Big Brass Blog http://www.bigbrassblog.com/ Lair of the Poisonous Scribblers en-us Nucleus CMS v3.24 ©2010, Dark Wraith Publishing Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.bigbrassblog.com//nucleus/nucleus2.gif Big Brass Blog http://www.bigbrassblog.com/ Let's Talk Money, Honey! http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3775 Konagod


For the purpose of what I have to say on the matter, let's remove from the table any discussion of tax rates, what's fair vs. not fair, whether the rich should pay a higher percentage than those at the poverty level, etc.



OK, let me say one thing and THEN we'll take it off the table. The debate at least has some merit. I understand why some people with a rather narrow view might think it's so unfair that someone making $5 million a year is taxed at a higher rate than a family of four trying to get by on $25,000 a year...or less. If you are in the camp that believes everyone, regardless of income, should pay a flat tax of 10% because it's "fair", I think you are full of shit. As soon as a tax rate starts to take basic necessities of life away, then it's too high and unfair.



Someone working minimum wage, or two minimum wage jobs, and trying to support a child while being taxed is going to be forced to do without something basic, and adequate food will quite likely be one of the many sacrifices.  Anyone making $100,000 probably isn't going to need to skip a meal due to finances even at a higher tax rate. Depending on where they live, the yacht might have to wait, but so be it.



Now let's just focus on income rather than tax rates. What do you suppose would be the reaction if the top 3% of our school teachers -- the best of the best -- were being paid $300,000 or $400,000 a year? There would be an uproar the likes of which we'd never heard coming from the right, center, and probably even from some on the left. What about the best of the police? (The ones who aren't out using their clubs and teargas to suppress people exercising freedom of speech.) And what about nurses and firefighters?

I can't think of a single ordinary job description which doesn't have some kind of salary range which everyone accepts without question. We all know the kid at the Pizza Hut probably isn't hauling in 70-grand a year no matter how hard he or she might be working, or how great they are at what they do.



I consider myself to be extremely fortunate with my career in advertising (despite my current unemployment). I've always known the positions I've held in the industry were critical for the success of the organization and the client base. If I failed to get creative materials to a media outlet in a timely manner, the advertising campaign could be jeopardized. Having been a media buyer for 12 years, I know that if I don't secure the time slots on desired networks, the commercials will not be seen.  And not to strictly toot my own horn, I also know the commercials themselves have to be compelling enough to get a certain number of average television viewers to pick up the phone or go to the website and order the can't-live-life-without-it widget for $19.95 plus $7.95 shipping.  If they don't, then it doesn't even matter how well I do my part.  No money coming in means I don't have a job, even if I'm the best damn media buyer on the planet.  So thank you creative directors and producers everywhere!



I have worked as hard as anyone in the industry and have played my part in generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue for agencies and clients. A lot of profits have been made as a result of my efforts.

All that being said, my compensation has always been salaried with a small percentage of my salary coming as a bonus some years. And by small percentage, I'm talking 10% maximum and as an overall average through the years more like 3%-5%. Regardless of how much revenue I generate or how much profit a client might make as a result of my efforts, I know as a media buyer that I will never make $500,000 a year, nor should I.



I have made as little as $43,000 and as much as $88,000. Those salaries, particularly the latter, would be seen by many people as wonderful and I never took it for granted. The advertising industry is not what I would call stable work and that $88,000 salary lasted less than a year and was followed by 5 months of unemployment and then by a job paying half as much!  Worth noting also is that the highest salary I earned did not come with any benefits whatsoever.  It was freelance work.  No medical, no dental, no paid vacation.



Perhaps because of my experience, and a constant awareness that I've been doing OK because somebody...a LOT of people who might not be doing as well as I am have been ordering a bunch of stuff they see on TV and therefore I knew where my money was coming from ultimately.  I, along with everyone else in these organizations, are making a living thanks to people buying mops, steam-cleaners, hideous knives which are guaranteed to send x number of people to emergency rooms, food dehydrators, hand blenders, appliances which catch on fire after 3 uses, robots to vacuum your floor, 935 different devices to make you thin or have awesome abs, ladders, woks, drills, paint appliers, paint removers, pasta makers, chicken rotisseries, cat piss odor suppressors,  zit removers, teeth whiteners, breath fresheners, memory enhancers, spray-on hair for bald spots, "gold" colored coins being marketed as "investments" that have a fucking fleck of real gold in them worth about 80 cents, and wealth-building methods which, if successful, God-forbid you should pay more in taxes!  And let's not forget pills that make your dick hard so you can always be ready to fuck on a moment's notice.  (Make sure you have health insurance because if that boner lasts more than four hours you need to see a doctor right away!)



Yep, I've always known who butters my bread.



I also take it to the next level.  I look at corporate profits.  Let's take the Waltons for instance.  No, not John, Olivia, John-Boy, Mary Ellen and the rest of them.  I'm referring to the other, slightly more fortunate Walton family....the ones worth about $93 billion, give or take a little, thanks to a thriving chain of retail outlets selling lots and lots of people even more cheap shit than I can fathom. 



I am trying to imagine how anyone makes money that isn't somehow, directly or indirectly, made possible by consumers like us going out and buying stuff.



On a side note, I do appreciate it when someone like Alice Walton comes along and decides to give a little something back
to the local community, I don't see that happening nearly enough, and
she still could have, and probably would have, if she'd paid 5% more in
tax on those billions.  But hey, museum admission is FREE thanks to Wal-Mart! 
God bless them.



When I was a child, I remember being able to put 5 cents in a vending machine and getting a cold Coca-Cola in a bottle.  A gallon of gasoline was less than 50 cents and some dude would come out and fill your tank, check your oil, and clean your windows!  With a smile on his face (sometimes).  Back in those days, if you mentioned that you'd bought something made in China you'd probably have been branded a red communist on the spot.



Thanks to corporate greed, it's hard to find an American flag decal for your Hummer that isn't made in China.  And this is where I start to come unhinged.



We pay the same or more for the same products as we did a few years ago when those products were made in North America or even Europe.  Manufacturing jobs vanished as corporations hauled their production to countries where wages are pennies compared to dollars.  Corporations are doing great as a result of these and other tactics aimed at maximizing income and pleasing their shareholders.



As an example I love to use Ray Irani, CEO of Occidental Petroleum, who in 2010 had a salary of $1,191,667.  Not bad.  I'm not sure there's a man or woman on the planet who is actually worth that kind of money, but hey.  I'm sure he has a family to feed just like most other working Americans.  And I'll bet his mortgage payment is a bitch.  So I don't begrudge him for it.   Really, I don't.  I'm sure he hates long meetings and conference calls as much as the rest of us do.



However, I do know that salaries like that are made possible, and only made possible, because people like us are buying shit or services.



But here's the real kicker.  Mr. Irani can certainly survive quite well on that salary.  He might have to make some conservative adjustments here and there.  He might have to save up for 7 or 8 years before he can afford to buy his yacht.  I have no idea what his living arrangements are but it might be rough if he wants a 10,000 square foot home in Los Angeles, even in Compton (if there is such a thing as a home that large in Compton).  Maybe he'd have to settle for 4,000 square feet.  Hey, life's tough and we have to manage it.



But he doesn't just make $1,191,667.  Mr. Irani also raked in a little extra as a bonus in 2010:  $32,975,000 to be precise.



OK, I'll be totally honest here.  I just lost any fucking compassion I might have had over his cost of housing dilemma.   Or how long he might have to wait before he gets his goddamn yacht.  Before all of you start screaming "but...but...what if, like you, he had a rough year in 2009 and only made half of what he was making in 2010!", let me finish.  I'm not done yet.



Also in 2010, Mr. Irani got some stock and options to, you know, help pad his condition a little more just in case he might have been irresponsible in some way and squandered $10 or $20 million after too much rum punch at a black tie gala.  That bumped him up another $40,250,000.  But maybe we shouldn't even count that... it's all just on paper for now.



Total compensation package for 2010:  $76,107,010.



If my 2010 bonus alone, as a percentage of salary had been that much, I would have been given an extra $1,660,279.30 for my superb contributions to the advertising agency.  I would have told them they were out of their minds (after waiting to be sure the check was going to clear the bank).  And then I would have promptly resigned because (a) that's just insane business behavior, (b) it seems unsustainable and would put me under incredible pressure to live up to that value, and (c) I could easily retire very comfortably on that sum.



Now you know why I love using Mr. Irani as my example.  He's not even the top dog in the CEO pyramid for 2010.  That honor goes to the head of Viacom who edged him out by about $8 million. That's OK though because they did OK too based on 2nd quarter financial reports just released on May 3rd. Believe me, that 8:30 AM conference call on Friday was probably worth attending!



In light of all this I totally understand where Mitt Romney is coming from.  These are his people and his world.  And in their eyes it's just not fair that a majority of us want them to pay a higher tax rate than a Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez trying to make ends meet by pressing out tortillas in Tyler, Texas all day so they can afford to fill up their tanks at the Exxon station on the way to Wal-Mart or Kroger to buy shit for their kids to eat for dinner.



There's just a couple of things I do not understand.  At what point does executive compensation become immoral?  How much is too much?  Do we draw the line at $100 million a year?  And why would anyone in their right mind want or expect to be compensated that much in one year anyway?  It's almost more money than any human could possibly spend unless they want to go the extra mile and do something crazy like...I dunno... what?  Buy an election?  Control the entire political process?  You tell me.



One of the joys in life in setting realistic financial goals and reaching them;  $70 or $80 million a year kinda takes the fun out of that aspect.  Maybe I'm just a little too sensitive because if I was raking in $2 million a year I'd be running a kick-ass food bank or something instead of trying to figure out where my next $60 million was coming from and whether all the liberal socialists were going to jack up my tax rate because of some podunky thing like our educational system falling apart, roads and bridges needing repair, water systems in dire need of updating, and preparing ourselves to be technological stand-outs in the fucking 21st century which, by the way, is already 12% behind us while we squabble over marriage equality and the evils of reefer, both of which will surely, sooner or later, rip apart our moral fiber and destroy our civilization.



But what truly blows my mind to shreds are not the Mitt Romneys of the world, or the people making so much money it can't possibly be spent on any personal "needs" without appearing to be a complete and total self-absorbed prick with horrific taste in chandeliers.  If a family of 8 could live comfortably in your master bath and walk-in closet, you might need to take a step back and self-evaluate.



What I'm throwing my hands in the air about are the people like you and I, who are making $25k a year, $50k a year, $75k a year and are actually having to feed and educate their children, and keep them clothed, and look after their health care needs, make sure the mortgage payment is sent in on time,  try to sock a little back for unexpected emergencies, and plan for retirement, all of which are generating more wealth for those corporations who control this system, while these very struggling people simultaneously weep these ridiculous tears that it would be so unfair to tax the rich at a higher rate than anyone else, and because those of us who are actually blessed with a functioning conscience, we must be Marxists and anti-American.  (Or French.)



I am not a Christian but all of this is enough to make me wish Jesus would come back right this instant and yank so many of his followers' heads out of their asses.  But I have a hunch we're just going to have to let this play out, and the ride is not going to be one of joy.



Thanks for listening, and Vive la France!





]]> Right-wing Politics & People http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3775 Sun, 6 May 2012 21:13:42 -0400 The Truth Is... http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3774 Peter of Lone Tree
Who Wrote The Bible]]> Religion http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3774 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:42:18 -0400 Fukushima Daiichi Site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl Accident http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3773 Peter of Lone Tree LINK]]> General http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3773 Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:57:26 -0400 George Bernard Shaw: http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3772 Peter of Lone Tree PETKOFF (with childish awe). Are you Emperor of Switzerland?

BLUNTSCHLI. My rank is the highest known in Switzerland: I'm a free citizen.


Arms and the Man]]> General http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3772 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:10:53 -0400 This sums up current America's Politicians and Business nicely! Spread it around! http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3771 Father Tyme Pathocracy


Pathocrat

1. suppression of individualism and creativity.
2. impoverishment of artistic values.
3. impoverishment of moral values; a social structure based on self-interest and one-upmanship, rather than altruism.
4. fanatical ideology; often a corrupted form of a valid viable ‘trojan’ ideology which is perverted into a pathological form, bearing little resemblance to the substance of the original.
5. intolerance and suspicion of anyone who is different, or who disagrees with the state.
6. centralized control.
7. widespread corruption.
8. secret activities within government, but surveillance of the general population. (In contrast, a healthy society would have transparent government processes, and respect for privacy of the individual citizen).
9. paranoid and reactionary government.
10. excessive, arbitrary, unfair and inflexible legislation; the power of decision making is reduced/removed from the citizens’ everyday lives.
11. an attitude of hypocrisy and contempt demonstrated by the actions of the ruling class, towards the ideals they claim to follow, and towards the citizens they claim to represent.
12. controlled media, dominated by propaganda.
13. extreme inequality between the richest and poorest.
14. endemic use of corrupted psychological reasoning such as paramoralisms, conversive thinking and doubletalk.
15. rule by force and/or fear of force.
16. people are considered as a ‘resource’ to be exploited (hence the term “human resources”), rather than as individuals with intrinsic human worth.
17. spiritual life is restricted to inflexible and indoctrinare schemes. Anyone attempting to go beyond these boundaries is considered a heretic or insane, and therefore dangerous.
18. arbitrary divisions in the population (class, ethnicity, creed) are inflamed into conflict with one another.
19. suppression of free speech – public debate, demonstration, protest.
20. violation of basic human rights, for example: restriction or denial of basic life necessities such as food, water, shelter; detainment without charge; torture and abuse; slave labour.


]]> Education http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3771 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:08:21 -0400 Whassup? http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3770 Lisa Ranger
--Brandon Schaeffer


This year I'm not getting involved in any
complicated issues. I'm just voting my
regular ethnic prejudices


"Cause of Death: Hooked Nose"
--Heinrich Boll short story

I'm not a Roman, mum, I'm a kike,
a yid, a heebie, a hook-nose,
I'm kosher, mum,
I'm a Red Sea pedestrian and proud of it!
--Life of Brian (1979)

There is nothing more painful to me
at this stage in my life than to walk down the street
and hear footsteps and start thinking
about robbery -- and then look around
and see somebody white and feel relieved
-- Jesse Jackson
____________________


Greetings from the Gunshine State!

What's all this about Trayvon's killing being racially-motivated? We do not have the facts, yet the liberal blogosphere has been crying for vengeance since Day 1. Do you know why? Because a man named "Zimmerman" in a gated community shot a young black man.

Let's go straight to the presumptions:

Black people don't get to live in gated communities. Zimmerman must be a card-carrying member of AIPAC, and since they all hate the poor Palestinians it's just a hop, skip and a jump to hating blacks. That's what stoked the fire before any news beyond name and race of the deceased was known.

None of this is true, of course, but depending on your political skew you rushed to your own judgement. Is it fair to expect if I walk around in a Slutwalk uniform -- say, bra, panties and jackboots -- and want to enter a workingman's pub at midnight for a brewski, that I not get hassled? If you're high-minded and blissfully unaware of human behavior, you will say, "Of course it is!" No, it is not. That is not the world in which we live.

What is fascinating is that the family of the neighborhood watch shooter (Zimmerman) was quick to point out he was himself Hispanic -- a man of color. In other words, he could not have harbored the malevolent intent that surely a white would feel toward a black youth in a gated community. Moreover, we now know Mr. Zimmerman attended Catholic school and was an alter boy. Does this imply the Catholic religion was to blame for leading him astray?

And yet, blacks attend Catholic school, too. Their are dioceses in metro areas that are almost entirely black. So it can't be his religion that is the problem.

Nor can the problem be that only black people are shot unjustly for being in the wrong neighborhood. As a white person, it would not be wise to walk after dark in certain parts of, say, Southside Chicago. For some reason, such a shooting would not raise our national hackles; he had it coming to him/her. Because, you know, that would simply be folly.

What's the not-too-veiled subtext here? White people should control themselves better. I would argue, all people should control themselves better, and nobody should shoot anybody. fat chance that, right.

However, my deeper implication is rarely addressed: We are racist in that we EXPECT black people to go for their nine. That that behavior is neither shocking nor rare is what we should be addressing before, during and after the tragedy of Trayvon, because then you would be approaching a real solution rather than a cathartic feel-good chest-beating. There is some deep racism in this country among all races on a slow boil every day.

Geraldo Rivera was right when suggesting death by hoodie. When President Obama said that Trayvon could have been his son, I wonder if he would've allowed his son to walk alone in the wee hours to a convenience store and back in an unfamiliar community. I am not saying that activity is a crime (and we do not know the details of that engagement) but I am saying if you look like you're in the wrong neighborhood, you will be noticed. To pretend otherwise is folly.

A parallel example occurred for me when I attended a black university for a semester (Florida A & M). I will relate but one example of the prejudice which I encountered as a white person on that campus.

Walking to my car, I noticed a FAMU patrol car pulled in haphazardly behind my vehicle, blocking it's exit, ala Starsky and Hutch. I was then confronted by a FAMU patrol officer with his 9 mm drawn -- yes! Not pointing AT me, but drawn. I asked what was wrong -- NO LIE: He questioned the authenticity of my parking sticker, and accused me of forgery!!!

You must understand that Florida State University and FAMU had full reciprocity on matters such as parking, library privileges, etc. This was so surreal that I smiled and asked, "Are you serious?" Thank god it was daylight, and he did not have an itchy trigger finger. Sullenly, he holstered the gun and said, "I've got my eye on you."

The terror only hit me as I entered my car and made to drive away, shaking and weak. As an older adult, I am outraged at that inappropriate threat of force. I was a small white woman burdened with an armload of books approaching her 17-year-old Volkswagon. What insane bullying, and if I had known better or had support, I would have brought that matter to my local representatives, at the least. I did not know better, and just wanted to get the hell out of Dodge.

That said, I met some very fine and welcoming people at FAMU, as well. BUT, those introductions were usually facilitated by a black friend; unaccompanied, I was suspect. I was told by a black male study partner that he wished he could introduce me to his fiance, but that she would be antagonistic to my whiteness. (I later encountered them in a store and he looked away.)

I was enthusiastically asked by members of my African-American Lit class after I'd made a presentation of Zora Neale Hurston's "Their Eyes Were Watching God" -- how I could possibly have understood the trials of a black woman so well, they asked. I quoted Sojourner Truth ("Ain't I a Woman?) And so it goes.

That is the measure of the prejudice in your nation: Black-on-black -- or at least, dark-on-dark crime -- is permitted. It's expected; it is as old as the hills.

So, what do we call it when blacks murder blacks? We don't seem to call it anything. How about if a black person murders a white -- it does happen, you know? Are those racist occurrences, or simply pathetic and tragic murders?

The liberal pack is calling for everyone's head, but in order for the police to arrest a suspect they must have a court-issued probable cause warrant. Zimmerman is not a flight risk; he had called the police prior to the shooting event. He tried to coordinate with police, and they displayed negligence and a negative attitude by not responding.

This should be a problem of concern: Many police department are suffering budget cuts and a shortage of officers. Maybe several of them are on duty in Afghanistan. There was clearly a problem in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was following Florida Rules of Engagement as opposed to Afghan rules.

My main point is obvious: We all come with preconceptions and fears, founded or un-, and how to countenance that is our mission. If all followed the rule of law and respected his fellows, and expressed honestly and clearly at the first sign of feeling threatened in the spirit of seeking consensus, we wouldn't have these shootings, would we?

Is this our country as you know it? Is this your house, as you know it?

We should suspend judgment until the facts are known.

For now, we can call it, "Death by Hoodie".

[cross-posted @ RangerAgainstWar]

]]> General http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3770 Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:05:34 -0400 Test http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3769 Peter of Lone Tree General http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3769 Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:19:27 -0400 "War Clouds On The Potomac. No Not Iran. War Declared On You." http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3768 Peter of Lone Tree
READ THE REST]]> General http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3768 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:30:25 -0400 Medievalism, 2012-Style http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3767 Lisa Ranger

--Man, Woman and Sin (1927, silent)

Now wicked things can happen...
you see 'em goin' down in war.
But when you play in a quiet way
that bites it even more
--Say It Isn't So, Hall & Oates

In this dark march toward
whatever it is we are approaching...
don't - don't hang back with the brutes!
--A Streetcar Named Desire,
Tennessee Williams
____________________


Medievalism. Nope, we're not gonna talk about Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or the lot of them. We are talking right here in River City.

It doesn't seem real, this focus on women's bodies amongst the Republican presidential contenders. Our economy is in shambles; we are at war; the country's basic needs are profound -- and yet somehow, women's bodies have become the battlefield.

We did become fully human (almost) in 1920, with the contentious ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. For over 90 years, women have been granted full manumission in the U.S., in terms of being allowed to exercise our rights of citizenship (even Mississippi ratified the amendment, albeit in 1973.) And yet, our rights over our very bodies remain in the hands of men.

For less than 40 years, women have legally been allowed to determine whether they shall carry a pregnancy to term, without risking our lives in shoddy back alley operations or self-inducements. This right has been contentious since it was granted, but now in 2012, Rick Santorum -- Republican frontrunner -- suggests that contraception is harmful to society and pre-natal testing should be curtailed as it promotes abortions.

Santorum approves of some pre-natal tests like sonograms, but not amniocentesis, on the basis that it encourages abortion. “Amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions,” Santorum said. “That is a fact” (Rick Santorum: Prenatal testing encourages abortions).

That is a disingenuous statement. The test itself may result in a 1-5% chance of miscarriage, but the test does not result in more abortions. What it does result in is an informed woman who may then make choices based on the results of accurate scientific testing. We did go through the Scientific Revolution so that we might avail ourselves of technology which might reduce human suffering.

Amniocentesis is ordered when a basic sonogram reveals abnormalities. Because there is a risk of false positives with a sonogram, amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) are then necessary to give an almost 100% verification of chromosomal abnormalities like Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21), or Trisomy 28, which Santorum's child has.

Santorum's wording is painfully ignorant when he says things like, “The president has a very bad record on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled who are in the womb. I think this simply is a continuation of that idea.” How do these children crawl retroactively back into a womb? Children result from a live birth. Words and their meanings matter.

In Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, she argues that the events of 9-11-01 allowed for a cultural atavism, in which male folklore returns, imperiling feminism. Rick Santorum is resonating with the people because he embodies, if not the machismo, then certainly the subjugation of women in the guise of protectionism.

We have a Homeland Security guarding our borders, why not a president who oversees the gateway to the uterus? This is not benign concern -- this is a brazen attempt to co-opt women's decision-making. It is malevolent paternalism.

How is this even a topic of presidential concern in 2012?

[cross-posted @ RangerAgainstWar, with links]

]]> Politics http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3767 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:04:11 -0500 Quote of the Day http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3766 Peter of Lone Tree
]]> General http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?itemid=3766 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:43:49 -0500