My Photo

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


« Ruminations – 9feb13 (updated) | Main | State of Union 2013 got a C- or a D (updated) »

11 February 2013



As soon as the hypocritical left adopts the crazy life that they want everyone else to abide by I might start to listen to their ideas. All of the rich, whatever that means, libs would need to step up and voluntarily give away all of their wealth to the pawns that they use to demonize the rich, the pawns being the so called poor, again whatever that means. The libs whose real religion is the belief in human caused glow bull warming would have to cease all use of energy that was generated by any form of fossil fuel, that would be coal, natural gas, oil, hydro power ( most dams are constructed of concrete...concrete is bad since its production generates evil see oh two and dams prevent fish from enjoying their Constitutional rights), wind power might have to go as well since windmills murder birds.
This Collins fellow is obviously not very bright, the reason that left wing radio failed is because most people do not want to listen to someone telling them that they are Peices of shitte and that America is the problem.

Bill Tozer

There is a slight breeze blowing indeed. Even progressive talk radio shows are having guests decrying the dangers and expenses of ObamaCare and the predictable exorbitant unaffordable costs to the average family of 4 coupled with declining health care services. But, just as predicable, they are only on there once. Penalties for not buying in aren't bad the first year, but like everything Obama is doing, they escalate by 3 fold the second year, and escalate the more the 3rd year, to infinity and beyond.

The problem with liberal talk shows is they lack any semblance of humor. Depressing to say the least.

Ben Emery

Once again totally off base. It is about infrastructure and media ownership. Not many big businesses want to advertise on programs that call for their break up, their tax loopholes to be closed, or exposing their criminal behavior. So what happens is liberal radio due to economics is stuck on small stations that have very little range. This of course is a very simple version.

A good independent take on media ownership. I know you will say it is liberal but I am pretty sure the Goodman's don't vote for either D's or R's. I know they are just as critical to the Obama administration. Examples

Why Media Ownership Matters

Here is Democracy Now! coverage of what I think is a crime against humanity, suspension of due process and habeas corpus, and violations of the US Constitution in multiple areas.

Michael Anderson

Ben, you are touching on a part of the problem but there are some other fundamentals that I think are much more poignant.

As George has cited here a number of times, liberal and conservative BRAINS ARE DIFFERENT! Basically, the liberal brain has a heavier cerebrum (the thinking part), whereas the conservative brain is weighted more with the cerebellum (lizard part).

If you have a heavy cerebrum, it is impossible to listen to Hannity or Rush for more than 10 minutes w/o suffering severe ennui. But if you are more gifted in the cerebellum dept., those guys are are like Zoloft.

Pretty simple, actually.

Joe Koyote

Progressive talk shows? Surely you jest. Railing about progressive talk shows is like complaining about a drop of rain during a hurricane. They don't exist to any great degree. Depending on the source 95-99 percent of radio talk shows are conservative in nature. That is the danger, a lack of fair and balanced coverage. Remember Senator Al Franken's Air America? It died not from a lack of listeners, but a lack of advertisers after numerous corporations (through their ad agencies) told media conglomerates that they would drop their ads if the stations continued to run Air America programs. Goodbye Air America. It seems that the corporations do not want the truth to be told, expect when fabricated by their own media goons. When conservative companies like Clearchannel Communications own over a thousand stations it makes your thesis, in the words of Russ Steele, a pile of bovine dung. The free market at work.. if you don't say things I like, I will take my ball and go home because the truth will hurt my bottom line. What the man in the street conservatives don't understand is that the big money will lie, steal, and cheat, even to the party faithful, in order to make a buck. That is the purpose of a corporation. Remember that profit comes first, before truth and before human decency.

George Rebane

BenE 1002am - Ben, could you please expand your explanation to include why the same lamestream, that is owned by evil corporate interests who will not tolerate otherwise popular progressive radio, is so obviously in the tank for the same progressive causes as they select and report news, and as they deliver their editorial commentaries from the same media outlets?

MichaelA 1014am - As you note, I have reported on the studies that differentiate brain functioning and attitudes between people of the Right and Left. But I haven't run across any of the brain component weight differences that you cite. Could you provide a link, I'd like to update that part for RR's Liberal Mind category? Thanks.

(BTW, I did delete your farewell and "hand job" comment under another post.)

George Rebane

JoeK 1031am - perhaps again you misunderstand. There is no "railing about progressive talk shows" in my post. On the contrary, I and other capitalists would love to see such shows, explaining the world from the socialist view point, stay on the air. As a conservetarian, I have long maintained that you collectivists describing your ideology can do a much better job driving away adherents, than we can do attracting them.

And then you suddenly straddle both sides of the argument - 1) progressive radio would attract a substantial audience if their capitalist owners would only let them, and 2) capitalists put profit above all but also mysteriously drive away audiences to whom they could advertize and sell product. Coming from another source, such argumentation would be most puzzling.

But in your denials you and BenE do throw out Peter Collins' experience and perspectives on the erstwhile field of progressive talk radio. I wonder why.


Ben's argument would hold water IF the likes of CNN, MNSBC, ABC, etc had trouble finding advertisers... they don't.

The radio market has spoken, 'no one' wants to hear progressives rattle off emotional/hypocritical/hate based ideology.

I bought a truck 6 years ago and I have not turned on the radio once.


the primary job of any talk show host (any commercially supported program) is to sell advertising space to as many listeners as possible

if progressive talk could gather the ears they would have the sponsors (not getting into Air America's theft of funds to launch or other shenanigans)

speaking for only for myself folks like "El Rushbo" lose a lot of creditability when they endorse such nonsense as Homeopathic remedies or "name a star"

face it folks - its "entertainment" any resemblance to factual content is secondary at best

Michael Anderson

If it's larger, wouldn't it also be heavier?

"Researchers also noted that Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear."

Michael Anderson

Mikey wrote: "I bought a truck 6 years ago and I have not turned on the radio once."

Not even to listen to a Giants game?? Sorry Mikey, I'm not buying it.

George Rebane

MichaelA 1155am - perhaps your 1014am conclusions from the ABC piece are too "simple".

Michael Anderson


Ben Emery

As I have repeatedly said here, none of those media outlets are liberal or progressive outside some individual commentators but over all they are the same as the rest of the corporate media.

Media Consolidation – The Illusion of Choice

Let me put it to you this way. What happened to real deep investigative reporting? As advertising and news departments were merged to increase overall profits investigative reporting basically disappeared. It was two major media reform one is what George alluded to in 1987 end then the 1996. These two reforms took the public interest out of the news and allowed for consolidation of the media. In 1980 If a media station wants to get a big name politician on they are not going to ask tough questions or expose the corruption of that politician or political party. Remember it is all about increasing viewers to get big advertising contracts. The same goes for doing a really in depth report on any corporate wrong doing.

Here is a good story of how it works.

Ben Emery

Ignore the "In 1980", it was supposed to be removed.


The organization that fabricated the metastudy to determine Liberals and Conservatives have different brain weights was founded and is controlled by this guy:

That he is a director of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (since 1979), whose education consists of an A.A. from LA City College, and a history of Democratic activism doesn't bode well for the facts mandersonation so uncritically flung into the fan.

Joe Koyote

George - 10:45 You are missing the big picture. Allowing progressive views on the airwaves would kill the bottom line ie, issues like pollution, climate change, etc. would ultimately cost the multi-corps a ton more money that a few missed ads on a radio show with a few million listeners at best.


Whoever you are 1:37, the average media conglomerate executive would sell their mama to the devil if it would drive up their advertising revenues.

Left-liberal voices are a minority on the airwaves because people using radios don't want to listen to them.


Ben, I understand the importance of the media monopoly in the US. As a libertarian I know the solution is a free market (yes, even airwaves) and not more government corrupton. As a student of Taleb (Antifragile, Black Swan, etc) I believe a more robust media system is a decentralized system, again, best attained via free markets and competition.

Again, I know the fact that liberal talk shows fail is because they are pushing a failed ideology.

A comical representation of the failed ideology (hypocritical/hateful) here:

George Rebane

JoeK 137pm - Ah yes, the big picture. Do you have any evidence for that grand accounting made by the greedy corporations. Given the history and evidence of progressive talk radio audiences, the existence of an active lamestream, and recountings like that of Peter Collins, the most straightforward explanation is what I have given in the post and what commenters like Greg (152pm) also conclude.

However, what really puts the ribbon on it is that socialist ideology does not sell, does not convince even the simpler minds (cf socialist Upton Sinclair's famous statement on socialism). Yale's liberal Dr Beverly Gage has also studied this phenomenon and has recently produced an extensive write-up on this.

In any event, today there is plenty of opportunity to espouse collectivist ideology directly to media audiences, and relate them to historical achievements and current policies (as do their conservative/libertarians), but no progressive pundit dares profess such ideas on the airwaves. Instead, such pundits appeal to "issue-oriented activism" that deals in narrowly framed topical presentations - essentially ideology-free current events with the proper spin.

Given reality, all of that makes sense for explaining the behavior of the Left without ever having to bring in evidence-free descriptions of convoluted capitalist conspiracies. Keep it simple, Occam demands it.

Bill Tozer

Think the big picture here is the the usual cry from the liberal elite: "Punish the successful. Please Great White Father in Washington, please make them stop. Me need Mama's milk. Me need Great White Father's tit to survive. Make them stop. Call them evil and greedy. I will die without you." No different with the Fairness Doctrine. My fairness doctrine is this: The customer is always right.

Joe Koyote

The biggest tit suckers are large corporations that get subsidies like the oil and agriculture industries and put their money off shore to avoid taxes. What if your customer is poisoning, defrauding, or otherwise causing harm to other people, are they still right? Somewhere in the discussion of money must come some kind of moral compass besides the bottom line. Personally, I find it despicable that the one hundred wealthiest people on earth could eliminate extreme hunger on the planet four times over, and don't. I find it horrendous that while one person has multiple vacation homes that sit empty another person starves to death. In some of the bazaars in Africa the vendors sell mud cookies, a concoction of lard, salt, and dirt... because some people can't afford to buy anything else. Oh your just bashing the makers again. No, I am bashing greed, there is a difference.

So the correct model of behavior should to be to just turn our backs on the starving and accumulate as much wealth as we can? Is the quality of our life to be judged by the size of our stash our compassion for others less fortunate.

George Rebane

JoeK 530pm - Bravo! With one side of the mouth we don't want to turn our backs on the world's poor and keep them from growing their economies and increasing their quality of life by having them be able to sell the only one thing they have - cheap labor. And with the other side, we vilify the same job creators who want their product produced by the poor and sold to the greatest number at the lowest cost.

And you are also among the anointed who can reliably tell the difference between productive enterprise and greed. How many of those self-righteous mavens have passed the world's stage, each being more dangerous than the last with the more guns they could command.

" I find it despicable that the one hundred wealthiest people on earth could eliminate extreme hunger on the planet four times over, and don't." There is a difference between feeding every hungry person supper on a given evening, and putting in place the sustainable means that will produce suppers tomorrow night and the day after. But it is always the worthies who have never created a job in their life who know best about how everyone else should go about doing just that.

Scott Obermuller

re Joe the K's 5:30 - 'I find it horrendous that while one person has multiple vacation homes that sit empty another person starves to death.' What on earth has one to do with the other? People starve to death for many reasons, Joe. Empty homes aren't any of those reasons. Even better - 'I find it despicable that the one hundred wealthiest people on earth could eliminate extreme hunger on the planet four times over, and don't.'
Amazingly, all of the millions of lefties like Joe don't find it despicable that they could eliminate hunger and don't. It's only despicable when some one they don't happen to like doesn't do it.
Next Joe will complain that Bush won't let him pay enough taxes. Keep it coming, Joe.

Ben Emery

"I find it horrendous that while one person has multiple vacation homes that sit empty another person starves to death.' What on earth has one to do with the other? People starve to death for many reasons, Joe. Empty homes aren't any of those reasons."

They have everything to do with each other. It has to do with a global economic system that promotes inequality, resource theft, and plunder. The entire system is violent. Can you please explain to me what starving to death actually means, what is happening in the body that causes it to just stop working? Can you then tell me why any person should have billions of dollars of wealth? Is there any job on the planet that can justify such wealth accumulation?


IF the global economic system promotes inequality, resource theft and plunder it does so thanks to government force.

A society is as 'good/bad' as the morals/value structure of said society.

We are seeing the ills of a society based on government as diety.

Progressive radio can't succeed because the ideology is morally and logically bankrupt. Progressives need government force, sacrifice of the individual, a stagnation of quality of life... shared misery with elitists enslaving the masses.


People, it's simple. Rush is the $400 million gorrila in the room for one reason: he is hilarious. His most powerful weapon is ridicule of people and things that make no sense whatever to a normal, thinking human being.

Lefties preaching Marx to a crowd that already believes in Marxism without recognizing that they are displaying a conditioned response is an exercise in entertainment futility. George had it right in the original post: the left has positioned itself in a world view where there's nothing to talk about.

All you lefties should go spend a few hours with Mr. Limbaugh and really hear what he is saying and all your right-wing media theories will evaporate before your disbelieving ears. Try it, you'll like it- and you may even be able to reclaim your lost humanity. L

Bill Tozer

Ben you are talking human nature and its pitfalls which never changed, never will. For capitalism to work, morality must be at its central core. That is why seasoned capitalists are leery to do business in Russia. They change the rules, are corrupt, and play with marked cards. Give millions or billions to any 3rd world country and 1% will end up with 99% of the wealth within a year from Jamaica to Africa. Human nature.

Capitalism works in the USA because one offers a good product at a fair price. No one likes to get ripped off and no one likes an inferior product. Capitalism (without gov't interference) weeds out its own. Capitalism shakes the tree and the rotten fruit falls to the ground. Survival of the fitness. Survival of those that make a good product that people WANT/NEED at a fair price and have the morality to stand by their product.

I don't care if someone, even you, makes a billion or trillion dollars a month. Looking envious at someone else's skill, ingenuity, and good fortune and deciding how much is enough for someone else to have is downright immoral, IMHO. Control freaks and those who sit in judgement of everyone else think that way. They should do this, she should do that, he has enough, he does not need that, ad infinitum.

Of course anyone with a heart cares about his fellow man and their plight. That is why people like Bill Gates and hip-hop music mongols donate so much money to their own foundations. They know government will just take the money and toss it in the air. Steve Jobs cared about his employees. I know a custodian who was worked hard at Apple, yet retired at age 50 with 2 million in company stock and pension. Should that mop pusher be denied his good fortune, good timing, and the fruits of his labor?

Steve Jobs was once approached by the city leaders where his company is. They asked him to pay for a new community center. Jobs told them to go pound stand. He said that is why I pay taxes, for you to build roads and parks and community centers. I suppose you would back Solyndra to the max and say Jobs starved little orphans to death after ripping off their prosthetic arms.

I have been over 4 days without a single bite to eat. I did not starve to death. Nor have I known anyone who has starved to death. Nor anyone who knows anyone who starved to death. Takes over 2 weeks plus to really starve to death, maybe 3-4 weeks. Happens in dictatorships, not South Africa or Chile or South Korea.

Fairness Doctrine? What is fair about that? Yes, government owns the airwaves. Let the government give some Latinos or Hindus of Liberals or Asians or Dirt Worshipers their own slice of the pie, their little piece of the airwaves. Government will do what government does. But, like all things, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

George Rebane

BenE 807pm - It reappears that you and yours believe that the amount of wealth on earth is fixed, and humans live to just redistribute that wealth in a grim zero sum contest with the winners being those who can unjustly take it from the losers. You don't see 'jobs' which can add enormously to man's aggregate wealth, in the process increasing the QoL for millions (billions?), and then taking a small fraction of that for themselves. That small fraction will still cause great inequality, and that to you is the injustice that we cannot countenance while some in the world are still suffering. It is better that no such new wealth is created, it is better that we all stay at some previous lower but more equal QoL level. That is probably what you all call 'social justice'.

Under this (to me horrible) ideology one person here, who creates nothing, should be empowered to define what is the proper level of risk and reward for another person there, one who wants to create wealth and a better life on earth for all in reach of that new creation. And if all cannot share equally in the new creation, then none should share in it.

Does this understanding provide you with an inkling of why we are so polarized, and why the likelihood of a Great Divide increases by the day?

Scott Obermuller

This is great stuff - 'It has to do with a global economic system that promotes inequality, resource theft, and plunder. The entire system is violent.'
So, if I build a home that would be OK, but if I build another vacation home then I'm suddenly violently stealing from some poor waif in Africa? Both structures are products of the same 'system', but one is okey dokey and the other is (say it in a spooky voice) EVIL! Or, are all homes that are built evil? Or just some that are built by Republicans? Ben, can you or Joe take me on a tour and point out the evil homes that cause certain children to starve? This is just ludicrous. There is no reason, logic or rational thought here.
And Ben E and Joe the K still won't explain why the richest 100 folks are evil for not eliminating hunger, but Joe K and Ben E, along with their leftist pals are exempt.

bill tozer

Good timing. This came out today

In other news, a company lost its battle with the IRS, another Ponsi scheme dude arrested, one business suing another business and going to court, etc. Yes, capitalism has morality and those who do not play by the rules are taken to task sooner or later. Ain't perfect, but capitalism is the greatest wealth generator for great and small known to man.

Ben Emery

Its not necessarily the rich folks that are evil it is the system that promotes such huge disparity. The rich folks would be evil if they use their wealth to keep the system in place to secure their wealth.

Steve Frisch

I am with Bill Tozer on this one...capitalism is not perfect (nor would it be under a laissez faire system), however, it is the best system we have, is responsible for lifting more people out of poverty, want, and ignorance than any system yet devised; the task is to reform capitalism so it values social and environmental benefits.


Ah, how to 'reform capitalism so it values social and environmental benefits'?

Through government force? Propoganda via public schools/media? Through the promotion of enlighted self interest?

The value system of a society determines the course of society.

Ben Emery

Capitalism is just fine it is the specific form of capitalism that has become so destructive. I think we are on the brink of new form of economic system with capitalism as its base but a recalibration of the profit motive, compensation distribution, and a built in balance between labor and management. The monetary system is about to crash again and when it happens this time it will send the entire global economy into a reboot mode instead of the bail out mode.

Please walk me through the process of a human being starving to death. I will give you a hint, it takes a really long time for it to happen.

Scott Obermuller

Ben - Poor, starving folks have been around forever. Long before there was any kind of capitalist system. And there have always been the few elite at the top who took from the masses to stay in power and live in luxury. The people at the bottom can't sink any lower as they have nothing. On the other hand, the capitalist system has raised the standard of living for so many people to such a degree that we now see the largest number of folks that have far more than ever. This increases the amount of inequality in wealth, but not at the expense of the poor. They never had anything to begin with, so it's hard to see how anything was taken from them. Most of the rich came by their wealth honestly. Bill Gates and Henry Ford didn't take anything from anybody on their way to acquiring immense fortunes. In fact, they helped everyone around them. Most of the starving masses are living in areas that have little or no resources and anyone living there would starve. But they are either kept there by autocratic (no American Constitution for them) govts or just plain stubborn behaviour. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Let's get back to the nonsense spouted about folks that have vacation homes causing starvation. People have the right to make all of the money they want and own all of the homes they want. If you are concerned about starving people, then do something positive about it and stop throwing rocks at folks you don't like. Hating people and calling them names doesn't do the poor any good. Instead, teach the poor how to better themselves on their own and everyone benefits.

Ben Emery

Can you please tell me the process of a human being starving to death?

I will address the rest of you post after you educate me on how the body shuts down until it no longer can sustain itself.

George Rebane

We note again that BenE has systematically ignored my 909pm response to his audacious claims about wealth creation, ownership, and distribution. When a socialist wants to "recalibrate the profit motive", batten the hatches for it portends that wholesale misery will follow. Never mind communism, even in its milder forms, such socialistic recalibration produced almost 40 years of totally unnecessary austerity in Great Britain until the Iron Lady brought some sanity to the land. But such discussion with leftwingers only invites the sound of crickets.

Joe Koyote

The value system of a society determines the course of society.--
Yes it does. since 1979 the average CEO pay has gone up 725% while the workers who produce the goods and services (whose only capital is their labor) saw their compensation go up 5.7%. For example, the execs at Hostess gave themselves several million in bonuses (while raiding employee retirement funds) to oversee the dismantling of a company their policies destroyed. This "give ourselves bonuses while the comp[any goes in the tank" seems to be a recurring theme among the corporate elite. Our society champions the accumulation of wealth at whatever cost to the rest of the people and the planet. So I guess the value system has greed at its base. Wouldn't our consumer based economy do better if the people in the middle and at the bottom had more money to spend? I don't understand how monetarily crippling the working class's ability to consume helps? Perhaps denigrating the American worker is part of the global plan to suppress workers' rights and wages everywhere, and (you guessed it) increase profit. So the course of our society seems to be the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and that's the way the ball bounces. How is this any different than the feudal societies of medieval Europe? I think basically the problem is that we are divided between those that think greed is the problem and those that think greed is the answer.

Ben Emery

I didn't see the comment. Let me read it now and get back to you.

Michael Anderson

Gregory wrote: "..whose education consists of an A.A. from LA City College, and a history of Democratic activism doesn't bode well for the facts mandersonation so uncritically flung into the fan."

Nice smear. Want to try to smear this guy too?

It appears Dr. Kanai has a pretty good resume, and performed a similar study. Are you completely discounting any and all of this type of research?

BTW, my name is Micheal Anderson, not mandersonation. I've asked you politely numerous times to knock it off, but I know you continue to use it because that is what disagreeable people do.

Perhaps we could politely ask Dr. Kanai to examine your brain to find out what is wrong with it?

Ben Emery

Oh Wow, I posted a long response for you 9:09 comment George and it has vanished. Is there a way for you to try and retrieve in the internet black hole.

George Rebane

BenE 1153am - Damn Ben, I am sorry to hear that. I have no way of retrieving 'it', since the information TypePad lets me access is only on comments that have been posted. You may recall that I warned commenters about composing in the provided text box, and doing so in a browser tab that has aged sufficiently to trigger TypePad's timeout for a user session. Apparently TypePad does not keep comments posted in a timed out session.

The solution for not losing one's lengthy prose or pearls of wisdom is to always compose in a separate text editor (e.g. MS Word), and then copy into the comment text box before posting. Also, if the browser tab for your last access to a comment stream has grown a beard, then it's always good to hit the refresh button on your browser, that starts the TypePad clock on a new user session.

Please try to reconstruct your response, since it forms a major link in the thread on wealth creation and distribution. Thanks.

Russ Steele


You should use a text editor and paste in the text. Not a word processor like Word, but a true ASCI text editor, unless you save the Word file as plain text. Typepad has a time out function. If you type a long message, the time can expired and the message goes in the bit bucket in the sky, lost for ever.

Ben Emery

Thanks guys. I know better but my time on RR or the internet in general are comprised of a few minutes here and there throughout the day. I get voice mail via email or evoice and I need to check it periodically throughout the day and that is when I get a chance to make my social media rounds. Writing it the way suggested would probably eliminate 90% of my typo's and grammatical errors but as I have said before I am typing conversation not writing an academic paper.

It will have to wait until later tonight I have a softball practice and basketball practice to go coach and then go celebrate 6 Nevada Union graduating basketball Seniors high school athletic careers tonight that I have either coached in basketball or softball over the years.


Ben, I am sad to miss Senior Night tonight. The girls finished 1st place in league! #congratsLadyMiners

Scott Obermuller

re: Ben E at 9:51 - 'Can you please tell me the process of a human being starving to death?'
Joe the K already explained that. ' I find it horrendous that while one person has multiple vacation homes that sit empty another person starves to death.'
Apparently there is some sort of direct relationship between the number of empty vacation homes and human starvation. You will note that I've tried to get an explanation of how this works, but per usual, I just get more questions. How there was starvation in the world prior to the existence of vacation homes is also a mystery that has yet to be explained. Since you're not going to answer my questions, you can also not comment on my wonderment as to how only money from the world's richest men helps the starving masses, but money from the lefties of the world has no effect. Same amount of money going to the same magical account that will stop all starvation, (4 times over, to boot) but it just doesn't seem to work. Gee, that means you lefties can go on about your business as usual, while the world's wealthiest are still on the hook as the only ones in the world that can spend their magic money in the magic way that will stop starvation.

Ben Emery

Have you ever held a baby?

I've asked for a simple request and you refuse to do it. Can you please explain the process of a person starving to death? What is happening to the body that makes it shut down?

Ben Emery

I sat behind your parents and possibly your kids or nieces. Not even a close game for the girls and the boys pulled one out at the wire. Nice to be part of so many young people lives and getting to watch them grow up. It was a special night for Pleasant Valley families. A group of girls that have been playing together since Williams Ranch Days played their last league game at the high school level together tonight. At least the first playoff game will be at home next week. Opponent will be announced tomorrow. The second game will be at NU as well but first lets get through Tuesday before we start talking about another game.

Scott Obermuller

Ben - This exchange is done. Adults having a discussion will allow some leeway but, but it seems that when ever you lefties post an nonsensical statement and I ask for clarification, all I receive are more questions that you demand that I answer. We can have some fun here and learn things from each other, but this has become a one way street. The starting point of all of this was that lefties are allowed to have some sort of trumped up indignation about social ills that they hold to be theirs alone. The solution is always that some other economic group must start acting in a certain way to alleviate the problem, while the holy and agitated left feel they have done their part by merely feeling a certain way. Others that don't agree to the non-solution are then castigated as uneducated, uncaring, racist, hateful etc. Humans that die due to lack of food and water as an on-going tragedy of life is a serious problem in many parts of the world. The root causes are manifold and can be dealt with in time. Viable solutions, however will involve concerted action by a variety of countries and it will involve at some point considerable military action. Also, some ethnic and tribal groups will have to be instructed that they will no longer be allowed to act as they want. But this isn't likely to occur any time soon, so small scale attempts here and there by various relief agencies will have to suffice. If you would like to involve yourself in such efforts, fine. Trying to transfer the blame to people that own vacation homes as a cause of human starvation, is a childish and nonsensical exercise.

Ben Emery

What clarification is needed for a simple request. I think you are ignorant on what starving to death actual means. If you were forced to look up what it actually means maybe you would be able to understand my position. Vacation homes aren't the issue it was used to categorize a specific economic group and I think Joe specified even more by saying the 100 wealthiest people on the planet. Bill Gates is worth $65 billion and isn't the wealthiest person in the world. That isn't talking about someone who earns $500,000 annually and has a second home.

You made a statement I made a statement and asked you to explain to me what it means to starve to death. You have posted multiple times without explaining it to me. I think you understood why I wanted you to look it up but choose not to because it scares you to comprehend the meaning.


To answer your question, Ben, when you starve to death first you start to lose your muscles, then the organs begin to shut down. Breathing becomes labored, until the heart finally gives out. I don't have to imagine these things, because I have watched my elderly parents go through it. People starve to death in this country every day. You will too, if you've signed a DNR and end up totally incapacitated.


"BTW, my name is Micheal [sic] Anderson, not mandersonation"

mandersonation, nice try.

I've no desire to smear anyone based on what you say they said, and from what I've read, Kanai is not spinning his research like the political activist you were originally citing who was probably just channeling Chris Mooney, author of "The Republican Brain". Mooney whose scientific training was somehow facilitated by a BA in English from Yale, is doing his damnedest to become the left wing Ann Coulter, but I doubt his writing has the legs to pull that off.


"Scott, Have you ever held a baby?"

So Ben, if he had, and understood the moment, do you think he's sure to think just like you do?

Ben Emery

From experiencing it first hand and with loved ones would you wish that type of death onto anyone, especially the young who haven't had the opportunity to truly live because of this preventable condition. So to say one person, out of many over paid executives at Microsoft, Bill Gates should have $65,000,000,000 billion so thousands of people who actual produce Microsoft goods can live in a sustenance existence therefore not being able to help rise the standard of living in which would start a ripple effect across the globe.

To make this extremely brief. Physiologically starving to death happens at the cellular, chemical, and systemic levels little by little until the body begins to shut down trying to preserve or sustain itself until the needed nutrition arrives. Like a grass turning green in spring to brown of summer. For survival the grass stops sending energy out and conserves it in its roots. The human body does this but when that next rain never comes it stops existing altogether.

Imagine otherwise healthy human beings being able to live productive lives only if they had access to food. Should we support a global economic system that is fine with a person accumulating $65 billion while 20,000 people starve to death every day?

Ben Emery

I will try and recreate my response but will do it in multiple comments so it doesn’t get so convoluted.

Understand my definition of living wage is applied to anyone who works full time hours, especially for large corporations.

** Living Wage = being able to afford shelter, food, clothes, education, health care, and retirement(over time)

Intro to first comment about accumulation of generational wealth

We first need to understand where economic wealth comes from correct? Economic wealth is created by labor being applied whether it is intellectual or physical. Money is not wealth but rather a symbol or vessel of accumulated labor/ wealth. That symbol or vessel can only exist if some form of representative body agrees on it, has a way to regulate it, a justice system that can make judgements, and system to enforce regulations/ rulings e.g. government.

****On a side note this is why a true free market can never exist on a any kind of scale larger than two parties.

The other way wealth can be accumulated is by a social contract that gives value to an object or thing. Lets keep this out of the main discussion but this is extremely important to my first comment. This can be something very tangible or abstract as clean air. I will stick with the example of gold to keep things simple.
Gold only has value because at some point a social contract was formed to give it value, by itself it is a metal found in the earth. Until the social contract was formed and actual labor was used to extract the gold the wealth could not have been created. So the real question becomes can we as human beings claim ownership of land and what lies atop or underneath that land? That land and resources were formed over billions of years? That is another social contract thing but this contract was done by force. For tens of thousands of years human beings lived primarily as nomadic cultures. There was no belief that land was owned by anybody but rather occupied temporarily.

This can get out of hand quickly so I will stop here. I think the idea of wealth and social contract was clear enough.

Scott Obermuller

Exactly Ben. As I stated, for lefties it all comes down to some sort of name calling. It does not matter a whit what particular house we are talking about. That was a lame last ditch effort on your part to salvage your non-answer. And finally you call me ignorant and scared. Apparently this is what passes for intellectualism on the left. And demonstrates perfectly why left wing radio fails. No information, just name calling. Have fun.

Paul Emery


Left wing radio fails because they don't have enough potential listeners with nothing better to do than stay home all day with the radio on. Also they generally have jobs that don't allow hysterical political background radio to be imposed on their workers.

George Rebane

BenE 1150am - Your understanding of 'living wage' needs a collective to interpret its magnitude and enforce its payment with the power of the gun. It is not clear why anyone would want to then hire the additional employee, and more importantly, how many new enterprises are such that they can mount that first fiscal step and start paying everyone they hire an imposed living wage. Do you not see that such barrier to entry would be huge?

I do believe you miss the mark on the value of gold viz fiat money. The value of the former requires no social contract whatsoever, while the value of the latter depends every moment on the continued integrity of that thin veil we call a social contract. Were that to start ripping, fiat money's value would plummet in an instant. Gold is immune from such frailties, and has always been seen by *individuals* as insurance against the vicissitudes of arbitrary aggregates of intrinsically worthless fiat money of which they own but a part.

"... can we as human beings claim ownership of land and ...?" The answer is hell YES. And you are correct that such ownership of land, as with anything else, is maintained by force, whether through a collective or individually. (We must here always recall that you own something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish.)

George Rebane

PaulE 124pm - Given the preponderance of transfer payment recipients who vote Democrat, is there any evidence to support your claim that more liberals than conservatives have productive jobs?

Ben Emery

Ok I have tried to post this three times my guess it must be to long.

Generational Wealth
We are going to stay within the history what we consider today the USA. When a group a people come to a continent that has been occupied for thousands of years but undeveloped by central planning definition and start claiming land and resources for themselves is this not theft? So from the onset of the foundation of the US it has been based on theft. The theft wasn’t occupying the open land but claiming it for themselves and denying the indigenous people access and passage. Then the settlers of white European descent began the slaughter of the indigenous people out of fear of a negative reciprocity. The indigenous people were murdered and enslaved. That is theft of freedom and liberty. This oppression continues to this day of Native Americans.

Ben Emery

Part II
Fast forward a three hundred years and the same oppression of the indigenous is taking place and we have added into the mix indentured servants along with actual violent physical theft of human beings from a far off place to be force to create wealth for the tyrants. In that three hundred years of theft generational wealth is being passed down from white human beings in the north and white human beings in the south. Generational wealth is the skills passed down from generation to generation of reading, a trade, business transactions and land. For the most party only white male Europeans were allowed to own land/ property (indentured servants and non white slaves) for hundreds of years. Remember all of this started with the theft of access and passage of land and the oppression of indigenous and foreign human beings.

Now continue these conditions until 1865 and the suppression of non white males continues for another century. During the Civil War more theft takes place in the form of land grabs to fight the wealth theft of slave labor in the railroads. In the next century more generational wealth is accumulated for some and for the suppressed/ oppressed their wealth creation primarily goes to an employer that exploits the lack of worker rights in the US. The industrial revolution not only makes labor more efficient but creates a situation where employers could steal the wealth of labor at a much higher rate. That theft of wealth creates what we know as the gilded age. Now we have both white and non white laborers being exploited and the wealth they are creating going into a small few hands at the top and leaving them just enough to survive and not enough to pass on any wealth to the next generation i.e. education, trades, knowledge of business transactions, and land.

Ben Emery

Part III Generational Wealth
The one thing white males from poor families have over non white males from poor families until the last 20 – 30 years was they were seen as having potential due to the pigment of their skin. A white male could move to a different town where nobody knew them prior and create a whole new persona. Whereas a person of color doesn’t have this privilege to recreate themselves due to where ever they go they have no potential because their skin color cannot be hidden making them a waste of energy and resources for something higher than manual labor.

I will leave my opening comments as is and will continue to the question put forward by George to me at 9:09. I think what I laid out in a very simple form is important to understand when we are talking about wealth and who deserves to keep or accumulate it.

George Rebane

BenE 145pm - A good opus of what I consider extreme progressive thought, and one that deserves examination of and on its own merits. That it has nothing to do with the topic of my post leads me to request that you assemble these components into a self-standing piece that I would like to post under your name, and then we can all have at it. Please also append the initial summary that you refer to; I will appropriately append my 909am. Please email me your copy; and thanks for the well thought out effort Ben.

Paul Emery


Wanna take a crack on how many retired people listen to Rushbo? How many of them are on SS and Medicare? Demographic studies generally show the average listener is over 58, white, male. Who else would likely have the time during the day to tune him in.

George Rebane

PaulE 254pm - Of course a lot of retireds listen to El Rushbo, but my 135pm question still stands. But in the end, I don't think the progressive elites would be so worried about conservative talk radio if only a bunch of old geezers dying at high rates are the only or major audience. I understand that most people at jobs that are repetitive and/or require minimal noodling have their earbuds in and listen to all kinds of stuff that includes conservative talk radio, and could also include progressive talk radio were they of a mind.

In that vein, there is a progressive talk channel on XM radio that Jo Ann and I like to listen to while on travel. Everyone should be required to put in a solid hour a week hearing these leftwing pundits. And I would consider supporting a law requiring everyone to be strapped down to hear that copy coming over the airwaves, you know, for the sake of balance and the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe the courts could even use it as a form of punishment for some kinds of offenses like, say, kids making a gun with hand and going 'bang!'.

Paul Emery


Oh yes, your question that begins with this " Given the preponderance of transfer payment recipients who vote Democrat". 13 February 2013 at 01:35 PM This is a statement of fact that cannot be assumed as true if you include the total numbers that receive transfer payments. that would include retired military, government subsidies (families like the La Malfa's who have been sucking it for years) corporate welfare to oil companies government contractors (yes include military contractors who pump up their necessity through encouraging needless wars that they profit under , financial buyouts(such as Bush's and Obama's support of TARP} Social Security, Medicare, police and fire retires etc

You seem to prefer to cherry pick those who receive transfer payments to make the numbers look good for your position but my look at this is a more realistic way to look at where the money goes.

George Rebane

PaulE 558pm - I think you have a special definition of transfer payments - e.g. you include the military retirees, government contractors, and SS. But even with your definition, the number of voters who receive them are overwhelmingly on the Democrat side of the voting ledger.

While allowing corporate subsidies as transfer payments, I think it is perverse to count military retirees in there because their contract includes retirement (after a minimum of 20 years service) which the government guarantees them without any union coercion or threat to strike. And government contractors do work which the government does not and cannot do for the price paid private industry - they definitely do not receive transfer payments. SS benefits are accrued on the basis of life time pay ins by the recipients. In fact, the government has screwed the recipients by paying below market interest rates for decades and transferring the paid into the general fund. The transfer payments have have actually been going in the other direction.

For the record, I remind you that I have been against all forms of bailouts and stimulus payments, adhering instead to von Mises advice to government, 'Do nothing, sooner!'


Point of clarification. Most dittoheads aren't geezers at home (they watch daytime TV), but working people whose jobs require them to spend many hours behind the wheel. That's how I discovered talk radio and now that I'm retired find my long-neglected hobbies more interesting, tho I still tune in occasionally. The talk radio aurience is mostly people with no other entertainment options. Fair enough? L

Paul Emery

Predictable dodge George, The fact that you deny farm subsidies are transfer payments is a crack in your cathedral.

George Rebane

PaulE 1056pm - you misunderstand, no such denial has been made. (Is this another 'we know what you think' piece of logic?)

Ken Jones

A coworker and I shared a company vehicle. Came with an AM radio only. This was in the early 90's. He listened to Limbaugh. Same tired rants and lame jokes every day. The term dittohead is fitting. Just boring radio. I recall Rush saying something along these lines, I paraphrase " when people tell you that you can't think for yourself, here is what you tell them."

I believe that most progressives prefer
music to talk radio. I have my Ipod connected to my car radio. I only listen to the radio to get traffic updates. Rather listen to Wilco, Grace Potter and The Black Keys than Limbaugh or Savage.
Greg I know Mike Anderson and he is honest and legitimate.

Ben Emery

Now to address your over 9:09 comment.

No I don’t see wealth as fixed as see wealth as created by the labor of ones intellect or physical time and energy. I like most people in my camp don’t see a problem of those who take financial risk to take a bigger chunk of the pie. As many studies have shown an income ratio of 5:1 creates a functional economy and society. That is $5 for every $1 between the top quintile and the bottom quintile. In the US that ratio is around 14:1, we are just behind the Ivory Coast in this category. Now this ratio paints a picture that isn’t even close to what the real story is in the US. The top quintile is the top 20% of income either earned or unearned. In the US the top quintile controls 93% of the wealth. Within the top quintile the top 1% controls 40% of the total wealth. From 1980 to 2009 83% of economic gains in the US were taken in by the top 1% and even that is misleading because it is the top 0.5% that a vast majority of those gains. In 2010 alone over 90% of economic gains went to the top 1% with the same reality as the other statistic.

Now here are the two big lies corporatists like yourself like to tell. 1) Job creators are the wealthy. 2) Those who have accumulated great wealth are the productive members of our nation while those who created that wealth are the takers. Both of these are false and I will start with the latter because it is debunked with a single sentence.

Wealth is created by the labor of a persons intellect or physical body.

Accumulating huge sums of wealth based on other peoples labor is theft if those laborers aren't justly compensated with a living wage for full time work in humane working conditions. If those laborers are compensated with a living wage for full time work with humane work conditions that accumulation is justified but should have the incentive to reinvest back into the economy after a very high threshold is surpassed i.g. $2-3 million annually.

The way jobs are created are not by wealthy people but an increase in demand. Demand is created by average workers wages. The more workers have to spend in the economy the more demand that is created, since they spend 99% of their incomes. Spending by consumers equates to 70% of all economic activity in the US. I did a little calculation on median personal income, note it is not household income. Adjusted for inflation $1 in 1980 is equal to in spending power or adjusted for inflation to $2.80 in 2012. The median personal income of 1980 was $19,600, which should equal to inflation adjusted dollars to $54,600. Remember in 1980 it was personal income as in a single individual in the workforce and today it is calculated at household incomes, which includes many if not most households with two or more incomes. In 2011 the median personal income was somewhere around $27,000 and median household income was around $49,000. The $5,000 difference from the inflation adjusted income of $54,000 is probably the $0.75 on the $1.00 women make to men for equal work.

I can go into tons of statistics and studies but I know that doesn’t matter because we can pull that stuff from any angle to prove our points. The numbers I used above are just straight forward.

Ben Emery

Now for the last point of Bill Gates a single individual through his unethical business of Microsoft having accumulated $65,000,000,000 billion over a 30-year period. First Bill Gates bought the rights to a system that created MS-DOS system. Second no inventor or innovator came up with their idea alone they built on the thousands of ideas that came before them, so the patent laws are written for those wealthy enough to purchase competition/ new technology or inventions to reap all the benefits for long term gains or to keep them off the market. So many of these inventions came from public research and investment, which makes the tax dodging behavior even more egregious.
If Bill Gates kept manufacturing in the US paying $20 plus benefits his total worth might by only $20-$30 billion but the US would have blue collar workers spending earned money into the economy instead of borrowed money with interest, thus giving banks more and more power. But Gates and Microsoft decided to go into the modern day slave business instead. It is not only Microsoft but they are a microcosm of what large transnational corporations have become. There are thousands of stories like this going on around the world about worker exploitation, unsafe working conditions, anti trust violations and environmental nightmares. Three different continent same type of behavior.

Hundreds Threaten Suicide At Microsoft Supplier Plant In China.

EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn

Judges Conclusion: MS Guilty

George Rebane

re Ben Emery's 144pm ff - As promised, this thread has been re-posted as a standalone byline by BenE titled 'Wealth Creation & Distribution - A Progressive's View' accessible here -

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad