Thomas Paine
Friday, November 13, 2009
Tomorrow: Goldman Sachs part 2
I cannot wait to publish tomorrow's post about the Great Wall Street Devil. Stay tuned.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A window on Van Jones' lunacy opened for me today
Ever since seeing the Van Jones video wherein he states "the white polluters and white environmentalists are basically steering pollution into the people of color's communities," I have wondered exactly what formed the basis of this ridiculously argument. Then, today, I ran into an article from October 5, 2009, in The Huffington Post by Billy Parish and Rinku Sen called Young, Green, and Out of Work. The following is a portion of the article that caught my eye:
"The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living. The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons. First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods. That's not accidental. It is a predictable result of persistent segregation, which strips communities of color of their power, facilitating the discriminatory placement of toxic incinerators, power plants, factories, and other big polluters in their communities.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us."
My first reaction: wow, there are actually people who believe this drivel? Then, I though, yeah, I can see the left trying to indoctrinate naive inner city youth into actually believing this. Let's look at their allegations:
Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
First of all, even if it were the right thing to do, how long would it take to convert our system of energy to wind and solar alternatives? Decades, maybe? I wonder if unemployed minority youth have that much time. Secondly, I am sure the left would love to massively fund anything, but why is that the only thing that can create a full-employment economy? Why not create all kinds of jobs that anyone can apply for? Thirdly, the use of the term "full-employment economy" shows just how naive these people are. That is Utopia-Speak. There will never be a full-employment economy because there is always going to be someone that is too hurt, too old, too sick, too tired, or too lazy to work - yes, even in a completely communist society.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living.
Do these people get paid for stating the obvious?
The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
Just like those people who are dying in the streets because they have been denied healthcare, I would like to see those that are suffering because of the environment. But they are still teasing me with that end poverty and alleviate environmental suffering = racial and economic equity syllogism. We will still have to wait for our answer just a little longer.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons.
This is right out of Van Jones' playbook. This is the creation of coalitions of power, as our President once said. Now, how it all comes together...
First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods.
I researched the issue of the disparate impact of poor economies on minorities and it is true, at least with regards to employment. I also read a 1992 EPA Environmental Equity Report that states that members of minority populations have “disproportionately greater ‘observed and potential exposure’ to environmental pollutants,” and this disproportionality could not be explained by income alone."
So there is something there, right? But wait just a second.
The primary focus of the environmental justice movement has been on the disparate burdening of minority communities by the initial siting of industrial facilities. Where do they build industrial facilities? In most big industrial cities, that is downtown, usually next to a river. Where do most minorities live in those cities: yep, downtown. So, is it the chicken or the egg? Were minority communities targeted as locations for the facilities or did minority communities grow up around the facilities? After all, everyone likes to live closer to work. It would require an enormous amount of research to answer that question and I cannot find any data. However, I tend to think that minorities moved where they could be closer to work. Historically, minorities have migrated to job centers, first, with the blacks moving from the South to the industrial cities of the north like New York, Chicago, and Detroit. Later, Hispanics have migrated from states along the border to those states with agricultural-based economies. Hence, there has been large movement of Hispanics into Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, but also migration to the traditional big cities where they can expect to find an abundance of work.
Regardless of the real reason, I don't see where the whole environmental issue ties into poverty. In fact, the 1992 EPA report I reference notes that the disparities aren't necessarily poverty-based, but racially based. If evil white polluters are targeting minorities just for being minorities, then it defeats the argument that Parish and Sen are making that, you work some social justice and get the money into the hands of the minorities, and the pollution will end because minorities will then have the clout to stave off the white pollution.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us.
Wow. Somebody has been putting wacky weed in their hookahs. White flight occurred because of crime in the inner cities. Sure, maybe some whities were running away from the colored folk, but, come on, look at the crime statistics. I guess white people's parents and grandparents were racist for wanting to get away from crime. Here is my question: what if all the white people had stayed? I guess we would all be living in Empire State Building-sized skyscrapers because that is what it would take to house everyone in the city. I also guess that being able to own your own house, you know, something other than an apartment or a brownstone, where you could actually have a yard for your kids to play in, with a little privacy, didn't show up as an alternative possibility to these guys.
Man, it really is whitie's fault isn't it. Gee, I wonder if they could live with the white flight if all of the whites worked from their homes so no rush hour traffic, carbon emissions, etc.? Whitie is the only one that drives to work, right?
And whitie owns all of the farms, too, and spits in the collective eye of his Hispanic farm workers. Hello! Stereotypes! Go look in the Rio Grande Valley and tell me who owns the farms there. I guess whites own most of the farms in Kansas and Nebraska, but that's because most of the minorities live in the cities. Moreover, the type of people who work those farms are migrant workers, many of whom are illegals. Of course they are not going to buy their own land and change the structural farm's "hierarchy." (I can hear Van Jones screaming: Give them the land! Give them the respect!").
As for the unionization issue, believe me, unions want as many immigrant employees as they can. Why? They just want their dues. But they don't want them to change that structural hierarchy because, if the minority workers buy the company, then why should they pay dues? So, in that way, unions, especially farmworkers and service employees' unions, keep the brothers down. They don't want to lose their financial base.
Any of you are welcome to prove me wrong.
"The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living. The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons. First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods. That's not accidental. It is a predictable result of persistent segregation, which strips communities of color of their power, facilitating the discriminatory placement of toxic incinerators, power plants, factories, and other big polluters in their communities.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us."
My first reaction: wow, there are actually people who believe this drivel? Then, I though, yeah, I can see the left trying to indoctrinate naive inner city youth into actually believing this. Let's look at their allegations:
Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
First of all, even if it were the right thing to do, how long would it take to convert our system of energy to wind and solar alternatives? Decades, maybe? I wonder if unemployed minority youth have that much time. Secondly, I am sure the left would love to massively fund anything, but why is that the only thing that can create a full-employment economy? Why not create all kinds of jobs that anyone can apply for? Thirdly, the use of the term "full-employment economy" shows just how naive these people are. That is Utopia-Speak. There will never be a full-employment economy because there is always going to be someone that is too hurt, too old, too sick, too tired, or too lazy to work - yes, even in a completely communist society.
Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living.
Do these people get paid for stating the obvious?
The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we're prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.
Just like those people who are dying in the streets because they have been denied healthcare, I would like to see those that are suffering because of the environment. But they are still teasing me with that end poverty and alleviate environmental suffering = racial and economic equity syllogism. We will still have to wait for our answer just a little longer.
There's a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers' organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons.
This is right out of Van Jones' playbook. This is the creation of coalitions of power, as our President once said. Now, how it all comes together...
First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods.
I researched the issue of the disparate impact of poor economies on minorities and it is true, at least with regards to employment. I also read a 1992 EPA Environmental Equity Report that states that members of minority populations have “disproportionately greater ‘observed and potential exposure’ to environmental pollutants,” and this disproportionality could not be explained by income alone."
So there is something there, right? But wait just a second.
The primary focus of the environmental justice movement has been on the disparate burdening of minority communities by the initial siting of industrial facilities. Where do they build industrial facilities? In most big industrial cities, that is downtown, usually next to a river. Where do most minorities live in those cities: yep, downtown. So, is it the chicken or the egg? Were minority communities targeted as locations for the facilities or did minority communities grow up around the facilities? After all, everyone likes to live closer to work. It would require an enormous amount of research to answer that question and I cannot find any data. However, I tend to think that minorities moved where they could be closer to work. Historically, minorities have migrated to job centers, first, with the blacks moving from the South to the industrial cities of the north like New York, Chicago, and Detroit. Later, Hispanics have migrated from states along the border to those states with agricultural-based economies. Hence, there has been large movement of Hispanics into Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, but also migration to the traditional big cities where they can expect to find an abundance of work.
Regardless of the real reason, I don't see where the whole environmental issue ties into poverty. In fact, the 1992 EPA report I reference notes that the disparities aren't necessarily poverty-based, but racially based. If evil white polluters are targeting minorities just for being minorities, then it defeats the argument that Parish and Sen are making that, you work some social justice and get the money into the hands of the minorities, and the pollution will end because minorities will then have the clout to stave off the white pollution.
While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. "White flight" from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us.
Wow. Somebody has been putting wacky weed in their hookahs. White flight occurred because of crime in the inner cities. Sure, maybe some whities were running away from the colored folk, but, come on, look at the crime statistics. I guess white people's parents and grandparents were racist for wanting to get away from crime. Here is my question: what if all the white people had stayed? I guess we would all be living in Empire State Building-sized skyscrapers because that is what it would take to house everyone in the city. I also guess that being able to own your own house, you know, something other than an apartment or a brownstone, where you could actually have a yard for your kids to play in, with a little privacy, didn't show up as an alternative possibility to these guys.
Man, it really is whitie's fault isn't it. Gee, I wonder if they could live with the white flight if all of the whites worked from their homes so no rush hour traffic, carbon emissions, etc.? Whitie is the only one that drives to work, right?
And whitie owns all of the farms, too, and spits in the collective eye of his Hispanic farm workers. Hello! Stereotypes! Go look in the Rio Grande Valley and tell me who owns the farms there. I guess whites own most of the farms in Kansas and Nebraska, but that's because most of the minorities live in the cities. Moreover, the type of people who work those farms are migrant workers, many of whom are illegals. Of course they are not going to buy their own land and change the structural farm's "hierarchy." (I can hear Van Jones screaming: Give them the land! Give them the respect!").
As for the unionization issue, believe me, unions want as many immigrant employees as they can. Why? They just want their dues. But they don't want them to change that structural hierarchy because, if the minority workers buy the company, then why should they pay dues? So, in that way, unions, especially farmworkers and service employees' unions, keep the brothers down. They don't want to lose their financial base.
Any of you are welcome to prove me wrong.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
It's not just ACORN and SEIU
The government is not just in bed with community activists and labor unions. Their new partner in crime: Wall Street. How is that possible? Isn't the administration publicly lambasting one Wall Street exec after another? Thomas Paine, haven't you been arguing that Obama's sole purpose for existence is to redistribute the wealth? Well, yes, but you need to understand what is and has been going on behind the political scene.
Remember Henry Paulson? Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Bush’s Secretary of Treasurer. As a result of this insider connection, the firm benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse, and when he organized a massive rescue of AIG while in constant telephone contact with Goldman chief Blankfein. With the Federal Reserve Board's blessing, AIG later used $12.9 billion in taxpayers' dollars to pay off every penny it owed Goldman. The result: $6 billion in the pockets of Goldman Sachs.
These decisions preserved billions of dollars in value for Goldman's executives and shareholders. For example, Blankfein held 1.6 million shares in the company in September 2008, and he could have lost more than $150 million if his firm had gone bankrupt.
"Okay," you say. "It isn't surprising that Goldman Sachs was in bed with the Bush administration, but President Obama's different." Really?
Goldman Sachs was second only to the University of California among Obama's top donors. While the organization itself did not donate the money, such donations were made either through employees, owners, the immediate families of such members and/or through the organization’s PAC. During the 2008 campaign, those at Goldman Sachs donated $955,473 to the Obama campaign
In addition, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as a top aide. Last December, reports Mr. Geithner favored Goldman Sachs surfaced when the New York Times Editorial Board questioned the motivation of then New York Federal Reserve President Geithner’s decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. Two days after that decision, he advocated for the bailout of AIG and its counterparties.
Add to the mix a September meeting Geithner arranged to discuss the AIG bailout. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street leader at the meeting. At the time, Goldman Sachs was AIG’s largest trading partner.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama had strong connections with Goldman Sachs, as he was invited to a private Goldman Sachs dinner in May 2007. When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post due in part to this controversy.
Obama also appointed William Dudley, a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs as President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (the chairman of the Board of Directors, Denis Hughes is the current president of the New York State AFL-CIO - go figure). Obama also traveled to New Jersey and stumped five times for Jon Corzine's campaign for governor. Corzine is the former Chairman and Co-CEO of...you guessed it!...Goldman Sachs.
What does this all mean? Together with Big Labor, Goldman Sachs is the single most important political player right now. While the Administration demonizes certain Wall Street execs (read: anyone at AIG), no one has directed any criticism towards Goldman Sachs. They do not oppose the government's threats to dramatically increase regulation of the finance industry because the fix is in: they have Obama and Geithner in their pocket and a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist in the SEC's enforcement division. They probably think they are pretty untouchable right now. Their only task right now is not to earn returns for their clients, it is to curry favor with the administration so that they remain unscathed and, as their competitors fall into disfavor with the government, they will enjoy all the protection that a government-created monopoly can provide.
They need to be taken down, brick by brick. You liberals out there: I don't care if Obama is your guy - you can't possibly approve of this corruption. Get these guys the hell out of government - NOW. Write your Congressman. Tell her or him that, if they accept one dollar of money from anybody from Goldman Sachs, you will vote for their opponent. Demand turnover at the highest levels of the SEC. Tell your friends about this BECAUSE NO ONE IN THE NEWS IS COVERING IT.
Remember Henry Paulson? Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Bush’s Secretary of Treasurer. As a result of this insider connection, the firm benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse, and when he organized a massive rescue of AIG while in constant telephone contact with Goldman chief Blankfein. With the Federal Reserve Board's blessing, AIG later used $12.9 billion in taxpayers' dollars to pay off every penny it owed Goldman. The result: $6 billion in the pockets of Goldman Sachs.
These decisions preserved billions of dollars in value for Goldman's executives and shareholders. For example, Blankfein held 1.6 million shares in the company in September 2008, and he could have lost more than $150 million if his firm had gone bankrupt.
"Okay," you say. "It isn't surprising that Goldman Sachs was in bed with the Bush administration, but President Obama's different." Really?
Goldman Sachs was second only to the University of California among Obama's top donors. While the organization itself did not donate the money, such donations were made either through employees, owners, the immediate families of such members and/or through the organization’s PAC. During the 2008 campaign, those at Goldman Sachs donated $955,473 to the Obama campaign
In addition, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as a top aide. Last December, reports Mr. Geithner favored Goldman Sachs surfaced when the New York Times Editorial Board questioned the motivation of then New York Federal Reserve President Geithner’s decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. Two days after that decision, he advocated for the bailout of AIG and its counterparties.
Add to the mix a September meeting Geithner arranged to discuss the AIG bailout. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street leader at the meeting. At the time, Goldman Sachs was AIG’s largest trading partner.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama had strong connections with Goldman Sachs, as he was invited to a private Goldman Sachs dinner in May 2007. When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post due in part to this controversy.
Obama also appointed William Dudley, a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs as President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (the chairman of the Board of Directors, Denis Hughes is the current president of the New York State AFL-CIO - go figure). Obama also traveled to New Jersey and stumped five times for Jon Corzine's campaign for governor. Corzine is the former Chairman and Co-CEO of...you guessed it!...Goldman Sachs.
What does this all mean? Together with Big Labor, Goldman Sachs is the single most important political player right now. While the Administration demonizes certain Wall Street execs (read: anyone at AIG), no one has directed any criticism towards Goldman Sachs. They do not oppose the government's threats to dramatically increase regulation of the finance industry because the fix is in: they have Obama and Geithner in their pocket and a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist in the SEC's enforcement division. They probably think they are pretty untouchable right now. Their only task right now is not to earn returns for their clients, it is to curry favor with the administration so that they remain unscathed and, as their competitors fall into disfavor with the government, they will enjoy all the protection that a government-created monopoly can provide.
They need to be taken down, brick by brick. You liberals out there: I don't care if Obama is your guy - you can't possibly approve of this corruption. Get these guys the hell out of government - NOW. Write your Congressman. Tell her or him that, if they accept one dollar of money from anybody from Goldman Sachs, you will vote for their opponent. Demand turnover at the highest levels of the SEC. Tell your friends about this BECAUSE NO ONE IN THE NEWS IS COVERING IT.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Ways in which the government can cut spending
I found this great link to a pdf document prepared by the Heritage Foundation. Yeah, I know - they are a conservative think tank. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but I know that, to any liberals out there, it pretty much means that they are a bunch of morons. But even you liberals cannot argue with the last two pages aptly titled: Nowhere to Cut? Those pages highlight about a trillion dollars of government waste that can be eliminated. Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)