Sen. Diane Feinstein would fit in nicely on the old Politburo of the Soviet Union. After all, she thinks it’s government responsibility to decide who gets protection under the First Amendment:
Initially I was going to write on this article from CNN Money because the headline was screaming out in the language of Occupy Wall Street. It reads:
Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%
No, no media bias there.
But then that was overshadowed by this paragraph right here:
…Stephanopoulos pressed the president, highlighting again that the economic recovery since the financial crisis has overwhelmingly favored the richest Americans.
“Do you look at that, four and a half years in, and say, ‘Maybe a president just can’t stop this accelerating inequality?’” he asked.
Obama admitted that some of it stemmed from events that are beyond Washington’s control. He pointed out that globalization and technology has robotized “entire occupations” like bank tellers and travel agents.
Here’s the video:
Again, define “Luddite.”
The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.
In modern usage, “Luddite” is a term describing those opposed to, or slow to adopt or incorporate into their lifestyle, industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.
President Obama thinks you’re stupid.
The fact that he blames the failure of his economic policies on technology is based on the premise that advances in technology started under his presidency. Otherwise, why would it be a factor?
However, there have always been advances in technology that impact whole occupations.
Anyone remember the buggy whip industry?
Too long ago?
Fine. Anyone remember this:
There’s a blast from the past, and by past, I mean three years ago.
All those people, from the buggy whip makers to the people at Blockbuster, never, ever got another job and never did anything again. EVER.
Or so the president would have you believe.
He thinks you’re stupid because his whole premise assumes you’ve never heard or considered the economic idea of “creative destruction.”
Schumpeter and the economists who adopt his succinct summary of the free market’s ceaseless churning echo capitalism’s critics in acknowledging that lost jobs, ruined companies, and vanishing industries are inherent parts of the growth system. The saving grace comes from recognizing the good that comes from the turmoil. Over time, societies that allow creative destruction to operate grow more productive and richer; their citizens see the benefits of new and better products, shorter work weeks, better jobs, and higher living standards.
Herein lies the paradox of progress. A society cannot reap the rewards of creative destruction without accepting that some individuals might be worse off, not just in the short term, but perhaps forever. At the same time, attempts to soften the harsher aspects of creative destruction by trying to preserve jobs or protect industries will lead to stagnation and decline, short-circuiting the march of progress. Schumpeter’s enduring term reminds us that capitalism’s pain and gain are inextricably linked. The process of creating new industries does not go forward without sweeping away the preexisting order.
So what does this mean?
It means that while we might have fewer bank tellers because of ATMs, (and we don’t, by the way) that the destruction of one industry results in the creation of other industries.
How many people are employed in the production of ATMs? How many people have jobs writing computer code for them, or producing the heavy case the computer sits in? How many are employed delivering money to those machines?
And while there might be fewer travel agents, that doesn’t mean travel agents are just lost in the wind.
Guess what they did?
That, or they started a business or they went back to school. There aren’t people in Blockbuster video uniforms begging for change up and down the streets of America. But there are people working across the world for Netflix.
The modern day buggy whip makers aren’t starving. They are doing their best to produce.
As for why the wealthy are doing better than the rest, I’m guessing it has more to do with why they are wealthy to begin with than the fact Travelocity exists.
What do you think?
Oh, and by the way, the president thinks roads can’t be built by robots:
What Chris is talking about is leftist Ed Asner’s indictment of supposedly principled Hollywood anti-war activists who refuse to speak up about war in Syria.
Turns out, they are scared of being labeled a racist:
Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.
“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said.
Conservatives know that whatever they do, whatever they say, they will be labeled racists. It doesn’t matter.
They still take to the streets, go to town halls, write blog posts and in general, stand up for their beliefs.
Liberals, when faced with the same situation, do this:
One thing I think needs pointing out it the first reason Asner gave for the Hollywood anti-war silence:
Asner said the lack of an organized effort against war in Syria is a matter of timing. Bush took months to make the case for war in Iraq, giving the antiwar left plenty of time to prepare a response.
“It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized,” Asner said. “This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.”
This is infuriating, considering how many times I’ve heard some liberal tell me about Bush’s “rush to war.”
I mean, one of these folks made a movie about it and called it “Rush to War.”
Now we’re being told the reason they had such fabulous protests is because Bush too months to make the case.
If Bush rushed, doesn’t that mean Barry is going there at Warp 9?
There is another reason the anti-war Hollywood elite isn’t protesting, and it isn’t pretty.
It would be easy to pull something like that off. Simply invite them all to a “Save the Polar Icecaps Fundraiser w/ Fidel and Raul Castro at Lenin’s Tomb,” and collect them as they arrive.
If they did that, Asner wouldn’t be out there shooting his mouth off.
This is new.
The White House now has a website dedicated to hosting the propaganda related to the need to attack Syria.
Because Buzzfeed was busy with 15 Things That Escalated Quickly:
The page, entitled “Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria,” begins with an excerpt from Obama’s Sept. 1 speech in which he called for the limited strikes. The page, which also includes a map of the country, is part of the Whitehouse.gov website.
“Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place,” Obama says in the excerpt. “And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see: hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead.
“All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered,” the excerpt continues. “Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.”
That is indeed horrific.
But how is it more horrific than the 110,000 bodies that were already piled up?
I don’t mean to sound callous. It’s a valid question.
Why is dying by sarin gas grounds for getting involved, but sexually assaulting children and then killing them isn’t?
The report quotes a witness to an attack on the village of Ayn l’Arouz in Idlib province on 9 March 2012 in which several dozen boys and girls between the ages of eight and 13 were forcibly taken from their homes and “used by soldiers and militia members as human shields, placing them in front of the windows of buses carrying military personnel into the raid on the village”. The UN said it had collected dozens of witness accounts from children as young as 14 who were tortured in detention, as well as from former members of the Syrian military who were forced to witness or carry out acts of torture, the report says.
Most child victims of torture described being beaten, blindfolded, subjected to stress positions, whipped with heavy electrical cables, scarred by cigarette burns and in one case subjected to electrical shock to the genitals, the report says. One witness reported seeing a boy about 15 years old die as a result of repeated beatings.
Someone explain to me why it’s ok to sit back and let this happen, but now that gas has been used, they’ve gone too far.