Lyrics Copyright 2011 by Inmate #24602/ El Alacran/Gangsta Pale
The Bitches, They Bring a Brother Down
All the world hate a successful man.
And the bitches try to bring a brother down.
Yo' mama try to bring you up nice an' girly,
All the bitches wanna bring a brother down.
Yo' mama wan' to make you a mama's boy,
All them bitches need to bring a brother down.
Teacher she tell you no, no, no you can't,
Everywhere bitches to bring a brother down.
Yo' girl forget to take a pill, give you bad news,
All the bitches have to bring a brother down.
Yo' wife want to keep you tied down safe,
All the bitches work to keep a brother down.
Yo' wife she want you under her thumb,
You know the bitches they want a brother down.
You work hard for hard money, earn yo' pay,
You know the bitches try to bring a brother down.
Ever'body got a hand out, want a piece of the pie,
All the damn bitches keep a brother down.
You reach for the sky, hands pull you back,
Ever' damn bitch wanna drag a brother down.
--------------------------------------------------
Am I saying this? No. Is Cain? Sort of. Cain's patronizing atttude toward women is not a good one. His attitude makes me think he did what he was accused of -- sexually harassing women in the workplace. Do I think all these "troubled" women Cain "tried to help" have it in for him and are making false accusations? No.
This is not the situation with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton had a problem, and one that impacted his presidency. But as far as we know he did not harass women at work or assault them. And he didn't put them down in an offensive patronizing way.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
It's the Stupid Economy! and Other Musings
Of course regulation increases unemployment.
Why? Because regulation reduces profitability and reduces business start-ups. Does that mean regulation is bad? Not necessarily. Without regulation we would most all lead shorter, more miserable lives. Go read The Jungle and The Robber Baronsfor a look at what this country was like before regulation.
Every benefit has a trade-off. You gain something and you lose something. That is the way of life.
Is regulation the only factor causing unemployment? Of course not. There are business cycles, boom and bust, feast and famine.
This wave of unemployment has a number of causes. Some of it is because of regulation, some because of bad regulation, some because of social and population trends, some -- most-- because of deep-seated changes in the structure of our economy.
"Deep seated changes." What do I mean by that? Partly the shift away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, and a decades-old trade imbalance. Too many of our workers service the rest of our workers or have the function of middlemen. When the most profitable, most productive industry is the financial industry, you know there is a problem.
Sure, we could have a regulatory and tax policy that does not drive away manufacturing as much as now. But less regulation means less safety, less security, more hardship on workers, on all of us. And even then, American workers would still not be willing to compete with those abroad who make less than a dollar an hour.
There are those who say they want a laissez-faire hands-off policy toward business. Well, laissez faire means looking for the lowest paid workers. It means providing for them as little as possible. No retirement, no health insurance, minimal safety. Laissez-faire is no remedy.
Basically, our economy is not shifting into a higher mode, but is senescent. What? Did you expect America to keep on leading the world in GNP/GDP and standard of living? You know that is just not possible. It's time for reversion toward the mean -- becoming more like the countries that we look down on.
Can we change? Somewhat, but that means a total overhaul of the economy and our spending and saving habits -- a complete overhaul of values -- and it can't be done quickly if at all.
....................................................................................................................................
Back 20-30 years ago, futurists like Al Toffler were saying, "we are transitioning from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. And that's good. Instead of being a nation of steelworkers we will become a nation of computer programmers. We are evolving into a higher type of economy."
That view was wrong. The service economy meant that there were more fast food workers, not computer programmers. More employed in government, more in law, banking, finance. Basically, instead of creating new products to sell abroad, most of our energies were focused on selling things to each other, at higher and higher prices. Generating commissions and brokerage fees every step of the way.
The Age of Dominance of the Middleman. Of the middle-bureaucrat. An age where the bank VPs and "customer service reps" a/k/a salesmen outnumber tellers.
We are like a school of piranhas, that attack and feed on each other instead of hunting outside supplies of food, or making our own.
The worst piranhas are in the financial sector. If you have any money, they are targeting you.
Remember back in the 1960s, when you'd get phone calls from strangers trying to sell you magazines or whatever? Then the cold calls started to hawk insurance, stock tips, and investments. If they thought you have a few thou to your name, they'd hound you.
You've all heard of Bonnie and Clyde. Pretty Boy Floyd, Dillenger. When we think of crime in the 1920s and 1930s, that is what we think of. Forgotten is the fact that there was an explosion of bunco activity back then, often involving screwy financial schemes and frauds. See J. Frank Norfleet's book on that, for the experiences of a West Texas rancher with slick fast talking con men.
Well, today banks, brokerages and insurance companies have replaced the simpler con men of yesteryear. Now it is insurance and investment schemers who have their hands deep in your pocket, and virtually own most politicians. So often, what they do is legal. Or if it is illegal, it is hard to understand just how, and they own the prosecutors anyway.
........................................................................................................................................
Remember when you'd open the newspaper and there was a McCoy's ad insert? McCoy's would advertise the cost of 2 X 4s in 8' and stud length, half inch drywall, batts of insulation, even screws and nails, for pete's sake! Places like Home Depot would more or less do the same.
McCoy's is gone, from Lubbock at any rate. Along with Payless Cashway, that advertised the same way. And what kind of advertising do you see from the building supply stores like Home Depot and Lowe's? They rarely advertise basic building stuff any more. Now it's the high dollar stuff, like $150 lavatory faucets, high end refrigerators, prebuilt closet shelving. You want screws or nails, you buy them in a box and not by the handful.
See what I am trying to say? We as consumers have gone from building new structures to making what we have more upscale. A totally different consumption habit, totally different values.
Remember the Ivory soap TV commercials? Can you believe it? P & G actually advertised Ivory bath soap, 99 44/100% pure soap, on radio and TV. They used to advertise plain old razor blades on TV. Shaving cream. No more. Now what do they advertise? The expensive high dollar stuff, no more plain soap or shaving cream.
Remember the local bakeries advertising bread? Baldridge's (no holes!), Mrs. Bairds. How often do you see plain old bread advertised? What they advertise are the so-called value-added items, processed foods, boxed and packaged foods. You never see "We have white rice, .45/lb in bulk!"
Consumption has gone upscale. The fish are feeding on ... other fish in the same school.
Why? Because regulation reduces profitability and reduces business start-ups. Does that mean regulation is bad? Not necessarily. Without regulation we would most all lead shorter, more miserable lives. Go read The Jungle and The Robber Baronsfor a look at what this country was like before regulation.
Every benefit has a trade-off. You gain something and you lose something. That is the way of life.
Is regulation the only factor causing unemployment? Of course not. There are business cycles, boom and bust, feast and famine.
This wave of unemployment has a number of causes. Some of it is because of regulation, some because of bad regulation, some because of social and population trends, some -- most-- because of deep-seated changes in the structure of our economy.
"Deep seated changes." What do I mean by that? Partly the shift away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, and a decades-old trade imbalance. Too many of our workers service the rest of our workers or have the function of middlemen. When the most profitable, most productive industry is the financial industry, you know there is a problem.
Sure, we could have a regulatory and tax policy that does not drive away manufacturing as much as now. But less regulation means less safety, less security, more hardship on workers, on all of us. And even then, American workers would still not be willing to compete with those abroad who make less than a dollar an hour.
There are those who say they want a laissez-faire hands-off policy toward business. Well, laissez faire means looking for the lowest paid workers. It means providing for them as little as possible. No retirement, no health insurance, minimal safety. Laissez-faire is no remedy.
Basically, our economy is not shifting into a higher mode, but is senescent. What? Did you expect America to keep on leading the world in GNP/GDP and standard of living? You know that is just not possible. It's time for reversion toward the mean -- becoming more like the countries that we look down on.
Can we change? Somewhat, but that means a total overhaul of the economy and our spending and saving habits -- a complete overhaul of values -- and it can't be done quickly if at all.
....................................................................................................................................
Back 20-30 years ago, futurists like Al Toffler were saying, "we are transitioning from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. And that's good. Instead of being a nation of steelworkers we will become a nation of computer programmers. We are evolving into a higher type of economy."
That view was wrong. The service economy meant that there were more fast food workers, not computer programmers. More employed in government, more in law, banking, finance. Basically, instead of creating new products to sell abroad, most of our energies were focused on selling things to each other, at higher and higher prices. Generating commissions and brokerage fees every step of the way.
The Age of Dominance of the Middleman. Of the middle-bureaucrat. An age where the bank VPs and "customer service reps" a/k/a salesmen outnumber tellers.
We are like a school of piranhas, that attack and feed on each other instead of hunting outside supplies of food, or making our own.
The worst piranhas are in the financial sector. If you have any money, they are targeting you.
Remember back in the 1960s, when you'd get phone calls from strangers trying to sell you magazines or whatever? Then the cold calls started to hawk insurance, stock tips, and investments. If they thought you have a few thou to your name, they'd hound you.
You've all heard of Bonnie and Clyde. Pretty Boy Floyd, Dillenger. When we think of crime in the 1920s and 1930s, that is what we think of. Forgotten is the fact that there was an explosion of bunco activity back then, often involving screwy financial schemes and frauds. See J. Frank Norfleet's book on that, for the experiences of a West Texas rancher with slick fast talking con men.
Well, today banks, brokerages and insurance companies have replaced the simpler con men of yesteryear. Now it is insurance and investment schemers who have their hands deep in your pocket, and virtually own most politicians. So often, what they do is legal. Or if it is illegal, it is hard to understand just how, and they own the prosecutors anyway.
........................................................................................................................................
Remember when you'd open the newspaper and there was a McCoy's ad insert? McCoy's would advertise the cost of 2 X 4s in 8' and stud length, half inch drywall, batts of insulation, even screws and nails, for pete's sake! Places like Home Depot would more or less do the same.
McCoy's is gone, from Lubbock at any rate. Along with Payless Cashway, that advertised the same way. And what kind of advertising do you see from the building supply stores like Home Depot and Lowe's? They rarely advertise basic building stuff any more. Now it's the high dollar stuff, like $150 lavatory faucets, high end refrigerators, prebuilt closet shelving. You want screws or nails, you buy them in a box and not by the handful.
See what I am trying to say? We as consumers have gone from building new structures to making what we have more upscale. A totally different consumption habit, totally different values.
Remember the Ivory soap TV commercials? Can you believe it? P & G actually advertised Ivory bath soap, 99 44/100% pure soap, on radio and TV. They used to advertise plain old razor blades on TV. Shaving cream. No more. Now what do they advertise? The expensive high dollar stuff, no more plain soap or shaving cream.
Remember the local bakeries advertising bread? Baldridge's (no holes!), Mrs. Bairds. How often do you see plain old bread advertised? What they advertise are the so-called value-added items, processed foods, boxed and packaged foods. You never see "We have white rice, .45/lb in bulk!"
Consumption has gone upscale. The fish are feeding on ... other fish in the same school.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Why do Republicans shoot themselves in the foot?
Seems to me they are shooting themselves in the foot. That they have an institutional death wish. I mean, think about the "issues" that the present crop of Republicans have chosen to hang their hats and fight their battles on. Look at some high profile GOP issues.
1. Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan longer. For pete's sake, this is a loser from the get-go. Most Americans feel we have done enough, spent enough, and taken enough casualties there. Guess who's going to be voting in November, 2012: Answer: a lot of average Americans! Don't the Republicans know that?
2. Strong action against Iran. First of all, President Obama is doing what he can, which is about what any president can, short of direct blustering about military action, which would not help the situation. Most likely, Obama is doing exactly what Gingrich said he would do, but Obama can't talk about it and Gingrich can.
Think about the situation: would you start another war in the Middle East, which we cannot afford, and cannot afford the consequences of, in order to, maybe, delay another war for maybe 5 years, tops? The general Republican answer is: Yes!
3. Waterboarding. Most of the GOP candidates favor using waterboarding, except maybe Ron Paul. Issue DOA. Our military disapproves of waterboarding. Most everybody except Cheney and a handful of Republican candidates reject waterboarding. Including the president who used it, over a period of a couple of years, early in his administration, waterboarding one guy more than a hundred times, the process was so effective. Waterboarding is a nonissue and non-winner outside of a redneck bar past midnight where most of those polled favor nuking Iran and the whole Middle East.
4. Protecting the very rich from increased taxation. Now what do you think about a pack of candidates who hang their hat on low taxes for a tiny minority of the very wealthy, who have been doing especially well lately? Whose votes would you ask for if you were running for office, the 5% or the 95%?
5. Abortion. Look. It's very simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, and there is not much you can do on the national level. Possibly the next president or two might have a chance to name a Supreme Court justice, which will have little effect. Plus, most Americans are content to leave abortion laws where they are, instead of having government dictate to people and doctors what they cannot do with their own lives and bodies.
6. Helping the economy. Now this is not a bad idea to hang your hat on. But look who's doing the talking. An ex-IRS tax accountant and religious fanatic, a life long professional politician, a one-time business executive who has spent a big chunk of his life in politics and running for president, a former fast food CEO who is accused of sexual harassment and misconduct, another pro politician who has learned to feed at the trough of political PACs. And the problem is that each of them touts their experience in helping the economy and putting people to work. That is a joke.
Imagine President Cain announcing a program to aid women in getting breast implants in order to improve their employment chances, Bachmann with a program for subsidizing church-related employment, Gingrich fostering employment in PACs.
To Be Continued.
1. Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan longer. For pete's sake, this is a loser from the get-go. Most Americans feel we have done enough, spent enough, and taken enough casualties there. Guess who's going to be voting in November, 2012: Answer: a lot of average Americans! Don't the Republicans know that?
2. Strong action against Iran. First of all, President Obama is doing what he can, which is about what any president can, short of direct blustering about military action, which would not help the situation. Most likely, Obama is doing exactly what Gingrich said he would do, but Obama can't talk about it and Gingrich can.
Think about the situation: would you start another war in the Middle East, which we cannot afford, and cannot afford the consequences of, in order to, maybe, delay another war for maybe 5 years, tops? The general Republican answer is: Yes!
3. Waterboarding. Most of the GOP candidates favor using waterboarding, except maybe Ron Paul. Issue DOA. Our military disapproves of waterboarding. Most everybody except Cheney and a handful of Republican candidates reject waterboarding. Including the president who used it, over a period of a couple of years, early in his administration, waterboarding one guy more than a hundred times, the process was so effective. Waterboarding is a nonissue and non-winner outside of a redneck bar past midnight where most of those polled favor nuking Iran and the whole Middle East.
4. Protecting the very rich from increased taxation. Now what do you think about a pack of candidates who hang their hat on low taxes for a tiny minority of the very wealthy, who have been doing especially well lately? Whose votes would you ask for if you were running for office, the 5% or the 95%?
5. Abortion. Look. It's very simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, and there is not much you can do on the national level. Possibly the next president or two might have a chance to name a Supreme Court justice, which will have little effect. Plus, most Americans are content to leave abortion laws where they are, instead of having government dictate to people and doctors what they cannot do with their own lives and bodies.
6. Helping the economy. Now this is not a bad idea to hang your hat on. But look who's doing the talking. An ex-IRS tax accountant and religious fanatic, a life long professional politician, a one-time business executive who has spent a big chunk of his life in politics and running for president, a former fast food CEO who is accused of sexual harassment and misconduct, another pro politician who has learned to feed at the trough of political PACs. And the problem is that each of them touts their experience in helping the economy and putting people to work. That is a joke.
Imagine President Cain announcing a program to aid women in getting breast implants in order to improve their employment chances, Bachmann with a program for subsidizing church-related employment, Gingrich fostering employment in PACs.
To Be Continued.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Moderate Winds Coming in the GOP?
If there is a moral to be derived from the November, 2011, elections it is that people distrust extremes.
Our political parties, more and more, have catered to extremes. One in particular.
Romney has been running a presidential campaign for months, seeking to appeal to voters broader than the extremist voting blocks that make up the GOP. The others, except for Huntsman, kept their eyes on the extreme blocks and hoped to get to nomination, without thinking beyond that.
This week, Romney made a statement that the sexual harassment charges levied against Cain were serious if true. Romney knows he must patch the wounds in his party and reach out to average Americans rather than than Cain's hardcore backers. He has to write those Cain supporters off, if necessary.
If there is a new leavening of the GOP, will Huntsman's numbers rise? Would Huntsman be a possible running mate for Romney? Don't hold your breath on that.
Our political parties, more and more, have catered to extremes. One in particular.
Romney has been running a presidential campaign for months, seeking to appeal to voters broader than the extremist voting blocks that make up the GOP. The others, except for Huntsman, kept their eyes on the extreme blocks and hoped to get to nomination, without thinking beyond that.
This week, Romney made a statement that the sexual harassment charges levied against Cain were serious if true. Romney knows he must patch the wounds in his party and reach out to average Americans rather than than Cain's hardcore backers. He has to write those Cain supporters off, if necessary.
If there is a new leavening of the GOP, will Huntsman's numbers rise? Would Huntsman be a possible running mate for Romney? Don't hold your breath on that.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Cain III, The End
No. 4 is coming out, today, at a press conference.
For the good of the party, Cain needs to bow out now.
Why for the party? Because it puts the other candidates like Romney and Perry in a vise: If they attack Cain, they alienate Cain supporters, and there are supporters out there who still think all this is a "high tech lynching"; if Romney and Perry say nothing, they alienate half the country.
Look for Cain's withdrawal sometime today. Unless he wants to take everybody down with him.
Note: I considered Cain a good candidate months ago, a personification of the business friendly side of the GOP. [Hmmm. Is there another side? Actually I considered Cain and Huntsman to be bookends among the candidates. Huntsman has faded from barely there to still barely there.] Cain has a sueful message for Americans, that you can succeed by hard work, that you get nowhere blaming and making excuses. He has never been a viable presidential candidate.
For the good of the party, Cain needs to bow out now.
Why for the party? Because it puts the other candidates like Romney and Perry in a vise: If they attack Cain, they alienate Cain supporters, and there are supporters out there who still think all this is a "high tech lynching"; if Romney and Perry say nothing, they alienate half the country.
Look for Cain's withdrawal sometime today. Unless he wants to take everybody down with him.
Note: I considered Cain a good candidate months ago, a personification of the business friendly side of the GOP. [Hmmm. Is there another side? Actually I considered Cain and Huntsman to be bookends among the candidates. Huntsman has faded from barely there to still barely there.] Cain has a sueful message for Americans, that you can succeed by hard work, that you get nowhere blaming and making excuses. He has never been a viable presidential candidate.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Herman Cain, continued
Don't even go there," Cain told reporters this weekend, with righteous outrage, as though they asked him something private and irrelevant to his qualifications for public office.
Previously Cain and his followers were blaming Perry for bringing up the accusations, as though it was scurrilous and underhanded behavior to do so.
And certain conservative voices are saying this was a mugging; that to dig out accusations of sexual harassment from 15 years ago is dirty pool and indefensible.
Private? Past? Irrelevant? A mugging? I guarantee that if Cain were being considered for the job of CEO at Landry's for example, they would be quite concerned about the allegations. Shouldn't we be concerned when it is a candidate running for president?
Typical for the miscreants to turn on the whistleblowers.
Yes, Cain has probably experienced a decline in testosterone from 15 years ago, unless he is getting external dosages, but a possible pattern of behavior, thought at the time to justify sums of money paid out to at least two and maybe three women independently, shows that Cain had and may still have a behavioral problem that we cannot ignore.
And remember, these were not co-workers, they were subordinates. The sexual harassment of subordinates by a boss is one of the slimiest examples of corporate behavior.
The extent to which certain conservative Cain supporters want to see this buried demonstrates a cavalier lack of concern for the rights of employees and women employees in particular.
It is hard to figure how Republicans wanting to bury all this think they are going to broaden their base in 2012. If you are desperate for votes, and both Cain and the GOP are, you don't alienate half the population of the United States by dismissing sexual harassment accusations as a "political mugging."
Previously Cain and his followers were blaming Perry for bringing up the accusations, as though it was scurrilous and underhanded behavior to do so.
And certain conservative voices are saying this was a mugging; that to dig out accusations of sexual harassment from 15 years ago is dirty pool and indefensible.
Private? Past? Irrelevant? A mugging? I guarantee that if Cain were being considered for the job of CEO at Landry's for example, they would be quite concerned about the allegations. Shouldn't we be concerned when it is a candidate running for president?
Typical for the miscreants to turn on the whistleblowers.
Yes, Cain has probably experienced a decline in testosterone from 15 years ago, unless he is getting external dosages, but a possible pattern of behavior, thought at the time to justify sums of money paid out to at least two and maybe three women independently, shows that Cain had and may still have a behavioral problem that we cannot ignore.
And remember, these were not co-workers, they were subordinates. The sexual harassment of subordinates by a boss is one of the slimiest examples of corporate behavior.
The extent to which certain conservative Cain supporters want to see this buried demonstrates a cavalier lack of concern for the rights of employees and women employees in particular.
It is hard to figure how Republicans wanting to bury all this think they are going to broaden their base in 2012. If you are desperate for votes, and both Cain and the GOP are, you don't alienate half the population of the United States by dismissing sexual harassment accusations as a "political mugging."
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Cain
Cain is toast. The flirtation is over, trending into repulsion: "How could I ever [choose one]
-have dated that man
-have considered voting for him."
There have been too many mistakes, too many instances of misspeaking then having to restate, and now, with these stories of old harassment claims, Cain is finished.
The attack on the Perry camp for outing Cain's past is an absurd, self-condemning attempt at distraction.
The lamest and most common response in politics is to say "These charges are politically motivated." Well who the fuck cares what the motivation was; the only question is "are the accusations true?"
In Cain's case, it is pretty clear that accusations were made and payoffs made on behalf of Cain. If that does not prove Cain's guilt, then let him speak to the accusations.
-have dated that man
-have considered voting for him."
There have been too many mistakes, too many instances of misspeaking then having to restate, and now, with these stories of old harassment claims, Cain is finished.
The attack on the Perry camp for outing Cain's past is an absurd, self-condemning attempt at distraction.
The lamest and most common response in politics is to say "These charges are politically motivated." Well who the fuck cares what the motivation was; the only question is "are the accusations true?"
In Cain's case, it is pretty clear that accusations were made and payoffs made on behalf of Cain. If that does not prove Cain's guilt, then let him speak to the accusations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)