AFP: "Anti-war protesters regroup; say their new focus is "anti-occupation""

[DDRio]

These people never get tired!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030411/ts_alt_afp/iraq_war_us_demos&cid=1506&ncid=1607

[Halfsek]

I wonder if they've read the news about the new Harvard study showing that global warming really isn't there.
They're going to have to think hard to come up with another complaint...

[RandyAB]

It is ok, they will always have something to protest as long as Bush is in office.

[Nick]

" On Sunday, several San Franciso area yoga studios will offer "Yoga for Peace" classes..."

Yeah, well I suppose it is difficult to fight for freedom while in the full-lotus position.

[lastmanstanding]

it is ok, they will always have something to protest as long as Bush is office~~~~~

Right on! Most of these protestors are filling a need to complain, and Bush gives them a nice target.

As far as global warming, the sun is 7% warmer today than 600 Million Years Ago. So of course, we should expect things to be getting warmer.

10K years ago, most of the north half of North America was under A MILE OF ICE. Things have certainly warmed since then. I doubt that SUVs killed the Ice Age. They would have made it easier to get around, though.

If they want to complain about cutting down old growth forest to make pulp for the New York Times, I will protest right along with them, but global warming is hocum.

Until the late 1980's, the same crowd was complaining about GLOBAL COOLING. If you have a copy of COSMOS, Carl Sagan explains how man is ruining the world with global cooling.

I say let the protestors have fun, block some traffic, and shave their heads, but don't let them make policy. As long as they are carrying on, at least we know where they are. When you don't see them, that's when we have to worry.

[ERSanders]

I'm with you lastman, but I'll add one concept that REALLY needs to be implemented.

These various protests, many of which are being funded by components of the "axis of evil" (follow the money!) are sometimes behaving in illegal manners, such as blocking streets, etc. Due to this many police are needed to control them and make arrests where needed.

I PROPOSE: Apportioning fines to the violators sufficient to cover the extra overtime cost of the police so that the crime that is going on across town while they are having their "fun" can be better controlled.

[Mark Holtz]

Sigh. I'm ready to tell these peace protestors that if you feel that "military occupation" is wrong, then join John F. Kennedy's Peace Corp. and help in rebuilding Iraq into a self-sufficient nation. After all, it's easy to protest, block traffic, and cause problems. It's harder to work on long term solutions.

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by lastmanstanding
...
Until the late 1980's, the same crowd was complaining about GLOBAL COOLING. If you have a copy of COSMOS, Carl Sagan explains how man is ruining the world with global cooling...


Woo hoo! Someone else actually remember that. I've been pointed that out over and over and everyone has conveniently forgotten about that.

Is there anywhere on the web that I can find an article about that? I've come up dry in all my searches.

[waydwolf]

    In their diseased minds, their local police and the entire US military are illegally occupying the US. Which puts them in the same file folder with the extreme right that natters on about helicopters and New World Orders.

    Like I said, they sound like the extremist weirdos who I could no longer stomach among the survivalist/preparedness movement. Come to think of it, they sound like a load of the Linux kiddies, a good slice of the Mac people, and many others I see around regularly. Paranoid to the point that it screams of egomania. As if anyone really wants to spend millions of dollars just to run a conspiracy to screw you. If they wanted to screw anyone, they'd take the millions to a Nevada brothel.

 

[Bogy]

They sound as paranoid as the conservatives that are always complaining about such things as what a hardship it is to pay people minimum wage. Of course those people don't have to protest, because they have the millions of dollars it take to write your own laws to be passed by the legislators they paid good money to buy.

[Mark Holtz]

Originally posted by Bogy
They sound as paranoid as the conservatives that are always complaining about such things as what a hardship it is to pay people minimum wage. Of course those people don't have to protest, because they have the millions of dollars it take to write your own laws to be passed by the legislators they paid good money to buy.

As it so happens, I oppose minimum wage increases, especially the so-called "living wage" proposals. I have spent plenty of time in small business, and have some knowledge of accounting, especially payroll.

The biggest cost of doing business is labor. As an example, a simple fifty-cent increase per hour isn't quite as simple as that. You multiply that by the number of labor hours in a year, and by the number of people, and that is a significant chunk of change.

But, because of payroll taxes, it isn't a 50 cent per hour increase, but a figure lower than that for the employee because of the payroll taxes. For the employer, once again, it isn't a 50 cent increase, but a higher amount, again due to payroll taxes AND workers comp insurance costs.

(Why haven't I come up with specific figures? Because payroll taxes vary from state to state, and workers comp insurance costs vary from industry to industry. When I last researched this 10 years ago, the highest WC costs was roofers, whose premium costs were $20 per $100 of payroll.)

How will this affect you? Lets take the most visible minimum wage job: Fast food workers. A hike in the minimum wage means that there may be one or two less workers employed to take your order, thus your order takes longer. It also means that the cost of your meal goes up.

Extending this further, since we Americans try to stretch our dollars, we look for the best value. As a result, some of the industries have since moved outside of the United States and into other countries like Mexico where the labor rate is cheaper and there is less regulation.

This is, btw, off topic, and has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

[lastmanstanding]

Minimum Wage is a payoff to the unions, big supporters of the Whining Left.

Their base pay is tied to the minimum wage.

Sort of dilutes the purity of the concern for the poor.

But I have to give it to them, it is a great issue that will never, ever go away. No matter how high the 'living wage' is, they can always step up and make an emotional appeal.

If they really wanted to 'fix' the problem (Hah), they would pick a living wage, say $15 an hour, adjust it for local standard of living costs, then index it to inflation.

This would create massive problems, just like welfare destroyed three generations, turning them into a helpless peasant class, but it would come closer to the Left's stated goals.

But it would destroy their unstated goal, which is to have a recurrent issue to pull out on slow news days.

Of course, I might be a bit too cynical.

[lastmanstanding]

Halfsek,

Let's stroll down memory lane. . .

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees cooler for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. . .This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E. F. Watt on air polution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970.

The the Great Society will end poverty, yada yada yada.

Do we really want this gang making policy? I am being cynical again. Sorry.

[Richard King]

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees cooler for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. . .This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."You mean to tell me that this isn't going to happen? Who do I sue since I moved to Florida to avoid the coming ice age in Minnesota. :lol:

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by lastmanstanding
Halfsek,

Let's stroll down memory lane. . .

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees cooler for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. . .This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E. F. Watt on air polution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970.

The the Great Society will end poverty, yada yada yada.

Do we really want this gang making policy? I am being cynical again. Sorry.

You bring a tear to my eye. :goodjob:

Now where did you get that?

[Bogy]

It doesn't matter. That was Grampa Reagan's answer, and the continuing position of the Religious Right which runs the Republican Party these days. Global warming, global cooling, clearcutting forests, strip mining, drilling for oil in nature preserves, clean air, clean water, none of it matters. What matters is getting the Arab/Palestinian situation under control so Israel can rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, thereby bringing about the Rapture and the end of the world. And since all the good Religious Right people plan on leaving in the Rapture, it doesn't matter how bad we trashed the planet, it's just one more punishment for the heathen. And you don't need to worry about the poor and providing them with the opportunity to achieve a higher standard of living, because Jesus said the poor will always be with us, and if we just bring about the Second Coming as soon as possible, we won't have to worry about it.

Stewardship of the earth, as God commanded, and caring for the poor and powerless, as God also commanded, we can just ignore those "liberal" concepts.

BTW, if anybody doesn't get it, the above is the theology of the Religious Right, it is not mine, and I am being very sarcastic. :angel:

[gcutler]

Originally posted by Bogy
...Stewardship of the earth, as God commanded, and caring for the poor and powerless, as God also commanded, we can just ignore those "liberal" concepts.

BTW, if anybody doesn't get it, the above is the theology of the Religious Right, it is not mine, and I am being very sarcastic. :angel:

For a few seconds I thought YOU KNOW WHO got access to your account pwd :D

[waydwolf]

Originally posted by Bogy
BTW, if anybody doesn't get it, the above is the theology of the Religious Right, it is not mine, and I am being very sarcastic. :angel:

    The above is most certainly not the theology of any Republican I know or have ever met. None. NOT ONE.

    I don't know where anyone gets the idea that the left has a corner on helping people. DECADES of liberalism has done not one thing for the poor, I know, I grew up in a housing project. NOT ONE of those liberal theoreticians ever helped me get a job, improve my skills, make a better paycheck, get a house, support my family.

    On the other hand, good old fashioned conservative Republican values of family and money have helped me improve my resume, make more money, buy a house, keep food on the table, continue my long cherished plan to hire and train inexperienced people in my field, and so forth. Had I listened to the wonderful left, I'd still be on welfare in a project.

    I'm not rich, I want to be, have every right to the pursuit of it, and big plans to do good things with that and lefty nonsense ain't gonna stop me. I might just start an investment club and show some people how to day trade on the penny sheets to spite those who say only the rich can get richer.

    Similarly, the USA shouldn't let lefty nonsense and drivel stop it from freeing Iraq and other such festering hellish holes. Bush is right now, Reagan was right back then.

 

[toenail]

Originally posted by waydwolf


    I'm not rich, I want to be, have every right to the pursuit of it, and big plans to do good things with that and lefty nonsense ain't gonna stop me. I might just start an investment club and show some people how to day trade on the penny sheets to spite those who say only the rich can get richer.

    Similarly, the USA shouldn't let lefty nonsense and drivel stop it from freeing Iraq and other such festering hellish holes. Bush is right now, Reagan was right back then.

 

What an incredibly selfish attitude! You're not supposed to be concerned with improving your lot. You're only supposed to be concerned with helping the poor and downtrodden. Take, for example, Barbra Streisand. As she has tried to tell us over the years, "people who need people are the luckiest people in the world." And its clear that she has taken on a vow of poverty to help "people," and to forego the benefits of wealth. I'm sure her home isn't worth any more than, oh, $10 million. Oh, how she's suffered for the benefit of others.

Seriously, though, I have had some discussions with my liberal friends about the issue of the impact of tax cuts on the poor. They bemoan the "fact" that the poor will suffer mightily as a result of cuts, since programs directed towards them will be cut. I point out that one thing that we "better off" folks could do, if we're truly concerned, is to increase our giving to the various social agencies who might suffer those cuts. You'd think I'd suggested infecting the Vienna Boys Choir with SARS! They react with "that just isn't fair! EVERYONE must pay! Especially the rich!" (i.e. those who make over 50 grand a year).

What this indicates to me is that the left is not REALLY concerned about the poor. What they want instead is power. The power to control our lives. What better way to control lives than to control what happens to our income and the fruit of our labor? Communism is the most extreme example of this.

I'll start believing the left is really concerned about the poor when I see many more examples of their increased giving to charities. BTW, my giving isn't what it should be, though I have on occasion (when conscience is in full gear) been very generous. I've found it most efficient to give directly to local social service agencies, rather than going through United Fund or other "middlemen."

As to the issue of minimum wage. As I'm sure most of you know, there have been MANY studies regarding the impact of minimum wage, both pro and con. From the ones I've seen, the most convincing seem to indicate that raising the minimum wage ultimately does not benefit the "working poor." This is largely due to the fact that jobs have a "value relation" towards each other. These relationships are not carved in stone, but are fluid. However, generally speaking, low skill jobs (like flipping burgers) will always have a lower value than higher skill jobs, and these values can be measured to a certain extent. For example, a burger flipper's "value" may be a third of an auto mechanic's. If you mandate an increase in the burger flipper's pay, that will eventually result in the jobs "above" the flipper's to get an increase in their pay, as well. So, flipper at $5/ hour, mechanic at $15. Increase the flipper to $7/hr., and the mechanic will eventually go up to $21. This is all generally speaking of course, and the whole economic system is incredibly complex.

But the bottom line is, the flipper's increase in pay will not benefit him in the long run, relative to everyone else. And it can hurt the economy in several ways. The most obvious is an increased likelihood of inflation. Another would probably appeal to liberals: if everyone's wage goes up, then taxes go up too, since we have a graduated tax scale!

[Danny R]

What matters is getting the Arab/Palestinian situation under control so Israel can rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, thereby bringing about the Rapture and the end of the world.

The above is most certainly not the theology of any Republican I know or have ever met. None. NOT ONE.

You were probably refering to the anti-environment/etc comments of this post, but regarding the Rapture stuff, can you say former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson? The number is small, but the movement is called Millenarianism (http://users.lvcablemodem.com/tseidel//millmvmt.htm).

[lastmanstanding]

Halfsek,

Check Google, search key Global cooling, earth day, protests, in various combinations.

For as big a deal as it was back then, I find few articles posted. Another example of revisionist history, but what else would we expect.

[lastmanstanding]

The false notion that only the rich get richer pervades political discussions everywhere.

The rich are rich largely because they have learned how to use their skills to create and exploit an economic niche that they have either found or created.

The poor have not.

Problems arise when we view the economy as a zero sum game. In other words, if I make a dollar, you lose a dollar. Some markets do work that way, but taken as a whole, our economy does not.

If I create wealth for myself or my shareholders, we all win. My additional net worth takes nothing from the guy living next door, or the kid on the street, or from anyone else.

Now when I take that dollar I have created and spend it, the merchant makes a nickel he otherwise would not have, and his supplier makes another sale, and this goes on all they way back to the employees of the manufacturer.

Conservatives argue that by allowing and encouraging wealth creation, the economic pie gets bigger, and everyone has more.

Liberals quickly chant "Supply side" and 'Voodoo Economics'.

We have only to look to Canada to see the fruit of Liberal Economic Husbandry.

In a recent statement, a financial offical in Canada was moaning that by 2010, the United States would have exactly double the standard of living as measured by GDP/capita compared to Canada.

His comments implied that
1.) This was a terrible injustice.
2.) Americans are greedy.

Canadian scientific journals comment frequently about the 'Brain drain' in the north. Smart people of all trades leave Canada, exchanging the cradle to grave nanny nation's burdensome taxes for life in the US.

By accepting more responsibility for their own fate, they are rewarded many times over. These smart Canadians have learned that they can take far better care of themselves then the government can.

Bogy mentioned charity for the underprivleged.

I have to ask which can care for its poor better, a sagging taxed to death socialism that holds its achievers back, or a system that celebrates success, enjoys economic vigor, and promotes charity and prosperity at the same time.

The war on poverty begins at home.

Those in need deserve help, but subsidized poverty as a career path hurts us all.

Boy, this post got long. Sorry.

[toenail]

After my long post yesterday about, among other things, liberals not being very generous in their charitable giving, I heard something on the radio about Sen. John Kerry being a bit of a skinflint. Tried to find stuff about it on the internet, but came up only with his having made a donation of his photo for a charitable auction, with the implication that he was being cheap. I don't think it really means anything, without more info. But, in looking that up, I came across an article indicating Al Gore and Tipper, in 1997, having made a whopping total of $380 in charitable donations. Geesh. What a cheapskate! He should put his money where his mouth is.

[Scott Greczkowski]

It's funny these guys are so against occupation, but yet they are occupied with protesting. :)

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by lastmanstanding
The false notion that only the rich get richer pervades political discussions everywhere...


Excellent post. You nailed it right on the head.
The amazing thing is that you'll still find people arguing that it is a zero sum game and that the rich have to pay more taxes.

Nice one.