My FCC comment.

 In light of net neutrality (I.E. Comcast F*cking the Internet), I conntected the FCC and commented thus:

"Simply put, the telecoms, all of which are thinly-veiled actual monopolies, cannot be trusted with the Internet. They use strong arm tactics and bullying, both on providers like Netflix, and on customers attempting to extricate them from the service. In no way can we trust them to ensure the fast lane/slow lane service will be priced fairly.

Our Internet lags behind many other countries, only because the monopolies - sorry - telecoms do not want to provide better service. They want to profit, and ignobly. "Get the mostest and offer the leastest." It would be comical if it weren't so true.

When we came to this country, a man or woman could make good in this country by simply carving out a part of the public land. The Internet is the new frontier, and technology the way to freedom. My giving this power to the telecomonopolies, you are denying the will to prosper of the United States.  New blogs, new stores, new industry using the logistics and the easy messaging of the Internet to make money, for themselves and for the government.

How many Internet business will we lose because access is only by slow lane? How many subscribers will quit Netflix and use libraries to get movies? The unintended costs of letting telecomonopolies introduce lanes will be staggering as it deincentivizes Internet use and Internet commerce. Economically it will be a disaster. Does that matter to you? the GDP used to matter, does it anymore? What happened to being a country of producers?

The media is woefully inadequate and untrustworthy. Pictures of George Zimmerman were lightened. His 911 call, manipulated. An informed public cannot trust television and radio sources.  Several news agencies have outright said they are biased, and one even won a lawsuit, claiming they didn't even have to tell truth. But on the Internet, where information is free, the truth can be found. And even if it requires digging through stacks of useless cat pictures and diatribes, I do it gladly to find out facts - something other media outlets often lacks.

By giving in to the telecomonopolies, you are taking steps to ensure that we cannot find any truth but the one most well liked by the corporations. What's next, a firewall to prevent us from knowing things outside Oceania? That would certainly prevent the spread of crimethink.

If an appeal to your nobler capitalist side side does not dissuade you, let me then try your more ignoble, despotic side.

Fast, inexpensive Internet is literally circuses. Imagine, if you will, a society of people who have access to cat pictures all day. With the incredible amount of slacktivism today, don't you think it would be wise to let people speak out on the Internet. They will spend their time lamenting with Facebook E-cards and never be so idle as to pick up protest placard and brick.

Open up the internet, and we will immerse ourselves in hedonistic voyeurism, and leave you alone. Close it down, and our idle hands will have to find something to do. Maybe rallying against a corrupt government is just the thing to get us off our Netflix-deprived couch-sitting asses."

I am not a lawyer, my language may be colloquial - I am a blogger and would-be demagogue. But if enough us remind them that the internet is useful, as a tool of information for us, or, at the very least, an easy leash for our masters - they may realize what a terrible idea Comcasts lanes will be.

Go here:  http://www.fcc.gov/comments and comment on 14-28

Give Me Cannoli's or Give Me Death! (More Obstacles)

Note: Make sure to check out out changes page to learn what's new


I posted in my profile the following quote, which I think appropriate to the direction this blog is heading. It's important to make it clear:

“Liberty, to define it, is nothing other than the absence of impediments to motion” - Thomas Hobbes

He is rapidly becoming my favorite political and economic thinker. Again.

Anyway, let's continue showing the regulatory nightmare that impedes liberty and wealth. If you haven't, start with part one here.

I love the idea of micro-businesses. Let's say you have a great recipe to share with people. Wouldn't it be great to have a kitchen that actually meets FDA and Health Code standards so you could sell your product?
This woman thought so.  I noted, with ever increasing frustration, that Chicago disagreed. I don't even understand. Cooking, as an art or craft, is truly available to everyone.  Cooking is easy - don't get me wrong, being a chef is not. But a single recipe, perfected, is one of the fastest ways to provide a service and gain wealth. It ranks with programming as a way to go from poverty to reasonable wealth, and a career,  expediently.  It's hard work, but it didn't require a costly education to bake a few types of cookies and sell them.  What story of a chef doesn't start with a recipe learned from a grandparent?

Zina Murray wanted to remove an obstacle to wealth for individuals in poverty. With a much smaller start up cost, her clients could build and row a business.

They were closed down, and have re-opened. I couldn't find a Brick and mortar location.  They are focusing on helping people work through the system's sizable amount of paperwork, even as that system closed their business.They teach food safety as well.

Minnesota seems to agree that baked goods need not be made in an FDA kitchen. But "Cottage Food" laws
prevent most in-home bakers from expanding. After a certain amount of profit, you become a bakery, and are suddenly subject to FDA regulations. And recently - very recently, the Second District court dismissed the suit against the law.

I realize we need to have healthy food standards. There are people, who, in attempt to make a quick buck or shave down margins, will ignore customer health. However, I believe these people are becoming fewer in number, and in ignoring quality, will lose money.

Perhaps Zina Murray should open her Logan Square Kitchen in St. Paul.

Let's say that in order to save money, you want a garden. Now that's something we can't have. Now I have no problem with agricultural science, or even GMOs - they are reducing famine and hunger. I do have a problem when local government tells people they can't grow vegetables - healthy, life-sustaining vegetables, on their property. You know, property they purchased and paid taxes on?
What's more, small scale production will help in areas that generally don't have grocery access. It cuts down on food costs and increases sustainability. Small-scale food growing is not for the wealthy or the suburbs. It has a beneficial impact on urban areas. I'm no environmentalist hippy, but when you can save money, increase property values, and help the environment, and feed people - I call that a win-win...win...win.

Now, this is an attempt to keep Miami Shores "character."  I might suggest Hermine and Tom sell their home to a Stepford wife. Because apparently "character" means "bland mediocrity" in Miami Shores.

I have seen, first hand, what a garden can do for an area. Compare my what I drive past nearly every day, to a drive I take about once a month. I'll take a garden, any day of the week.

It's this foolish madness - byzantine and Kafka-esque ordinances. You can put ugly flamingo's and fruit in your front yard, but not zucchini. The orange and the strawberry and the hideous garden gnome is permitted, but WOE, WOE unto the CARROT.

I say blow their minds: Plant a Tomato!


This is only part two. We have more idiocy at local levels. I am reminded of person who get upset when you decide that you don't want to see the movie they want to see. Instead of going alone, they cajole, coerce and restrict you. It's childish in the extreme.

Part three we will discuss when the government fixes prices by making things more expensive.

The Paradox of Wages (Walmart and Middle Class)

Hello, Friends!

I promised that I would write more polemics in the vernacular to which I am accustomed . Currently my job at The Mineshaft has me on an incredibly tight schedule. So expect at least one post a week.

Last week  I posted a maudlin mopey post. Don't read it, kiddos. I reeled on painkillers and bad training. My hands slapped, my ego bruised, and my morale spinning in the can from training. Made more in tips than my bitch of a trainer. That may be why she was so pissy.

I read this post the other day about raising the minimum wage. The argument from both sides can be summed up thus (Paraphrase):

Pro-wage-hike: More disposable income means more money to spend and more money through the sluices!
Anti-wage-hike: Suck my fat capitalist dick.

OK, that's not actually how the conversation goes. The wage hike supporters (towards which I lean) basically lean on one argument with two premises. More money in the hands of the average spender means more money over all, and it won't cost that much to raise wages.

This is common sense - a man (or woman) can only enjoy so many yachts, have so many parties, and so many "escorts". Eventually the amount they can spend dries up. Mostly   Jesus. How many zeros?*

This is true of the commoner too. I can only spend so much on blow before I have to slow down, take a pill (a different pill) chillax and let my heart rate get below 200.

But, I need to point out, there are a lot more of us, the commoner, than them, the wealthy. And those parties may benefit a few people. Maybe they have a hundred or a thousand servants, but that money doesn't go through he sluices as nicely as giving everybody working for large corporations a fat check.

I am not completely on board with government mandated wage increases. I am a friendly anarcho-moderate, and while the government has done some good things, a cumbersome juggernaut is she. So I am always cautious with regards to it's movements. But what else can we do? The corporations will be dickbags. Not even good business men, but actual shortsighted cuntnuggets.

I hate when we have to make laws to protect people from Dickbags, but see below.

Anti-wagers contend that this will cause businesses to offer less jobs, and fire people and generally continue to fuck up the economy like giant dickbags.  Truth is that most of the huge corporations could probably handled the loss in income. It's not that much. Sell a yacht or two.

This PDF happily explains what would happen with an increase to $12 an hour. Dick-all, really. Big corporations like Walmart and Target would not feel much of a pinch, nor would the consumer.
If wages increased 6 grand a year, but costs go up 1500 smackers similarly, that means the average consumer makes out to the tune of $4500 dollars a year.

Not too shabby. And according to these leftist folks there will be no affects on business. They also suggest rose-colored glasses, because they seem to forget the rule of business 101*.

BUT, my dear readers, this is all from progressive (pinko-commie) writers. Surely the conservative view can give us the "fair and balanced" style you expect from me.  So I did some research.

They say: Fuck you, worker. Dance for your dimes!
The third article above discusses it.
Some fuckwit named Mark Wilson  says that "fringe benefits" might be curtailed by a raised wage.

To him I ask: "What "fringe benefits?" Like, what benefits would be taken from someone? Insurance? Not fringe. Half-off burgers? Not a big deal for my last job. And most box stores don't give you that much of a discount.

Let's say Walmart gives you 10% off your own purchases. In order for you to make out the same as a wage hike (that hypothetical 4500 bucks) you'd need to spend 45 thousand dollars there in a year (while making, for those bad at math, an average wage of 15-20 grand a year). . At the Mineshaft I'd have to eat there for 1500 meals a year.

No wonder poor people have bad credit and are obese. Look how we have to spend and eat to take advantage of our fringe benefits.

Yeah, OK. keep your 25 dollar gas cards at Christmas, you petty jizzstains, I'll take the raise, thank you very much.

Math, Mr. Wilson. Either you do math or you fucking don't.**
I mean, are you fucking serious?

I can almost  -almost see the argument that Smaller businesses may have to fire employees. Well, most of them pay a little better than minimum, and can be more choosy. I agree that a higher wage will make better employees think about taking the job. God knows that some of my employers could have done better picking anyone else and paying them more.

Regarding the argument that these are "not meant to sustain a living wage." Newsflash, dickweasel, they are.  I never planned to be a cuss-spitting gonzo commentator, but there you fucking go. I never wanted to be on the side of more laws. I am. They are. The middle class isn't moving up. Old folks are staying in their jobs longer. So where's a poor dickhead kid gonna go?

Nowhere. We are going nowhere.

And finally, let's look at the free market. "Let the free market handle wages." Yeah. Let's Fucking Do That. Except that it's cheaper to buy a politician than produce a better product. Can't compete? Have Uncle Sam wag their finger at your opponent.

And don't get me started on cheap entertainment and expensive consumable goods. Christ. That's a great way to keep us down.

It's all shit, my friends. The song and dance of Walmart is just a mummer's show. They are spending more than they pay out to keep wages right where they are.

The rich are in bed with civil servants. Democracy is dead to the almighty dolla'. It's just aristocrats partying on top.

Do your best. And if you are one of those rich fucks at the top, remember, many of you didn't get there by yourself. You worked, sure, but you also had help. Mentors, friends, lucky breaks that made your work worthwhile.  Remember that. Mentor and befriend, and occasionally give in on fiscal policy.

Because as the French Nobility learned, it's awful hard to spend your money when you're dead.


* Dickbaggery.
** Yes, those numbers may be massaged.