San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, September 6, 2013

Football Fans Are Crazy

I settled into my rocking chair last night to watch the opening game of the 2013 National Football League season.  The game was between the Denver Broncos and the Baltimore Ravens.  For those who might not be aware, those same two teams met last year for the American Football Conference championship.  Baltimore won that contest in dramatic fashion late in the game.  Baltimore then went on to win the Super Bowl whereupon it immediately pronounced itself the best team in the world.  All of that seems rather strange to me.
Denver pretty much crushed the Baltimore team last night.  That is not what I might have expected when the Broncos were playing the best team in the world.  In fact, Baltimore looked a lot less than the best team in the world last night.  I am not sure which team is the best team in the world right now but one thing is for sure....it is not Baltimore.  Many people believe that Denver is going to be the best team in the world by the end of the season.  The betting line in Las Vegas has established Denver as a 5-1 favorite to win the Super Bowl.  Those are the lowest odds of any team in the NFL.  But who knows?  Only time and a 16 game season will tell.
There was an enormous amount of hype prior to the start of the game.  Airplanes and helicopters circled above the stadium.  All of the local news channels did their evening newscasts as remotes from the stadium.  Most of the evening news was about how the first game of the season was about to start.  Finally, after several delays, some young woman who had won some reality television show award as a superstar singer belted out the national hymn of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I know about how long it takes to sing our national hymn so I switched over to the weather channel while that part of the show was going on.  When I switched back the game was about to start.
I have a hard time watching football.  There are two things about the game that bother me.  Let me tell you about them.  The first thing is the attitude displayed by so many of the players.  Saying this is going to get me labeled a "racist" but that is OK.  I have been labeled a lot of things in my life so I am pretty accustomed to unfair labeling.   It seems to me as if many, if not most, of the players in the NFL are thugs.  They parade around the field as if the entire universe revolves around them.  They dance and they strut every time they make a play they think was good.  They act like little children with an attention span of approximately thirty seconds.  If they do not get immediate feedback every time they make a good play they pout.  If they make a bad play they pout.  The players on the opposing teams were constantly bickering, pushing, shoving and hitting each other.  In several cases they did this right in front of the officials, thus garnering 15 yard unsportsmanship like conduct penalties for their teams.  When they were penalized they didn't even care.  Instead they strutted to the sideline while watching the replay of themselves on the giant screen television in the stadium. 
I don't like watching thugs operate.  I do not like watching legalized mayhem.  I have nothing against hard hits and ferocious play.  I have everything against cheap shots and selfish play.  I ended up spending a good part of the game last night expressing my anger towards the selfish jerks who were playing on the field.  That makes it hard to be a fan.
The second thing that bothers me about football is the fans themselves.  I know of no other sport in the SDA where the fans so identify with their teams that they begin to think of themselves as members of the team.  I read an interview with one fan who said that he has been angry every single day since the Broncos lost to the Ravens last winter.  That is really sad.  What a waste of a life.  How can any human being get so caught up in his affection for a team that he would allow the results of a single meaningless game ruin a good part of his year?  I wonder with his wife thinks?  I wonder what his kids think?  I wonder how bad of a husband and father he has been this past year because of his anger?  What a waste.
Another fan said he could not wait to get "revenge" on the Ravens.  First of all, how can he get "revenge" on the Ravens when he is not even playing the game?  He has so identified with the team that he thinks he is a part of it.  He is wrong, of course.  I am not a player on a professional football team so I do not know for sure but I bet you most players think the fans are pretty dumb.  I know they will never say that to the press, but I think they believe it.  Certainly they know and understand that the fans do not know or understand anything about what it is like to be a professional football player.  Certainly they must get highly irritated when fans shift from cheering to booing and back to cheering all during the course of a single game.  I bet you most players can't stand the fans.
Second, what does it mean to get "revenge" on another team?  The desire for revenge is a sinful desire and it is something that fan should repent of.  Wanting revenge against someone or something that has done you no harm is terribly selfish.  Baltimore won the last game last year.  So what?  What does it mean?  It was just a game, just like last night was just a game.  Games should be entertaining since that is why we watch them.  But to take them so seriously one would harbor sinful thoughts of revenge for non-harmful actions long since past is downright stupid.
Others have thought of this before, so it is not new to me.  The more I think about it the more I think some folks might be on to something here.  Some folks believe that football has become a gigantic emotional and intellectual anesthetic.  These folks believe that football is used by millions in this country to take their minds off the tragic circumstances of their actual lives.  In that sense the game of football is like a drug.  It is taken to avoid having to see the world as it really it.  It is taken to avoid having to talk to the wife I don't like and the kids I can't stand.  It is taken to get me through another week at a job I can't stand.  It is taken to give my life meaning and purpose.  The meaning and purpose is hollow, of course, but don't tell that to a drug addict.  Football fans are just plain crazy.  Don't count me as one of them.

Update September 9, 2013:
 A reader of this blog who knows a whole lot more about football than I do has sent me a correction.  It turns out that Denver lost to Baltimore last year in the AFC Divisional Playoff Game, not the AFC Championship game as I wrongly wrote.  My apologies to all football fans.  Like I said, I am not one.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Still More Political Hypocrisy: Cyber-Terrorism

The Obama administration and the Congress of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika made a big deal earlier this summer about the issue of cyber terrorism.  In particular the Congress exhorted King Obama to take advantage of his June meeting in California with newly elected Chinese President Xi Jinping.  Obama was encouraged to press the case that the Chinese need to stop attacking commercial computer systems based in the SDA.  The career politicians who populate the Congress had much to say about the horrible things the Chinese were doing to SDA businesses.  Here is a news report about some of the things various rulers had to say.   House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said, "In years past, this cyber-trade war has been well down the list of bilateral concerns to address with China.  It is high time for it to jump to the top of the list."  The report says that King Obama and President Xi Jinping "will meet just a week after a government report revealed Chinese hackers obtained designs for some of the U.S. military's top weapons." Apparently the cyber-terrorism has spread beyond the commercial realm to matters of politics and defense. 
More recently, US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a memo in which she stated that a "major cyber event" was about to take place that would have a "serious" impact on American society.  She went on to predict that "our country will, at some point, face a major cyber event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy, and the everyday functioning of society."  Wow!  That sounds like serious business.  It is a good thing SDA taxpayers are sending billions of dollars to the Department of Homeland Security where we can get advance warnings like that.
In an article for the Huffington Post, former Senator of North Dakota Byron Dorgan wrote this about cyber-terrorism, "How dangerous could these cyber attacks be?  Consider what might happen if our water supply, our electric grid, or the Internet was successfully shut down by a cyber attack."  The article went on to say that "former CIA director and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently warned that the next Pearl Harbor might be from cyber-terrorists."  Judging from what all of these important fellows have to say, I think it is fair to conclude that cyber-terrorism is sort of akin to nuclear bombs during the 1970s.  Everyone is scrambling to develop their ability to do it and a few nations have become highly skilled in the art.  Whoever gets to the top first wins.
Of course the SDA would have nothing to do with such low-handed and immoral activities.  The SDA is exceptional.  We never do anything immoral to any citizens of foreign countries or their governments.  All of our actions are as pure as the driven snow.  All of the complaints being issued by the rulers of the SDA are genuine and heartfelt because we all know that we would never stoop so low as to do the same thing unto others.  Right?  Hardly.
In an article written by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post and printed in the Denver Post on Saturday, August 31st, the author tells the sordid tale of SDA cyber-attacks conducted against many of our alleged enemies around the world.  The word got out when former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden released a document that "provides new evidence that the Obama administration's growing ranks of cyberwarriors infiltrate and disrupt foreign computer networks."  What?  I am shocked!  How is it possible that the one thing our King is angrily accusing other countries of doing ends up being the exact same thing we have been doing to them?  I don't believe it.  Snowden must be lying.
The article went on to report that "under an extensive effort, code named GENIE, U.S. computer specialists break into foreign networks so that they can be put under surreptitious U.S. control...the $652 million project has placed covert implants, sophisticated malware transmitted from far away, in computers, routers, and firewalls on tens of thousands of machiens every year, with plans to expand those numbers into the millions....By the end of the year GENIE is projected to control at least 85,000 implants in strategically chosen machines around the world."  And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us?  And we wonder why the rest of the world considers us to be hypocrites?
So let me get this straight....our rulers complain loudly about any attempt by any foreign citizen or agent to hack into any computer on SDA soil while, at the same time, the National Security Agency is implanting spyware devices on tens of thousands of computers found in the government offices of sovereign nations all around the world?  The article said that NSA spyware is never put into computers used for commercial activities.  Somehow we are supposed to be happy that almost 100,000 spyware devices have been placed into the government operated computers of other sovereign nations around the world.  I wonder how those sovereign nations feel?
Revelations like these that have made Edward Snowden a marked man.  He has exposed the emperor for the massive hypocrite that he is, so he must die.  Meanwhile, our rulers in the SDA will continue to criticize the rulers of other nations for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, only on a much greater scale and with much  more effectiveness than they are.  In my book that is called hypocrisy and it is a sin.  I just have to keep telling myself that when other nations engage in cyber-terrorism it is bad but when we engage in cyber-terrorism is is good.  Why?  Because we are the SDA and everything we do is good by definition.  Praise the SDA.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Stop Calling Me An "Isolationist"

I am sick and tired of being labeled an isolationist.  People that I know who are aware of my beliefs about the foreign policy of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika frequently label me an isolationist.  Of course, they have no idea what they are accusing me of when they say that and they have no idea what the term actually means.  All they know is I am reluctant to get on the band-wagon of SDA imperialistic military conquests, thus making me an isolationist.  I think it would be worth pondering that term for a bit.
The word itself is used by most folks to conjure up images of lone malcontents living in the back woods of northern Idaho concocting letter bombs to mail to heroic career politicians and bureaucrats.  Isolationists all look and think like Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel (a Simpsons reference for those of you who are not fans of the greatest show in the history of television).  Isolationists are stupid.  They are ugly.  They are backwards.  They are anti-social.  Indeed, they are not even capable of engaging others in meaningful social discourse.  They are all morally perverted and most of them are probably child molesters.  Using a term with the above connotations in order to smear the character of anyone who dares to question the moral propriety of SDA foreign policy is unfair, to say the least.
Of course there are other uses for the term.  Students of history know that the term has been applied to those groups of people who have traditionally opposed entering the various wars fought by the SDA over the years.  I believe the term was first used to describe those folks who opposed entry into the first world war.  Woodrow Wilson ran for president by promising to do everything possible to keep America out of the European war.  Once elected, he immediately set about to get America involved in the European war.  That was his intention all along.  He lied to the American people and manipulated the course of events so SDA soldiers were sent to Europe to die in the trenches for no reasonable purpose whatsoever. 
The term was used once again for those who opposed entry into WWII.  Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to goad the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor in order to overcome the isolationist sentiment of the time.  Once Hawaii was attacked there was a total change of opinion about involvement in WWII among the people of the SDA.  There was no stopping the desire to kill foreigners, especially the Japanese.  Of course, the Axis alliance meant that we were now also at war with Germany, just as Roosevelt wanted.  So, isolationism is most generally understood as the belief that the SDA should not get involved in the wars of other countries.  Simply put, if a foreign army does not pose an immediate threat to the security of the citizens of the SDA, that country should be left alone. If that is the proper definition of 'isolationist', they call me an isolationist.
My mom taught me to mind my own business.  While I was growing up a lot of my fellow kid's moms taught them to mind their own business.  The exhortation, "mind your own business", was frequently on our lips.  It was generally understood by all intelligent, kind, thoughtful, civilized and socially responsible people that it was a good thing to mind our own business.  Those who did not do so were busy-bodies and gossips.  Those types of people were to be avoided.  Now, project that idea onto a group of people.  What changes so that it is now socially acceptable to mind the business of others simply because I am now a member of a group?  How does my membership in the mob cause the principle of minding my own business to disappear?  I don't see how it does.
One of the great moral principles that has been generally celebrated by those who love freedom is to tend to our own affairs and allow others to tend to theirs.  Thomas Jefferson is famous for his statement that US foreign policy should be characterized by "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none."  This is where things get interesting.  Although those who want to wage imperialistic war all over the world, in the name of humanitarian principles of course, are quick to accuse me of being an isolationist, they are the first to scream out for economic isolation.  As is generally the case with brain-dead career politicians and bureaucrats, they cannot conceive of freedom of trade.  These people cry out for tariffs and taxes on foreign goods in order to "level the playing field" and "help US industry".  Furthermore, they cannot conceive of freedom of movement (immigration and emigration).  They cannot conceive of free and open borders.  They cannot conceive of freedom at all.  That is what makes them career politicians and bureaucrats.  These people are utterly committed to the principle of economic isolation.  From the organic food growing hippie who exhorts me to "Buy Colorado marijuana, man" to the suit wearing executive who tells me we need "protection" from Chinese goods, they are all isolationists. 
All of the alleged isolationists I know, including myself, believe in free trade, free movement and open borders.  We believe in fostering a tremendous amount of interaction with other human beings throughout the world.  To call someone who believes in absolute freedom an isolationist is one of the dumbest things a politician can do.  I want free and open trade with China, Ecuador, Peru, New Zealand, and, yes, even North Korea (if they actually made anything, which they don't, so it would never happen).  Jefferson was right.  We should engage all of the citizens of the world in a voluntary fashion and refuse to engage any of the citizens of the world in a hegemonic fashion.  Does your country want to engage in trade with citizens of our country?  Good. Let's do it.  Does your country want to invade our country and subjugate its citizens?  No, I don't think we can allow that.  Conversely, I want to trade with the citizens of your country and I have no intention of forcing any of your folks to do anything at the point of a gun.
The bottom line in all of these interactions, of course, is whether they are voluntary or coerced.  Government will not tolerate voluntary action.  Government will not tolerate freedom.  Government must control everything it comes into contact with.  Business, on the other hand, has no desire to control anything.  All a businessman wants to do is produce something for someone else and deliver it to him for a price he can afford.  No coercion is involved at all.  And that is precisely why government must not allow it.  Rules and regulations are created to ensure that government obtains and maintains total control over all commerce.  Nothing can every happen voluntarily or freely.  That is government's way.
As usual, government gets it exactly backwards.  The SDA should be militarily isolationist.  The SDA military should only be used to defend the citizens of the SDA.  The military of the SDA should never be used to fight foreign wars of expansion and control.  On the other hand, the SDA should not even have "free trade" agreements with foreign lands.  A "free trade" agreement is still an example of government control.  Government should get out of the business of business entirely.  What do we find in the real world?  The rulers of the imperial kingdom of the SDA are intervening in hundreds of foreign affairs daily.  Truly the sun never sets on the imperial kingdom of the SDA.  Conversely, SDA rulers are committed to the principles of strict isolation when it comes to business and international commerce.  SDA rulers are universally economic isolationists.  This state of affairs is harmful to all citizens of the SDA and helpful for all rulers and government employees.  Under this state of affairs the government will continue to grow and profit seeking businesses will continue to be stifled.  How long can this go on?  I don't know.  But it can't go on forever.  Eventually the Golden Goose will suffocate.


Tuesday, September 3, 2013

SDA Politicians Never Lie, Let's Invade Syria

The debate rages on about whether the military of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should invade Syria or not.  Yesterday I saw that Senator McCain, who never met a war he did not like, is upset that King Obama has not struck King Assad "quickly" enough.  That comment set me to thinking.  If the real reason for attacking the Syrian government is its use of chemical weapons upon its own people, what possible difference does it make how quickly King Obama sends in the drones?  If we know that King Assad ordered his military to kill his citizens with chemical weapons, what difference does it make if we attack him today, tomorrow, next week, next month or even next year?  If we know that he viciously murdered over 1,400 of his own people, a significant percentage of those being innocent children, what does it matter when he dies, provided that he does eventually die at the hands of the SDA military?  After all, James Holmes killed dozens of people in the Aurora theater massacre over a year ago and he is still awaiting trial.  Isn't what is good for the goose also good for the gander? 
Some folks, people who believe in following the Constitution and distrust the government, have had the audacity to suggest that perhaps John Kerry is not telling us the truth about the alleged chemical weapons attack.  The great majority of the citizens of the SDA know that such ravings are the product of an anti-American, unpatriotic spirit that needs to be suppressed if the SDA is going to continue to be the protector of the free world.  Still, there are some people who say that the figure of 1,400 murdered is not being corroborated by the evidence.  Some silly foreigners, limeys and limp-wristed members of NATO mostly, have the gall to question the veracity of the story our esteemed Secretary of State is telling us.  Are these people insane?  Do they not recognize that the government of the SDA is morally perfect and has never told an untruth to the citizens of this great land in order to justify a war?
Just imagine all of the glorious truths we have been told that vitalized and energized this powerful and omnipotent land into action against its many enemies, all of which, we must constantly remember, hate us for our freedom.  Remember when President McKinley truthfully told us that the USS Maine had been attacked while floating in the Havana Harbor, thus launching the Spanish American war?  Well.....maybe that is not such a good example.  Remember when President Wilson told us that the Lusitania was not carrying munitions of any sort when the Germans torpedoed her and brought us into WWI?  Oiii.....maybe that is not such a good example.  Remember when President Roosevelt told us that the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor was secret and unprovoked, thus pulling us into WWII?  Ummm...maybe that is not such a good example.  Remember when President Johnson informed us that American forces were attacked without cause in the Gulf of Tonkin, thus pulling us into the war in Vietnam?  Uhhh....maybe that is not such a good example.  Remember when King George II informed us that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, thus forcing us to invade Iraq for the second time?  Ohhhh...maybe that is not such a good example.  Wow!  This is embarrassing.  I am incapable of remembering a single thing our career political rulers have told us on the eve of a war they wanted to fight that was true. No matter. I trust them.  They are my superiors.  It is my duty to get behind them, and the troops.
Still, despite the historical evidence presented above, we must continue to believe and trust our rulers.  There is something here bigger than telling the truth.  Our rulers are morally perfect.  The moment a person becomes a career politician all vestiges of sin, both actual and original, disappear from his/her life.  From that point forward every thought, every action, every desire is morally perfect and consistent with the will of God for the world.  We are Americans!  We are exceptional!  Other countries lie.  Other leaders lie.  Other countries wage wars of aggression and expansion.  We always tell the truth.  We only go to war when the immoral actions of other countries force us to do so.  Then, when the drone strikes are being ordered, they are all providentially directed to their righteous targets, exclusively spewing body parts of "bad guys" all over the countryside.  Praise the government of SDA!  If the citizens of other sovereign nations are too stupid to see that we are doing good things to them, so be it.  We can't be held accountable for their amazing stupidity.
Some people have been anti-American to the point that they have questioned whether the SDA should attack Syria at all.  These "hate America first" folks raise stupid and ridiculous questions about how the selection process for military attacks is conducted.  They feign to not understand why King Obama would attack Syria and not North Korea or other countries that are violently oppressing their people.  Let us tell the truth, shall we?  These people are unbelievers and they need to be cast out of the country.  Don't they know this is the greatest country in the history of the world?  I don't know the answers to the questions these crazy people ask.  I do know that they should not be asking them.  Trust your leaders!  Do what they say!  Obey!  Fall into lockstep with their wishes!  They are doing this to protect us from the millions of threats that exist in the world today.  The fact that we are unaware of these threats does not make them any less real.  Be afraid, be very afraid!  Were it not for the morally perfect actions of our sinless rulers we would all be living under a communist dictator today.  Long live the SDA!

Monday, September 2, 2013

Only Communists Celebrate Labor Day

Labor Day is one of the stupidest government holidays in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  It is exactly the kind of government holiday one would expect from communists, socialists, interventionists, redistributionists, egalitarians and general idiots.  It is based upon the fallacious economic idea that labor is exclusively responsible for the goods and services that we have in this country. You always hear these folks talking about how they "built" this or that thing.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
Goods and services are produced by profit seeking businessmen.  You know the types....CEOs who make tens of millions of dollars a year and have multiple vacation homes around the country.  These hard working visionaries are the ones we should be celebrating on this day.  If not for the heroic efforts of profit seeking businessmen, we would have nothing to buy in this land.  If you have not already done so, take a moment and go up to one of these men (and women!) and shake their hands.  Thank them for their service and praise them for their heroism.  They are the real heroes in this country.
Labor, economically understood,  is nothing more than a commodity.  It is essentially the same thing as a bag of cement or a tractor.  It is something that is used to produce something else.  In the production process labor is paid to manufacture the goods and services the entrepreneurs have already thought up.  Laborers are no more responsible for the end product than a drill bit is responsible for your house.  It is simply a tool that is used by the more creative among us to produce the things we all want to buy.  That is hardly worth celebrating.
Under the tenets of socialism, where envy reigns supreme, labor is elevated to a position of glory and honor. Suddenly those who have been hired to do a job that was created by the profit seeking businessman are somehow ontologically and morally superior to the businessman himself.  This is true simply because the person is a laborer, without any regard to the moral character of the laborer, which is generally suspect to begin with.  This notion was concocted by politicians years ago.  Politicians, seeking to be career politicians, realized they needed a group of people who would always vote for them.  They created the idea of "labor" and told the people who sold their labor services to profit seeking businessmen that they were morally superior.  Politicians quite naturally appealed to laborers because they are in greater supply than profit seeking businessmen.  And, as as all know, in the SDA the majority rules.  Next thing we knew, we had Labor Day and the majority of folks who sell their labor to the minority of entrepreneurs were told they are superior beings.  I saw an example of this just last week.
The Business section of the Denver Post on Friday, August 30th, had an article entitled, "Demanding Better Pay".  Above the article was a photograph of a group of angry people who had decided to invade and illegally occupy a McDonald's restaurant in Northglenn.  A group of about fifteen laborers, led by two grotesquely fat and ugly women, were shouting and raising their fists in anger while the manager of the store was stoically standing alone behind the counter receiving their verbal wrath.  Although not visible in the photograph, the spit that had to be flying out of the mouths of the protestors was palpable.  Most of the protesters carried signs.  One of them read, "Stop Corporate Greed".  Now that is a good one.
The article did not describe how it is that an inanimate legal entity, such as a corporation, can display the personal characteristic of greed.  Nor did it define what level of corporate profits might rise to the level of being greedy.  Just what return on equity is acceptable?  The net profit margin for restaurants in this country over the past five years has been 9.5%.  McDonald's has managed to realize a net profit margin of 19.8% over the past five years.  Does that make the Board of Directors of McDonald's guilty of the sin of greed?  If it does, what do they need to reduce their net profit margin to in order to avoid that charge?  I assume the idiots who trespassed the Northglenn McDonald's believe that the company should pay the "excess" profit margin to them in higher salaries.  However, what happens if McDonald's has a net profit margin of 8% next year?  Would they be willing to take a reduction in salary to get the net profit margin back up to the national average for restaurants?  I rather doubt it.  Envious people care about nothing but themselves.  Not surprisingly, the lunatics who stage these protests have no clue how to answer any of these questions.  Indeed, they never even think about them.
The concept of "corporate greed" fascinates me.  It is like the concept of "fair share" in taxes.  It is never defined.  It is always used by those who are sinfully envious of the success of others.  It is the perfect meaningless phrase.....designed to arouse the emotions of the stupid and sinful.  I wonder about the fellow holding the sign exhorting somebody to stop corporate greed.  I wonder if he has any product manufactured by Apple?  Apple's net profit margin over the past five years has been 21%.  The average for the industry (consumer electronics) has been 7.3%.  Certainly Apple must be guilty of corporate greed.  I wonder if any of the folks who invaded the restaurant ever shop at Wal-Mart.  Judging by the way they were dressed it appeared as if they were all regular Wal-Mart shoppers.   As you know, Wal-Mart is every socialists favorite whipping post.  Wal-Mart has a five year average profit margin of 3.6%.  The industry average is 2.8%.  Is Wal-Mart guilty of corporate greed?
The article under the photograph informed me that these trespassing malcontents, all of whom should have been arrested and incarcerated, were demanding a 100% increase in their hourly wage.  The article informed me that "the unifying battle cry was for $15/hour for fast-food workers in order to obtain what they feel is a livable wage."  The problem is that the market will not bear $15/hour for labor in a fast food restaurant.  Economic ignorance once again shows its head.  Allow me to explain.
Labor does not compete against management.  Labor does not compete against shareholders.  Labor competes against labor.  That simple truth is always ignored by those who sinfully covet a higher wage than the market will pay.  The reason the cost for labor in a fast food restaurant is $8/hour and not the $15/hour these folks want is because there are people willing to work for the $8/hour wage.  If the protestors want to obtain a $15/hour wage for themselves, they first must kill or deport all other laborers who are willing to work for less than that rate.  That is, of course, what labor unions have always attempted to accomplish.  They use coercion and hegemony in an attempt to eliminate the competition in labor.  If successful they can extort a higher wage from profit seeking businessmen.  Fortunately labor unions are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
As a janitor I would love to make $15/hour.  In fact, I salivate at the possibility of making $14/hour.  But the simple fact of the matter is there are millions of other people who can do what I do and I have to compete with them for the job.  The fact that janitorial labor is in such great supply accounts for the fact that the price paid for it is low.  It is not the "fault" of a profit seeking businessman that he can obtain labor for a low price.  Good for him.  He also wants to purchase his nails and seed for the lowest possible price.  If he is successful, he will create something for me at a price I am willing and able to pay.  That is the beauty of capitalism and that is what we should be celebrating today.