Gay Patriot Header Image

Where Are the Occupy Candidates?

The Occupy Movement was conceived and executed as a response to the Tea Party movement. It was said that both movements opposed crony capitalism; the Tea Party opposed cronyism, and Occupy opposed capitalism.

The Tea Party, though reviled across the political spectrum from far-left to center-left (i.e., the Democrats, the media, low-info voters, and Republicans threatened by the loss of power), managed to elect quite a few candidates at the local, state, and Congressional level. And even those Republicans who didn’t formally align with the Tea Party at least paid lip service to the Tea Party agenda of limited Government, reductions in Government spending, and reform of taxes and regulation.

But when you look for Democrats championing the Occupy Agenda… student loan forgiveness, redistribution of income, expansion of the welfare state, rape tents … there don’t seem to be any who willingly identify themselves as “Occupy” candidates.

There’s Senator Elizabeth Warren, the blonde-haired Cherokee from Massachusetts, who claims to be the founder of the Occupy movement. (She claims a lot of things.) But that’s really it.

I kind of think it’s because the Occupy Agenda is baked into the Democrat Party already; (“We’ll take money away from people you don’t like and spend it on you.”) Also because Occupy was always more of a Democrat PR stunt than an actual movement; they all sort of melted away after the 2012 elections. Also, what politician outside of the San Francisco Bay Area wants to identify himself with rape tents and pooping on cop cars?

Obama, pretending he hasn’t been President all this time

With splendid “Who, me?” innocence, President Obama declared on April 16:

The good news is our economy is growing again, our businesses are creating jobs…

Here’s the challenge, and a lot of folks here know it. A lot of people don’t feel that progress in their own lives yet. So, the stock market’s doing great. Corporate profits are soaring. Folks at the very, very top are doing better than ever. But too many Americans, if they’re lucky enough to have a job, are working harder and harder just to get by, much less to get ahead.

For too many middle class Americans, it feels as if the same trends that have been going on for decades are continuing. They’re working hard, but wages flatline, incomes flatline, cost of everything else going up.

(For video – and hat tip to Peter Schiff – click here.)

As I mention often (in GP categories such as Economy or Occupy Wall Street), President Obama’s own policies are the cause of the rising inequality, stagnation and poor employment, inflation and rising costs that he decries.

The way he denounces the economy, you’d never know he’s been President for five and a half years.

Recovery for the One Percent

To continue my series on this, I’ve been accumulating chart links. There are so many, especially on Zero Hedge which has great coverage. I’ll make some introductory remarks, then show the charts.

As a capitalist, I have no objection to the good inequality that investors, employers and consumers award by their actions in the marketplace. The problem is inequality awarded by force or fraud. That includes crime of course; but the systemic problems in our economy today arise, sooner or later, from *government force* and fraud. Under President Obama – and our nut-job economic planners at the Federal Reserve – we have more government intervention than ever. We also have more inequality. It can’t be a coincidence.

I believe that Obama likes it on some level, because the more inequality there is, the more he can offer (still more) government intervention as the alleged “solution”. While our problems did not start with Obama, he has exploited and worsened them because inequality of power – taking ever-greater amounts of power away from the People, giving ever-more power to the Party/bureaucrats/government – is the deep tendency of the State, and as well, the deep goal of the Left.

I could talk about the explosion of welfare dependency under Obama, which rapes the “working poor” (among others) for the sake of the “lazy poor”. But my focus today is on the rape of the middle class for the so-called “One Percent”, the wealthier people who gain from our government-planned economy and government-rigged markets.

The charts show that under Obama, U.S. income inequality has increased and may be the biggest it’s ever been.

Under Obama, U.S. income inequality is the greatest it's ever been

More charts: (more…)

Fairness ‘frayed’? Poor people trapped? Sorry Mr. Obama, but You Are The Problem

Current Yahoo! headine, Obama: Economic fairness ‘frayed’:

President Barack Obama prodded Congress to raise wages and secure the social safety net as he issued an overarching appeal Wednesday to correct inequalities that he said make it harder for a child in the United States to escape poverty. “That should offend all of us,” he declared. “We are a better country than this.”

Obama argued that the dream of upward economic mobility is breaking down and that the growing income gap is a “defining challenge of our time.”

“The basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed,” the president said…

This is an example of the Left’s classic tactic, “poison as food, poison as antidote”. First the Left creates/worsens problems with their dysfunctional policies; then they position themselves (or, even more dysfunctional left-wing policies) as the supposed solution.

In this case, President Obama’s own policies create/worsen the inequality he decries. As I’ve discussed in my “Recovery for the One Percent” series here, here, here and here.

For any lefties reading this, who need the reminder:

  • Raising the minimum wage costs people jobs.
  • Big Government denies opportunity to the working poor.
  • High government spending hurts the economy and stops new businesses from being formed, as do high regulation and taxes.
  • Quantitative Easing bails out (or subsidizes) the One Percent, at the expense of the poor and middle-class.

All policies increased, maintained or advocated by Your Obama.

To be clear, the problems didn’t start with Obama; but he has worsened them.

Recovery for the One Percent: Record inequality

To “celebrate” Dow 16000 and S&P 1800, both of which the stock market just hit intra-day, I’ve gathered a few links on rising economic inequality in the U.S. A few remarks first, to set context.

As a capitalist, I have no problem with inequality – when it comes about for the right reasons, that is, when sovereign consumers have awarded it by their actions in free markets. The problem is that, under President Obama, we have inequality for the wrong reasons.

Obama puts government in control of more and more of the economy, and he has the Federal Reserve bailing out the biggest players on Wall Street (as well as the government) and goosing the financial markets ever higher. That doesn’t come for free.

Whenever someone is bailed out, somebody else was “bailed in”; somebody else lost wealth (or purchasing power). Obama’s policies stealth-transfer it from the wages, pensions, savings and balance sheets of productive people to those who happen either to (1) receive government spending, or/and (2) own financial assets (stocks, bonds, etc.).

Many of those are productive people; but many are not and, in any event, everyone should have to earn wealth the real way, by pleasing their employer or their customers in the market. None merit bailouts. No one deserves government-orchestrated wealth transfers (stealthy or otherwise). No one.

I want small government, natural rights under Rule of Law, sound money and free markets because they are both moral and populist. They form the only moral social system (the only system that lets people be free and doesn’t steal from them, or enslave them). And, as a consequence of being moral, they form the only practical system where masses of deserving poor and middle-class people can and will get ahead.

The Big Lie of Leftism is that leftism somehow stands for the People, or the little guy. It doesn’t. As we see today with President Obama’s policies, producing a result of record inequality – for all the wrong reasons.

OK, now for some data. First, via Marc Faber and Zero Hedge, here is household net worth by wealth percentile:

household net worth by wealth percentile

You can see that, in the last six years, the share of wealth held by the bottom 75% has plunged from 12.7% to barely 10%. (more…)

Recovery for the One Percent (take 3)

I got onto this idea last May; for take one click here, and for take two click here. My key notion:

Even as I read about the stock market making new highs, I keep reading about more Americans on food stamps than ever before, more Americans quitting the workforce, old people who can’t get a decent income…business people who can’t start businesses…This is in Obama’s fifth year. Whom is Obama’s economic recovery for?…

Obama’s policies benefit the Big Government – Big Banking – Big Labor elites – in that order of seniority…[so] Why aren’t we all laughing in Obama supporters’ faces, when they pretend to stand for the People?…

Part of President Obama’s toolkit to benefit the One Percent is the Federal Reserve’s ‘Quantitative Easing’ policy, which I have explained (and slagged) many times; for example, here and here.

Nothing has changed since May. Now a former Federal Reserve official, Andrew Huszar, explains – and apologizes:

Confessions of a Quantitative Easer

I can only say: I’m sorry, America…I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.

As I’ve been saying for years! Except that, even more than a Wall Street bailout, QE is also a Big Government bailout. Whether the Fed buys Wall Street’s mortgage bonds, U.S. Treasury bonds, or anything else, the new money sooner or later funds the government’s spending and deficits, including Obama’s $6 trillion (and rising) of additional U.S. debt.

Although Huszar’s piece neglects the Big Government angle (focusing almost exclusively on the Wall Street angle), it gives some interesting color and is worth reading in full.

UPDATE: If you prefer wonky video, CNBC interviews Huszar here.

Guess Who actually calls its opponents unpatriotic and wants to jail them?

Item #366,720 in the archives of “The Left is and does, that of which it falsely accuses the Right.”

At MoveOn.org, more than 44,000 have called for the GOP leaders to be arrested for ‘seditious conspiracy’ over the recent government shutdown (and ‘default’ scare). As ZH points out, that’s more people than have signed up for Obamacare.

Needless to say, MoveOn’s petition is a FAIL on several levels: (more…)

Recovery for the One Percent (again)

I partly made this point last week. Now here’s Marc Faber saying it well:

The Fed has been flooding the system with money. The problem is the money doesn’t flow into the system evenly. It doesn’t increase economic activity and asset prices in concert. Instead, it creates dangerous excesses in countries and asset classes. Money-printing fueled the colossal stock-market bubble of 1999-2000, when the Nasdaq more than doubled, becoming disconnected from economic reality. It fueled the housing bubble, which burst in 2008, and the commodities bubble. Now money is flowing into the high-end asset market – things like stocks, bonds, art, wine, jewelry, and luxury real estate.

Money-printing boosts the economy of the people closest to the money flow. But it doesn’t help the worker in Detroit, or the vast majority of the middle class. It leads to a widening wealth gap. The majority loses, and the minority wins.

Bold added. Faber has neglected to mention that Big Government is “closest to the flow” of anybody; money-printing is, first and foremost, a hidden tax to pay for Obama’s oh-so-ingeniously-productive(!) deficits and spending. And a regressive tax, at that. Obamunism at work!

By the way, the effect that Faber talks about is well known to Austrian School economists and other believers in sound money; it’s called the Cantillon Effect.

And if anyone wants to say it’s Bernanke doing it, not Obama, my answer is this: Yes, but Bernanke was re-appointed by Obama and is absolutely doing what Obama needs and intends.

Recovery for the One Percent

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:01 pm - May 27, 2013.
Filed under: Economy,Free Enterprise,Obama Incompetence,Occupy Wall Street

Even as I read about the stock market making new highs, I keep reading about more Americans on food stamps than ever before, more Americans quitting the workforce, old people who can’t get a decent income from their savings anymore, business people who can’t start businesses or who are cutting back or even shutting down, and Americans struggling under their debt loads and unable to make ends meet.

This is in Obama’s fifth year. Whom is Obama’s economic recovery (such as it is) for? Cui bono?

My answer is: Obama’s policies benefit the Big Government – Big Banking – Big Labor elites, in that order of seniority. My next question is: how did the world get to the point where the people who support Obama’s elitist policies are supposedly friends of the little guy?

Why isn’t Big Government recognized as the ultimate ‘special interest’? Why aren’t we all laughing in Obama supporters’ faces, when they pretend to stand for the People? And what will it take to get the average person to understand that she would find life much more feasible and affordable, if only America would return to a system of (genuine) free enterprise under sound money and small government?

Social Liberalism: Simple-minded and Pernicious Memes

When I wrote my first post on liberalism as more of a social phenomenon than an intellectual one, I imagined a series of posts dealing with many different implications of that idea.  So far I’ve written three other posts in the series on topics ranging from slogans to leftist intolerance and political changers to the so-called “wealth gap.”

One big topic that I haven’t explored yet–even though I’ve meant to do so since the start of the series–is the way in which liberal ideas are perpetuated on social media and elsewhere through the use of simple-minded memes.  As I considered the idea of social liberalism, one point which came to mind is that so many liberal memes might seem catchy at first glance,  but they are either responses to outlandish straw men, or they make no sense whatsoever when subjected to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

At Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson has written a few posts about the role of the leftist site Upworthy in promulgating memes of both sorts, including a post this past Tuesday on the high cost of low-information voters.  And he’s not the only one to recognize the importance of simple-minded memes for the left.  For example, this post at Breitbart.com takes the idea one step further to reflect on the significance of LOLcats in politics.

What interests me at the moment, though, is that there is a whole class of liberal memes which go beyond the simple-minded to the downright pernicious: they promulgate leftist thinking in a way that seems ironic or clever or humorous, even as they blatantly acknowledge the darker goals of leftist ideology.   I stumbled across a prime example of one such meme on Facebook about two months ago when an acquaintance “shared” a meme which had been promoted by the Facebook group “Being Liberal” back in December 2011.  I’ve pasted the image below.

308673_10150327804021275_119643999_n

We’re all familiar with the common liberal tropes about “beating swords into plowshares” and the frequent lament heard on the left that “if we spent on education or social programs what we spent on the military” somehow all of society’s ills would disappear.   This meme takes that same tack, but uses “irony” to take it one step further by suggesting that the government can use the military to “win the hearts and minds of the population” and put the “locals to work” working on infrastructure politics.

By supposedly employing “irony” to make its point, therefore, it moves from the simple-minded lament about spending more on education and social programs into the territory of the pernicious by endorsing the use of the military as a means of social control.  The person who posts or re-posts the idea can feign ignorance of the pernicious implications by saying that the meme isn’t “serious” or that it is “just making a point through irony,” but it’s a point which betrays the left’s ignorance of the way free people and free markets operate.  The point of the meme is unmistakable:  all good comes through government, and we ought to use the force of government to establish a planned economy.

The Facebook page for “Being Liberal” attributes this meme to one of its readers named Terry Sebolt who wrote in and said (with the disingenuousness common on the left): “”Those were my words, but not my pic. Feel free to put it anywhere you want. I meant every word of it, and hope people enjoy the irony, regardless of credit. It was a throw away line…”

The claim may be spurious, though, as I did some internet searching and the earliest example I could find for the meme online was this appearance on Twitter from August 9, 2011.  I’ve posted a screenshot of the image below.

Screen shot 2013-03-01 at 11.22.28 PM

Regardless of the authorship, though, the claim is intended to make a point by shocking, even though those who quote the statement will try to distance themselves from its actual implications.  Those implications, though, tell us a great amount about the worldview of the left.

What’s even more amazing in the case of the person I know who re-posted this meme is that she is an immigrant from eastern Europe with a PhD in a scientific field from an American university.   She often refers to the bad days growing up in her country under a brutal dictator when everyone was suffering.  And so she moves to the U.S. and spends time in universities and decides that she’s a “liberal” and approvingly re-posts that “ironic” image.  If that’s not an example of a socially-promulgated disorder, then I’m not sure what would be.

Social Liberalism: The Wealth Gap

When I put up my first post on social liberalism several weeks ago, I envisioned a series of posts that would discuss many of the implications of the fact that modern liberalism is more a social phenomenon than an intellectual one.  I’ve done that in part, but have until now neglected to mention one of the largest implications of all, namely that most modern liberals make easy targets for propagandists of all stripes because their political identity is driven more by their feelings than by the facts, and so they rarely exert critical judgement over the memes and narratives of the moment.

Quite to the contrary:  to exert critical judgement is automatically to invite suspicion, because it means asking difficult questions, seeking facts, pointing out fallacies, noting inconsistencies, all of which make modern liberals profoundly uncomfortable because those sorts of activities advertise the questioner’s willingness to dissent from the orthodoxy.

Neo-Neocon wrote a great post many years ago where she quoted Milan Kundera’s Book of Laughter and Forgetting on the power of “Circle Dancing”:

Circle dancing is magic. It speaks to us through the millennia from the depths of human memory. Madame Raphael had cut the picture out of the magazine and would stare at it and dream. She too longed to dance in a ring. All her life she had looked for a group of people she could hold hands with and dance with in a ring. First she looked for them in the Methodist Church (her father was a religious fanatic), then in the Communist Party, then among the Trotskyites, then in the anti-abortion movement (A child has a right to life!), then in the pro-abortion movement (A woman has a right to her body!); she looked for them among the Marxists, the psychoanalysts, and the structuralists; she looked for them in Lenin, Zen Buddhism, Mao Tse-tung, yogis, the nouveau roman, Brechtian theater, the theater of panic; and finally she hoped she could at least become one with her students, which meant she always forced them to think and say exactly what she thought and said, and together they formed a single body and a single soul, a single ring and a single dance.

To question is to step outside the  circle, to resist the lure of the dance.  And so the memes and narratives proliferate, pushed on by those who “feel moved” by them and are too afraid to question them.

Among the many liberals I know, this week’s meme is a viral video about “the wealth gap.”  I first noticed a college acquaintance (and an enthusiastic Elizabeth Warren supporter) mention it on Facebook on Sunday, and have noticed at least three other references to it by others since then.  The video is only 6 minutes and 24 seconds long, but if you’re like me, after about three minutes, it will seem like it is going on forever.

YouTube Preview Image

I’ve recorded some of my thoughts below the fold.

(more…)

The self-appointed 99%

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:52 pm - January 30, 2013.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Occupy Wall Street,Unhinged Liberals

It turns out that they were predominantly rich – and white.

This will come as no surprise to those familiar with the hypocrisy of the Left and of the media, and as well, the role that the ‘rent-seeking’ (i.e., lazy) type of rich person has always played on the Left.

Occupy Washington!

A few days ago, Kurt posted on this speech by Daniel Hannan. I agree that it’s brilliant, in how much it packs into a short space.

Kurt’s angle was, Who are our Hannans? But I would like to get into the substance of what Hannan said.

You may disagree, but I find that any of Hannan’s major points (summarized below) could be expanded into a worthy discussion.

  • The 2008-9 bailouts, and the money-printing which continues today (another form of bailout), are an ethical crime. In effect, they transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the largest banks.
  • (more…)

Who are our Hannans?

I first became aware of Daniel Hannan, a British Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP), in the spring of 2009 after the video of his speech attacking Gordon Brown went viral.  Over the past few years, he has continued to garner attention here, “across the pond,” for other speeches, and he has been a repeat guest on conservative talk radio and Fox News.

This past weekend, Anne Sorock at Legal Insurrection linked to his recent take down of the Occupy Movement from an appearance at the Oxford Union.

YouTube Preview Image

It is an impressive performance.  Hannan not only delivers a ringing endorsement of capitalism and an indictment of the bailouts, but he also explains the links between what the Occupy crowd says it wants and today’s economic woes, and he does so with a force and a clarity that is thrilling to witness.

Watching it, I was struck by how much Hannan reminded me of some of the clips I’ve seen of Margaret Thatcher’s appearances before the House of Commons during her time as Prime Minister, particularly this one from her last appearance.  I had to wonder if Hannan’s career might in time resemble Thatcher’s and if some day he will be the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

At the same time, though, I have to wonder: who are the Hannans here in the U.S.?   When Romney selected Paul Ryan as his running mate, I had hopes that he would provide such clear-spoken explanations of conservative economics on the campaign trail.  While it’s quite possible he did and the press did its best to muzzle them, I suspect that, in actuality, they were few and far between, as the Romney campaign seems to have been reluctant to hit the Obama administration too hard.  In the past few weeks, many conservatives have been talking about recent statements made by Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Rand Paul, and even the newly-minted Senator Ted Cruz from Texas.  So are any of these men likely to be our Hannans?  If not, then who might be?

Liberals and Occupiers Stand Against Republican Speech

Our reader V the K linked this report about Sandra Fluke’s distaste for opposing points of view:

As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about “manipulating [students'] emotions” with misleading statistics about abortion.

So, if this organization offered misleading statistics, why then didn’t Ms. Fluke take it upon herself to demonstrate their inaccuracy and argue the merits of her own position?  If this story is true [and it appears it may not be*], this woman is not much interested in debating ideas, but in preventing the airing of views with which she disagrees.

In this, she has much in common with her ideological confrères in the Occupy Movement.

Just over a week ago, “unruly Occupy students at American University in Washington, D.C., shouted down Republican governor Jan Brewer of Arizona on Friday, forcing her to flee the room with aid from security guards.”  H/t:  Instapundit.

This week, they disrupted “a panel discussion [at AIPAC] led by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, FL led a discussion about Stopping Iran: Can the West End Iran’s Nuclear Drive?

In the fall of 1964, liberal students at the University of California/Berkeley launched the “Free Speech Movement”; they wanted to end the school policy preventing student groups from operating “on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral, protest or even oratorical.”  Now, liberal students want to prevent their ideological adversaries from expressing their views.

They times, they are a-changing.

* (more…)

Well, the hoax did fit CNN’s Narrative of the 1%

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:27 pm - February 29, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias,Occupy Wall Street

Some stories just seem to fit too perfectly into a media narrative.  Many of our Facebook friends recently posted a picture of a restaurant receipt where a banker supposedly left a 1% tip to waitress (on a $133 tab), telling her “To Get a Real Job.”   That 1% tip seemed was mighty convenient, given the #Occupy rhetoric of the 1%.

And, c’mon, what restaurant patron tells his server to get a real job?  Why would he want to spite someone who might be serving him.  Only credulous “leftists would believe,” as Jim Hoft put it, “that ‘rich’ bankers are this obnoxious and horrible.” Indeed.

As the Smoking Gun reports:

The restaurant receipt that a California banker purportedly used to denigrate a waitress–while also leaving her a one percent tip–was wildly “altered and exaggerated,” according to a spokesperson for the Newport Beach restaurant where the businessman supposedly dined earlier this month.

. . . .

The amount on the actual receipt is $33.54, Reagan said, not $133.54 as seen on the altered receipt. And while the tip on the online receipt claims that the server was left $1.33 (or one percent of the bill), the actual tip was $7 on the $33.54 tab.

Over at the Hot Air Green Room, blogger Howard Portnoy reminds us that it wasn’t just the Huffington Post that fell for the hoax.  One of his readers provided . . .

. . . this video of CNN’s holier-than-thou coverage of the story. It is definitely worth watching, if for no other reason than to revel in host Soledad O’Brien’s self-righteous indignation over a story that turned out to be bogus.

Well, it did fit that network’s narrative.

The Shark…..Jumps The Shark

Could this get more absurd?

QUEER OWS TO PROTEST HRC NYC GALA

QUEER OCCUPIERS DENOUNCE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOR HONORING GOLDMAN SACHS & FAILING TO DEMAND FULL FEDERAL EQUALITY

New York, NY, February 1, 2012 – Queer/LGBTIQA2Z Occupy Wall Street, a caucus of the NYC based Occupy Wall Street movement, announced today that it will protest a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Gala honoring Goldman Sachs on Saturday February 4, 2012 at the Waldorf Astoria.

In contrast to the $650 a plate Gala, the Queer/LGBTIQA2Z Caucus will host a “Guerrilla Potluck” on the sidewalk outside of the prestigious hotel at 50th Street & Park Avenue from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The Queer Caucus: 1. Condemns HRC for honoring Goldman Sachs, 2. Calls upon HRC to adopt a strategy of Full Equality by 2014, and 3. Demands that HRC create a transparent process that includes the grassroots.

1. The Queer Caucus condemns HRC’s decision to honor Goldman Sachs in a time of financial collapse caused by their unethical business practices and greed, and deplores the use of our cause and suffering for corporate public relations. HRC honoring Goldman Sachs at this time reveals all one needs to know about the corporate LGBT lobby, and its disconnect from the 99% and the LGBT people it purports to represent.

2. The Queer Caucus calls upon HRC to embrace the grassroots demand for Full Federal Equality by 2014 the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

After 60 years of struggle, there is still not a single federal non-discrimination law protecting LGBT Americans from discrimination. More incredibly, HRC, the corporate entity that controls our strategy, is not even seeking equal protection for our community.

To address this, the Queer Caucus calls on HRC to take The Pledge for Full LGBT Equality to seek and secure full non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identify for all people.

The right to be protected from discrimination secures a core liberty interest. And it is the duty of government to protect LGBT Americans from the harm caused by discrimination as a matter of public welfare, law and conscience, as it has for decades for all other oppressed groups.

There’s more to this press release, but if I read it again….my IQ would drop.

First of all, there is NO “right to be protected from discrimination”.  Do left-wing Progressives even understand what a “right” is?  *eyeroll*

When John Aravosis and I agree on something….. you know it’s bad.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The Protestor as Person of the Year; It’s His Ideology, Stupid

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:01 pm - December 19, 2011.
Filed under: Media Bias,Occupy Wall Street

In his post last week on Time magazine’s decision to name the Protestor as its “Person of the Year,” Ed Morrissey thought the magazine a “little late to ‘the protester’ story in terms of real impact“:

In 2009, Time had the same opportunity to pick “the protester” when the protests were the Tea Party and Iran’s Green Revolution, which followed from Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, and so on.  Who did they pick?  Ben Bernanke.  When the Tea Party movement actually delivered results at the ballot box in 2010 in a historic midterm drubbing of Barack Obama’s Democrats — they lost 68 seats, the worst outing since 1938 — they could have hailed The Protester then, too.  Who did they pick?  Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

What impact, he wonders, “has ‘the protester’ actually had in 2011?  Has the Occupy Movement, such as it is, had any kind of ground-breaking impact on politics in the way the Tea Party did in 2010 and still does in this cycle?  Not even close, and even people on the Left have begun washing their hands of the literally pointless display.”

Well, the folks in the various Occupy movements did chant the right (er, left) slogans (at least according to our friends in the MSM).

LA Times coos over Occupy version of Christmas Carol

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:54 pm - December 18, 2011.
Filed under: Media Bias,Movies/Film & TV,Occupy Wall Street

To see just one reason why fewer and fewer right-of-center Angelenos subscribe to the Los Angeles Times, take a gander at this front page puff piece on a left-wing playwright’s revisioning of Charles Dickens’s Christmas Carol. The story is not even about a play that has been produced, but merely about a script a man has written:

Ebenezer Scrooge is a corporate banker, busy foreclosing on the hapless masses. Bob Cratchit and his beleaguered family live in a chilly tent in an anonymous Occupy encampment. The ghost of Christmas future sports a flowing black robe of taped-together trash bags and plastic sheeting. Tiny Tim dies.

At least that’s how the San Francisco Mime Troupe’s resident playwright, Michael Gene Sullivan, has re-imagined “A Christmas Carol” for the troubled 21st century.

Truth be told, it wasn’t much of a stretch to place Charles Dickens‘ Victorian classic into today’s Occupy world. And that, as Sullivan would be the first to tell you, is exactly the point. Dickens’ novella was written in the heart of the “Hungry ’40s,” a time of labor unrest, unemployment and starvation across 19th century Europe.

Not much of a stretch to place this in today’s Occupy world?  Um, what?  Hate to inform Mr. Sullivan or Miss La Ganga, the writer of the column, but the folks shivering in Occupy encampments chose to “suffer” in such circumstances.  At least those who actually occupied the tents in the various Occupy encampments.

Despite all we’ve learned about these movements and the costs its Los Angeles manifestation incurred on the city Miss La Ganga’s paper serves (which her own paper reported), she still has a rosy few of this outfit.  Nowhere in her article does she question the playwright’s idealistic view.

Do wonder if the Times has ever run a front-page puff piece on an unproduced play — or offered such favorable coverage to a conservative artist’s revisioning of a classic work.  Perhaps, there is purpose to the paper’s editors choice to feature this play on their front-page–to alert deep-pocketed movers and shakers in the entertainment business to this left-wing script.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Reader T finds another flaw in the script, “Also, Bob Cratchit WORKED for Ebenezer Scrooge. The fact that he WORKED disqualifies Cratchit as being an occupy protestor.”

How much will it cost to clean up after Occupy movements?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:54 pm - December 10, 2011.
Filed under: Occupy Wall Street

Glenn today links a post on the damage the folks at OccupyBoston did to the “scenic Rose Kennedy Greenway,” quipping that Boston Occupiers Leave Site In The Kind Of Condition The Country Would Be In If They Were Listened To:

[Nancy] Brennan [executive director of the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy] said the grass, which has turned into a mud pit, will need to be completely resodded, and she fears several trees that have been damaged will have to be replanted.

“Three or four trees might be lost. There’s browning of the foliage, and there are some broken and bent limbs,” she said. “Part of what we need to do is check on the root systems, and that is just going to take a little bit of time.”

Brennan also expects that the sprinkler system was damaged so much it will have to be repaired or replaced. Also in need of replacement are about 20 percent of the shrubbery and the pebbles from a pedestrian walkway that runs along Purchase Street.

And that’s just a partial listing of the damage.  Wonder how much the cleanup’s gonna cost.

In Los Angeles, Democratic Mayor Antonio “Villaraigosa has said the cleanup and repair to the park might cost more than $1 million.”  Oh, and let’s not forget the “overtime costs for city employees” during the “occupation.”  According to the LA Times, “Overtime costs for the General Services Department, which runs the police force assigned to City Hall and other municipal buildings, exceeded $100,000 even before the overnight raid [ending the 'occupation'].

If taxpayers foot the bill, as seems likely, the occupiers can just say, “Well, that’s what democracy looks like.”