I often find contradictions with Religious fanatics/zealots trying to force their beliefs on people, but this $#!+ is getting out of control.
Since when was it politically incorrect to say that "personally" you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman? She "never" said there should be a law banning same sex marriages.
I don't take most of it "literally", but this eerily resembles biblical prophecies that talk about the world becoming upside down in the last days.
For many years homosexuals were persecuted by society, now it's getting to the point where "some" in the Gay community are flaunting their political capital/ new found freedoms, and shoving their lifestyle choices down our throats.
Two wrongs don't make it right. Everyone is entitled to their individual lifestyle preferences, but no one should be demonized, persecuted, passed over, or ostracized for it. Especially when their point of view is exactly how "NATURE" intended it to be.
At the end of the day, your preference is just that, YOUR PREFERENCE. If you forcefully project your way of life onto others, it's just reverse racism, simple and plain......
more from Blaq Ops @: www.themachinenetwork.com - www.blaqops.blogspot.com
follow Blaq Ops on FACEBOOK & TWITTER
UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM FROM AN UNCONVENTIONAL SOURCE.........
Perez Hilton Talks About Miss USA Gay Marriage Question On MSNBC
Posted by The Boss on April 21, 2009 at 11:30am
Add as Friend View The Boss's blog
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement.
"I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family
thanks http://www.foxnews.com/
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
TEA BAGGING THE ELECTORATE...
The term “Tea Bag” normally represents a vulgar sexually explicit act, but given the idiocy, ignorance, and support of a rallying cry, that is so blatantly self defeating to the “Majority” of Americans, I couldn’t think of a more appropriate term to describe the Tea Party movement.
Yesterday’s demonstrations come as no surprise to me {see: Wealth Spreader Misconception & A Sobering Perspective – Blaq Ops 2008 – link below}, they were to be expected. However, it is also a sad reminder of how powerful ignorance can be when it is coupled with preconceived fabrications, hatred, prejudice, and FEAR.
Some members of this “Patriotic / Grass Roots” movement are calling for revolution. I can’t believe they are loosely throwing around the term “Tea Party”, when in actuality, The Boston Tea Party represented the quintessential antithesis of their argument.
King George III provided tax breaks to large corporations, and to the wealthy. The Tea Act, specifically, was protested because duty free licenses were issued to the East India Tea Corporation. Although this allowed the largest corporation at the time to sell more tea, and rake in more profits, in the hopes of averting bankruptcy, the exemption undercut the growing Merchant Class (The Average Joe’s Industry at the time) in America. Meanwhile, taxes sent to the Crown did not equitably service nor represent the populous here at home. Hence the term “Taxation without Representation”, and the revolution was born….. Sound familiar??
The Bush Administration brought about the largest expansion of government in recent history, and infringed on several inalienable rights, again, predicated on fear. They instigated two costly wars, when our special forces should have been used to seek out and kill those cells around the world who were responsible for the 9/11 tragedy, WHEREVER THEY ARE.
They doubled the national debt, and passed legislation (i.e. tax cut) that was beneficial to large corporations, and the elite, but indirectly contributed to more jobs being shipped overseas, a higher cost of living for all Americans, wreckless speculation, and ultimately, the collapse of our financial markets.
Those of us, who believe we would have been better served to allow the markets to collapse, are severely disillusioned. The economy had to be stabilized in order to ensure OUR way of life would not be irreparably damaged further. The rich will never lose. If the market collapsed maybe the market would have rebounded and corrected itself, and without a doubt the affluent among us would have been fine, as a majority of them are now, but think about the other repercussions, our nation could have been crippled by an economic calamity deeper and more catastrophic than the Great Depression, which may have prolonged our economic malaise for the foreseeable future.
Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. It’s up to those of us who are enlightened enough to know BS when we see it, to lift our voices in direct opposition to the rhetoric that is being disseminated. The only way I will have a grievance with the actions Obama took to stabilize the markets, is if the bailout money is not returned to the tax payer, with interest, as any bank would expect when they lend money to a consumer, before the bankers start throwing money around again.
Barely 4 months into office, they are equating President Obama to Fascists. They believe he is hell bent on destroying OUR great nation. But the irony of the accusation is that a majority of the people in the crowds who lost their manufacturing jobs, were laid off, have to pay higher taxes now, and are struggling to make ends meet, are the victims of an Administration that they are unwittingly, fighting to restore to power. Ignorance is bliss, but we cannot afford to remain silent. Our collective futures are hanging in the balance. This madness has to stop, or at the very least, be debated with the same amount of passion, as our ill informed brethren from the right.
More from Blaq Ops @:
www.themachinenetwork.com
FOLLOW ME ON
FACEBOOK & TWITTER
SOURCES
1. http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/tea-bag-protesters-need-a-history-lesson
Tea Bag Protesters Need A History Lesson
Posted on Friday, 3/20/2009 - 8:27 a.m. PDT — by shays
I may be mistaken, but it appears they are opposed to President Obama allowing the tax cuts introduced by President Bush from expiring, but also opposed to President Obama signing into law the largest middle-class tax cut in history.
This is a major whoops for Glen Beck (et. al.). It turns out that they are politically more in line with King George III than with the American patriots and the Sons of Liberty. The Tea Baggers of today are emulating a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut by SUPPORTING tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
2. http://news.aol.com/article/tea-party-protests/429864
The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who is now a lobbyist.
3.http://blaqops.blogspot.com/search
Thursday, November 6, 2008
THE WEALTH SPREADER MISCONCEPTION.......
Conservatives, routinely, claim Obama’s liberal agenda (Spread the Wealth) is to “unfairly” tax the rich, and profligately GIVE those funds to the poor classes, that pay no taxes AT ALL. Which is an outright manipulation of the truth.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A SOBERING PERSPECTIVE.......
With exactly a week left in the most important national election, in a long time (my lifetime at least), if I see the media focus on one more misguided, aloof, bigoted, racist, narrow minded, dumbed down voter who says, “I’m voting for the Obama because, I hope he will be the Nations first Black President”, I am going to lose my mind!!!!!!! To be brutally honest, I have just as much contempt for those idiots, as the Nazi @$$#*!$ who were arrested yesterday. They were obviously reckless, and stupid, but I am more concerned with those who may have more sophisticated and clandestine plots on their agenda, in an effort to derail progress. I pray to GOD it NEVER happens….
Yesterday’s demonstrations come as no surprise to me {see: Wealth Spreader Misconception & A Sobering Perspective – Blaq Ops 2008 – link below}, they were to be expected. However, it is also a sad reminder of how powerful ignorance can be when it is coupled with preconceived fabrications, hatred, prejudice, and FEAR.
Some members of this “Patriotic / Grass Roots” movement are calling for revolution. I can’t believe they are loosely throwing around the term “Tea Party”, when in actuality, The Boston Tea Party represented the quintessential antithesis of their argument.
King George III provided tax breaks to large corporations, and to the wealthy. The Tea Act, specifically, was protested because duty free licenses were issued to the East India Tea Corporation. Although this allowed the largest corporation at the time to sell more tea, and rake in more profits, in the hopes of averting bankruptcy, the exemption undercut the growing Merchant Class (The Average Joe’s Industry at the time) in America. Meanwhile, taxes sent to the Crown did not equitably service nor represent the populous here at home. Hence the term “Taxation without Representation”, and the revolution was born….. Sound familiar??
The Bush Administration brought about the largest expansion of government in recent history, and infringed on several inalienable rights, again, predicated on fear. They instigated two costly wars, when our special forces should have been used to seek out and kill those cells around the world who were responsible for the 9/11 tragedy, WHEREVER THEY ARE.
They doubled the national debt, and passed legislation (i.e. tax cut) that was beneficial to large corporations, and the elite, but indirectly contributed to more jobs being shipped overseas, a higher cost of living for all Americans, wreckless speculation, and ultimately, the collapse of our financial markets.
Those of us, who believe we would have been better served to allow the markets to collapse, are severely disillusioned. The economy had to be stabilized in order to ensure OUR way of life would not be irreparably damaged further. The rich will never lose. If the market collapsed maybe the market would have rebounded and corrected itself, and without a doubt the affluent among us would have been fine, as a majority of them are now, but think about the other repercussions, our nation could have been crippled by an economic calamity deeper and more catastrophic than the Great Depression, which may have prolonged our economic malaise for the foreseeable future.
Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. It’s up to those of us who are enlightened enough to know BS when we see it, to lift our voices in direct opposition to the rhetoric that is being disseminated. The only way I will have a grievance with the actions Obama took to stabilize the markets, is if the bailout money is not returned to the tax payer, with interest, as any bank would expect when they lend money to a consumer, before the bankers start throwing money around again.
Barely 4 months into office, they are equating President Obama to Fascists. They believe he is hell bent on destroying OUR great nation. But the irony of the accusation is that a majority of the people in the crowds who lost their manufacturing jobs, were laid off, have to pay higher taxes now, and are struggling to make ends meet, are the victims of an Administration that they are unwittingly, fighting to restore to power. Ignorance is bliss, but we cannot afford to remain silent. Our collective futures are hanging in the balance. This madness has to stop, or at the very least, be debated with the same amount of passion, as our ill informed brethren from the right.
More from Blaq Ops @:
www.themachinenetwork.com
FOLLOW ME ON
FACEBOOK & TWITTER
SOURCES
1. http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/tea-bag-protesters-need-a-history-lesson
Tea Bag Protesters Need A History Lesson
Posted on Friday, 3/20/2009 - 8:27 a.m. PDT — by shays
I may be mistaken, but it appears they are opposed to President Obama allowing the tax cuts introduced by President Bush from expiring, but also opposed to President Obama signing into law the largest middle-class tax cut in history.
This is a major whoops for Glen Beck (et. al.). It turns out that they are politically more in line with King George III than with the American patriots and the Sons of Liberty. The Tea Baggers of today are emulating a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut by SUPPORTING tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
2. http://news.aol.com/article/tea-party-protests/429864
The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who is now a lobbyist.
3.http://blaqops.blogspot.com/search
Thursday, November 6, 2008
THE WEALTH SPREADER MISCONCEPTION.......
Conservatives, routinely, claim Obama’s liberal agenda (Spread the Wealth) is to “unfairly” tax the rich, and profligately GIVE those funds to the poor classes, that pay no taxes AT ALL. Which is an outright manipulation of the truth.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A SOBERING PERSPECTIVE.......
With exactly a week left in the most important national election, in a long time (my lifetime at least), if I see the media focus on one more misguided, aloof, bigoted, racist, narrow minded, dumbed down voter who says, “I’m voting for the Obama because, I hope he will be the Nations first Black President”, I am going to lose my mind!!!!!!! To be brutally honest, I have just as much contempt for those idiots, as the Nazi @$$#*!$ who were arrested yesterday. They were obviously reckless, and stupid, but I am more concerned with those who may have more sophisticated and clandestine plots on their agenda, in an effort to derail progress. I pray to GOD it NEVER happens….
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
REPOST & COMPELLING READ
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2008
NOT A RECESSION... JUST GLOBALIZATION & GREED
What's happening to the economy now, should have been expected. The model of late has been get all you can get at any cost, which is capitalism at it's worst. Without question, capitalism is the best model when compared to the alternatives, but absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and that's exactly what's happening now. The endless pursuit of bottom line profitability has thrown true economic viability to the way side.
With all the dot com bombs, CEO Severances, mergers, buyouts, write offs, and the sub prime lending fiasco; none of this surprises me, at all. The never ending pursuit of increasing the bottom line has no limitations, and it is nothing short of waging a war against the American middle class. Whoever coined that phrase hit it right on the head.
But I can remember debating this very issue with my Economics teacher about 8 years ago, predicting just this type of fall out. Money almost always trickles up. Trickle down is nice in theory, but seldom does it work, nor is it practical.
Why does it make sense to an American business that is under performing to fire the CEO, give him a $100million+ package, take a cash infusion from foreign investors, then lay off workers, in an effort to kick up bigger profits to the shareholders?
That would be the equivalent of someone with bad credit, unnecessarily claiming bankruptcy, getting a phat loan from the bank, then deserting his wife, and giving up all of his children up for adoption, in order to live a more affluent lifestyle. He may be well off now, but his entire family is suffering when he could have easily uplifted everyone, and secured his own future in the process as well.
The American middle class spends more than any other nation in the world. Efficiency should be the emphasis of every organization/individual, not downsizing. When those Americans don't have the money to go to theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, on vacations (domestic), put gas in the car, amusement parks, ball games, etc, etc... Although you might be seeing a bigger profit share now, it's bound to come back down once the projected sales figures come back.
Only now, you have handicapped the spenders, so the only way for you to generate more income is to again restructure your company, make more cutbacks, and take money from investors (domestic/foreign) in order to retain your position in the financial markets. Again, how does that help America as a whole???????
That's why we have so many conspiracy theories. It seems the establishment is in bed with the very ones (i.e. SAUDIS) who wish to suppress this SUPERPOWER. If middle class Americans (the largest tax base in the country) are able to earn a "livable" wage, buy a home, buy a car, take a vacation (domestic), or just pay their bills on time; the profits will continue to pour in, just at a slower rate perhaps, but that's a small price to pay. A vast majority of borrowers, usually repay loans with interest, and it's usually carried out to term.
If I were running for president, I wouldn't insult Americans by giving them a $250 check. Each time they give a CEO a $100million pay day, that's the equivalent of giving over 48,000 working families a $1 an hour pay raise, based on a 40hr work week, which totals over $2K annually, each. Most of that $100 million would go directly back into the economy, as opposed to giving that money to one individual, who puts it in a tax free shelter, where it earns interest, and is only taxed when it is withdrawn, if it isn't protected by a loophole.
Let us work to restore the economy, don't give us a temporary hand out, that fixes nothing at the end of the day. I would encourage American businesses to retain jobs, by giving them a tax credit when they hire, and retain a certain percentage of American workers. The credit would be accrued, and paid out only after they retain at least 95% of that work force, and show significant progress reducing operating costs, for at least 4 years consecutively.
Have you tried calling your telephone company, tech support, or credit card company lately, especially after hours??? Chances are, those jobs have been exported. While that may be profitable in the short term, in the long run it's catastrophic, unless you can get those workers to adopt American spending habits as well. In the process you also lose a huge tax base. Customer service and tech jobs are essential pieces of the economy, especially since manufacturing is leaning heavily towards automation.
Overall, I think a flat tax on all goods and purchases, would be the fairest, and most efficient way to tax everyone equally and end the bickering. The IRS could be redeployed to enforce the flat tax instead of being bogged down trying to decipher thousands of tax codes and loopholes. No more payroll tax, no more itemized deductions, just a flat tax.
However, corruption is inevitable, and no system is fool proof. Globalization is needed to some extent, but what we really need is for everyone to stop being so d*&# greedy. Do we really need to have more than everyone else in order to feel successful? Learning to do more with less (EFFICIENCY) is key to the vitality of our economy, and I am afraid, to the vitality of mankind itself. Enable your citizens to earn a LIVABLE wage, and "WORK" their way out of debt, the benefits will be realized slowly, and steadily, but surely, without a doubt.
POSTED BY BLAQ OPS AT 6:45 AM
www.myspace.com/reciprok8
www.blaqops.blogspot.com
www.themachinenetwork.com
Why hasn't competition come to CEOs?
ASK THIS June 26, 2008
In the 1970s, CEOs made 30 times as much as the average worker; by 2006, it was 370 times as much. All the while, market forces have steadily reduced costs across the board. Why are chief executives immune?
By Henry M. Banta
henrybanta@aol.com
As we are reminded in almost every business story, competition is the great organizing principle of the American economy. It spurs innovation and creativity; it rewards the risk-taking entrepreneur, it is a bulwark of consumer protection; it saves us from the strangulation of government regulation. And above all, it drives down costs and prices. It is the key to the efficiency of our economic system.
The last couple of decades have seen unprecedented competitive market forces. Rapid technological change, falling trade barriers, globalization, deregulation of markets, increased mobility of capital and labor—all have contributed to downward pressure on costs. Virtually every business has felt the competitive pressure and struggled to find cheaper inputs, cheaper labor and lower taxes. Work-forces are downsized; health insurance is cut, and pension plans abolished.
But one cost has been immune from this pressure: the compensation of top management. This issue has gotten a lot of media coverage. The press has eagerly covered the lavish compensation that has been heaped on CEOs, particularly those accused of misdeeds or incompetence. Yet there has been a total failure to ask the simple and obvious question: Why hasn’t competition squeezed management compensation like every other cost?
This is a very important question with serious policy implications. It’s a question the press needs to explore in addressing the problems of corporate governance and economic inequality.
The explosion of management compensation has been extensively documented. In the 1970s CEOs earned 30 times the wages of the average American worker.
By 1993 the CEO compensation had risen to 131 times workers’ wages; and by 2006 it approached 370 times. Bebchuk and Grinstein (of Harvard Law School and Cornell University respectively) found that from 1993 to 1997 the top five executives at each of the 1,500 largest publicly traded corporations cumulatively received $68 billion in salary, bonuses and stock; from 1999 to 2003 this had risen to $122 billion.
They also put the increase in terms of a percentage of earnings, finding that executive compensation was 5 percent of net revenue of their own corporations in 1993 to 1995 and had almost doubled to 9.8 percent in 2001 to 2003.
This issue takes on singular importance in light of the seminal paper by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (of the Ecole d’Economie de Paris, and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively), “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998.” (The data in this paper have now been updated through 2006.) The study shows that over the last several decades the United States experienced a massive shift in income to the top of the population. Particularly dramatic is the comparison between the top 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent in the 1993-2000 expansion of the Clinton administration and the 2002-2006 expansion of the Bush administration.
During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.1 and 11.0 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.4 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew less than 1 percent per year from 2002-2006.
Thus, from 2002 through 2006, the top 1 percent captured almost three-quarters of income growth. Unlike in the past when disparity in income could be accounted for by inherited wealth, most of this shift could be accounted for by an increase in management compensation. Piketty and Saez found that now more than four-fifths of the income of the top one percent comes from salaries and self-employment.
It is estimated that the share of wages and salaries earned by the top 1 percent jumped from 5.1 percent in 1970 to 12.0 percent in 2006. The sheer scale of this increase is breathtaking. It is certainly one of the largest shifts in income ever experienced by a major nation.
As Paul Krugman interpreted Piketty’s and Saez’s data:
“...Growth didn’t just bypass the poor and lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution – that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans – gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere.”
In sum, then, we have had a massive shift in income that is largely explained by a massive increase in corporate management compensation. Which brings us back to the basic question: where were the forces of competition when management compensation exploded?
What makes this question so compelling is that those who try and defend the income shift to the very top seem driven to arguments that are conspicuously weak or irrelevant. Their unwillingness to honestly address the question makes one suspect that something important is at stake.
In general the apologists have sought to explain the shift in terms of the income differences between the middle and lower income groups. They uniformly ignore the difference between the very top income bracket – the top 1 percent – and everybody else. The most frequently cited explanation is globalization. According to this argument, labor costs are squeezed by competition from countries with lower labor costs. Workers with less valuable skills are particularly vulnerable to the competition from less wealthy nations. This is true – but irrelevant. It does not even address what has happened at the very top.
Globalization may explain wages tightening at the bottom of the economic ladder, it says nothing about the more substantial increases at the top. Why should a squeeze of the lower end of the income scale result in a massive increase at the top? Has any board of directors ever justified its management compensation policy by claiming, “The Chinese made us do it”?
Another frequent explanation is that the management was worth it. There has been a quite lively debate over whether management compensation is related to performance. The best that can be said about this claim of correlation between compensation and performance is that it is very weak. Justification of an income shift of such historic proportions should be supported by better evidence. For example, there is the problem of timing.
Business Week noted that 1996 was a very good year: The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 23 percent, and corporate profits rose 11 percent. But the average salary and bonus for a CEO rose “a phenomenal 39 %” – to $2.3 million. When retirement benefits, incentive plans, and gains from stock options were added in the average total compensation rose to “an astounding 54 %”– to $5,781,300.”
It is worth noting that the anecdotal evidence on CEO compensation is replete with examples of blunderers and miscreants whose pay soared into the tens of millions. Of course if management was worth so much, it logically follows that everybody else got so little because that was all they were worth. For a period in which productivity was growing, this argument has a lot to overcome. Indeed the notion that the efforts of all of the computer programmers, store managers, physicists, chemical engineers, dentists, school teachers, construction workers, etc., made only a small contribution to growth is very close to silly.
The current favorite argument of the apologists of CEO pay is that it is all a matter of education. This thesis was recently propounded by no less an economist than N. Gregory Mankiw. It was supported by research showing that income is reflective of education. Mankiw acknowledges the growth in inequality at the very top, but quickly turns the discussion to the gaps at the middle and bottom of the scale.
It does not require a lot of economic research to show that more education results in higher income. But again, this is not the issue. It defies reason and good sense to claim the huge income difference between the top one tenth of one percent of the population and every one else is the result of education. As Krugman noted, “What we’re seeing isn’t the rise of a fairly broad class of knowledge workers. Instead, we’re seeing the rise of a fairly narrow oligarchy: income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite.” He cited the 2006 Economic Report of the President which found that the real earnings of college graduates fell by more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Between 1975 and 2004 their earnings rose by less than 1 percent per year. He noted that CEOs and school teachers have about the same amount of education.
International comparisons of management compensation offer no solace to the apologists for American corporate salaries. The explosion in compensation is, as a general proposition, largely confined to the English-speaking world: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, with the United States well ahead of the other two nations.
No one has yet claimed that continental European and Japanese CEOs are immune from the forces of globalization, less competent or productive, or are just not as well educated as their American counterparts.
We are, therefore, left with the question: Why was management compensation immune from the cost-squeezing forces of competition? Where are the media on the question?
Henry M. Banta is a partner in the Washington, DC, law firm of Lobel, Novins & Lamont.
E-mail: henrybanta@aol.com
NOT A RECESSION... JUST GLOBALIZATION & GREED
What's happening to the economy now, should have been expected. The model of late has been get all you can get at any cost, which is capitalism at it's worst. Without question, capitalism is the best model when compared to the alternatives, but absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and that's exactly what's happening now. The endless pursuit of bottom line profitability has thrown true economic viability to the way side.
With all the dot com bombs, CEO Severances, mergers, buyouts, write offs, and the sub prime lending fiasco; none of this surprises me, at all. The never ending pursuit of increasing the bottom line has no limitations, and it is nothing short of waging a war against the American middle class. Whoever coined that phrase hit it right on the head.
But I can remember debating this very issue with my Economics teacher about 8 years ago, predicting just this type of fall out. Money almost always trickles up. Trickle down is nice in theory, but seldom does it work, nor is it practical.
Why does it make sense to an American business that is under performing to fire the CEO, give him a $100million+ package, take a cash infusion from foreign investors, then lay off workers, in an effort to kick up bigger profits to the shareholders?
That would be the equivalent of someone with bad credit, unnecessarily claiming bankruptcy, getting a phat loan from the bank, then deserting his wife, and giving up all of his children up for adoption, in order to live a more affluent lifestyle. He may be well off now, but his entire family is suffering when he could have easily uplifted everyone, and secured his own future in the process as well.
The American middle class spends more than any other nation in the world. Efficiency should be the emphasis of every organization/individual, not downsizing. When those Americans don't have the money to go to theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, on vacations (domestic), put gas in the car, amusement parks, ball games, etc, etc... Although you might be seeing a bigger profit share now, it's bound to come back down once the projected sales figures come back.
Only now, you have handicapped the spenders, so the only way for you to generate more income is to again restructure your company, make more cutbacks, and take money from investors (domestic/foreign) in order to retain your position in the financial markets. Again, how does that help America as a whole???????
That's why we have so many conspiracy theories. It seems the establishment is in bed with the very ones (i.e. SAUDIS) who wish to suppress this SUPERPOWER. If middle class Americans (the largest tax base in the country) are able to earn a "livable" wage, buy a home, buy a car, take a vacation (domestic), or just pay their bills on time; the profits will continue to pour in, just at a slower rate perhaps, but that's a small price to pay. A vast majority of borrowers, usually repay loans with interest, and it's usually carried out to term.
If I were running for president, I wouldn't insult Americans by giving them a $250 check. Each time they give a CEO a $100million pay day, that's the equivalent of giving over 48,000 working families a $1 an hour pay raise, based on a 40hr work week, which totals over $2K annually, each. Most of that $100 million would go directly back into the economy, as opposed to giving that money to one individual, who puts it in a tax free shelter, where it earns interest, and is only taxed when it is withdrawn, if it isn't protected by a loophole.
Let us work to restore the economy, don't give us a temporary hand out, that fixes nothing at the end of the day. I would encourage American businesses to retain jobs, by giving them a tax credit when they hire, and retain a certain percentage of American workers. The credit would be accrued, and paid out only after they retain at least 95% of that work force, and show significant progress reducing operating costs, for at least 4 years consecutively.
Have you tried calling your telephone company, tech support, or credit card company lately, especially after hours??? Chances are, those jobs have been exported. While that may be profitable in the short term, in the long run it's catastrophic, unless you can get those workers to adopt American spending habits as well. In the process you also lose a huge tax base. Customer service and tech jobs are essential pieces of the economy, especially since manufacturing is leaning heavily towards automation.
Overall, I think a flat tax on all goods and purchases, would be the fairest, and most efficient way to tax everyone equally and end the bickering. The IRS could be redeployed to enforce the flat tax instead of being bogged down trying to decipher thousands of tax codes and loopholes. No more payroll tax, no more itemized deductions, just a flat tax.
However, corruption is inevitable, and no system is fool proof. Globalization is needed to some extent, but what we really need is for everyone to stop being so d*&# greedy. Do we really need to have more than everyone else in order to feel successful? Learning to do more with less (EFFICIENCY) is key to the vitality of our economy, and I am afraid, to the vitality of mankind itself. Enable your citizens to earn a LIVABLE wage, and "WORK" their way out of debt, the benefits will be realized slowly, and steadily, but surely, without a doubt.
POSTED BY BLAQ OPS AT 6:45 AM
www.myspace.com/reciprok8
www.blaqops.blogspot.com
www.themachinenetwork.com
Why hasn't competition come to CEOs?
ASK THIS June 26, 2008
In the 1970s, CEOs made 30 times as much as the average worker; by 2006, it was 370 times as much. All the while, market forces have steadily reduced costs across the board. Why are chief executives immune?
By Henry M. Banta
henrybanta@aol.com
As we are reminded in almost every business story, competition is the great organizing principle of the American economy. It spurs innovation and creativity; it rewards the risk-taking entrepreneur, it is a bulwark of consumer protection; it saves us from the strangulation of government regulation. And above all, it drives down costs and prices. It is the key to the efficiency of our economic system.
The last couple of decades have seen unprecedented competitive market forces. Rapid technological change, falling trade barriers, globalization, deregulation of markets, increased mobility of capital and labor—all have contributed to downward pressure on costs. Virtually every business has felt the competitive pressure and struggled to find cheaper inputs, cheaper labor and lower taxes. Work-forces are downsized; health insurance is cut, and pension plans abolished.
But one cost has been immune from this pressure: the compensation of top management. This issue has gotten a lot of media coverage. The press has eagerly covered the lavish compensation that has been heaped on CEOs, particularly those accused of misdeeds or incompetence. Yet there has been a total failure to ask the simple and obvious question: Why hasn’t competition squeezed management compensation like every other cost?
This is a very important question with serious policy implications. It’s a question the press needs to explore in addressing the problems of corporate governance and economic inequality.
The explosion of management compensation has been extensively documented. In the 1970s CEOs earned 30 times the wages of the average American worker.
By 1993 the CEO compensation had risen to 131 times workers’ wages; and by 2006 it approached 370 times. Bebchuk and Grinstein (of Harvard Law School and Cornell University respectively) found that from 1993 to 1997 the top five executives at each of the 1,500 largest publicly traded corporations cumulatively received $68 billion in salary, bonuses and stock; from 1999 to 2003 this had risen to $122 billion.
They also put the increase in terms of a percentage of earnings, finding that executive compensation was 5 percent of net revenue of their own corporations in 1993 to 1995 and had almost doubled to 9.8 percent in 2001 to 2003.
This issue takes on singular importance in light of the seminal paper by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (of the Ecole d’Economie de Paris, and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively), “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998.” (The data in this paper have now been updated through 2006.) The study shows that over the last several decades the United States experienced a massive shift in income to the top of the population. Particularly dramatic is the comparison between the top 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent in the 1993-2000 expansion of the Clinton administration and the 2002-2006 expansion of the Bush administration.
During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.1 and 11.0 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.4 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew less than 1 percent per year from 2002-2006.
Thus, from 2002 through 2006, the top 1 percent captured almost three-quarters of income growth. Unlike in the past when disparity in income could be accounted for by inherited wealth, most of this shift could be accounted for by an increase in management compensation. Piketty and Saez found that now more than four-fifths of the income of the top one percent comes from salaries and self-employment.
It is estimated that the share of wages and salaries earned by the top 1 percent jumped from 5.1 percent in 1970 to 12.0 percent in 2006. The sheer scale of this increase is breathtaking. It is certainly one of the largest shifts in income ever experienced by a major nation.
As Paul Krugman interpreted Piketty’s and Saez’s data:
“...Growth didn’t just bypass the poor and lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution – that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans – gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere.”
In sum, then, we have had a massive shift in income that is largely explained by a massive increase in corporate management compensation. Which brings us back to the basic question: where were the forces of competition when management compensation exploded?
What makes this question so compelling is that those who try and defend the income shift to the very top seem driven to arguments that are conspicuously weak or irrelevant. Their unwillingness to honestly address the question makes one suspect that something important is at stake.
In general the apologists have sought to explain the shift in terms of the income differences between the middle and lower income groups. They uniformly ignore the difference between the very top income bracket – the top 1 percent – and everybody else. The most frequently cited explanation is globalization. According to this argument, labor costs are squeezed by competition from countries with lower labor costs. Workers with less valuable skills are particularly vulnerable to the competition from less wealthy nations. This is true – but irrelevant. It does not even address what has happened at the very top.
Globalization may explain wages tightening at the bottom of the economic ladder, it says nothing about the more substantial increases at the top. Why should a squeeze of the lower end of the income scale result in a massive increase at the top? Has any board of directors ever justified its management compensation policy by claiming, “The Chinese made us do it”?
Another frequent explanation is that the management was worth it. There has been a quite lively debate over whether management compensation is related to performance. The best that can be said about this claim of correlation between compensation and performance is that it is very weak. Justification of an income shift of such historic proportions should be supported by better evidence. For example, there is the problem of timing.
Business Week noted that 1996 was a very good year: The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 23 percent, and corporate profits rose 11 percent. But the average salary and bonus for a CEO rose “a phenomenal 39 %” – to $2.3 million. When retirement benefits, incentive plans, and gains from stock options were added in the average total compensation rose to “an astounding 54 %”– to $5,781,300.”
It is worth noting that the anecdotal evidence on CEO compensation is replete with examples of blunderers and miscreants whose pay soared into the tens of millions. Of course if management was worth so much, it logically follows that everybody else got so little because that was all they were worth. For a period in which productivity was growing, this argument has a lot to overcome. Indeed the notion that the efforts of all of the computer programmers, store managers, physicists, chemical engineers, dentists, school teachers, construction workers, etc., made only a small contribution to growth is very close to silly.
The current favorite argument of the apologists of CEO pay is that it is all a matter of education. This thesis was recently propounded by no less an economist than N. Gregory Mankiw. It was supported by research showing that income is reflective of education. Mankiw acknowledges the growth in inequality at the very top, but quickly turns the discussion to the gaps at the middle and bottom of the scale.
It does not require a lot of economic research to show that more education results in higher income. But again, this is not the issue. It defies reason and good sense to claim the huge income difference between the top one tenth of one percent of the population and every one else is the result of education. As Krugman noted, “What we’re seeing isn’t the rise of a fairly broad class of knowledge workers. Instead, we’re seeing the rise of a fairly narrow oligarchy: income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite.” He cited the 2006 Economic Report of the President which found that the real earnings of college graduates fell by more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Between 1975 and 2004 their earnings rose by less than 1 percent per year. He noted that CEOs and school teachers have about the same amount of education.
International comparisons of management compensation offer no solace to the apologists for American corporate salaries. The explosion in compensation is, as a general proposition, largely confined to the English-speaking world: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, with the United States well ahead of the other two nations.
No one has yet claimed that continental European and Japanese CEOs are immune from the forces of globalization, less competent or productive, or are just not as well educated as their American counterparts.
We are, therefore, left with the question: Why was management compensation immune from the cost-squeezing forces of competition? Where are the media on the question?
Henry M. Banta is a partner in the Washington, DC, law firm of Lobel, Novins & Lamont.
E-mail: henrybanta@aol.com
Friday, February 27, 2009
DOMESTIC DISTURBIA: DOUBE EDGED STANDARDS
I would like to begin by stating that; I DO NOT KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE CHRIS BROWN/RIHANNA CASE. That being said, it appears that we now live in an increasingly “double standard” society, where chivalry only applies when it is advantageous to women.
Take the aforementioned case for instance, no one, outside of the individuals involved, and a handful of people, have ALL the “facts” in this case, yet, even before the Rihanna pic was released, there was a plethora of condemning statements, blogs, and articles directed at Chris.
If true, the mere insinuation Rihanna is purportedly contemplating taking him back says it all. She is either glutton for punishment, accepts partial responsibility for the “incident”, suffers from low self esteem, straight crazy, or, all of the above.
Now understand, I don’t condone anyone putting their hands on anyone, much less a woman, without probable cause, but, until the ALL THE FACTS come out, shouldn’t we withhold judgment/condemnation?
Secondly, in the event a man is assaulted by a woman, without physical provocation, does he ever have a right to defend himself?
Granted, a man should never use excessive force, and that very well may be the case in this instance, but he should have every right to retaliate/defend himself with equal force, if his rights are being violated, irrespective of gender.
All the man bashers need to fall back!!! You’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t bury the kid until BOTH versions of the truth are revealed.
The movement to liberate women has made tremendous strides within the past three decades, and rightfully so, but it appears society and the Law has overreacted/overcorrected, and due to the sins of our forefathers, lady liberty’s pendulum has swung unanimously, in favor of the fairer sex.
I’m not going to pretend that men still do not hold an unflattering share of guilt in a majority of domestic abuse cases, but sometimes, women have used the situation to their advantage, and exploited the law, with impunity.
There's a grey area, i.e. if you're being playful, or if someone is crowding you during an argument, but don't overstep your boundaries, and whatever you do, don't raise your hand to a man, if you don't want to get pounded out like a man..... And trust me, I have had my fair share of incidents. Last time, if it weren't for my past experience, maturity, and my level of sobriety, I would have probably done something very similar.
Proportionally, men are physically stronger than women, but in the spirit of equality, shouldn’t we have ensured that the rights of both sexes are equally protected by law, when the laws were being written?
Again, I do not know, and don’t pretend to know the details of any particular case, but for arguments sake, we need to treat each other as equals, with dignity, respect, and, within the law, period. Especially in regards to the people we profess to love. That’s the only way we will ever attain true equality, for all.
Peace,
BLAQ OPS
www.themachinenetwork.com
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
Take the aforementioned case for instance, no one, outside of the individuals involved, and a handful of people, have ALL the “facts” in this case, yet, even before the Rihanna pic was released, there was a plethora of condemning statements, blogs, and articles directed at Chris.
If true, the mere insinuation Rihanna is purportedly contemplating taking him back says it all. She is either glutton for punishment, accepts partial responsibility for the “incident”, suffers from low self esteem, straight crazy, or, all of the above.
Now understand, I don’t condone anyone putting their hands on anyone, much less a woman, without probable cause, but, until the ALL THE FACTS come out, shouldn’t we withhold judgment/condemnation?
Secondly, in the event a man is assaulted by a woman, without physical provocation, does he ever have a right to defend himself?
Granted, a man should never use excessive force, and that very well may be the case in this instance, but he should have every right to retaliate/defend himself with equal force, if his rights are being violated, irrespective of gender.
All the man bashers need to fall back!!! You’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t bury the kid until BOTH versions of the truth are revealed.
The movement to liberate women has made tremendous strides within the past three decades, and rightfully so, but it appears society and the Law has overreacted/overcorrected, and due to the sins of our forefathers, lady liberty’s pendulum has swung unanimously, in favor of the fairer sex.
I’m not going to pretend that men still do not hold an unflattering share of guilt in a majority of domestic abuse cases, but sometimes, women have used the situation to their advantage, and exploited the law, with impunity.
There's a grey area, i.e. if you're being playful, or if someone is crowding you during an argument, but don't overstep your boundaries, and whatever you do, don't raise your hand to a man, if you don't want to get pounded out like a man..... And trust me, I have had my fair share of incidents. Last time, if it weren't for my past experience, maturity, and my level of sobriety, I would have probably done something very similar.
Proportionally, men are physically stronger than women, but in the spirit of equality, shouldn’t we have ensured that the rights of both sexes are equally protected by law, when the laws were being written?
Again, I do not know, and don’t pretend to know the details of any particular case, but for arguments sake, we need to treat each other as equals, with dignity, respect, and, within the law, period. Especially in regards to the people we profess to love. That’s the only way we will ever attain true equality, for all.
Peace,
BLAQ OPS
www.themachinenetwork.com
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
NY POST: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?? - S. DELONAS
Dear NY Post,
As an independent Black man, I have often grappled with the idea, and in certain cases, found validity to the arguments that "some" African Americans use Racism as a crutch for social inequities.
That being said, there has been endless debate recently in regards to the continued celebration of Black History month, and ending affirmative action programs due to the "apparent" advancements/progress our nation, as a whole, has made in regards to racial equality, however, if S. Delonas' cartoon is any indication, clearly, racism is alive, well, and more subliminally sophisticated than many of us are readily willing to admit.
If this piece is any indication, as a society, we still have A LOT of work to do. It is painfully evident that "progress" has eluded the decision makers at the New York Post, and the grievances of those who relentlessly continue to fight for racial equality has been vindicated as well.
Sean Delonas’ depiction of a monkey being shot dead, followed by the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" is offensive, particularly to Black people. Not to mention the current Commander in Chief, who happens to be an extremely well educated, well spoken individual of color, a refreshing dose of optimism for all Americans, and the world abroad.
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm (2/18/09 Cartoon by S. Delonas)
I have read the Post and the Daily News virtually every single weekday, for over 7 years, and although some of your cartoons/articles are controversial, this is the first time I have ever felt OVERWHELMINGLY OFFENDED by one of your pieces. I asked the opinions of many of my peers before writing this letter, and not one person, of any race, could justify this piece, or deny it's racial connotations.
If someone from your organization does not publicly denounce the piece, make an attempt to clarify Sean's intent, and/or apologize for the sheer offensive nature of this cartoon, I am afraid you will lose many of your subscribers, and I personally, will lead the campaign encouraging everyone within my social network to discontinue reading your paper, immediately!!!!!
In light of this year’s historic election, and the Bi-Centennial commemoration of Abraham Lincoln, this is a slap in the face to all people of color, and should be reprehensible to ALL forward thinking/intelligent HUMAN BEINGS.
Sincerely,
Patrick C. Montero
A.K.A. Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
As an independent Black man, I have often grappled with the idea, and in certain cases, found validity to the arguments that "some" African Americans use Racism as a crutch for social inequities.
That being said, there has been endless debate recently in regards to the continued celebration of Black History month, and ending affirmative action programs due to the "apparent" advancements/progress our nation, as a whole, has made in regards to racial equality, however, if S. Delonas' cartoon is any indication, clearly, racism is alive, well, and more subliminally sophisticated than many of us are readily willing to admit.
If this piece is any indication, as a society, we still have A LOT of work to do. It is painfully evident that "progress" has eluded the decision makers at the New York Post, and the grievances of those who relentlessly continue to fight for racial equality has been vindicated as well.
Sean Delonas’ depiction of a monkey being shot dead, followed by the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" is offensive, particularly to Black people. Not to mention the current Commander in Chief, who happens to be an extremely well educated, well spoken individual of color, a refreshing dose of optimism for all Americans, and the world abroad.
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm (2/18/09 Cartoon by S. Delonas)
I have read the Post and the Daily News virtually every single weekday, for over 7 years, and although some of your cartoons/articles are controversial, this is the first time I have ever felt OVERWHELMINGLY OFFENDED by one of your pieces. I asked the opinions of many of my peers before writing this letter, and not one person, of any race, could justify this piece, or deny it's racial connotations.
If someone from your organization does not publicly denounce the piece, make an attempt to clarify Sean's intent, and/or apologize for the sheer offensive nature of this cartoon, I am afraid you will lose many of your subscribers, and I personally, will lead the campaign encouraging everyone within my social network to discontinue reading your paper, immediately!!!!!
In light of this year’s historic election, and the Bi-Centennial commemoration of Abraham Lincoln, this is a slap in the face to all people of color, and should be reprehensible to ALL forward thinking/intelligent HUMAN BEINGS.
Sincerely,
Patrick C. Montero
A.K.A. Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
Thursday, February 12, 2009
FABRICATED OUTRAGE: A-ROID
Lately, there has been no shortage of headline furor directed at the celebrities that satiate our daily appetites for entertainment/drama, and serve as our national punching bags when they screw up, but the outrage is overrated, and disingenuous to say the least.
A-Rod
This guy can’t get out of his own way, granted, but the sheer amount of criticism he receives, borrowing a quote from Iron Mike, is ludicrous. I make no excuses for his bad choices, his personality flaws, how much money he makes, or the fact that he has not been part of a championship in his illustrious career, however, to act as if his bad judgment has profoundly compromised the “integrity” of the game is hypocritical, at best.
How soon we forget. The steroid era helped MLB reemerge as one of our nation’s favorite past time. Prior to Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa’s epic quest for the home run crown, the league was practically on life support. True, the players method of enhancing their natural ability was CHEATING, AND ILLEGAL, but ANYONE with half a brain knew these guys were juicing.
At the time, MLB turned a blind eye; they did not sound the alarm internally or otherwise. If they took the initiative to clean house, implemented more stringent drug testing, and put the players on notice right off the bat (no pun intended), perhaps they would have been able to redeem the league's integrity, and they would have suffered minimal collateral damage, even if their efforts were leaked afterwards.
Some in the media, and the “regular joes” have been making outlandish accusations. They act as though these players are the dregs of society. They question how much money A-Rod makes, but if they could afford to pay him $25mil a year, the rest of the team, operating costs, luxury tax, etc, the question they should be asking is, how much money are the owners making off the game.
Without a doubt, the players were wrong for using PED’s, but people are making statements as if “anyone” could simply inject performance enhancing drugs, and ta-da, they would become All Stars overnight as well……. WRONG! The players are the performers, they are the ones the fans come to see, and they have every right to a fair share of the revenue the game generates.
I played with guys juicing in High School, and guess what, the guys that did not have the skills to compete at the highest level, sat on the bench, whether they were clean or not. Most of the big names snared in this controversy were great before they started using. They may have cheated but they were NEVER talentless bums.
Without a doubt, the drugs enhanced their natural abilities, but as we can see A LOT of athletes in general, cheated in order to live up to the immense challenges, expectations, and pressures, to remain at the top of their game. Once you’re incapable of performing, they will put you out to pasture, quickly, and no one sheds a tear for them, besides their fanatics.
I long for the day, society in general, will be sincere, and reserve judgment when anyone screws up. Introspect a bit, analyze your life or the lives of people you know and/or love personally, and use that bad example as an opportunity to correct any similar inequities, instead of piling on.
Yes, celebrities make an enormous amount of money, they are privileged, some of them ignorant, and the spotlight is part of the game, but never forget, no matter how god like they may appear to be, at the end of the day they are mortals, and they are individuals, just like every single one of US.
The game of life can be treacherous, and for these athletes, the spotlight is alluring, entrapping, but ultimately, brief. When critics use a celebrity’s demise as an opportunity to totally destroy their character, to me, it only reveals their inner most insecurities, jealous nature, and hateful tendencies.
Just hope and pray that karma does not creep up and expose your shortcomings to the world abroad. Lord knows, we all have flaws, as does every individual on this planet, WE’RE ALL imperfect by nature, and rightfully so, but we all aspire to be great in our own way, but sometimes the chosen path leads us astray.
Ultimately, demonizing icons/celebrities does NOTHING to improve YOUR life. At the end of the day that responsibility is solely up to you, despite your profession, wealth or lack thereof, your background, upbringing, physical characteristics/impairment, environment, etc.
Always remember, don’t throw stones whether or not you live in a glass house.
Yours truly,
Blaq Ops
http://www.themachinenetwork.com/A-Rod
This guy can’t get out of his own way, granted, but the sheer amount of criticism he receives, borrowing a quote from Iron Mike, is ludicrous. I make no excuses for his bad choices, his personality flaws, how much money he makes, or the fact that he has not been part of a championship in his illustrious career, however, to act as if his bad judgment has profoundly compromised the “integrity” of the game is hypocritical, at best.
How soon we forget. The steroid era helped MLB reemerge as one of our nation’s favorite past time. Prior to Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa’s epic quest for the home run crown, the league was practically on life support. True, the players method of enhancing their natural ability was CHEATING, AND ILLEGAL, but ANYONE with half a brain knew these guys were juicing.
At the time, MLB turned a blind eye; they did not sound the alarm internally or otherwise. If they took the initiative to clean house, implemented more stringent drug testing, and put the players on notice right off the bat (no pun intended), perhaps they would have been able to redeem the league's integrity, and they would have suffered minimal collateral damage, even if their efforts were leaked afterwards.
Some in the media, and the “regular joes” have been making outlandish accusations. They act as though these players are the dregs of society. They question how much money A-Rod makes, but if they could afford to pay him $25mil a year, the rest of the team, operating costs, luxury tax, etc, the question they should be asking is, how much money are the owners making off the game.
Without a doubt, the players were wrong for using PED’s, but people are making statements as if “anyone” could simply inject performance enhancing drugs, and ta-da, they would become All Stars overnight as well……. WRONG! The players are the performers, they are the ones the fans come to see, and they have every right to a fair share of the revenue the game generates.
I played with guys juicing in High School, and guess what, the guys that did not have the skills to compete at the highest level, sat on the bench, whether they were clean or not. Most of the big names snared in this controversy were great before they started using. They may have cheated but they were NEVER talentless bums.
Without a doubt, the drugs enhanced their natural abilities, but as we can see A LOT of athletes in general, cheated in order to live up to the immense challenges, expectations, and pressures, to remain at the top of their game. Once you’re incapable of performing, they will put you out to pasture, quickly, and no one sheds a tear for them, besides their fanatics.
I long for the day, society in general, will be sincere, and reserve judgment when anyone screws up. Introspect a bit, analyze your life or the lives of people you know and/or love personally, and use that bad example as an opportunity to correct any similar inequities, instead of piling on.
Yes, celebrities make an enormous amount of money, they are privileged, some of them ignorant, and the spotlight is part of the game, but never forget, no matter how god like they may appear to be, at the end of the day they are mortals, and they are individuals, just like every single one of US.
The game of life can be treacherous, and for these athletes, the spotlight is alluring, entrapping, but ultimately, brief. When critics use a celebrity’s demise as an opportunity to totally destroy their character, to me, it only reveals their inner most insecurities, jealous nature, and hateful tendencies.
Just hope and pray that karma does not creep up and expose your shortcomings to the world abroad. Lord knows, we all have flaws, as does every individual on this planet, WE’RE ALL imperfect by nature, and rightfully so, but we all aspire to be great in our own way, but sometimes the chosen path leads us astray.
Ultimately, demonizing icons/celebrities does NOTHING to improve YOUR life. At the end of the day that responsibility is solely up to you, despite your profession, wealth or lack thereof, your background, upbringing, physical characteristics/impairment, environment, etc.
Always remember, don’t throw stones whether or not you live in a glass house.
Yours truly,
Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
Thursday, February 5, 2009
NO SECRET....
I've said it long ago, a superstar is all this team is lacking, period! Although Hell Week has started off 0-2, and despite the organization's bumbling of the Marbury situation, I am confident this team is "constantly" improving, and should get their first taste of the playoffs this year.
If the core continues to develop their game individually, and, within the D'Antoni system, once we land an SUPERSTAR, sky is the limit. Mark my words......
I only hope I am financially capable to witness the re-emergence of the Franchise, first hand, when it happens.
Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
BERNARD DREAMS OF GARDEN'S FUTURE KING 2/05/09 NY POST
Reached at his home in Atlanta, King, who watched Bryant's historic night on television, told The Post it would be "phenomenal" if the KnicksNew York Knicks can sign King James in 2010.
"The Knicks need a superstar," said King, the Brooklyn-born forward who is still a big Knicks fan. "They should always have a superstar like LeBron. Being in New York, the biggest media capital in the world, it would be phenomenal. It's something I would love to see. The Knicks deserve to be mentioned in the top echelon of the league. LeBron would be a perfect fit in the offense because D'Antoni would love to run with him."
***************************
Let's just hope karma doesn't derail the potential of a superstar coming to the club in 2010. Obviously, the league is privy to the way the organization treated Steph, and although he was a perennial malcontent, he did not deserve to be ostracized like that.
He did everything they asked of him in the off/pre season, they should have given him enough rope to hang himself, but the organization jumped the gun, which has transformed him into sort of a "martyr" in the eyes of many around the league.
That being said, the current cast of players on this team are primed for championships, we just need that "ONE" piece. Hopefully, time will grant the organization clemency, and All Stars will once again gravitate back to the biggest Basketball stage in the world.
Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
STAR IS NOT KEEN ON GUTTED TEAM 2/05/09 NY POST
The Knicks traded away their two leading scorers, frantically trying to clear salary cap space for the 2010 free-agent class that is headlined by LeBron James and includes Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. King James offered them both a tantalizing reminder of what they're chasing, and a warning of how not to get him.
"It all depends on what type or caliber of players you have. And if you're a team that you feel is trying to build toward the future, then I definitely would," James said. "If I was in that position and I felt like our team was geared toward the future and not the present,
I'd try to put myself in a position where I at least had a chance to get a big market player.
"But you don't want to just trash the season you have, and disrespect the players you have on the team. . . . It would be a tough decision for me if I was running a team."
If the core continues to develop their game individually, and, within the D'Antoni system, once we land an SUPERSTAR, sky is the limit. Mark my words......
I only hope I am financially capable to witness the re-emergence of the Franchise, first hand, when it happens.
Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
BERNARD DREAMS OF GARDEN'S FUTURE KING 2/05/09 NY POST
Reached at his home in Atlanta, King, who watched Bryant's historic night on television, told The Post it would be "phenomenal" if the KnicksNew York Knicks can sign King James in 2010.
"The Knicks need a superstar," said King, the Brooklyn-born forward who is still a big Knicks fan. "They should always have a superstar like LeBron. Being in New York, the biggest media capital in the world, it would be phenomenal. It's something I would love to see. The Knicks deserve to be mentioned in the top echelon of the league. LeBron would be a perfect fit in the offense because D'Antoni would love to run with him."
***************************
Let's just hope karma doesn't derail the potential of a superstar coming to the club in 2010. Obviously, the league is privy to the way the organization treated Steph, and although he was a perennial malcontent, he did not deserve to be ostracized like that.
He did everything they asked of him in the off/pre season, they should have given him enough rope to hang himself, but the organization jumped the gun, which has transformed him into sort of a "martyr" in the eyes of many around the league.
That being said, the current cast of players on this team are primed for championships, we just need that "ONE" piece. Hopefully, time will grant the organization clemency, and All Stars will once again gravitate back to the biggest Basketball stage in the world.
Blaq Ops
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
STAR IS NOT KEEN ON GUTTED TEAM 2/05/09 NY POST
The Knicks traded away their two leading scorers, frantically trying to clear salary cap space for the 2010 free-agent class that is headlined by LeBron James and includes Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. King James offered them both a tantalizing reminder of what they're chasing, and a warning of how not to get him.
"It all depends on what type or caliber of players you have. And if you're a team that you feel is trying to build toward the future, then I definitely would," James said. "If I was in that position and I felt like our team was geared toward the future and not the present,
I'd try to put myself in a position where I at least had a chance to get a big market player.
"But you don't want to just trash the season you have, and disrespect the players you have on the team. . . . It would be a tough decision for me if I was running a team."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
