They did it for national security!

Really, that’s why the LSM kept information about a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia out of the news. And they did it for over a year, so the dronez could not be compromised! Had nothing to do at all with that election thing that happened about 4 months ago or so, I am sure….

Meh, why worry? All is fine because even though this killing people would have made them insane if done by anyne else, because it is being done by their golden boy, it is OK. Besides, they did kept this informatiom from us peasants for a real good reason.

Man, I pine for the days where these losers in the LSM told us that waterboarding was on par with the torture done by those that really knew how to torture, and that Boosh should be dragged in front of a tribunal or impeached for it. These days we are using more rendition than they did in the Clinton years and the prez is killing people and claiming that since they where on his super secret list it makes it OK, and these shitbags are all making excuses for him.

Comments are closed.

  1. TxAg94

    Seems like today is the day where everything is deemed unworthy of mention because of its source. Never mind any substance it may have, I’ll go ahead and say it: Guardian story, UK origin, blah blah blah, means nothing, you’re dumb, go back to sleep.

    Thumb up 6

  2. Hal_10000

    Again, not seeing the controversy here. The media has reported the existence of the drone program, it’s use against American citizens and now the use without any kind of external review. As a matter of fact, we’ve blogged about it. I can think of a number of reasons not to reveal the specific location of those drone bases. They kept quiet about information Bush Ii, Clinton, Bush I and reagan wanted to keep quiet about too when it came to military operations.

    Thumb up 0

  3. mrblume

    You say yourself that the left are hypocrites you don’t mind drones as long as their chief is in charge, and the conservatives love drones bases, wherever they are, so keeping any of them secret can have only hurt Obama in the election. Logic ftw.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    You say yourself that the left are hypocrites

    I don’t say that. the left proves it in their actions daily.

    you don’t mind drones as long as their chief is in charge,

    I am assuming the “you” here refers to people on the left? If so, then yes. The left suddenly seem to not mind drone strikes, evn on citizens, Gitmo, no trials for terrorists, rendition, more conflicts everywhere that are not even approved by congress, scandalous deaths of ambassadors like the one in benghazi for polticial expedeincey, dancing on the grave of dead people like you did for bin Laden, troops dying or doing bad things, and so forth, at all, considering how they used to howl in rage when the other guy was in charge. These days they don’t even have the time to pay attention. Or maybe it is more of that hypocrisy in action?

    and the conservatives love drones bases, wherever they are, so keeping any of them secret can have only hurt Obama in the election.

    WTF is this supposed to mean? Was this in English, because it looks like English, but reads like Swahili? I am assuming, and pity me if I got it wrong but I doubt that’s the case, that what you are lamely attempting to do here is set up a stupid stawman, because nothing else makes any sense, to the pretend you knock the arguments I make down, so I am going to go with that.

    I can’t speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself, and I assure you that I neither love drones nor drone bases, and could care less if they are secret bases or not, either. I approve of drones as a military weapons, and even of their use to protect troops or kill people we think we can not capture an interrogate. I have supported Obama’s use of them to kill terrorists considering the alternative, since you leftards do not want to take them alive and get information out of them after you spend years undermining that policy without again coming off as the craven and disgusting political hypocrites you are, is to leave the terrorists be.

    Independent voters however would have seen more of that hypocrisy you want so bad to deny is part & parcel of the left’s psyche if this story had come out, and that is the people that might have been affected not to vote for Obama. I would not be surprised to find out you damn well knew that’whom I was speaking off too, but again, being a hypocritical lefists, that would be par for the course with your kind moogoo. This was not the only story to remain hidden BTW. Benghazi, what is going on in Syria, and a slew of other stories, at the presidential as well as other donkey levels, where all ignored until after the election. Heck, look at how the economy went from being in full recovery up until the first Tuesday in November of last year, to now being in a horrible recession that according to you leftists would mean horrible trouble if government where to scale back their spending.

    Logic ftw.

    Yeah, this strawman erecting and knocking down is what passes for logic with you leftards, and you aren’t even bright enough to see how easy it is to show how obviously wrong and stupid you are, but thanks for giving everyone a chance to come here and see you in action genius.

    Thumb up 5

  5. AlexInCT *

    The media has reported the existence of the drone program, it’s use against American citizens and now the use without any kind of external review. As a matter of fact, we’ve blogged about it

    It’s not the reporting, but the timing of the reporting that’s the story here Hal, but I am not surprised you seem to have failed to grasp that for some inexplicable reason.

    Thumb up 5

  6. stogy
    You say yourself that the left are hypocrites

    I don’t say that. the left proves it in their actions daily.

    I agree with you completely.

    The only thing you left out was that the right are also complete hypocrites who prove it in their actions daily.

    Case in point? Fox News coverage (or lack thereof) of Senator Mourdock’s rape comments last year.

    Hey, wasn’t it also an election year last year?

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *

    I agree with you completely.

    The only thing you left out was that the right are also complete hypocrites who prove it in their actions daily.

    LOL! The they do it too defense? Seriously?

    And even someone as craven as you has to admit that the degree and level of hypocrisy on the left can not be matched by the amateurs on the right. The left has made a fucking art of it. And since they all but control the media and education, you should easily be able to see how much bigger of a problem it is. Well you would if you where honest.

    Case in point? Fox News coverage (or lack thereof) of Senator Mourdock’s rape comments last year.

    Hey, wasn’t it also an election year last year?

    I think you are confusing things. Fox News covered the story quite extensively. They just didn’t make it the only news story and speculated incessantly, exaggerated continuously, and grand standed, all in an effort to connect this idiot to all republicans, like the leftist media did so they could avoid covering real news related to Obama directly. Never mind stories about other scumbag democrats. But, hey pretend that because Fox News doesn’t cover things the way you leftards want it, instead of ignoring stories you don’t like or completely lying about things to cover for your guys like the LSM does all the damned time, that Fox News, and the right, are hypocritical.

    Classic Alinsky from you there Stogy. Nice try, too.

    Thumb up 4

  8. stogy

    LOL! The they do it too defense? Seriously?

    It’s only a defense if I think it somehow mitigates the attack on the left. It doesn’t. I am pointing out that the right is just as bad, and I believe they are. The thing is, I expect the right to behave in smutty and corrupt ways. After all, they are a party that believes that avarice is a moral virtue and a principle around which society should be organized. And after all the crap they pull on family values, it’s only matter of time before someone gets pulled up in an airport mens room with their pants around their ankles, doing the business so to speak.

    But the left? Claiming to represent the common man, the worker, the plebs? Is disgusting, disgraceful and immoral. There is a labor politician in Australia at the moment appearing before a corruption commission (like a grand jury) who appears (allegedly) to have built up a $100,000,000 family empire through cronyism, insider trading, bribery, contract fixing, and outright bullying and manipulation of the party room. Unions are full of it and often run more like protection rackets. This kind of corruption destroys any trust that people are capable of doing better. And it happens way too much.

    Also you might like to remember I am not actually a lefty. I am a centrist.

    I think you are confusing things. Fox News covered the story quite extensively. They just didn’t make it the only news story and speculated incessantly, exaggerated continuously, and grand standed, all in an effort to connect this idiot to all republicans, like the leftist media did so they could avoid covering real news related to Obama directly.

    Yes, and they did so really really really late. The story was already old news by the time they gave it 2 whole minutes (Media Matters has a nice graph here showing the full data on how much coverage it got). The story had legs, was out the door, round the corner, down the pub, blind drunk, face down under the table in the back corner.

    And THEN Fox decided to run it.

    A bit.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT *

    It’s only a defense if I think it somehow mitigates the attack on the left. It doesn’t. I am pointing out that the right is just as bad, and I believe they are.

    That right there proves you are talking out of your ass. Thanks for trying dude. The right looks like little inept children compared to the left at this game, and you know it. That you continue to try, so hard, to make the equivocation they are just as bad, is a sad joke.

    But the left? Claiming to represent the common man, the worker, the plebs? Is disgusting, disgraceful and immoral.

    At least you got that right. They claim to do so, but do nothing of the sort. The sad fact is that the stuff the left does and claims it does to help the common man has caused more harm and misery than anything else anyone else has done. Even when they tried hard to cause misery.

    Before you ask what I am talking about I point you towards the travesties done by communism and fascism, both collectivist progressive movements, in the name of the common man. Billions imprisoned and subjected to misery, indoctrination, and stupidity on a level that has never been matched through written history, hundreds of millions killed, too often by their own governments, so a few elite that knew better could keep the revolution going.

    In more modern times I point to the war on poverty. 6 decades later and over $15 trillion spent just in the US, and with progressives in charge we have more people than ever on the dole, the shittiest economy since the depression of the 1920s, and an unemployment picture that is dismal, getting worse, and all but permanent if the people in charge keep doing what they are doing, but being sold as fine. The list of other problems is long and wide. The people hardest affected are minorities, the poor, and they really naïve and young. And the incredible thing is how obvious it is that it is the very people that keep “pretending” to be helping them that are shafting them the hardest.

    Yes, and they did so really really really late. The story was already old news by the time they gave it 2 whole minutes (Media Matters has a nice graph here showing the full data on how much coverage it got). The story had legs, was out the door, round the corner, down the pub, blind drunk, face down under the table in the back corner.

    And THEN Fox decided to run it.

    LOL,

    What a pile of bullshit. Let me start by pointing out that you are doubling down on the stupid and that what you are doing is nothing more than moving the goal posts, and doing a piss poor job of it. I saw Fox News coverage of this the very same day that the left started making this guy the face of all conservatives. In fact, I brought it up at work with liberals that had not even heard about it yet and where slaves of Clinton News Network and PS-MBC. I find the whole attempt to shift those goal posts, by claiming that since Fox News only gave it less than 3 minutes it counts as Fox News not covering the story, a giant joke as well. Fox reported on what that idiot said, pointed out he was wrong but that some people were dumb enough to believe stupid shit like that, and moved on. Just another politician making an idiot out of themselves. The LSM spend hours and hours on this because they hoped they could influence low value news watchers as part of a well orchestrated attempt to paint all conservatives as evil and stupid, that included hours and hours of wasted time on bullshit that was totally irrelevant like this story, Fine wanting others to pay so she could fuck around, and 47% of people being on the dole, while running away from real stories like the Benghazi scandal, the economy sliding back into a recession, the secret drone program and the killing of US citizens, and many, many more real problems.

    But hey, lets pretend that not covering some dickhead being a dickhead, all so democrats could pretend everyone that would not vote for Obama was stupid and evil in addition to a racist, is the equivalent of ignoring real scandals Stogy. You make my point for me in spades.

    Thumb up 4

  10. AlexInCT *

    You say yourself that the left are hypocrites

    I don’t say that.

    CM, are you try to prove you are dumber than we already suspect you are?

    You seem to think some selective editing, like the left constantly does, makes you clever. That second entry in my post was this:

    I don’t say that. the left proves it in their actions daily.

    You either have a problem with English or logic. I think it is both.

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    No editing done at all Alex. And that next line doesn’t change the meaning of anything.

    You either have a problem with English or logic. I think it is both.

    That’s awesome. I can only assume you did that deliberately as a joke.

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT *

    No editing done at all Alex. And that next line doesn’t change the meaning of anything.

    So it is both a lack of English comprehension and logic on your part. I got it right.

    Thumb up 1

  13. CM

    But you claimed it would be either. Selective as usual huh…..
    You also claimed not to have said the left are hypocrites even though less than 24 hours later you said exactly that. And now you’re just responding with silly personal abuse which makes no sense, instead of copping to it and laughing it off. Weird.

    Thumb up 0

  14. stogy

    Heh! I think actually it’s pretty fair to say that pretty much most people are hypocritical in some way or another. And that we fail to live up to our own beliefs. It’s OK to admit it Alex. Generally, I find that it’s better to steer clear of dogmatic pronouncements (particularly ones about hypocrisy).

    And thanks for the history lesson Alex. There are other histories as well: Colonialism imprisons billions, kills hundreds of millions, The Church (or pretty much any organized religion) affects billions, kills hundreds of millions. Slavery, debt servitude and human trafficking imprisons billions, kills hundreds of millions. Low wages and exploitation imprison billions, kill hundreds of millions… Most of the people doing this over the centuries would probably not self identify as “communist”. In fact slavery was and still is a highly commercial operation driven very much by market forces.

    I doubt most progressives want to go back to the totalitarian state that was Soviet Russia or Maoist China. No more than most Catholics want to return the inquisition.

    And the incredible thing is how obvious it is that it is the very people that keep “pretending” to be helping them that are shafting them the hardest.

    That’s only because the right have turned shafting people into a moral virtue: “Hey, it’s OK if I only pay you a buck fifty an hour. Oh, and no benefits. Market forces, eh? Plenty of other people want your job if you don’t take it”.

    I saw Fox News coverage of this the very same day that the left started making this guy the face of all conservatives.

    Perhaps it was a different Fox News. Nothing on the 24th. 2 minutes on the 25th. Check your own link.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Iconoclast

    That’s only because the right have turned shafting people into a moral virtue: “Hey, it’s OK if I only pay you a buck fifty an hour. Oh, and no benefits. Market forces, eh? Plenty of other people want your job if you don’t take it”.

    If the market truly supports only “a buck fifty an hour” for a given service, and if others are in line to provide that service at that price, then please explain how this represents “shafting”.

    Thumb up 8

  16. Iconoclast

    Heh! I think actually it’s pretty fair to say that pretty much most people are hypocritical in some way or another.

    Heh! Moral Relativism. Where would the Left be without it??

    Thumb up 6

  17. stogy

    If the market truly supports only “a buck fifty an hour” for a given service, and if others are in line to provide that service at that price, then please explain how this represents “shafting”.

    See?

    Thumb up 0

  18. Mook

    I am pointing out that the right is just as bad, and I believe they are

    Yet your evidence of such a claim is completely lacking. That you would cite a far-left, often discredited Soros-funded site like media matters makes it clear that you are not the centrist that you pretend/claim to be. That’s not to say that everything mm writes is false, even though much of it is false, or twisted to an extreme. For example, if you accept their claim of “3 minutes” of news coverage over Mourdock’s rape comments (which were overblown by other media outlets in a desperate attempt to link him with Romney), that “3 minutes” summary ignores the repeated mention and discussions of Mourdock’s comments on the widely watched O’Reilly factor and Hannity shows (and other Fox shows?).

    Contrast Fox’s alleged undercoverage of comments by Mourdock which is child’s play compared to the MSM lack of coverage of Operation Fast & Furious, a FAR more important issue of abuse and killings. ABC and NBC didn’t even broadcast Congressional hearings on F & F.. very little MSM coverage on Fast & Furious relative to, say, their coverage of Mourdock’s comments.

    And compare Mourdock’s comments to VP Biden telling a black audience that Republicans want to put them “back in chains”. MSM coverage of those unbelievable comments from Biden quickly buried them under the rug, unlike their hyper-caffeinated coverage of Mourdock..

    Again, no comparison. You can’t say “both sides are equally guilty” when one side is in fact far, far worse with the MSM, on average, so deep in the tank for Obama and the Dems in their “news” coverage that they’re willing to bury or minimize a scandal as severe as Fast & Furious, while largely ignoring Obama’s ‘enemy of the state’ assassinations of American citizens without due process. Be honest, you know that not in a million years would the eeevil Bush have had any such free pass. The bias to the left is to an extreme.

    You may be too ignorant to know that Fox News’ ascendancy was a direct result of MSM willful avoidance of honest reporting, starting with the Chandra Levy murder and her romance with Democrat congressman Gary condit. Because Condit was a good Democrat CBS news boycotted the story for two entire months while Fox had been reporting updates regularly.. not unlike MSM’s coverage of Fast & Furious today.

    It’s unbelievable that the fact that a missing intern (later discovered murdered) had an affair with a sitting Congressman would not be considered newsworthy, but that was the depths that the MSM was, and is still willing to stoop, in order to cover for team Dem. Remember in the runup to the war in Iraq that CNN kept a news bureau office open in Baghdad by agreeing to let Saddam Hussein approve what they did and didn’t report on. In other words, CNN was perfectly willing to let Saddam Hussein dictate their news coverage in Iraq.. Is there anything in Fox News history which can remotely compare with THAT?? of course not, and you damn well know it.

    Thumb up 3

  19. Iconoclast

    See?

    Yep, I see a whole lot of nothing, just as I expected. Just because you personally don’t like somthing, that doesn’t mean it’s an example of “shafting”, and it doesn’t mean it’s “immoral”. It only means you have a personal problem with it, which is utterly incosequential.

    Thumb up 7

  20. Fangbeer

    See?

    No, I don’t see.

    What is the minimum anyone should pay in trade for any given service or product? If trade can be controlled this way, why not set the minimum to a billion dollars so that we can all live in mansions?

    Thumb up 5

  21. stogy

    Yep, I see a whole lot of nothing, just as I expected. Just because you personally don’t like somthing, that doesn’t mean it’s an example of “shafting”, and it doesn’t mean it’s “immoral”. It only means you have a personal problem with it, which is utterly incosequential.

    Paying someone a wage which forces them to live in poverty and sickness is immoral and indefensible.

    Tell me that if your kid graduated from college and that’s all s/he could get you would tell him what I quoted above: “Hey, it’s OK if you only get a buck fifty an hour. Oh, and no benefits. Market forces, eh? Plenty of other people want your job if you don’t take it”.

    You would really say that to him or her?

    Thumb up 1

  22. stogy

    Is there anything in Fox News history which can remotely compare with THAT?? of course not, and you damn well know it.

    Well, WMDs?

    Even years later, Fox viewers still believed that vast quantities of WMDs had been found in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein had aided Al Qaeda in its attacks on the US.

    OK. Let’s try another one. How about Fox News completely ignoring the huge hurricane Sandy cleanup, focusing instead on beating up the Benghazi scandal in the days before the election.

    And it works both ways – they completely ignored Ron Paul in the 2012 election, despite him winning a post debate poll. They actually pulled the entire poll rather than let other candidates look like they lost. And then they had a whole show discussing media bias in the 2012 election without mentioning Ron Paul once.

    Or how about the fact that the story on old Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has been illegally hacking phones in the UK, and quite probably the US as well. That was a pretty big story. Didn’t get a lot of coverage on daddy’s network though, did it?

    And don’t even get me started on climate change.

    Truth is this: “”It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.” This is from a Fox News staffer.

    Here’s a little more on that:

    “They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source.

    But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.

    “You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”

    Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs.

    But anything-anything–that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it.

    There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.

    The source recalls how Fox News changed over time: When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.

    For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.

    And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece. It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous.

    Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.

    Thumb up 1

  23. Fangbeer

    You would really say that to him or her?

    Find me a college graduate that can only earn $1.50 from what they learned and I’ll show you a college that shafted that kid out of a useful education. That kid you’re talking about made it through college and is clearly not productive, and their skill is not at all valued. You can’t force consumers to value something that they don’t value.

    If it were my kid, tell them, “The salary you make is based on the choices you make. No one forced you to master in ancient Samoan traditional marriage dances. You picked the wrong line of work this time. Better pick something else.”

    Thumb up 3

  24. stogy

    What is the minimum anyone should pay in trade for any given service or product? If trade can be controlled this way, why not set the minimum to a billion dollars so that we can all live in mansions?

    The minimum for anyone willing to actually work should be a liveable wage (say a little above the poverty line – but this will always depend on the country or the region). But not so much as to deprive people of the desire to improve themselves or remove incentive. That’s where the best possible social good lies. Societies which have either very low or very high levels of inequality provide almost no incentive to innovate or improve (why work when it won’t materially change your situation?).

    So no, your billion dollars doesn’t hold. But I’ll have it if you aren’t doing anything useful with it.

    Thumb up 0

  25. stogy

    Find me a college graduate that can only earn $1.50 from what they learned and I’ll show you a college that shafted that kid out of a useful education.

    I chose an extreme example, but a similar thing actually occurred while I was living in London. Student was paid a pound for five hours work at Burger King. The local franchiser only clocked him in when things got busy and clocked him out when it was quiet. Thing was, he hadn’t done anything illegal as I recall at the time. How is that moral?

    Or take Japan, where Chinese workers are brought over on special training visas and exploited horrendously, given no time off and forced to live in communal housing in very unsanitary conditions. Often they are put on the plane at the end having received little of what they are owed and no practical training whatsoever. The visa means that basic minimum wages in Japan can be ignored allowing for all kinds of abuses. Some of the workers were even beaten for their asking for time off, or their passport back, or wanting to visit terminally ill relatives. That fit into your moral universe as an example of stellar behavior?

    Much of the time, workers can negotiate for their labor at reasonable rates. But unless there is a floor to negotiate from, people end up getting screwed when they are desperate. Arguing that this is fair is immoral.

    Thumb up 1

  26. Fangbeer

    The minimum for anyone willing to actually work should be a liveable wage (say a little above the poverty line – but this will always depend on the country or the region). But not so much as to deprive people of the desire to improve themselves or remove incentive. That’s where the best possible social good lies. Societies which have either very low or very high levels of inequality provide almost no incentive to innovate or improve (why work when it won’t materially change your situation?).

    You missed the point of the question. You can’t engineer the minimum amount that something is valued.

    Think about your premise. Your minimum livable wage is invariably based on the individual’s theoretical ability to purchase needed products and services. Let’s forget about the rather conceited premise that you can determine what someone needs for a moment and accept that you can calculate exactly how much someone needs to earn in order to live based on what products and services cost at any given point in time. Someone has to produce those things too, right? Do they get the same livable wage increase? Doesn’t that raise the cost to produce those products? Doesn’t that raise the amount someone needs to earn in order to purchase those products?

    Of course it does. The premise doesn’t work at a billion dollars, and it doesn’t work at $10.00. You can’t mandate a minimum amount that other people are willing to pay for a product or service. Either people simply won’t purchase the product, or they’ll buy it at the reduced amount anyway.

    Thumb up 4

  27. stogy

    No one forced you to master in ancient Samoan traditional marriage dances.

    Actually for a long time, anthropologists and ethnomusicologists were recruited by the CIA to provide advice on local cultures and embed there where necessary. Anthropological studies have the advantage of taking a looooooooong time and can help manage (or manipulate?) local cultures. Of course, not all anthropologists were really up to running covert ops.

    Perhaps ancient Samoan traditional marriage dances wasn’t such a bad career choice for young Jeremy after all.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Fangbeer

    The local franchiser only clocked him in when things got busy and clocked him out when it was quiet. Thing was, he hadn’t done anything illegal as I recall at the time. How is that moral?

    How is it moral to force someone to pay for a service they don’t want, need, or aren’t even getting?

    Thumb up 5

  29. Iconoclast

    Paying someone a wage which forces them to live in poverty and sickness is immoral and indefensible.

    You’re moving the goal posts by equating “a buck fifty an hour” to “poverty and sickness”, which was not originally stipulated. Depending on the context of the situation, a dollar fifty an hour can elevate someone out of poverty, and in another context, several times that amount could still keep them in poverty. In addition, one has to examine the local economy and market — there are many variables that you are simply glossing over in your zeal to condemn free market wages. You simply dropped your “buck fifty” figure into a vacuum, and now you’re trying to attach contrived conditions, which, again, is an example of moving the goal posts.

    What service is being demanded for only $1.50/hour? Is it skilled or unskilled labor? Manual labor or mental labor? What does $1.50/hour actually represent? What do competing services demand in terms of wages? If a month’s rent costs fifty bucks, then that represents slightly more than four days’ wages, which means there are three weeks worth of cash to spend on food, clothing, and so forth.

    By simply stipulating $1.50 an hour in a vacuum, and then subsequently equating that to “poverty and sickness”, you are simply setting up a contrived hypothetical, which means nothing.

    Tell me that if your kid graduated from college and that’s all s/he could get you would tell him what I quoted above: “Hey, it’s OK if you only get a buck fifty an hour. Oh, and no benefits. Market forces, eh? Plenty of other people want your job if you don’t take it”.

    And the contrived hypotheticals continue ad absurdum…

    Seriously, if we are talking about a current, western capitalist economy, and if we’re talking about a college graduate, and if all this hapless graduate could garner is $1.50 an hour for his skill set, then there is obviously something terribly wrong, and it’s most likely with the hapless graduate. I mean, be real, if you can manage. If a college graduate cannot find decent work at a decent wage, then yes, the first thing I would look at is what the graduate studied. If it was something like Eastern Philosophy or Ancient Greek Literature, then I would ask point-blank, “What did you expect?”

    Even at that, if this guy is willing to work hard and get his hands dirty, I suspect that there is work out there that provides more than $1.50/hour. We do have minimum-wage laws, after all. He could work at a fast-food restaurant. Or become a barista at a local Starbuck’s, where he could conceivably hang out with fellow travelers…

    Thumb up 5

  30. Fangbeer

    Perhaps ancient Samoan traditional marriage dances wasn’t such a bad career choice for young Jeremy after all.

    If you think you can make money with your knowledge of traditional marriage dances, good for you. I’d be willing to bet that the demand is pretty low for such a choice. I hope no one else reads this and decides to do it for less than you.

    Thumb up 3

  31. Fangbeer

    The current, past and future minimum wage will always be 0, as in unemployed.

    Any attempts to mandate anything different will always be met with an increase in the number of people at the minimum wage of 0.

    Thumb up 4

  32. stogy

    Let’s forget about the rather conceited premise that you can determine what someone needs for a moment and accept that you can calculate exactly how much someone needs to earn in order to live based on what products and services cost at any given point in time. Someone has to produce those things too, right? Do they get the same livable wage increase? Doesn’t that raise the cost to produce those products? Doesn’t that raise the amount someone needs to earn in order to purchase those products?

    There is so much wrong with this that I am not sure where to start. I need to go to bed. And damn it, This is just starting to get interesting.

    You are arguing that supply and demand rules are the only things that apply. However, they are not. They are only actually at a point which could be defined as “moral” within a certain level equilibrium – where demand and supply intersect. The reason why this results in immoral states is that it treats human lives only as a commodity, whereas basic survival dictates that human beings should not be left to their fate once demand falls below a liveable wage. What happens to the people who are pretty much surplus to global capitalism, not because of choice, but because they were born into it? If you are arguing that hunger and disease are a natural and fair outcome of the global economic system then you are arguing for a system which cannot be in any way be considered moral.

    And there are an enormous range of other factors at play that extend well beyond supply and demand. Have a look at a quite nice critique by Anyadike-Danes and Godley. There is also a ton of evidence countering the notion that minimum wages result in lower employment – and at times, employment rates have risen as a result (see for example, Card and Kreuger, 1995). However most studies have found a small negative effect on employment, but it is statistically insignificant.

    And what about monopsonic competition – which is essentially the exact opposite of the minimum wage, with collusion between employers to drive down wages?

    Thumb up 1

  33. stogy

    You’re moving the goal posts by equating “a buck fifty an hour” to “poverty and sickness”, which was not originally stipulated.

    Actually my original argument was that the right believe that avarice is a moral virtue. My example was that paying wages of a buck fifty an hour and saying that was right is an example of this. There is a pretty good chance that a person earning a buck fifty an hour is going to end up sick pretty soon – whether from stress, no heating and/crap diet.

    By simply stipulating $1.50 an hour in a vacuum, and then subsequently equating that to “poverty and sickness”, you are simply setting up a contrived hypothetical, which means nothing.

    That’s a fair point.

    Seriously, if we are talking about a current, western capitalist economy, and if we’re talking about a college graduate, and if all this hapless graduate could garner is $1.50 an hour for his skill set, then there is obviously something terribly wrong, and it’s most likely with the hapless graduate.

    Actually the example isn’t so ridiculous. There are tons of kids in Spain and Greece with college educations and nothing to do with their skill sets. So yes, what happens when things go terribly wrong, and the bottom drops out of the economy? You blame people for their individual choices then?

    We do have minimum-wage laws, after all.

    Right, that’s true. But do you consider them to be immoral? I would hazard a guess that a fair few here do.

    Thumb up 1

  34. AlexInCT *

    Well, WMDs?

    Even years later, Fox viewers still believed that vast quantities of WMDs had been found in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein had aided Al Qaeda in its attacks on the US.

    Oh, but how stupid do the people that take the revisionist history as fact make themselves out to be.

    Stogy, the fact is that until it became convenient for the left to pretend otherwise everyone – let me say that loud and clear EVERYONE – believed Saddam had WMDs. Every intelligence agency on the planet, including the KGB, MSS, MI6, DGSE, Mossad, ASIO, BND, AISE, IAS, along with our CIA all believed Saddam had WMDs. So did the democrats pretending these days that they knew better. Go look at what Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, and many of the ones pretending like they knew that Saddam had deactivated and hid his WMD programs and that there where no WMDs to worry about today, said back before we went there and found out Saddam had fooled even his own people.

    What we found in Iraq and everyone that was not a leftard pointed out was that Saddam’s programs where intact and ready to be restarted and the WMDs where likely moved elsewhere. Since you seem to suffer from convenient memory lapses, I will remind you that the French and Russians where actively lobbying the UN to remove Iraqi sanctions so Saddam could export oil, pay them the money he owned, and yes, buy a ton of stuff to get his WMD programs up & running again. In fact,. Saddam did not back down and caused us to have the war in 1991 because the fucking French and Russians promised him they would block anything in the UN and keep him from the very thing that came his way.

    You keep digging your stupid hole there Stogy. I am amusing myself.

    Thumb up 2

  35. AlexInCT *

    Find me a college graduate that can only earn $1.50 from what they learned and I’ll show you a college that shafted that kid out of a useful education. That kid you’re talking about made it through college and is clearly not productive, and their skill is not at all valued. You can’t force consumers to value something that they don’t value.

    Fangbeer, that in essence is where collectivism fails: the pretense that all work is equal and should be paid as if it was of value regardless. The doctor and the turd polisher should both be paid a living wage because they work! Fucking idiotic.

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT *
    We do have minimum-wage laws, after all.

    Right, that’s true. But do you consider them to be immoral?

    I certainly do. When they go up, they go up so the donkeys can help their union buddies. In the mean time entry level jobs evaporate, and the people that need them the most, the young kids looking to make some money and get work experience, can’t get any.

    My son spent this past summer without work, because unless you where a relative or a hot chick in the case of one pervert hiring at his diner, there were no entry level jobs to be had. He was not alone. 8 out of 10 parents I talked to said the same. The ones with working kids had them working for them or their relatives. Now CT wants to jack up the minimum wage again. Wooptydoo.

    The minimum wage itself might not be immoral, but the people pushing it sure are. They know damned well nobody is raising a family on a minimum wage as they try to pretend to get support, and those that are smart enough to know better know that they jack it up to help unions with contracts tied to minimum wage to increase pay for people that are already overpaid for the work they do in too many cases.

    But you can keep pretending the minimum wage is a good thing and meant to do good Stogy. Like everything else the left has stuck us with to do good, it is a vehicle to hide otherwise dispicable behavior behind and to profit the same group of masters, and the forseen or unforseen consequences always do far more harm than the thing does any good.

    Thumb up 1

  37. CM

    We do have minimum-wage laws, after all.

    But do you consider them to be immoral?

    Alex:

    I certainly do.

    Alex:

    The minimum wage itself might not be immoral….

    So it’s both immoral and not immoral? Is that like how the left are hypocrites and also not hypocrites, and how I either have a problem with English or logic, and also both?

    Thumb up 0

  38. AlexInCT *

    Heh the economist. Don’t those idiots still pretend Keynesian economics work and that GB has instituted austerity programs?

    Anyway CM, I can play that game too, and do it better:

    Minimum wages hurt the working poor disproportionally.

    Why do we place so much emphasis on the minimum wage? I particularly loved this passage:

    The anti-economic way of thinking sees the minimum wage as a policy whereby those endowed with Goodness and Mercy redistribute possibly ill-gotten wealth from the rich to the poor and protect the weak from exploitation. According to this view, the only reasons to oppose the minimum wage are ideology and sheer meanness. Just as the only reason someone could possibly oppose a war is because he or she hates America, the only reason someone could possibly oppose the minimum wage is that he or she hates poor people. Or so some might think.

    We can get in a link war, but I think I made my point.

    Thumb up 0

  39. AlexInCT *

    So it’s both immoral and not immoral? Is that like how the left are hypocrites and also not hypocrites, and how I either have a problem with English or logic, and also both?

    Selective cutting & pasting again CM? Fuck you are sad dude. I am not even going to bother.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    Heh the economist. Don’t those idiots still pretend Keynesian economics work and that GB has instituted austerity programs?

    No idea. How is that relevant to the link?

    Anyway CM, I can play that game too, and do it better:

    You can use highly biased sources better?
    Uh, ok Alex.

    We can get in a link war, but I think I made my point.

    Yes, you’re a complete ideologue who rails against…..ideology.

    Selective cutting & pasting again CM? Fuck you are sad dude. I am not even going to bother.

    “Selective cutting & pasting” implies I altered a meaning. I did not. If you disagree then again I challenge you to explain how. Or, you can keep taking the Poosh route – bitching and moaning and making accusations but never backing them up.

    Anyway, I’m still looking for the answer of how an economy can be sustainable with growing inequality. If the majority of the population keeps experiencing a loss in real wages, how does the economy function other than by relying on an unsustainable increasing mountain of debt?

    Personally I favour a minimum wage for the country I live in. From my perspective, it’s a positive, even if it distorts the labour market. But then I’m not an ideologue, I’m much more interested in overall results and reality than imposing pure economic theory for the sake of it. Yes, I know, that makes me mentally retarded. So be it, I’ll be mentally retarded then.

    Thumb up 1

  41. Iconoclast

    Actually my original argument was that the right believe that avarice is a moral virtue. My example was that paying wages of a buck fifty an hour and saying that was right is an example of this.

    But the point you seem unwilling to grasp is that your “example” is simply unfounded, making your entire claim unfounded. You seem to be forgetting my original challenge (emphasis added):

    f the market truly supports only “a buck fifty an hour” for a given service, and if others are in line to provide that service at that price, then please explain how this represents “shafting”.

    You have utterly failed to provide a cogent explanation. All of your arguing thus far has been all over the map, implicitly claiming that the market can afford much more than $1.50/hour, but somehow, evil right-wingers are conspiring to keep the wage artificially low, and are then claiming that to be “morally virtuous” to boot. Such an “argument” is, again, simply absurd.

    There is a pretty good chance that a person earning a buck fifty an hour is going to end up sick pretty soon – whether from stress, no heating and/crap diet.

    Again, it depends. If we’re talking about a third-world country with a barely-existing economy, someone making the equivalent of $1.50/hour might be doing very well for himself. If we’re talking about a modern, western society, then again, $1.50/hour is simply contrived, unrealistic nonsense.

    Actually the example isn’t so ridiculous. There are tons of kids in Spain and Greece with college educations and nothing to do with their skill sets. So yes, what happens when things go terribly wrong, and the bottom drops out of the economy?

    If “the bottom drops out of the economy”, then that would affect job providers as well as job seekers, another point you seem to be forgetting. If “the bottom drops out of the economy”, then perhaps the market could truly bear only $1.50/hour for a given service. If that’s the case, then obviously, nobody is getting “shafted”, which was your original, utterly unfounded claim.

    It’s either that or everybody is getting “shafted”, more or less equally.

    You blame people for their individual choices then?

    Who should I blame? Individual choices are, presumably, made by the individual, yes? And again, if “the bottom drops out of the economy”, I can still blame them if they majored in something totally unmarketable even in the best of times. Those who procured marketable skills should still be able to find work, even if at a cut-rate salary. Or find some kind of work outside their field, if necessary. But again, it’s highly unlikely that they would have to settle for the equivalent of US $1.50/hour. And again, if it turned out that they did have to settle for that, it would simply indicate that such was all the market could bear. “Shafting” wouldn’t enter into it at all, unless again we could agree that everyone was being “shafted”.

    Thumb up 6

  42. Fangbeer

    You are arguing that supply and demand rules are the only things that apply.

    No, I’m simply arguing that they apply. You cannot mandate a minimum amount that someone is willing to pay for something. That goes for any product or service, including labor. The real minimum is always 0. I’m not arguing about an ideal. I’m arguing about what the ideal has to overcome. If you want to establish a system that meets your moral demands, you have to find some other solution.

    You also have to properly identify the problem. The problem isn’t with paying people a fair wage. Anyone can decide for themselves whether their wage is fair. Fairness does not need to be, nor can it be legislated. Everyone has a different concept of fair so they need the ability to choose on their own. And that’s really the greatest moral value. People need to have the free will to make choices on their own. They need to take responsibility for those choices, and accept the consequences of those choices – good or bad.

    The problem you’re trying to solve is how to provide for people who are not productive. It’s not a one step solution. There are people who don’t have the capacity to be productive, and there are myriad solutions to that problem that allow people to make free choices.

    The progressive way of handling things is not working. It hasn’t worked because it requires a denial of the forces that prevent it from working. You can’t deny the way the market works in order to make it work the way you want it to. It’s time to find a different solution to the problem.

    Thumb up 3

  43. AlexInCT *

    Yes, you’re a complete ideologue who rails against…..ideology.

    Actually CM unlike you and other leftists, I do not pretend to be a centrists, moderate, or something else, and then when I talk come accross as left of Marx and Hitler. I make no compunction about what I believe in, up front. And I am relishing history proving what I believe to be right as your leftists ideas are tearing the western world to pieces..

    Thumb up 0

  44. CM

    The problem you’re trying to solve is how to provide for people who are not productive.

    I don’t think so at all. I think the problem is the number of jobs that don’t pay sufficient for people to live without constantly being concerned about poverty. The “not productive” problem is another problem entirely (but often seems to be conflated, presumably for obvious reasons). And the standard “just work harder and you’ll be rewarded” doesn’t cut it, because the vast majoirty of the population has suffered real wage losses for the last few decades (through the periods of high unemployment).

    Fairness does not need to be, nor can it be legislated.

    I completely agree. However, why shouldn’t a society attempt to structure itself so that if functions more sustainably? The economy is much much stronger when income inequality is lower, because 70% of the economy is consumerism. We can set aside ‘fairness’ as a reason. It doesn’t have to be relevant.

    The progressive way of handling things is not working. It hasn’t worked because it requires a denial of the forces that prevent it from working. You can’t deny the way the market works in order to make it work the way you want it to.

    I agree, it’s ludicrous to deny how the market works. But I’d also suggest it’s equally ludicrous to allow the market, and all it’s failings, to stand as some sort of religious doctrine.

    It’s time to find a different solution to the problem.

    Nobody seems to have come up with anything else, other than via vague ideological magic.(“Communism/capitalism didn’t fail, it just hasn’t been applied properly”)

    Actually CM unlike you and other leftists, I do not pretend to be a centrists, moderate, or something else,

    See your whole schtik is so hopeless that it relies on pretending people are constantly lying to you. That’s the universe you’ve constructed around yourself to insulate and justify your nonsense.
    Unfortunately, as evidenced throughout this blog, only one of us froths at the mouth and engages in hyperbole after hyperbole at any given opportunity, and relies on making shit up, and endless accusations and insinuations.

    and then when I talk come accross as left of Marx and Hitler.

    And yet I’ve never posted anything to the left of Marx of Hitler. You just can’t help yourself with the hyperbole. And when you’re asked to justify/support this sort of nonsense, of course you never can, you simply replace it with more equally ridiculous silliness (“selective cutting and pasting”).

    I make no compunction about what I believe in, up front.

    Indeed. You’re very clearly a right-wing ideologue (there is no doubt with you, which is the hallmark of an ideologue). There is no doubt about it. It’s all there in cyber-ink.

    And I am relishing history proving what I believe to be right as your leftists ideas are tearing the western world to pieces..

    Right. Everything you see, hear, and read, proves your ideology to be correct. Which is another hallmark of an ideologue. They master the art of being able to interpret every single thing to fit their ideology and worldview. After a while they’re so blind that they don’t notice how silly their attempt to jam square boxes into round holes is. They don’t notice how they increasingly rely on conspiracy theory and accusations and insinuations and how they’ve narrowed their source-list right down to being people who adhere to exactly the same world-view/ideology. And you also stop seeing any continuum of thought/belief/ideas. It’s all binary to you. Which is why I’m apparently a big fan of Stalin etc etc.

    Thumb up 0