Filthy Liberals

It's no secret that the employer-employee relationship in the USA is under intense scrutiny. Greed is currently seen as a virtue by our society, and therefore those who stand in the way of profits, profiteering, and unbridled greed are the enemies of the conservative American business model. This model has evolved since the 1950's, when the US had a strong labor culture and the middle class was growing, and is now shadow of its former self. Under constant attack by conservatives and the conservative media, most young Americans have been tricked into seeing "labor unions" as some kind of parasitic beast.

But this article isn't about that.

This article is about the makes of the tools the slave masters use. Names like IBM figure prominently in this list, as they were instrumental during Hitler's attempts to exterminate the Jews and helped the Nazi war machine to get as far as did by aiding them in conserving resources and working efficiently. Minds like that have now been brought to bear upon the American worker.

Check out this article, where the owners of a new company that markets tracking hardware and software speaks in glowing terms about their "product". They are nothing more than modern day builders of slave pens for the American Worker.

Of course, it's all about the money, and the will to do anything for money. IBM worked with genocidal maniacs to make a buck. This company appears to have the same high ethics.

As I read the article, I had to laugh at certain high points. Here's one:

"Waber explains that his company collects gigabytes of data on each person being monitored each day. They analyze email data, online chat data, and phone call data with the consent of the employees. "The idea," Waber says, "is to really understand: How are people collaborating? How are different teams collaborating with each other and how does that relate to the strategy of the organization? And really understanding: What are the things that make people happy and productive at work?"

LMAO. Yes, the intent is so benign, right? It's not to find out how many seconds their hands are idle, or how many words they use that are not related to the task at hand, right? I think any adult knows that if this information is made available to employers, the majority will not be able to resist attempts at modifying their employees behavior based on such findings. The cheery naivete is astounding.

Time clocks, permission slips, factory compounds and factory stores, now a micro-managing electronic monkey that literally watches every second of the day for any movement that does not mean profit for your employer. Your eyes will be monitored so they never leave the computer screen. You trips to the bathroom closely timed. Every aspect of the day will become a means of punishment for the employee.

May the Gods and Goddesses help humanity when we have people like this around.

The interview on NPR has a couple other knee-slappers too.

"Waber explains that this workplace data is not just beneficial to employers: "One of the reasons why over that last year we've gotten over 90 percent participation at every company we’ve gone to is because people understand that these things are what make them happy and effective."

INDEED!!!! 90% participation, right? Because they just wanted to do it, they didn't think they'd be FIRED or their chances of promotions or having their jobs eliminated next week wasn't a very, very real possibility if they refused the "collar".

This disgusts me. I'm betting it disgusts a lot of people. But one thing is for sure, it's coming to your workplace. Only a matter of time.

I recently stumbled on to another set of poor, butt-hurt conservatives complaining that "the media" has a liberal bias. Now, aside from the well know fact that truth, as reflected in our daily reality, HAS a liberal bias, I always read these articles with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Most of them aren't hard to explode, since they are concocted for the conservo-bubble who will eat any lie they are fed. So, I'd like you to take a look at this article by Fred Barnes, who makes the silly claim again.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

From the article:

"Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I could go on."

The whole thing rambles on and on about how liberals are skewing the news. Remember that "reality has a liberal bias" thing? When you report on reality, it can't help but reflect "liberal" stuff. So, if the news is becoming more objective, and more honest in reporting, then they will - out of necessity - appear to be more liberal. Honesty is a liberal virtue. Lying to your audience, tricking them, pressing emotional buttons and hiding data, is the realm of Fox News and conservatives like Fred Barnes, who offers nothing but his "opinion" on a Pew poll he does not list so the viewer can check it out.

Near the end of the article, this little tidbit appears:

"Those who still doubt the press needs fresh, preferably conservative, blood, should consider these numbers: In 1999, 12 percent of journalists said fairness and balance were a big problem for the media. Now, in the Pew survey, only 5 percent say so--this, after further proof of liberal dominance and noisy debates about liberal bias. And in 1999, 11 percent said ethics and standards were a major concern. But after high-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism, only 5 percent agree today. The case for ideological realignment of the media is closed."

Ok, let's see...

1) " In 1999, 12 percent of journalists said fairness and balance were a big problem for the media. Now, in the Pew survey, only 5 percent say so--this, after further proof of liberal dominance and noisy debates about liberal bias. ..."

Ok, 1999. I'll let it go. Journalists say that we have become MORE fair and MORE balanced in the media. How, exactly, is this "proof" that they are saying so because of an internal liberal bias? There isn't. Fred thinks there is. He's SKEWING here, implying something that has no basis in the fact presented. Among the MENSA members who inhabit the rightwing, this is sheer genius.

2) "And in 1999, 11 percent said ethics and standards were a major concern. But after high-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism, only 5 percent agree today.

There is no logical connection given that the INCREASE in ethics and standards have anything to do with his so-called "high-visibility" scandals and "fabricated stories", which he, of course, being the professional that he is, doesn't bother to show or explain the connection he so desperately is trying to make. I can think of a number of fabricated stories that began in the cesspools of the GOP Illuminati, and I'd love to see what his examples are, or if they make sense to anyone except an person suffering from early onset Alzheimer's.

Fred's article is filled with this stuff, which I guess passes for deep though at the Weekly Standard. I urge my readers to visit the link and see for yourself what it takes to be a journalist, or a "executive editor", at one of today's conservative rags.

And then, of course, we have the typical news-shaping activity we've come to expect from conservatives. This kid wrote an article in which he claims massive liberal media bias based upon the meanderings cited in the Fred Barnes article (again, no cite to the poll). Check out his little article - you won't learn anything, but you'll see how the right brainwashes their kids. HERE.

I have sent an email to Fred Barnes, asking him why he didn't include a link to the Poll. I expect he will say "you can find it yourself". I won't look for it until he tells me, since I want to make sure I use the EXACT SAME SET OF DATA he used to come to his conclusion. (See, I've played this game with fascists before.)

I will report here with his response. Until then, don't expect honesty from rightwing media (I know, I know, no one does...), you'll never get it. Oh, and Fred, I'll report if you're too much of a coward to send me the link too.