November 3rd, 2010

Wanna bettaworld

In harm's way ... has PC 'gone too far'?

Ok, I was a Health and Safety Rep for my Union when i was new on the station.

It was my job to make sure that the public, and my cowrkers were safe.

Get faulty electrics mended, keep things up to scratch , that was my role - but there are limits to being safety conscious, I reckon.

When 7/7 kicked off in London , England, I was not on duty. I was home, waiting to go to work thta afternoon on a late shift as the horror unfolded on the TV screen. But an inquest has revealed the following:

On that fateful day, as Underground staff watched people literally stagger out of the tunnels, a police cordon was formed to prevent Tube workers going in to rescue the injured and dying. I mean , for many of those on duty, it seemed the right thing to do- carry out and aid survivors. Some got past the police anyways. I reckon they did the right thing.

But the orders were to stay back. There was a risk of secondary explosions. It just wasn't safe...

Now this 'safety first' ethos has it's place - I don't want to see the days when employers could send little kiddies under the shafts of moving machines in order to clean them and workers having to risk serious injury as part of a normal working day - but in a dangerous situation like this - all bets are off, as far as I am concerend.

And it isn't just on 7/7. A female member of staff gets hassled by a drunk, and I'm over to help. the bosses and the Union , even , are hot on saying - "stay back, assess the situation , get backup, don't take risks ".

Dammit, for my female coworker, I ~AM~ backup. I know the odds, I'm a big boy, dammit.
I was raised to think it was a man's job to take care of women, not leave 'em to it.
let me point out that some LUL staff praised by the court were female. bravery isn't just a masculine virtue in my book . But these days, it seems that bravery is looked down upon for the sake of ' public safety'. Pc seems to be going too far.
There is something seriously wrong with society when we don't let our police, our firefighters and even guys like me go in and help injured people. Sometimes, its your Job - it's your duty as a human being to go into harms way to save others.

Me, I say things have gone too far. over to you ...
  • paft

Don't Think "Rich" and "Poor." Think "Men of the Mind" and "Moochers"


Wolf Blitzer: What do you say to those folks who say, ‘go back to the higher tax rates?’

Rand Paul: I would say that they must be in favor of a second American depression…Raising taxes in the midst of a recession would b a disaster for our economy and anyone who proposes such a policy is really, I think, unfit to be making decisions.

Blitzer: What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than $250,000 a year?

Paul: Well, the thing is, we’re all interconnected. There are no rich, there are no middle class, there are no poor, we all are interconnected in the economy…We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people, so just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone…

Collapse )
Godzilla, default

This is why the GOP won't have an answer to the current economic crisis:

This is what they were saying about the recession before the bottom fell out with Bear Sterns:
Collapse )


To summarize everything behind the cut: all the people whining and crying about the socialist tyranny that's actually attempting to deal with the recession denied it even existed a year or two ago. The real problem is that it's these lying dishonest charlatans who also backed losers like Christine "Hail Oogie Boogie" O'Donnell, Sharron "Shariah in a town that doesn't exist" Angle, Carl "Horse Porn" Paladino, Joe "Arrest someone that asks me something I don't like" Miller, Ken "Rape is only worth investigating when I want to work" Buck, and other such people who in fact are responsible in several cases for losing what would have otherwise been easy victories.

Feel better yet about these people controlling the House?


There is no help coming, the first responder is you.

malasadas already wrote an excellent post on this subject and mintogrubb touched upon it in his but I'd like to add my own take as I believe that question raised "Where's the line?" has a direct bearing on this week's topic "The Role of Government".

I am one of those who was accused of "Blaming the victim", I don't have a ready come-back because it is a valid criticsm. Yet I stand by my comments because I think the question needs to be asked, how responsible are we for our own fates?

I believe in free will and, by extension, that everything that happens to us is the result of choices we made, both consiously and unconciously. Whether it is to live in a flood-plain, or take a shortcut down a dark alley every choice has associated risks and rewards. As children we lack the knowledge and perspective to make these choices for ourselves so our parents make them for us. The final step towards adulthood is to leave your parents' shadow and make your own choices.

But being free is scary, what if we make a mistake? What if something truely unpredictable happens? What then?

Many seem to assume that we can be protected from ourselves. Be it physically and economically by the left, or morally by the right. However, in my experience this is not the case, thus I am always sceptical when I hear someone say "there oughta be a law". Real life is a messy dangerous place and fortune favors the prepared.

Scales of economy

I was told here that the raising of domestic marginal tax rates on the rich is problematic, because the rich are the ones who have the capital -- and that the pricing of securiies would therefore suffer if rich people had to pay more taxes instead of being free to invest their wealth in te free market.  "First and foremost, there is the availability of that capital," wrote this sage commenter. "You can't invest what you don't have."

So I decided to investigate.  I will admit that my numbers might not be perfect, so I invite everyone to dig up better ones if they can.  However, what I discovered was this:

Total capital under the control of pension funds and institutional investors alone was $142 trillion in 2007.  IRS income tax receipts were $1.1 trillion.  The top 1% of taxpayers paid 37% of that sum -- which amounts to $407 billion.

Unless my calculations are wrong, if we doubled the tax burden on these folks, the total funds removed from the investment pool would be $407 billion.  That would represent nearly a .3% reduction in available capital.  Not 3%.  .3%.

Of course, no one is proposing a doubling of those marginal tax rates.  And the $142 trillion only represents a percentage of total available capital worldwide.  So the reduction is probably more on the order of less than .1%.

I am convinced.  A .1% reduction in the amount of capital available would lead to a collapse of market capitalization worldwide -- which, in turn, would plunge us into a global depression.  Forget about CMOs.  Forget about the failure of the ratings agencies.  A .1% reduction in available capital is simply not something the economy can possibly handle.

Tea Party, here I come!