Joe's Rants

When Is A New Life Recognized And Protected By The U.S. Constitution?

2012-01-03T11:40:00.000-05:00

If you believe inlife after death, you believe that each person consists of a mortal body and animmortal spirit.

The body is an earthly creation. The spirit is a creation of God. Christians believe that each spirit is given one body and one physical life.
We know when and how the physical body is created. We don't know when thespirit is created by God, however: if Christians believe that the body does notexist without the spirit then the body and the spirit are created at the sametime. Thus the spirit is born at the moment of physical conception.

When the body dies, the spirit's afterlife begins. Some bodies survivefor more than 100 years. Some bodies die as infants. Some bodiesdie during the physical birth. Some bodies die before the physical birth. In each case the body's spirit returns to God and is never reborn in thephysical world.

Every birth aborted after conception ends the one and only physical life of thespirit created with the body at conception, including the spirits of the bodiesaborted by the morning after pill.

The U.S. Constitution and all the federal, state and local laws of the United States of America are secular laws. Whether a god or gods exist, whether this god or gods created the universe and everything in it, including certain laws for mankind to obey, are matters of individual faith, not the Constitution and the laws of these United States of America except that the Constitution protects each citizen's right to a religious belief and the practice of that religion as long as it does not limit the Constitutional rights of others.

If you believe that your god(s) create an immortal spirit at the conception of each being, then you must also believe that abortion in any form and for any reason interferes with an act of god, especially if you believe that everything happens according to god's design. If you believe that conception, whether or not it is timely, normal or voluntary, is determined by your god(s), then you might also believe that you have no right to abort that conception.

No matter how true that is for the believer, the believer has no right to impose his belief on anyone but himself. However, abortion becomes a matter of secular law if the human being, protected by the U.S. Constitution regardless of religion, exists from the moment of conception. Even secular law must establish when a human being is protected by the U.S. Constitution as an individual.

When the citizens of Mississippi were asked whether a person exists from the time of conception, many of us thought that this question was not a matter for secular law but it is. Regardless of one's religious beliefs, the U.S. Constitution must define when a human being gains all the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution relative to the time of conception. Is it at the same time? Is it after two trimesters? Or, is it only after birth?

When does constitutionally protected life begin and is it adequately protected by our laws?

Retirees, Not Millionaires, Will Pay For Extension Of Unemployment Benefits

2011-12-24T10:23:00.000-05:00

I read the bill recently passed by Congress which extends the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. The Republicans demanded terms that were unrelated and unacceptable to the Democrats and a few moderate Republicans. First the Senate then the House Republicans finally agree to extend the benefits and cuts for two months so that they had more time for debate. The Democrats accepted some of the Republican terms in order to get the temporary extension.

The Republicans wanted to require that all unemployment recipients take a drug test every month as is already required of some welfare recipients. I can't imagine my Mom having to submit a urine sample every time she picked up free food when we were on welfare. Congress compromised, the extension allows (instead of requiring) each state to determine if it will test all recipients for drugs and whether to deny benefits if drugs are detected. Florida required its welfare recipients to pass a periodic drug test. Only 4% tested positive but they spent more money than they saved by testing everybody. I’ll bet the incidence of drug use among temporary unemployed persons is lower than 4%. This is, in my opinion, a way of vilifying the unemployed. A favorite pastime of the self-righteous.

In order to pay for the extended benefits the Democrats wanted to tax people who earn more than one million dollars per year. Republicans disagreed with taxing the Rich - the Republicans demanded that retired persons who earn more than $88,000 a year pay more for Medicare in order to pay for the extension of unemployment compensation and tax cuts. Therefore, I will be paying more for Medicare so that millionaires don't have to pay more income tax. The bill doesn’t state how much more I will pay for Medicare but I am already paying twice the base amount so my guess is that they will probably triple the base amount.

Raising the cost of Medicare for fixed income retired persons instead of raising taxes on those that work and especially those that can afford it is immoral. I don’t really mind that I now pay $1,200 more each year for Medicare because I spent (not earned) more than $88,000 of my IRA savings. And, I don't mind paying $2,400 more for Medicare if everyone is paying a share based on their ability, but the cost is not being shared by all. Only retirees who make more than $88,000 will pay more -multi-millionaires will contribute nothing. I hate any politician who would rather charge the elderly more for their healthcare insurance than increase the tax rate of people who earn more than $1,000,000 per year.

Based on a past proposed rate hike, a person making $1,000,000 per year would not pay an additional tax. The additional tax would apply only to the earnings over $1 million. A person making $2,000,000 per year would pay an additional $5,000 or (0.25% of their total income). Instead, retirees who spend $88,000 of their savings will probably pay an additional $1,200 (1.4% of their income). That doesn’t seem fair to me but it sure makes sense to our congressional Republicans

146 million Americans live in poverty -less than $22,000 for a family of 4; less than $10,000 for a single person. The majority of these are employed or are members of a family with one or more employed people. Most of the people in poverty are working but earn less than $10 per hour. While the working class is making less this year than the year before, the average CEO earns 36.6% more this year than last year. The 10 highest paid CEOs earned a total of $770 million this year. Next year they are expected to earn more than $1 billion but they will not share in paying for the extension of unemployment benefits. I will.

Remember this when you vote in the next election.

Hypocrite Rick Perry Draws Huge Pension And Salary While Firing Teachers And Cutting Education

2011-12-19T14:46:00.000-05:00

Rick Perry isbeing attacked for drawing a $92,000 annual retirement pension on top of hisannual salary of $133,000. Seemshypocritical when the state is trying to cut expenses by reducing salaries andbenefits, reducing retirement pensions and increasing state employee payrollcontributions toward their health care insurance and retirement. Rick Perry says that he has earned hisretirement benefit through payroll contributions during his 25 years of publicservice. He says he is withdrawing whathe contributed.

Sounds gooddoesn’t it. But it’s not true. I calculated how much he has probablycontributed to his retirement and he doesn’t even get close to what he is andwill receive.

Assume that hisstarting salary was $42,000 30 years before he started drawing his pension.

Assume that hegot a 4% raise each year to reach his current salary of $133,000 per year whenhe started drawing his pension.

Assume that hisretirement savings earned 6% annually.

Assume that hewill draw a pension $92,000 per year, which he does.

If he onlycontributed 6.5% of his annual salary to his retirement, his retirement savingswill be exhausted in less than 4 years.

Perry would havehad to contribute 37% of his annual salary to his retirement fund in order tosave enough to receive a pension of $92,000 per year for 30 years. If he only contributes 6.5% his retirementsavings at the time he starts drawing a pension will be SHORT$1,450,000.

So, Rick Perry islying. He will have spent much morethan he has contributed to his retirement before he is old enough to qualifyfor Medicare and Social Security. Afterthat Texas taxpayers will be paying for 100% of his retirement for the rest ofhis life.

The same year that Perry started drawing his generous pension he cut education funding by $4 billion, plans to fire 43,000 teachers, eliminated scholarships for 29,000 low-income college students, reduced or eliminated financial assistance for 43,000 college students, eliminated the state’s medical primary care residency program and reduced funding for the family-practice residency by more than 70 percent. All this while Texas has the lowest percentage of adults with high school diplomas and the highest percentage of uninsured residents.

Rick Perry puts Rick Perry first.

Newt vs. Union Janitors

2011-12-11T12:04:00.000-05:00

In the Iowa debate Gingrich again proposed to give poor kids an opportunity to work by replacing half the union janitors in our schools, who, says Newt, make too much. Newt said that the starting salary for union janitors is twice as much as the starting salary for teachers.

Does anyone believe this? Is this part of his jobs plan or his unemployment plan?

The average starting salary for teachers in the US (NY Times) is $39,000. So Newt wants us to believe that the average starting salary for school janitors is at least $78,000! I bet that most of the audience, which expect to vote for one of the GOP's elite candidates, believes this lie.

Where will all the unemployed janitors work after Newt fires them? There are about 120,000 public schools in the US. I can only guess the number of school janitors. I'll guess 500,000 (feel free to disagree). Newt has made two different proposals regarding school janitors. First, he said we only need one master janitor per school. Last night he said we only need half as many as we currently have. In the first case we would fire 380,000 janitors. In the second case we would fire 250,000 janitors. That will raise unemployment by about 0.2%. Nice job plan!

We'll have to hire 4 times as many children, especially in elementary and middle schools, as janitors we fire. The adult janitors will only have time to supervise the children. So, we'll have to hire perhaps 1.5 million students as janitors. How many after-hours school bus routes will we need to transport these students?

Newt's janitor proposal like many of his ideas are no more thought out than the other candidates' ideas, like 9-9-9. After all, its just red meat for the GOP base. These ideas don't have to be real they only need to stimulate an emotional response.

The Iowa debate audience applauded Newt's proposal. Do these people ever consider what they see and hear with an open mind or is all input pre-filtered according to stereotype?

Newt Gingrich: "Use poor children as school janitors"

2011-12-06T18:55:00.001-05:00

When I was 14 my father abandonedme and my mother, sister and brother. We got free lunches at school. To hidethat from the other students I would not go to the cashier untilthere was no line but I still often got caught and the look on the faces of theother students was painful to me.

The memory of those times came back when Newt Gingrich proposed to eliminate orrelax child labor laws, as was done in Maine this year, so that schools canhire poor children, ages 9 and up, as janitors to "mop floors and cleanrestrooms" in their schools.

It wasn't hard for me to imagine how I would have felt when other students sawme cleaning bathrooms in school. The work would not have bothered me but Iwould have been ashamed.

I’m more disappointed with the audiences that have applauded each timeNewt has made this proposal.

Gingrich also said that poor children don't know what its like to work formoney unless its illegal. More than 15 million American children are living inpoverty. Does Newt really believe that none of them know what it is like to work?

Gingrich is leading in thepolls. He may be leading not in spite of his proposal but because of hisproposal.

Means-Tested Congressional Salaries

2011-12-03T11:48:00.001-05:00

The Republicans recently failed to pass a bill that would have reduced federal employees and salaries. I don't support such cuts in our poor economy because it will slow the recovery. But, I have another proposal.

I suggest that the salaries of elected personnel be adjusted according to their financial means.I think citizens should participate out of a sense of duty to their city, state and country. Citizens who chose to serve should be fairly compensated for their service but only to the extent that they need it. Medicare is available to every elder citizen at no cost except for citizens that have the means to pay for a portion of their Medicare coverage. Let's apply the same rule to our representatives.

If the majority of our 535 voting and 6 non-voting members of Congress want to reduce the cost of our federal government then they should start with their own salaries. Members with significant assets and/or other incomes will have their congressional salaries reduced by an amount proportional to their assets and other incomes. Members with assets greater than $3 million or other income greater than 150% of the congressional base pay will only receive refunds for reasonable travel, office and staff expenses.

Since 261 members of Congress are millionaires, I estimate that we could save at least $50 million per year by using a means test to determine the salaries of our federal representatives from the president down.If we applied the means test to all local, state and federal elected and appointed office holders, taxpayers could save hundreds of millions, greatly reduce the number of career politicians and eliminate the financial incentive which begets much of the financial corruption in our government.

Same Old Slavery

2011-11-15T05:41:00.000-05:00

In a recent post I estimated how long slavery could have been legal in the US had the South not attempted to secede. I am convinced that it would have survived into the twentieth century and the US might have been the last country (instead of one of the last few countries) to ban slavery had circumstances not intervened in spite of the greed and inhumanity of the controlling class in the slave states.

I think social justice and political freedom in America have long been under attack by the same sort of people that felt entitled to enslave blacks. In fact, I don't think the slave owners would have had a problem with enslaving people of all races. They didn't enslave blacks because they were black. They did so because they felt entitled to enslave anyone they could. Since blacks lacked wealth and political power they were the last people to be protected from slavery as the working class took political power away from the ruling class and the property owners.

Economic and political oppression replaced slavery in the latter half of the 1800's and the early 1900's. Social and political enlightenment and organization of labor gave birth to the middle class. This transfer of power eventually crept into the South, which finally yielded to the demands of the Civil Rights Movement.

But the class of people that had bodily enslaved the blacks and later economically enslaved the working class of all races, did not vanish. During the last 40 to 50 years they slowly, persistently and invisibly regained the wealth and political power they held 100 years ago. They feel entitled to take and hold all the wealth and political power. They are no more concerned for others than the slave owners were concerned for their slaves. They are committed to each other only by necessity. If they could achieve their goals alone they would.

These people are sociopaths. Their objectives are purely selfish. There goal is not to destroy others but they wouldn't hesitate to do so to get what they do want and maintain what they have. The Koch brothers are two such people. To further enrich themselves they must minimize their costs by driving down the cost of labor, eliminating their competition and charging more for their products and services. Destroying labor unions or, at least, their right to bargain collectively, is one of the means by which they further enrich themselves. Repealing anti-trust laws is the means by which they eliminate their competition (this is why the FCC's Net Neutrality regulations must be reversed). Eliminating all banking regulations is the means by which they can drive up costs. But they need to gain and hold political power in order to enact laws that benefit themselves and repeal laws that limit their activities. To this end they must control the legislature and the Supreme Court. Elections are controlled by dividing the electorate and vilifying the opposition who are lazy, non-Christian and un-American. And, by suppressing the votes of those who support their opposition, through re-districting and Jim Crow laws.

My rant sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Most people chose to ignore the evidence or excuse it as a passing insignificant aberration of our political and social systems. But, the current congressional obstructionists, the inexplicable rulings of our Supreme Court and the unbelievable GOP candidates for the presidency are not glitches in the system. They are evidence of the corruption wrought by those who will, if we let them, enslave us all.

Do Iowans Only Receive FOX news?

2011-08-14T19:07:00.000-04:00

I think everybody who's concerned with who is elected to represent us in Washington D.C. knows that Michele Bachmann declared in the Iowa debate, "I wish the federal government had defaulted." Yet, in spite of that declaration more Iowans, participating in the Ames Iowa straw poll, selected Michele Bachmann as the 2012 Republican candidate for the presidency.

Surely the Iowans that voted in the straw poll were watching the debate when Bachmann wished that the government had defaulted. Do these people not see what has happened as a result of the S&P downgrading the U.S. because it toyed too much with defaulting? Can they not imagine what would have happened had we actually defaulted? Or, perhaps, they think the aftermath of defaulting would be a good thing and, if so, how? How?

But, there is another possible explanation for the Iowans choice. Perhaps the Iowans that voted for Bachmann are too deaf, dumb and blind to see not only that Bachmann has done NOTHING good for America but also that she could never do anything good for America except if she were to bow out of politics.

Bachmann is an idiot. Her single "significant" legislative proposal was to repeal the future ban on incandescent light bulbs, which the Republican lead House defeated. Regarding global warming she said, “Carbon dioxide is natural, it is not harmful, it is a part of Earth's lifecycle. And yet we're being told that we have to reduce this natural substance, reduce the American standard of living, to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in Earth.” The list of shockingly stupid Bachmann statements is too long to include here.

What kind of person wants Michele Bachmann to be the President of the United States? How can there be so many of these people that Michele Bachmann can get elected to Congress? Thanks to these people the Republicans control the House and Michele Bachmann and dozens of like-minded members of Congress control the Republicans.

Should The FAA Be Re-funded?

2011-08-04T09:21:00.000-04:00

I've heard of two issues that are preventing Congress from re-funding the FAA.

I support the Republican's decision to stop subsidizing flights to/from several airports. I have a lot of experience with traveling to Johnstown, PA - one of the airports that is at issue. I have never flown to Johnstown although I have traveled to Johnstown dozens of times. Like most people I fly to Pittsburgh and drive for 2.5 hours to Johnstown, because It takes me as much time to fly from NY to Pittsburgh and drive to Johnstown as it takes to fly from NY to Johnstown AND because it is too costly to fly to Johnstown from NY. If the State of PA wants to maintain and expand air travel into Johnstown to promote business development in Johnstown then the State of PA should subsidize the flights but it will only be worthwhile to the business traveler if there are more direct flights in Johnstown. Currently the only airport directly connected to Johnstown is Dulles in Washington D.C. That's not going to help the business traveler. They would need directs to/from LaGuardia, Atlanta and one in the mid-West Chicago, Dallas or St. Louis. Otherwise, business travelers will continue to drive to/from Pittsburgh.

I assume the circumstances at all the other small airports at issue are similar to Johnstown's and the Fed should stop subsidizing flights to them.

The second issue is over the terms for unionizing air transportation industry employees. Employees can unionize if more than 50% of the employees cast a yes vote. Employees who do not vote will be counted as a no vote. That is not how unionization is determined in all other industries; it is not how Americans elect their government representatives. The Democrats want to change the rules so that the outcome is determined only by the votes cast. If only 60% of the employees vote, then only 1 more than one-half of the votes cast are needed to unionize. I agree with the Democrats: the outcome should be based only on the votes cast.

Why? I agree with the Democrats on the voting process for the same reason that I disagree with them on Card Check. The voting process for unionizing must be secret, otherwise, the company and other employees can and WILL use intimidation to control the voting. Employees actually threaten each other over unionization. Card Check makes known which employees want to unionize and which do not. Card Check would modify the current unionization process by taking the secrecy out of the voting. This gives an unfair advantage to the employees who want to Unionize. In the transportation industry, the employee that wants to unionize must vote. The employee that does not want to unionize only has to abstain from voting. Employees that want to unionize but fear reprisal from their employer if they vote to unionize will abstain from voting. There is no secrecy in this process. Employees know that by casting a vote, the company and other employees will assume that they are voting to unionize becuase anybody opposed to the union only has to abstain to be counted as a NO vote.

I'm not a big supporter of unionization. The need for a union varies by employer and by industry. However, any change to the unionization process that eliminates the protection of secrecy is wrong regardless of who benefits.

I suspect that the unionization process is the single important issue over which the FAA re-funding has not been approved.

Furthermore, it is a waste of time and taxpayers money to require re-funding votes periodically. The FAA should be funded until such time as Congress determines that it is no longer needed. If Congress had approves the FAA funding in July it still would have only been funding into September. This is a make-work, waste money process.

A thought about Slavery in the United States

2011-08-02T08:36:00.000-04:00

Did you ever wonder how long slavery would have endured in the United States if the federal government had not opposed it or if the Confederate States of America had been allowed to secede? When in 1865, the United States outlawed all slavery in all states, without exception, freeing its last 40,000 slaves, most nations and most of their colonies had already banned slavery, some about 100 years earlier than the U.S. In case a Bulgarian history buff is reading this, Bulgaria did not ban slavery until 1879, however, Bulgarian was not a free nation until 1879 and banned slavery in its first constitution.

The success of the agricultural economy of our Southern states depended on slavery. When the Southern states were forced out of slavery, the plantations failed. They could not exist without slave labor. The slave states' governments knew that their economies would collapse without slavery. Thus secession and the Civil War.

But let's assume that secession had been accepted by the United States and there had been no Civil War. How long would slavery have existed in the Confederacy? The Confederacy would not have voluntarily banned slavery at least until its economy no longer depended on it; until the rich plantation owners found an equally profitable business that did not depend on slavery or a technology that significantly reduced the need for labor on the plantation.

The first technological impact on agriculture in the South was the cotton gin, which, instead of reducing slave labor, significantly increased it. The gin was invented in 1794, after which the production of cotton in the South exploded. Between 1830 and 1850 it quadrupeled. Before the gin there were 700,000 slaves in the South. By 1850, the slave population had swelled to 3.2 million. So, technology wouldn't have brought an end to slavery.

Perhaps enlightenment! The Southern slave states would have voluntarily ended slavery when the majority of its citizens decided that it was morally wrong in spite of the negative impact to their economy. How might we consider moral enlightenment as the cause to end slavery?

How has the black population been treated in the South since they were freed? They were segregated and oppressed in every way until the enactment of the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's. Blacks were routinely lynched in the South for acting equal to a white person even after the 1960's. Public lynching of blacks in the South were condoned through the 1920's. By 1910, all the Southern states had modified their constitutions to disenfranchise blacks. In 1920, the Republican Party promised to enact a federal anti-lynching law. However, the Southern white Democrats in the U.S. Senate used a filibuster to prevent its passage.

Organized labor regardless of color, was not accepted in the South. In the 1930's, Southern local and state governments, in support of industry owners, used deadly force to prevent unionization.

So, obviously, self-enlightenment would not have ended slavery. Could external economic pressure on the South have caused Southerners to quit slavery? Perhaps apartheid in South Africa is an example of how and when the world would have dealt with slavery in the Southern States. All sanctions against South Africa intended to end apartheid were weak and half-hearted. Not all countries supported the sanctions and not all companies complied with it. Thus, South Africa did not end apartheid until the 1990's. Since the first democratic election in South Africa in 1994, less than 20 years ago, there has been some progress toward educating, employing and raising the standard of living of all black citizens. However, the effort has been costly and slow and, today, it still has many critics who believe that ending apartheid and the political disenfranchisement of blacks and other citizens of color destroyed South Africa.

So, the world wasn't quick to free the black "citizens" of South Africa, and would not have done more to end slavery in our Southern states.

When, then, would slavery have ended in the Southern slave states or the Confederate States of America? Surely, not before the early 20th century even if the Southern states had not seceded. Had the Southern states seceded and formed the independent nation of the Confederate States of America, I think slavery would have persisted beyond the mid-20th century. Had slavery ended then, there is no reason to expect that the blacks of the Confederacy would have obtained political equality sooner than the blacks of South Africa.

If the Southern slavery had not been forcibly ended in 1865, it could easily have continued unchanged until the 1950's with some form of disenfranchisement continuing for an additional 30 or 40 years.

Redistribution of Wealth in America: Obama or Reagan?

2011-08-01T07:58:00.000-04:00

There is large scale social injustice in the U.S. Addressing these injustices requires intervention and large expenditures by the government. Opposition to these programs has always existed but it has grown significantly during the current recession, when many of the people affected by the recession are easily convinced that such programs have overburdened employers resulting fewer jobs and lower pay, as well as, higher personal taxes. All such programs, especially when the head of the federal government is black, are labeled by those who oppose them as "wealth redistribution" schemes. Similarly, other uses of tax revenues, except those that enrich government contractors and big business, are also under attack: all local, state and federal employees, especially those that are unionized. Both public and private employee unions are being attacked. The opposition claim: all such programs and organizations are intended to take money from the workers and give it to the non-workers; to take jobs from the unorganized and give them to the organized.

South Africa, used as an example of how "redistribution of wealth" is destructive, has the second largest wealth inequality gap among all nations. Although South Africa has not succeeded in closing the gap, I don't think of any of it programs are unjust. Taking property from some white South Africans and giving it to some black South Africans after apartheid seems like blatant redistribution but in reality the only property transferred to the blacks had been confiscated from the blacks under apartheid. Although there are many successes that have come out of South Africa's efforts to correct the injustices of apartheid, many changes have yet to yield improvements in the lives of the black South African. Take for example, the transfer of lands back to the black South African. Giving a person the deed to land used for farming and herding, does not enable the poor, uneducated black South African to be a successful farmer/rancher. The land must be returned to its original and rightful owner but the government must also pay to train and equip the new landowner for farming/ranching. However, South Africa can not afford to adequately fund all the programs to support all the victims of apartheid. Improvements are being realized but they are painfully slow.

Unified Germany experienced some of the same expensive problems that South Africa is struggling with. Many East Germans had their property confiscated by the communist government that came to power after WWII. The infrastructure of East Germany was decayed and many East Germans were poorly educated, untrained and unemployed or underemployed when East Germany was freed and united with West Germany. The only way to restore East Germany and the East Germans was through taxpayer funded government programs. Properties were restored to their original owners (in many cases the original owner was a Jew whose property was confiscated by the Nazis before it was confiscated by the communists). The decayed infrastructure was rebuilt. Programs were established to develop East German industry and the East German worker. Higher income Germans pay a "solidarity surcharge" on their income that is used exclusively to fund the Unification of Germany. After more than 20 years, the German taxpayer is still paying this special tax and great progress has been made. What would East Germany be like today if Germany had not imposed a "solidarity" surcharge. The surcharge applies to any person (or couple) making more than $10,000 ($20,000) up to a maximum of 5.5% at $1.8 million ($3.6 million).

South Africa has yet to succeed in correcting for the damage of apartheid and they have many, many more problems to deal with than did Unified Germany (high HIV/Aids infection rate, and communities without electricity, drinking water and sanitary sewers) but there is no other way than large government spending.

Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. increased during the last 40 years after having decreased in the 30 preceeding years. Prior to the rise of labor unions and banking and business regulations, the only opportunity that existed for a poor American was to "go West" beyond the interest and control of big business. Elsewhere, non-rich Americans had an opportunity to work 72 hours a week for room and board, no vacation, no medical benefits and, above all, no retirement. Americans often lived in multi-family homes (grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and cousins) not because the family unit was so strong but because single-family homes were unaffordable for everybody but the rich.

Labor unions with the support of federal regulations brought significant improvements to the standard of living of the working class Americans. These changes and improvements were significant every where except the Southern states where local and state governments supported businesses who opposed unionization - sometimes with deadly force.

After WWII the federal government returned 100's of thousands of unemployed and largely unskilled soldiers and sailors to the private sector, which did not have the capacity to employ everybody. Government spending through veterans benefits programs provided vocational and professional training, and subsidized home mortgages. The Middle Class was born and income/wealth inequality was at an all-time low. The Civil Rights Movement and the resulting laws opened up the Middle Class to black Americans, albeit only slightly. Today intervention such as this by the government would be labeled "redistribution" of income and wealth. It would be attacked as anti-American: Socialism.

Americans elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 who promised to restore American values following our rebellious '60's and the political and military disasters of the '60's and '70's. The U.S. was struggling to recover from a recession and astronomical inflation. Conservatives and the Rich blamed government social programs. Reagan said that the best way to help the struggling Middle Class was to reduce the tax burden on the Rich and big business. Social programs for the Poor, the Elderly and the Disabled were cut. Spending to grow and maintain our national infrastructure was reduced. Safety and environmental regulators were eliminated or not enforced. Big Business was giving tax credits to subsidize expansion to offshore markets. These changes, "Reaganomics," are what I would call "redistribution" of income and wealth.

Reaganomics was enormously successful for the Rich and Big Business. The Poor got poorer and grew greater in number as the Middle Class shrank. Reaganomics, if it was intended to benefit all Americans was all but a complete failure; only the Rich benefitted from trickle-down Reaganomics.

Big Business was so unregulated and corrupt that it finally failed in 2008. Banks were broke. Businesses large and small closed or cut back significantly. Ten million American workers were suddenly out of work. To save Wall Street, the taxpayer bought the banks' bad debts. To save Main Street, a new Democratic president spent taxpayer money on the national infrastructure and the development of new industries. The Opposition said the money was wasted increasing the plight of the poor and middle class taxpayers, while supporters said too little was spent.

The Opposition labeled the effort a "redistribution of income and wealth" from the successful (the Rich) to the undeserving, i.e. those left jobless or underemployed after the distruction of the American Economy by the Rich.

The only unjust redistribution of wealth in the U.S. resulted from the changes that began with Ronald Reagan and continue today.

One would think that the abundance of evidence that Reaganomics does not work would cause Americans to demand that our governments reverse the changes enacted for Reaganomics. But, Conservative propaganda laced with hate and race-baiting directed at the poor, the minorities, the illegal aliens (rather than their employers) and President Obama have been very successful.

Unless President Obama retains the White House and the Democrats resume control of both Houses of Congress in 2012, and at least one conservative Supreme Court Justice retires and is replaced by a liberal, I fear the U.S. will become a country with a small and politically powerful super rich population served by an enslaved lower class.

Voter Fraud or Voter Suppression

2011-07-31T10:40:00.000-04:00

Prior to 2011 only two states, Georgia and Indiana, required a photo ID in order to vote. In the 2010 elections the Republican Party took control of many state legislatures and governor's offices as well as the U.S. House of Representatives. Since then, in 2011, five more states, Wisconsin, Kansas, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee - all Red states - have enacted laws to require photo IDs from the state motor vehicle department in order to vote. Each of these Red states claims that they are trying to prevent voter fraud. However, there is evidence that they really have a different objective.

Voter fraud is so rare that it makes no difference to the outcome of our political elections. President GW Bush ordered the Department of Justice to target voter fraud during the 5 year period from 2002 to 2007. During that time only 120 people were charged and only 86 convicted. However, most of these were not fraud but mistakes; registration filled on incorrectly and voting by ex-convicts and immigrants who misunderstood the law. Two federal prosecutors were even fired because the administration did not feel that they were adequately pursuing voter fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice studied voter fraud and concluded that it was too insignificant to impact election resuts. The results of elections in two states were inspected for voter fraud; in one case 0.0009% (less than 1 in 111,000) of the votes were invalid, in the second case only 0.00004% (1 in 2,500,000) were invalid.

Furthermore, voter fraud is a very ineffective way to cheat the system. One or even several people could not have a significant impact on the election outcome by voting multiple times when the total number of votes is in the millions.

The real reason in my opinion for requiring photo IDs is voter suppression. This requirement has a greater impact on the elderly, the young and minorities. Wisconsin now also prohibits out-of-state college students from voting in state. Although, the voters can apply for a photo ID and students can use absentee ballots to vote in their home states, a significant percentage of them will not. Since most young people and minorities vote for Democrats and many of the elderly oppose the cuts that the Republicans plan to make to Social Security and Medicare, these requirements will benefits only the Republicans at the election polls.

Wisconsin Govenor Scott Walker and his Republican lead legislature were not satisfied with requiring a photo ID so they decided to make it harder for Democrats to obtain a DMV photo ID by closing 10 DMV offices in Democratic communities and reducing the operating hours of the remaining DMV offices those areas. Not coincidentally Walker increased the operating hours of DMV offices in Republican districts.

While for many this is adequate evidence that the Republicans are committing voter suppression rather than defending against voter fraud, there is a significant number of people who are unwilling to admit that these acts are intended only to suppress votes for Democrats.

A corruption that we expect in a dictatorship pretending to be a democracy is being used by Republican politicians to steal elections that they cannot win honestly.

Comparing Crime and Punishment in the U.S. and Norway

2011-07-25T11:14:00.000-04:00

I was shocked when I heard the Norwegian responsible for killing more than 90 people will face a maximum sentence of 20 years and 1 day. That hardly seems adequate to me. I don’t approve of capital punishment but I would sentence such a criminal to life in prison.
I wondered why Norway would limit all prison terms to 20 years and 1 day. I believe that criminals who are rehabilitated deserve to be released from jail. Perhaps Norway is more successful in rehabilitating its criminals and thus has less need for long sentences. So I compared the recidivism rates of Norway and the U.S. Recidivism in Norway is about one-third of the recidivism rate in the U.S., which is 66%.

I also compared the violent crime rates of the U.S. and Norway. The most recent annual data that I could find for both countries was for the year 2000:

Violent crime rate in Norway 0.126%
Violent crime rate in U.S. 0.506% … about 4 times as much as in Norway.

The U.S. has a higher crime rate and a higher recidivism rate so the U.S. must have a larger percentage of its population in prison.

The U.S. prison population is 2,295,000. 743 per 100,000, the highest of all nations.
The Norwegian prison population is 3,479. 71 per 100,000.

Perhaps I was too quick to condemn the Norwegians for limiting prison terms to 20 years and 1 day.

Then I heard that Norway can actually keep a person in prison longer than 20 years and 1 day. Norway evaluates a prisoners readiness for freedom before being released at the completion of the sentence. If the review board decides that the prisoner is not ready the prisoner will remain in jail for at least 3 more years at which time another readiness evaluation is made. There is no limit to how many times a sentence can be extended by 3 years.

U.S. law provides for harsher sentences for certain crimes but does permit a prisoner to be kept in prison beyond the complete of the sentence. Most Americans would consider that unconstitutional. I suspect that if that was lawful in the U.S. our prison population would be much greater than it is already. Since the Norwegian prison population is not very high, Norway either does not abuse its ability to hold a prisoner indefinitely or it does so very infrequently.

Why are the crime and recidivism rates in the U.S. so high? Obviously, greater punishment is not an answer to our high crime rate. What is?

A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS

2011-07-25T08:36:00.000-04:00

The comparison was published in 1992 using statistics from 1991. I haven’t been able to find an updated version of such a comprehensive comparison. There are more recent comparisons that are not so comprehensive and none show that the United States has improved relative to other rich nations.

The results are sobering. As a society we haven’t performed as well as most Americans think and the trend doesn’t show hope for a better future. This is not a partisan political attack. These are non-partisan statistics. It is what it is.

Should we do better in a comparison to other industrialized and affluent nations? If not, why not? If yes, how?

A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
_______________________________________________________________

NOTE: Substantial portions of the following were reproduced with permission from WHERE WE STAND, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992). Copyright (c) 1992 by Michael Wolff & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of the contents of WHERE WE STAND may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the copyright owner. Requests for permission should be sent to Michael Wolff & Company, Inc., 520 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022, phone 212-308-8100, fax 212-308-7425, or email to mwolff@ypn.com.
_______________________________________________________________

The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their labor unions stronger.

And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us on statistic after statistic after statistic.

Table of Contents:
Standard of Living
Income Inequality
Health Care
Sex
Crime
Pollution
Work and Leisure Time
Democracy
Conclusion

STANDARD OF LIVING

The economic supremacy that the U.S. has enjoyed in the second half of this century owes much to the good fortune it enjoyed in the first half. Two world wars destroyed Europe and Japan, while the prosperity that comes from running a wartime economy turned America into an economic superpower. America held this advantage for decades, but in the last 20 years, Europe and Japan have been rapidly catching up, and in many areas overtaking us. There is a mundane explanation for this: developing nations grow much faster than already developed nations, much like a child grows faster than a teenager. But the fact that they are catching up and often by-passing us with societies that are more equal, democratic, liberal, pro-environmental and pro-labor presents a serious challenge to conservative thought.

First, let's take a look at overall tax rates as a percentage of the GDP. (All statistics are for 1991. See the following footnote for a comment on sources.¹) Keep in mind that the two columns measure different things: the first, GDP, the second, personal income.

                 General rate        Top rate

                 (percent of GDP)    (percent of income)

Sweden           53.2%                45.0

Denmark          48.3                 40.0

Norway           47.1                 23.0

Netherlands      47.0                 72.0

Germany          39.2                 56.0

Finland          37.7                 51.0

Canada           37.3                 29.0

Japan            30.9                 60.0

United States    29.8                 34.0

You might be surprised to learn that the United States has long had the lowest tax rates of any industrialized nation. And how does the level of taxation compare to each nation's standard of living? There are three general ways to measure standard of living: earning power, purchasing power and individual worker productivity. The U.S. has lost its lead in the first and is losing its lead in the other two.

Earning power is defined as GDP per capita, or how much the average citizen earns in a year. It is an important statistic because it measures how advantageously nations trade on the global market. After the Second World War, the U.S. was number one for 40 years. But in the mid-80s, the U.S. suddenly began dropping down the list.

1991 Earning Power²

Switzerland    $35,490

Japan           27,300

Sweden          26,900

Denmark         24,230

Norway          24,150

Finland         24,110

United States   22,550

Canada          20,840

Germany         19,830

Netherlands     19,310

Purchasing power, however, is a rather more accurate measure of standard of living. It shows how much each country pays to buy the same item, say, a loaf of bread. With its large, diverse and well-functioning market, the U.S. has generally enjoyed the lowest real prices in the industrialized world. But, as the chart below shows, it is also true that the purchasing power of other nations has been growing more rapidly than the U.S.' For this reason we should also look at each nation's percentage of the US purchasing power in 1970, and again in 1991.³

               Purchasing     Percent of    Percent of

               Power, 1991    US, 1970      US, 1991

United States  $22,204        --            --

Germany         19,500        75%           88

Canada          19,178        72            86

Japan           19,107        57            86

Denmark         17,621        71            79

Norway          16,904        54            76

Sweden          16,729        77            75

Netherlands     16,530        72            74

Finland         15,997        58            72

The third measure is individual worker productivity. The following chart shows how other nations have been catching up to the U.S. over the decades:

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%)

                1950s  1960s  1970s  1980s  1990

United States   100%   100    100    100    100

Canada          77.1   80.1   84.2   92.8   95.5

Italy           30.8   43.9   66.4   80.9   85.5

France          36.8   46.0   61.7   80.1   85.3

Germany         32.4   49.1   61.8   77.4   81.1

United Kingdom  53.9   54.3   58.0   65.9   71.9

Japan           15.2   23.2   45.7   62.6   70.7

Unfortunately, the above figures give only a crude measurement of how well each nation lives. There are severe problems with measuring a nation's well-being by productivity alone; perhaps the best analogy is that of a millionaire who wastes all his money on cocaine, compared to an average person who spends it on food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. (More) When one considers exactly how each nation spends its GDP, the weakening of the U.S.' number one position in the world becomes even more apparent.

Where We Stand publishes an index of economic prosperity that takes into account all the following factors: productivity, salaries, equitable wealth distribution, luxury-goods consumption, trading strength, poverty, personal and national indebtedness, inflation control, business strength and credit-worthiness. And the best-off nations are:

Germany         1382

Japan           1363

Switzerland     1332

Canada          1216

United States   1178

Netherlands     1087

Sweden          1079

Norway          1061

United Kingdom  1049

Denmark          920

Finland          910

But let's break down these broad comparisons into their components. Perhaps the most appropriate statistic to begin with is home ownership, the central part of the American Dream: (More)

Home ownership:

Ireland         82%      Japan           60

Spain           80       Portugal        59

Luxembourg      77       United States   59

Norway          73       Finland         58

Belgium         72       Sweden          55

Greece          72       France          54

Italy           68       Netherlands     46

United Kingdom  67       Germany         40

Canada          64       Switzerland     29

Denmark         60

America's decline in home ownership is symbolic of a larger erosion in living standards, which Americans have met in two ways. The first is that America has gone deeply into debt to maintain its lifestyle. The second is that families have been able to hold ground only because wives have joined their husbands in the work force. (Note: this is a comment on the difficulty of making ends meet, not on working women!) Europe and Japan suffer much less from either of these problems:

Percent of families earning two paychecks:

United States   58%

Japan           33

France          33

Italy           20

Germany         18

Netherlands     16

Average Household Debt

United States   $71,500

United Kingdom   35,500

Germany          27,700

France           27,650

Netherlands       5,000

Switzerland         800

Average Household Savings

Japan           $45,118

Switzerland      19,971

Denmark          18,405

France           17,649

Germany          17,042

Norway           15,196

Netherlands      14,282

Finland          12,387

Sweden           10,943

United Kingdom    7,451

United States     4,201

Percent of income spent on credit cards:

United Kingdom  12%

United States   10

France           8

Japan            4

Switzerland      3

Netherlands      2

Germany          2

Government debt per person:

Belgium        $16,423

Japan           14,049

United States   12,433

Sweden           9,541

Netherlands      9,368

Canada           8,597

Norway           5,498

United Kingdom   4,635

Finland          2,798

Germany            977

Trade Balance (millions):

Japan          +$77,110

Germany         +76,713

Netherlands      +7,990

Canada           +5,047

Norway           +3,769

Denmark          +2,426

Finland            -250

United Kingdom  -37,958

United States  -113,240

Current Account Balance (millions):

Japan          +$56,783

Germany         +55,477

Netherlands      +6,962

Norway             +226

Denmark          -1,402

Finland          -4,895

Canada          -16,593

United Kingdom  -34,065

United States  -105,900

Investment (percent of GDP):

Japan           30.6%

Norway          28.8

Switzerland     26.6

Finland         24.8

Canada          22.0

Netherlands     21.4

Germany         19.9

Sweden          19.7

United Kingdom  19.2

Denmark         18.0

United States   17.1

INCOME INEQUALITY

As mentioned earlier, America has the greatest inequality of income and wealth in the industrialized world:

Inequality of income (0 = most equal society, 100 = the least equal):

United States   99

Canada          83

Netherlands     82

Switzerland     79

United Kingdom  78

Germany         66

Norway          60

Sweden          60

Average CEO's pay as a multiple of an average

worker's pay:

United States   17.5 (More)

United Kingdom  12.4

Japan           11.6

Canada           9.6

France           8.9

Germany          6.5

Percent of Union Membership in Workforce:

Sweden          85.3%

United Kingdom  41.5

Canada          34.6

Germany         33.8

Japan           26.8

Netherlands     25.0

United States   16.4

Size of Middle Class (More):

Japan           90.0%

Sweden          79.0

Norway          73.4

Germany         70.1

Switzerland     67.2

Netherlands     62.5

Canada          58.5

United Kingdom  58.5

United States   53.7

Poverty level (More):

United States   17.1%

Canada          12.6

United Kingdom  9.7

Switzerland     8.5

Germany         5.6

Sweden          5.3

Norway          5.2

Children under the poverty level:

United States   22.4%

Canada          15.5

United Kingdom   9.3

Switzerland      7.8

Sweden           5.0

Germany          4.9

Norway           4.8

Deaths from malnutrition (per million):

                Men  Women

United States    7    13

France           4     9

Canada           5     7

Japan            2     1

United Kingdom   1     2

Norway           0     1

Head Start (percent of age group enrolled in preschool)

             2-year olds  3-year olds  4-year olds

France          35.7%       96.3         100

Norway          22.8        31.6         44.1

Finland         20.2        16.0         19.6

Germany          9.1        32.3         71.6

United Kingdom   1.3        25.9         69.2

United States    0.0        28.9         49.0

HEALTH CARE

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP)⁴

United States   13.4%

Canada          10.0

Finland          9.1

Sweden           8.6

Germany          8.4

Netherlands      8.4

Norway           7.6

Japan            6.8

United Kingdom   6.6

Denmark          6.5

Doctors' incomes:

United States   $132,300

Germany           91,244

Denmark           50,585

Finland           42,943

Norway            35,356

Sweden            25,768

Percent of population covered by public health care:

ALL NATIONS (except below)    100%

France, Austria                99

Switzerland, Spain, Belgium    98

Germany                        92

Netherlands                    77

United States                  40

Average paid maternity leave (as of 1991; this changed with Clinton's signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act):

Sweden          32 weeks

France          28

United Kingdom  18

Norway          18

Denmark         18

Japan           14

Germany         14

Netherlands     12

United States    0

Life Expectancy (years):

                Men    Women

Japan           76.2   82.5

France          72.9   81.3

Switzerland     74.1   81.3

Netherlands     73.7   80.5

Sweden          74.2   80.4

Canada          73.4   80.3

Norway          73.1   79.7

Germany         72.6   79.2

Finland         70.7   78.8

United States   71.6   78.6

United Kingdom  72.7   78.2

Denmark         72.2   77.9

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States   10.4

United Kingdom   9.4

Germany          8.5

Denmark          8.1

Canada           7.9

Norway           7.9

Netherlands      7.8

Switzerland      6.8

Finland          5.9

Sweden           5.9

Japan            5.0

Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States   101.5

Japan            92.2

Norway           90.2

Denmark          85.1

France           84.9

United Kingdom   82.2

Canada           82.1

Netherlands      80.3

Germany          77.6

Switzerland      72.5

Sweden           64.7

Finland          53.3

Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States   203

Switzerland     175

Canada          161

France          156

Finland         154

Norway          128

Germany         122

Denmark         120

United Kingdom  114

Sweden          109

Japan            96

Netherlands      90

Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list.

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):

United States   5.8 years

Denmark         4.9

Finland         4.8

Canada          4.5

Germany         4.5

United Kingdom  4.4

Norway          4.3

Switzerland     4.1

Netherlands     4.0

Sweden          3.8

Japan           3.3

Percent of people with normal body mass:

                Men   Women

Germany         53%   37

Finland         51    37

United Kingdom  46    38

Canada          52    29

Switzerland     49    30

France          44    30

Denmark         44    25

United States   47    22

Sweden          44    25

Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change (More):

United States   60%

Sweden          58

United Kingdom  52

Japan           47

Netherlands     46

France          42

Canada          38

SEX

Percent of all children born out of wedlock:

Sweden          46.4%

Denmark         41.9

United States   21.5

United Kingdom  19.2

Canada          12.1

Germany          9.4

Netherlands      8.3

Switzerland      5.6

Japan            1.0

Having children out of wedlock, however, does not mean that the father is not living at home and offering support. Here is the actual percentage of families headed by single parents:

United States   8.0%

Germany         6.7

Netherlands     6.7

Canada          5.6

Denmark         5.1

France          5.1

United Kingdom  4.0

Sweden          3.2

Japan           2.5

Sex education is more prevalent in Europe than America, where conservatives oppose it on the grounds that it condones sexual behavior. The statistics show the unintended consequences of this policy:

Sexually active teenage population:

Norway          66%

United States   65

United Kingdom  57

Germany         56

Canada          53

Italy           34

France          34

Percent who have not had intercourse by age 20:

               Boys  Girls

Belgium         61     63

Netherlands     58     62

Germany         33     28

Norway          33     25

United Kingdom  24     23

France           9     25

United States   12     16

Percent of sexually active single 15 to 19-year olds using birth control:

Germany         95%

United Kingdom  92

Netherlands     88

Norway          87

Sweden          79

Denmark         70

United States   56

Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States   98.0

United Kingdom  46.6

Norway          40.2

Canada          38.6

Finland         32.1

Sweden          28.3

Denmark         27.9

Netherlands     12.1

Japan           10.5

Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:

United States   44.4

Norway          21.1

Sweden          19.6

Denmark         18.2

Finland         17.9

United Kingdom  16.9

Canada          16.2

Japan            5.9

Netherlands      5.5

CRIME

People per police officer:

Sweden          328

Canada          358

United Kingdom  400

United States   459

Netherlands     553

Japan           556

Denmark         594

France          632

Finland         643

Norway          661

Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)

United States   92.5

United Kingdom   6.0

France           0.7

Prisoners (per 1,000 people):

United States   4.2

United Kingdom  1.0

Germany         0.8

Denmark         0.7

Sweden          0.6

Japan           0.4

Netherlands     0.4

Death row inmates:

United States     2,124

Japan                38

Europe and Canada     0

Percent of households with a handgun:

United States   29%

Finland          7

Germany          7

Canada           5

Norway           4

Europe           4

Netherlands      2

United Kingdom   1

Looking at the above statistics, one would think that Europe is soft on crime, while the U.S. approach to law and order is based on no-nonsense deterrence. In reality, Europe is relatively crime-free, and the U.S. has the worst crime rate in the world:

Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States   8,915

Switzerland        53

Sweden             19

Canada              8

United Kingdom      7

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

United States   8.40

Canada          5.45

Denmark         5.17

Germany         4.20

Norway          1.99

United Kingdom  1.97

Sweden          1.73

Japan           1.20

Finland         0.70

Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

United States   24.4

Canada           2.6

Sweden           2.3

Norway           2.3

Finland          2.3

Denmark          2.2

United Kingdom   2.0

Netherlands      1.2

Germany          0.9

Japan            0.5

Rape (per 100,000 people):

United States   37.20

Sweden          15.70

Denmark         11.23

Germany          8.60

Norway           7.87

United Kingdom   7.26

Finland          7.20

Japan            1.40

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

United States   221

Canada           94

United Kingdom   63

Sweden           49

Germany          47

Denmark          44

Finland          38

Norway           22

Japan             1

POLLUTION

Travel on public transportation as a percent of all travel:

Japan           18%

Finland         16

Denmark         15

Portugal        14

Germany         11

Norway           9

United Kingdom   8

Netherlands      8

United States    1

Annual air miles per person:

United States   1,698

Canada          1,105

Netherlands     1,014

United Kingdom    902

Norway            829

Sweden            575

Finland           506

Denmark           476

Japan             425

Germany           344

Average price of a gallon of gas:

Sweden         $4.85

Denmark         4.46

United Kingdom  3.56

Germany         3.05

Netherlands     3.02

Japan           3.01

Canada          1.40

United States   1.07

Energy Units of oil burned annually:

United States       791.5

European Community  501.4

Japan               234.3

Germany             108.5

United Kingdom       81.3

Canada               80.4

Netherlands          24.1

Sweden               16.3

Finland              11.1

Norway                9.3

Denmark               9.0

Carbon dioxide released per person per year:

United States   5.8 tons

Canada          4.8

Germany         3.2

United Kingdom  2.9

Japan           2.2

OECD Europe     1.8

Total Carbon Monoxide emitted annually:

United States   60,900 tons

Canada          10,100

Germany          8,926

France           6,198

United Kingdom   5,264

Sweden           1,754

Netherlands      1,229

Norway             649

Switzerland        621

Total chlorofluorocarbons emitted annually:

United States   332 million tons

Japan            95

Germany          71

United Kingdom   67

Canada           34

Netherlands      17

Switzerland      10

Denmark           6

Finland           6

Sweden            4

Norway            1

Major oil spills (1976-89):

United States   16

France           6

United Kingdom   5

Japan            4

Canada           2

Sweden           2

Finland          1

Germany          1

Forests cleared (thousands of cubic yards):

United States   808,421

Canada          379,500

France           95,964

Sweden           84,612

Finland          72,864

Japan            57,272

Norway           14,810

United Kingdom    6,600

Acid rain (the lower the pH number, the worse the acidity):

Japan           3.9 pH

Sweden          4.1

United States   4.3

Canada          4.3

Norway          4.4

Denmark         4.5

Finland         4.5

Netherlands     4.9

United Kingdom  5.1

Energy Units of coal burned annually:

United States       458.0

European Community  299.0

Germany              73.9

Japan                73.2

United Kingdom       64.0

Canada               27.6

Netherlands           8.1

Denmark               5.5

Finland               4.1

Sweden                2.5

Norway                1.0

Debris inhaled per person per year:

United States   81 pounds

Finland         44

Sweden          44

Europe          26

Netherlands     24

Germany         24

Denmark         20

Norway          15

United Kingdom  11

Japan            2

Government spending on pollution control (percent of GDP):

Japan          1.17%

Netherlands    0.95

Canada         0.89

Germany        0.78

Sweden         0.66

United Kingdom 0.62

United States  0.60

Norway         0.54

Finland        0.52

Municipal waste per person per year (kilograms)⁵

United States   864 kg.

Canada          632

Japan           394

United Kingdom  353

Germany         331

France          304

Italy           301

Percent of all glass recycled:

Netherlands     50.3%

Japan           49.6

Germany         41.2

Sweden          40.0

Denmark         31.0

Finland         30.0

United Kingdom  27.0

Norway          21.1

United States   20.0

Percent of all paper and cardboard recycled:

Netherlands     62.0%

Japan           54.4

Germany         37.0

Denmark         32.0

United Kingdom  13.0

United States    8.4

WORK AND LEISURE TIME

Note the position of economic powerhouse Germany in the next two lists.

Average hours worked per year:

Japan           2,173

United States   1,890

Sweden          1,808

United Kingdom  1,771

Netherlands     1,756

Finland         1,744

Norway          1,725

Denmark         1,699

Germany         1,668

Average paid vacation per year:

Finland         35.0 days

Germany         30.0

France          25.5

Denmark         25.0

Sweden          25.0

United Kingdom  25.0

Netherlands     24.0

Switzerland     22.0

Norway          21.0

United States   12.0

Average hours spent watching TV per day:

Japan           9:12

United States   7:00

Canada          3:24

United Kingdom  3:10

Germany         2:13

Sweden          2:00

Finland         2:00

Denmark         1:54

Netherlands     1:42

Switzerland     1:34

News as a percent of all TV programming:

Denmark         43%

Sweden          35

Canada          32

Netherlands     25

Germany         20

United Kingdom  17

Japan            6

United States    2

Annual employee turnover in manufacturing:

United States   40%

Finland         35

Germany         25

United Kingdom  20

Sweden          18

Japan           18

France          14

How employers rate their employees (100 = strong identification with company objectives):

Japan           84.7

Switzerland     70.8

Denmark         68.4

Germany         64.3

Norway          60.7

Finland         60.4

Netherlands     58.5

France          57.9

United States   56.4

Sweden          56.0

Canada          52.2

United Kingdom  48.1

Percent of employees fired for cause:

United States       52%

European Community  43

DEMOCRACY

The U.S. may be the oldest existing democracy in the world, but it is also the weakest, and one of the only democracies where voting is not required by law. It shows:

Voter participation:

Germany         87%

Sweden          86

Norway          83

Netherlands     80

Finland         76

United Kingdom  75

Canada          75

United States   49

Average number of national referenda per year:

Switzerland    169

Australia       18

Denmark         11

France          10

Ireland          8

Italy            4

Sweden           3

Norway           1

United Kingdom   1

Canada           0

Finland          0

Germany          0

Japan            0

Netherlands      0

United States    0

Number of political scandals since 1945 (More):

United States   53

United Kingdom  42

France          16

Canada           5

Germany          3

Japan            2

Sweden           2

Netherlands      1

Norway           1

Number of politically motivated demonstrations, strikes, riots and armed attacks over 30 years:

United Kingdom  5,136

United States   4,258

France          1,566

Germany           622

Japan             524

Canada            260

Finland            63

Netherlands        57

Denmark            55

Switzerland        39

Sweden             33

The United Nations Human Freedom Index (0 = least freedom, 40 = most freedom. More.):

Sweden          38

Denmark         38

Netherlands     37

Austria         36

Finland         36

France          35

Germany         35

Canada          34

Switzerland     34

Australia       33

United States   33

Japan           32

United Kingdom  32

CONCLUSION

These statistics are shattering to those who believe that greater individualism and less government somehow produce better societies. And they should serve as a wake-up call to every American that this country is headed in the wrong direction.

These statistics evoke two common responses from conservatives and libertarians. The most natural response is to blame them on 40 years of Democratic government. This, however, is a giant non sequitur. The very point of this list is that nations with far more liberal governments than ours have created better societies, even with somewhat less productivity. If liberalism were really harmful to a nation's standard of living, then these nations should be doing worse, not better.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, America's truly liberal government was replaced in the mid-70s by the corporate special interest system, which introduced a conservative agenda of tax cuts for the rich and massive deregulation of business. Corporate lobbyists, and not the interchangeable "Republicrats," have influenced legislation over the past 20 years.

The second most common response is that minorities drag down America's statistics. Of course, blaming minorities for society's problems is an old game in American politics, but it is especially dismaying in this case because it is not even true. Take infant mortality rates, for example. White infant mortality rates still place America near the very top of the list. (The following chart deviates slightly from the chart above because it is taken from the year before, 1990, and from a different source using different methodology. But it shows the same trend nonetheless.)

Infant mortality rates (per 1,000 live births, 1990)⁶

U.S. (average)  9.2

Italy           8.3

U.S. (white)    7.7

United Kingdom  7.4

France          7.3

Germany         7.1

Canada          6.8

Sweden          6.1

Japan           4.6

And consider crime. In 1992, blacks were arrested for 35 percent of all serious crimes.⁷ But even if you remove blacks entirely from the statistics, America still has the worst crime rate in the world, and by far! (It should also be emphasized that that these were 35 percent of all arrests; debate rages as to whether the police target blacks for arrest more than whites.)

The same generalization holds for all the statistics, but it is important to realize why minorities are not responsible for America's worse showing. And that is because society's most visible problems do not stem primarily from race; they stem from poverty. The poor, both white and black, share the same approximate rates of crime, welfare, teenage and single parenthood, substance abuse and other social problems. The rich, both white and black, share many of the same admired social qualities in the same general percentages. Race is only important in that discrimination against minorities has relegated a disproportionate number of them to poverty. (More)

Ultimately, the fact that America's white statistics are still worse than Europe's should put the race card forever to rest. White Americans are, after all, transplanted Europeans. If their statistics are worse, then it must be for a social reason. And that reason is obvious: polarized wealth in America has enlarged its poor population, and dragged down its averages despite gains among the rich. Clearly, rising tides do not lift all boats.
Next Section: Final Summary Return to The Reagan Years Home Page
____________________
¹Unless otherwise indicated, all statistics come from the international encyclopedia Where We Stand, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, eds., and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992). The year 1991 was selected because after these dates, the U.S. turned slightly to the left and Northern Europe slightly to the right (although one could plausibly argue that very little changed in any of these nations). Therefore, 1991 provides the best date for comparing a decade of Reaganomics with 30 years of social democracy. Although Where We Stand compares dozens of nations on most lists, I have limited my comparisons to the U.S., Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. I have included every nation from this group I could find; omissions in my lists reflect omissions in Where We Stand.
²Earning power is calculated by deflating each nation’s GNP to local 1991 currency before conversion to U.S. dollar equivalents. GNP figures from U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1991. Data for exchange rates from International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
³Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, National Accounts of OECD Countries, annual.
⁴ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, OECD Health Data, 1993; OECD Health Systems: Facts and Trends, 1993.
⁵ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, Environmental Indicators, 1991.
⁶ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, OECD in Figures: Statistics on the Member Countries (supplement to the OECD Observer, June-July 1993).
⁷ U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1992.

GOP Revenue Increases will be as Unreal as their Trickle Down Economics

2011-07-24T13:07:00.000-04:00

The Obama administration has demanded that the GOP agree to revenue increases as part of any national debt reduction plan. The Obama administration wants the approved plan to reduce the national debt by at least $4 trillion in 10 years.

The GOP plan proposed by John Boehner includes tax code modifications that Boehner calls revenue increases. The changes actually include tax rate REDUCTIONS, which the GOP promises will stimulate the economy to produce more taxpaying employees. The immediate effect of the tax rate reduction will be a guaranteed DECREASE in tax revenues. The revenue increases will occur only after the tax cuts produce increased investments by employers resulting in increased employment followed by increased consumer demand and production. The delayed effect of renenue increases is by NOT guaranteed. The revenue increase effect would be no more real than the Trickle Down effect promised by Reaganonics. Three decades of tax cuts by presidents Reagan and GW Bush only increased the wealth of the richest Americans and the national debt.

Of course the GOP proposed tax code modificaitons will also eliminate some taxpayer credits and deductions. They don't propose to eliminate deductions for corporate jets or tax credits that make it possible for Exxon Mobil and GE to pay zero federal income tax year after year, however, they do propose to eliminate or reduce tax deductions like home mortage interest that impact the middle class the most and the rich the least.

Unless you peak under the cover of the GOP's proposal you will not know that their revenue increases are in effect only tax rate decreases for the rich and tax rate increases for everybody else.

Same old, same old.

Medicare cuts and bankruptcies, and other bad news

2011-07-12T09:14:00.000-04:00

I’ve heard that medical expenses account for more than half of the bankruptcies. If the GOP succeeds in forcing cuts in Medicare to protect the Bush tax cuts, which caused most of the National debt, how many seniors will be forced into bankruptcy?

Are the Republicans in Congress willing to forfeit their political careers to protect the Bush tax cuts, corporate subsidies and high-end tax breaks or are they just cocksure that a majority of the voters in 2012 will either be beneficiaries of the tax cuts and subsidies or they are so misinformed that they don’t know they’re getting screwed.

I recently read an article by Mike Lofgren (copy at the bottom of this post), who retired early this year after 28 years in Congress as a Republican staffer. During the last 10 years at least he was part of the Senate Budget Committee supporting the Republican committee members. The opening paragraph called Obama’s fiscal policies a mess. The balance of his article condemns his Republican party for most of the National Debt and for wrongly refusing to accept changes to increase tax revenue. Lofgren reminded us that the 400 wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 125 million Americans. Although Lofgren didn’t mention it in his article, a few years ago, and perhaps still, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 400 Americans equalled the combined budgets of 4 of the departments of the federal government. Not the total tax they pay – just the reduction in their taxes due to the Bush tax cuts. That much money is hard to imagine. I find it impossible to believe that the majority of the 400 wealthiest Americans want the Bush tax cuts to continue, considering the state of our economy and the national debt, and obviously none of them “needs” the tax cut to continue. I think we should survey the “400” and ask them if they would be willing to (1) give up the Bush tax cuts and (2) accept an added income tax for the purpose of paying down the debt and only until the debt is paid.

Now you might be saying that those 400 Americans are already paying a hell of a lot of tax so why should they pay more. They are currently paying a tax rate lower than before GW Bush and a whole lot lower than they paid before Reagan. Prior to WWI the wealthiest paid a 7% federal income tax. During WWI their tax rate increased to 77% but soon dropped back to 25% until the depression. From the depression through WWII it rose steadily to 92% in the 50’s. At that time the lowest tax bracket was paying at the rate of 22%. Throughout the 60’s and 70’s the tax rate for the wealthiest was about 70%. After Reagan got into the oval office the top tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%, while the tax rate for the lowest income bracket went up from 14% to 15% and entitlements were cut by changing the qualifications. The FPL based on the Consumer Price Index for a family of four has risen from $3,022 in 1960 to $22,350 in 2011 for a family of four – an increase of 640%. Although the median income between 1960 and 2011 rose from $5,620 to $50,200 in 2010 – an increase of 790% - the median income relative to CPI increased on average only 0.4% per year for the past 50 years. At the high end of the income scale, “the median compensation for CEO's in all industries as of early 2010 is $3.9 million; it's $10.6 million for the companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. Since the median worker's pay is about $36,000, then you can quickly calculate that CEOs in general make 100 times as much as the workers, that CEO's of S&P 500 firms make almost 300 times as much, and that CEOs at the Dow-Jones companies make 550 times as much,” (from “Wealth, Income, and Power” by G. William Domhoff, September 2005 and updated January 2011). Fifty years ago the average CEO earned 42 times as much as the average employee. So… I think the 400 wealthiest Americans can well afford to pay a larger percentage of their income. Furthermore, I think Americans with incomes over $1 million per year can also afford to pay more. And, the Bush tax cuts shouldn’t continue for anybody regardless of income.

Cuts will not stop at Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Education, public safety, the public infrastructure, to name a few, have already been compromised and more cuts are on the way. These cuts, as promised by the GOP and demonstrated on the state level, will be used to reduce both personal and corporate taxation. The GOP promises that new jobs will be created but the last 30 years has taught us expect a far different result. A look at our ranking among other nations with respect to Income Inequality tells us where we have been going and what we are likely to become. Out of 134 countries the U.S. has the 95th highest inequality, Mexico is 107, Brazil is 125 and South Africa is 133. There are no other industrialized nations that have greater inequality than the U.S. The first ten countries that have a greater inequality are Uruguay, Jamaica, Uganda, Philippines, Malaysia, Rwanda, Nepal, Mozambique, Madagascar and Ecuador. The first ten countries that have less inequality are Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Iran, Nigeria, Guyana, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Thailand, Kenya and Burundi. This doesn’t look good to me and it certainly doesn’t promise to get better.

"Borrowing and spending the GOP way"

Op-Ed

The big deficit facing the U.S. is mostly Republican in origin, the Congressional Budget Office says. The Bush tax cuts alone have added $3 trillion in red ink, yet the party wants to double down on its failed policy.

June 26, 2011
By Mike Lofgren

President Obama's fiscal policies are a mess. Whatever one thinks of the need for stimulus in a severe recession, it is obvious that running trillion-dollar deficits for years on end is unsustainable. Moreover, his proposals are dishonest. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that his proposed 2012 budget underestimates spending while overestimating revenues.

Sadly, the Republicans have offered no viable alternative.

The failure of our leaders to offer realistic budget proposals was a major reason I decided to retire after 28 years in Congress, most of them as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees. My party talks a good game, railing about the immorality of passing debt on to our children. But the same Congressional Budget Office that punctured Obama's budget also concluded that the major policies that swung the budget from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001 to the present 10-year deficit of $6.2 trillion were Republican in origin.

Consider the two signature GOP policies of George W. Bush's presidency: the wars and the tax cuts. Including debt service costs, Bush's wars have cost about $1.7 trillion to date. Additionally, as part of being "a nation at war," the Pentagon has spent about $1 trillion more than was expected in the last decade on things other than direct war costs, which has been a bonanza for military contractors but a disaster for the federal budget. And finally, there has been another trillion dollars spent domestically in response to 9/11, including spending on such things as establishing the Homeland Security Department and increasing the budgets for the State Department and the Veterans Administration.

The Bush tax cuts have added another $3 trillion in red ink. While Republican leaders wail that Americans — particularly their rich contributors — are overtaxed, the facts say otherwise: U.S. taxpayers, particularly the wealthiest, pay far less in taxes than they would in most other developed countries. Today, the 400 wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 125 million. The GOP insists that those wealthy people use their money to create jobs, and that taxing them more heavily would ultimately hurt the economy. But, if that's so, why was the rate of job creation in the decade after the Bush tax cuts the poorest in any decade since before World War II?

Like a drunk swearing off hooch for the hundredth time, Republicans are now trying to show they are serious about controlling the deficit by saying they won't raise the debt ceiling unless they get through some of their cost-saving projects, like privatizing Medicare. Meanwhile, they want revenue increases "off the table," even though, at 14.8% of GDP, revenues are at their lowest level in 60 years. And the budget passed by the Republican-controlled House further cuts taxes on the wealthy, a fact it glosses over with optimistic growth forecasts.

Raising the debt ceiling isn't, as the GOP tries to say, Congress giving itself permission to continue excessive spending: It's something that's necessary to pay for past congressional decisions on taxes and spending, and those decisions were made primarily when Republicans were in charge.

UPDATE: Rep. Mark Souder Takes Responsibility And Resigns

2010-05-19T19:54:00.000-04:00

In a recent post I gave Representative Mark Souder credit for resigning his office instead of forcing his constituents or his colleagues to oust him, before having read the contents of his resignation letter. Now I must withdraw that credit since Mark Souder has decided to blame his affair on Washington, D.C. instead of himself. The following is an excerpt of the resignation letter:

"IT HAS BEEN ALL CONSUMING FOR ME TO DO THIS JOB WELL, ESPECIALLY IN A DISTRICT WITH COSTLY, COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS I DO NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF "NORMAL" LIFE - FOR FAMILY, FOR FRIENDS, FOR CHURCH, FOR COMMUNITY. TO SERVE HAS BEEN A BLESSING AND A RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN FROM GOD. I WISH I COULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER EXAMPLE. I SINNED AGAINST GOD, MY WIFE AND MY FAMILY BY HAVING A MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A PART-TIME MEMBER OF MY STAFF. IN THE POISONOUS ENVIRONMENT OF WASHINGTON DC, ANY PERSONAL FAILING IS SEIZED UPON, OFTEN TWISTED, FOR POLITICAL GAIN. I AM RESIGNING RATHER THAN TO PUT MY FAMILY THROUGH THAT PAINFUL, DRAWN-OUT PROCESS."

The following statement by 'Concerned Women for America' also blames Washington, D.C. for Souder's affair:

"Those of us who have worked with Mark over the years know him to be a kind and thoughtful legislator. If Mark Souder is capable of sexual misconduct, it could happen to anyone. The frat house environment on Capitol Hill does nothing to encourage accountability. Most Members do not live with their families while they are working in D.C. during the week and have even ditched common rules of etiquette that even major corporations follow such as office doors with windows or careful examination of employee/boss interaction."

How is Washington, D.C. to blame for Souder's affair with a staffer from Indiana who worked in Souder's Indiana office and met to have sex with Souder in Indiana state parks?

It's not Capitol Hill that puts the devil in our Congressmen, it's our Congressmen that put the devil on Capitol Hill.

Conservatives Unhappy With Miss USA Pageant, Again!

2010-05-19T19:19:00.000-04:00

Many conservatives are upset that Miss Michigan, Rima Fakih, has been crowned Miss USA instead of Miss Oklahoma, Elizabeth Woolard, who was the first runner-up. They feel that Miss Oklahoma should have won but did not because she expressed approval of Arizona's new Immigration Law when responding to one of the interview questions. Furthermore, they feel that Ms. Fakih is the "affirmative action" choice because she is a Muslim born in Lebanon (another case of reverse discrimination).

Sound familiar? In 2009, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was the first runner-up in the Miss USA pageant. Conservatives claimed that Prejean did not win the crown because she had disapproved of same-sex marriage during her interview.

Now Ms. Fakih's pre-pageant life is being scrutinized and criticized publicly by conservatives in an attempt to disqualify her even though Ms. Fakih was only an innocent bystander.

Miss USA contestants are judged in three competitions: Interview, Swimsuit and Evening Gown. The judges evaluate each contestant's poise, charm, self-confidence, beauty of face, figure, physical fitness, sense of style, ability to communicate, the substance of her communication and her character. If Miss Oklahoma's performance in the interview dropped her from first to second place in the overall competition then it is likely that an adequate number of the judges did not approve of the character revealed in Miss Oklahoma's response since her ability to communicate has not been cited as deficient.

The majority of Americans and many Arizonans strongly disapprove of Arizona's Immigration Law because its enforcement is a violation of American civil rights, therefore, Miss Oklahoma's approval of the Immigration Law is evidence of a character defect. I, and I suspect the majority of Americans, do not disagree with Arizona's opposition to illegal immigration, rather, it is the action that the Immigration Law requires of all Arizona Law enforcement personnel that we find to be disagreeable and unconstitutional.

And, conservative whining... I find that disagreeable, also!

Rep. Mark Souder Takes Responsibility And Resigns

2010-05-18T10:28:00.001-04:00

Representative Mark Souder reminded us how very hard it is to remain "holier than thou" when he resigned for having an affair with an assistant. If a resignation was called for then I commend him for voluntarily resigning instead of hanging on until his constituents or his colleagues ousted him. So many before Souder have refused to resign when a resignation was called for - that is when the member of Congress violated a law or his oath, such that he would be expected to resign.

Souder, who was elected in 1994 on a "family values" platform, makes the following statement on his website. "I believe that Congress must fight to uphold the traditional values that undergird the strength of our nation. The family plays a fundamental role in our society... I am committed to preserving traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman."

Perhaps Souder meant "one woman" at a time.

Was Souder sincere when he ran on a "family values" platform and like most of us stumbled. Or did he select the "family values" platform only to get votes?

Pope Blames Church For Its Persecution Over The Sex Abuse Scandal

2010-05-12T14:44:00.001-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI believes that the Catholic Church is being persecuted! Could he be more self-righteous and unapologetic?!?! When I think of a persecution I think of the Jewish Holocaust, the Muslim conquest of the Holy Lands, the Crusades to retake the Holy Lands and convert the Muslims, the Inquisition of heretics and atheists and the Roman persecution of the Christians. The Catholic Church is being justifiably punished, not persecuted, for covering up sexual abuses by its clerics. The cover up has been led by the Vatican and every pope since the abuses became public. Pedophilia in the Catholic Church has existed so long that it is institutionalized.

The Vatican's only response has been to minimize its legal and financial exposures by lying, coercion and bribery. The Vatican had tried to dismiss the abuses as American only. The current pope is the first one to 'approach' apologizing, however, alligator tears do not make an apology and certainly do not deliver the changes needed to prevent future abuses.

I don't think the leadership of the Catholic Church deserves to survive its wrongs. The lay Catholics should purge all ranks of the church's leadership if they want their church to survive since Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed that no one in the Vatican is going to respond properly, completely and consistently.

Sarah Palin Wants To Restore The Original Constitution Under Which She Will Have No Voice and No Vote!

2010-05-12T07:13:00.000-04:00

Sarah Palin, who believes that the Judeo-Christian belief was the basis for American law and should continue to be used as a guiding force for creating future legislation, said, "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant..."

I suggest that Sarah Palin take the lead and begin living as though the original Constitution has been restored. Since the original Constitution held that only white men had a voice and a vote, then Sarah needs to shut up publicly. If she has anything to say about our government and our laws, then she can say it to Todd Palin and Todd can bring it to the attention of his local, state or federal government representatives if he thinks it is necessary to do so.

The RNC Puts Its Shoe In Its Mouth...Again

2010-05-10T14:31:00.000-04:00

President Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the RNC and its chairman, Michael Steele, have pulled another minority endearing statement out of their bag of faulty tricks by condemning Kagan for having praised the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1993. Kagan quoted Marshall in his 1987 Constitutional Bicentennial speech. Kagan quoted Marshall for saying that "The Constitution as origninally conceived and drafted was "defective" and that the Supreme Court's mission was to "show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged."

Marshall went on to say,

"the government they (the Framers of the Constitution) devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we need look no further than the first three words of the document's preamble: 'We the People." When the Founding Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America's citizens. "We the People" included, in the words of the Framers, "the whole Number of free Persons." United States Constitution, Art. 1, 52 (Sept. 17, 1787). On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for representational purposes at threefifths each. Women did not gain the right to vote for over a hundred and thirty years. The 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920). These omissions were intentional. The record of the Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear: The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade. The economic interests of the regions coalesced: New Englanders engaged in the "carrying trade" would profit from transporting slaves from Africa as well as goods produced in America by slave labor. The perpetuation of slavery ensured the primary source of wealth in the Southern States."

When Michael Steele stated recently that the GOP has not "done a very good job" giving African-Americans a reason to vote Republican, did he intend then to adjust course and start doing a good job? If so, he must have forgotten, or changed his mind, or decided to place a higher priority on attacking President Obama nomination. Considering Steele's habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, I can only guess why he did it again. My guess is he and the RNC wanted to attack President Obama above all else and, as usual, suspended his mental capacity while doing it.

Great job! These blunders and kowtowing to the GOP's radical base may carry their Teabagger candidates in the Fall primaries but other than a few possible exceptions like Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas and Minnesota, they will surely get whipped in the general election.

Copier Machines Save Images Of Every Document They Copy

2010-05-08T12:03:00.000-04:00

Did you know that the image of every document copied is saved on a copier's internal hard drive? And most copiers do not provide a means for erasing these images. When your employer, your doctor and your lawyer replace their copiers the old copiers leave with copies of all the documents they copied.

For a video about this privacy risk click on the following link.

http://www.wimp.com/copymachines/

In 2001 Cheney Told BP That Well Safety Device Was Not Needed

2010-05-06T11:33:00.000-04:00

Those who think that the huge spill resulting from the BP offshore well disaster was unavoidable should know that BP uses a safety device called an acoustical regulator on all its offshore wells, which could have closed the well when the manual controls failed. BP uses the device by law on wells off Brazil and in Norway's North Sea. BP voluntarily uses the device on the wells in Britain's North Sea operation and elsewhere in the world as do most other major oil companies. However, in 2001 Dick Cheney met with oil industry leaders and asked them for input on changes to US regulations. BP said the acoustical regulator was too expensive at $500,000 so the Bush Administration waived that requirement. At $14 billion each the estimated cost of the clean up and BP's profit in 2009 are each 28,000 times greater than the cost of the acoustical regulator.

Americans will never know the full extent of the damage to the world, not just America, for which the Bush administration is solely responsible.

Rep. Virginia Foxx receives Ronald Reagan Award

2010-05-05T12:19:00.000-04:00

The GOP has presented the 2010 Ronald Reagan Award to Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC). After watching the attached video wherein Foxx is praised for her hard work in the House I decided to find out how much legislation Foxx has proposed while in the House. Since joining the House in 2005, Foxx has proposed 31 bills of which only 5 were approved.

Approved legislation:

Allow service personnel to include combat pay in earned income to determine tax deduction
Extend Associate membership to spouse and siblings of members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart
Commend Appalachian State football team for winning NCAA I-AA football championship
Provides Federal employees with electronic receipts for direct deposits
Provides House members with electronic receipts for direct deposits

Considering the GOP praises in the attached video I expected a lot more. I wonder how President Reagan would feel about his award going to Foxx for such an insignificant contribution. Perhaps Foxx's real contribution was her 100% support of the House GOP caucus voting directives.

My Granddaughter's Science Fair Project - "Walking On Water (Ooblech)"

2010-04-30T12:51:00.000-04:00

My granddaughter's project for her school's science fair was titled "Walking On Water." Actually, she walked on a mixture of cornstarch and water (240 pounds of cornstarch and 24 gallons of water). The mixture, named Ooblech by Dr. Seuss, is a liquid until it is stressed (pushed or pulled) then it becomes a solid only while it is stressed. This allowed Priscilla to walk on top of the otherwise liquid Ooblech. If she walked slow or stopped while on the Ooblech she would sink as if she was in quicksand. And, as with quicksand, it is hard to get out after you sink! If the Ooblech is allowed to dry completely, it returns to the original cornstarch powder. Red food coloring was added for the pink color.

"Walking On Water"

GOP Starts Rumor That Supreme Court Candidate Is A Lesbian

2010-04-16T15:08:00.000-04:00

I am convinced that the Republican National Committee, the Republican congressional leadership and the majority of Republican politicians are willing to do anything that benefits them and their major financial supporters. Their latest dirty trick is unethical, immoral and a violation of civil law.

A Republican Senatorial staffer and past member of the GW Bush administration started a rumor that Elena Kagan, a candidate for the Supreme Court, is a lesbian. Focus on the Family immediately piled on in their typical non-Christ-like manner by proclaiming that they would oppose the appointment of a homosexual. The White House in a rare response denied that Kagan was a lesbian without suggesting that sexual orientation is an issue.

However, the GOP and Focus are ignoring the truth, as they normally do. I can't wait to hear how Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and the FOX propagandists will take advantage of this lie.

These people are everything they disapprove of. They are an embarrassment to America and, if they are Christian role models, they invalidate the Christian religion. Why would any intelligent, informed, ethical, compassioate person respect the GOP and the Christians that follow them.

Don't ignore the GOP and their so-called Christian cohorts, actively oppose them. They are unethical and un-American and anybody that supports them either knowingly approves of their conduct or is too ignorant to know them for what they are. Their is not a third option; if you support them and you are not ignorant then you are no better than they are.

American Family Association Wants To Deport Muslim-Americans

2010-04-14T08:30:00.003-04:00

Bryan Fischer, Director of Issues Analysis at the American Family Association, wants to deport Muslim-Americans unless they convert to Christianity. Obviously Bryan Fischer and AFA have not accepted that the government of the United States of America, according to its Constitution, is secular. It's also obvious that Fischer doesn't accept that our Constitution requires a separation of Church and State for the purpose of protecting the religious rights of each and every citizen. Does Fischer not understand the First Amendment of the Constitution or does he simply refuse to accept it like most, if not all, conservative Christians?

Jesus didn't instruct his followers to banish all non-Christians so why do so many Christians want to replace our democracy with a Christian theocracy? But Fischer believes that by deporting non-believers he is protecting "the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West." But he cherishes them for Christian Americans only. If Fischer succeeded in having the Muslim-Americans deported, he would then demand the deportation of all non-Christians.

You and I don't think that Fischer will succeed but his kind are now playing rough with those who disagree and the rough play, if not stopped now, will turn violent.

The following is Fischer's statement. Note that he believes that American-Muslims and Muslim churches in America are guilty of treason.

The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?

Muslims who have become naturalized citizens, of course, would need to commit an act of treason to forfeit their citizenship and become eligible for repatriation. Based on the Constitution's definition of treason in Article III Section 3 ["adhering to (the) Enemies (of the United States), (or) giving them Aid and Comfort"] treasonous acts are likely committed on virtually a weekly basis here in the U.S. in many mosques and Islamic organizations.

Muslims continue to have as their objective the Islamization of the entire world, including the U.S., and are taught by their god to use force where necessary to accomplish the goal. The current objective of Muslim activists is to create a brand new Islamic state - meaning a state like New Jersey or Montana - out of existing jurisdictions and establish a virtual Islamic homeland in our midst.

Many Muslims are on our shores on student visas and such and have not yet become citizens. We must politely decline their request for naturalization (becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right) and use the money we would otherwise spend on their welfare, their education, their medical care and their incarceration to graciously assist them in returning to their countries of origin.

Bryan Fischer, the AFA and every like-minded person and organization are un-American. Beware because I feel their numbers and political influence are growing.

Will Nevadans Actually Opt For Sue Lowden Instead Of Harry Reid???

2010-04-14T07:32:00.000-04:00

According to polls Sue Lowden is leading against Harry Reid in the race for the US Senate seat for Nevada which is currently held by Harry Reid, the US Senate Majority Leader. Harry Reid is trailing because he led the Senate fight to pass the Health Care Reform legislation. Sue Lowden is leading because she had nothing to do with the Health Care Reform legislation and she would have opposed Health Care Reform if she had been in the Senate.

In a recent candidate forum Lowden was asked what she would have done instead of the Democrats' Health Care Reform legislation. Most of her response was a regurgitation of what other Republican politicians are saying but Lowden added a couple of her own ideas that should cause Nevadans to reject her candidacy. Lowden suggested that everybody should take maximum advantage of a pre-tax health care savings account. "And if you want to save $20,000, good for you," said Lowden.

Lowden also offered, "And I would have suggested, and I think that bartering is really good. Those doctors who you pay cash, you can barter, and that would get prices down in a hurry. And I would say go out, go ahead out and pay cash for whatever your medical needs are, and go ahead and barter with your doctor."

How many people who are in need of real health care reform can put $20,000 into a health care reserve account each year? Nobody? Then who is Lowden talking to? Does she really understand the issues?

How do you think your doctor, your pharmacist and your hospital would react if you start bartering with them for your health care needs? Will they refer you to a psychiatrist? What goods or services could you offer in exchange? Produce from your farm or garden? Your labor to mow their lawns or clean their offices? How many chicken eggs will your doctor demand in exchange for a colonoscopy? How many times will you be mowing the grass at your hospital in exchange for a heart valve replacement?

If Nevadans don't like Reid, that's fine with me, but I hope for the sake of all Americans that they don't elect Lowden. Lowden's political party selected the candidates that Nevadans can choose from and, as is often the case, their pick serves the party more than the people. The party has already given Nevadans John Ensign and has defended him, in spite of his unethical and illegal conduct, rather than remove him they won't risk losing another seat and the filibuster, which they have already used 50 times in this session.

Nevadans should elect a senator that will obey the laws, understand the issues and represent the citizens but so far the oddsmakers in Las Vegas see them doing otherwise.

President Obama Order To Kill American Al Qaeda Leader Is Just

2010-04-13T18:13:00.000-04:00

I condemned Dick Cheney for secretly establishing a CIA assassination team that answered only to him. I wouldn't have had a problem with using a non-covert team to kill, if necessary, terrorist leaders who could not otherwise be brought to justice and whose guilt as a terrorist leader was supported by real evidence. President Obama has been accused of continuing the abuses committed by the Bush administration by authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Eliminating the enemy was never an issue for me. Planning to do so covertly in violation of US laws as Cheney did was an issue. President Obama is acting within the law. If the terrorist targeted for elimination believes that he is unjustly accused, then let him surrender to the US or its allies and prove his innocence in court. The battlefield, in my opinion, is wherever the terrorist is. I don't think Anwar al-Awlaki should be an exception because he holds a US citizenship. Timothy McVeigh was a citizen of the US but his killing would have been justified if he would not surrender and resisted arrest with deadly force. Since the US cannot safely arrest Anwar al-Awlaki and if he refuses to surrender, I believe his killing is justified.

Record Snowfall Consistent With Global Warming

2010-02-11T08:42:00.000-05:00

Many GOP leaders have claimed that the record snowfall on the East coast is proof that Global Warming is not real. These naysayers have only confirmed that they don't understand the difference between weather and climate. The Climate Change of which global warming is a part was expected to produce record snowfalls. The average global temperature during this winter and the last 10 years are the highest in 2,000 years. The higher temperatures increase the amount of water evaporated into the atmosphere. Thus, when it snows or rains there is a possibility that the amount of precipitation will be greater.

Scientific fact does not outweigh the "truthiness" that the GOP and other Climate Change naysayers cling to. Truthiness is opinion-based not fact-based; it is what the GOP chooses to believe in spite of the facts that indicate otherwise.

The question that must be asked is whether the GOP leaders really believe that Global Warming/Climate Change is not real or are they pretending that it is not real because they do not want to make the changes that are required to stop and eventually reverse man-made climate changes.

New Life Children's Refuge - Volunteers' Stupidity Is No Excuse

2010-02-08T11:51:00.000-05:00

Nine volunteers, answering God's call to help children orphaned by the earthquake in Haiti, followed without question the mission organizer, Laura Silsby, founder of New Life Children's Refuge, to Haiti where they convinced several Haitian families to turn over 33 children to be cared for in a non-existent "orphanage" in the Domincan Republic. Silsby had not acquired the necessary legal authorization from the Haitian authorities to have custody of the children and to remove them from Haiti. Most, if not all, of the children are not orphans; their families have lost their homes or cannot afford to care for the children as adequately as promised by Silsby. All 10 "missionaries" are in jail in Haiti, charged with kidnapping. Eight of the 10 volunteers passed a note to news reporters during a press conference that claimed that Silsby was lying to the press. The Haitian lawyer for the volunteers has been fired for attempting to bride Haitian authorities to secure the release of the volunteers.

Laura Silsby, is also the owner of Personal Shopper, Inc. of Boise, ID. Laura Silsby and Personal Shopper, Inc. have been sued for more than $30,000 by several suppliers and past employees for non-payment and fraud. Some of the suits have been dropped. Payment was ordered by the court in several other suits and hearings on two suits are scheduled for February and March. Silsby has been charged several times with driving an unregistered and uninsured automobile. Silsby personal home and the address of record for New Life Children's Refuge was foreclosed on in December, 2009.

Two churches in Idaho partnered with Silsby for the mission to Haiti but only provided volunteers. Like the volunteers, the churches did not ask for and did not receive verification through Silsby that the mission was legal under Haitian and U.S. laws.

Because of Silsby's background and her misreprentations of the mission and its inadequate preparation, many are questioning her motives for establishing New Life Children's Refuge.

There seems to be little or no question that the volunteers, unlike Silsby, did not know that the mission was in violation of the law. Nor do I question the stupidity of the volunteers who followed Silsby to Haiti to collect as many as 100 "orphaned" children and transport them to a the Dominican Republic to live in an orphanage that has yet to be funded and built. I'm sure you are saying that the volunteers are honest, well-intentioned Christians but would you have blindly followed Silsby to Haiti to "kidnap" 33 children? Did these people listen only to God and Silsby?

Good intentions are no excuse for what New Life Children's Refuge has done. What would have happened to the children had the missionaries succeeded in getting them to the Dominican Republic? Although ignorance is never an acceptable legal defense, I expect that Silsby's volunteers will be sent home with no more than a hand slap. Silsby may face a harsher punishment but I don't expect her to be sentenced to jail. I believe she should be fined to punish her as well as send a message to others that good intentions do not supercede the law even in Haiti during this horrendous disaster.

Bottom line: use your common sense lest you find yourself in a Haitian jail or drinking spiked Kool-Aid in place like Jonestown.

SC Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: Feeding The Poor Only Encourages Them To Reproduce

2010-01-27T21:03:00.000-05:00

Demonstrating the same capacity to be compassionate as Rush Limbaugh, South Carolina's Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, a Republican candidate for governor, has compared giving people government assistance to "feeding stray animals."

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better," Bauer said.

South Carolina voters couldn't have known that their current governor would use taxpayers' money to pay his expenses incurred during an adulterous affair in Argentina but if they elect Bauer they will knowingly elect a bigot. Considering the fact that 58 percent of South Carolina's students participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program one would think and hope that Bauer's bigoted statement has already destroyed his chance to be governor but I am continually disappointed by American voters.

Will Christian Leaders Condemn Pat Robertson's Statement About Haiti?

2010-01-14T11:24:00.000-05:00

I've been Googling for reactions to Pat Robertson's statement that Haiti is cursed because of a 200 year-old pact with the devil during the slave revolt against the French. I found responses from MSNBC, the White House and various bloggers. With the exception of a few bloggers, Robertson is being condemned for his statement.

CBN.com claims that Robertson was only stating an historical fact regarding the "pact" and that the living conditions in Haiti are evidence to Robertson and others that Haiti is cursed. The statement goes on to praise Robertson's call for prayer and relief aid for Haiti.

Should I assume that Christian leaders and Christian bloggers are silent because they do not disagree with Robertson? Am I overreacting along with MSNBC and the White House or do Christians really believe that Haiti has been cursed and abandoned by God for the last 200 years?

I was not surprised by Robertson's statement; it was expected. I didn't expect silence from the Christian community. How naive of me.

Congressional Deficit Commission

2010-01-13T10:18:00.000-05:00

Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) are proposing that congress establish a commission to develop proposals for dealing with the budget deficit. The commission would consist of senators, representatives, administration representatives and an advisory group that would represent parties with a vested interest in the outcome. The commission would do a lot of public outreach. The commission will focus on two areas to reduce the deficit: entitlement, taxes.

If both houses of Congress and their many existing committees cannot solve our deficit problem with their current processes, then a special commission won’t solve it either.

No doubt the “advisory group” will consist of lobbyists too numerous to count.

I expect that the “public outreach” will consist of townhall meetings dominated by teabaggers and professional protesters.

I suspect that the proponents of such a commission (Republicans and conservative Democrats) want to move the discussion of the deficit issue into the public arena where they will use misinformation to gain public support for their agenda. I’m reminded of the health care reform townhall meetings.

Commission proposals can only be enacted by a super majority, giving the minority conservatives the power to block any legislation they disapprove of.

Our partisan Congress at work!

What do you think of the proposed commission?

Reform Debate Continues To Be Dishonest - Business As Usual

2009-12-10T08:04:00.016-05:00

I don't watch the Senate and House debates on C-SPAN much anymore because it only frustrates me to listen to the dishonest arguments.

Yesterday the Senate was debating Health Care Reform. One of the Republicans said that the Democrats wish to reduce the Federal income tax medical expense deduction. Unreimbursed medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of your adjusted gross income are currently deductible. The Democrats propose raising the limit to 10%. The senator stated that this would result in a tax increase that would affect middle income families the most. He stated that the tax increase for a family with an income of $57,000 would be more than $3,000, which is a gross overstatement.

A family with an adjusted gross income of $57,000 can currently deduct unreimbursed medical expenses in excess of $4,275. The Democrats propose to raise this to $5,700 (10% of $57,000). The maximum difference between the current and the proposed is $1,425 if the family's unreimbursed expenses equal or exceed $5,700. A family with a taxable income of $57,000 will pay federal income tax at the rate of 13.54%. Therefore, the maximum impact of the Democratic proposal is 13.54% of $1,425 or $193.

The typical family of four earning $57,000 doesn't have unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding 7.5% so most families will not be affected by this change. The families and individuals that do have unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding 7.5% are likely to see those expenses reduced by far more than $193 due to positive affects of health care reform - reduced insurance premiums, increased coverage, lower costs for service and drugs.

The good senator's misinformation is not going to cause any Democrats or Republicans to vote against the proposal as long as they have a basic understanding of the tax laws and middle-school mathematics. Therefore, the senator had no expectation of impacting the results of a Senate vote on reform. Was he trying to mislead the C-SPAN audience? I think the number of C-SPAN viewers who could be mislead by the senator's false statements is very small. If responsible news media reported on the senator's statements, I hope that they recognized that the statements were false and reported them as such.

So... the good senator has perhaps only delayed voting on the bill, which was probably his sole purpose - keep talking to delay a vote.

Why Unemployment Lags In The Economic Recovery

2009-11-25T09:06:00.000-05:00

Obama's stimulus bill is taking a hit, again, because unemployment is not dropping in spite of other improvements in the economy. Unemployment did not increase as rapidly as the economy slowed down, either. Many employers tried to weather what they hoped would be a shorter recession since the cost of restaffing when business resumes is significant, especially because rehiring would introduce new employees who must be trained.

Many companies were forced to shutdown when the economy collapsed and many of them will not reopen as their pre-collapse business is assumed by their competitors who were able to survive through the collapse. When the pre-collapse business volume resumes, fewer companies will be needed to satisfy the demand. The total employment of these companies will be less than the pre-collapse employment for a couple of reasons.

Economy of scale allows companies to produce more with fewer employees. When the typical business doubles its volume it usually can do so without doubling its employment.

A second factor, which contributes to the lagging employment, is that the companies that survived did so in part because they made changes that reduced their overhead and production costs. These companies learned how to survive with fewer employees and less overhead. As the business volume recovers many of these companies are able to meet their pre-collapse business volume with fewer employees.

New businesses will be required to reduce unemployment and the unemployed must be retrained to do different work. New business will come in part from new Green industries. Developing the new technologies will create new jobs. New businesses resulting from the new technologies will require new employees.

We should expect unemployment to lag the rest of the economy. The stimulus was focused on maintaining state and local government employment in spite of decreases in state and local tax revenue. The stimulus was also focused on directly stimulating the economy through infrastructure improvement projects. Although these projects do not create permanent private sector employment, they do put money directly into the economy through the workers employed and the construction materials required.

I'm pleased with the rate of recovery of the economy. We shouldn't expect a complete resumption of the old business as usual. Survival required permanent change and the changes are incomplete. If we allow our government to stimulate the development of new technologies through tax incentives and spending, the needed changes can be made and will be made sooner and America will be better in the end.

Hang in there.

Deference Rather Than Political Correctness Contributed to the Ft. Hood Shootings

2009-11-19T17:00:00.002-05:00

Many people are claiming that the Army failed to prevent the shootings at Ft. Hood by Major Hasan because they were being politically correct. One such person is Sarah Palin who recently made such a claim on Sean Hannity's TV show. Palin said, "profiling in the context of saving innocent American lives, I'm all for it." This is the same excuse that Dick Cheney uses to justify the use of torture.

Like Sarah Palin, these people blame Liberals for forcing our society to be politically correct to the extent that government and business is handicapped by it. Sarah Palin said that the Army failed to properly deal with Major Hasan because it would not risk being accused of profiling. "I say, profile away," Palin said. Such political correctness, she continued, "could be our downfall."

A fear of political incorrectness is not why the Army did not discharge Major Hasan for being unfit. If the military was concerned about political correctness they would not have discharged more than 13,000 personnel in 16 years for violating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I think the single biggest reason that the Army did not prevent the Ft. Hood shootings is that they willfully neglected to respond to the abundant evidence that Major Hasan was a risk to the safety of other military personnel. A contributing factor to their neglect is that military officers are reluctant to punish other officers.

I witnessed this when I was in the Navy. In fact, one of my ship's captains was unfit in many ways. One such way affected me personally. As a seaman apprentice I was assigned to take navigational readings whenever the ship was exiting or entering a harbor. When I was promoted I was given a new assignment, however, the captain was not satisfied with my replacement's performance during foul weather and ordered me to perform the task whenever the weather was bad. Eventually, the captain made the assignment permanent, however, this was not a reason to find the captain unfit but this is only the beginning of the story.

After having performed this task dozens of times during a period of more than 2 years without incident, the captain flew into a rage near the end of one such detail and had me removed from the bridge. After the incident the captain said nothing to me or my supervisor to explain what I had done wrong. On the very next and all future occasions of performing this duty, the captain threw me off the bridge just before the detail would have ended. The captain never mentioned these events afterward and nobody ever asked him for an explanation.

After six months of being thrown of the bridge, the ship's executive officer - the second in command - called me to his cabin shortly before a detail was to begin. He told me that he did not know why the captain was acting this way and he said that protocol prevented him from asking the captain for an explanation. He then instructed me that the navigator would thereafter relieve me just before the time when the captain typically threw me off the bridge. The executive officer assured me that the captain would not require me to return to the bridge only to throw me off. He was right. For the next several months until my honorable discharge, I slipped off the bridge just before the captain would throw me off.

Years later, the officer who had been my captain was tried at court-martial for forcing one of his male stewards to have sex with him. The court-martial found him non-guilty. However, at a ship's crew reunion almost 40 years after my discharge, one of the officers who had served with me, told me that all the officers knew that the captain was abusing one of his stewards.

In the 1950's Humphrey Bogart played Captain Queeg in the movie The Caine Mutiny. Officers under Queeg relieved him of his command because they were convinced that he put the ship and its crew at risk. When those officers were court-martialed for mutiny, questioning by the naval lawyer for the defense caused Captain Queeg to reveal just how mentally unfit he was and the officers were found not guilty. However, after the trial, the defense attorney told them that he was ashamed of having destroyed Queeg's career and that they should have, out of respect for Queeg, made the effort needed to avoid the mutiny that destroyed Queeg.

That's the attitude that allowed my ship's captain to serve for decades when everybody knew he was unfit and I think that the same attitude was a factor in the Army's neglect regarding Major Hasan.

The Department of Defense is going to thoroughly investigate the Ft. Hood incident. They will identify causes and might assign blame but the attitude that an officer, as a gentlemen, is owed deference at any cost, will not be raised as an issue.

Representative Chaffetz Thinks Carrie Prejean Has Star Power For Politics

2009-11-17T18:35:00.000-05:00

Utah's Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz thinks that Carrie Prejean has the star power needed for success in politics. Rep. Chaffetz said, "[Carrie] has the ability to draw crowds and if she has a strong message to go with that, who knows what she can do? She has star power which can open doors."

This is the facial expression that reveals what Chaffetz is really "thinking" while he is speaking of the doors that Carrie can open. Star Power? Was Chaffetz thinking of Prejean's sex videos?

I wonder what the voters in Utah were thinking when they elected this adolescent to our Congress. Let's hope the newspapers in Utah run Chaffetz' interview about Prejean on Page 1.

Detainees Will Be Tried In US Civilian Court

2009-11-14T16:56:00.000-05:00

US Attorney General Eric Holder made a courageous decision to try the GITMO detainees in a civilian court. Courageous because most Americans disagree with Holder's decision even though they know nothing about the US laws and international treaties that apply to the detainees. Worse yet, they probably don't care about the applicable laws and treaties.

Holder's opposition argues that the detainees will escape US prisons or other terrorists will invade the US in order to free the detainees. These are the same terrorists who are not already terrorizing our homeland because they can't. The detainees who are expected to escape our supermax prisons and professional guards have as yet to escape from GITMO's chainlink fences and military police. But, our security is not the only reason given for not trying the detainees in the US.

US Senator James Webb (D-VA), past Secretary of the Navy, claims that trying the detainees in civilian court is "potentially counterproductive" by which Webb means that one or more of the detainees might not be found guilty by a civilian court. Either Webb has no confidence in our civilian courts or he IS confident that a military tribunal is the only sure means for finding all the detainees guilty. Webb isn't interested in being just, which should be as great a concern for Americans as for the detainees. We aren't a just society unless we treat everyone justly. Anything less will not only diminish our society; it will diminish America internationally.

Of course, many conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, think that America is superior to all other nations and can and should when convenient act above our laws and international treaties. These are the same people that accuse President Obama of "apologizing" to other nations for our past conduct. These are the people that justified torturing the detainees.

I believe that a fair trial, whether military or civilian, will find the guilty detainees "guilty" and the innocent detainees "not guilty." However, I think that the world and especially the terrorists should see the detainees tried fairly in a civilian court rather than a military court. Our imprisonment of the detainees and our refusal to try them in a court are recruiting assets for the terrorists. It is important in the war against terrorists to resolve the detainee issue in our civilian courts in full view of the world and our enemies. Saddam Hussein was tried in an Iraqi civilian court rather than a US military court because Saddam's crimes were crimes against Iraq not the United States and unfriendly nations could accept Saddam's trial and punishment by his people but not by the US military. Trying the detainees in our civilian courts rather than our military courts will make it more difficult for our enemies to interpret these trials as unfair.

I also believe that our security will not be at risk because we have detainees in US prisons. I especially believe that should our courts find any detainee to be not guilty, that detainee will not be a risk if he is released in the United States, furthermore, I don't anticipate that a detainee released in the US will opt to stay in the US. I would leave as soon as possible if I were in that position. Not only would this person be unwelcomed by many Americans, he would also be in danger of physical harm.

I congratulate Eric Holder on having the courage to make the right, albeit very unpopular, decision.

Pat Robertson Attacks Muslims Again After Ft. Hood Shooting

2009-11-11T00:43:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson used the Ft. Hood shooting to again denounce Islam on the 700 Club, his personal platform for making sick prophecies and violent condemnations. Robertson claimed that Islam is not a religion but a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination. Robertson urged that Muslims be treated as we would communists and fascists.

For a moment I was confused, I thought Robertson was referring to Evangelical Christians when he spoke of world domination but in this case it was only "the pot calling the kettle black."

Robertson can't see that he is what he claims his enemies to be. Robertson is everything that a Christian should not be.

Here are several Robertson quotes from About.com to remind you just how intolerant and hateful this being is.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.”
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
Regarding “gay days” at Disneyworld: "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
After city of Dover, PA dismissed its school board for deciding to add intelligent design to the curriculum: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."
Robertson explains why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke: "God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'"
Calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

The House Passes The Affordable Health Care For America Act!!!!!

2009-11-08T08:51:00.002-05:00

I'm pleased but amazed that the House passed their health care reform bill. I was beginning to think that Congress would not enact health care reform and we still lack a Senate bill and reconcilliation between the House and the Senate. So there may still be a long way to go and we don't know what the final reform will include if Congress passes it. I expected the House vote to be more strongly in favor of passage but it was close, passing with only a 2 vote margin.

The following is the content of an e-mail from my US Representative Chris Murphy (D-CT), which is his view of the process leading up to the passage.

Dear Friends,

Decades from now, I think I will look back on Saturday, November 7th, 2009 as one of the most important days I spent in public service. That is the day the House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act, marking an historic step in the hundred year fight to bring health care coverage to all American citizens. The bill will extend health coverage to millions of Americans, end the practice of pre-existing condition discrimination by insurers, lower health insurance costs for small businesses, and eliminate the Medicare drug donut hole for seniors. It’s a good bill, and Saturday was quite a day.

I thought you might enjoy a short behind-the-scenes look at a few of the more interesting moments over the last 24 hours.

Helping a New Congressman Get Started

On Election Day, New York’s 23rd District elected Bill Owens as their new Congressman. Bill ran as a pro-health care reform candidate in a district that hasn’t elected a Democrat since the Civil War, so he was preparing to cast one of his first votes for the health reform bill. One of my responsibilities here is to help oversee freshmen legislators as they navigate their way through Congress, so I started Saturday with a 9am meeting with Owens. For a guy who hasn’t slept in three weeks, Bill seemed remarkably chipper! We spent a little time walking him through the schedule of votes for the day so he wouldn’t be caught off guard by any of the amendments. He seems like a really sharp guy, and even has a nice Connecticut connection – his son is in his first year at UConn Law!

One Last Push for Votes

I firmly decided to support the bill this week, but as of Saturday, it was still unclear whether we had the votes to pass the bill. I offered my help to persuade the few remaining undecided Members, and I found that one of my close friends was on the list. At about 10 a.m. the first round of votes were called (on non-health care related bills), and I found him in the cloakroom off the House floor. He was forlorn. In his gut, he said, he wanted to vote for the bill, but he worried his constituents would not support a "yes" vote. This is always the toughest position for a legislator. I made the case for the bill, but I could tell his mind was made up. My constituents are in a different place than his, and so he needed to go his own way.

President Obama and Fox News

President Obama was scheduled to speak to the Democratic Caucus at 11am, which was timed well for me since I committed to do an interview on Fox News at noon. But President Obama was late, and he didn’t start speaking until 11:45am. Even worse, the producers at Fox News couldn’t get their act together, and every two minutes, they would e-mail to change the location for the interview. Finally, they agreed to do the interview right outside the Caucus room at 12:15pm. Unfortunately, President Obama was just hitting the high point of his speech when I had to run out. I thought to myself as I snuck out the back door, "What would President Obama think if he knew I was walking out on him to do an interview with Fox News!" Luckily, the interview went off without a hitch – a good conversation, and I know people were watching because they immediately called the office to let me know their thoughts on the bill.

My Speech on the Floor

I hate when this happens! When you speak on the House floor, especially on major bills like this one, the Chairmen of the relevant Committees divide up the debate time between people who want to speak. Friday night I was told I would have two minutes to speak, so I wrote a two minute speech. But as I was sitting on the floor, a few moments away from speaking, and an aide approached me to tell me that they were running short on time, and I needed to cut my remarks down to one minute. Argh! I furiously scratched out half of the paragraphs of my speech and hoped that what remained flowed. I scurried down to the well of the House at around 3pm and got my speech in just under the minute mark. I immediately got a text message from a friend: "Fabulous!" Whew.

The Vote

I spoke early in the debate, so I went back to my office to get some work done in the late afternoon. But as the debate continued, I felt like I had to be on the floor, to witness history in person. As the vote neared, more Members came to the floor, and by 10:30 p.m., when the votes were to begin on amendments and the bill, the chamber was jammed with 435 Members and seemingly just as many staff and guests in the gallery.

As the final vote approached, around 11 p.m., the atmosphere was simply electric. The word was out that we likely had the votes to pass the bill, but no one was celebrating yet. As the clock began, people didn’t waste time casting their vote, and quickly we were up to 214 in favor, four short of passage. But strangely, the total stalled here. Aides were rushing around with the list of missing votes, and it turned out the people that hadn’t voted were in favor of the bill. Where were they? With about five minutes left in the vote, we hit 217, and as the deciding vote was cast, the place erupted in sustained applause. Three more people, including one Republican, made it a 220-215 final.

As I write this final paragraph, the hour is nearing 12:30 a.m. This was a truly amazing day. The legislation certainly isn’t perfect, but it will extend health insurance to millions more Americans, lower costs for small businesses, and decrease the deficit. I was proud to vote for it, and play a role in its passage.

Now, just for that small matter of the Senate…

Every best wish,

Christopher S. Murphy

The Military Is Responsible For The Shootings At Ft. Hood

2009-11-06T16:21:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon, the US Army and the Commander of Ft. Hood are responsible for the deaths of 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood. Major Hasan was a devout Muslim who has for years openly opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Hasan had asked for a discharge from the Army because he would not fight a war that he oppose conscientiously. Federal law enforcement officials have revealed that six months ago Major Hasan became a suspect in the authoring of Internet postings that discussed homicide bombings and other threats. Major Hasan is well known for arguing with military personnel who support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Hasan defended the acts of suicide bombers, whom he said did not commit suicide but rather sacrificed their lives for their fellow soldiers.

Why didn't law enforcement and/or the military take action to prevent what should have been an obvious risk of violence?

It's important to note that Ft. Hood has the highest suicide rate in the military. Since 2003 they have averaged one suicide per month.

Now 13 murdered can be added to toll of lives lost at Ft. Hood under the ineffective and seemingly incurious command of our military.

I've complained about the higher than normal suicide rate of uniformed military personnel, not to mention veterans. When I was in boot camp in San Diego in 1965 five recruits committed suicide and within my training company three recruits were discharged when they suffered severe emotional breakdowns. These breakdowns were no surprise to their fellow recruits and our company commander, yet no preemptive active was taken. These men were only hospitalized after they acted out uncontrollably.

The military also has a serious spousal abuse problem. The rate has been increasing since the 1990's and is as high as 24 per 1,000 couples in the Army and Marines, 15 in the Navy and 14 in the Air Force. The Dept. of Defense has sought help from civillian professionals to develop the means to prevent or properly respond to spousal abuse but the problem keeps growing.

If I were the parent or spouse of one of the soldiers killed or wounded at Ft. Hood I would sue the military for their wanton negligence. The Dept. of Justice and the President should intervene to ensure that the military is doing everything possible to prevent violence and suicides in its ranks.

Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times As Much As Proposed Health Care Reform

2009-11-05T22:09:00.000-05:00

The Republican Party has been complaining that Health Care Reform proposed by the Democrats is too expensive. The cost has been estimated to be as much as $1 trillion over 10 years. The GOP didn't complain when President GW Bush asked them for tax cuts that cost almost 2.5 times as much as Health Care Reform. The Bush tax cuts (including interest) cost $2.485 trillion. More than 30% of that benefitted the top 1% of wage earners. That's worth almost $500,000 to each taxpayer in the top 1% compared to $7,200 to each taxpayer in the middle income category.

Health Care Reform will benefit everybody, whereas the Bush tax cuts benefitted the rich much more than the middle class and the poor.

The AMA and AARP both strongly endorsed the proposed health care reform but Eric Cantor, House Minority Leader, discounted both endorsements. Cantor said the AARP is a Washington DC based organization that is not in touch with the people and the AMA does not reflect the opinion of its membership. Congressman Cantor is more than willing to say anything in his effort to defeat health care reform.

Remember who the GOP is representing the next time you go to the polls to vote.

Maine Voters Repeal Same-Sex Marriage Law

2009-11-04T09:46:00.000-05:00

Ignorance and Intolerance have a home in Maine. The voters in Maine have reversed their legislature's decision that made same sex marriage legal. The majority of the voters have been convinced by anti-gay activists that same sex marriage will destroy marriage and the family. Same sex marriage could only help marriage statistics in America, which heterosexuals and especially fundamentalist Christians have already destroyed. The very group that is fighting hardest against same sex marriage is statistically the group with the highest divorce rate in the US.

Good going knuckleheads! Can I get an Amen!

Senator Mitch McConnell Says "Public Option May Cost You Your Life"

2009-10-29T21:50:00.000-04:00

The man in this picture is warning the citizens of the United States that the Public Option for health care insurance coverage "may cost you your life."

Please note that this is also a picture of a lying jackass. He goes by the name Mitch McConnell. He is the senior United States senator from Kentucky and the senate minority leader. God only knows how this jackass gets re-elected to the U.S. Senate but I bet that the good folks of Kentucky will re-elect him again.

McConnell is not representing the interests of the voters who elected him. He has a history of representing the special interests that contribute generously to his campaigns. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named McConnell one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress in 2009.

McConnell's concern for the health of Americans is demonstrated by his support of the tobacco industry, which makes products that kill people. In exchange for his support the tobacco industry has donated $419,000 to McConnell's campaign fund.

Apply the Rule of Common Sense when you listen to our elected officials. Forrest Gump's mother would explain McConnell statement by saying "stupid is as stupid does."

Internet Freedom Act: John McCain Sells Out To The Telecom Industry

2009-10-26T20:30:00.002-04:00

In my post Republicans Oppose FCC Policy Changes Intended To Ensure Net Neutrality I told you that several Republicans, led by Senator John Ensign (whose parents bribed his mistress' family to protect little Johnnie), were opposing proposed revisions to FCC policy intended to ensure net neutrality. The policy changes would ensure that:

Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
Providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

In that post I wondered what motive(s) these Republicans have for opposing policy that ensures that the Internet remains an open platform to which everyone has equal right and access. I said then that opposing net neutrality is like allowing the bigger, richer oxygen-breather greater access and control over the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Simply opposing the policy changes wasn't adequate so Senator John McCain has proposed the Internet Freedom Act, which would allow internet service providers to give preferred handling to their own web content by slowing or blocking their competitor's access to other content on the Internet.

At what price has John McCain sold domination of the Internet to the telecom industry? As of March 2008 McCain had received more than $750,000 from the telecom industry and its lobbyists. In the last two years McCain has received a total of $894,000 from the telecom industry. More than any other member of Congress.

One year ago John McCain admitted without hesitation that he knew nothing about the Internet and e-mailing and relied completely on others, especially his wife to handle Internet communications. Not long after that admission one of McCain's senior policy advisors told reporters, "You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped to create" while holding up his personal Blackberry. But McCain didn't stop there! With "tutoring" from the telecom lobbyists McCain is now the GOP's lead legislator for Internet matters. It's amazing what one can achieve with a lot of money in such a short time when ethics don't get in the way.

Will Bank Executive Compensation Limits Weaken Banks?

2009-10-25T12:31:00.000-04:00

President Obama has limited the salary and bonuses of employees of banks that received and have not repaid TARP funds. The banks affected complain that their valuable employees will leave for jobs at banks that aren't affected. The affected banks warn that their performance will suffer.

I would prefer that the compensation be determined by the shareholders of all publicly traded companies instead of the boards of directors but that is not how it is done. I think the shareholders would if the could reduce compensation more than President Obama. So, I agree with President Obama's limit on compensation.

Why would the banks that did not need TARP funds or have already repaid the funds want to hire the executives of banks that have yet to fully recover? If you were the CEO of a successful bank would you replace your employees with those from unsuccessful banks? I wouldn't.

Here's another way to look at this matter. If we gave every American who is unemployed by Wall Street's collapse of the economy an equal share of all Wall Street bonuses this year each share would worth more than $30,000. Who deserves that money more?

Fools And Liars Should Be Excluded From The Health Care Reform Debate!

2009-10-25T08:46:00.000-04:00

Recently, I participated in an online discussion about whether it is ever reasonable to refuse to debate with somebody and whether a tolerant person would refuse. I'm of the opinion that it is sometimes reasonable for a tolerant person to not debate.

We all know to "never argue with a fool" but, fool or not, we also should not bebate with anybody who is not acting in good faith.

The current health care reform is one such occasion when refusing to debate is reasonable. Most, if not all, of the legislators who oppose health care reform are in my opinion either fools or not acting in good faith.

Representative Michele Bachmann is an excellent example of a fool with whom we should not debate. Bachmann assures us that the government will establish death panels under the proposed reform legislation and, in my opinion, only a fool could believe in death panels.

Senator Jon Kyl is an example of a person who will not debate in good faith. Although 60% of the health care insurance providers will not cover maternity care, Jon Kyl disagrees with requiring all health care insurers to cover maternity care. Why? Jon Kyl stated that he does not personally require maternity care coverage and therefore does not want to pay for it. I say that Jon Kyl is not debating in good faith and does not deserve to participate in the health care reform debate.

The Senate and the House should ensure that their members are acting responsibly and should censure its members when they do not.

I do not doubt that some people will claim that Michele Bachmann's speech is protected under the Constitution but I argue that Congress is responsible for representing the People accurately and fairly and any other conduct is a corruption of our government.

Arianna Huffington: "How About a Little Coverage of the Millions of At-Risk Kids Not Trapped in a Balloon (or Hiding in the Attic)?"

2009-10-20T17:16:00.005-04:00

The following post by Arianna Huffington asks why the media (and Americans) will devote so much attention and sympathy on the "Balloon Boy" and so little time on the millions of children that are at risk every day in America. In my opinion, we watch news coverage of stories like the "Balloon Boy" just as millions of us watch TV tragedies like "Law and Order - Special Victims Unit." It's usually a fast, short, emotional and sometimes "feel good" immersion in life's trials. We get a jolt and can immediately go back to our lives. The end of the TV show, whether happy or sad, is a convenient end to our involvement. For millions of at risk children in America the drama doesn't end. There is no happy ending for most of them and certainly no end to the reasons that millions of children live at risk.

The media doesn't often show us all the children who are really and continually at risk and frankly most Americans don't want to be reminded that this problem exists, is getting worse and seems to be unfixable. Most attempts to solve this problem are smothered by politics and any so-called solution will result in an increase in our taxes. None of us wants to hear "increase in our taxes." Most of us are moved by the harsh reality that is life for millions of children but not so moved that we collectively solve or significantly improve the lives of all or most of these children. It would be so convenient if life's tragedies were one-hour TV shows but alas they are not and, worse yet, most of us are not the hero or the heroine.

How About a Little Coverage of the Millions of At-Risk Kids Not Trapped in a Balloon (or Hiding in the Attic)?

Arianna Huffington
Posted: October 19, 2009 05:52 PM

No matter what happens in the unfolding legal saga of the Heene family, the most appropriate response to the whole matter was that of Falcon Heene. He vomited. Twice. On national TV. Well, let me just say that Falcon speaks for me.

I had to stifle the same urge as I watched so much of the media devote so much of their resources to the story of the boy NOT in the balloon.

And, sure, I know that asking the media to have some sense of perspective on a story like this is like asking a dog not to bark. It's in their nature to give breathless, wall-to-wall coverage to these kinds of stories. But, even knowing this, I was shocked how little changed in the volume and tone of the coverage even after it was known the boy wasn't in the balloon. Even then, after we knew the balloon was empty, they kept running footage of the balloon, hour after hour.

As Bill Maher said on Real Time, "they're calling him Balloon Boy, which is so stupid, because the one thing we know about this kid, is that he was not in a balloon."

We actually know a lot more about Falcon. And we certainly know how concerned every anchor covering the story was about his welfare.

If ever we needed an example of the difference between sentimentality and empathy, this was it. As the story unfolded on Thursday, Wolf Blitzer told us how "deeply worried" he was about Falcon, and that he was "totally fearing the worst." Rick Sanchez talked about the "big hug" he'd give his own child if it happened to him (does Rick have a giant balloon in his backyard too?). And one Fox anchor expressed relief that a skydiver she was interviewing while Falcon's fate was still up in the air (sorry!) gave her "a little bit of hope" about the weather conditions the balloon was flying in because she was "worried about how cold this child might be."

Who knew the media were so "deeply worried" about the welfare of children? Well, as it turns out, their concern only extends to children in certain circumstances -- such as when they are thought to be trapped in a runaway hot air balloon. Or when they have been washed up on U.S. shores in an inner tube and are forcibly repatriated to Cuba.

Remember Elian Gonzales? Watching the media's collective palpitations over Balloon Boy -- even after he turned out to be Attic Boy -- my mind immediately did a flashback to 2000 and the emotion-laden coverage of Elian, including Diane Sawyer standing on her head.

Back then, I felt the same uneasy feeling about what it takes for the media to care about at-risk kids.

In the midst of the hysteria over Elian, Jonathan Kozol came out with a book called Ordinary Resurrections, which featured the moving story of a boy named Elio who was the same age as Elian.

He was, as I wrote in a column in May 2000, a "little boy... living in the South Bronx, surrounded by gunfire, families being evicted, hungry people begging in the street. His mother works at a drugstore near St. Ann's church; his father is 'upstate' -- South Bronx shorthand for prison."

And while Elian was on the cover of Time magazine three times, no news magazines were writing about the thousands of Elios around America. "Why do we feel so much for Elian and so little for Elio?" I asked. "Why are we doing everything we can -- trips to Disney World, Nintendo games, playmates flown in from Cuba -- to make Elian happy, while leaving Elio to fend for himself?"

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I didn't know the answer then and I don't know the answer now.

The media are addicted to small-bore, high-drama stories like these. Two years after Elian, I wrote about the media binging on the Robert Blake trial and called for an intervention to help the media break its ersatz crisis habit. My call wasn't successful, to put it mildly.

Three years after that, the media devoted countless hours to the case of Natalee Holloway, the young woman who went missing in Aruba. "When defending these choices," I wrote in June of 2005, "news execs inevitably fall back on the old 'we're just giving the people what they want.'"

And not surprisingly, they're saying the same thing now. Which was why, when I went on the Ed Schultz show to talk about Afghanistan, I ended up spending most of the segment talking instead about a runaway balloon with no boy inside.

I find the media's obsession with these non-stories especially galling when they lead to endless agonizing over the welfare of a child -- agonizing that is sorely missing when there isn't a hot air balloon or inner tube in shark-infested waters involved.

So now that we know that Falcon is safe, how about repurposing some of that concern for, say:

the over 1.5 million children who are homeless.
the 42 percent of homeless children who are under the age of 6.
the one in six homeless children who suffers from an emotional problem.

It doesn't have to be wall-to-wall coverage, but how about some coverage of the 75 to 100 percent increase in the number of children who are newly homeless because of the foreclosure crisis? Or the 13 million American children living in poverty?

Not going to happen, you say? What if we built a giant balloon, put all 13 million of them in it, and just let it float away? Even better, let's just say that we did. It'll be a win-win-win. The news producers will have a giant balloon to shoot, the news anchors will have a fresh outlet for all that concern, and millions of kids in desperate need of some concern, attention, and time in the media spotlight will finally get it.

Inspired by Livia McRee's blog post

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/how-about-a-little-covera_b_326472.html

Utter Lack Of Compassion, Willing To Say Anything To Prevent Health Care Reform Or Both?

2009-10-19T16:38:00.004-04:00

When Senator Kyl of Arizona was asked on Meet The Press if it is "a necessity to tackle the fact that there are more and more Americans who die because they don't have access to health insurance?" Senator Kyl replied, "I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance. But because they don't have health insurance, the care is not delivered in the best and most efficient way."

Amazing! Amazing that such a person continues to be elected to the Senate. Amazing and very disappointing.

I assume that Senator Kyl is aware of the recent Harvard research study that estimated that 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack access to health insurance. Can it be that Kyl is so uninformed on the key legislation in Congress? Does he not read? Does he not hear? Does he not care? Ah, yes! Perhaps he simply does not care.

Is there other evidence that Kyl doesn't care? Yes, indeed! Kyl recently joked that he doesn't need maternity care while he was arguing that insurance companies should not be required to provide certain types of coverage. Really? Do you think any of the women, whose insurance providers will not cover maternity care, thought Kyl's remark was as funny as he did? Since 60% of the insurance companies do not provide maternity care coverage, this is no laughing matter to a lot of women.

Kyl doesn't seem to care much about women's issues. Kyl (and Arizona's other senator, John McCain) recently voted against an amendment that would have provided legal protection for women who are sexually assaulted in the workplace. Protection against sexual assault, like maternity care, is not a personal issue for Senator Kyl so as far as he is concerned it's not an issue worth addressing.

Who in blogdom will offer a defense for Senator Kyl? Is Kyl's perspective regarding health care reform fair to his constituents? I should ask is it "fair to all Americans" since his vote on reform will impact all of us.