Friday, February 27, 2009



My definition of "Equalitism" is one person or a group of people who espouse the philosophy that a population of individuals should be relatively equal in income, equal in standard of living or, if not equal, tending toward equality. Espouse they might, but they can't really believe it. It might be the opposite of meritocracy. Equalitism is grabbag of political behaviors and speeches constituting this political idealogy, the term and definition coined by me (as far as I know). It identifies typically left-wing liberal pronouncements given with the aim of winning elections and gaining power by diminishing success and those who have achieved it. It reaches close but not quite all the way to socialism, in which everyone together owns everything communally, and thus are equal. But in practice both are essentially the same, describing everyone as equal, except, of course, those in power. Those in power dictate to those "governed" by them how to live and what to have. Equalitism's converse might be exceptualism, or differentialism, or, God forbid, Capitalism, where people are born with equal opportunity and freedom to pursue happiness as they individually define it for themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

In case Democrats don't understand, most people are average. Read that again: most people are average. There's a bell -shaped population curve with those least-exceptional -- in ability and intelligence, for example -- at one end and those most-exceptional at the other end; everyone else is average...they are the vast majority. (Although it is probably understood even by liberals that everyone is differently-capable intellectually, physically, socially and in ambition, they rarely admit it.) Democrats have gained power by successfully convincing those in the middle that they should have more. Not by earning it but by simply by deserving it. [Democrats have used the same strategy for several generations to get African Americans' votes without providing them opportunity. Democrats, especially those with financial or power interests in the civil rights bureaucracies, have convinced African Americans that discrimination by white Americans (especially Republicans) have kept them down and brought for many a life of drugs, crime and fatherless families. This is the Democrats' contention of equality denied. Another Equalitism argument: in which citizens should have a right to equality (not opportunity) without effort but don't get it.] Equalitism does not reward achievement, but gives everything for simply being alive. A further argument by Democrats is that equality is a zero-sum game, where those who have, have taken it from those who don't have and who "need".

Democrats completely disregard the self-satisfaction one gets by sacrifice and the pride from accomplishment. Not to mention innovation and the creation of job-creating businesses by incentive. They do not seem to care about anything but power, absolute power for themselves and use Equalitism to get it. Obama promised us CHANGE and gave us CHAINS, the shackles held by the Chinese government. When our president rails against debt yet indebts our country several trillions of dollars, something is terribly wrong. And the reason: to get him and his Congress reelected in 2010 perhaps? Or to simply punish the successful? In any event, they have successfully used equalitism to get there. (Obama's 2009 deficit could reach $3 - 4,000,000,000,000 a sum over three-quarters of all the sovereign-wealth funds' assets, so maybe China won't hold the shackels, the U. S. will have to declare bankruptcy instead.)
Democratic/liberal dogma demands that in order to achieve equality, those less capable should be supported and elevated by government. And those more capable are deemed able to stand on their own. The question of whether this is better for society as a whole has never been openly debated because Democrats don't want Equalitism questioned. Does belief in Equalitism and its goal of pushing inward the edges of the bell-shaped curve, thus making the unexceptional and exceptional more average, yield a "better" society? Or does it simply buy votes of the average to gain and retain power?
I believe exceptualism should be encouraged, because the exceptional have always been the ones to invent, create, and take risk to better society as a whole as they better themselves. But the exceptional -- in ability and intellignce -- are always few in number, so they represent a small number of voters. Few could argue that the exceptional become the successful entrepreneurs and, yes, small business creators. While the "trickle-down" theory has been roundly discredited by liberals, it was said to be invented by a liberal, Will Rogers. It is a typical distortion of reality. Reality is: only businesses create lasting jobs. Only business creates wealth.
Equalitism tends to diminish wealth, jobs and society as a whole. But it elects Democrats.
In summary, in my view Equalitism is simply a vehicle by the use of which Democrats achieve power over others. If Republicans and conservatives are aware of this, they are afraid or otherwise unable to publicize it. We need to get back to having incentives to succeed, not just be alive. Government diminishes opportunity by diminishing achievement.
It might be like this:
(Bell-shaped Curve)
10% of population /80% of population/ /10% of population
Support their exceptualness /Leave alone/ /Assist their needs

Thursday, February 26, 2009

ObamaNation (Abomination)

All For The One
The One for The One
Candidate Obama promised CHANGE
Instead President Obama has given us CHAINS
With the shackles held by the Chinese Government

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The One-Trillion Dollar One Party Quest

The One-trillion Dollar One Party Quest

The Obama Administration and the present Democratic Party aren’t about equality, fairness or what’s good for this country or its citizens. It is about power, raw power over others. It is the culmination of a quest that began in earnest with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's inauguration 76 years ago this month (March 2009).
Their rise to current power may be the end of the free-enterprise system in the United States of America. The reward for risk and the achievement of success in the rough and tumble capitalist system is becoming so yesterday. The irresponsible are being rewarded at the expense of the responsible. As has been proven in myriad countries, including the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, socialism doesn’t work and doesn’t last. (And neither does Keynesian economics.) But it does ruin countries. FDR’s (or his advisors’) brilliant strategy of segmenting voter blocs of affinity groups and purchasing their votes using taxpayer money has reached fruition with the current Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama. FDR’s union leaders, seniors, the unemployed and the poor, Negroes and in a brilliant coup, writers and artists (through the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration’s Writers’ Projects) have been leveraged into Democrats winning this country a step at a time from Republicans, most of whom were busy creating businesses and jobs. While the Democrats ruthlessly buy votes, they spray the mantra of Socialist fairness (unfairness by conservatives) and equality for all (except for its puppeteers) and yes, Change! and utopia over all of us like piss.

Modern-day Democrats have added more affinity groups, such as gays, feminists, anti-warriors, environmentalists, Hispanics, the disabled and, of course the catch-all, the “disadvantaged”, whoever and wherever the Democrats want them to be. Socialism and Communism in the end aren’t about utopia, social harmony or equality, they have always been used as vehicles to gain and retain power. Karl Marx may have been quoted but fear, retribution and subjugation gained the power and the wealth. Ordinary citizens were left with what was left.

And so it is with the Obama Administration and the present Democratic Party, power at all costs. And clearly they are well on their way to a one-party system. The “Elect Democrats in 2010” Bill was $787,000,000,000 devoted to gaining a one-party system. Adding today’s (February 19, 2009) $275,000,000,000 Obama Housing Plan to subsidize losers (a majority of whom are Democrats) and penalize the responsible (a majority of which are Republicans) exceeds $1,000,000,000,000 ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to completely obliterate the Republican Party.

Yes, this is the same party that managed California to its present success!


Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Rambling Through the Left-leaning Press

"Starbucks spars over union"...(Headline, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Committed left-wing supporter of Democrats and President Obama, Starbucks CEO, apparent anti-union Howard Schultz, is reaping what he helped sow. The even-further left Industrial Workers of the World, professed anti-capitalist and pro-worker, wants to "take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the world." Sounds like the Democratic Congress! An IWW leader is quoted as saying, "It's a problem [Schultz' anti-union, pro-"partner" mantra] because it means that whoever (sic.) runs the company believes they (sic.) know what's better for their workers than their workers." Sounds like the Democratic Congress criticizing the American citizenry. And by the way the IWW doesn't like traditional unions which focus on negotiation and bargaining. Well, under Obama and the Democratic Congress, unionizing will soon in all likelihood be a walk in the park. So, Mr. Schultz, enjoy as your once-gigantic investment in Starbucks evaporates like Carnation milk.

"California on fiscal cliff", Page A6. Seattle post-Intelligencer, Tuesday, Febraury 17, 2007 Yes this is a prelude to the United States of America, also run by Democrats.

And for Katrina redux: "Education chief faces decisisions" (Page A6, same paper, same edition. Congress doubles the budget of the U. S. Education Department by spreading $100,000,000,000 "emergency" aid for unionized public schools and left-leaning colleges. There is absolutely NO WAY this money can do any good thrown around in this bureaucracy. Might as well simply give it to ACORN. And most of it is for the disabled and disadvantaged; what? nothing for those who are exceptionally capable to contribute to society? No, they might not vote Democratic. Congress does, of course, penalize those who might be able to lead the banking system out of its present problems (because some might be Republicans.) Congress constrained "pay for performance" -- incentive comp -- for those who will manage the institutions which need "bailout" money. Doesn't matter if they had the reins during the fall, they can't make much money by turning them around. Sure, Congress, they'll pitch right in! Oh, I noticed, Congress that you all just got raises.

All in all another depressing day for the future of the United States, being managed by the International Workers of the Congress.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Elect Democrats in 2010 Act passed.

An update to the so-called "Stimulus Act" as of July 2009: it hasn't worked. Unemployement was 7.6% when Obama took over and he then promised unemployment would only reach 8% and save or create 3 million jobs. Unemployment now 9.5% and heading over 10, with 2.6 million jobs lost. Now of course he's backtracking, saying that the stimulus bill was for two years (safely making it after the 2010 elections, where it planned to re-elect Democrats.)

The Elect Democrats in 2010 Act has been passed. Everyone in America, with the exception of one minority group: successful businesspeople, has been bought by the Democrats in the fruition of a 75 year quest begun by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He segmented the voters into a number of blocs: the aged, the unemployed, the creative (artists, writers and the like), the union leaders controlling workers, blacks, and through deficit spending bought each of them. Purchases that have lasted. In the intervening years the Democratic Party has added other affinity groups: gays, anti-warriors, environmentalists. Again almost every voter in America except those who finance the country: businesspeople. Toss a few more trillions of dollars of government debt onto foreign markets, and, at some point not only carrying costs become impossible to finance, with diminished business, but what if those foreign entities either can't or decide not to buy our paper? I don't know if there's a Chapter 11 for countries. But probably not. They call our debt and they own us.

And to even get Democrats on board it was a difficult buy. The Senate made a strategic purchase of three "Republicans" (now is the time to differentiate between Republicans who belong to a party but don't necessarily share and ideals and conservatives who have many deep ideals, such as, to start: a trust in the citizens to make the best decisions for themselves; support of business - the engine of all growth and wealth; and a distrust of large, invasive government - the diminisher of growth and wealth.) Rep. Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe got an additional $420 million for Maine's Medicaid program, a well-known economic stimulator; and Senator Arlen Specter got an additional $6.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health to help him with his cancer. He also got to watch the Superbowl with President Obama. These purchases go along with $300 million for government cars, to boost the automakers union leaders; $75 million for the left-leaning Smithsonian Institution; $2 billion for the Obama powerplant in Illinois (wonder what fuel it'll consume); and let's get a little something for the Speaker: Instead of protecting citizens $30 million will protect a tiny salt marsh harvest mouse with wetlands restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area because the little rat is endangered. Or perhaps Speaker Pelosi has other reasons. And some cash for welfare to those who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes. Roughly half the voters now won't contribute anything to support the federal government. FDR must be smiling in Hell right now.

Goodbye Our United States of America. Hello One-Party System. Or perhaps a Chinese overseer.

Monday, February 2, 2009

President Makes Down Payment on Obligation to Union Leaders and Trial Lawyers for Electing Him

Re: the so-called Lilly Ledbetter "fair pay" bill --

Questions and answers about the equal pay bill that the House passed and sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday:
By The Associated Press
Questions and answers about the equal pay bill that the House passed and sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday:
Q: When may claimants file suits?
A: President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday. With that, claimants may file suits immediately under the newly clarified statute of limitations provisions.
Q: The personnel or records involved in original acts of discrimination that occurred years ago may no longer be available. Who is responsible for providing evidence in a discrimination suit?
A: The burden of proof ultimately falls on the plaintiff, or employee. It is up to the plaintiff to show there was the intent to discriminate.
Q: Who is Lilly Ledbetter?
A: Ledbetter,70, worked for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Ala., from 1979 to 1998. Near the end of her career, she received an anonymous tip that she was earning less than her male colleagues. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A jury initially awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages, a sum that a judge later reduced to $300,000.
Q: Was there a Supreme Court ruling in the Ledbetter case?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in May 2007 threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination even though she was not aware at the time that she was receiving less than her male colleagues.
Q: What does the bill do?
A: It clarifies that the 180-day statute of limitations is extended every time an employer violates the law by issuing a paycheck or engages in other practices that discriminate. Therefore, if an employee alleges that she received a salary 20 years ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations. The bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back pay awards to two years.
Q: What is the legal basis of the equal pay bill?
A: Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate in paying wages based on race, gender, national origin and religion.

"Letter to the Editor" as published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sunday, February 1, 2009, Page B 6:

Unions get their payback
The Obama administration and Congress began their payback to the unions for electing them with the bill that will make it easier for trial lawyers to sue companies on behalf of their "plaintiffs" for pay "discrimination" over years, perhaps decades. That will kill jobs. Add it to the stimulus bill and any "recovery" will be extended to years.
Why don't you present this side of our government to your readers?
Theodore M. Wight