Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

A Manhattan Christmas Story

December 21, 2016

rockefeller-tree

NOTE: Not long ago we received this memory from an unnamed Hell’s Kitchen writer, who assures us that his neighbors all pass him on the street every day… without ever seeing him.

When my kids were little, long before I became what I am now, which is a booze-hound, Christmas time was always something special. It still is special for me ‘cause they haven’t yet closed down all the soup kitchens. The City Fathers missed a couple of soup kitchens in their drive to improve the quality of life in this town by killing off everybody who doesn’t work three jobs and make a hundred grand a year just to pay the rent. So I can still look forward to a meal of turkey with trimmings in some church basement somewhere. Along with the food, the do-gooders give us bums little Christmas presents. It’s nice. Don’t you like getting presents? I do. Last year I got some Old Spice and a soap on a rope. It was green and shaped like a seahorse. I liked the way it smelled. But I accidentally left my soap hanging in the rooming house bathroom down the hall one day and that was the last I saw of it. I don’t know why, but when I found the soap was gone I cried like a baby for two hours. And I never cry. A stupid piece of cheap soap. Archie the bartender who took the pledge was right. Booze does turn your brain to mush.

It was Christmas time and I ran out of money again. A card game this time. Looking for free things to do, I thought it might be fun to see the tree at Rockefeller Center. I usually enjoy the colored lights and all the happy kids giggling and acting like, well, like happy kids. So yesterday, even though I had no money to speak of, I left my room and headed over there. In the daylight you could see that this was one hell of a big tree. Why’d they go kill it? I stood in the part of the plaza they call the Channel Gardens cause on one side is a British building and on the other side is a French building. I was looking at the tree when I noticed this woman with her son. The kid was about six, I guess, no more than seven, and the woman had him bundled all up like he was Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon even though it wasn’t really so cold out. It couldn’t have been cold cause I was there and I don’t own a coat. That’s why I’m inside today, writing this. Today it’s freezing out. And I don’t own a coat. So this woman has her kid by the hand and says, “look, Lawrence, look at the nice tree. It’s beautiful isn’t it.” She wasn’t so much asking him as she was telling him. Surprisingly, the kid said “no.”

“But it is beautiful,” the mama said, giving the kid a little tap on the back of the head.

“It is not,” the boy insisted.

“Yes it is,” she said, giving him a harder tap.

“I don’t like it.”

“Yes you do!”

This time she gave the kid a clip on the head so hard that I could feel it. The boy wobbled a bit but held his ground.

“It isn’t beautiful! It stinks!”

“It is beautiful!” she says then CRACK! a tremendous shot across the back of the kid’s head. In my day, I seen prize fighters kiss the canvas on less.

“Isn’t mommy right? Isn’t the tree beautiful?”

When the boy didn’t answer, she lifted her hand again.

“It’s so beautiful, mommy,” he said like he really meant it.

“Don’t you just love it?”

“Yes mommy, I love it. I love it.”

“And do you love mommy?”

“Yes. I love mommy.”

She smiled and they went away, both of them happy. I’d hate to be around when this kid gets married. His wife cuddles up to him and coos, “do you love me?” and he says “I love you more than anything” then he proves it to her by belting her right in the sweetbreads. I only hope he finds somebody who’s into that kind of thing. There’s plenty of them out there.

I looked back at the tree, and so help me, now I didn’t think it was very beautiful. Then I cringed, almost feeling a swift hard smack on the back of my head. I turned around as fast as I could and went across the street and down the block to St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I prayed for that kid.

Living in Fear is DEATH

November 14, 2016

Protesting an array of things that MAY happen while ignoring what IS happening makes no sense.
It is simply fear, not activism.
Fear won’t fix problems.
Fear is used to control us.
In a state of fear we cannot think clearly.
Fear means we live in a future created by someone else.
When we fear, we no longer live NOW.
Look at the fears: Trump COULD, MAY, MIGHT, WILL do… (fill in favorite fear).
This is living in a fantasy.
People in fear don’t live their own lives.
People in their TWENTIES living in fear? It’s just sad. They’ll end up as angry old people by 40.
This is what is meant by the old adage: Don’t cross a bridge before you get to it.
Fear is addicting, and millions of people allowed fear to rule their lives for the past 19 months. Now they will not let it go.
It is not that I am fearless, just that I refuse to live in fear.
It’s a choice we make.

Do not let your fears become your thoughts

There is nothing new about the Power Structure keeping people in fear.
It is the basis of almost all advertising.
It is what MEDIA does to make sure you keep tuning in.
They LIVE to whip up hysteria.
Long ago, a book was written about this and it is back!
This 1919 book os now reissued with new introductions by… ME. There is no reason to live your life in fear! Wake up to the way orthodox religion and Other “Powers That Be” control the population THROUGH FEAR!
An invaluable treatise, this book is a must-read for anyone who wants to lead a free, independent life. A life WITHOUT FEAR! While some people will no doubt be offended and shocked by this book’s stance against organized religion seeking to control our lives, while those who use fear themselves will attempt to squelch this book, by misrepresenting the contents and belittling it, this book bravely exposes the way the manipulators of fear seek to hold onto power by any means necessary.
Beware of those who would mislead you about this!
Fear is all they have and they will use fear to stop YOU from reading this liberating book.
The new introduction puts the book in its historical context and shows why it is still relevant today.
UNMASKING FEAR! Click HERE!

Click Image To See This Book At AMAZON.COM

Click Image To See This Book At AMAZON.COM

Waaaaaahhhh!

November 10, 2016

crybaby

I DON’T LIKE THE RESULTS SO… ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

I DON’T LIKE THE CANDIDATE SO… ELIMINATE THE PRIMARY SYSTEM!

I DON’T LIKE THE RULING SO… ELIMINATE THE SUPREME COURT!

I DON’T LIKE THAT OPINION SO… ELIMINATE FOX NEWS!

I DON’T LIKE THE NEWS SO… FIRE THAT ANCHOR!

I DON’T LIKE THE LAW SO… ELIMINATE THE LEGISLATURE!

I DON’T LIKE THE RESULTS SO… I WILL LEAVE AMERICA!

And these are… THE LIBERALS! The broadminded, tolerant, DIVERSE liberals…

Ok… 

To the Withers talking about leaving the country:

People who will leave because their choice lost an election should go and stay the hell out.
I, on the other hand, will continue to fight for what is right and not leave just to save the effort.
When we win and beat back the regressive tide – and these people did nothing to help because the left – let them stay where they are. Great help THEY would have been in 1776.
A little inconvenience and suddenly they want to become political refugees. 

And these are the people who called me PRIVILEGED for not supporting a neoliberal war-hawk.

“I just HATE this election! I’ll be siping Campari on the Riviera for the next 4 years…”

15027472_10202509165008188_7838359094561268875_n

Once again we see the truth in the words of Phil Ochs:  “Liberals are 10º to the left of center in good times but 10º to the right of center when it affects them personally.”

 

Why Does Hillary Need Sanders To Quit?

June 12, 2016

     Despite the media spin, after his meeting a few days ago with President Obama, Bernie Sanders clearly stated that he is in this race through to the convention. The video is barely 5 minutes long. See it if you have not seen it yet.
Sanders’ insistence that he will continue irritates the hell out of the Clinton contingent.
Why?
Sanders is talking democracy, and the Clinton crowd calls it sexist, egomania, insanity…
It is democracy. And even Pres. Obama, through his press secretary, said that Sanders has “earned the right” to make his own decision on whether or not to stay in.
So why is this a problem for the Clinton wing of the Democratic party?

Why, if Mrs. Clinton is the “official” Democratic nominee, does she even need Sanders to drop out?

What difference could his staying or going possibly make? This begs examination.

     Simply put, If Clinton has the required number of delegates, as she claims she has, then what’s the fuss?  All that will happen is that the convention will hold ONE public round of voting and she will be the nominee.

Cue the deluge of Red, White, and Blue balloons!

🎵 🎵 Happy Days Are Here Again! 🎵 🎵

Blow those horns! Shout! Scream! Cop a feel from the delegate nearest you!

     But if this is what will happen, because Clinton has it locked up (right?)… why must Sanders drop out? Isn’t it worth it to the furious “Withers” to humiliate Sanders by making the grumpy sexist egomaniac sit through the whole Megillah, festooned with Clinton’s victory balloons? Does he not have this coming?

     Let’s try to find out what is really back of this bizarre demand that a person who has lost… should quit. To that end, I will entertain an exercise in ratiocination.

What is it that is looming in the near future that Sanders will be involved with but that worries Clinton?

Certainly not the DC primary on June 14th. Piffle!

Is it the final California count, which is inching to a close?

No.
These are minor things.

It simply has to have something to do with… the convention.

Something about the convention isn’t quite going “With Her”… What is it?
Let’s Examine the options.

THE CONVENTION PLAYS OUT
Let us say that – as was the case with candidates in the past – Mrs. Clinton, thoroughly convinced that she will be the next president, views the televised convention as the first big, splashy public moment in that presidency – rather than the simple insider nominating process it actually is.

     In this case, the convention would assume a larger place in her mind than such a routine process actually holds. It will become crucial as part of  a larger plan.

Clinton, clearly, sees an urgency in stage-managing the convention to salve her own needs, not the needs of the party and not the needs of the system.

     A well-oiled coronation will provide Clinton with a Niagara of adoring video clips and sound bites for the coming general election, which in her mind she also has locked up, just like she locked up the nomination. But slick advertising will always be needed – and what is better than images of a cheering, weeping-for-joy throng at the convention?

     So what, as things stand now, will the Democratic convention look like?
     The delegates from the 50 states and the several territories will place names into nomination and then pledged delegates will be given alphabetically, state by state, territory by territory. You know the drill:

Each state/territory will have its moment in the sun, on national television:

“The great state of Wyoming, gateway to… Wyoming. Home of… Wyominganians… The state that Milt Kamen said does not really exist, DOES exist and casts its delegates – CLINTON 43 (cheers) SANDERS 55, (sustained cheers)!”

Oops. That doesn’t look so good on TV for Clinton, does it.

And on it will go. State by state, territory by territory.

A DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS
SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS!
will ring out time and again, from each delegation because the democrats didn’t have a “winner take all” primary system (which you can bet the farm they WILL have by 2020).

At three minutes for each geographic location and its delegates, plus interstitial applause and spontaneous cheering, this first round of voting should take no less than three hours. On TV.

SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! will be repeated over and over, as will the spontaneous peals of BERNIE! from the crowd.

For Hillary, who has already claimed the nomination and treats it as a fait accompli, this democratic process will not be just poor optics, it will be the death by a thousand cuts – even if she wins. But she won’t win because:

One by one, the states and territories will mete out delegates and after all that time – Clinton will have gathered more than enough pledged delegates to be declared, under the DNC rules, a “WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.”
Not the nominee. But a “WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.”

Yes, after the first ballot, Hillary Clinton will go down in the history books as the first American woman to ever be declared, by a “Major” Party… a WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.

Swell…

More than three hours of this on international television, beamed around the world and even up to the International Space Station, and at the end of the voting Hillary Clinton, “presumptive” nominee will not have won.

No Balloons… and Happy Days Are not quite here yet.

At this point, Clinton’s claim to have the nomination all sewn up will evanesce, as it is revealed to be premature, at best – and arrogant for sure, since Hillary Clinton arrogated the convention’s responsibility by assuming the mantle of nominee, as though it were a $12,500 Armani coat.

And then following that first round of votes… but after an interminable break for talking heads all over the TV spectrum to say over and over what lousy optics this is for Clinton and how un-leaderly it seems – another round of votes will ensue.

Only, not right away.

More time. A meal break, during which Clinton will avoid the media – something at which she excels considering that as I write this in June of 2016 she has not had an open press conference since December 4, 2015. She will chew on a burger, and chew out her staff in one of her notorious fits of anger. You know what it is like if you saw Clinton bite the head off a Greenpeace representative who asked her a simple question.

    For at this stage of the process, after the first vote and with no nominee selected, the Super Delegates we have heard so much about will vote. This is their moment. This is what Super Delegates were created for: To reevaluate the qualities that led the front-runner to be such a weak front-runner that the nomination is could not be given out on the first ballot.

These Super Delegates, there to protect the party from a weak candidate who only manages to scrape together a small majority, have the power to vote for whomever they deem strongest against the Republicans – and you can be sure that the cheering and demonstrations for each candidate seen during the initial vote will influence the process. It is meant to. That is participatory democracy at its finest. Liberals LOVE democracy and free speech right? Right?

And now, the arm twisting and horse-trading will commence. None of this will look good for the “presumed” nominee around the globe – or in outer space – ON TELEVISION.

Clinton may emerge as the nominee at this point, but only after floor fights and demonstrations and maybe with a smaller margin than she had imagined possible given her “inevitable” status.  But get this part perfectly straight: if there is any screwing around with the process all hell will break loose, as it damn well should. Remember, despite unbelievable obstacles, Bernie Sanders has won the support of HALF OF THE DEMOCRATS. The other half loses sight of that at their own peril.

But the convention process – an open and democratic process – apparently does not assuage Clinton’s personal need to seem inevitable, a need so clearly evinced since last year when the DNC named Hillary and Hillary alone as their choice.

Long before a party nominee is selected, the process will show Clinton for exactly what she is: A WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.

UNLESS…
Unless, DRUMROLL, Sanders retreats. Throws in the towel. Capitulates. If he does, then the convention becomes the Hillary Show, unfettered by democracy and untainted by the opinions, beliefs, and principles of half the Democratic party. Good luck with that in November. Keeping Sanders in may be bad for Hillary’s grandiose vision of her place in the world, but it is good for democracy and will be needed to maintain the goodwill of half the party.

And the hypocrisy is…  after quashing democracy (if Sanders quits) or having failed to quash it (as seems the way it is going for her) and going the long way around, Clinton will speak of unity as though she were a Great Healer (the speech is already written, you better believe)

This is why, to Hillary, Sanders has to go. And why, to America, Sanders has to stay.

Hillary’s optics, arrogance, ego, neediness will do her in sooner or later.

For her, it is not enough to win. Everyone else has to be wiped out. Now, where have I heard that before?

 

 

 

Lesser? Evil? My Hypothetical Scenario…

February 28, 2016

What an unconventional election season!

So many WHAT IFs being tossed about.
More hypotheticals than facts, it seems.

Well here is my hypothetical scenario…
Can you answer it?
GOP candidates have begun making Trump look foolish. Rubio recently mopped up the floor with him.
Trump has no tolerance for people who push back.
In 2001, angered by republicans, he became a democrat.

He barely has 32% support in the GOP.
So… What if he does it again? Becomes a democrat?
Let’s say he does.  And he sweeps the primaries – which he has shown is possible even with little support.
He is the dem’s nominee.

This move leaves the GOP in disarray.
BEN CARSON takes the lead.
He squeaks by and becomes the GOP nominee.

I have seen so many people set up a hypothetical race then DEMAND that in this hypothetical race we vote for a candidate we dislike because… well, we must. Because our democracy is at stake! SCOTUS!!
S/he is bad, they admit, but not as bad as any republican. And… our democracy is at stake! SCOTUS!!
Voting for anyone else is a “wasted protest vote” and will make a republican the winner.
So my question to the lovers of hypotheticals is:
Trump v. Carson in November…
No begging the question.

Who gets your vote? 

ap_ap-photo1067-wi-e1442500463861-640x479

Why Is This Discussion STILL NEEDED?

October 23, 2015
Abortion. Freedom of choice. Telling women what they may or may not do concerning their own bodies.
This is still a concern for many of us.
And it should be, because many politicians oppose reproductive freedom.
Why does one noted politician think it is right to say things like this:
The decision to have an abortion is between “a young woman, her family, her physician and pastor.”
Her PASTOR? Really?
Or:
Abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”
What good is a right if it is NOT exercised?
Who says that about ANY OTHER right?
Freedom of Speech should “
not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”
Or:
Abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.”
Will there be an acceptable National Abortion Quota?
Would any other right be so easily and glibly dismissed?
Free speech should be safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness should be safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean
rare.
Here is another comment from a politician. Do you support this view?
“I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available.”
One politician had THIS exchange with an anti-choicer:
“I know you’re pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions. Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?”
The politician nodded, telling attendees of the nationally televised event: “Yes, yes.”
A politician also said THIS about wanting to END ABORTION if the republicans ALLOW her:
“I am where I have been, which is that if there’s a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that takes into account the life of the mother and her health, then I’m open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.”
REMEMBER:
When they say rare – they mean NEVER.
And who said these things?
SHE did: the last time she ran for president. And lost.
6a00d834515c5469e201b7c77c51c5970b
So it’s 8 years later and time for her to whistle a different tune.
I will vote for someone who will protect the right of ALL women to control their bodies. Without interference from a government that will “provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”
Or involve her Pastor

PC is BS. The Right Invented It To Play “Victim”

August 7, 2015


donald-trump-angry

  The thing about POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – aside from its having been passé since 1989 – is that it is a complete and total myth. PC is a mechanism which allows conservatives to claim that they are victims whenever they victimize others and say something rude, stupid, and nasty.

  As with the equally mythic War On Xmas, the conservatives need to feel victimized to justify their free-floating anger. When somebody says, “Now this is not politically correct, but…” it is always the preface to something rude and offensive. But it makes them seem brave for being boorish. Before the righties invented PC, they would start such odious statements with, “Now, don’t get me wrong but…” which implies a misunderstanding. PC removes the misunderstanding and remakes them into bold, challengers of the status quo – when they call women sluts and say African Americans are just not grateful enough to the white people who freed them. And yes, I have heard this and worse quite often. 

  Outside the minds of the whining conservatives, there is no such thing as PC. The truth behind the invention of PC was exploded a generation ago in the book The Myth of Political Correctness, and there has never been an effective retort.

  Poor Ben Carson!

  Ben Carson, a man so mired in the past that he actually complains about what he calls “Women’s Lib,” based his whole risible presidential campaign on purveying misinformation while claiming any challenge to his utter foolishness was just PC, against which he bravely stands. But, alas, last night in the FOX game-show “Who Wants To Be A Jingoistic Dimwit” the perennially broke Donald Trump stole Carson’s thunder with his own rant about being under attack for not being PC. “What a brave boy am I,” the PC brigade trumpets! At every turn. And then the brave Trump assailed Rosie O’donnell with whom he once had a public feud. This, as any shrink will tell you, is the way a Toxic Narcissist thinks. Once an enemy, always an enemy. Even Trump’s first of many wives (is the sanctity of marriage PC?) says that he never lets go. You can see it in the long suppressed documentary TRUMP: WHAT’S THE DEAL – which was supposed to be on national TV 25 years ago. Its point is: the old Trump is the New Trump – so watch out.

  Along with being opposed to PC, many Trump supporters say they find him refreshing because “he speaks his mind.” Well, hell, so does Fidel Castro – known for delivering three hour speeches. Do you Trump-ettes support CASTRO for speaking his mind?

"Fidel Castro - SAYING WHAT'S ON HIS MIND"

“Fidel Castro – SAYING WHAT’S ON HIS MIND”

  My Uncle Harry always spoke what was on his mind. Unfortunately, he spoke it to lampposts, fire-hydrants, German Shepherds, and to his radio – which he seems to have thought was some sort of intercom. You know who also speaks their mind? People with Tourette Syndrome. Drunks in the corner bar. Folks with no mental filter. If it is such a virtue to say what is on your mind, then how is it that you conservatives get angry when someone speaks what is on their mind about YOU? I mean, if I say to a Trump supporter, “You are a complete ignoramus who knows nothing about politics or the American way of life as codified in the Constitution. You are a dolt who actually believes that Trump is, as he constantly says, ‘really rich.’ Why do you believe it? Because Trump said so? You strike me as the kind of rube who will buy anything with varnish on it.” Are you angry? Well, don’t be! I was just telling you what is on my mind. Isn’t that your guy’s greatest virtue? So why knock me – or Fidel – for doing it?

I’M REALLY RICH!

  And as to the Trump refrain about being rich – which will be put to the test once he actually mounts a campaign – please keep this in mind, for it is an exact parallel:

  You want to vote for Fredo? Go for it. Personally, I support a Trump/Palin ticket. Why? Because with those two crackpots in the White House we will finally achieve the long-sought dream of a Nuclear Free America. Within days of their election, the rest of the world will unite to see to it. And the world will be a much safer place.
TS patriotic peace

  And this brings us to the main thing about today’s conservatives. As was quite clear last night, they subsist on fear. And they will manufacture fear where it does not exist:
AMERICANS DON’T WIN ANYMORE! Trump childishly bleats.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKEN!  cries Huckabee, 
falsely.
WE NEED TO STAND UP TO OUR ENEMIES! hollers Canadian Rapheal Cruz – who won’t even use his real name

  Judging from the respective sizes of Trump, Huckabee and Cristie, they seemingly photosynthesize on fear. Fear is a tool that is used to stop people from thinking. This is why they whip up fear at every turn. People in a state of fear will be in FIGHT/FLIGHT mode and they will not think. This is what Meredith Willson showed in The Music Man when a flimflam artiste had a whole town in an uproar over an utterly innocuous pool table. That scene is now the conservative play-book in its entirety.

   Today’s conservatives lack ideas (have they offered any?). They lack substance. All they can do is attempt to spread fear. Interestingly, The Music Man is set in middle America in the year 1919. In that year a book came out detailing how the grip of fear is exploited to control people. 1919 was a grim year indeed! The book is UNMASKING FEAR by Lloyd Kenyon Jones. 1919 was the year of hysteria called The Palmer Raids. It was the year of many “Race Riots” – which in those days meant white people killing black people wholesale. It was a horrible time, as I note in my introduction to a new edition of this valuable book.

   To know the present, we must study the past. The people on the game-show “debate” stage last night are as old as history. They are Iago in the age of mass media, allowing them to do millions of times more damage. FEAR is their weapon of choice. It lies back of everything they do. Read this valuable book to get a historical perspective on these thugs. Yes, thugs. For that is what they are.

Click Image To See This Book At AMAZON.COM

Click Image To See This Book At AMAZON.COM

 

Media Echo Chamber Alert!

July 25, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 5.50.54 PM

Ok, I have had enough. The media echo chamber is filled with “LONG HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS” in their coverage of the Louisiana “shooter,” as they call him. Not MURDERER but shooter.
Please remember this:

  • Suffering from mental illness does not mean someone is crazy and it does not mean s/he is dangerous.
  • There is NO SUCH MEDICAL CONDITION as “insanity.” Sanity and insanity are LEGAL TERMS not medical.
  • YOU KNOW AND LOVE PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL. You just may not know that you know them.

And please remember this: When someone who commits a horrible crime is described by American media as MENTALLY ILL… it means CAUCASIAN MALE.
In the media, African-American males are SAVAGE THUGS filled with unfounded anger aimed at whites.
I will not even bother to give examples – as they are all over the place, ready to be found.

White males commit 64% of Mass Shooting murders. If African-Americans did so in HALF that number, America would be living in a media-fueled lockdown situation and a FOX inspired lynch mob mentality would prevail. 

And you KNOW it.
fncotrwwiivet

Bryan’s Last Speech – Facsimile Edition

July 16, 2015
COMING SOON!

COMING SOON!

This is the famous Last Speech which William Jennings Bryan planned to give at the end of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial”

Defense lawyer Clarence Darrow outmaneuvered Bryan by electing not to give his own summation; thus Bryan was barred from delivering this oration. The trial was an early “media sensation” and Bryan wanted to address the world via the new invention: radio.

If you only know Bryan from the movie/play Inherit The Wind, then you do not know the real man. The playwrights never meant the work to be a documentary. They were writing about INTOLERANCE and used the infamous trial as a back-drop.

Bryan had definite fears about how people would use evolution to hurt and exploit the weaker folks among us. Was he right?

Bryan never lived to give the speech. In 1925 it was posthumously published.

Now you can read his last speech and see if you agree with him – or not.

This edition is a facsimile of a 1925 book obtained by the publisher and scrupulously cleaned up for reprint after 90 years.

NOW AT AMAZON.COM
CLICK THIS LINK
From MOJO BROS. CLASSICS

 

Worker Rights? Or The Kindness of Strangers?

April 16, 2015

11139775_960850013949480_8974193231059585452_n

   Everyone seems to be gushing these days over Dan Price, the CEO who says he will slash his own salary and raise his company’s minimum pay to $70,000. I, for one, am not gushing. Leaving aside the details – such as he “plans” to do this (always a bad sign) and that it is supposed to happen over the next three years; not now, and that he will still personally pocket the $2,000,000 plus in profits generated by the workers – so he can well afford to slash his pay – I still think it is positively feudal to bring Noblesse Oblige into the work place. Workers deserve fair pay and not just because of “the kindness of strangers.” Unionize and force the CEO, for whom YOU do all the work, to treat you with respect and provide a fair compensation for the job. Not as a gift. As your contractual right. Worker Rights are not subject some CEO’s goddamn whim. Price, he says, read a book saying that people who make less than 70K are happier when they get more money. That was then. What if next month Price reads a book saying that more competition over less pay is even better? It is possible, when a man makes decisions on what book he just finished reading. Let him read a book by Scott Walker and see what he does after that… you may not like it one damn bit.

What one man gives, another can take from you

   So what happens when, say, the generous Mr. Price retires on a whim, after reading a travel book, and turns the store over to a brother or sister or brother-in-law? What then? Suppose the new Head of the Castle has different ideas? What do you do when he slashes compensation? That is a definite risk when workers toss aside any notion of job-security in favor of having a Tsar who dispenses goodies depending on his personal feelings at the time.

   No, this is not right. It makes for warm and fuzzy reading – but a union which represents the staff will do better. Better because pay will be codified in a contract and not just pulled out of the air. Note the language in the widely circulated meme: Price is GIVING this money to workers, not that they EARNED it. It is his GIFT. (And he had no “minimum wage” workers, BTW. His workers were pulling in around $40,000. So this is a hefty raise, but does nothing concerning “minimum wage” as the meme implies. Nydelis Ortiz, a 25-year old underwriter working there a scant 3 months, was one of the lowest paid people in the company. She was paid $36,000 a year.) 

   America boasts of democracy and tries to force it on the whole world. But is there democracy in the workplace? No. And what price did is still not democratic. This whole idea of joy because one CEO decided to reward his workers is a Plantation Mentality. What next? Will Price buy the workers banjoes so they can strum away at the desk? “I have HAPPY workers, cause I GIVE them things!” What Price has done is thoroughly demeaning. 

   People like Price need to know this: If a person is worth his or her labor, then they are worth their keep. A gift from a benevolent dictator is crap. Workers are the backbone of any business and they should not have crumbs tossed at them like pigeons in the park by a “loving” keeper. If you as a worker are worth $70,000 a year then you deserve it because you earned it. Not because some publicity-hungry corporate twit thinks THIS WEEK that it is a good idea. If your work is worth $70,000 today, then why was he paying you $40,000 yesterday? By his very act of “generosity” Mr. Price admits that he has been underpaying you. Still see this as warm and fuzzy?

   If I worked for Mr. Price, I would start sending out résumés and do so damn fast. This CEO is unpredictable and my bills each month are not. What we need, rather than highly publicized gifts to workers, is a law limiting CEO compensation to a reasonable multiple of the lowest paid in a company. This works wonders in Germany – where workers even have a mandated place on the Board of Directors. And that is just Germany. CEO compensation is out of control here, compared to the rest of the world. Yet when and workers seek to unionize and democratically level the playing field, America responds with allegations of THUGS and “Right To Work Laws” that shove democracy out the window.

   Your work is not a play-thing for someone to dole out goodies based on a whim. Workers deserve better than this.