no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

We Don’t Need Celebrities or Politicians Telling Us to Donate to Haitie

January 21st, 2010

On the radio the other day, some of the talk jockeys were complaining about Haiti. They were literally saying things like, “I’m already sick of seeing commercials asking for donations of aid to Haiti” and “Why should we be giving aid to these foreign countries when we can’t take care of our own? There are starving and homeless people in America and people without health care and …” I understand that their job is to stir up controversy so people call-in and listen and they can sell advertising and such, but it was purely nonsensical.

And so on. You get the drift. I agree that it’s very disingenuous for millionaire celebrities to come on TV or radio and starting pimping for donations when they’re not doing a damn thing themselves (some of them are, some of them aren’t) and I’ll be the first person to take the side of complaints raised against the government doling out taxpayer money (isn’t it all taxpayer money?) for foreign aid*. Every time there is some major calamity in the world, like the tsunami in 2004 or the hurricanes in 2005 or earthquakes or whatever, Americans give in spades. And celebrity marketing, give me a freaking break.

Could we give more? Probably. In my estimation, the biggest impediment to charitable giving in the U.S. is the already onerous tax rates, which the government uses ostensibly to provide the citizens with things they would otherwise provide for themselves. Like health care. Insurance. Food. Housing. Education. The list is endless.  If we don’t give “enough” it’s clearly not because we’re greedy and selfish.

I don’t want “my” government donating to the rest of the world. I don’t want “my” government spending money on anything. Truth. But that’s not the argument they were making.

What I really took issue with on this fine radio program was the spirit of their argument. The douche-nozzles were seriously equating a “poor” American (who probably has cable TV and air conditioning and eats fast food, etc.) with third-world Haitians who have lived their entire lives under brutal political regimes and civil war and who have now suffered the wrath of nature, and suggesting that as Americans, we have no business giving money to destitute brown people in third world countries as long as there are Americans who can’t buy luxury items.

No matter how shitty you think life is in America, it’s way f*cking worse for a pretty substantial proportion of the rest of the world.


*The U.S. government probably spends more money on foreign aid already than does the entire rest of the world combined. And on top of all that, Americans pay more than $1 Trillion to charitable organizations every year — more than the US government collects in income taxes.

Bankers Cry Over ‘Restricted’ Bonuses

December 2nd, 2009

Big Bank brings nation’s economy to the breaking point. Big Bank begs, pleads, or threatens the government in to giving it a massive bailout, (of which the citizenry disapproves nearly unanimously). Big Bank proceeds to offer extravagant bonus packages to its employees, which largesse is financed 100% by the taxpayers.

It should come as no surprise that the general public, aghast at being bled dry in order to provide for some C-Suite bankers’ Bentley or Rolls or vacation home on the Riviera, cries “Foul!”

The most appalling thing about the whole situation is the banks’ responses: generally they argue that “If we don’t give huge bonuses, we’ll lose our employees!”

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, recipient of the world’s biggest taxpayer bailout, said the British government’s “very restrictive” control over 2009 bonuses risks driving employees away.

—RBS Says ‘Restrictive’ Bonuses May Prompt Staff Exits

Cry me a river, will you? Your organization performed so poorly that it “needed” emergency life support from the nation’s taxpayers, which it took against their wishes and better judgment. This does not, under any circumstance merit “bonuses”. (In fact, in light of recent performance, I’m not so sure these are the sort of employees you should want to retain in the first place!) Not for anyone. Ever.

But in case you haven’t been paying attention, unemployment is staggering. All industries and sectors of the economy are hurting. The Banks could find a dozen qualified, competent applicants to fill any one of these positions at a fraction of the price of a single $500,000 bonus.

The Banks are worried about attrition? Defection? ROFLCOPTER.

Where are they going to go? Defection means they have options. They don’t.

If the employees threaten to quit, call their bluffs (that’s what it is, after all). I’d tell them, “Get f*cking lost. Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.”

The Suffix “-Gate” is Not Clever

November 29th, 2009

Fact: adding the suffic “-gate” to any other word(s), to denote political scandal does not make you clever.

This has been bothering me for some time. I think “Climategate” was the last straw, so-to-speak.

The namesake scandal, of course, is the Watergate incident during Nixon’s reign as president. Watergate was the name of the office park where the incident principally occurred, or at least where some participants were caught. “-Gate” as a suffice, appended to every noteworthy incident since then, is totally superfluous and devoid of any etymological meaning, except the colloquial association with the Watergate incident.

It’s like a bad joke that you have to keep explaining. If you have to explain why it’s funny, it’s not funny.

Lewinksygate: fail. Climategate: fail. Whitewatergate: OK, this one is sort of clever.

But none of the rest of them, and the list is very long.

Please stop repeating this inanity. You sound dumb when you say it and you look dumb when you write it.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics