William Thien

Archive for July 2016

A so-called conservative radio pundit recently referenced Trump’s belief that we need to scrap all of these international trade treaties such as NAFTA and TPP. The pundit suggested in his commentary that it was a bad idea to curtail international trade by ending such trade deals.

The the problem is though that the pundit mistakenly confused NAFTA and TPP as well as China’s Most Favored Nation Trading status with “off-shoring.” The aforementioned treaties are indeed trade treaties.

With respect to this observation trade or “international trade” involves the trade of products manufactured in another country and branded with the trademark or name of the company that was founded in that country.

The other type of trade, or “off-shoring” to which this observation refers, which is not really trade at all, involves a company here in The United States closing up shop and production here in The United States and off-shoring production to another country all the while stamping its name or trademark on the same products of a foreign origin and advertising at the same time that the consumer needs to “buy American.” From what I can discern, this latter example is what Trump is referencing in his commentary. Trump is referencing the sweetheart tax deals that benefit those U.S. companies involved in off-shoring American jobs and thereby putting Americans out of work and receiving a tax break at the same time.

There is a massive distinction between open trade and offering tax deals to offshore American jobs.

In my opinion, Trump has it right on this issue.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

One of the reasons the media try so desperately to label mass shooters as “psychologically unstable” following a mass shooting is that in doing so the system itself to which the media represent, the government and the corporations which advertise using the media, avoid being labeled as well, avoid being labeled as perhaps repressive, oppressive, inefficient, bloated, parasitic, socialist, communist, what have you.

No one would dispute that there has been a recent increase in mass shootings. At least on the face of things it would seem that the number of shootings has increased. Does this mean that there is a direct correlation with an increase in government oppression or repression or any other such indication? Because the weapons used to commit those mass shootings have been around for some time and available to the public all the while. The weapons have been around much longer than the recent increase in mass shootings to be sure.

With the implementation of such legislation as The Patriot Act and the steady increases in the numbers of law enforcement (nothing wrong with law enforcement, just making a point), the historical expansion of the surveillance state, the cameras everywhere you go, the monitoring of internet activity both by the government and corporations who shove tailored sales pitches at you while on the internet and then chase you up and down the road with advertisements, I think that it is quite possible there is a generalized public reaction to these changes, to the expansion of the surveillance and media state, to the “by definition” increase in government AND corporate oppression as defined by the increased, smothering government presence in many communities and in the increases in taxes to cover the costs of such expanded government behavior. Are we seeing the beginnings of a mass public attempt to shake it all off? To a certain extent, I think we are.

In other words, smothered by this new surveillance state it is hard to catch a breath of the fresh air of freedom in this so-called land of the free!

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

We live in an age when “party” supersedes “values” and platform. No example of that is more obvious than in the recent surrender of The Sanders campaign to that of Hillary Clinton for the sake of the Democratic Party after being duped no less BY the Democratic Party to which Sanders swore political allegiance.

After seeing what was done by The Democratic Party to the man in the leaked emails, after seeing how stultified Bernie Sanders looked before capitulating to Hillary at the convention, I think it is safe to make a comparison between The Democratic Party’s methods and the strong-arm tactics of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union or that of the contemporary Communist Party in China.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

You almost have to feel sorry for a guy like Bernie Sanders. Yesterday he surrendered what may very well have been the nomination of The Democratic Party for president after having been clearly and publicly duped by the party to which he swore allegiance in order to achieve what he had, and he surrendered without a fight to those who betrayed him. In doing so he demonstrated that his followers should “surrender” with him. Oh, yes, that’s what he is suggesting, there can be no question. ‘You too must all surrender.’ Surrender with me, he said in so many words, surrender to the party that misled you until it could no longer afford to do so.

Don’t surrender with Bernie.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Regarding the gun debate, particular media pundits like the one I heard the other day like to say that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when firearms were muskets and flintlocks and the 2nd Amendment as a result is outdated and should be repealed. Here is my response. The constitution was written at a time when only the printing press existed. There were no cameras, no television, no helicopters, no drones, there was no internet, just pen and paper. How would today’s members of the media like to return to the days of the one-off printing press, a new sheet for each turn of the handle?

Answer that! What do you think?

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

When we consider the world Orwell described in 1984 we think of big government and the stifling oppression associated with it. Unless you read well into it, that’s kind of how it reads. I’ve mentioned previously that I believe Orwell’s tale didn’t quite describe the actual intrusiveness of the television and that it’s a convenient diversion for the contemporary electronic and broadcast media to suggest that all intrusion originates from big government and focus on such government behavior when in fact it is the media that drives most such intrusion and it is the media that truly has the manpower and resources to behave in such a manner. Why, because the media profit so thoroughly from the foibles and tragedies of mankind that it must. That’s how the media is designed. As they say in the media, “if it bleeds, it leads.” The public is fodder for the media. The public is the greatest source of media profiteering.

Simply because you’ve stepped outside of your house, the media can begin to photograph you, follow you, build a file even. It’s all fairly legal. They can even create situations whereby you might find yourself angered or wounded socially in public and then report on it. It’s a form of “news making.” The more ethical news conglomerates don’t utilize such methods but sooner or later, they are all sharing files and footage anyway to keep up with ratings.

We are all concerned about big government intrusion when in fact maybe we should be just as focused if not more so on big media intrusion. Often one hand feeds the other.

Maybe it is time to curtail media behavior and activity through legislation. The media as an industry are way more intrusive and divisive than any government behavior, in this country anyway. As I said before, one hand, that of big government, often feeds the other, that of the media. If we want to curtail big government intrusiveness, maybe we should turn our focus on big media intrusiveness as well.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

I have reached the conclusion that Hillary will as she has said a number of times continue with policy that parallels the current administration. She is also married to Bill Clinton who during his administration ratified NAFTA and granted China Most Favored Nation trading status, or MFN.

It was also during the Clinton administration that the push to provide tax incentives for off-shoring found its fullest momentum. Hillary’s remarks about a continuance of policy and the aforementioned associations suggest Hillary will be a “Globalist” as that is the result of negotiating international trade deals and legislating tax breaks for the offshoring of industrial production.

I have written previously that through the ratification of NAFTA and by granting China MFN, Bill Clinton actually went to the end of the US assembly line and threw the switch, shutting down the American assembly line in many respects, perhaps for good.

Trump on the other hand has suggested numerous times that he will rip up NAFTA and attempt to re-write trade deals that he and most of the middle classes in America agree are unfair to The US and US workers. That makes Trump a “Nationalist,” which the media has been “labeling” him rather frequently, almost as if favoring their own audience is a bad thing.

Globalism is not unsound policy. But globalism favors primarily corporate interests. Nationalism on the other hand favors the wage earner and the working stiff.

So the choice is clear. Will you vote for the Nationalist or The Globalist?

Copyright © William Thien 2016
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

July 2016
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: