digital scam

There was absolutely no reason to switch broadcast tv over to digital except for corporations to make more money. Most people who were either content to receive the lower quality analog signal (i.e., those who chose not to pay for cable) or those who could not afford it were satisfied with broadcast television as it had been. The quality of the picture was not an issue for them. And, as far as the extra bandwidth for each channel goes, nobody's putting any content on it that is not either duplicative or out and out dedicated to full time television sales (infomercials, etc.). And I used to get all local stations. Now, even with an antenna, I get only three.

The switchover to broadcast digital was a total scam of the public by the media conglomerates. All you have to do to verify this is to look at the additional sales the switchover generated: new TV sets (so that converter boxes would not be necessary), antennas (because no one is in a location where they can receive the high quality signal necessary from every station in their area), converter boxes (because no company sold any box for a price anywhere near to the $40 coupon the government issued). The whole deal was a huge corporate con game.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

because they're lips move

I always assume that anyone who wants me to pay them money, for any reason whatsoever, is lying to me. It's better than assuming they are not and end up getting burned.

And I always assume that anything any official corporate or government spokesperson or politician says is a lie. Because, odds are, it is. They'd have little reason to speak otherwise.

Because they all know very well that to speak out is to invite trouble. Never call attention to yourself unless absolutely necessary. And always deny everything you can.

I'd say that the exception to this rule is for advertising purposes, but it's only half an exception: you must speak up to advertise, of course; but most ads inherently lie.

I'm assuming here that exaggeration is a form of lying. If a product or service is as good as they claim it is, they would have no need at all to advertise it. People would know.

And while I'm on the subject of advertising, I don't care how well meaning your organization is or how much I might socially or politically agree with you, if you're going to call me up and leave a message on my machine that goes on and on forever (the last one, today, was over a minute long), at best I'm going to disregard it; or, worse, if I'm in a foul mood, I'm going to refuse to support you altogether or even switch my allegiance to your opponent if their "cause" is anywhere intelligible (because I find myself on the fence about a lot of issues). Stop calling me, assholes! I don't want to hear your messages! My phone is a utility, not your mechanism of mass communication.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

lying bastards

My credit card companies (as well as others, especially Verizon), using the rationale of saving trees via eliminating paper use, prompt me, every time I log into their websites, to change to electronic billing, and yet they continue to mail me paper advertisements for any number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with billing. What's up with this? Are they really interested in saving paper, or what? Verizon is the worst. They send me (coated, the worst form of) paper solicitations to expand my services at least once a week; and I get additional copies of this junk sent to “resident” with the weekly junk mail. They don’t give a frell about saving trees, they're just trying to save money so as to increase profits for their shareholders, disingenuous bastards that they are.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

corporate grifters

People are increasingly recognizing the fact that insurance companies are no longer honest, legitimate companies, that they've slowly ruined whatever little bit of good reputation they had when they began resorting to all kinds of nefarious practices and excuses in order to prevent paying claims so as to increase their profits.

As a consequence, people are opting out of insurance (only the most gullible, socially brainwashed people, those who work for companies that provide it cheaply, or the rich still have it), figuring that the downside is not as bad as getting ripped off would be if and when the insurance company failed to pay off after a legitimate claim was filed.

Therefore, the government has to get involved (spurred on by lobbying, of course) and start mandating that insurance policies be purchased. First, a long time ago, it was house insurance (which, to be fair, banks, not the government, mandated; for good reason); then it was car insurance; and next it's health insurance.

Why do you think that companies increasingly fail to provide insurance to their employees? They recognize it has become a scam business and they don't really want to continue to participate; or, if they feel that their employees will not like it, they require that their employees pay a part of the premium, which has been increasing over time.

Employees, in order to maintain their insurance, must now buy into the scam; and when they do, human psychology dictates that they adopt a belief consistent with their behavior: They're paying for it, therefore they must believe that it's worthwhile. It's classic con game psychology. Once they've got you hooked, you maintain the hold.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

bad company

Last night, Geraldo defended a NY top cop (didn't catch his name), stating that he was a friend and a "good man". The guy was accused and recently convicted of having his home remodeled for less than the going rate, which constituted corruption (bribery?, since the work was done by Mafia-types?) in the eyes of what Geraldo considered to be an overzealous judge.

The "news" piece started with the cop's wife complaining about how her family life has been upset and they have suffered a great deal as a result, as if that had anything to do with anything. "Real" criminals' family lives are equally upset by arrests and convictions. Too bad. It goes with the territory.

Next came Geraldo's defense. His primary points were that other dignitaries (he named one or two of them; again, I didn't catch the names) got much lighter sentences for the same crime and that the prosecutors and especially the judge were overly strict.

Listen, Geraldo. It's right for the judge to be strict, since this is a cop who's supposed to be protecting the public from this kind of nefarious activity. If you want to argue the point, argue the case for the others having gotten off with a wrist slap for being the corrupt assholes they were. You do the crime, you do the time.

And the guy being your friend and a "good man" is irrelevant. Besides, truly good men don't do corruption. If you had argued that he was innocent, that would be a different matter; but, since you didn't, I'm assuming that even you thought he did it. He got what he deserved. And one day so will you. Meanwhile, watch out for those chairs.

.

legalizing corruption

The government is supposed to be preventing or at least acting to minimize, corruption, by catching criminals and punishing them, rather than by doing what they're currently doing, legalizing the corruption, which is what in fact the current system of lobbying and the way they "punish" corporations are: bribes to pass legislation that favor interest groups and wrist-slapping companies with fines instead of sending malfeasant executives to jail.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

controlled inflation

Conservative business people claim that they don't want wage and price controls because they see it as a form of socialism and they want a "free market" instead. But they know goddam well that we haven't had a truly free market for nearly a century and that we already have wage and price controls. The fed controls the prices via ill-controlled inflation, manipulating the money supply in the way criticized by the Austrian School model. By this method, business is assured that prices will continue to slowly rise and deflation will seldom if ever occur, and if circumstance get so bad that deflation cannot be prevented, then the government will step in and divert huge blocks of taxpayer money into the business system to make sure that the value of the business inventories does not drop (as with GM and the banks recently); because inflation benefits business and deflation benefits consumers.

And wages are controlled via the INS, which works to insure that a constant supply of lower level workers enter the US every year so that business can hire them at wages that keep the entire wage system as low as possible by making available to employers not only low cost day laborers, temporary workers, and entry level employees, but also shifting the indigenous worker class up one level (or into unemployment; the choice is theirs) where they can pay them less than they normally would have to; and so on up the wage scales, which leaves all that much more room at the top for huge corporate bonuses to high ranking executives.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.