Education Down

The Liberals in California have effectively done away with Education, they just don’t know it yet. They were too busy with their touchy-feely feel good equality to notice.

SB 172, Liu. Pupil testing: high school exit examination: suspension.

This bill would suspend the administration of the high school exit examination and would remove the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school for each pupil completing grade 12, for the 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 school years. The bill would, until July 31, 2018, require the governing board or body of a local educational agency, as defined, and the State Department of Education on behalf of state special schools, to grant a diploma of graduation from high school to any pupil who completed grade 12 in the 2003–04 school year or a subsequent school year and has met all applicable graduation requirements other than the passage of the high school exit examination.

Regardless of any performance or no performance at all, you get a HS Diploma no matter what.

So doesn’t that make Education and Teachers superfluous?

If they get it no matter what what incentive is their to even study, to learn, ANYTHING?

What incentive is their to teach anything if no matter what they get the Diploma anyhow?

And further more, if you flunked out in the last 11 years (back to 2004), you retroactive get it anyways.

So go forth you ignorant masses and collect your $15/hr job (“that is only fair”), your free college tuition, your free phone, cable. Who cares!

The “rich” will pay for it all and you don’t have to do anything to earn it!

As the late Chicago columnist Mike Royko said as far back as 1979, “If it babbles and its eyeballs are glazed, it probably comes from California.”

The Granola State, what isn’t fruits & Nuts is flakes!

high school students will no longer have to actually pass high school to receive a diploma. This takes the participation trophy concept to a new disgusting low.

Just show up and you win. Eventually, they’ll figure out they don’t even need to show up because if it’s guaranteed regardless why bother.

THe irony of them holding the ultimate winner-and-loser game this coming year, The Super Bowl, is just just that, lost on them. In their fervent hate of competition and “winner and losers” they have created the ultimate destruction but it “feels good”.

Nothing could epitomize Liberalism better.

Sen. Carol Liu, D­-La Cañada Flintridge, who authored the bill, initially introduced the bill because the exit exam is not aligned with new Common Core standards.

Meaning they were failing even the Obama Administrations own handpicked “standards” so in true Liberal fashion they just threw the baby out with the bat water!

It was later amended to remove the exit exam as a requirement for graduation for students who still hadn’t passed because they no longer had an opportunity to take the test.

The poor dears. 🙂 It’s so unfair!

How can businesses properly evaluate prospective employees when “high school diploma” is required if it is essentially meaningless? Who does this actually help? Certainly not the students who “graduated” without mastering any basic skills.

Well, Corporate America is the spawn of the Devil anyways, isn’t it? Full of greedy,misogynistic, bigoted, white people!!

Everyone should make at least $30,000 a year no matter what! Life must be fair for everyone, right? 🙂

But you can bet there will be a ginormous outcry when companies looking for entry-level employees start requiring application exams to determine if candidates can actually read and write beyond the 8th grade level.

That’s discrimination, and probably racism, me old son. That’s just not “fair”.

So why stop at high school diplomas? Who needs a college degree? Why require physicians, accountants and lawyers to take exams to prove their knowledge? Or is California simply admitting its public education system is so worthless that a diploma from one of its high schools is as well?

Well, a huge number of kids graduate who can’t read the damn thing right now anyhow.

It is terribly disheartening to see this nation, step by step, lose all appreciation for achievement and excellence.(alan west)

But it’s only “fair” and it make everyone “feel good”. Competition is bad. Excellence is too hard and too unfair.

Veronica Steele, a 27­-year­-old who received a certificate of completion from Rio Linda High, which is near Sacramento, said she was also excited after learning she will now be able to get her diploma and pursue a career as a veterinary technician. Failing the exam and not graduating, she said, negatively affected her.

“It shot my confidence,” she said. “I lost complete self esteem because of that test and now that I’m going to get my diploma, it feels like a weight’s being lifted off my shoulder.” (edsource)

Thank you, Governor Moonbeam for making my dreams come true! 🙂

nothing. The test is hardly complex. The math test, for instance, only covers 8th grade-level material and can be passed if students answer 55 percent of questions correctly. About 80 percent of California high schoolers take and pass it on their first try while in the 10th grade, and overall passage rates for the class of 2014 were above 97 percent.

But poor Veronica has been saved from a life of humiliation and self-destruction where she could pass a test with an E but now doesn’t have to.

That’s the kind of Vet Tech I want working on animals! 🙂

And don’t aspire to greater things because it requires a State License and that’s another evil test you might fail and suffer crushing self-esteem issues…

CARVTA: To be eligible to take the RVT (Registered Veterinary Tech) licensing examination, a candidate must meet the requirements of one of three eligibility categories:  (for now) 🙂  It’s so unfair and unequal!

  • 1. Graduate from, at minimum, a two-year curriculum in veterinary technology in a college or other post-secondary institution approved by the California Veterinary Medical Board (VMB). (Generally an AVMA approved school) or complete a program or curriculum that has been deemed “equivalent” to a two-year approved program by the VMB (California approved school). *  (even if you have a HS Diploma regardless 🙂 )
  • 4. Licensed, certified or registered as an RVT in another state (or in Canada) and have taken an examination determined by the VMB to be equivalent to the California RVT examination and have at least 4416 hours of directed clinical practice in no less than 24 months under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian. *  (and I bet it takes more than 55%!! to pass!)
  • 5. Complete a combination of at least 4416 hours of directed clinical practice in no less than 24 months under the direct supervision of a California-licensed veterinarian and 300 hours (or 20 semester or 30 quarter units) of specific education. (This is the Alternate Route). **

Other Requirements for Licensure

In addition to meeting the requirements of one of the above eligibility categories, candidates must be:
1. At least 18 years of age
2. Fingerprinted (live scan) prior to licensure
3. Free of convictions for crimes substantially related to the practice and duties of an RVT. (Anyone who has any convictions should contact the VMB to be sure they will be eligible.)

So no #BlackLives Matter convictions, DUI, riots, etc bec a good little liberal robot… 🙂

We would never have become the most powerful nation on earth without demanding high standards from ourselves, our countryman and our leaders. But clearly it no longer matters. Lying and criminal behavior no longer disqualify anyone from the presidency, so who cares about something as trivial as high school diploma?

If you don’t believe this is just the tip of the moral decline iceberg, here’s another disturbing law just passed:

AB 329: Makes participation in sex education courses mandatory for students unless parents opt-out, would also inculcate the teaching of a fluid gender identity

“Fluid gender?” I suppose that’s separate to the “gender fluids” discussed in the sex education course. Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.

AB 359: Forces stores to keep employees for at least 90 days so they cannot be fired as a result of buyouts or mergers;

Because that’s just not “fair” and the greedy corporate bosses…I mean really… 🙂

AB 1014: Will permit family members to obtain a restraining order to keep relatives who might commit gun violence from owning a gun;

I am trying to find the humor in all of this because it’s all so terribly sad. (Michelle Hickford)

Who needs to do anything but sit back, enjoy life and let the government take care of you, you ignorant Matrix-style moron. They just hand you everything you need so why strive for anything better. It’s too “unfair” and too “hard” so why bother.

Just vote for us to take it from those greedy others. They can’t object without being bigots, racists or intolerant anyways. 🙂

About 249,000 students, or 6 percent of test­-takers, could not pass the test before the end of their senior year since it became a graduation requirement for the class of 2006. It’s unclear how many of these students did not receive diplomas only because they failed the test, and how many wouldn’t have graduated anyway because they also lacked enough credits, or did not meet grade requirements.

The new law also calls for the state to suspend the exit exam in the 2015-16, 2016­-17 and 2017­-18 school years and to eliminate it as a graduation requirement during that time. Meanwhile, lawmakers and educators will determine if the state should create a new version of the test that’s aligned with the Common Core State Standards, or eliminate it altogether as a graduation requirement in the future. (edsource)

So by 2018 when Governor MoonBeam is up for re-election…. 🙂

It’s just so unfair. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

 

 

The Future of America: Debate-able

Matt Walsh: It’s comforting to project all our anger onto politicians. Lord knows, they deserve a fair amount of it. However, the difficult reality is this: America’s biggest problem is its citizens, not its politicians. Indeed, its politicians are a symptom, a reflection, of its people. They may manipulate and coerce and propagandize, but when it comes down to it, in a democratic system, if a bunch of lunatics and scoundrels are in power it’s because the people chose to put them there. The sickness originates, then, with the people. And the people’s sickness is rooted in the soul.

Depressing how ignorant and narcissistic they are, many willfully so.

My mind kept going back to this fact last night as I watched the Democrat debate on CNN. To be honest, I’m not totally sure why I watched it. Clearly, a person must have some serious psychological issues if they elect to spend an evening with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It’s like choosing to be mentally water boarded for two and a half hours. Only a troubled man would willingly subject himself to such torment. I’ll be making an appointment with a therapist later today.

That’s why I wasn’t watching. I already have high blood pressure and heart problems I didn’t their help to my grave. Plus, it would just soul-crushingly depressing watch the Liberal Media coddle these nutters and the audience applauding them for it.

But whatever my masochistic motivations, I watched, and although I wasn’t terribly surprised by anything that occurred, I was nonetheless deeply disturbed and grieved. This is what’s become of my country, I kept thinking to myself. This is America. These are mainstream, popular, beloved Democrat politicians participating in a presidential election on national TV, yet from what they’re saying, you’d be excused for assuming they were just a handful of fringe crazies campaigning to be the next leader of some hippy commune in upstate Oregon.

corrupt

There wasn’t a single good or feasible or coherent idea offered at any point from anyone not named Jim Webb. Just hard-left hokum and naked socialism, because that’s precisely what millions of American voters demand.

The want the visceral, gutteral, hatred that they’d been raised on. They didn’t want ideas, they wanted EMOTIONS.

I’m old enough to remember when Democrat politicians in national elections had to pretend to be capitalist and at least vaguely Christian and constitutionalist to get elected. Now, it’s a race to see who can play the most convincing godless commie demagogue.

I started out my voting life as a Democrat. I even voted for Jimmy Carter, to my ultimate shame.

But they don’t make Democrats like, say JFK anymore. They were exterminated.

The Far Left is “centrist” to these loons.

With the frazzled Muppet from Vermont leading the way, all of the candidates (except Jim Webb, who apparently stumbled into the wrong debate) spent the first several minutes complaining about “income inequality.”

Because that is the emotional buzzword of The Party. Forget the facts, especially about the income gap GROWING under Obama…Liberals and Democrats don’t do facts.

This was a theme they’d all return to incessantly throughout the evening, because there’s nothing more exhilarating than listening to old rich white people complain about old rich white people.

The “diversity” of it is hilarious. But it would be a thoughtcrime for that to occur to them so their brains just skip that detail none the wiser.

Bernie Sanders lamented again and again that the “middle class is collapsing,” but never expressed any interest in seeing us poor middle class folk move up and out of the middle class.

Socialism doesn’t have a middle class, by the way. Just Very rich and everyone else whose poor. Talk about “inequality”… But again, that’s facts, and facts don’t matter.

For Sanders and the rest of them, the “middle class” should be all we peons aspire to. Success and wealth ought to be solely possessed by the left wing ruling class. Wealth is evil, you see, so that’s why we should let our great and generous protectors carry the burden.

After all, they are so vastly superior!

Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! I can’t really blame them for shouting socialist catchwords all night. This is what their voters desire. They don’t desire capitalism, because capitalism means opportunity and freedom, and opportunity and freedom mean hard work. Economic freedom is so unpopular among liberals that Bernie Sanders openly disavowed it to the sound of roaring applause. Clinton was hesitant (for now) to fully label herself a socialist, so instead she said she’s a sorta-capitalist who thinks “capitalism has to be saved from itself.” This is another way of calling American people children who need to be rescued by benevolent bureaucrats, but that’s OK because Democrat voters fervently wish to be treated like children. They want their own failures and struggles in life to be the fault of “the rich” and they want a president who will magically make it better.

They want their Mommy Government to make the hurt of life go away.

It’s a bit awkward, of course, because they already voted for a guy who promised to do just that, yet the “income inequality” has only gotten worse. This, as Hillary asserted several times, is still the fault of the Republicans. Even when we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress, all of our economic woes could be laid at the feet of Republicans and “the rich.” But not every “the rich.” Just “the rich” who aren’t Democrat politicians, or Democrat donors like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, or union leaders, or Planned Parenthood executives, or Hollywood liberals, or university administrators, or any other group comprised mainly of wealthy left wingers.

Leftist “rich” = Good. Right-wing “rich”= Evil!

Isn’t Doublethink wonderful… 🙂

Anyway, the fact that the most prominent critics of “the rich” are themselves rich is of no concern to the Democrat voter. Consistency, logic, and sincerity are not priorities to this crew. They just want to be coddled and cuddled and soothed.

Don’t actually make them think. Thinking is too hard. Just let them have their primitive base emotions and leave it at that.

That’s why the candidates pivoted back to “inequality” and mythological, phantom issues like the gender wage gap over and over again, but never once, so far as I can remember, even mentioned the word “liberty” or “freedom.” This is where we are, culturally speaking. Five presidential contenders can spend 150 minutes blabbering on about their supposed principles and plans for America, but never once pretend to be even moderately concerned about protecting and preserving liberty.

And the Democrats watching are obliviously happy.

Why? Because Democrat voters don’t want liberty. It’s really that simple. They want easy answers and free stuff. On the free stuff end of the spectrum, all of the candidates received massive applause when they, often entirely out of nowhere and in response to completely unrelated questions, endorsed making college education free or much cheaper for citizens and non-citizens alike. And not only free college, but free health care, and more paid leave, and a doubled minimum wage.

The Narcissism of a 2 year old spoiled brat in adults. That’s a Democrat.

I felt like I was in fifth grade again watching our class president promise us bi-weekly pizza parties. Even then I knew that kind of pledge was unrealistic and disingenuous. Even then I knew the school couldn’t possible pay for 70 pizza parties if we were going on field trips to the freaking post office because they couldn’t afford to take us to the zoo or the aquarium. Even then I knew you need money for things. I was 10. Democrat voters are adults.

But they absolutely don’t know better and more importantly, DON’T WANT TO know better and will actively fight you to NOT know any better.

They want to feel protected, like a child, by their parent Government, for all the evil people of the world. The Not-We.  (Doctor Who reference).

Naturally, nobody ever explained how a country with $18 trillion of debt and over $127 trillion of unfunded liability might manage to suddenly become Santa Claus for 320 million Americans and illegals.

And they don’t care, either.

Indeed, along with “liberty,” the phrase “national debt” was never uttered. And if they weren’t going to explain how the government would start handing out full ride scholarships, paid vacations, “living wages,” and free medical care to every human being who happens to exist within our borders, they certainly wouldn’t attempt to explain why.

And the sheep don’t care. “The Rich” (the evil one version) will pay for it, naturally.

The idea that college in particular should be free is not only absurd and unworkable but incredibly offensive to any self-sufficient adult (a small minority, I admit). I’ve got news for you, my fellow young people, college isn’t a human right. It’s also not a necessity. I pay a mortgage and support a family of four by myself, with no government handouts, and I do it without a college degree. It is possible. If you can’t afford college — and God knows it’s obscenely expensive and not worth the investment for most people — don’t go. Forge your own path. Think for yourself. Do something different with your life.

But that involves potential for failure and the Liberals never prepared them for that. Hard work, is well, HARD.

It’s much easier to sit back with your iPhone, your Starbucks, and let Mama Government just give you presents all day long.

You really want to drive down college costs? That’s how you do it. You can eliminate your own college expenses by simply choosing not to take on any college expenses. Crazy how that works, isn’t it? But that’s not what liberals want to hear. They want to hear about the crusty old socialist genie who will make free stuff appear out of thin air.

Poof! Free Stuff for everyone!

The gun control portion of the debate was the most instructive. All of the candidates (except Webb, it goes without saying) fiercely and passionately competed over who most opposes the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Bernie Sanders was accused — accused! — of being not completely against our Constitutional rights to keep and bare arms, and had to take great pains to assure liberal voters that these were unfounded rumors. It was a scene that would have made Thomas Jefferson weep had he been around to witness it: presidential candidates rushing to distance themselves from the Constitution.

That’s Democrats for ya…

Later, the topic turned to foreign policy, and Hillary was only tentatively and briefly asked about her role in the Benghazi fiasco. While attempting to dodge the question, the moderator interrupted and reminded her that “Americans lost their lives.” Clinton curtly shot back, “I’ll get to that,” and proceeded to explain how her policies in Libya worked out splendidly because the Libyan people were able to hold an election.

And no one missed her non-answer I bet. And no “journalist” did either.

The problem, of course, is threefold: 1) She again callously dismissed the deaths of four Americans, because, put simply, she doesn’t care about any human life that isn’t her own.

Human Life must be part of THE AGENDA in order to matter. This is the “compassionate” and “sensitive” Left at its finest.

2) She forgot to mention the “democratic Libyan government” is now in exile, hiding away on a boat in Tobruck while militias run the country.

The consequences of a Liberal’s actions never matter. The intent was good, and that’s all that natters.

3) The real issue is that Clinton and Obama were running guns through Benghazi to Syrian terrorists. This is what got our ambassador killed, and it’s why both Clinton and Obama lied about it. Obviously, this incredible scandal should be enough to disqualify someone from the presidency and land them in prison for the rest of their lives, but here in America they aren’t even asked about it during a presidential debate, much less prosecuted for it.

wanted

Instead, the candidates were told to name the biggest national security threat we face, and two of the candidates said climate change. These, I remind you, are adults running for president of the United States who believe our greatest enemy is the weather. Islamic State is overseas torturing and decapitating women and children but, according to Bernie Sanders, the real problem is that temperatures get a little balmy in the summertime. God help us.

This moment of sheer dementia was eclipsed only by a question posed later on in the debate. The candidates were asked whether “black lives matter or all lives matter,” and those who answered agreed that only black lives matter. The question alone shows you how far the Democrat Party and the culture as a whole has fallen in just the last few years. During Obama’s first run, you would have been flabbergasted by such an inquiry. Do black lives or all lives matter? What? Huh? Really? Talk about a false dichotomy.

But White People are evil. 🙂 (except the white people on the Democrat President Ticket that is). 🙂

Now you barely bat an eye at the full frontal stupidity of the question or the insanity of the answer. You aren’t in the least bit surprised that Democrat politicians cannot simply affirm the value of all human life without upsetting a significant portion of their base. When “do all lives matters?” becomes a difficult gotcha question in politics, you know things have gone severely off the rails.

Perhaps the most unsettling moment came when Clinton was asked about her decision to commit a serious federal crime by conducting classified business on her private email servers. It should be no surprise that a pathological crook who spent decades intimidating and silencing her husband’s rape victims would think this, in comparison, is rather small potatoes. That’s to be expected. It’s the Democrat voter’s cooperation that’s the real outrage here.

Clinton said the whole thing was a right wing conspiracy and then started babbling about free college tuition. Sanders got on his knees and kissed the feet of Her Highness, insisting that Clinton’s rampant criminality is a distraction. The audience of trained seals burst into applause at the sight of two powerful people agreeing that powerful people shouldn’t be required to obey the law. Then the auditorium nearly exploded in a fit of joy and exuberance at this exchange between Lincoln Chafee, who is a person who apparently exists, and Her Highness:

CHAFEE: … There’s an issue of American credibility out there. So any time someone is running to be our leader, and a world leader, which the American president is, credibility is an issue out there with the world. And we have repair work to be done. I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?

CLINTON: No.

Her Highness refusing to address her illegal activities was, by far, the most popular response, or non-response, of the night. I felt like I was watching some sort of strange reimagining of a George Orwell book. It was creepy, really.

The Democrat Playbook, and instruction manual is “1984”.

Of course, there were a few other big applause lines, like when Hillary defended the baby killers at Planned Parenthood and when Bernie promised to raise taxes (a promise he repeated 16 times or so). Hillary scored points on several occasions by noting that she has a vagina. When asked how her administration won’t be a third Obama term, the only difference she could highlight is her genitalia. Hillary has made it clear that she’ll bust out the “I’m a woman” card anytime her back is against the wall, and it will always work with her supporters because her supporters are profoundly immature.

I did say that was going to be the ploy, did I not? 🙂 Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. Vote for Hillary or you’re a sexist!

There was one genuinely good line, courtesy of the sore thumb Jim Webb. All of the candidates were asked who they’d consider their number one enemy. Chafee said he was proud to make an enemy of poor coal miners. Clinton said her greatest enemies are not Islamic State or the Iranians, but Republicans. Sanders said something about corporatebankersWallStreetyaddayadda. Webb, the Marine veteran, said his number one enemy would be the Viet Cong soldier who threw a grenade at him, but “he’s not around anymore.”

It was a fantastic moment, particularly in contrast to the fools before him who bragged about fighting with coal miners and Republicans. Webb actually fought with his life on the line and defeated his enemy on the battle field. In a Republican debate, his answer would have brought the house down, as well it should. But in a Democrat debate, it was met with awkward silence, just like the silence that followed Webb’s earlier declaration that all human lives matter.

He was NOT WE. Who let him in?

This is the Democrat Party, ladies and gentlemen. Behold it and weep. Just remember to reserve most of your disgust for the people in the audience or at home who cheered as politicians promised us death, tyranny, and free crap. To give you an idea of how enthusiastic some of these people are, consider this: I offered criticisms of the candidates on Twitter last night and one liberal responded by saying she hopes my children kill themselves (she’s since deleted her account). I got an email from a Hillary fan this morning telling me she’ll “pray” I get leukemia. You’d like to think these reactions are isolated, but they aren’t. It’s pretty common.

All too common. And this, of course, is the vaunted and much bally-hooed “Tolerance” that Liberals go on about incessantly. 🙂

The Democrat Party exists in its current state because this country is infested by evil, fear, stupidity, and hatred. Clinton and Sanders are but manifestations of it. And never forget that they are just that: manifestations. Expressions of the spiritual malady that’s eating this nation alive, not the source or cause of it.

The voter and the politician are, in the end, one and the same, both equally to blame.

Speaking of Orwell, I’m reminded of the last line in “Animal Farm”:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

TRUE.

And then there’s the RINO’s running the “opposition”  <snicker>… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

That Slice of Social Justice Pie

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Democrats think they have the issue of the 2016 election: income inequality. The theory is that so few Americans control so much of the wealth in the country that the rest of us, the “99 percent,” will rise up and demand “fairness.” It’s jealously, plain and simple. And its success, as much as there has been, is based on ignorance.

Bill Gates is worth more than you or I ever will be. Actually, he’s worth more than you, me, and pretty much everyone we know ever will be. But he’s not rich because we’re poor. In fact, we’re not poor at all.

Gates made his money, created it. Before Microsoft existed the value of Microsoft didn’t exist. It was created and grew from nothing, or a relatively small investment. It also grew from hard work and a risk. Gates left Harvard to start the company; he didn’t rob a bank, he bet on himself, his vision and ability. And he won.

Unless someone literally stole from someone else, no one is poor because someone else got rich. That appears to be a difficult concept for many to understand, particularly the “social justice warriors” who obstruct traffic demanding their slice of other people’s pie.

But they do understand it; they just hope others don’t. The chanters against the “1 percent” play on the ignorance of their misguided flock. That ignorance runs deep.

The unenlightened narcissism and greed runs deeper.

That it is fiction that you have less because someone else has more is but one basic concept people should have learned in school. Thanks to the Democratic Party’s indentured servitude to teachers unions, such basic concepts have been replaced with sensitivity conditioning and diversity training.

And how you’re entitled to other people’s money, especially if you’re not white.

The idea that Mark Zuckerberg being worth $34 billion means you were denied your slice of that pie is absurd (unless your last name is Winklevoss or Saverin). That a political party, or any decent human being, would perpetuate that lie is worse.

It’s not often I’ll quote an actor to make a political point, at least the actual actor and not the character he played. But I recently heard something I think captures the American spirit, or what it used to be, so perfectly that it is worth repeating.

The actor is Terry Crews, star of “Brooklyn 99,” and while talking on Adam Carolla’s “Take A Knee” podcast, Crews talked about how he became the successful man he is today. Crews told Carolla, “Everybody says they’re trying to get their piece of the pie. They don’t understand that the world is a kitchen. You can make your own pie.”

That is true, to one degree or another, in most corners of the world. But it is truer in the United States than anywhere else. Yet one political party, aided by the media, is committed to convincing millions of their fellow Americans that they can’t get ahead, that “the deck is stacked against them,” or “the game is rigged.” Nothing could be more un-American.

But more Democrat.

Democrats and the media obsess on “income inequality,” but outcome inequality is the real plague of America’s poor.

Everyone has access to an education – Equality.

Wealthy Democrats deny Americans the ability to choose which school their kids attend, but they can and do afford excellent private schools for their kids – Inequality.

The greatest barrier to economic mobility is education malpractice, and those screaming “inequality” are the ones building and reinforcing that barrier.

No one should want income equality, or anything close to it. The only societies where income was anything close to equal were the most despotic in history. The Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, etc., all enforced the concept of “equality” down to the income level. It quashed the human spirit and the entrepreneurial spirit – and the only people who achieved upward mobility, the only people who got rich, were those who imposed the income equality.

Everyone is equal…under a boot.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

The fact is the “rich” today won’t necessarily be the rich tomorrow, and the same goes for the poor. The discussion is always framed as the rich vs. the poor, but it’s never mentioned that neither group is stagnant. Whether someone moves up or down that scale is up to them. The chances they take, the effort they exert, the work they do are all bigger factors in someone’s economic future than anything a politician can implement. Unless, of course, that politician implements a program designed to alleviate “income inequality.”

North Korea has the lowest income inequality on the planet – one man has everything, millions of others have nothing. In this country, similarly situated individuals are making the case we should be more like North Korea. OK, them first. If these millionaire progressives are really interested in “spreading the wealth around,” then write me a check. If the check clears, we can discuss the concept further.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Swiss Cheese

Far be it for us to criticize those who create great wealth, but we’re probably not alone in our disgust at the preening and pontificating by billionaires who think they should tell us how to live.

We’re talking, of course, about the annual confab at Davos, Switzerland, 5,120 feet up in the Swiss Alps, presumably high enough to give the 40 heads of state and 2,500 billionaires, businessmen, CEOs, rock stars, assorted royals and politicians at least a metaphorical view of the whole world.

Are you sure we shouldn’t add an “r” in that city name and just call it Davros (as in the creator of the Daleks in “Doctor Who”). 🙂

Davos was once a semi-serious event dedicated to business executives gathering to talk about common problems and how to solve them.

But it’s turned into a preachy, weeklong exercise in excess, during which the same people who flew 1,700 private jets to attend — yes, someone counted them — lecture the rest of us about the importance of cutting back on our carbon footprints and other things.

“Decision makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner and lower-carbon economies,” Mexico’s former President Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

“The purpose,” said former vice president and climate-change entrepreneur Al Gore, standing with hip-hop star Pharrell Williams, “is to have a billion voices with one message, to demand climate action now.”

You mean billion dollar voices! 🙂 The little guy who’s going to be screwed by you doesn’t matter. AS billion here a billion there… 🙂

OK, so how about you flying commercial, for a start?

Well, they are too important for that. After all, they are not peasants.

This year’s ration of ridiculousness and hypocrisy is so prominent, even the media have noticed.

It’s pretty obvious that people who can pay $40,000 to attend Davos and fork over $43 for a hot dog, $47 for a burger or $55 for a Caesar salad — all actual prices at this year’s World Economic Forum — would seem to be in a poor position to lecture the rest of us.

Only $47 for a burger, gee, I would have thought with all the high end ingredients I’m sure they had that’s a bargain. 🙂

A London restaurant claims to have created the world’s most expensive burger, embellished with gold leaf, lobster and caviar. The wagyu beef and venison dish, priced at £1,100 (Google).

Now that’s a burger for an elitist!

Even so, Bloomberg highlights remarks by subprime mortgage billionaire Jeffrey Greene that “America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence. We need to reinvent our whole system of life.”

Greene, according to Bloomberg, “flew his wife, children and two nannies on a private jet plane to Davos for the week.” How’s that for “less things”? His remarks are more than a little ironic, given one of the main themes of Davos this year: “Income inequality,” or getting the rich to pay their “fair share.”

So these billionaires will share their wealth right? 🙂

Then there’s that pesky gender gap, another major topic — at a conference where women make up just 17% of all attendees.

Increasingly, it seems, some think their wealth entitles them to run our lives instead of their businesses.

Well, if their Liberals as well as billionaires…god help us all!

Here’s some modest advice for the CEOs at Davos: Have fun and, by all means, learn something. But, please, get off your moral soapboxes. You’ll do far more for the economy and benefit far more people by building strong, innovative businesses with growing profits than by attending a thousand Swiss soirees. (IBD)

But that doesn’t “feel” as good and we know that for Liberals it’s all about “feelings”.


Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Sowell of Equality

Some time ago, burglars in England scrawled a message on the wall of a home they had looted: “RICH BASTARDS.”

Those two words captured the spirit of the politicized vision of equality — that it was a grievance when someone was better off than themselves.

That, of course, is not the only meaning of equality, but it is the predominant political meaning in practice, where economic “disparities” and “gaps” are automatically treated as “inequities.” If one racial or ethnic group has a lower income than another, that is automatically called “discrimination” by many people in politics, the media and academia.

It doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that some groups work harder in school, perform better and spend more postgraduate years studying to acquire valuable skills in medicine, science or engineering. If the economic end results are unequal, that is treated as a grievance against those with better outcomes, and a sign of an “unfair” society.

The rhetoric of clever people often confuses the undeniable fact that life is unfair with the claim that a given institution or society is unfair.

Children born into families that raise them with love and with care to see that they acquire knowledge, values and discipline that will make them valuable members of society have far more chances of economic and other success in adulthood than children raised in families that lack these qualities.

Studies show that children whose parents have professional careers speak nearly twice as many words per hour to them as children with working class parents — and several times as many words per hour as children in families on welfare. There is no way that children from these different backgrounds are going to have equal chances of economic or other success in adulthood.

The fatal fallacy, however, is in collecting statistics on employees at a particular business or other institution, and treating differences in the hiring, pay or promotion of people from different groups as showing that their employer has been discriminating.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics! 🙂

Too many gullible people buy the implicit assumption that the unfairness originated where the statistics were collected, which would be an incredible coincidence if it were true.

Worse yet, some people buy the idea that politicians can correct the unfairness of life by cracking down on employers. But, by the time children raised in very different ways reach an employer, the damage has already been done.

What is a problem for children raised in families and communities that do not prepare them for productive lives can be a bonanza for politicians, lawyers and assorted social messiahs who are ready to lead fierce crusades, if the price is right.

Many in the media and among the intelligentsia are all too ready to go along, in the name of seeking equality. But equality of what?

Equality before the law is a fundamental value in a decent society. But equality of treatment in no way guarantees equality of outcomes.

On the contrary, equality of treatment makes equality of outcomes unlikely, since virtually nobody is equal to somebody else in the whole range of skills and capabilities required in real life. When it comes to performance, the same man may not even be equal to himself on different days, much less at different periods of his life.

What may be a spontaneous confusion among the public at large about the very different meanings of the word “equality” can be a carefully cultivated confusion by politicians, lawyers and others skilled in rhetoric, who can exploit that confusion for their own benefit.

Regardless of the actual causes of different capabilities and rewards in different individuals and groups, political crusades require a villain to attack — a villain far removed from the voter or the voter’s family or community. Lawyers must likewise have a villain to sue. The media and the intelligentsia are also attracted to crusades against the forces of evil.

But whether as a crusade or a racket, a confused conception of equality is a formula for never-ending strife that can tear a whole society apart — and has already done so in many countries. (Thomas Sowell)

Thank you, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and King Obama. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Inequality of Truth

Class Warfare: In a popular book about a dreary subject, a French economist says inequality in the United States has reached “spectacular” levels. But the only thing spectacular is his version of the truth.

But as I have said before, Liberals really don’t respond, except childishly, to facts and real truths.

Thomas Piketty admits that he wrote his book to make the case for higher taxes on wealth and incomes of the rich. That should be a tip-off this isn’t a scholar’s dispassionate look at inequality, but an ideological argument.

Just like Global Cooling…Warming…Change…Disruption is not about the weather.

Even so, Piketty has garnered much attention for his 685-page tome, “Capital in the 21st Century,” filled with statistics, data and obscure arguments all pointing to the need to tax success at a much higher rate. As you might imagine, there are big problems with this.

The Financial Times of London went through the evidence offered by Piketty with a fine-tooth comb and found it lacking, to say the least. In some cases, for example, it looks like he made up data. In others, data seem to have been selected based on whether they bolstered his case or not. The numbers look cooked.

Over cooked no doubt. After all, if it doesn’t agree with my premise it can’t true, now can it? 🙂  After all, a liberal is never wrong. A Liberal is superior. And a liberal ALWAYS has the best of intentions so questioning their motives is not allowed.

“There are transcription errors from the original sources and incorrect formulas,” the FT noticed. “It also appears that some of the data are cherry-picked or constructed without an original source.”

But the bigger problem is that just looking at the actual data on U.S. inequality — using what is called the Gini ratio, a measure of how incomes are dispersed across society — you can see Piketty’s thesis is wrong.

As the chart above shows, contrary to claims by left-leaning economists such as Piketty, individual inequality hasn’t changed at all since 1960. But there has been an increase in household inequality.

Why? As economist Don Boudreaux and the website Political Calculations have noted, the changing composition and size of households are the reason.

Households have shrunk markedly. Since 1960, the average size has plunged from more than 3.4 persons to about 2.55, Census data show. One-person households have nearly quintupled since 1960 and today make up nearly 30% of all households.

When charted, the household Gini ratio looks as if there is growing inequality. But in fact it shows that households are smaller, with fewer earners.

Our point is that using tendentious data to bolster a case for taking even more private-sector output for government use is dishonest at best.

But it’s what Liberals do best.

There is no inequality crisis, and Americans would be wise to ignore the Pied Pipers of inequality who divide us by whipping up envy and greed.

For their own greed, by the way.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revealed that they can not predict the long-term budgetary effects of Obamacare.

Because President Fiat has made so many non-Congressional executive orders,delays, and waivers.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Full Steam Ahead!

The City of Seattle just passed a law enforcing $15/hr minimum wage over time.

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen said “Seattle wants to stop the race to the bottom in wages” and address the “widening gap between the rich and the poor.”

“Seattle, and other cities, are taking direct action to close our nation’s huge income gap because the federal and state governments have failed to do so,” City Councilman Nick Licata said. “By significantly raising the minimum wage, Seattle’s prosperity will be shared by more people and create a sustainable model for continued growth.”

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!

HEIL COMRADE!

The measure, which would take effect on April 1, 2015, includes a phase-in of the wage increase over several years, with a slower process for small businesses. The plan gives businesses with more than 500 employees nationally at least three years to phase in the increase. Those providing health insurance will have four years to complete the move. Smaller organizations will be given seven years. (FOX)

The S0cialists on the City Council weren’t happy it was going to take so long so now they want to fight to get it implemented even faster. After all, someone else’s “rich” money  is never too good for a socialist. 🙂

The International Franchise Association, a Washington, D.C.-based business group that represents franchise owners, said it plans to sue to stop the ordinance.

“The City Council’s action today is unfair, discriminatory and a deliberate attempt to achieve a political agenda at the expense of small franchise business owners,” the group said in a statement.

Yeah, so?  That’s what Progressive Liberals do. The Agenda is The Agenda. They don’t give a crap about consequences!!

Like…

The 215-room Clarion Hotel closed its full-service restaurant in December, laying off 15 people, said general manager Perry Wall. The hotel also let go a night desk clerk and maintenance employee and is considering a 10 percent increase in room rates for the spring travel season, Wall said.

He estimates that without a reduction in head count, the hotel’s annual payroll costs would have increased $300,000. It still employs about 30 people for jobs Wall describes as more in-demand than ever.

“I just think unskilled workers are going to have a harder time finding jobs,” he said. “You’re going to have people from as far away as Bellevue or Tacoma wanting these jobs, and they’re going to come with skills and experience. For $15 an hour, they’ll go that extra distance.”

Others say workers who already made at least $15 an hour want a raise to stay ahead of their less-experienced colleagues, leading to tense relations between labor and management.(Seattle Times)

Sounds like a great place for the inexperienced and undereducated greedy socialists-in-training. 🙂

OR…

Last January, SeaTac implemented a $15 per hour minimum wage for hospitality and transportation workers. The consequences to the drastic hike in wages are just beginning to be realized—and it’s not pretty.

A writer for NW Asian Weekly recently blogged about her experience attending an event at a SeaTac hotel. She asked employees if they were “happy with the $15 wage.” The ensuing conversations,

“It sounds good, but it’s not good,” the woman said.

“Why?” I asked.

“I lost my 401k, health insurance, paid holiday, and vacation,” she responded. “No more free food,” she added.

“The hotel used to feed her. Now, she has to bring her own food. Also, no overtime, she said. She used to work extra hours and received overtime pay.

“What else? I asked.

“I have to pay for parking,” she said.

“I then asked the part-time waitress, who was part of the catering staff.

“Yes, I’ve got $15 an hour, but all my tips are now much less,” she said. Before the new wage law was implemented, her hourly wage was $7. But her tips added to more than $15 an hour. Yes, she used to receive free food and parking. Now, she has to bring her own food and pay for parking.”

Parking in terminal is about $35 a day (but that is likely to be increased to pay for the extra expenses).

SeaTac is a small city—10 square miles in area and a population of 26,909—with an economy almost exclusively defined by the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Five months into the implementation of a $15 minimum wage and it appears that a deep sense of regret has already flooded the city and workers who should have “benefited” from the terrible economic policy.

Meanwhile, as the largest city in the Pacific Northwest and one of the fastest growing major cities in America, Seattle is on the verge of following in SeaTac’s woefully unfit footsteps. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s $15 minimum wage plan includes a phase-in period of three to seven years and makes no exception for business type or size. Murray’s plan elicited back-lash from prominent Seattle businesses owners and economists alike. (NW Asia)

Letter to NW Asian Weekly sent to local TV Station as well:

Dear KIRO TV,

Thank you for your piece on the minimum wage raise in Seattle and how it can affect the immigrant community and businesses. We have not heard the side of the minimum wage opposition and how it will hurt the immigrant community and businesses. I am a small business owner and very concerned about my employees, my community, and my business.

There is much complexity to this debate. We want to close the gap on income inequality, but raising the minimum wage is not the answer. The unintended consequences are that many who are earning minimum wage are entry workers, immigrants, less skilled, and inexperienced workers. They will now have an even harder chance in the job market if the minimum wage goes up to $15/hour. In theory, it is noble, but the economics of it does not help many people that they intend to help. It will hurt the ones they intend to help the most. Large businesses that have millions and billions of dollars can endure this devastation, but not small businesses, in which a minimum wage hike of 61 percent will cause businesses like mine to cut staff, invest in automation, relocate, or just close our doors. Business is already hard enough, and I just don’t think I can endure this minimum wage hike. Please continue to cover segments like you did to bring different perspectives to the mayor’s office, council members, and citizens.

A Local TV Report:

A new report warns that if Seattle nonprofits are forced to pay workers more to comply with a $15 per hour minimum wage, they would have to cut services to the poor.

The preliminary findings of a Seattle Human Services Coalition survey show that 21 of 29 organizations surveyed by the group would have to cut services if they were not given additional revenue to cover the extra payroll cost.

The impacts include cutting shelter beds, Head Start programs, food bank hours and senior lunches.

One group said it would have to stop housing people with significant disabilities.

Another said it would have to cut breast feeding and peer counseling services to low-income new mothers.

The Liberal Response:

“Socialist Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant, who is leading the charge for $15 per hour, said the solution is to tax big businesses to help small businesses and nonprofits meet larger payroll demands.

“There are no unintended consequences while fighting for $15 an hour while making sure small nonprofits and small businesses are able to survive,” Sawant said.” (KIRO)

So you raise the minimum wage on businesses, then the bigger you are the more the city wants to tax you to support the smaller businesses that can’t take the hit.

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.  Sounds like it’s time to leave Seattle if your a “big” business because now you’re considered the endless pool of money for the socialist to drain.

So stay small and hope the large Predatory Socialists don’t see you…

Even social justice champion Starbucks said, “Schultz said that when Starbucks totals up the amount it spends on pay, plus benefits for each employee, everyone earns more than $15 an hour “in addition to that we pay more than the minimum wage in also every place we do business. 

But if Starbucks were required to pay $15 an hour, those benefits could be at risk.

“If it goes to $15 an hour we’d have to assess whether or not we could continue to do those things,” Schultz said.” (KIRO)

I can’t wait for this to fail. But even if it does, the Liberals will prop it up and patch it up, and fake it up because as we already know, they are never wrong about anything- no matter what (in their own heads).

And they hide any data to the contrary.

And if you object YOU’RE The greedy one, not them!! 🙂

Enjoy, Comrade.