches, and summer camps, and colleges wherein the message is repeated over and over that “in the beginning, God created, etc.” I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that phrase, but it is a very large number. You can also see this reinforced on TV programs, even on “science” channels.

So, what would you expect ordinary people to believe?

Is there any serious discussion of the contrast between these two “messages?” Does anyone ever ask why the phrase “in the beginning” is used when clearly God is already there? Does anyone ever ask why God addresses no one in particular and uses the word “us” when he creates Adam and Eve? There is no public discourse on the contrast between these two opposing memes, so is it any surprise that the message hammered home over and over and over is the one people favor?

It is somewhat dismaying, though, to hear the trite comments fostered by creationist apologists coming from educated people. For example, in the AP story they say:

Jorge Delarosa, a 39-year-old architect from Bridgewater, N.J., pointed to a warm 2012 without a winter and said, “I feel the change. There must be a reason.” But when it came to Earth’s beginnings 4.5 billion years ago, he has doubts simply because “I wasn’t there.”

Did anyone ask the gentlemen about his belief in “in the beginning, God created, etc?” I do believe he could also state that he wasn’t there either.

Until there is some rational discourse in this country, those with the best marketing will dominate public opinion. It seems to be true in our politics and it is certainly true in our religions.

April 18, 2014

Russia’s Long Game

Filed under: History — Steve Ruis @ 7:28 am
Tags: , , ,

During the current crisis in Ukraine (fomented by the west or not) history should not be forgotten. As the Iranians don’t forget our role in the overthrow of their elected government in 1953, Russia has not forgotten that a coalition of western powers invaded Russia after the revolution. Japan and the U.S. invaded from the east, European powers from the west. (Yes, we had troops on Russian soil.) Also, you need to know that when Russia took so many countries into its embrace after World War 2, it did everything it could do to “Russianize” those “satellites.” It made Russia the national language of those states and the only language to be taught in schools. And it moved a very large number of ethnic Russians into those states as they had earlier moved large numbers of other ethnicities out of them. Because of this, Russia always had a sizeable minority, at the very least, of ethnic Russians “on tap” in those states, to oppose internal revolutions or external invasions.

Anyone shocked by Russia’s current tactics of smuggling in its own troops to blend with the ethnic Russians already in Ukraine or Russia’s honoring plebiscites in areas dominated by ethic Russians miss the point that they prepared those strategies a long time ago.

April 16, 2014

Calling Bullshit: GOP Wants to Abolish the IRS

When there are so many real issues that need our attention, why are Republicans going around the country defaming the Internal Revenue Service? They have succeeded in cutting that agency’s budget and crippling it in various other ways. The GOP opposed a major computer upgrade when the IRS’s computers were about four or five generations behind being “modern.” And they continuously beat the drum with how wicked and evil the IRS is, and how bloated the tax code is.

This is abject idiocy. First, the IRS is not responsible for the tax code, Congress is. So, here we have the picture of Congressional Republicans going around the country blaming the IRS for the bloated state of the federal tax codes which is actually their responsibility. WTF?

So, do Republicans want tax code reform? I say “no,” and there are myriad reasons supporting this. The first is simply to watch their actions, instead of their words. Between 2001 and 2006, the GOP had control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. Anything they wanted to do they could. Did they even attempt any tax reform? No.

That could be the end of my argument … but wait, there’s more! How many pages of the federal tax code do you think are necessary to cover all of the rules needed for you to file your tax return? Fifty? One hundred? So, why are there thousands and thousands of pages in the tax code? They are there to provide tax loopholes for rich people and corporations, you know, so that hedge fund managers making billions of dollars annually never leave the lowest tax bracket (15%) while middle class folks making $50K-60K make it at least into the 28% bracket. People talk about tax havens in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands like they were the idea of those countries. when actually, they were created by the U.S. tax code. I wonder how those codes got written, hmmm?

Now we are getting a sniff of what the GOP’s minions are really doing: they like the bloated tax codes because they wrote much of it (Democrats, too) to give their rich patrons tax breaks; they just don’t want the IRS enforcing any of the more punitive parts of that code. Their approach is the same as with environment regulations: corporations don’t need environmental regulations; we can trust them to respect the environment. For the rich: we don’t need to enforce any of those tax laws that cause the rich to pay more taxes than they are now; we can trust them to pay their fair share of income taxes. (“These are not the “Droids you are looking for. There is nothing to see here.”) Of course, this is with all evidence being to the contrary: corporations regularly rape the environment (dump radioactive waste in holes in the ground and leave it for others to clean up, spill huge quantities of oil and not clean it up, leave toxic coal ash dumps out in what effectively are basins that fill up and overflow with rain water, oops, and rich people evade taxation, legally and illegally on a daily basis).

Most people, especially when having just confronted how much they have paid in taxes, aren’t happy about that, but if they are given a scale upon which they place their taxes on one pan and all of the services they receive for those taxes on the other they aren’t particularly unhappy or have buyer’s remorse, etc. (And if they are it is over matters of fairness, not that they are paying taxes at all; only GOP wingnuts think they shouldn’t be paying taxes at all.) But that momentary disgruntlement we all feel when we pay our taxes can be fanned into an anti-government feeling and that serves the GOP’s paymaster’s will. But, how many times have tax measures been passed by the GOP only to find out that the major beneficiaries are the rich even though they were pitched as to how they would affect your taxes, not theirs? And even if the rich don’t benefit all that much, as long as “the government” (which is just “us” acting together for the common good) is further starved of funds, the less it can do to oppose the will of the rich and the corporations.

Currently, tons of GOP political cash is being stored illegally in “charities” prohibited from doing much politically. Because they are “charities” they need pay no taxes and need not disclose their “donors.” The fact that these organizations spend all of their monies on politics is a minor peccadillo that the IRS should not be looking into, so we see the GOP cutting the IRS’s budget, reducing the number of IRS agents, pumping up false claims that the IRS is biased against conservative groups, etc.

So, I call bullshit on the GOP’s efforts to “rein in the IRS.” It is just another ploy in its support of the rich and corporations being allowed to do any damned thing they want. Of course, they include themselves in that group because to continue their effective support of the rich and powerful, they need to be rich and powerful, too.

April 13, 2014

What Cosmos Got Wrong, Part 2

Filed under: Science — Steve Ruis @ 10:05 pm
Tags: , , , ,

If you read my original post “What Cosmos Got Wrong Last Night,” you will know that I objected to their graphics department’s depictions of atoms. They showed electrons having flaming tails in orbits around atoms which is just wrong. I won’t repeat that objection as I had no expectation that that would have been fixed in this latest episode. Those episodes have been “in the can” for weeks I am sure. So, again in this episode atoms are depicted as being roughly spherical with a translucent outer membrane within which electrons spin in orbits around the nucleus. They look a little like fish or frog’s eggs, albeit with sparkly bits whizzing around inside. There is no membrane. There is no outer surface. There are no orbits. Enough said.

What they got wrong that was new was their depictions of atomic nuclei. I don’t blame them so much as most school books get this wrong (still!) possibly because they are just copying schoolbook diagrams in previous books. The big mistake was depicting atomic nuclei as bunches of separate particles. In one case they had roseate proton bubbles mixed in with blue neutron bubbles, both jiggling nicely. The only problem with this depiction is … wait for it … there are no protons and no neutrons in atomic nuclei. But, but, sputter, we were told…! Yes, I know, but people don’t always use their words well. You see, atomic nuclei are not made “of” protons and neutrons, they are made “from” protons and neutrons.

“… there are no protons and no neutrons in atomic nuclei. But, but, sputter, we were told…!”

Atomic nuclei are made in stars (the furnaces of creation). Ordinary stars make the elements up to iron on the periodic table and the elements past iron on that table are made when super massive stars explode as supernovae. These nuclei are made by a process called nuclear fusion in which the word “fusion” is meant to imply the elementary particles are melted together to make new ones. In our sun, right now, hydrogen is being fused together to make helium nuclei. The helium nuclei are made by fusing two protons and two neutrons together to make a new single particle. That particle, the helium nucleus, has all of the charge of the four particles it is made “from” but not quite all of the mass. Some of the mass of the four particles was converted into energy in the fusion process (which is why physicists are trying to harness this process to produce energy). And this is where Einstein’s famous equation comes in: E = mc2. The energy made when that mass is converted is equal to the amount of mass multiplied by a very large number (the speed of light) twice! That tells you that a tiny amount of mass will make a large amount of energy.

Now, it is important to note, that the helium nucleus this created is not massive enough to break apart into two protons and two neutrons. This is the only reason this nucleus is stable. People think that the “protons in that nucleus repel one another and the neutrons help them by keeping them apart.” That’s a nice description for fourth graders, but not for adults. The real reason is that there are no protons any more, they were destroyed when they were fused together with the other particles, there is but a single particle of a 2+ charge. There are no particles to separate or to repel each other.

Just to make the story complete; as helium and hydrogen are fused into heavier and heavier elements (lithium, carbon, … , up to iron) energy is given off, but in ever diminishing amounts. As the amounts of energy diminish, the gravity of the star crushes it into a smaller and smaller space. This is why stars “die.” And only in the mindboggling massively energetic explosions of supernovae are the other elements made as they can only be made with an input of energy, quite a bit of it.

The other thing Cosmos got wrong last night was a comment made by NDT about the 10 million year journey of a photon created in the center of the Sun to make is way out of the Sun to radiate off into space, and even maybe get intercept by a planet (most of the light, almost all of it, misses any planet and keeps on going). In describing this process he stated that photons bounce off of atoms ricocheting in a random fashion, so are immensely slowed. Actually in the center of the Sun, there are no atoms. There is so much energy available that the electrons are so energetic that no nucleus can hold them. I mentioned in that prior post that electrons bound to atoms have only certain energies that they can possess (why is a mystery). And electrons can only absorb photons that have energies corresponding to two of their “allowed” energy states; otherwise the photon just keeps rolling. What I didn’t tell you is that unbound electrons can absorb any amount of energy a photon has. So NDT’s newly created solar photon is not bouncing off of “atoms” but is being absorbed by electrons (and even nuclei) and then recreated a short time later with its direction of travel made random. I do not know how one could tell if the photon absorbed and the photo created are the same photon, but I’d have to guess not. (If you can’t tell them apart, then the point is moot as they all are identical, save for the amount of energy involved.) How electrons are able to do this is somewhat of a mystery. But if you magically were able to wiggle an electron fast enough you could create light that way. The reason I say the photon absorbed and the photon released later are not the same is because there are naturally occurring minerals that absorb light and release it minutes or even hours later (They can even convert ultraviolet light into visible light and look quite spooky under “black light.”) During the time the light is stored, those photons do not materially exist, their kinetic energy having been converted into potential energy.

In summation, I am finding the new Cosmos series quite delightful and “must see” TV and I hope grade schools up through colleges will play this series for every student coming through. I just wish they had been a little more accurate in some of their depictions because, as you know, “a picture is worth a thousand words.”

April 10, 2014

Evolution: This is a Test, This is Only a Test,…

In last night’s first episode of “Your Inner Fish,” on PBS host Neil Shubin described the discovery of the transitional fossil called Tiktaalik. This was one of the, if not the, first walking fishes. While I thought I could hear the anti-evolution crowd grinding their teeth while this was airing, I think they probably missed the big picture. It is worse than they thought.

Neil Shubin, a paleobiologist at the University of Chicago, described his team’s thinking; it went like this: there seemed to be a gap in the fossil record between fish and walking tetrapods (land creatures). Since they believed evolution theory to be true, there had to be organisms to fill that gap (as that was too big of a gap to jump in a single mutation, etc.). So, he and his partner, a geologist, decided to go looking for fossils of those animals. And, they accept the theory of evolution as being correct. If it is then such animals had to have existed and, if they did, there might be fossilized remains to be found (fossil creation is rare and haphazard). Since they had dates for the two fossils on either side of the fossils they wanted to find, they went to geological maps and located three areas of rock that were of that age and one of them was largely unexplored, so they chose that site to look in. They then got grant funding, a great deal of grant funding, to explore that site which was in a remote area in northern Canada (no roads, no towns, no people, that kind of remote). This was no small undertaking. It took years, and as I said much money, to do this “experiment.” They then applied principles of geology and geography to locate the best possible places to look in and eventually, they found Tiktaalik, at least the fossilized remains of it, the organism that they were looking for.

“In this case it is all support for the theory of evolution: check, check, and check.”

This is how a theory is tested. If it is true then predictions can be made that should also be true and will then be subject of experiments that either support or undermine that theory. In this case it is all support for the theory of evolution: check, check, and check. Not only did they find the predicted organism, but they found it in time where it was expected to be. And this is one of myriad examples that have been similarly documented. As time went on, minor tweaks were made to make the theory more accurate and voila, you have “settled science,” science that no one disagrees with any more.

Now, if evolution were a hoax, would scientists be dumb enough to get funding for an expedition involving polar bear dangers, shotguns, extreme weather, isolation, etc. all for something they don’t expect to find in the first place? Would granting agencies provide hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding for such enterprises if there were not a good chance of actually furthering scientific knowledge or are they “in” on the plot, too?

The whole idea that major concepts like evolution (Where are the transitional fossils?) and climate change (It is all a hoax!) are bogus is ludicrous and is indicative of a bankruptcy of better ideas. These claims are just props for the confirmation biases of the fellow travelers of the people in these “anti” camps. They don’t really mean what their words are saying, in fact there is a good chance they don’t even understand what they are saying (like the guy who wanted to see the fossil of a creature half monkey and half fish). These are just campaign slogans they have learned to repeat.

The trouble for the anti-evolution crowd is that young people are growing up and deciding on their own whether there is evidence to support these scientific theories and the people opposing them appear to them like people  who insist today that the Earth is flat or that the Moon is hollow appear to us: batshit crazy. And, when you get tagged with that label, your credibility on almost everything else goes with it. So, you religious out there, do you want to lose the ears of the younger generation altogether? If not, you might want to find a way to accommodate sensible positions on scientific discoveries and theories. Good advice for Republicans, too. How many young people will listen to your “Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell” bullshit?

April 8, 2014

The Income Inequality Divide

Filed under: Politics — Steve Ruis @ 11:07 am
Tags: , , , ,

On Ezra Klein’s new news/commentary website Vox there appeared an article with the title “Inequality is Highest in Democratic Districts.” This was apparently a mystery to many, even though the researcher (Michael Zuckerman of The Atlantic) who found confirmation of this fact stated “Part of this, Zuckerman writes, is driven by the simple fact of political geography: ‘cities have become, in general, strongholds of the Democratic Party, and cities have become, in general, hives of the most dramatic income inequality in the country.’”

Gosh, cities, I never would have guessed.

Where are corporate headquarters, do you think? In cities or out in the farm belt? And who comprise the bulk of the 1% and the 0.1%? Uhh … corporate executives? Got it in one, Bubba, so, … , the effing plutocrats are concentrated in big cities; amazing, right? So, people in the more rural parts of the country haven’t really seen any of this income inequality, right?

Oh, come on. The author of this piece actually thinks that politicians have looked at the data. Let me simplify it for you: if Democrats are for it, Republicans are against it, and vice-versa. Got it?

Pascal’s Wager Applied to Climate Change

Filed under: Philosophy,Politics — Steve Ruis @ 10:52 am
Tags: , , ,

It is clear that the discussion over climate change is wrongly focused. Most people think it is about ignorance: if the people opposing climate change were only to see more evidence, they would be convinced. This is clearly wrong. More likely this is simple confirmation bias: we ignore information that contradicts what we believe and conservative myth-mongers got to the plate first with the “Climate Change is a liberal hoax” meme. Once they got their supporters to commit to this falsehood, then evidence no longer matters. Things that bolster one’s belief are latched upon; things that oppose that belief are ignored. It is a done deal.

“ It doesn’t matter whether you think it is real or not, the odds are way better if you believe. ”

Allow me to offer another approach, one based upon Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist, offered the following apologetic for belief in God (paraphrased for modern eyes):

Either God is or is not.
If you believe he is not, and are right, you gain nothing, but if you are wrong, you lose everything (you burn in Hell forever).
If you believe he is, and are right, you gain everything (it’s Heaven, baby), but if you are wrong, you lose nothing.

Consequently believing in God is the only prudent path, it is heaven or nothing. Unbelievers face either nothing or Hell. What kind of idiot would choose that path?

Now, let’s apply this to Climate Change. This is a bit more difficult because the differences between eternity in Heaven and eternity Hell are rather stark while the repercussion of Climate Change are much less so, but nothing ventured, noting gained:

Either Climate Change is real or it is not.
If you believe it is not real, and you are right, you have gained nothing, but if you are wrong … the repercussions will be dramatic: submerged coastlines (where most major cities are), unpredictable weather patterns that make agriculture quite problematic, violent storms that wreak havoc, etc.
If you believe it is real, and you are right, all of the preparations you have made will offset some of the negative effects of climate change (how beneficial this will be depends upon how effective the measures taken are, so this is hard to estimate), but if you are wrong you will have spent money developing new sources of energy that might not be needed now but you also will have preserved in the ground vast resources of carbon fuels that will be available longer into the future (many of which are more valuable being converted into other chemicals that as fuels). And since the history of mankind is rife with the development of new sources of energy, this can hardly be considered a negative, especially since carbon-based fuels are finite, limited resources.

Consequently, believing Climate Change is real is the more prudent course.

It doesn’t matter whether you think it is real or not, the odds are way better if you believe.

Republicans: “We Need Less Government Regulation and Here’s Why”

(Speech delivered at the Get Government Off the Backs of the Job Creators Conference in Lubbock, Texas)
We Republicans argue that if we, in the form of the government, would just “get out of the corporation’s way” by reducing or eliminating regulations, especially environmental regulations, the corporations would be unleashed job creators and we would all be better off. Recent events prove our case.

Just a few days ago the Anadarko Corporation paid the largest cash settlement of a government environmental suit against it ever levied, $5.15 billion dollars. For years and years a subsidiary company if its was disposing of deadly nuclear waste but doing things like burying it in the back yard instead of disposing of it “according to regulations.” There are now apparently thousands of these toxic and radioactively contaminated sites that need to be cleaned up. When the settlement was announced, the corporation’s stock price rose dramatically. Why? Because a previous judge in the case had estimated the cleanup costs at $14 billion dollars, leaving the government to foot the bill for the difference over the $5 billion. So, the corporation got “less regulation” and the people were happy and bought up its stock, so much so that the value of the corporation’s own holdings went up more than the $5 billion they paid. See?

“ …  corporations really are people, good people, who have your best interests in mind. ” 

In North Carolina, Duke Energy had to go to the trouble to get its corporate president elected Governor of the state to get all of the environmental problems with its handling of its toxic coal ash pits all over the state. (Coal ash being what’s left over when you burn coal, being liberally laced with toxic heavy metals.) So what if they have been illegally pumping water that accumulates in these ponds from rain, dissolving some of the toxins, untreated into the state’s rivers? So what if a couple of these ponds collapsed completely dumping thousands of tons of that heady brew in nearby rivers? Water always flows to the sea, no? We learned that in science class in school. It would be unnatural if it didn’t. Think of all the money spent on getting Duke Energy’s president elected North Carolina’s Governor. All of that money would have been better spent creating jobs, like coal ash pit pump operator and security guards for when they were doing that.

And all of those oil spills from the BP, uh, incident in the Gulf of Mexico, to the Canadian and U.S. pipeline ruptures, uh, leaks, to the rail car dumps of oil. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, such is the cost of doing business. And having to pay to clean all of that stuff up, even with the generous discounts our politicians and lawyers arranged, well that’s expensive, and the money would have been better spent creating jobs.

And don’t get me started about “fracking.” Every time a corporation comes up with a new, job-creating technology, the damned gov’mint regulators start champing at the bit to write new regulations … as if the old one’s somehow wouldn’t work. This just cannot continue this way.

You see, do you not, that corporations really are people, good people, who have your best interests in mind. And why would we want to shackle them with unneeded regulations?

The Republican Party is the only party that stands ready, eagerly so, to liberate our corporations from this unnecessary and counterproductive burden. A vote for a Republican is a vote for freedom!

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 220 other followers