Old Posts are New Again

So far, 92,196 posts on this blog, Man with the Muckrake, have been read. Wow!  WordPress has some great features built into it such as the ‘site stats’ option where the blog owner can review how often posts are being read. It always floors me to see that a post from September 2010- Suburbia: Copenhagen, Denmark– is read almost on a daily basis. Yesterday it was read 4 times.

Another popular hit from 2009 is The Banana: Atheist’s Worst Nightmare. Who knew? A post from May of this year, The REAL Mission Accomplished. is regularly read. The post,  Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action, from 2009, is also a regular daily read.

There are more. From 2007, Sand Castle at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., shows up regularly on my daily stat sheet. The Tea Party spook from 2009, Not the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, is also daily read. From April 2010, Red States and the Government Pig Trough, appears on my stat site. Quite obviously,  the title of this post, Dick Tapper, attracts the prurient reader.

It makes me wonder if the title of the post is most important. If the posts on this small blog have been read 92,000 times, one can only imagine how many millions of blog posts are out there. Blogs have their own readership, of course.  This blog, so my blog statistics say, has 20 ‘subscribers,’ people who have a direct link to new posts. Additionally there are 5 authors and perhaps another 5 regular commenters.

This data suggests that not a lot of people are ‘regulars’ at this blog, so the title of the post is what ultimately attracts the readers. Every few days someone reads, Ostrich for Christmas, obviously because of its snappy title. Because my brain is much more active on its right-side than the left, creativity pops first, substance second [or fourteenth.]

What’s in a name? Indeed Mr. Shakespeare, indeed!

 

 

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Old Posts are New Again

  1. Can you get I.P. addresses from WordPress? It would be interesting to see if any or how many were from outside the United States. Is it possible that webcrawlers are doing this?

    P.S. A “certain” blogger has threatened to use I.P. addresses to find out where some commenters (like you) live. Does the I.P. address show up as the physical address or the mailing address? (Yes, I know. Spank me, I’m being bad. I just added this for “his” sake.)

  2. The sources for this essay about the abject failure of our elected
    Congressional members to enable the middle-class comes from three
    sources. These are books that we should become familiar with. First
    and primarily for this essay is a new book written by Emmanuel Saez, an
    economics professor at Berkley, entitled “Striking It Richer: The
    Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States.” Saez writes, “income
    inequality is at an all time high, surpassing even levels seen during the
    Great Depression.” The second book is written by Arianna Huffington entitled
    “Third World America: How Our Politicians Are Abandoning The Middle
    Class And Betraying The American Dream.” Huffington has a Master’s
    Degree in Economics from Cambridge University. And, the third book
    of interest is written by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, both have a Ph.D
    in Political Science and are full professors at Yale and Berkley, respectively.

    The United States House and Senate has permitted income inequality to
    occur. Not only, M_R, have they permitted it, they have encouraged it and
    passed the enabling bills. Saez makes these points:
    1.)”The top 1 percent incomes captured HALF of the overall
    economic growth over the period 1993-2007.”
    2.)”From 2002-2007 the top 1 percent captured two-thirds of
    the economic growth.”

    These three authors, M_R, demonstrate how the wealthy, let’s say the
    top 5% increased their percentage of national income at the expense of the
    other 95%. The facts that they bring out are:
    1.) From 1990-2006 the financial markets grew significantly as the
    Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 380 percent;
    2.) The rise of the DOW co-incided with the rise of income levels
    for the wealthy;
    3.) The average income for the top 1 percent doubled from
    $799,900 to $1, 743,700;
    4.) In 1965 CEOs earned 24 times more than the average worker.
    In 2005 it had increased 262 times;
    5.) Average income for the bottom 40% increased from
    $25,800 to $28,400 from 1990 to 2006;
    6.) Average income for the next 40% increased from $64,300
    to $75,100, or a growth of 17%;
    7.) However, the inflation rate for the period is 50%, which
    means incomes for the above 80% actually fell;
    8.) Not only are incomes stagnant, but falling.
    Moreover, household debt for the 95% in the same period tripled. It
    went from $797.7 Billion to $2.38 TRILLION. This means that with their
    incomes stagnant, credit cars were maxed out and home equity was
    tapped out.

    Therefore, it all came crashing down in 2008 because consumer access to
    credit dried up. The failure of our private financial institutions collapsed
    over our credit fueled consumption economy. This affected the 95%
    because it led to unemployment, credit tightening, falling home prices,
    and pay and benefit cuts for those still employed or looking for employment.
    We are now in a position, M_R, which our friend EOK spoke to just the
    other day, that few politicians will tell us, that there is a likelihood many
    in the middle-class will not escape income stagnation or unemployment.

    Yes, M_R, these are the grim statistics and the results for the period. This is
    regardless of the period the authors give. Saez uses a narrow period beginning in 1990, while Hakcer and Pierson do more historical analysis
    and run from about 1970. The question really is how do we begin to rollback
    this growing tyranny enabled by our present members of Congress. It is a tyranny of the wealthy and their enablers, the Congress of the United States.
    This is not new, is it M_R? After all the title of this blog takes its name from
    \the muckraking period in early 20th century United States history. Moreover,if you recall one muckraker was Lincoln Stefferns who wrote “The
    Treason of the Senate.” A hundred years later, my friend, and here we
    are again. Government does create wealth, and the plutocracy knows this
    and controls the Congress. What these authors show is that Congress in the last 25-30 years has re-apportioned wealth in this country from the bottom
    95% to the top 5%, and especially the top 1 percent, the mega rich.

    The income balance is terribly out of sync to continue the development of
    the American Dream, that is, the ability of upward movement, socially
    and economically. The House of Representatives has permitted this to
    happen. Therefore, we have to change our Congressional representation.
    This has happened on Congresswoman Kaptur’s watch. I believe she was
    elected in 1983, and if my math is right, that is 14 terms.. It is time to
    end this overlord of the wealthy. Congresswoman Kaptur truly represents
    the old order, my friend. She is known as one of staunchest stupporters
    of the congressional-military-industrial complex. Kaptur has represented
    toledo during the precise time that inequality of income grew unchecked.
    We are good at criticizing the GOP for their part in this inequality. It is
    time that we attach the same criticism to the Ds and replace them.
    M_R, we do not envison a country where the majority of the population
    is poor and downtrodden. Yet, the rich with the support of Congress are
    putting us into that position. We 95% are existing for the benefit of the
    wealthy and the Congressional fiefdoms. I used the word tyranny above.
    Well, it just may fit unless we raise the flag of Lady Liberty and try to
    offer a re-birth of the American Dream. It is time Toledo made a change!
    rising tyranny

  3. If I recall correctly, Congresswoman Kaptur made a bus tour around Ohio against NAFTA. At the time I thought she was nuts. None of that stuff about jobs moving south of the border would happen (we were told there were laws); it did happen. In fact, Bush (who I voted for) actually made it easier. She also went out on a limb voting against the latest budget because it didn’t contain any tax increases, just cuts. Congressman Latta (R-5th district) voted for it. I didn’t understand either of their votes at the time (I thought Latta was more Teabagger than Republican), but maybe I’m starting to understand.

    Then you got those other democrats in Congress (Barney Frank) that pushed through lax borrowing laws. It was just a matter of time until a financial “hiccup” brought the whole house of cards down.

    And then Bush decides to see if “trickle down economics” will work this time; it hasn’t. The majority of the deficit credited to Obama is actually the result of policies enacted by Bush. You would never believe how much a couple of wars can cost; add some tax cuts and there you go.

    I donate heavily to charities and some political causes I believe in. I also have no problem with paying my fair share of taxes. I actually felt guilty about taking the (actually mandatory in my case) tax cuts, but hey, I just gave more to charity (guilty conscience and all). And next year I’ll claim those charity deductions and be able to give more.

    I don’t know about the rest of the Country, but here in Northwest Ohio it is really obvious that some people aren’t worrying and some people are shopping in the pet food lane (if you know what I mean). Just a side note; because of things I read in this blog I couldn’t understand who was hurting because it seemed so many were working. Then I learned the ugly truth; they’re working shorter hours at a much lowered wage.

    Bottom line is we can’t change things until people realize what is needed. Oh, alright; they need to learn the TRUE facts instead of that garbage they repeat from sources like FOX News. I blame Obama for some of this, but now that he’s had his four years of experience, I’m already working on his re-election (every single one of those Republican candidates scare the hell out of me).

    1. Jeff continues, “She also went out on a limb voting against the latest budget because it didn’t contain any tax increases, just cuts.”

      Nah, Jeff, she was not “out on a limb.” She knew that her vote was needed
      for the President. This is a device that Congress uses to pretend that the Rep is independent. She was able to vote “no” with the understanding that
      the piece of legislation would still pass. I can appreciate that it looks like
      she was sending a message about tax increases, but in reality she is
      supporting the status quo as it relates to the power structure.

  4. Jeff writes, “they’re working shorter hours at a much lowered wage.”

    Precisely, Jeff. This is why Kaptur must be retired. Sure, she does some
    positive things. However, that is not enough now. She has been there 28 years. We need not look upon it as this is her job, rather being a member
    of Congress is service. Unfortunately, Kaptur has served the military-
    industrial complex, labor unions, and empowered the wealthy either directly
    or indirectly. She is ranked as one of the leaders in the House, yet she
    could not halt the growth of income inequality during the very time that she
    is in Congress. She hasn’t walked the walk for preserving the American
    Dream. She does not deserve re-election.

  5. Does the I.P. address show up as the physical address or the mailing address?

    NO! Whoever ‘threatened’ you with this is a dope. The IP address will only show the city in which your Internet provider has its service. I use Buckeye Cable and so when my IP is entered into a search my ‘address’ comes out to be:

    Server Location:
    Toledo, OH in United States
    ISP:
    Buckeye Cablevision
    5555 Airport Hwy
    Toledo, OH 43615

    American Registry for Internet Numbers NET72 (NET-72-0-0-0-0) 72.0.0.0 – 72.255.255.255
    Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. BUCKEYE-CABLESYSTEM (NET-72-240-0-0-1) 72.240.0.0 – 72.241.255.255

    As usual, that windbag who got all puffed up in your face was nothing more than a blathering dolt. But you already knew that.

    1. Sorry, I already knew that. I was making fun of a certain “patriot” who threatend to use I.P. addresses. I figured he thought they were actual addresses.

      1. AFTERTHOUGHT: Along that same line of thought, I have been intentionally vague about many aspects of my life for that very reason. It is absolutely amazing how much you can find out about people on the Internet. It’s not so much the physical violence they threaten, it’s the fact that some of my friends/family would think I was nuts for arguing with some of the wingnuts that post here occasionally or when I make comments of reason on the wingnuts’ blogs.

        I’ve purposely never mentioned if or when I served in the military, the dates or the military branch. Once while listing the military service of members of my family, I not only left out some relatives, I didn’t mention which ones were killed in action or where. I’m usually a pretty public person, but some of those people are obviously not right. I figure if they lie and/or verbally threaten someone just because they have an opposing view, they are capable of anything. After reading some nasty posts against me, my spouse wanted to “dump” the personal information of the nasty posters. I didn’t feel I wanted to stoop their level.

        In case you’re wondering why I’m bringing this up now, one of those posters lifted my comment from here and posted it on his blog (including my real name – Jeff). Then they proceeded to accuse me of “Sepp”-like lying about my military past with made up crap. Once again I ask, can an I.Q. test for voting be far off? Put that subject on your list of blog topics, I’ve got loads to say.

  6. Jeff- interesting stuff in your comment above. Let’s start with the word, ‘patriot.’ What is a patriot? To some people, the very first criterion is that one has had to have served in the military. Naturally, that makes it quite difficult for all of the females citizens of this nation to claim to be a ‘patriot.’ [Not that logic ever enters that discussion.] The second criterion for that subset of numskulls is that one needs to wear their patriotism on one’s shirt sleeves or with a tin flag on one’s lapel [that was probably made in China]. The third bonehead requirement of a patriot is to constantly demand that one proves his/her patriotism, as if one could assemble and send a dossier of patriotic accomplishments their way. Finally, the fourth criterion of the righteous patriotic gang is the denigration of anybody who does not fulfill the first three.

    Funny or pathetic?

    I pointed out to J.O.B. [who must be on sabbatical] that former military service does not make a ‘good’ president. After I pointed out that FDR, Wilson,John Adams and John Q. Adams had no military service, he dropped the requirement. Further Lincoln only served in the Illinois State Militia. On the flip side, some of the worst presidents ‘served,’ such as U.S. Grant, A. Johnson, Nixon and Carter.

    So much for ‘service’ as a requirement for presidency.

    On your other comment, I figure if they lie and/or verbally threaten someone just because they have an opposing view, they are capable of anything. Very true. I dabble in psychology and I think that guys like you are describing [former military and delusional] either suffer from PTSD or may have already had some personality disorder before they joined the military. Either way, their ‘service’ has impacted their lives to such an extent that they feel the need to harass persons who disagree with them to make their miserable lives ‘feel’ better. Yes, they are ‘dangerous’ to not only others but to their family as well. I wonder if there is any family abuse in their households.

  7. Well, M_R, I took a few hours in developing my essay above as to why, to use your working “demand”, Marcy Kaptur should resign or be challenged in the
    Democratic Primary of 2012. I thought that your response would be posted
    by now. Please, understand, I am not challenging you per se. My point is that something has to be done and electing the same people over and over
    just won’t cut it.

Comments are closed.