My Beauty Best Teacher

The following is a video from a development in Tacoma WA (Salishan) that was purpose built for illegal immigrants. There are about 1325 homes in this complex, and the immigrants to our great nation live on refugee pay that offers them $2642 per month in SSI benefits, plus Food Stamps, plus Section 8 Housing. Although few work and the average salary of these illegal immigrants is rather low, you might notice all the expensive cars in this video- I guess when you are given a house that is roughly 180K to live in that is maintained for you and then you are given 26K/year, you have money for nice new cars.

Sometimes I feel like such a rube, working and paying my taxes, paying down the loan that I took out from the bank, and not abusing the system like everyone else seems to be. Anyway, here is the video of it:

UPDATE: In response to those who want to deny reality, the name of this housing project is either the Tacoma Housing Authority or the Salishan Housing Project. Originally built by the federal government in the 1940's, by the 1990's it had turned into a crime and drug infested low income neighborhood run by the government to trap minorities and poor people in a cycle of dependence. So in 2001, using mostly taxpayer money ($45.5 million in federal funds and $12 million in state funds), the development was rebuilt and now it looks nice and pretty like it does in the video. According to the official website for this project, the government spared no expense with these homes that it is giving away to people who can't afford them. The wikipedia page provides further data derived from the census that backs up this video.

Oh, I'm sure on some aspects it is possible to interpret aspects of this story differently and some link exists that tries to debunk this whole thing, but the main point remains that me and my family work hard creating wealth and the federal government takes this wealth from us and gives it to people who did nothing to earn it, using me and my family as slaves while some politician or political party claims credit and glory for providing this wealth redistribution to people who did not earn it. It is immoral and wrong and needs to be stopped.

In Memory Bank:

...Africa’s new leaders thought they were generating modern economies, with ambitions for public expenditure to match, but in reality they were erecting fragile states whose economic base was the same backward agriculture as before. As Frantz Fanon predicted, this weakness inexorably led them to exchange the democratic legitimacy of the independence struggle for dependence on foreign powers. These ruling elites first relied on revenues from agricultural exports, then on loans contracted under dubious circumstances, finally on the financial monopoly that came from being licensed to supervise their country’s relations with global capitalism. But this bonanza was switched off in the 1980s, when foreign capital felt that it could dispense with the mediation of local state powers and concentrated on collecting debts from them. Many governments were made bankrupt and some simply collapsed into civil war.

More here

Many people in our nation are unemployed as a result of the liberal policies of Obama and Bush, of Democrats and liberal Republicans, who didn't respect private property rights, who created barriers and limits to our freedom and liberty, and who failed to embrace and love human life in all of its glory. These liberal policies manifested itself in high taxes, cumbersome regulations disguised as 'safety' or 'environmental', new entitlements, increased federal control over disaster relief and education and energy production, increases in barriers to production and investment, and the giving away of taxpayer money that the government doesn't even have to those who haven't earned it.

Unemployment is difficult, and it doesn't look like the situation is going to get a whole lot better, especially if Obama and the Democrats don't extend the Bush tax cuts. In order for jobs to be created though, you have to allow people to make free choices, and what is happening right now with unemployment benefits is not right. The government is using money taken from my children and from my grandchildren (ie, debt) to pay people to sit home and not work. It isn't paying these people enough to really pay the bills or buy any new products (so it isn't 'stimulus payments') and these unemployment benefits can only be earned when people aren't working, so they aren't producing anything for our society. At some point, unemployment benefits must be scaled back or cut off, or else unemployment will simply turn into yet another entitlement program, paid for by debt, acting as a drag on our economy and preventing jobs from being created.

Tough choices have to be made at some point by unemployed- to either get retrained, to switch careers, to retire early at a reduced standard of living, to get a job at a retail chain or fast food joint, or to take a risk on themselves and go into business as an entrepreneur. Of course unemployment is a safety net that people do pay into, and thus should be there for those to cushion their fall and buy them time to recover and readjust, but unemployment should not be a long-term solution, or else it will be come a long-term problem.

That being said, our elected leaders (mainly Democrats in Congress and the Presidency but also some Republicans) are unable to make the tough decisions that need to made regarding unemployment. There are increased calls to extend these benefits, indefinitely I imagine, by many in the media. Via RealClearPolitics, Robert Reich (whose book The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism was required reading in two of my University classes) is one of these types of people who are unable to make the hard decisions to get American back to work, and writes in the San Francisco Chronicle "Extend benefits for jobless, not tax cuts for rich":

Yet Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats in Congress say we can't afford another extension of jobless benefits. The deficit is too big.But wait. These are the same members of Congress who say we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the people at the top would cost more than extending unemployment benefits for struggling families without a breadwinner. These families need the money. The rich don't.

This Reich is the same person who advises Democrats on economic policy, and he thinks that in the zero-sum game of wealth creation, it is better to take money from jobs creators (ie, the wealthy, those people who worked hard for their money, who invest in businesses, who buy products, and who run businesses) and transfer that money (through government bureaucrats, who take a large cut for themselves) to those who are unemployed, so that they can continue to not produce anything and drain wealth from society. Reich is proud of the 'tough decision' that he is making and thinks that it is 'really brave' for politicians to take money by force and give it to someone else for doing nothing (being unemployed) and then take credit for it. Reich ends his editorial by saying:

Quick action is needed. About 800,000 unemployed workers will run out of benefits this week. Two million more will stop receiving benefits by the end of December. Millions more after that. The choice couldn't be clearer.

The choice is clear- make the tough decision Congress and do something different than creating another entitlement program. Perhaps it is some sort of reduced unemployment program, designed to transition people off government dependence to independence and freedom, or perhaps it is some sort of unemployment program that rewards people for getting back to work in any way rather than bribing them to stay in government-induced dependent poverty, but the choice is clear- do not just simply make the easy call and extend benefits, but instead make the tough call and move people closer to freedom while increasing protection of private property.

Luca Bussotti writing over at Pambazuka:

CC Afronie

Firing up the local production of knowledge is crucial to escaping the ‘industry of development’

He goes on to say:

...it appears rather obvious that few people have an interest in promoting local knowledge and knowledge in general as a key to exiting structural dependence. Rather, as Mozambican sociologist Elísio Macamo wrote, the ‘industry of development’ continues to work, and it doesn't seem to be in the interest of the leading classes to get rid of it.

More here

Malena Amusa over at WomensEnews:

Fifteen years ago Amsatou Sow Sidibe, a lawyer and one of Africa's most vocal human rights activists, co-founded the African Network for the Promotion of Women Workers, based in Senegal's capital Dakar.The group, with branches throughout French-speaking Africa, focuses on training women in job skills and the law. In Wolof, the dominant language of Senegal, the group is called Rafet, which means beautiful

On her ability to handle prickly subjects:

Part of Sidibe's success is her flexible way of handling tough situations. When talking about the Muslim practice of marrying multiple wives, for example, many women's rights activists take a strong stand against polygamy. They see it as destroying a woman's self-esteem and causing financial dependence.However, instead of trying to ban polygamy, which is controversial but legal in Senegal, Sidibe tries to make peace with the practice. In a national magazine interview she suggested that polygamy be promoted in cases when a man takes up a mistress. At least that way, she reasoned, a man could keep the relationship out of the shadows and help the woman secure authority over property, children and finances.

More here

One measure of success for Democrats is the number of people that they have helped save from starvation and poverty. It is a worthy measure of whether a policy is successful or not, and Obama, Peters, and all the other Democrats often campaign about how hard they have worked to expand the 'safety net' and 'feed the starving masses.' In their speeches they talk about how they are setting a goal for themselves of getting as many people who need help into the right government programs. And on their watch, under the Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, they have been successful in destroying an economy and driving record numbers of people to accept the forced charity of the governments dependence programs.

Democrats have been successful in ruining the private economy, of killing jobs with high taxes and regulation, of drying up private charities through taxes and regulations, of bankrupting businesses with regulations and taxes, and of setting up legal and regulatory barriers so that that private individuals are increasingly unable to help others. Barack Obama has done his job- under his watch and guidance, more and more people are forced to swallow their pride and accept the forced charity that is government welfare. Gary Peters has done his job well- money has been taken from businesses and individuals who worked hard for it, some of those businesses and individuals are unable to pay that money and go out of business or into bankruptcy, the money that is collected is cycled through several government agents who are well paid and have great benefits and retirement funds, some of that money is transferred to people and businesses who have friends in government and use those political connections to take some of that money, and then what little of that money is left given those people who need it. Success! And under Obama and the Democrats, that number has gotten bigger and bigger!

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since December 2007, the month that Democrats enlarged their majorities in the House and Senate and captured the Presidency. One out of every six people in the United States have been driven to beg for aid from the government, creating a mass of dependent wards of the state who are stuck on the dole but reliably deliver votes to those people who promise more benefits with less obligations and time limits. The remaining five out of every six people in the US are forced to work increasingly harder to provide for themselves and for the other who are not working.

Even worse is that last year Obama and Democrats in Congress like Gary Peters passed Obamacare, which is scheduled to add a minimum of 16 million new people to Medicaid, starting in 2014. This massive expansion in taxpayer funded welfare is sure to drive increasing numbers into bankruptcy and job losses, driving the numbers on welfare up even higher, all thanks to the success of Democrats policies.

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% since the election of Obama in December of 2007, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years, ever since the Democrats captured Congress in 2006, as Democrats policies have increasing taken their toll on Americans and driven more to beg government agents for food.

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits.

One last success for Obama and the Democrats- more than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession.

(Source data comes from USA Today's Record number in government anti-poverty programs)

G. Paschal Zachary on the advent of higher prices for cocoa and the consequent higher income for farmers:

Image via Wikipedia

The benefits to African farmers should be significant over time. Unlike some other crops, new gardens can require years of planning and labor. Existing trees are subject to blight and aging and must be worked intensively to maintain yields. When I visited Ghana’s cocoa-growing region a year ago, I was struck by the prosperity of farmers I met but also the relative inflexibility of growing cocoa. Expansion of output is hard to achieve. Inputs, such as fertilizers, are expensive and are used less than they should be by non-organic growers. New trees take years to reap fruit. Field labor is surprisingly costly. Producers also fear a glut; they can benefit from stagnant production too...[continue reading]

Shouldn't the farmers be exploring ways collectively or otherwise to add value to their primary product? The irony of having to purchase chocolate derivatives in the West for usage back on a continent is simply inexcusable 50 years after independence.

Via RealClearPolitics, Mike Allen broke this disgusting story yesterday:

Phil Schiliro, the White House congressional liaison, has told the Senate to aim to take up an energy bill the week of July 12, after the July 4 break (and after the scheduled final passage of Wall Street reform). Kagan confirmation will follow, ahead of the summer break, scheduled to begin Aug. 9. The plan is to conference the new Senate bill with the already-passed House bill IN A LAME-DUCK SESSION AFTER THE ELECTION, so House members don't ave to take another tough vote ahead of midterms.

A White House aide has the official word: "President Obama reiterated his call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation to break our dependence on oil and fossil fuels. In the coming weeks he will be reaching out to Senators on both sides of the aisle to chart a path forward. A number of proposals have been put forward from Members on both sides of the aisle. We're open to good ideas from all sources, and will be working with Senators on a comprehensive proposal. The tragedy in the Gulf underscores the need to move quickly, and the President is committed to finding the votes for comprehensive energy legislation this year."

Gary Peters, Democrats in Congress, and Democratic President Barack Obama know that the people don't want this cap-and-tax bill passed. They know without a certainty of a doubt that the voters DO NOT want the bill. The will of the people has been clearly expressed to them, and the Democrats totally understand that there is no way that voters want anything to do with this bill. And yet they intend on passing it anyway.

If you tell someone not to do something, you demonstrate through actions (like an election) that you don't want someone to do something, and then they look at you and do it anyways, what are they telling you? Gary Peters, Democratic Congressman from Michigan's 9th District, is telling his constituents "screw you." Barack Obama, Democratic President, is telling the people of the United States "screw you." They know that people don't want the bill passed, and yet are going to pass it anyway, in defiance of the public will, in disregard to the public will, and in disrespect to the public will.

This isn't Bush surging troops in Iraq when the 'public was against it'- polling data was pretty inconclusive on the War in Iraq, and if it was unpopular, it was marginally so (although vocally so in a certain segment of the population). And Bush was proud of the surge- he thought it would work and that voters would reward his party in the coming elections from its success (it did work but voters are idiots and punished him for winning an 'unwinnable' war). The cap and tax bill is different- voters are solidly against it , and have been for a long time, and in a consistent manner, and getting more and more against, and Democrats know it won't work, are not proud of it, and don't want to run on its success because they know it is going to be a failure. And yet they'll pass it anyway.

"Screw you America" is the new slogan of the Democrats. I'm not going to take this any more- everyone in my Congressman's district needs to know that this is how the Democrats think. Throw the bums out.

In FT:

...the direction of trade may be changing but its character, involving raw material exports and manufactured imports, has not. Yet over the long-term demand for African commodities, land and manpower is unlikely to diminish. This time optimism about the outlook has less to do with visionary autocrats and more with the macro-economic climate.

More here

Now that the healthcare bill has been passed, I see that the news is getting a little more honest about reporting just exactly what the healthcare bill is. For example, the Detroit News says:

The landmark legislation that Obama signed Tuesday would provide health care to 32 million uninsured people. The $938 billion, 10-year price tag would be financed largely by culling savings from Medicare and imposing new taxes on higher income people and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

That's exactly what this healthcare bill was at its heart- a massive expansion of government welfare paid for by raising taxes (the 'savings' from Medicare are fake savings- the government telling doctors that they are going to accept less money for procedures and drugs doesn't affect the real cost of those procedures or drugs).

Welfare and tax raises- that's the Democrats solution to everything, and you can just put 'healthcare reform' in that same boat and that basically is what it is. But, Democrats are still in Washington, so today they went right back to the Obama/Pelosi Democrat plan for America- more welfare spending, more 'construction' spending, and more taxes to pay for this government largess.

A bill passed Wednesday in the House of Representatives would billions of more dollars for construction projects and welfare programs in selected states. Democrats characterized the $16 billion dollar bill as yet another stimulus program, but in reality it is more welfare and government make-work projects funded by increased taxes and fees or increased debt. This is the Democrat's only answer to every problem in society- increase dependence on the unaccountable state, increase the power of the government, increase the number of people in society working for the government, while taxes and fees and regulations go up on free people who are forced to carry the deadweight of government and its dependents around on their backs.

Democrats, like my Congressman Gary Peters, don't make it a secret that what you are voting for when you don't vote Republican is welfare and taxes.

The cautionary tales of commodity dependence continue.In Pambazuka Khadija Sharife writes about Zambia's copper straitjacket:

Once perceived as an icon of progress in Africa thanks to wealth from its copper mines, today over 75 per cent of Zambia's population lives below the poverty line...Khadija Sharife recounts the country’s ‘riches to rags’ story – a story that is being repeated in former resource colonies across the continent, which although ‘politically liberated’ have ‘remained economically chained’.

More here
Even Russia's Medvedev rails against commodity dependence.

Pius Adesanmi writes in Sahara Reporters:

The lack of exclusive dependence on illegal slave labor and plantations by the North created a pluralistic conceptualization of the material base of society in that part of the United States. This in turn led to a diversification of the sources of wealth creation and a boundless spirit constantly seeking more diverse ways of societal progress and advancement that would later eventuate in manufacturing and industrialization. Theirs was a philosophy of building society yourself...[continue reading]

Photo courtesy of Sahara Reporters

Pius Adesanmi writes in Sahara Reporters:

The lack of exclusive dependence on illegal slave labor and plantations by the North created a pluralistic conceptualization of the material base of society in that part of the United States. This in turn led to a diversification of the sources of wealth creation and a boundless spirit constantly seeking more diverse ways of societal progress and advancement that would later eventuate in manufacturing and industrialization. Theirs was a philosophy of building society yourself...[continue reading]

Photo courtesy of Sahara Reporters

Khadija Sharife in FPIF writes:

The portrayal of Africa's strong-arm leaders as lone rangers obscures the system underpinning the dictatorships and delinks dictators from their primary source of sustenance. The rhetoric of French-controlled development endorsed by Bongo is a subset of France's postcolonial Africa policy — Françafrique — designed to create structural dependence and domination by reasserting geostrategic control over natural resources through the use of black "governors." The pulse of the Françafrique ideology — fric is slang for cash — is rooted in shadow economies sustaining respectable corporations, various intersecting shadow networks, secret services, private lobbies, and political and diplomatic relationships between the official and unofficial political elite. These forces are individually and collectively able to mobilize substantial economic, political, and military support.

More here
via Pambazuka

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Enrichment of Africa's French Allies (time.com)
• The Resource Curse and Democracy (my-beauty-best-teacher.blogspot.com)

The vulnerability inherent in external dependencies is highlighted once again.Linda Nordling writes at SciDev:

Foreign funding is important for African science. It pays for much of the best of it — for example, testing the PRO 2000 gel which recently gave hope to women wanting to protect themselves against HIV infection (see Microbicide hope at last, say researchers).It is also important in re-building universities and research communities on the continent — although the ensuing dependence on overseas donors remains controversial.
A decline in external funding would have seemed far-fetched a few years ago when donors were falling over one another to pledge support for African science. But with the global financial crisis, things are looking less rosy...[continue reading]

Yash Tandon writes in Ending Aid Dependence:

Developing countries reliant on aid want to escape from this dependence, and yet they appear unable to do so. This book shows how developing countries can liberate themselves from the aid that pretends to be developmental but is not. Exiting aid dependence should be at the top of the political agenda of all countries...[continue reading]

Mammo Muchie writes in Pambazuka:

Over half century has passed; Africa suffers from myopia of a particularly pernicious 'fragmentation-dependence.' The root problem for this unchanging predicament lies in the state of fragmentation that invites dependency that conversely continues to prevent the evolution of an African national spirit, purpose, project and strategy.There is need for a fresh approach, a new departure to embark on a roadmap to convert the 'fragmentation-dependence' dilemma into an enabling integration-self-sustaining, innovative, learning, capabilities building' national project - and re- launch African development on a secure pedigree with confidence and inspiration...[continue reading]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Anti-science Greenies keep Africa poor, says boffin

Image via Wikipedia From Alex Perry and Kassahun Addis at TIME:

Nearly a quarter-century ago, an outright famine led to Live Aid, an international fund-raising effort promoted by rock stars, which produced an outpouring of global generosity: millions of tons of food flooded into the country. Yet, ironically, that very generosity may have contributed to today's crisis.
Over time, sustained food aid creates dependence on handouts and shifts focus away from improving agricultural practices to increase local food supplies. Ethiopia exemplifies the consequences of giving a starving man a fish instead of teaching him to catch his own. This year the U.S. will give more than $800 million to Ethiopia: $460 million for food, $350 million for HIV/AIDS treatment — and just $7 million for agricultural development. Western governments are loath to halt programs that create a market for their farm surpluses, but for countries receiving their charity, long-term food aid can become addictive...[continue reading]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ethiopia: A new food crisis
• Ethiopia appeals for urgent aid
• Meles Zenawi Q and A

Cyril Enweze has stated that:

To enhance trade among African countries, Mr. Enweze said, the ADB, together with the World Bank and IMF, advocates tariff reductions on imports. But many countries have been reluctant to do this because external trade tariffs are important sources of government revenue. To reduce such dependence, Mr. Enweze recommends that countries "begin a very important process of diversifying the tax base, to see what can be done with various types of taxes -- income tax, sales tax and value-added tax."

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes about the recently concluded WSF in Kenya.

This dependence on foreigners, both financially and ideologically, is so pervasive that it cannot be ignored anymore. There are signs that an increasing number of Africans are not only outraged by it but becoming ashamed by it, and are looking for ways and means of freeing our activism from the clutches of donor funding and donor-driven agendas. These issues were frankly and honestly discussed at many forums before and during the summit

and asks:

How many of our busy-body, noise-making NGOs qualify in this sense? It is similar to our governments being dependent on the aid of outsiders, and we demanding that they should be accountable to us. We do not pay taxes but demand representation and wonder why the leaders are more responsive to any noise that comes from outsiders?