Thursday, November 18, 2010

Enjoy the Movie All Ye Muggles!


Some of my best friends are Harry Potter fans. I'm too much of a misanthrope and sociopath to be a fan of anything. I refused to see Star Wars for years and enjoy poking fun at Star Trek.
That being said, I have read all seven Harry Potter books. Not because I'm a fan, but because I pretty much read every thing I can get my hands on.
I'm fascinated that Rowling had a vision of how the series was to end before she started writing. I had to read the last few chapters several times to fully appreciate how well this vision unfurled. It was stunning.
Some critics are bashing the latest movie, saying it made a lot of wrong choices and will only please hard-core muggles. If it only pleases fans, then it should be a success. Last time I checked, there were A LOT of Harry Potter fans. Seems like the smart thing to do.
I won't be joining you at the premiere , my muggle friends. I won't get dressed up as my favorite character and wait in line for hours. But I'm glad you all are. Movies are fun. Good movies are great fun. Enjoy the movie, enjoy each other. Have a great time rehashing the movie with your friends.
I'm looking forward to reading your reviews and impressions. I have a niece who is in China now in a student exchange program who is a huge fan. I hope she gets to see the movie.
Me, I'll catch it on Netflix in a couple of years. Maybe.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Why I'm Not a Conspiracy Theorist



In the mid-90s my brother-in-law gave me a box of books containing his 'conspiracy collection.' I read through most of them. They were about aliens, UFOs, government cover-ups and international conspiracies.
From my perspective, most of these theories don't work because their assumption that world leaders are involved is flawed. Namely, that in order for these theories to work, the people carrying them out have to be intelligent. Extremely intelligent.
My observation is that in the upper echelons of government throughout the world, this is not the case. Rather the opposite seem to be true, the leaders of this world are incredibly stupid and are not capable of running their own countries or companies capably. To affix to these inbred, elitist morons the ability to conceive and implement detailed complex plans appears to be far-fetched.
It is for this reason, the obvious stupidity of our leaders, that conspiracy theories inevitably turn to aliens as the source of this complex, intelligent, patient planning. There is an obvious explanation for the Pyramids, Baalbek, Stonehenge and other ancient structures that defy modern description.
Mark Twain said something to the effect that he didn't believe in evolution because from what he observed, humanity was getting worse. This is probably the key. Humanity has devolved over the centuries, not evolved.
As a species, we've never been very bright. Over the centuries we have gotten more arrogant but less intelligent. People point to technological progress and say "we have better TVs, that is proof we have progressed."
Really?
What do we watch on our better TVs? If American Idol and Desperate Housewives are proof of an advanced culture then we are indeed desperate.
Here's proof how stupid we are. Our water supply is rapidly being contaminated. Our air supply is rapidly being contaminated. Our food supply is (repeat as often as necessary).
I used to work for the West Virginia Department of Agriculture. My boss, the Commissioner of Agriculture Cleve Benedict, made apple growers stop using pesticides, made bug killers stop poring poisons into the groundwater, updated meat and dairy standards, and closed restaurants that sold soft ice cream with high bacteria levels. Benedict angered so many leaders in the agricultural community that he had no chance being re-elected commissioner and ran for governor instead. He lost.
I bring this up because Benedict is an anomaly. He is from the upper echelons. His mother was a Proctor (as in Proctor and Gamble) and he attended an Ivy League school (Princeton). He cared about the environment and was rewarded with early retirement.
One thing conspiracy theorists are spot on about is that governments continually lie and engage in cover ups.
But I would suggest government leaders do so to avoid being held responsible for mucking things up.
One more bit of evidence. During the government's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, we had a president tell the leader of FEMA that he was doing 'a heck of a job.' This only makes sense in light of the fact that our leaders are so incompetent they really have no clue as to what a 'good job' is.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

It's Official - Our Government is Moronic

The color codes for security alerts introduced by the previous administration were bad enough. They exhibited kindergarten-level intelligence, but at least they were colorful.
The latest security procedures introduced by the current administration have made it official what many people have been saying for years. Our government leaders are morons. The inbred elites that have been running this country (into the ground) for the last thirty years now want someone to feel up your privates before you can get on a plane.
Taking your shoes off and confiscating your shampoo wasn't enough. No, our government wants, desperately it seems by the way administration officials are defending the policy, to play with your privates.
It has been a steady progression since 9/11. Every government response to the World Trade Center tragedy has been inept, inefficient and unnecessary. Now we can add perverse to the list.
When will somebody have the courage to say that creating the bureaucratic behemoth of Homeland Security and fighting two wars have bankrupted this country? Can anybody in this country do math anymore? More than half of the federal budget is spent fighting two unnecessary wars and paying off the massive deficit.
"We've got to do something to fight the terrorists, David. They want to take away our freedoms!"
No, WE want to take away our own freedoms. And it appears, act like a bunch of perverted morons while we're doing it.
"We've got to fight the terrorists, David!"
I grew up during the Viet Nam war. Here's what I heard:
"We've got to fight the Communists, David. They want to take away our freedoms!"
"If South Viet Nam falls, the Communists will take over all of Southeast Asia."
We now know that pretty much everything our government told us about the Viet Nam war was a lie. What on God's Green Earth makes us think it is different today?
We're pretty sure the reasons for going to war with Iraq were lies. We may eventually find out that Bin Laden died in 2002.
As for fighting the terrorists, if they were Saudis, hold the Saudis accountable. Did we? No, we held their hands.
There are effective, efficient ways to fight terrorists. We could learn from a country that has faced terrorist attacks from its inception, Israel. The Israelis do not treat their citizens as terrorists. They understand something the morons in our government have yet to grasp.
Selma from New York flying to see her grandchildren is not a terrorist. Bob from Michigan flying to California to attend his father's funeral is not a terrorist. Mindy from Utah flying home from school is not a terrorist.
Our citizens are not terrorists. The Israelis know this. Terrorists are people from other countries. While security at our airports is busy feeling up your grandmother or granddaughter, the Israelis take those from other countries aside and subject them to rigorous questioning.
You know what? It works.
Sooner or later, if we the people don't insist on stopping these policies, somebody may conclude that we the people have the government we deserve.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Growing Up With Sherlock Holmes


I don't remember whether I first came across Sherlock Holmes in the old black and white movies or in the school library. We watched Basil Rathbone, who usually played villains, as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson in those wonderful, old movies.
The one I remember most was The Hounds of the Baskervilles. Some of the films were updated to WWII England where the Nazis were the bad guys.
I only remember getting one Sherlock Holmes book, but it was the complete edition. The edition contained all four novels and five collections of short stories, amounting to more than 1300 pages. I have read it completely at least four times, and favorite stories many times more than that.
Looking back on it, those stories probably shaped my life more than any other collection of stories, save one, that being the Bible.
Knowing that Nigel Bruce's portrayal as Watson as a buffoon was not in the stories did not detract from my enjoyment of either. They are different mediums. People that expect movies to be like books know very little about either books or movies.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created memorable characters and different people can interpret these characters in different ways. Not all of us are going to like every version, but to NOT like it because it's not like the book misses the point entirely.
That being said, I appreciated Watson's portrayal in the British Television series by David Burke and Edward Hardwicke. Watson came across as competent and sensible. Jeremy Brett's Holmes was masterful, capturing the hyperactive brilliance of the detective.
Brett and Hardwicke did such a magnificent job that it is understandable there would be resistance to the newest version of Holmes on television.
I have yet to see the Robert Downey Jr. movie version, Max highly recommends it, but I have caught all three episodes of the Benedict Cumberbatch (that's his real name!) and Martin Freeman version on Masterpiece Mystery (i.e. British television).
The new version is set in modern times, with cell phones and texting playing a big part. Watching these episodes, which combined several stories in each one, I realized how much I was like Sherlock. It took the modern era setting for it to sink in. When Holmes was cavorting through Victorian England, he remained distant, detached.
It felt like I was watching myself in my late twenties, meaning it was somewhat embarrassing. As to affirm my thinking, my Masterpiece Mystery partner said after watching the first episode that Cumberbatch's Holmes was a lot like me.
In the first episode we find out some of the law enforcement officers regard Holmes as a psychopath. Upon hearing this, Holmes retorts "I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high-functioning sociopath, do your research!"
Holmes' mind works at warp speed. I have often told people that I don't consider my mind any better than any one's, but I understand it works at speeds far faster than the norm. I sometimes get frustrated with people, thinking, "You haven't figured that out yet! What is taking you so long?"
It's taken me years to realize that they're not to blame, they're normal, I'm the one who is abby-normal (apologies to Mel Brooks).
It's very hard for Holmes to have relationships. Watson puts up with him because he is a loyal bloke who appreciates Holmes talents. Freeman's Watson does a good job of calling Holmes on his shortcomings. Which Holmes, in his limited way, acknowledges and appreciates.
The Sherlock episodes are brilliant. Highly recommended. I'm looking forward to seeing the Robert Downey Jr. movie version of Holmes. It's in the queue.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Davey and Goliath meet David and Goliath



Many of us remember the story of David and Goliath. Some of us might remember the cartoon show Davey and Goliath.
The cartoon, a stop-action clay animation show, had a well intentioned but dim witted Davey and his intelligent dog, Goliath, who had to keep reminding Davey of what his mother had told him.
"Now Davey, you know what your mother said," Goliath would say.
But no, Davey was dumber than a box of rocks and got in trouble every episode until he 'did the right thing.' And if he didn't have his dog to remind him what the 'right thing' was, we can assume Davey would have ended up a juvenile delinquent, drug addict or in prison.
Every show had a moral message, which was basically that Davey was too dumb to remember what his mother told him. It was probably my favorite cartoon show.
The story of David and Goliath is a story about two champions who duel to the death. Goliath is huge and well armored. David is a mere boy armed only with a slingshot.
Naturally, the little boy with the slingshot wins, because, like the cartoon show, the story is fiction. But what is interesting is that it really does reflect warfare in ancient times.
Goliath was the champion for the Philistines; David was the champion for the Israelites. When David defeated Goliath, the Israelites won and the Philistines went home.
WHAT, ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
No, if your champion lost, your whole tribe or clan or city-state lost. We need to do that today. In the second Gulf War, wouldn't it have worked better if President Bush and Saddam Hussein had just duked it out and left the rest of us out of it?
Where did we go wrong? David and Goliath had it right. We are extremely messed up.
Napoleon came up with the idea of nationalism to convince people to die in his army fighting people in countries far away from their borders.
When Napoleon invaded Russia and Spain in 1812, his army was made up mainly of conscripts from the general populace.
Before Napoleon, most armies were comprised of mercenaries. The monarchs that ran most countries in Europe could not afford standing armies. Napoleon changed all that. The whole nationalism thing is one big scam perpetrated on people to get them to fight wars that used to be fought by mercenaries or by champions.
In effect, we are as dumb as Davey, we have forgotten what our mothers told us. We fight wars all over the world because we have been conditioned from birth, thank you Napoleon, that it is our duty to die for our country.
Our Founding Fathers, bless them, knew better. They mistrusted standing armies as well. They knew they were instruments of tyranny. Please, please, read the Declaration of Independence again. Washington had to rely primarily on local militia to win the war, as the Continental Congress refused to authorize a large, professional army.
We're fighting two wars now, are we insane or just very, very dumb?
Ancient peoples in some ways are more intelligent than we are today. At least in regards to the way we fight wars.
It would help if our leaders today were as smart as Goliath. The dog, not the Philistine.

Monday, November 8, 2010

I'm A War Gamer; Not A War Monger


We grew up playing board games, mainly Monopoly, Risk and Stratego. With six kids in our house, and many kids in the neighborhood our age, there was never a shortage of gaming or gamers.
One day, browsing in a hobby store looking for an updated Monopoly game I came across a game called '1914,' a simulation of the German campaign against France and Britain in the opening months of WWI.
I loved history and bought or read most of the books the game used as sources. Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August was the most memorable one. When I was in high school I complained to history teachers that we never got to WWI by the end of the year, (we were lucky to get to Reconstruction) so one teacher suggested I give a lecture to our class on the opening of WWI.
I put together what I thought was a great lecture. I drew maps in colored chalk all over the chalkboard. For almost a half hour I passionately and enthusiastically went through the opening campaign, from the capture of the Belgian forts at Liege and Namur to the stirring Battle of Marne where France averted defeat.
When I looked at my classmates after the lecture, I noticed most of them were asleep. Those not asleep had a glazed-over look in their eyes. For the not the first time in my life, I felt like an alien, a freak, some one from another planet. Nobody was remotely interested in WWI.
I kept reading military history and buying war games. I'd read the historical analysis and set the game up, sometimes playing it solitaire.
A few years ago, while searching for war games online (hobby stores didn't sell war games anymore) I came across a war gamers convention in metropolitan New York City sponsored by a game company called GMT.
Although based in California, after 9/11 GMT decided to sponsor a convention on the east coast to honor all their customers in the NYC area. I found out about this in 2005 and have gone every year since.
Every year is an incredible experience. War gamers are amazing people. I have never encountered the unabashed egalitarianism there anywhere else.
Nobody asked you about how much money you made, what your religion was, or what your politics were. They only asked "what game do you want to play?"
Over the years, I have discovered that many of the people at the convention are from the upper echelons. That explained their egalitarianism. They were comfortable with who they were and were accepting of other people, despite any perceived differences.
One of the game designers I met writes speeches for world leaders. Another does computer security for global financial concerns. Another is one of the founders of the rock group Three Dog Night. They are doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, historians, insurance salesmen and retired military officers.
When I shared my story during a break with some friends about my lecture on WWI in high school, one of them said kindly, "At that point did you realize you weren't like everyone else?"
We all laughed.
Then he said seriously, "At most only two percent of the people in the world can do what we do. We are all freaks of nature. That's why we like getting together."
We then went back to our game.
It was a battalion level recreation of the D-Day landings using all five British and American beaches. I also have regimental and divisional level games of the Normandy landings of June 1944.
I may be a freak. I may be an alien. But at least I know there are others like me. War gamers are not war mongers. We know full well the cost of war. We know how many casualties there were in every battle ever fought.
It may be said that those who know war the best, despise it the most. I think Robert E. Lee said something close to that. Lee knew a lot about war.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Voters Said 'No Thank You' to Millionaires












One interesting aspect of the recent election is that all of the high-profile millionaire candidates spending huge chunks of their fortunes lost their election bids. This usually doesn't happen, and should put the Tea Party and voter anger in a different light. Certainly different than what we've been hearing from the bobble-headed commentators on TV.
Last year in the New Jersey gubernatorial election between Chris Christie and Jon Corzine something similar happened. Corzine made his fortune on Wall Street and with no prior government experience, won election in 2000 to the US Senate, but didn't complete his term before winning the governor's office in 2005.
Corzine got his backside handed to him by Christie in 2009, as voters showed they weren't going to vote for someone who ran a company (Goldman-Sachs) responsible for much of the financial shenanigans that led to the crash.
In 2010, E-Bay CEO Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Wrestling Magnate Linda McMahon spent hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money and were defeated. Whitman lost to Jerry Brown, the former Jesuit, former governor, Linda Ronstadt, former attorney general and son of former governor Pat Brown. A political hack if there ever was one - Linda Ronstadt - who will run for any office any time - Linda Ronstadt.
I like Linda Ronstadt a lot, and mentioning Jerry Brown gives me a chance to mention her. Linda Ronstadt.
Fiorina lost to Barbara Boxer, one of the most liberal members of the US Senate, EVER. But just so we don't think of the trend as applying to only California elections, Linda McMahon in Connecticut lost the senate race to a long-time elected official, attorney general Richard Blumenthal.
All three millionaire candidates this year that lost were Republicans. In New Jersey, the millionaire who lost was a Democrat. Keep an eye on Christie, his stock is sure to rise between now and 2012.
We learned last Tuesday that voter anger against incumbents must also be balanced with mistrust of the rich who are getting richer as everybody else gets poorer. Probably won't hear that in the mainstream media. But you heard it here. This is the Heretic, for November 7, 2010, Linda Ronstadt, over and out.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Insurance Companies Are the Problem

People are upset about the health care legislation called, by its critics, 'ObamaCare.' They are upset because insurance companies have spent billions of dollars telling them they are upset. Therein is the problem. Monkey hear, monkey speak. Insurance companies treat us like a bunch of dumb monkeys because they think we are a bunch of dumb monkeys.
And most of the time, they're right.
My job as a Heretic is to point out concepts and ideas beyond the traditional and orthodox. With regards to insurance companies, the orthodox positions work well - for insurance companies - but work horribly for everybody else.
Part of this is because insurance companies hire people really good at math and most of us suck at math. Simply put, insurance companies (I'll call them Leeches) make money by bringing in more money in premiums than they pay out in benefits. A lot more money.
We need to over simplify the insurance situation to create a level of understanding, knowing it's actually much more complicated.
Say you spend $100 on car insurance, $300 on health insurance, $50 on life insurance, and $50 on homeowner's insurance a month. That's $500 a month. For a year, $6,000. Here's where the math comes in (probability). The Leeches have figured out the probabilities involved in paying out premiums.
They know that most people, for example, that pay car insurance will not have accidents. If someone does have an accident, the Leeches know how high to push the deductibles so they still make a bundle in profits.
If we took that $6,000, saved it for, as they used to say, a 'rainy day' we would be in much better shape. What about catastrophic cases? My answer is to find out what we did before the Leeches convinced all of us we needed them.
The answer lies in the collective. In rural areas, it's called 'barn raising.' Insurance companies are not the answer. They are the problem. They have spent billion dollars buying legislators and judges so their services are required by law.
The Leeches have destroyed capitalism. They have destroyed the marketplace. They have destroyed supply and demand. Instead, we have extortion perpetuated and perpetrated on us by our government. This extortion is sustained by bribery - i.e. the billions of dollars the Leeches spend on campaign contributions.
Are you upset at ObamaCare? OK, but what is the solution? My guess is whatever solution you will offer has already put in your minds and mouths by the Leeches. They've spent billions of dollars to make it so. It's my job to help you get your own voice, your own thoughts, back where they belong.
You can think for yourself. You can take care of yourself. You don't need an insurance company to put you 'in good hands,' to be 'like a neighbor.' We need each other.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Tea Party Activism Exposes Myth of Good Living in the Suburbs as Seriously Flawed


Tea Party activists have a point. Property taxes are high. Especially in suburbs. There is a reason for this.
I call it the Santa Claus Myth. Conceptually, there is a big difference between the individual and the collective. In the west, we are all about the individual. At least since a period in history we label, perhaps not correctly, The Enlightenment.
Take the Santa Claus Myth. Someone in a sled driven by flying reindeer delivers presents every Christmas. On an individual level, the myth makes sense. But taken collectively, it starts to break down. At what point does the myth break down? Ten families? One hundred? One hundred thousand? A million?
When you do the logistics required for the Santa Claus Myth to work for a million families, it gets really, really absurd. Doesn't work. Not at all.
The myth of the Good Life Living in the Suburbs belongs in the same category. On an individual level, it makes sense. Taken collectively, it breaks down. Enter the Tea Party and similar movements, largely suburban based, upset over property taxes.
Here in New Jersey, property taxes in suburbs are high. There was an influx of people moving across the border to Pennsylvania where property taxes are lower.
Then collective reality hit home. No jobs in eastern Pennsylvania. Many of those who moved are still working jobs in urban New Jersey (or even New York City) and commuting 3-5 hours a day.
We live in Secaucus, five minutes from Manhattan and three minutes from Giants/Jets football stadium. Most of the town is industrial. UPS and US Mail have warehouses and distribution centers. Many large department stores have outlet stores and distribution centers. The New Jersey turnpike runs through the east part of town.
Big rigs rumble through town all day and night. At 9 a.m. in the morning the line of brown UPS trucks leaving the distribution center is a sight to behold. Why talk about this? Taxes, my friends. Taxes.
Unlike WalMart, these industries contribute to the tax base of Secaucus. The town has top notch schools and services. We put up with the noise and big rigs and traffic. The suburbs are quiet. Yes, they are. But without industry, where is the tax base?
People's homes, that's where. That's why suburban property taxes are so high. Who else is going to pay for the schools and fix the potholes? Suburban living, sold to people on an individual basis, breaks down in the collective.
My question to suburban voters is this - who is going to pay for your schools, roads, water and sewer? You live out in some rural area, probably on land once somebody's farm, and you're miles from any industry. Just like you wanted. All quiet and nice, away from all that urban noise, crime and diversity.
You can believe in Santa Claus if you want, but somebody still has to pay for all those presents. Welcome to collective reality. It's the place we need to go when our individual realities break down and don't work any more.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Max Voted Today (For the First Time)


We live in New Jersey. So does Lady Liberty. She faces Manhattan, but she is a Jersey girl. As we say here, "Lady Liberty, Jersey's got your back." Today is the first Tuesday in November, and in New Jersey we get to vote EVERY year.
Not this every other year stuff other states do. We hold state-wide elections in odd years, which is fitting (so does Virginia). We didn't vote for a president or U.S. Senator today. But that didn't that matter, it's still a special election.
Especially for Max, the 18 year-old high school senior we enjoy living with. He voted for the first time. He got to vote for Town Council, U.S. Congress and local sheriff (you need to support your local sheriff). There was also a ballot measure that would prohibit the state from using unemployment funds for anything other than unemployment funds. Pretty sad that you need to force politicians to do this, nothing is safe or sacred with these scoundrels.
Max made sure he registered early, got his voter registration card and sample ballot in the mail. He then wisely asked his mother her opinions. After riding his bike around town putting in job applications (he's getting a car so he needs a job) we went to the local elementary school to vote.
I am not exaggerating when I say that most of the female poll workers (average age 83) swooned when Max walked into the building. He is a tall, curly-haired young person who looks a lot like Roger Daltrey.
I had been harassed by political operatives the last three years (I guess I just look like a heretic), so I was looking forward to voting with Max. I sensed that would change the dynamics favorably. I was right.
Poll workers went out of their way to help Max. I insisted he go ahead of me in line, announcing it was his 'first time.' He chatted with several poll workers on his way out. I was hoping he had a good time.
Apparently he did. What moved me was his awareness of what a privilege it is to vote. I would like to share with you what he wrote about his voting experience.
"Today I voted. For wherever there is a crooked politician looking to satisfy the discontented masses, I will be there. With my finger upon the plastic-covered paper ballot and my choices hidden behind a cloak, I will be a hero with a secret identity. Even if the people I voted for don't win, democracy will win. And the green x's, like stars in the sky, shall light not only my future, but the future of our country."
Lady Liberty, Max and all the young people voting today for the first time, they got your back.

Monday, November 1, 2010

American Upper Class Twits are the Cause of Country's the Immigration Problem


A deservedly famous sketch of the British comedy troupe Monty Python is their scathingly satirical "Upper Class Twit of the Year.' The five Brits had no illusions about the upper crust in their society, they knew they're a bunch of twits.
Americans appear to not have figured that out yet here across the pond. Let me help.
Maybe "twit' is too British. We need to come up with a suitable word to capture the unique qualities of upper class idiocy in America.
I used to live and work in West Virginia. I worked with a sports writer at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph who grew up in McDowell County. He would tell me that some of the people in his hometown looked like the kid on the bridge in the movie "Deliverance.'
The result of inbreeding, he said. The same inbreeding happened with our upper class. Since these elites came across the pond in the 1600's to settle in the New World, they have been inbreeding. That's why our Founding Fathers consistently come off looking better than our upper class today. Every day we see evidence of more than 300 years of inbreeding.
The immigration problem is the latest piece of evidence of how densely stupid rich people are in America. It used to be that rich people could tell who their servants were by the color of their skin or by their accent (i.e. if they had an Irish accent).
It is very important for rich people to know who their servants are, otherwise they might accidentally treat them decently.
The freeing of slaves and the civil rights movement have made life confusing for rich people. Someone with black skin could be college educated and an Irishman could even become president.
Something had to be done. Rich people need to know who to be condescending to and who they can order around. It is their birthright to be waited on hand, foot and mouth (sounds like a disease doesn't it?)
It is much easier for rich people to identify their servants if they don't speak English. If they do speak the language then an accent not learned in an Ivy league prep school is required. The immigration trend in the last thirty years has been to encourage immigration from Mexico, Central and South America.
This has worked out well for rich people. Maybe not so well for the immigrants. Rich people are happy because they don't have to pay the new immigrants much or give them any benefits. Educated American workers have this nasty habit of wanting to get paid a decent wage, not to mention wanting an occasional day off.
Somewhere out there is an appropriate term we here in America can use to describe our upper class twits. Sports team owner? Network TV executive? Oil company CEO? Wall Street broker? U.S. Senator? Ivy League cheerleader?
Those are occupations, won't work. Any suggestions?