Mr. Quarter's Question of the Day

Obama's condescending attitude toward congressional Republicans and his insistence on passing the parts of his jobs bill that put government employees first and foremost leads Mr. Quarter to the question of the day:

If you can’t possibly cut back the government bureaucracy in good times (because there is enough tax money and we have “unmet needs,” etc.) and you can’t possibly cut it in bad times (because we have to preserve those jobs as “stimulus’) when does the government stop growing?

Mr. Quarter Admires the Occupy Wall Street Protestor

Mr. Quarter has to hand it to the Occupy Wall Street folks. Wish I had thought of that gig. I mean really, demanding to be paid for simply existing, while insisting that those who actually have a job get less money in order to support my freedom to choose indolence over work. Holy Smokes, I've been working the same old shtick for 28 years, letting stress build up until I can barely stand it. Paying a mortgage on a house that I'll have to sell in order to retire. How could I have been so stupid!

The Deuce And Diversity; Part I

"Diversity is our greatest strength."

A phrase seemingly uttered by every left-leaning man and woman in America. In fact, if you're a journalist, educator, college student, union member, actor, minority, illegal immigrant or job seeker, you can't just utter the phrase, you are required to shout it from the rooftops at every opportunity or else be stripped of your humanity and be called a hater and a racist and a mean poopy-face.

Don't even dare ask why diversity is our greatest strength or you'll be labeled a 'denier'. Being called a denier is even worse than being called a racist 'cause there's nothing worse than being a racist and denying it...I guess.

Well, I'm asking why? Nobody ever says why. Is there anyone out there that can give me a list of say ten verifiable facts why? If there are I haven't found them yet. I've searched high and low for these verifiable facts...and this is what I've found; greeting card platitudes.

The quotes that follow are from iCelebratediversity.com and are representative of attitudes promoting diversity found at many other web sights, including business, education and government sights.

We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color. -- Maya Angelou

Great achievements are not born from a single vision but from the combination of many distinctive viewpoints. Diversity challenges assumptions, opens minds, and unlocks our potential to solve any problems we may face. -- Source Unknown

If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. -- John F. Kennedy

We have become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams. -- Jimmy Carter

If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place. -- Margaret Mead



Note that none of the above quotes offer any concrete, practical reasons why diversity is so great. Business, education and government emphasize how diversity 'brings people together', 'exposes people to different cultures' and 'teaches us how to be inclusive of people different than ourselves.' These reasons sound all well and good, but the reality is that judging by how Americans live their lives, 'exposing people to different cultures' does not bring us together nor induce us to be 'more inclusive.' In fact, it seems to have the opposite effect. More on this later.

If diversity is indeed our greatest strength then Los Angeles ought to be our greatest city since it is probably the most diverse city in America, L.A. county being home to 140 nationalities speaking 130 languages.



It's neighborhoods should be fully and peacefully integrated; it's schools should be the safest in the country with the highest graduation rates and top scores in college entrance exams; crime should be low, as well as drug use and teen pregnancy rates. Discrimination suits should be relatively few and the local EEOC should be looking hard for anything to do. City governments should operate efficiently and elections should not devolve into racial block voting. There should be little religious or cultural strife. All the people should be able to and want to communicate effectively with one another and share their 'rich tapestry' and 'beautiful mosaic' to the benefit of all.

While I certainly don't believe diversity is the panacea for all that ails America (as apparently so many others do), L.A. ought to be head and shoulders above most other cities in America, or perhaps the world, when it comes to benefiting from diversity in practical ways that can be observed, measured and contrasted with other cities.

Alas, it is not so. On the contrary, Los Angeles is the poster child for why diversity is not only not our greatest strength, but may very well be the greatest cause of societal strife and conflict in America.



In Part II we will examine the reality of diversity in Los Angeles and how it argues against diversity being our greatest strength...or a strength at all.

The Deuce Loves Music

Okay. So who doesn't love music. Well, my dad hasn't liked any music since Floyd Kramer was tickling the ivories and The Sons of the Pioneers were singing about "cold, clear water", circa 1955. But he's an extreme example. Me? I groove to the serious rhythms.

Top Artists of ALL TIME:

1. The Rolling Stones



I don't want to hear any noise about the Beatles. They were okay up until they went all Hari Krishna and Yoko put the dork hex on Lennon. The Stones are still rockin' even though they're all older than dirt and Keith Richards has ingested enough drugs to kill all the Beatles five times over. What man wouldn't trade his life for that of Mick Jagger? Damn few.

Best Singles.

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Street Fightin' Man
Sympathy For The Devil
Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's Only Rock 'N' Roll
Paint It Black
Brown Sugar
You Can't Always Get What You Want



2. Prince



Mentally unstable? Maybe. Obsessed with sex? Seriously, deep down aren't we all? But my God, did anyone put out more high energy funky hits in the 80's? No. And, he actually played an instrument, unlike all these lame-ass rap pretenders we're saddled with today.

Best Singles.

Let's Go Crazy
Little Red Corvette
U Got The Look
The Beautiful Ones
Kiss
Baby I'm A Star
Raspberry Beret

3. Elton John



He owned the early and mid-seventies with his classic piano ballads with lyrics by long time collaborator Bernie Taupin. He's sold more than 250 million records and had 50 top 40 hits. Appeals to the masses? Yeah. And that 'flamboyant phase' was just a tad embarrassing. But still, the masses aren't always wrong and light-up glasses and feather boas are...forgivable. Just too much talent.

Best Singles.

Bennie And The Jets
Rocket Man
Someone Saved My Life Tonight
Saturday's Alright For Fightin'
Daniel
Levon
Your Song
Honky Cat
The Bitch Is Back
Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me



4. The Eagles



Arguably the best harmony ever with killer guitar riffs and inspired lyrics. A singular mix of folk, country and rock that continues to sell out concerts all over the world. Haunting stuff.

Best Singles:

Hotel California
Sunset Grill
Rocky Mountain Way
Life In The Fast Lane
Desperado
Lyin' Eyes
The Boys Of Summer
One Of These Nights
In The City



5. The Temptations



One of the greatest groups to come out of the golden years of MoTown. Known for their choreography and stylized harmonies, the Temps put the smooth to the turbulent 60's.

Best Singles:

My Girl
Get Ready
(I Know) I'm Losing You
I Wish It Would Rain
I Can't Get Next To You
Ball Of Confusion
Just My Imagination
Cloud Nine

The rest of my top ten.

6. Led Zeppelin
7. Tina Turner
8. Aerosmith
9. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
10. AC/DC

Honorable Mention.

The Moody Blues; Marvin Gaye; David Bowie; The Cars; James Brown; The Beach Boys; Bruce Springsteen; Aretha Franklin; Guns n' Roses; Fleetwood Mac; The Kinks; Parliment; Otis Reading; Def Leppard; Earth, Wind and Fire.

Let the debate begin!

ROCK N' ROLL FOREVER!

Coward

Paul Krugman, the sometime economist and full-time elitist commentator on all things political posted this on his blog regarding the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

"Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

All Mr. Quarter can say is what a f__king coward you are Mr. Krugman. Hiding there behind your keyboard and unwilling to even face the tongue lashing that your readers would administer for such a despicable and cowardly editorial. Shame on you!

Update 09/12/11: Apparently Mr. Quarter was not the only one offended by Paul Krugman's diarrhea of the keyboard. Yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense under GWB tweeted that he was cancelling his subscription to the New York Times because of Krugman's comments.

Mr. Quarter on Basic Economics

The progressive argument goes that the current economic conditions and run up of the deficit are all Bush's fault. If you listen to Paul Krugman and others, it goes on further to say that the $800 Billion economic stimulus wasn't nearly big enough - should have been even larger. Well, for clarification, lets see what Robert Reich (former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary and noted progressive) says on his own blog today:

"Before I turn to the President, though, let’s be clear: The lousy economy is due to insufficient demand. Consumers – who are 70 percent of the economy — can’t and won’t buy because they’re running out of cash. They can’t borrow against homes that are worth a third less than they were five years ago, and most consumers are bad credit risks anyway because they’re losing their jobs and their wages are dropping. They also have to start saving for the kids’ college or for retirement, which will cut their spending even more.

Without enough consumers, businesses won’t hire enough people and pay them enough to reverse the vicious cycle. So we’re dead in the water. Even the stock market has caught on to the truth."
So, let me get this progressive argument straight 'cause I am just a dumb Iowa farm boy: The economy is bad because consumers are running out of cash and can't stimulate demand? Did I get that right? So, the Bush tax cuts which leave more cash in consumer pockets were bad? Massive stimulus spending by the federal government that creates debt that must be repaid through higher taxation that takes cash out of consumer pockets is good? It would be better for the economy to take a "balanced" approach that includes both increased revenues (higher taxes) and decreased spending rather than simply spending less and lowering tax burden? Wait a minute, did Reich say that business won't hire enough people and pay the enough to reverse the cycle? I thought our president said that businesses (i.e., corporations) were getting a pass and not paying their fair share? Is Reich saying that Corporations need to make a profit so they can hire workers and pay wages, leading to consumer demand and a better economy? Even to my simple understanding of economics that seems sort of like a contradiction.

Mr. Quarter needs to get a book because this whole economics thing is really confusing.

The Deuce In Crisis

I have this book. I dust it off every couple of years and go through it. I've read it several times and have many paragraphs and lines highlighted. I tend to go to it when the world is not making sense. It posits a number of hypothesis' that I don't want to believe in, but with every year that goes by I find myself agreeing with more and more.

The core idea of the book is fairly simple: You are everything. The individual is everything. Everything you think, everything you say, everything you do should have but one goal...to enrich you, not just in material wealth, but in all things. Power, women, glory, security, status...EVERYTHING!

Ultimately, nobody else matters more than you do, and why should they? Life for human beings is no different than life for every other living thing. Hunt, or be hunted; survive if you can; place no one's welfare above your own because you were born to further your own existence, not someone else's; find a way, anyway, to get all the good things life has to offer...honestly if you can, but in the end business is business and the devil take the hindmost. Love a wife...love your children...love your kinsman...protect them and nurture them as best you can. But remember, wives and children are property. They exist and prosper only by your good graces, and if the should every fail to "love, honor and obey you", cast them out.

There is no reward after death for living a "good" life. Nor is there any punishment for failing to do so. No Heaven, no Hell, so why abide by the teachings of a pacifist Jew who got himself killed 2000 years ago? Any "God" or "prophet" or "enlightened one" who taught anything but self-enrichment at any cost was a fool and anyone who follows such teachings is a fool in turn.

Do not fear death, for death is better than living as a slave. Not just a slave in literal chains, but also those slaves who rely on the sustenance provided by any master, be him a boss, corporation or business owner. Taking orders from and being reliant upon any other man for one's living is slavery. A few slaves are very well paid, but most are given a slave's wages...barely enough to survive. And never forget, the master will keep you only as long as you are of value to him. The very moment you cease to be of value is the very moment he will kick you into the street with the trash.

All men are not created equal.

Governments exist for the sole purpose of controlling the mass of slaves that make up mankind. The men too weak, too sickly, too stupid, too fearful to rise to prominence and rule over other men. The rich and powerful make those laws that best benefit themselves, and why not? They've earned the right to do so by securing for themselves the ability to do so.

All of life is competition, and competition is warfare. It is the way of all living things, and so is the way of mankind. Win the war and you reap all things good in life. Lose the war, and die, or worse live in slavery, until such time as you are able to rise up and make war again, if you have the will to do so.

I trust you get the idea.

As I said, I don't want to believe these things, but as I watch the world turn and the great movers and shakers around the globe maneuver their armies of soldiers, bankers, propagandists, sophists and toadies, I find it harder and harder to deny what seems obvious. In short, money talks and all the rest is b.s. Or, as some wit once said, "He that has the gold makes the rules."

Money means power, and power means control, and control means you get almost whatever you want.

Consider; the current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. The Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders get $193,400. The Speaker of the House gets $223,500. This is not bad money. Not filthy rich by any means, but not starving either. And yet, members of Congress, especially the Senate, raise tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to get re-elected. Why? The plain answer is wealth and power. Their personal wealth almost always increases while in office, whether by hook or by crook. Congress members are not subject to "insider trading" laws as are corporate execs. Sweetheart deals and outright bribery abound, whether for mortgages (Obama) or trading on cattle futures (Hillary Clinton) or legislation that favors one's business constituents and personal investments, Star Kist/Del Monte Foods (Nancy Pelosi) or taking millions in cash from defense contractors (Randy "Duke" Cunningham). There are dozens of other examples for those that need further convincing.

So many of our "leaders" live by the credo, "Get it while the getting is good." They cut whatever deals are necessary to stay in office and win favor with the monied elite and their local constituents, like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) who's "Cornhusker Kickback" made Obamacare possible. They utter the most inane things, arguably the most memorable being Speaker of the House Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it". They resort to the most despicable ad homonym attacks to smear their opponents, as John Kerry (D-MA) did just yesterday when, refering to the Tea Party movement, he urged media outlets to "not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual." The Tea Party wants lower taxes for everyone, reduced federal spending and a balanced budget. And Sen. Kerry calls that an "absurd notion." In other words, don't cover a political or economic opinion that differs from my own. The senator's hubris is astounding.

Crony-capitalism festers in the body politic. Do a little research on the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, and his relationship with the Obama administration. Or conversely, Obama and his ties to organized labor and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka. Or perhaps most disturbing of all, the hydra-headed connections between Obama administration officials and the myriad far left advocacy groups funded by billionaire George Soros.

Does Obama have it right? Is Obama's world-view accurate and mine hopelessly naive? Does the world really boil down to an endless war of "The Haves vs. The Have Nots" with no rules except don't get caught. Is there nothing more, nothing deeper to life than getting all you can while you can, no matter what? Do the ends justify the means after all?

Is human existence, stripped down to it's basic reality, stripped of all it's supposed moralities, it's "golden rule", it's "turn the other cheek", it's promise of paradise for the life lived "loving your brother as you love yourself" and "be your brother's keeper", it's right and wrong and good and evil...is existence nothing more than screw everybody else, I'm getting mine, if you want to be successful in life? Is that what it takes?

Is that really the way of the world? Is that really the way of life for any truly rational man? Are words like honor, integrity and honesty...ultimately just words, to be used when convenient and discarded when not?

I hope not. But I'm not sure.

That scares me.