This one's a bit out of left field, I suspect, coming as it does from the chairman of the Center For Inquiry, Los Angeles bureau. I'm really not sure how many folks here are familiar with this skeptics' organization. I've been reading their journal, the Skeptical Inquirer for something like a decade now, and it's been a most enlightening and informative experience. In any case, I got a copy of this message from CFI Chair Eddie Tabash in my email, and thought the first two lines really needed to be shared with a (slightly) wider audience:

Like most Americans, I have been experiencing difficult economic times in this most challenging year. Nonetheless, I have personally donated a total of $100,000 to CFI during 2010.

Well, Ed, I must say, I am glad to know that most Americans are experiencing difficult economic times like you. You see, if they were experiencing them like me, they wouldn't have a dime to their names, let alone a hundred grand for charity. I'm actually fortunate in having a pair of understanding parents who are helping me through this most challenging year, but if most Americans didn't have those hundred thousands just waiting for charities to receive them, oh! How much more challenging might it be for all of us!

EDIT: (minor formatting)

 
An arrogant sneer at anyone not fortunate enough to have been born into wealth and privilege.

To them, nobody "deserves" money who doesn't already have it, and nobody "deserves" anything they can't afford. Obviously, if these freeloaders "deserved" anything, they'd already have it. Everybody just gets whatever they "deserve" automatically, and nobody gets anything they don't "deserve". That's the way it works, you see?

Of course, nobody bothers asking what the rich did to "deserve" their vast fortunes, because obviously, nobody gets rich who doesn't "deserve" to be. Whether you really did work 40-80 hours a week digging ditches (yeah, that'll make you rich in no time!), pushed papers in an office, or just managed to get born into the family fortune, you clearly earned your way into The Good Life, so you "deserve" the money, the riches, the power, etc. Of course, if you didn't manage to save enough of that meager paycheck every week to retire in anything remotely resembling comfort, you clearly didn't "deserve" to.

It's a nice little Get Out of Anything Free card for anyone who wants to judge without obligation. All you have to do is say people don't "deserve" whatever is asked for, and you're off the hook! You don't even have to explain why they don't deserve it, or why you "deserve" your own good fortune. The answer's already spelled out: nobody "deserves" anything they don't already have! See how easy it is?

Such a horribly convenient word to say, "I got mine, so screw the rest!"
It's just a pity these people never seem to get what they really deserve.

is replace the H-1B with a national job placement program.

I think the US government already hires many of its own employees through at least one online database. Perhaps they could let prospective employers offer their own jobs through the same, or a similar one. They could even help employers match applicants to their needs! If no suitable matches could be found, of course, a visa might be needed, but with the current level of unemployment, this should be a very rare necessity.

Of course, the employer would be expected to make every reasonable effort to find a suitable American. That would mean considering and interviewing any and all candidates who can meet the basic requirements with a reasonable amount of training. They couldn't get fussy over details like brands and models of equipment, of course. One could hardly expect everyone in a given field to have used the exact same model of machinery, or the exact same software. An initial period of orientation and familiarization is only to be expected.

Degree requirements would have to be justified, too, and expected to come at a premium. I think many of us have heard of more and more employers demanding at least a bachelor's degree, if not a master's. Almost surely, in some cases, for no better reason than they can. If enough Americans are available that employers can be selective, there's clearly no need to look overseas; just cast a wider net here. Either accept (perhaps train) a lesser candidate, or offer a competetive wage.



This is the real problem. Employers want the most skilled workers they can get. They just don't want to pay for them. What I don't understand is why they stay here in America, when apparently, all the best workers live abroad. Wouldn't it be simpler to operate where the cream of the crop comes walking right up to your door? Wouldn't it be easier to hire without having to get the government involved?

Don't get me wrong. I'd much rather have businesses operating here in America, but what good is that when all the skilled labor is shipped in from overseas? Of course, they'd never dream of outsourcing their own jobs (except for Click and Clack). There's just no substitute for the American CEO!

I say, if American companies want the American government to help them fill their empty positions, the American government can provide them with American workers. A lot of Americans are needing work, right now, and apparently, a lot of American companies need workers even in this economy. It looks to me like the American government has the perfect solution staring it straight in the face.



And it ain't no God-damned work visa.

...if we don't turn it around, and fast.

I got this email from a friend last night. He's still a friend, despite his politics, but I have no choice but to fight him on this one:

Note especially: "73% in favor of the White House." When I went to check this out, it had already swung to 86% in favor of Fox.

Talk about a swing vote!

As I read the poll, only a little over two hundred thousand voters had favored the White House. If that represented 73% of the total when the email went out, that would have been a total response of just over three hundred thousand. By the time I'd got there, it had risen to over 1.7 MILLION votes, over 1.5 million of them for Fox! That's up from LESS than a hundred thousand, if I got the math right.

Looks like someone else has figured out "grass roots" mobilization.

Okay, this probably isn't that big a thing. The poll came out over a week ago (October 23), and probably isn't going to make any news cycles now. Hell, I hadn't even heard of this thing before my friend mistook me for a conservative. Still... this is NPR. Do we really want them to think their listeners have swung so hard to the right? Sure, they must be smarter than that, but do we even want to allow the possibility?

Surely, we must have enough here alone to turn the tables back?

And don't forget to tell all your liberal friends!

...or they don't read the blogs much.

NPR's news blog, The Two-Way, recently posted a poll asking visitors whom they support in this apparent feud between the White House and Fox News. Well, whatever the initial response after it went up October 23, it seems that over 1.5 MILLION NPR listeners are behind Fox on this one, compared to a measley two hundred thousand supporting the White House.

The HELL???

Actually, this email from a friend of mine might have something to do with it:

Oops... did I say might?

Okay, guys, we've been rejoicing in our own power of mobilization,
now it looks like the other side wants to play.
They've managed to turn 73% for the White House to 86% for Fox.

ARE WE GOING TO LET THIS STAND?

DON'T let the 'cons have the final word! Not on NPR!
TELL THEM where you stand!

ANYONE who chooses to run for office,
especially Congress or the Presidency,
should be required to answer the simple question,
"Do you believe the United States government capable
of solving problems and serving its citizens?"

If the answer is "No," that person does not get on the ballot.
If "Yes," throw it back at 'em every single time they say otherwise.

People who do not believe in government do not belong in goverment.
How could we expect anyone who doesn't believe it can work
to even try to make it work?

Reagan famously said, in his first inaugural address,
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
In other words, he warned us, at the very beginning of his presidency,
that he was part of the problem.

And people still wonder how things got so screwed up...

 

The Tin Can Health Plan

Yes, for the cost of a few institutional size cans of beans,
and a dozen grainy photocopies of yourself or afflicted loved one,
you, too, can tug on the heartstrings of America,
and fish for your health and financial salvation!

Seriously, how does this surprise you???


Did you really think Obama was going to get the free ride Bush did?

Did you really expect Republicans to quietly accept minority status?

Did you really expect the "mainstream" media to shift allegiance?

Did you really expect them even to be neutral??


And you've been around here how long???


Seriously, who here really thought the Republicans or MSM would not go with the double standard that's served them so well? Sure, the Repos are in the minority now, but apparently, nobody's figured that out yet. Certainly not the MSM! And, hell, with the hammering Obama's getting from their side and ours, they may never even have to acknowledge it. Everything will be back to "normal" before anyone realizes it ever changed!

Nah, wake me when the rest of our Democrats aren't just talking like Barney Frank, but kicking ass and taking names, to boot.

THAT just might make the front page.

Web comics will be the death of me.

Even now, as the hour approaches six AM, I find myself stuck
catching up on yet another series newly discovered.
But of course, that alone hardly warrants comment.

No, I just happened across this strip while flipping through Sandra and Woo:



Somehow, you've just got to admire that, eh?

The "Pull It, Sir!" Prize!

To be presented each year to those journalists who best exemplify the NEW journalistic standards of...

• Stifling the voice of dissent! (Unless approved)


• Killing any story unflattering to the Party of Choice!


• Burying all evidence of wrongdoing by the Powers That Be!

Expand and Improve upon this list at your pleasure!

(Edit for (even more) obnoxious effect)

the American worker's blood runs cold.

Over the last ten years, if not more, I've learned to recognize a few code words. Not that it takes any great leap of brilliance, or anything more than simple logic. Just consider these terms:

Reduced Labor Costs

This should be obvious: what economists call "labor costs", you probably call your paycheck. Of course, that's not the whole story. You've also got fringe benefits, like one of those employer-provided health care programs everyone likes so much. Paid vacations, bonuses, all those other little tokens of appreciation? Labor costs, all.

Of course, that's if you're employed "full time", a category employers have worked to define almost completely out of existence. Part-time employees, temps, and contractors are exempt from such lavish expenditures, so employers have managed to "reduce labor costs" immensely over the past couple of decades, just by recategorizing the majority of their work force.

Saves a bundle!

Of course, having redefined all the positions they can (or can get away with), employers are now suddenly forced to "reduce labor costs" even further. With little choice left but to reduce wages and salaries directly, they've found they can make it a lot more palatable by eliminating part of the workforce itself. Those who survive the cuts know who'll be next, and just what they'll face on the "open market." Given a choice between "reduced cost" and "no cost", the choice for most is a no-brainer. This also contributes to our second term:

Increased Worker Productivity

Just because a business has cut its workforce in half doesn't mean it can get by on half the work. If anything, it needs to do even more with what's left to stand any hope of survival. That means getting at least the same amount of work from half the staff it had, and that means at least twice the workload on the staff remaining. Fortunately, having watched half their fellows clean their desks and go, the employees remaining have every motivation to demonstrate their continued value to their employers. What's a little more work for a little less pay? Beats the alternative, doesn't it?

That's Increased Worker Productivity. That means higher profits, which means happy shareholders, and an Improved Economy.

Which means happy economists.

In Summary: Fewer Employees * More Work * Less Pay = Improved Economy

Is this an accurate assessment? I don't know. I suppose not.

I don't consider myself an economist. Not much of one, in any case. I imagine a "real" economist would rip my "analysis" up one side and down the other, and show me how I'm wrong in no fewer than two dozen different ways. That's how much of an economist I figure I am. It still doesn't change the reality of what's happening to us all.

No doubt, we would be much better off, if we could "just" learn to better manage our finances, and budget our income "right". I don't think most of us get much of a chance to do that. I think most of us are too busy trying to make what little money we can, or training for that better paying job we hope will finally pull us out of our troubles, just a little bit. Until then, what point is there even trying to "manage" money that's mostly spoken for, even before we see it? What "plans" can be made for money already "planned" for the monthly bills?

I'm sure it's no easier for businesses struggling just to stay above water, but they at least have the option of trimming their workforce, and squeezing what's left. If they can do enough of either or both, they just might manage to survive, and the economists will cheer their Reduced Labor Costs, and their Increased Worker Productivity. I don't know. Is that enough for them to declare an Improved Economy? Do they even look at household incomes? Do even mortgages matter to them unless they're going "underwater"?

I remember reading in Newsweek last year, among a list of threats to our economy, one of the top, if not the top, was an increase in personal savings. That's right: One of the greatest dangers to our economy is a rise in our personal savings rate at one of its lowest points in our nation's history. Well, if that's what scares the economists, then I hope every one of them is shaking in his boots. When the choice is between personal savings and a "healthy" economy, then that, too, is a no-brainer:

Fuck the economy.

Having given some thought to our courageous representatives' determination to serve their constituents to the best of their ability (I'm sure you can see it dripping even without the icon), I got this idea for an advertisement that could air for the (what is it, five?) weeks they're out on vacation. Recess. Whatever.

I don't have the resources to pull off the production, but I think it's got just about the message people really need to see as they wait through the intermission. Maybe, just maybe a few reps will return to find a few choice messages back at the office.

Maybe.

In any case, here's the outline:

=====

Open on the semi-darkened bedroom of Our Congressman, soundly snoring away in bed.

Cut back and forth from the bedroom to scenes of worried citizens (3-5 different settings) as they discuss their individual health crises. Possible scenes:

• An elderly couple whose prescription prices are being raised.
  
• A young couple scrambling to pay the hospital bills for their sick child.
  
• A family discussing how soon their injured father will be able to work again, and what they'll have to sacrifice to cover the bills.
  
• (Hey, add your own!)
  

Over the course of these conversations, each turns to the subject of the new health plan being hammered out in Congress; each decides to call Our Congressman (still cutting to the snoring man in his darkened bedroom); and each returns to the table with the same news:

• "He's on vacation!"
  
• "Vacation?"
  
• "Vacation."
  
• (get the picture?)
  

End in the bedroom, Our Congressman still snoring.
Voiceover: "Isn't it nice to have a Congressman who works for YOU?"

=====

If I had the means to pull it off myself, I would. If anyone here who does likes the idea, please, feel free to grab it and run with it!

Thank you.