Here is a silly narcissistic exercise walking through the various plastic and paper in my wallet. I’m not doing this for any particular reason, just to see how it works out. There are two primary compartments. The first is an outside compartment and relatively easily accessible and the second sort of buried out of sight.
In the outside compartment we have.
Citibank Mastercard – This is the day to day charge card that I use. Actually this is my wife’s charge card. I started using it when I got pissed off at my Visa charge card folks and because she gets points for everything charged. We are what is known as “deadbeats” in the charge card industry. We pay off our cards every month, so we never have any interest, and we only use cards with no fee.
Bank of America Platinum Check Card (Visa Debit) – This is my ATM card which I never use except when I sign in at the bank. I’ve never used an ATM machine and I use credit cards rather than a debit card because I pay them off every month anyway.
Starbuck’s Gold Card –Yes, I’m a Starbuck’s Gold Card holder. I get my cup of Decaf Black just about every morning on the way to work.
Chase Visa Card – This used to be my main credit card until I got annoyed with them a couple of years ago. This card is now relegated to Internet use only. All my auto-payments are on this card and it’s what I use for all Internet purchases so they don’t do so bad.
Friday’s More Stripes Card – I got talked into signing up for this at Friday’s. I think I get free stuff and discounts when I go to the restaurant but I don’t really remember. If nothing else they won’t bug me to sign up any more.
US Bank Corporate Visa Card – My corporate charge card which I use when on company business.
Verizon Corporate Calling Card – A phone calling card which I can use either on company business or in an emergency. Cell phones have sort of made the emergency part of this overtaken by events and since I rarely make business calls other than from a hotel room, I rarely use this card. As a matter of fact, I don’t recall ever using it.
Macy’s Visa Charge Card – I never use this card. I only opened the charge account to help my daughter meet a quota for opening charge accounts when she started working at Macy’s. Come to think of it, they sent me a new card so this one is expired. I never even activated that one.
Democratic National Committee Membership Card – You were expecting a Republican National Committee card?
ACLU Membership Card – Yes, I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU.
Prescription Drug Plan Card – Just in case but I’m pretty sure it’s already on file at my local pharmacy.
Medical Insurance Card – Just in case.
Sears Mastercard – Another card I never use. I don’t even think this one has been activated. They also have sent me a new card so it’s also probably expired.
Allstate Motor Club Card – Also just in case. I’ve used this on a number of occasions.
Doctor’s Business Card – Not terribly useful and not really necessary either. I don't carry my cardiologist's card and that might make more sense.
Limo Service Business Card – Just in case also.
Foxwoods Dream Card – Left over from my last vacation.
MetLife Central Countdown Card – Used to win stuff at Giants games. So far I’ve won two stuffed Snoopys and a soft Giants hat.
Now we move to the inside compartment.
New Jersey Driver’s License – Since my passport expired this is the only official photo ID that I have. I think I should really go get a new passport.
Military Driver’s License (expired) – More of a souvenir than anything else. It’s been expired for 12 years.
Social Security Card – Wow. This one surprised me. I didn’t know I was carrying this around.
1986 Giants vs. Redskins Championship Game Ticket Stub – I laminated the puppy and then a few years later got it signed by Harry Carson. That thing is 24 years old. Would you like to know how things have changed? First of all it’s literally a stub. It’s half of the ticket torn when I entered and, second, the price on it is $29.
Draft Card – Yes, I still carry my draft card. I’ve been carrying it around for 44 years. I don’t have any of my classification cards though.
I also found an expired ACLU membership card, an expired insurance card, an expired Allstate Motor Club card, an expired Avis Wizard card, a key to a long gone Chrysler I used to own and a $1 coin. I really need to do a better job of cleaning out my wallet.
What’s that? What about cash? I have $397, a 5 pound note and an old $5 bill. So if you add everything up, including the $1 coin, at the current exchange rate, I’m carrying $406.15.
Ok, that was fun, sort of. Clearly I’m starting to be one of those folks with too much time on my hands.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Gay Marriage 2010
Recent polls by CNN and the Associated Press now indicate that support for same sex marriage in the United States has a small majority. These are the first two polls showing a majority of Americans supporting Gay Marriage.
A statistical analysis, done by two Columbia University professors, indicates that support has increased in all states, including conservative states with anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments.
I have some problems with the analysis however as it claims 56% approval in California and 55% in Maine, two states which rather recently voted against Gay Marriage.
For whatever reason, polls and media analysis always seem to overestimate Gay Marriage support. I suspect there might be a bit of a Bradley Effect here with some respondents saying what they think they should say rather than what they really think.
The page is not going to ultimately turn until the first state ratifies Gay Marriage in a referendum that has been openly opposed by religion.
I continue to be amazed at the reasons given for opposing Gay Marriage especially from people that will most likely never encounter a gay couple. I stand by my position that this should be a big don’t care to the heterosexual community. I don’t know why some small percentage of the population has its sexual wires crossed, but they deserve the same protections under the law as the rest of us.
Liking what they do is not a prerequisite for equal protection under the law.
A statistical analysis, done by two Columbia University professors, indicates that support has increased in all states, including conservative states with anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments.
I have some problems with the analysis however as it claims 56% approval in California and 55% in Maine, two states which rather recently voted against Gay Marriage.
For whatever reason, polls and media analysis always seem to overestimate Gay Marriage support. I suspect there might be a bit of a Bradley Effect here with some respondents saying what they think they should say rather than what they really think.
The page is not going to ultimately turn until the first state ratifies Gay Marriage in a referendum that has been openly opposed by religion.
I continue to be amazed at the reasons given for opposing Gay Marriage especially from people that will most likely never encounter a gay couple. I stand by my position that this should be a big don’t care to the heterosexual community. I don’t know why some small percentage of the population has its sexual wires crossed, but they deserve the same protections under the law as the rest of us.
Liking what they do is not a prerequisite for equal protection under the law.
Friday, October 01, 2010
A Suicide at Rutgers
Tyler Clementi, a Freshman at Rutgers University, apparently committed suicide by jumping off of the George Washington bridge after a video of him in a homosexual encounter was uploaded to the internet.
The two students, including Clementi’s roommate, that allegedly secretly created the video and then uploaded it, have been charged with invasion of privacy which carries a maximum jail term of 5 years. If New Jersey officials decide to prosecute the case as a hate crime, that would double the maximum jail term to 10 years.
People are questioning the role of the university and wringing their hands over the potential for broad mischief inherent in the Internet but I don’t hear anyone criticizing the Christian churches and Conservative organizations that have done their best to demonize homosexuality. Do you suppose Clementi would have chosen the same route if he had been filmed in a heterosexual encounter?
I suspect that answer to that is no.
The two students, including Clementi’s roommate, that allegedly secretly created the video and then uploaded it, have been charged with invasion of privacy which carries a maximum jail term of 5 years. If New Jersey officials decide to prosecute the case as a hate crime, that would double the maximum jail term to 10 years.
People are questioning the role of the university and wringing their hands over the potential for broad mischief inherent in the Internet but I don’t hear anyone criticizing the Christian churches and Conservative organizations that have done their best to demonize homosexuality. Do you suppose Clementi would have chosen the same route if he had been filmed in a heterosexual encounter?
I suspect that answer to that is no.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Atheists know more about religion
Everyone appears to be having a good time with the latest Pew Forum survey where Atheists and Agnostics scored the highest on questions about religion.
I took an abbreviated form of the survey and got 15 out of 15 correct. It’s not exactly rocket science just basic common knowledge. My perfect score was better than 99% of the population which only averaged 50% right. Jews did the best on the 15 question survey getting 65% right. Atheists/Agnostics were next with 64% right.
In the actual survey, Atheists/Agnostics scored the highest getting an average of 20.9 out of 32 questions correct; Jews were next at 20.5 and then Mormons at 20.3. I’m not sure I would consider those differences significant.
The overall average was 16. White Evangelical Christians got an average of 17.6 correct and White Catholics 16.0. At the bottom of the list were Hispanic Catholics at 11.6 and Black Protestants at 13.4.
The two most difficult questions on the survey were related to Maimonides and the First Great Awakening. Only 8% knew Maimonides was Jewish and only 11% could identify Jonathan Edwards as a figure in the First Great Awakening.
Which sort of indicates something wrong with the quiz. There were only 5 and 3 choices respectively, so unless some folks didn’t even guess, one would have expected numbers closer to 20% and 33%. As it turns out, “I don’t know” was always an option and 71% had never heard of Maimonides and 50% answered “I don’t know” to the Edwards question.
The only question that gave me some pause was the Jonathan Edwards one. The three choices were Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney or Billy Graham. I knew it wasn’t Billy Graham and Charles Finney didn’t sound like a Puritan name so I figured it had to be Jonathan Edwards.
In questions specific to Christianity, Mormons did the best with 7.9 out of 12 correct, followed by White Evangelical Protestants with 7.3 out of 12. Atheist/Agnostics were third with 6.7 out of 12.
Some of the results were almost unbelievable. Supposedly only 16% of Christians knew that Protestants, but not Catholics, taught that salvation was through faith alone.
Any reasonably educated person should have been able to answer an overwhelming majority of the questions. There were a few that I wouldn’t expect most people to know, and we all have areas of ignorance that would surprise our friends, but most of the questions were pretty simple.
I’m not at all sure this means anything significant beyond Americans are a hell of a lot more ignorant than they should be.
I took an abbreviated form of the survey and got 15 out of 15 correct. It’s not exactly rocket science just basic common knowledge. My perfect score was better than 99% of the population which only averaged 50% right. Jews did the best on the 15 question survey getting 65% right. Atheists/Agnostics were next with 64% right.
In the actual survey, Atheists/Agnostics scored the highest getting an average of 20.9 out of 32 questions correct; Jews were next at 20.5 and then Mormons at 20.3. I’m not sure I would consider those differences significant.
The overall average was 16. White Evangelical Christians got an average of 17.6 correct and White Catholics 16.0. At the bottom of the list were Hispanic Catholics at 11.6 and Black Protestants at 13.4.
The two most difficult questions on the survey were related to Maimonides and the First Great Awakening. Only 8% knew Maimonides was Jewish and only 11% could identify Jonathan Edwards as a figure in the First Great Awakening.
Which sort of indicates something wrong with the quiz. There were only 5 and 3 choices respectively, so unless some folks didn’t even guess, one would have expected numbers closer to 20% and 33%. As it turns out, “I don’t know” was always an option and 71% had never heard of Maimonides and 50% answered “I don’t know” to the Edwards question.
The only question that gave me some pause was the Jonathan Edwards one. The three choices were Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney or Billy Graham. I knew it wasn’t Billy Graham and Charles Finney didn’t sound like a Puritan name so I figured it had to be Jonathan Edwards.
In questions specific to Christianity, Mormons did the best with 7.9 out of 12 correct, followed by White Evangelical Protestants with 7.3 out of 12. Atheist/Agnostics were third with 6.7 out of 12.
Some of the results were almost unbelievable. Supposedly only 16% of Christians knew that Protestants, but not Catholics, taught that salvation was through faith alone.
Any reasonably educated person should have been able to answer an overwhelming majority of the questions. There were a few that I wouldn’t expect most people to know, and we all have areas of ignorance that would surprise our friends, but most of the questions were pretty simple.
I’m not at all sure this means anything significant beyond Americans are a hell of a lot more ignorant than they should be.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Scalia and Virginia
The best thing for the United States would be if Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas would decide that their true calling in life is to open a bait and tackle shop in Cape Cod.
The latest from Scalia is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect women’s rights. It’s not that papa Antonio is opposed to women’s rights, or so he claims, he simply claims that wasn’t the original intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment in the mid-nineteenth century.
Uh-huh, yet he believes that the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, written in the eighteenth century, somehow allows corporations to spend as much money as they want to influence elections.
Basically Scalia retreats to a doctrine of “originalism” when it suits his purpose but he’s quite happy to allow the Constitution to grow and be interpreted broadly when that suits his purpose.
In other words, he’s a hypocrite that’s only interested in his personal right wing opinions. He doesn’t have an objective bone in his body. Everything is viewed through a lens of personal subjectivity. He’s a small man in a job that requires someone who can see beyond himself and small men can’t do that.
As for Virginia, they are on the verge there of executing a woman for the first time in 98 years. Forty-one year old Teresa Lewis was convicted of hiring two men to kill her husband in 2002 so she could collect a $250,000 insurance policy. The two men that actually did the killing got life without parole. Lewis would be the twelfth woman executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
This is one of those cases that make it hard upon death penalty opponents. Lewis is clearly guilty. There is absolutely no chance of a mistake so how, ethically, can one argue that she doesn’t deserve to pay with her own life for the life she took?
The answer is that the argument against capital punishment is not based upon specific cases but upon the totality of the institution. I do not deny that some people absolutely deserve to be executed. But I would prefer a thousand murderers that deserve execution end up with life without parole rather than one innocent person die.
Teresa Lewis is not an argument against capital punishment. The very real certainty of errors is.
The latest from Scalia is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect women’s rights. It’s not that papa Antonio is opposed to women’s rights, or so he claims, he simply claims that wasn’t the original intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment in the mid-nineteenth century.
Uh-huh, yet he believes that the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, written in the eighteenth century, somehow allows corporations to spend as much money as they want to influence elections.
Basically Scalia retreats to a doctrine of “originalism” when it suits his purpose but he’s quite happy to allow the Constitution to grow and be interpreted broadly when that suits his purpose.
In other words, he’s a hypocrite that’s only interested in his personal right wing opinions. He doesn’t have an objective bone in his body. Everything is viewed through a lens of personal subjectivity. He’s a small man in a job that requires someone who can see beyond himself and small men can’t do that.
As for Virginia, they are on the verge there of executing a woman for the first time in 98 years. Forty-one year old Teresa Lewis was convicted of hiring two men to kill her husband in 2002 so she could collect a $250,000 insurance policy. The two men that actually did the killing got life without parole. Lewis would be the twelfth woman executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
This is one of those cases that make it hard upon death penalty opponents. Lewis is clearly guilty. There is absolutely no chance of a mistake so how, ethically, can one argue that she doesn’t deserve to pay with her own life for the life she took?
The answer is that the argument against capital punishment is not based upon specific cases but upon the totality of the institution. I do not deny that some people absolutely deserve to be executed. But I would prefer a thousand murderers that deserve execution end up with life without parole rather than one innocent person die.
Teresa Lewis is not an argument against capital punishment. The very real certainty of errors is.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Problem with Obama
President Obama has done some good things, and he’s done some not so good things. I don’t agree with the man on everything, but I’m willing to accept that he might know better than I do if for no other reason than he has better information.
Back in November of 2008 we were all congratulating ourselves on electing a black man to the presidency. The media was already preparing an obituary for racism. Unfortunately the election has had the effect of bringing racism out of the closet and into the main stream once again.
However, instead of the Ku Klux Klan, we have the Tea Party.
Republicans, Conservatives in general and white Evangelical Christians will never forgive Barack for being young, black, progressive and not fundie enough.
I don’t believe he’s a Muslim. My guess is he’s most likely an agnostic or an atheist. Heaven help the country if the wing nuts ever get hold of that one.
So what has this got to do with the problem with him? Absolutely nothing, I just felt I needed to say it. Now, the problem with Obama is, has been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, that he thinks Americans are smart enough to understand what makes sense and what doesn’t without having to be constantly banged over the head with a two-by-four.
What he needed to do, and didn’t, was wage a constant publicity campaign to keep the American public from being hoodwinked on a regular basis. Actually, let’s be honest, he needed a minister of propaganda. Basically he has been out propagandized and now we’re all probably going to pay for it.
Of course for some Americans, nothing could have helped as they no grip upon reality whatsoever and feeding them facts would just make them hold on tighter to their prejudices.
As far as civilized western populations are concerned, Americans are, on average, the dumbest and the sorriest SOBs I’ve ever had the misfortune to run into. As a result the country has fallen behind western Europe in things that really matter starting with the levels of political freedom, religious freedom and overall tolerance. Other countries have taken our principals and out paced us on them.
The United States has abdicated its position as the flag bearer for Western Democracy. Even Argentina and South Africa extend to gays more rights than we do.
And it’s only going to get worse. The Republican Party has discarded all semblance of decency as long as it thinks it can get people elected. Racists have found an “acceptable” target in Muslims and have discovered they can disguise themselves as Tea Party supporters.
The Republicans no longer even pretend to care about the principles upon which this country was built. Hell, they have the solution; they’ll just change the history books to make it obvious that the rights and liberties in the Constitution only apply to straight white Protestants who dress the right way, think the right way and pray the right way. They won’t be happy until they turn the country into 1950s Mississippi.
I am utterly appalled that the country with the largest thermonuclear arsenal in the world has people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle as prominent political figures.
Pastor John Hagee and his empty headed congregation REALLY scare me.
Then there is Faux News. The fact that they haven’t been laughed out of business yet should give anyone a pretty good idea of how screwed-up we are. How any so-called news organization, that has been caught manipulating the "news" on numerous occasions, can be held is such high regard by a large segment of the population is beyond my comprehension. I believe this demonstrates that Americans are not interested in what is true, only in what they want to be true.
I have two choices. Choice number one is to say to hell with it and head for Denmark or Holland. The problem with that idea is those damned nukes.
My other choice is to fight. The slide into fascism isn’t inevitable. There may well be enough people in this country that, once they realize the implications of the right wing agenda, will stand up and say “hell no.”
There may be. To be honest with you though, I’m not all that optimistic.
Back in November of 2008 we were all congratulating ourselves on electing a black man to the presidency. The media was already preparing an obituary for racism. Unfortunately the election has had the effect of bringing racism out of the closet and into the main stream once again.
However, instead of the Ku Klux Klan, we have the Tea Party.
Republicans, Conservatives in general and white Evangelical Christians will never forgive Barack for being young, black, progressive and not fundie enough.
I don’t believe he’s a Muslim. My guess is he’s most likely an agnostic or an atheist. Heaven help the country if the wing nuts ever get hold of that one.
So what has this got to do with the problem with him? Absolutely nothing, I just felt I needed to say it. Now, the problem with Obama is, has been, and, unfortunately, probably always will be, that he thinks Americans are smart enough to understand what makes sense and what doesn’t without having to be constantly banged over the head with a two-by-four.
What he needed to do, and didn’t, was wage a constant publicity campaign to keep the American public from being hoodwinked on a regular basis. Actually, let’s be honest, he needed a minister of propaganda. Basically he has been out propagandized and now we’re all probably going to pay for it.
Of course for some Americans, nothing could have helped as they no grip upon reality whatsoever and feeding them facts would just make them hold on tighter to their prejudices.
As far as civilized western populations are concerned, Americans are, on average, the dumbest and the sorriest SOBs I’ve ever had the misfortune to run into. As a result the country has fallen behind western Europe in things that really matter starting with the levels of political freedom, religious freedom and overall tolerance. Other countries have taken our principals and out paced us on them.
The United States has abdicated its position as the flag bearer for Western Democracy. Even Argentina and South Africa extend to gays more rights than we do.
And it’s only going to get worse. The Republican Party has discarded all semblance of decency as long as it thinks it can get people elected. Racists have found an “acceptable” target in Muslims and have discovered they can disguise themselves as Tea Party supporters.
The Republicans no longer even pretend to care about the principles upon which this country was built. Hell, they have the solution; they’ll just change the history books to make it obvious that the rights and liberties in the Constitution only apply to straight white Protestants who dress the right way, think the right way and pray the right way. They won’t be happy until they turn the country into 1950s Mississippi.
I am utterly appalled that the country with the largest thermonuclear arsenal in the world has people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle as prominent political figures.
Pastor John Hagee and his empty headed congregation REALLY scare me.
Then there is Faux News. The fact that they haven’t been laughed out of business yet should give anyone a pretty good idea of how screwed-up we are. How any so-called news organization, that has been caught manipulating the "news" on numerous occasions, can be held is such high regard by a large segment of the population is beyond my comprehension. I believe this demonstrates that Americans are not interested in what is true, only in what they want to be true.
I have two choices. Choice number one is to say to hell with it and head for Denmark or Holland. The problem with that idea is those damned nukes.
My other choice is to fight. The slide into fascism isn’t inevitable. There may well be enough people in this country that, once they realize the implications of the right wing agenda, will stand up and say “hell no.”
There may be. To be honest with you though, I’m not all that optimistic.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Education as a Cure for Christianity
The percentage of college graduates from Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.
Atheist & Agnostic – 42%
Mainline Protestant – 34%
Mormon – 28%
Catholic – 26%
Evangelical Christians – 20%
Enough said?
It’s hard to swallow stuff like Creationism and Biblical Literacy if you’re intelligent enough to get through college.
Of course Jews boast 59% college graduates. But I’m always hesitant to quote statistics about Jews because of the ethnic and cultural aspects. I know a lot of Jews who look upon their Jewishness as more of a nationality than a religion.
Then one has to consider the age situation. The percentage under 50 years of age from the same survey was:
Atheist & Agnostic – 70%
Mormon – 66%
Catholic – 59%
Evangelical Christians – 56%
Mainline Protestant – 50%
I also always find the gender distribution of some interest. The percentage of males from the same survey was:
Atheist & Agnostic – 66%
Evangelical Christians – 47%
Catholic – 46%
Mainline Protestant – 46%
Mormon – 44%
Then there is the political spectrum distribution. No real surprise there.
Mormon – 60% Conservative, 10% Liberal
Evangelical Christians – 52% Conservative, 11% Liberal
Catholic – 36% Conservative, 18% Liberal
Mainline Protestant – 36% Conservative, 18% Liberal
Atheist & Agnostic – 15% Conservative, 46% Liberal
Of course there is no guarantee that everyone is interpreting Conservative and Liberal in the same way.
As for income level, the percentage making $75,000 a year or greater are:
Atheist & Agnostic – 42%
Mainline Protestant – 36%
Catholic – 33%
Mormon – 32%
Evangelical Christians – 24%
So Atheists & Agnostic tend to be better educated, more affluent, younger, more liberal and more male than Christians. There are no real surprises here. This survey just reinforces what other surveys have said consistently.
Maybe if we started teaching reality earlier we could get high school students to stop relying upon imaginary friends.
Atheist & Agnostic – 42%
Mainline Protestant – 34%
Mormon – 28%
Catholic – 26%
Evangelical Christians – 20%
Enough said?
It’s hard to swallow stuff like Creationism and Biblical Literacy if you’re intelligent enough to get through college.
Of course Jews boast 59% college graduates. But I’m always hesitant to quote statistics about Jews because of the ethnic and cultural aspects. I know a lot of Jews who look upon their Jewishness as more of a nationality than a religion.
Then one has to consider the age situation. The percentage under 50 years of age from the same survey was:
Atheist & Agnostic – 70%
Mormon – 66%
Catholic – 59%
Evangelical Christians – 56%
Mainline Protestant – 50%
I also always find the gender distribution of some interest. The percentage of males from the same survey was:
Atheist & Agnostic – 66%
Evangelical Christians – 47%
Catholic – 46%
Mainline Protestant – 46%
Mormon – 44%
Then there is the political spectrum distribution. No real surprise there.
Mormon – 60% Conservative, 10% Liberal
Evangelical Christians – 52% Conservative, 11% Liberal
Catholic – 36% Conservative, 18% Liberal
Mainline Protestant – 36% Conservative, 18% Liberal
Atheist & Agnostic – 15% Conservative, 46% Liberal
Of course there is no guarantee that everyone is interpreting Conservative and Liberal in the same way.
As for income level, the percentage making $75,000 a year or greater are:
Atheist & Agnostic – 42%
Mainline Protestant – 36%
Catholic – 33%
Mormon – 32%
Evangelical Christians – 24%
So Atheists & Agnostic tend to be better educated, more affluent, younger, more liberal and more male than Christians. There are no real surprises here. This survey just reinforces what other surveys have said consistently.
Maybe if we started teaching reality earlier we could get high school students to stop relying upon imaginary friends.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Viva Fidel?
It takes an interesting man to accept that either your ideology no longer works or perhaps it never worked to begin with.
Reuters reports that Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic monthly, asked Castro whether the Cuban Model, based upon Soviet style Communism, was still worth exporting to other countries and Castro replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
I guess I would have asked at that point whether it ever worked.
According to Goldberg, he was summoned to Cuba by Castro to discuss the possibility of an Israeli-Iran conflict because of Iran’s growing nuclear program.
Goldberg also reports that Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust as well as his own role in the Cuban missile crisis.
Reuters claims that Castro has become an “anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world.”
I guess at some point in time we all need to get some things off our chest as the lights begin to dim. I’m sure Castro has blood on his hands but what world leader doesn’t? I’m willing to consider what he says as a sort of Statesman Emeritus.
Reuters reports that Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic monthly, asked Castro whether the Cuban Model, based upon Soviet style Communism, was still worth exporting to other countries and Castro replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
I guess I would have asked at that point whether it ever worked.
According to Goldberg, he was summoned to Cuba by Castro to discuss the possibility of an Israeli-Iran conflict because of Iran’s growing nuclear program.
Goldberg also reports that Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust as well as his own role in the Cuban missile crisis.
Reuters claims that Castro has become an “anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world.”
I guess at some point in time we all need to get some things off our chest as the lights begin to dim. I’m sure Castro has blood on his hands but what world leader doesn’t? I’m willing to consider what he says as a sort of Statesman Emeritus.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Dennis Prager's Principal Speech
Dennis Prager had an article on his web site about a speech he believes “If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.”
I doubt it. As a matter of fact one has to wonder what Prager’s idea of a “better place” would be? Sounds to me it’s a place where everyone looks the same, acts the same and thinks the same. You will excuse me but that’s a horrible idea.
Anyway, here’s Prager’s speech, with commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the students and faculty of our high school:
I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.
I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.
Really? And what evidence do you have to justify this statement? I’m not saying you are wrong, but you are making a totally unsupported assertion. Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying?
First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.
The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.
Define “better American.” Who decides who is a “better American?” Do you decide? The segregationist racists in the 1960s, wearing their sheets and hoods, considered themselves “better Americans” than blacks and what they called outside agitators.
If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.
You are misinterpreting the meaning of “e pluribus unum.” The motto does not require the homogenization of everyone. It doesn’t require everyone to look the same, act the same and think the same. The motto simply means that while we are different, there are certain fundamental goals, freedom, democracy and equality, which we can all agree upon.
Again you use a term, “American values,” which you do not define. I defined what I consider to be three "American values" above which do not require us to submerge our individuality nor require us to not celebrate our unique heritages. Personally I don’t feel threatened by a Cinco de Mayo or an Eid ul-Fitr celebration.
This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.
Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.
Who cares? Why do you find this an issue? Do you deny that certain ethnic groups have special problems or interests? What would be wrong with groups that want to explore their unique cultural history? You seem to look upon diversity as a weakness. It’s not. It’s a strength.
Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.
Actually, I happen to agree with this 100%. A proficiency in English, speaking it, reading it and writing it, is an absolute necessity for many reasons.
Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.
Granted there should be some minimal dress code but it should be precisely that, minimal. Even work dress codes are slowly fading away. Safety and comfort contribute more to creativity and productivity than so-called formal dress. Besides, whose definition of “elevated status” are you using?
Here’s an idea for you. When I was in high school we had a uniform. It was khaki trousers and shirt with shoulder patches, brown belt and tie for lower classmen and blue belt and tie for seniors. Honor students wore pins on their chest over the wings which were the school emblem and seniors wore wings on their collars. The uniform was worn on special occasions such as assemblies, but never less than once a month. This accomplished what I think you’re aiming for here without making it a daily chore which had no meaning whatsoever. It wouldn’t take a “formal uniform,” just special dress code days of some sort.
Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.
I agree with you here. Obscenities, even when used in a so-called friendly manner, are indications of disrespect and the single most important thing we need to teach students is to respect each other and themselves.
Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.
I agree with you here as well. What is important is to appreciate ourselves for what we are and what we can contribute rather than to foster some imaginary inflated illusion that’s going to come crashing down sooner or later.
Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.
Then you would be ignoring a critical part of what young adults must understand. Do you deny that smoking is bad for everyone? I smoked for 40 years. Take my word for it that it’s a REALLY bad idea. Global Warming is a scientific reality. By not informing students about it you are doing them a great disservice. Do you deny that racism, sexism, homophobia and religious discrimination exist? If you do, then you are either a fool or a liar.
I agree we all should be thankful that we’re alive and living in the USA. However that doesn’t mean we should be complacent or ignore the fact that many Americans are homeless, go hungry and don’t have access to adequate health care. Until every American has the basic necessities of life, America is still a work in progress. You seem to think it’s a finished product.
I might also point out that much of our affluence is built upon the poverty of others elsewhere in the world. Do you consider fairness an "American value?" If so, isn't this something that should concern us?
Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.
I can do that but you will excuse me if I exercise my right of free speech and omit the words “under God.” I consider these words to be unconstitutional and I stand by the Constitution. Do you stand by the Constitution?
I doubt it. As a matter of fact one has to wonder what Prager’s idea of a “better place” would be? Sounds to me it’s a place where everyone looks the same, acts the same and thinks the same. You will excuse me but that’s a horrible idea.
Anyway, here’s Prager’s speech, with commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the students and faculty of our high school:
I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.
I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.
Really? And what evidence do you have to justify this statement? I’m not saying you are wrong, but you are making a totally unsupported assertion. Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying?
First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.
The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.
Define “better American.” Who decides who is a “better American?” Do you decide? The segregationist racists in the 1960s, wearing their sheets and hoods, considered themselves “better Americans” than blacks and what they called outside agitators.
If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.
You are misinterpreting the meaning of “e pluribus unum.” The motto does not require the homogenization of everyone. It doesn’t require everyone to look the same, act the same and think the same. The motto simply means that while we are different, there are certain fundamental goals, freedom, democracy and equality, which we can all agree upon.
Again you use a term, “American values,” which you do not define. I defined what I consider to be three "American values" above which do not require us to submerge our individuality nor require us to not celebrate our unique heritages. Personally I don’t feel threatened by a Cinco de Mayo or an Eid ul-Fitr celebration.
This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.
Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.
Who cares? Why do you find this an issue? Do you deny that certain ethnic groups have special problems or interests? What would be wrong with groups that want to explore their unique cultural history? You seem to look upon diversity as a weakness. It’s not. It’s a strength.
Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.
Actually, I happen to agree with this 100%. A proficiency in English, speaking it, reading it and writing it, is an absolute necessity for many reasons.
Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.
Granted there should be some minimal dress code but it should be precisely that, minimal. Even work dress codes are slowly fading away. Safety and comfort contribute more to creativity and productivity than so-called formal dress. Besides, whose definition of “elevated status” are you using?
Here’s an idea for you. When I was in high school we had a uniform. It was khaki trousers and shirt with shoulder patches, brown belt and tie for lower classmen and blue belt and tie for seniors. Honor students wore pins on their chest over the wings which were the school emblem and seniors wore wings on their collars. The uniform was worn on special occasions such as assemblies, but never less than once a month. This accomplished what I think you’re aiming for here without making it a daily chore which had no meaning whatsoever. It wouldn’t take a “formal uniform,” just special dress code days of some sort.
Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.
I agree with you here. Obscenities, even when used in a so-called friendly manner, are indications of disrespect and the single most important thing we need to teach students is to respect each other and themselves.
Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.
I agree with you here as well. What is important is to appreciate ourselves for what we are and what we can contribute rather than to foster some imaginary inflated illusion that’s going to come crashing down sooner or later.
Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.
Then you would be ignoring a critical part of what young adults must understand. Do you deny that smoking is bad for everyone? I smoked for 40 years. Take my word for it that it’s a REALLY bad idea. Global Warming is a scientific reality. By not informing students about it you are doing them a great disservice. Do you deny that racism, sexism, homophobia and religious discrimination exist? If you do, then you are either a fool or a liar.
I agree we all should be thankful that we’re alive and living in the USA. However that doesn’t mean we should be complacent or ignore the fact that many Americans are homeless, go hungry and don’t have access to adequate health care. Until every American has the basic necessities of life, America is still a work in progress. You seem to think it’s a finished product.
I might also point out that much of our affluence is built upon the poverty of others elsewhere in the world. Do you consider fairness an "American value?" If so, isn't this something that should concern us?
Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.
I can do that but you will excuse me if I exercise my right of free speech and omit the words “under God.” I consider these words to be unconstitutional and I stand by the Constitution. Do you stand by the Constitution?
Quran Burning
Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot. His plan to burn Qurans on 9/11 is the idea of an idiot.
This is NOT free speech. Free speech does not entitle you to engage in speech that risks the safety of others. You cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater and call it free speech.
General Petraeus’ warning that this will give terrorists a propaganda and recruitment boost which will endanger the lives of American soldiers makes it evident that this is a reckless action that will accomplish nothing good.
And before you say it, allow me to point out that this is fundamentally different from the Vietnam and Iraq anti-war protests. Those were a policy disagreement and had as an objective saving lives. If there is any policy issues here its Pastor Jones opposition to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
This is a prime example of fundamentalist Christianity thinking it has special privileges. Pastor Jones has also been denied a permit by the local fire department so I’d arrest the son of a bitch as soon as he tries to burn anything.
I find it amazing that those that wave the flag the most, and pound their chest the hardest about being patriotic Americans, are the one who understand the principles upon which this country has been built the least.
These are the psychological descendents of the people that waved confederate flags and chanted segregationist slogans in the 1960s. They’re the ones always telling everyone else “if you don’t like this country then leave.”
Allow me to suggest that Pastor Jones and his congregation should find themselves another country to be a part of because they sure as hell don’t belong here. I’ve been fighting these right wing morons for 45 years and I’m not about to stop now.
This is NOT free speech. Free speech does not entitle you to engage in speech that risks the safety of others. You cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater and call it free speech.
General Petraeus’ warning that this will give terrorists a propaganda and recruitment boost which will endanger the lives of American soldiers makes it evident that this is a reckless action that will accomplish nothing good.
And before you say it, allow me to point out that this is fundamentally different from the Vietnam and Iraq anti-war protests. Those were a policy disagreement and had as an objective saving lives. If there is any policy issues here its Pastor Jones opposition to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
This is a prime example of fundamentalist Christianity thinking it has special privileges. Pastor Jones has also been denied a permit by the local fire department so I’d arrest the son of a bitch as soon as he tries to burn anything.
I find it amazing that those that wave the flag the most, and pound their chest the hardest about being patriotic Americans, are the one who understand the principles upon which this country has been built the least.
These are the psychological descendents of the people that waved confederate flags and chanted segregationist slogans in the 1960s. They’re the ones always telling everyone else “if you don’t like this country then leave.”
Allow me to suggest that Pastor Jones and his congregation should find themselves another country to be a part of because they sure as hell don’t belong here. I’ve been fighting these right wing morons for 45 years and I’m not about to stop now.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
A Slow August?
Was it a slow August? I don’t know, perhaps, perhaps not. I suspect the low number of posts has more to do with my growing pessimism on the state of affairs and potential survival of civilization.
I’m seriously concerned that my generation will be the last to live out their lives in relative peace and prosperity.
At the root of it all is ignorance. I never cease to be amazed at the number of people that are so certain about the solution when they don’t even have an understanding of the problem.
The first rule is to realize that if the problems facing the nation weren’t so complicated, they would have been solved already. So what do I see as the major problems?
Problem #1 – Income Inequity
To my mind the Income Inequity that has developed over the past 30 years is at the root of the current economic weakness. After consuming based upon credit, the American economy has finally gotten to the point where we can no longer afford to deny the endemic weaknesses that have been created over the past three decades.
I’m not about to pontificate a solution because the causes aren’t all that clear, but the first problem is to get this recognized as an issue. Increasing the real buying power of the working and middle classes would strengthen the foundation of the economy and feed needed funds into local small businesses and industries.
Notice that I said “real buying power.” What I mean by this is buying power based upon increasing the income available to be spent and not a buying power based upon credit. Substituting credit based buying power for income based buying power is one of the reasons we’re in the economic mess we’re currently in.
Problem #2 – The National Debt
This is closely related to the first problem. Things simply cannot continue the way they are. The budget deficit has to be addressed by resolving the raising health care costs and then the deficit needs to be brought down to a more manageable level. I am absolutely NOT in favor of a balanced budget amendment. There are times when deficit spending is necessary.
I suspect that the solution to this issue lies in tax code reform. I think, I’m not certain, but I think, we should be taxing consumption more than income. Income taxes should perhaps be restricted to the higher income brackets and a progressive consumption tax, where the tax rate increases with the expense of the item should be instituted.
A sweeping tax code reform would also help to address the first problem.
Problem #3 – Immigration Reform
For both economic and security reasons we need to get control of our borders. I’m not in favor of kicking out all of the hard working illegal immigrants nor am I in favor of a blanket amnesty.
I think a set of qualifications should be established for gaining resident status. These would include no criminal record, gainful employment, a permanent residence, English proficiency and a limited time frame to obtain U.S. citizenship.
Problem #4 – Education Reform
There is something fundamentally wrong with our educational infrastructure when so many people are so ignorant about so many things.
You should NOT be allowed to vote without demonstrating a reasonable level of general knowledge. I would have a mandatory High School course called “Stuff You Really Need to Know” and not give anyone a diploma or voting rights that didn’t pass a final standardized test.
I suspect part of the problem is the “one size fits all mentality” of our educational system. Let me tell you a secret. Not everyone is intellectually and physically equal nor is there anything wrong with that. We need to get back to High School graduates being armed with the knowledge and training they need to make a decent living without the necessity of getting an undergraduate degree.
If college is your thing, great, if it’s not, also great. There’s nothing wrong with a good technical or administrative education. The Liberal Arts aren’t for everyone.
Problem #5 – Social Values
We spend far too much time and energy sticking our noses into other peoples business and trying to restrict the rights of people we happen to not like. It’s a waste of time and energy.
Abortion is a medical issue and is no one’s business other than the people directly involved. Gays are citizens of the United States and entitled to equal rights and that includes the right to marry.
If you believe abortion is murder, don’t get an abortion. If you believe homosexuality is immoral, don’t participate in homosexual acts. Why do people have this need to enforce their opinion on everyone else? Where I come from “keep your nose out of other people’s business” was a survival imperative and that’s the way it should be.
Ok, so much for venting. It’s not going to accomplish anything but its fun.
I’m seriously concerned that my generation will be the last to live out their lives in relative peace and prosperity.
At the root of it all is ignorance. I never cease to be amazed at the number of people that are so certain about the solution when they don’t even have an understanding of the problem.
The first rule is to realize that if the problems facing the nation weren’t so complicated, they would have been solved already. So what do I see as the major problems?
Problem #1 – Income Inequity
To my mind the Income Inequity that has developed over the past 30 years is at the root of the current economic weakness. After consuming based upon credit, the American economy has finally gotten to the point where we can no longer afford to deny the endemic weaknesses that have been created over the past three decades.
I’m not about to pontificate a solution because the causes aren’t all that clear, but the first problem is to get this recognized as an issue. Increasing the real buying power of the working and middle classes would strengthen the foundation of the economy and feed needed funds into local small businesses and industries.
Notice that I said “real buying power.” What I mean by this is buying power based upon increasing the income available to be spent and not a buying power based upon credit. Substituting credit based buying power for income based buying power is one of the reasons we’re in the economic mess we’re currently in.
Problem #2 – The National Debt
This is closely related to the first problem. Things simply cannot continue the way they are. The budget deficit has to be addressed by resolving the raising health care costs and then the deficit needs to be brought down to a more manageable level. I am absolutely NOT in favor of a balanced budget amendment. There are times when deficit spending is necessary.
I suspect that the solution to this issue lies in tax code reform. I think, I’m not certain, but I think, we should be taxing consumption more than income. Income taxes should perhaps be restricted to the higher income brackets and a progressive consumption tax, where the tax rate increases with the expense of the item should be instituted.
A sweeping tax code reform would also help to address the first problem.
Problem #3 – Immigration Reform
For both economic and security reasons we need to get control of our borders. I’m not in favor of kicking out all of the hard working illegal immigrants nor am I in favor of a blanket amnesty.
I think a set of qualifications should be established for gaining resident status. These would include no criminal record, gainful employment, a permanent residence, English proficiency and a limited time frame to obtain U.S. citizenship.
Problem #4 – Education Reform
There is something fundamentally wrong with our educational infrastructure when so many people are so ignorant about so many things.
You should NOT be allowed to vote without demonstrating a reasonable level of general knowledge. I would have a mandatory High School course called “Stuff You Really Need to Know” and not give anyone a diploma or voting rights that didn’t pass a final standardized test.
I suspect part of the problem is the “one size fits all mentality” of our educational system. Let me tell you a secret. Not everyone is intellectually and physically equal nor is there anything wrong with that. We need to get back to High School graduates being armed with the knowledge and training they need to make a decent living without the necessity of getting an undergraduate degree.
If college is your thing, great, if it’s not, also great. There’s nothing wrong with a good technical or administrative education. The Liberal Arts aren’t for everyone.
Problem #5 – Social Values
We spend far too much time and energy sticking our noses into other peoples business and trying to restrict the rights of people we happen to not like. It’s a waste of time and energy.
Abortion is a medical issue and is no one’s business other than the people directly involved. Gays are citizens of the United States and entitled to equal rights and that includes the right to marry.
If you believe abortion is murder, don’t get an abortion. If you believe homosexuality is immoral, don’t participate in homosexual acts. Why do people have this need to enforce their opinion on everyone else? Where I come from “keep your nose out of other people’s business” was a survival imperative and that’s the way it should be.
Ok, so much for venting. It’s not going to accomplish anything but its fun.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Glenn Beck’s Rally
Depending upon who you listen to, between 75,000 and 300,000 people showed up to hear Glenn Beck speak.
I interpret the message as let’s go back to the good old days of Jim Crow and women in the kitchen. I’m not sure why they just don’t dress in KKK sheets and hoods. Come to think of it, they might as well just put swastikas on their banners.
Make no mistake about it, this is American Fascism. Sinclair Lewis warned that when fascism came to America it would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. For these people freedom means making certain that everyone looks like them, thinks like them and lives like them. If you’re not white Protestant Christian then, as far as they’re concerned, you should be respectful of your betters and do what they tell you, when they tell you.
Any Blacks, Hispanics or Catholics that support this idiocy might as well start digging their own graves. I needn’t worry about Liberals or Atheists; we’re smart enough to see the specters of the Fuehrer and the Grand Wizard peering down upon this with approval.
This is the result of fear. The world is changing, has been changing and will continue to change. The current generation in the United States is caught up in one of those great evolutions of society that sort of creep up on people from time to time.
The American dominance in the world is fading. The U.S. has not kept up with social, educational and industrial developments elsewhere in the western world. We have fallen behind in a number of areas and the working and middle classes are feeling the effects.
People are afraid. They have a right to be afraid. Unfortunately rather than face the issues realistically, people tend to look for someone, or something, to blame and a fast easy solution.
The demagogues offer both. In Germany in the 1930’s it was all the fault of the Jews and Hitler promised to restore Germany to her rightful place by promising everything to everybody. The unemployed would have jobs, the Capitalists profits and the army a return to former glory.
In the U.S. in the 2000’s it’s all the fault of turning our backs on “traditional American values” and Right Wing Conservatives, with the help of Jesus, will make it all better. Notice that they never tell you how other than somehow they’re going to reduce government size and power. They’ll also probably reduce taxes on the rich so you sorry SOBs can someday have some prosperity trickle down. Of course I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The fact of the matter is the last thing Right Wing Conservatives in power can afford is a government reduced in size and power because they are dependent upon authoritarian control to make certain that everyone looks like them, thinks like them and lives like them.
I find it amusing that these are the very people that are most willing to scrap the Liberal Democracy that is at the foundation of “traditional American values.”
So what happens now? I would like to think that the vast majority of Americans aren’t being taken in by these assholes but I know better than that. The average American is an idiot and would quite happily give away his political freedom to a Fascist Demagogue as long as it doesn’t appear to immediately inconvenience him.
Crap, that means stepping up the workouts in preparation for the civil war that is sure to come. I wish I was a bit younger.
I interpret the message as let’s go back to the good old days of Jim Crow and women in the kitchen. I’m not sure why they just don’t dress in KKK sheets and hoods. Come to think of it, they might as well just put swastikas on their banners.
Make no mistake about it, this is American Fascism. Sinclair Lewis warned that when fascism came to America it would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. For these people freedom means making certain that everyone looks like them, thinks like them and lives like them. If you’re not white Protestant Christian then, as far as they’re concerned, you should be respectful of your betters and do what they tell you, when they tell you.
Any Blacks, Hispanics or Catholics that support this idiocy might as well start digging their own graves. I needn’t worry about Liberals or Atheists; we’re smart enough to see the specters of the Fuehrer and the Grand Wizard peering down upon this with approval.
This is the result of fear. The world is changing, has been changing and will continue to change. The current generation in the United States is caught up in one of those great evolutions of society that sort of creep up on people from time to time.
The American dominance in the world is fading. The U.S. has not kept up with social, educational and industrial developments elsewhere in the western world. We have fallen behind in a number of areas and the working and middle classes are feeling the effects.
People are afraid. They have a right to be afraid. Unfortunately rather than face the issues realistically, people tend to look for someone, or something, to blame and a fast easy solution.
The demagogues offer both. In Germany in the 1930’s it was all the fault of the Jews and Hitler promised to restore Germany to her rightful place by promising everything to everybody. The unemployed would have jobs, the Capitalists profits and the army a return to former glory.
In the U.S. in the 2000’s it’s all the fault of turning our backs on “traditional American values” and Right Wing Conservatives, with the help of Jesus, will make it all better. Notice that they never tell you how other than somehow they’re going to reduce government size and power. They’ll also probably reduce taxes on the rich so you sorry SOBs can someday have some prosperity trickle down. Of course I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The fact of the matter is the last thing Right Wing Conservatives in power can afford is a government reduced in size and power because they are dependent upon authoritarian control to make certain that everyone looks like them, thinks like them and lives like them.
I find it amusing that these are the very people that are most willing to scrap the Liberal Democracy that is at the foundation of “traditional American values.”
So what happens now? I would like to think that the vast majority of Americans aren’t being taken in by these assholes but I know better than that. The average American is an idiot and would quite happily give away his political freedom to a Fascist Demagogue as long as it doesn’t appear to immediately inconvenience him.
Crap, that means stepping up the workouts in preparation for the civil war that is sure to come. I wish I was a bit younger.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Mosque at Ground Zero
First of all it’s not really a Mosque it’s a community center with a prayer area and, second, it’s not really at ground zero but it is near it. The site is only about two blocks away.
Ok, so much for picking nits. The issue is should an Islamic anything be built anyway near ground zero?
To be honest with you, I don’t like the idea at all. On the other hand, I understand that preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States may well involve doing things, or accepting things, I don’t particularly like.
I don’t like Neo-Nazi speeches. I don’t like Christian Fundamentalist Creation “Science” museums. I don’t like Holocaust Denial. I don’t like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Fox News.
But to deny them their right to express their views simply because I know I’m not going to like what I’m about to hear would be to deny the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Since 911 I'm not that sure I like Muslims either but to deny them their right to worship as they see fit, and to be able to live their lives as they see fit, would also be to deny the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
I think building a Muslim structure so near to ground zero is a bit on the insensitive side, and perhaps even a tad unwise, but it is their right to do so.
The measure of a democracy is not in its ability to do what the majority wants. The measure of a democracy is in its ability to protect the rights of the minority even in the face of resistance from the majority.
I stand by the Constitution. They have every right to build their Mosque and we shouldn't let fear or prejudice make us violate the principles that this country is built upon. If we do that then we're no better than the fanatics that flew the planes into the towers. We owe it to those that died to be better than that.
Ok, so much for picking nits. The issue is should an Islamic anything be built anyway near ground zero?
To be honest with you, I don’t like the idea at all. On the other hand, I understand that preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States may well involve doing things, or accepting things, I don’t particularly like.
I don’t like Neo-Nazi speeches. I don’t like Christian Fundamentalist Creation “Science” museums. I don’t like Holocaust Denial. I don’t like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Fox News.
But to deny them their right to express their views simply because I know I’m not going to like what I’m about to hear would be to deny the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Since 911 I'm not that sure I like Muslims either but to deny them their right to worship as they see fit, and to be able to live their lives as they see fit, would also be to deny the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
I think building a Muslim structure so near to ground zero is a bit on the insensitive side, and perhaps even a tad unwise, but it is their right to do so.
The measure of a democracy is not in its ability to do what the majority wants. The measure of a democracy is in its ability to protect the rights of the minority even in the face of resistance from the majority.
I stand by the Constitution. They have every right to build their Mosque and we shouldn't let fear or prejudice make us violate the principles that this country is built upon. If we do that then we're no better than the fanatics that flew the planes into the towers. We owe it to those that died to be better than that.
Friday, August 13, 2010
More on the Prop 8 Decision
The fallout is still coming down and I am appalled at the amount of ignorance associated with the diatribes.
Courts are said to issue “opinions” but what it is critical to understand is that those opinions must be backed by facts. Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh and other Right Wing assholes say, Judges cannot make declarations simply based upon their personal opinion. They must document the “facts” and points of law they have determined that justify that opinion.
Now here comes the good part. Appellate courts are generally bound by any findings of fact. Appellate courts rule on law and not fact. So essentially, assuming no fraud, they are bound by the lower court’s findings of fact and their judgments must align with those facts. Atlantic magazine extracted the findings of fact that Judge Walker articulated in the Prop 8 case.
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
Ignore the Religious Right when they claim that marriage is a Christian institution. It’s most certainly not. It is a state institution that religions sanction but the religious aspects are purely voluntary. Marriage was originally instituted to figure out which son inherited the father’s land and title since it was almost guaranteed that males would father children by many women.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
The “but gay couples can’t reproduce” argument killer. I’ve pointed out many times that couples that medically can’t have children, are too old to have children or don’t care to have children can still legally marry.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
This is an important point. Allowing gay marriage would be just one more evolution in an institution that has evolved in the past.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
Legally, there is no difference between married males and married females so, as far as marriage law is concerned, the two sexes are interchangeable. This sounds weird but, from a purely legal standpoint, it makes sense.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
Regardless of what some might wish, it’s always been there and probably always will be there. Therefore the time has come to recognize that simple fact.
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
It’s just like being blue eyed or left handed.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
The idea that “sexual orientation cannot be defined” is total right wing horseshit.
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor that it can be changed.
BINGO! This is the big one folks. It’s not a choice so Christians are wrong again and, if your God claims it’s a choice, he’s not a God is he?
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
Ok, I would venture to say that given the movie industry and fashion industry are big in California this is probably a no brainer.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
This is a big one. This squashes all the arguments related to how gays can’t form the same kind of marital bond that heterosexuals can.
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
The corollary to this is that everyone should have the right to marry or it’s not equal protection under the law.
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
Separate is not equal and different is not equal. The state of New Jersey should take note.
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
The argument that somehow allowing gays to marry will negatively affect heterosexual marriage is total, complete and utter horseshit.
Therefore, given these facts, any restriction on the rights of gays to marry has no justification outside a simple dislike of gays for who they are. This is precisely equivalent to a restriction saying left handed can't get married, a restriction that blue-eyed people can't get married or that black people can't get married.
Therefore it is an arbitrary restriction that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Allow me to quote the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Courts are said to issue “opinions” but what it is critical to understand is that those opinions must be backed by facts. Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh and other Right Wing assholes say, Judges cannot make declarations simply based upon their personal opinion. They must document the “facts” and points of law they have determined that justify that opinion.
Now here comes the good part. Appellate courts are generally bound by any findings of fact. Appellate courts rule on law and not fact. So essentially, assuming no fraud, they are bound by the lower court’s findings of fact and their judgments must align with those facts. Atlantic magazine extracted the findings of fact that Judge Walker articulated in the Prop 8 case.
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
Ignore the Religious Right when they claim that marriage is a Christian institution. It’s most certainly not. It is a state institution that religions sanction but the religious aspects are purely voluntary. Marriage was originally instituted to figure out which son inherited the father’s land and title since it was almost guaranteed that males would father children by many women.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
The “but gay couples can’t reproduce” argument killer. I’ve pointed out many times that couples that medically can’t have children, are too old to have children or don’t care to have children can still legally marry.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
This is an important point. Allowing gay marriage would be just one more evolution in an institution that has evolved in the past.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
Legally, there is no difference between married males and married females so, as far as marriage law is concerned, the two sexes are interchangeable. This sounds weird but, from a purely legal standpoint, it makes sense.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
Regardless of what some might wish, it’s always been there and probably always will be there. Therefore the time has come to recognize that simple fact.
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
It’s just like being blue eyed or left handed.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
The idea that “sexual orientation cannot be defined” is total right wing horseshit.
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor that it can be changed.
BINGO! This is the big one folks. It’s not a choice so Christians are wrong again and, if your God claims it’s a choice, he’s not a God is he?
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
Ok, I would venture to say that given the movie industry and fashion industry are big in California this is probably a no brainer.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
This is a big one. This squashes all the arguments related to how gays can’t form the same kind of marital bond that heterosexuals can.
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
The corollary to this is that everyone should have the right to marry or it’s not equal protection under the law.
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
Separate is not equal and different is not equal. The state of New Jersey should take note.
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
The argument that somehow allowing gays to marry will negatively affect heterosexual marriage is total, complete and utter horseshit.
Therefore, given these facts, any restriction on the rights of gays to marry has no justification outside a simple dislike of gays for who they are. This is precisely equivalent to a restriction saying left handed can't get married, a restriction that blue-eyed people can't get married or that black people can't get married.
Therefore it is an arbitrary restriction that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Allow me to quote the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Federal Judge Overturns Prop 8
A Federal Judge has declared California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
Well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Now it's on to the next round. Opponents of Gay Marriage have threatened to appeal while Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California who declined to defend Prop 8, has called it a victory for justice and freedom.
I agree with Arnie. When the hell are people in this country going to understand that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution don’t only apply to people that look like them, act like them and think like them.
I’m sure this battle is far from over but I’ll take one victory at a time.
Here is an interesting quote from the decision. "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."
In other words there is no danger to heterosexual marriage, no negative impact on responsible child bearing and all the kiddies aren’t going to suddenly get turned into homosexuals or bisexuals.
As I’ve said before, I don’t know why some small percentage of the population has its sexual wires crossed nor do I particularly care. I do accept the scientific and psychological conclusion that it is beyond their control.
I’m as homophobic as the next guy and get squeamish just thinking about homosexual sex, but I’m not ready to demand that homosexuals have to “resist their sinful urges” just because I don’t understand them.
So, at least for the moment, freedom and justice have triumphed.
Well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Now it's on to the next round. Opponents of Gay Marriage have threatened to appeal while Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California who declined to defend Prop 8, has called it a victory for justice and freedom.
I agree with Arnie. When the hell are people in this country going to understand that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution don’t only apply to people that look like them, act like them and think like them.
I’m sure this battle is far from over but I’ll take one victory at a time.
Here is an interesting quote from the decision. "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."
In other words there is no danger to heterosexual marriage, no negative impact on responsible child bearing and all the kiddies aren’t going to suddenly get turned into homosexuals or bisexuals.
As I’ve said before, I don’t know why some small percentage of the population has its sexual wires crossed nor do I particularly care. I do accept the scientific and psychological conclusion that it is beyond their control.
I’m as homophobic as the next guy and get squeamish just thinking about homosexual sex, but I’m not ready to demand that homosexuals have to “resist their sinful urges” just because I don’t understand them.
So, at least for the moment, freedom and justice have triumphed.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Fox News Promoted but Denied Helen Thomas’ Seat
The White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) promoted Fox News to the front row in the White House briefing room. However the WHCA denied Fox Helen Thomas’ center seat which Fox had heavily campaigned for. The coveted center seat went to the AP.
Even granting Fox News, a right wing propaganda machine that has been caught red handed on numerous occasions manipulating news content, a move to the front row alongside legitimate journalists strikes me as an affront to the integrity of the press.
It is the responsibility of a Free Press to report the news as accurately as possible while clearly identifying opinions as editorials. This is a responsibility that Fox News has repeatedly, and willfully, ignored.
The WHCA should be congratulated on not giving Fox Helen Thomas’ prestigious center seat, but they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting Fox given the network's total lack of journalistic integrity.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Warmest Decade on Record
Well, it's official. The 2000s were the warmest decade on record since records started being kept in 1870.
To make matters worse, the report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which declared the decade the warmest ever recorded, said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."
The report was compiled by 300 scientists from 48 countries.
Would the Right Wing demagogues and fundamentalist airheadss that continue to deny Global Warming please take note. Not that I expect this to have any impact upon what you already know is true because...err, why exactly do you think that you already know what is true again?
I guess this is just another left wing atheist science conspiracy to rob patriotic Christian America of its prosperity and rightful place in the world.
To make matters worse, the report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which declared the decade the warmest ever recorded, said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."
The report was compiled by 300 scientists from 48 countries.
Would the Right Wing demagogues and fundamentalist airheadss that continue to deny Global Warming please take note. Not that I expect this to have any impact upon what you already know is true because...err, why exactly do you think that you already know what is true again?
I guess this is just another left wing atheist science conspiracy to rob patriotic Christian America of its prosperity and rightful place in the world.
Federal Judge blocks some of the Arizona Immigration Law
Apparently a federal judge has blocked the more controversial parts of the Arizona Immigration Law. So at least the initial pass at legal evaluation has concluded that the law is at least partially wrong.
Again, I understand the frustration, but two wrongs do not make a right. We need to get control of the borders and then work on real immigration reform. These piece meal profiling sort of approaches aren't going to cut it.
Again, I understand the frustration, but two wrongs do not make a right. We need to get control of the borders and then work on real immigration reform. These piece meal profiling sort of approaches aren't going to cut it.
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Return of the Public Option
The CBO has analyzed a proposal forwarded by Representative Fortney Pete Stark (D-Cal), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee's Health Subcommittee.
To quote the CBO report:
“Under the proposal, a public health insurance plan would be established and administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and it would have to charge premiums that fully cover its costs for benefit payments and administrative expenses. The plan’s payment rates for physicians and other practitioners would be based on Medicare’s current rates but would not be subject to the future reductions required by Medicare’s sustainable growth rate formula; instead, those rates would initially increase by 5 percent and then would rise annually to reflect estimated increases in physicians’ costs. The plan would pay hospitals and other providers the same amounts that would be paid under Medicare, on average, and would establish payment rates for prescription drugs through negotiation. Health care providers would not be required to participate in the public plan in order to participate in Medicare.”
The CBO has estimated that the plan’s premiums would be 5% to 7% lower than private plans offered in the exchanges but some providers might decide not to participate in this plan due to its payment rates being lower than the private plans payment rates.
However, the CBO also believes that many providers would participate due to the expectation that a plan administered by HHS would have a very large number of participants.
The CBO estimates that the plan would REDUCE the federal deficit by $68 billion through 2020. Notice that’s “REDUCE.” There would be no need to raise taxes or cut other programs. So please ignore Rush Limbaugh when he starts telling you how this is going to raise your taxes.
What I don’t understand here is if the premiums are lower, and large numbers of providers choose to participate, why would this public option not tend to drive private insurers out of the health insurance exchange market? One has to believe that cost is going to be a critical consideration in that market.
To quote the CBO report:
“Under the proposal, a public health insurance plan would be established and administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and it would have to charge premiums that fully cover its costs for benefit payments and administrative expenses. The plan’s payment rates for physicians and other practitioners would be based on Medicare’s current rates but would not be subject to the future reductions required by Medicare’s sustainable growth rate formula; instead, those rates would initially increase by 5 percent and then would rise annually to reflect estimated increases in physicians’ costs. The plan would pay hospitals and other providers the same amounts that would be paid under Medicare, on average, and would establish payment rates for prescription drugs through negotiation. Health care providers would not be required to participate in the public plan in order to participate in Medicare.”
The CBO has estimated that the plan’s premiums would be 5% to 7% lower than private plans offered in the exchanges but some providers might decide not to participate in this plan due to its payment rates being lower than the private plans payment rates.
However, the CBO also believes that many providers would participate due to the expectation that a plan administered by HHS would have a very large number of participants.
The CBO estimates that the plan would REDUCE the federal deficit by $68 billion through 2020. Notice that’s “REDUCE.” There would be no need to raise taxes or cut other programs. So please ignore Rush Limbaugh when he starts telling you how this is going to raise your taxes.
What I don’t understand here is if the premiums are lower, and large numbers of providers choose to participate, why would this public option not tend to drive private insurers out of the health insurance exchange market? One has to believe that cost is going to be a critical consideration in that market.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Shirley Sherrod Affair
I think it was Davey Crockett who said “Make sure you’re right, then go ahead.” In the Shirley Sherrod fiasco the Obama administration, and especially Secretary Tom Vilsack, appear to have skipped the first step of that advice.
Let’s see, the Right Wing media wouldn’t lie would it? If Fox News or Andrew Breitbart told me the sun came up in the East today, I’d go check, and so should everyone else.
So-called Conservative media outlets are famous not only for slanting what they call “news,” but also for outright lying. Fox News has been caught red handed on any number of occasions editing video in order to give a totally misleading impression of events. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me a thousand times and I must be a Tea Party Republican.
How can we expect the American electorate to be skeptical and avoid rushing to judgment before it has all the facts if our so-called leaders aren’t capable of doing that?
Still, it’s more forgivable to be fooled by a lie than to be the one telling a lie.
Let’s see, the Right Wing media wouldn’t lie would it? If Fox News or Andrew Breitbart told me the sun came up in the East today, I’d go check, and so should everyone else.
So-called Conservative media outlets are famous not only for slanting what they call “news,” but also for outright lying. Fox News has been caught red handed on any number of occasions editing video in order to give a totally misleading impression of events. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me a thousand times and I must be a Tea Party Republican.
How can we expect the American electorate to be skeptical and avoid rushing to judgment before it has all the facts if our so-called leaders aren’t capable of doing that?
Still, it’s more forgivable to be fooled by a lie than to be the one telling a lie.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The 2nd Bill of Rights
Allow me quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt from the State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to 
a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education."
Now, the government cannot magically legislate these things into existence. The People cannot accomplish this vision by simply voting for these things. It's a lot more complicated than that.
What the government can do is work toward this vision. A vision that will benefit everybody to a reasonable degree rather than allowing a small elite to become obscenely rich while millions don't have a decent place to live, decent health care and enough to eat. What the People can do is vote for legislators and leaders that are dedicated to making Roosevelt's vision a reality.
Rush Limbaugh thinks this is an absurd vision. The Conservative Right thinks this is an absurd vision. Why? Because the elite can't get ridiculously richer under this vision. Oh, they can still get rich. Just not quite as rich.
I think Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Right are absurd, greedy as hell, but absurd. Why are you working and middle class folks listening to them rather than Franklin Roosevelt?
Allow me to also quote a slightly older document."We hold these
truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"Roosevelt's vision is the "pursuit of Happiness" alluded to above. No one, including the government, can guarantee you'll catch it, but the government can guarantee it will help everyone pursue it.
That's everyone Rush, and not just a privileged few. So why are you people listening to Rush Limbaugh rather than Thomas Jefferson?
If this be Socialism, then so be it.
So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Health Care and the Free Rider Problem
Why does the Federal Government want everyone to have health insurance? Trust me; it has nothing to do with trying to turn this into a Socialist or Totalitarian state. The reason is actually an artifact of Capitalism; it’s what is known in economics as the “Free Rider Problem.”
A Free Rider is basically someone who doesn’t contribute to the welfare of the group but enjoys all of the benefits. The name comes from the example of people who sneak onto public transportation without paying the fare.
Let’s consider a simple hypothetical example involving a town’s health care. Note the word simple. For this example I’m going to make the assumption that the health care provider and the health care insurer are the same people called the Health Care System (HCS).
Now the way things work in this town is people pay for health coverage and when they get sick or injured, they receive treatment at no additional cost. In any given year around 10% of the people need treatment and, on average, treatment costs $100.
If there are 1,000 people in town then typically 100 will need treatment at an average cost of $100 so that’s $10,000. The HCS is also taking some risk here so let’s also assume that it needs to make at least $1,000 profit to make it worthwhile to remain in business in that town.
That means that the HCS needs revenues of R = $10,000 + $1,000 = $11,000 so it would have to charge each person in town $11 a year. But let’s assume signing up is voluntary and 10% of the people choose to exercise their “freedom” and refuse to participate.
So now there are only 900 people in the pool and, using the same assumptions as above, 90 will need treatment at a cost of $100 so R = $9,000 + $1,000 = $10,000. So the HCS would have to charge each person participating $11.11.
There’s the first problem; the rates just went up by 11 cents. But there is another problem. What happens if one of the 100 people that aren’t participating gets sick or injured? The HCS can’t simply ignore them, and, by law, they aren’t allowed to anyway.
That means that the HCS will treat not 90 people, but 100 at a cost of $100 each for a total of $10,000 in cost. But that would wipe out the $1,000 profit that the HCS needs. That means the HCS has three choices. It can break the law and ignore uninsured people that get sick or injured. It can pack up and leave, or it can adjust premiums and charge each of the 900 $12.22 to cover the 100 that aren’t buying health coverage, the Free Riders.
Now the rates have gone up by $1.22 and that causes a possible second problem. If you believe supply and demand, the increase in premium costs is going to drive even more people out of the market, so now maybe 120 people choose not to buy coverage which causes another increase in premiums, which may cause even more people to take the risk and not buy the health coverage. Luckily, for most people, the demand for health coverage is fairly inelastic so small premium increases are unlikely to make people drop out wholesale and force HCS to shut down. But it will mean people will have to make do with less somewhere else.
The same thing happens if it’s not a matter of choice but necessity. If the 100 people without health coverage don’t have it because either they have no access to it or can’t afford it, the exact same thing happens. It costs everyone else more money.
Yes it’s more complicated than I’m making it and one could pick apart some of the details of the example but the basic theory is sound.
Making health insurance available to everyone is not only the right, as in moral, thing to do; it’s the economically smart thing to do. Making health insurance accessible, affordable and MANDATORY will not only improve the well being of the entire country it will most likely reduce, or at least help get under control, health care costs.
So that’s the objective. Now, we can argue this on two levels. Either you can disagree with the objective of everyone has health coverage and everyone contributes to the cost or you can disagree. That’s one conversation.
A totally different conversation is you can agree with the objectives but disagree with the methodology, strategy or process being employed to get there. Note that “you can’t MAKE me buy health insurance” would not be part of this conversation but the other one.
So, for those of you so violently opposed to Health Care Reform, which is it? I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to this question.
Now, for those of you that are already jumping up and down screaming “it’s because they’re gonna raise my taxes,” I want you to consider two things. First, if everyone is paying their fair share, there’s no need to raise taxes and, second, raising taxes would be the worst possible solution to the Free Rider problem because it is, by definition, inefficient, and even Democrats know that.
For those of you that are already jumping up and down screaming “it’s because they’re going to use my taxes to subsidize someone else’s health care,” if you are in the top quintile of household income, you’re probably right. So what else is new? The top quintile always subsidizes everyone else in a progressive tax structure.
If you’re asking so how is this different from paying higher premiums in the Free Rider example, it’s different because it’s a progressive distribution, and if some people need to be subsidized, those doing the subsidizing are those that can most afford it.
If you are not in the top quintile, then it’s far more likely you’re being subsidized than you’re subsidizing.
I have problems with some of the Health Care Reform provisions, or perhaps more accurately, lack of provisions, but nothing I’m going to get overly excited about. Specifically, I’m disappointed that tort reform and the ability of insurance companies to compete across state lines didn’t make the cut.
So, for those of you that appear to be so violently opposed, why?
A Free Rider is basically someone who doesn’t contribute to the welfare of the group but enjoys all of the benefits. The name comes from the example of people who sneak onto public transportation without paying the fare.
Let’s consider a simple hypothetical example involving a town’s health care. Note the word simple. For this example I’m going to make the assumption that the health care provider and the health care insurer are the same people called the Health Care System (HCS).
Now the way things work in this town is people pay for health coverage and when they get sick or injured, they receive treatment at no additional cost. In any given year around 10% of the people need treatment and, on average, treatment costs $100.
If there are 1,000 people in town then typically 100 will need treatment at an average cost of $100 so that’s $10,000. The HCS is also taking some risk here so let’s also assume that it needs to make at least $1,000 profit to make it worthwhile to remain in business in that town.
That means that the HCS needs revenues of R = $10,000 + $1,000 = $11,000 so it would have to charge each person in town $11 a year. But let’s assume signing up is voluntary and 10% of the people choose to exercise their “freedom” and refuse to participate.
So now there are only 900 people in the pool and, using the same assumptions as above, 90 will need treatment at a cost of $100 so R = $9,000 + $1,000 = $10,000. So the HCS would have to charge each person participating $11.11.
There’s the first problem; the rates just went up by 11 cents. But there is another problem. What happens if one of the 100 people that aren’t participating gets sick or injured? The HCS can’t simply ignore them, and, by law, they aren’t allowed to anyway.
That means that the HCS will treat not 90 people, but 100 at a cost of $100 each for a total of $10,000 in cost. But that would wipe out the $1,000 profit that the HCS needs. That means the HCS has three choices. It can break the law and ignore uninsured people that get sick or injured. It can pack up and leave, or it can adjust premiums and charge each of the 900 $12.22 to cover the 100 that aren’t buying health coverage, the Free Riders.
Now the rates have gone up by $1.22 and that causes a possible second problem. If you believe supply and demand, the increase in premium costs is going to drive even more people out of the market, so now maybe 120 people choose not to buy coverage which causes another increase in premiums, which may cause even more people to take the risk and not buy the health coverage. Luckily, for most people, the demand for health coverage is fairly inelastic so small premium increases are unlikely to make people drop out wholesale and force HCS to shut down. But it will mean people will have to make do with less somewhere else.
The same thing happens if it’s not a matter of choice but necessity. If the 100 people without health coverage don’t have it because either they have no access to it or can’t afford it, the exact same thing happens. It costs everyone else more money.
Yes it’s more complicated than I’m making it and one could pick apart some of the details of the example but the basic theory is sound.
Making health insurance available to everyone is not only the right, as in moral, thing to do; it’s the economically smart thing to do. Making health insurance accessible, affordable and MANDATORY will not only improve the well being of the entire country it will most likely reduce, or at least help get under control, health care costs.
So that’s the objective. Now, we can argue this on two levels. Either you can disagree with the objective of everyone has health coverage and everyone contributes to the cost or you can disagree. That’s one conversation.
A totally different conversation is you can agree with the objectives but disagree with the methodology, strategy or process being employed to get there. Note that “you can’t MAKE me buy health insurance” would not be part of this conversation but the other one.
So, for those of you so violently opposed to Health Care Reform, which is it? I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to this question.
Now, for those of you that are already jumping up and down screaming “it’s because they’re gonna raise my taxes,” I want you to consider two things. First, if everyone is paying their fair share, there’s no need to raise taxes and, second, raising taxes would be the worst possible solution to the Free Rider problem because it is, by definition, inefficient, and even Democrats know that.
For those of you that are already jumping up and down screaming “it’s because they’re going to use my taxes to subsidize someone else’s health care,” if you are in the top quintile of household income, you’re probably right. So what else is new? The top quintile always subsidizes everyone else in a progressive tax structure.
If you’re asking so how is this different from paying higher premiums in the Free Rider example, it’s different because it’s a progressive distribution, and if some people need to be subsidized, those doing the subsidizing are those that can most afford it.
If you are not in the top quintile, then it’s far more likely you’re being subsidized than you’re subsidizing.
I have problems with some of the Health Care Reform provisions, or perhaps more accurately, lack of provisions, but nothing I’m going to get overly excited about. Specifically, I’m disappointed that tort reform and the ability of insurance companies to compete across state lines didn’t make the cut.
So, for those of you that appear to be so violently opposed, why?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage
Argentina became the first Latin American country to legalize Gay Marriage when its Senate voted 33-27 to grant homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Argentina joins Canada as the only two countries in the western hemisphere to legalize Gay Marriage.
So the southernmost country joins the northernmost in granting equality. Now all we need to do is get everyone in between out of the 19th century.
70% of Argentines believed that it was time to legalize Gay Marriage. Maybe I should move to Argentina instead of Holland?
Argentina joins Canada as the only two countries in the western hemisphere to legalize Gay Marriage.
So the southernmost country joins the northernmost in granting equality. Now all we need to do is get everyone in between out of the 19th century.
70% of Argentines believed that it was time to legalize Gay Marriage. Maybe I should move to Argentina instead of Holland?
The Financial Reform Bill
This is another enormous accomplishment for the Obama administration rivaling getting any sort of Health Care Reform passed. Unfortunately he’s not getting any short term political benefit. Both Health Care and Financial Reform are going to take a while before we see the effects.
I find it interesting that the yokels weren’t yelling about this one, probably because they didn’t understand what was going on. Too many danged numbers I guess. Here are the biggies with commentary.
Mortgages
The days of the so-called “Liar Loan” are over. The bill prohibits lenders from many of the practices that led to the foreclosure avalanche during the current recession. It will make getting mortgages harder but I’m not sure if that’s a bad thing or a good thing. Expect higher down payment requirements. The bill also eliminates prepayment penalties. Figures, after I’ve already paid off my mortgage.
Credit Scores
I’m not sure why, but the requirement allowing consumers to get one free credit score statement didn’t make it. You can get one free credit report identifying any issues, but it doesn’t include the score. The bill only allows free access to your credit score if you encounter a problem with a loan, interest rate or premiums. Well, that’s better than nothing I guess.
Credit Card Fees
Merchant’s pay Visa and Mastercard a fee for each credit card and debit card transaction. Fees in the U.S. are currently 1.6% for debit cards and 2.0% for credit cards. This legislation allows the Federal Reserve to cap the fees. The fees in Europe are much lower so this is expected to reduce fees and save merchants money. Hopefully these savings will be passed on to consumers but we shall see. The bill also allows merchants to offer discounts if you use cards with a lower fee which wasn’t previously allowed.
Lending Watchdog
The bill creates a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve (another goddamned federal bureaucracy) with the ability to regulate just about every type of lending institution except car dealerships. The Republicans got these exempted because supposedly they’re already regulated enough. Aren’t you people tired of getting your pocket picked by the GOP? This was the one major victory for the lobbyists in this bill.
Bank Bailouts
The bill doesn’t allow the government to step in and break up banks but it does provide a host of new powers that should prevent things like the recent financial chaos.
The Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC) can now liquidate failing institutions and recoup its money by selling off the bank’s assets.
Payments to creditors of a failed institution will now be the same as in a bankruptcy. This is supposed to localize problems and prevent a repeat of things like the $160 billion bailout of AiG.
Wait until you hear this one. If a bank fails, the FDIC can take back compensation paid to its current and former senior executives in the two years prior to the failure. The government can also ban those executives found responsible for a bank’s failure from future work in the financial industry.
Consumer Education
The bill establishes an Office of Financial Literacy (another goddamned federal bureaucracy) within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) tasked with educating the public about savings, loans, liens and fees.
This bill gives the government significant new powers. It gives the government much more additional power than the Health Care Reform bill did. Basically we’re talking about a financial big Kahuna that can not only establish the rules, it can also step in and dissolve failing institutions and punish those who screw things up.
I don’t think that last bit is constitutional. Isn’t everyone, including bank CEOs, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Here it sounds like we have a regulatory agency playing judge and jury. I’m not sure I like that.
Hell, why didn’t they just nationalize the whole industry? It probably would have been easier and a lot less expensive.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this reform was necessary but I’m a little surprised at the scope. All I can say is wow!
I find it interesting that the yokels weren’t yelling about this one, probably because they didn’t understand what was going on. Too many danged numbers I guess. Here are the biggies with commentary.
Mortgages
The days of the so-called “Liar Loan” are over. The bill prohibits lenders from many of the practices that led to the foreclosure avalanche during the current recession. It will make getting mortgages harder but I’m not sure if that’s a bad thing or a good thing. Expect higher down payment requirements. The bill also eliminates prepayment penalties. Figures, after I’ve already paid off my mortgage.
Credit Scores
I’m not sure why, but the requirement allowing consumers to get one free credit score statement didn’t make it. You can get one free credit report identifying any issues, but it doesn’t include the score. The bill only allows free access to your credit score if you encounter a problem with a loan, interest rate or premiums. Well, that’s better than nothing I guess.
Credit Card Fees
Merchant’s pay Visa and Mastercard a fee for each credit card and debit card transaction. Fees in the U.S. are currently 1.6% for debit cards and 2.0% for credit cards. This legislation allows the Federal Reserve to cap the fees. The fees in Europe are much lower so this is expected to reduce fees and save merchants money. Hopefully these savings will be passed on to consumers but we shall see. The bill also allows merchants to offer discounts if you use cards with a lower fee which wasn’t previously allowed.
Lending Watchdog
The bill creates a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve (another goddamned federal bureaucracy) with the ability to regulate just about every type of lending institution except car dealerships. The Republicans got these exempted because supposedly they’re already regulated enough. Aren’t you people tired of getting your pocket picked by the GOP? This was the one major victory for the lobbyists in this bill.
Bank Bailouts
The bill doesn’t allow the government to step in and break up banks but it does provide a host of new powers that should prevent things like the recent financial chaos.
The Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC) can now liquidate failing institutions and recoup its money by selling off the bank’s assets.
Payments to creditors of a failed institution will now be the same as in a bankruptcy. This is supposed to localize problems and prevent a repeat of things like the $160 billion bailout of AiG.
Wait until you hear this one. If a bank fails, the FDIC can take back compensation paid to its current and former senior executives in the two years prior to the failure. The government can also ban those executives found responsible for a bank’s failure from future work in the financial industry.
Consumer Education
The bill establishes an Office of Financial Literacy (another goddamned federal bureaucracy) within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) tasked with educating the public about savings, loans, liens and fees.
This bill gives the government significant new powers. It gives the government much more additional power than the Health Care Reform bill did. Basically we’re talking about a financial big Kahuna that can not only establish the rules, it can also step in and dissolve failing institutions and punish those who screw things up.
I don’t think that last bit is constitutional. Isn’t everyone, including bank CEOs, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Here it sounds like we have a regulatory agency playing judge and jury. I’m not sure I like that.
Hell, why didn’t they just nationalize the whole industry? It probably would have been easier and a lot less expensive.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this reform was necessary but I’m a little surprised at the scope. All I can say is wow!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Bush Tax Cuts
The tax reductions implemented by the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003” are set to expire at the end of 2010.
In the past I have consistently said they should be left to expire in order to reduce the budget deficit. I’m now going to modify that position.
The economy is too fragile to suddenly remove that much spending power from Main Street and give it to Washington D.C. However, not all of the tax cuts benefitted the general population so here is what I would do.
Increased Child Tax Credit
I would leave this in place.
Marriage Penalty Relief
I would leave this in place as it was an unfair situation in the previous tax code. We should be encouraging marriage and not discouraging it.
Increased Alternative Minimum Tax Threshold
I would leave this in place as it benefits the lowest income households.
Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends Reductions
I would leave these in place. This is not the time to begin discouraging capital investment. Yes I know that this primarily benefits the rich, but I think it would be risky to repeal it.
Tax Rate Adjustments
Ok folks, you knew this is where it was coming. I would leave the reductions in the lowest four brackets in place and return the two upper brackets to the 2001 levels raising them from 33% to 35.5% and from 35% to 39.1% respectively.
I think this leaves the adjustments made out of fairness in place, it leaves the investment incentives in place and it leaves the income most likely to be spent locally in place but it increases the rates, and therefore hopefully the revenue, where it will probably least be felt.
In parallel, the federal government needs to consider how it can reduce expenditures without causing wholesale layoffs. This can’t happen all at once as the shock to the economy would be too great but it has to start happening and there is no time like the present.
Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would be a pretty good start and then I would slash marginal programs in the Department of Education and in the Department of Energy.
At the same time, Congress needs to SERIOUSLY work out a reform of the tax code. Not only does the growing disparity in wealth and income need to be curtailed, taxes need to focus more upon consumption and less upon earnings.
That’s not to say excess income shouldn’t be taxed. It should. But I’d like to see income taxes not start until earnings exceed a number beyond what we all need to live reasonably comfortably.
In the past I have consistently said they should be left to expire in order to reduce the budget deficit. I’m now going to modify that position.
The economy is too fragile to suddenly remove that much spending power from Main Street and give it to Washington D.C. However, not all of the tax cuts benefitted the general population so here is what I would do.
Increased Child Tax Credit
I would leave this in place.
Marriage Penalty Relief
I would leave this in place as it was an unfair situation in the previous tax code. We should be encouraging marriage and not discouraging it.
Increased Alternative Minimum Tax Threshold
I would leave this in place as it benefits the lowest income households.
Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends Reductions
I would leave these in place. This is not the time to begin discouraging capital investment. Yes I know that this primarily benefits the rich, but I think it would be risky to repeal it.
Tax Rate Adjustments
Ok folks, you knew this is where it was coming. I would leave the reductions in the lowest four brackets in place and return the two upper brackets to the 2001 levels raising them from 33% to 35.5% and from 35% to 39.1% respectively.
I think this leaves the adjustments made out of fairness in place, it leaves the investment incentives in place and it leaves the income most likely to be spent locally in place but it increases the rates, and therefore hopefully the revenue, where it will probably least be felt.
In parallel, the federal government needs to consider how it can reduce expenditures without causing wholesale layoffs. This can’t happen all at once as the shock to the economy would be too great but it has to start happening and there is no time like the present.
Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would be a pretty good start and then I would slash marginal programs in the Department of Education and in the Department of Energy.
At the same time, Congress needs to SERIOUSLY work out a reform of the tax code. Not only does the growing disparity in wealth and income need to be curtailed, taxes need to focus more upon consumption and less upon earnings.
That’s not to say excess income shouldn’t be taxed. It should. But I’d like to see income taxes not start until earnings exceed a number beyond what we all need to live reasonably comfortably.
Of Quintiles and Gaps
I was reviewing the 2007 household income & tax tables from the CBO.
Let me start by saying that federal government spending needs to be gotten under control and reduced. The federal government has to learn that it can’t spend money it doesn’t have and we would all like to have more of our money to spend. I say “our money” because every dollar generated in this economy is the result of someone’s hard work.
However, that is a problem that cannot be resolved without also reforming the tax code. The basic problem in the U.S. today is the growing disparity between the wealthiest households and everyone else.
Let’s consider a few numbers (all dollar amounts are in 2007 dollars so everything is adjusted for inflation.)
In 1979, the boundary between the lowest quintile of households and the 2nd quintile was $17,400 in minimum adjusted income. Minimum adjusted income is total household income divided by the square root of the number of people in the household. So for a household of 4 to be in the 2nd quintile would require a pre-tax income of $17,400*2 = $34,800.
In 1979 the boundary between the 2nd quintile and the 3rd was $27,600, between the 3rd and the 4th $37,900 and between the 4th and the 5th $52,800.
So in 1979, in order to be in the top quintile, a family of 4 would have to have a household income of $105,600. The boundary into the top 1% in 1979 was $167,500 so a family of 4 would need a household income of $335,000 to be in the top 1%.
Now the good news is that since 1979, the boundaries for all quintiles and the top 1% have increased. That means everyone has more money to spend. A “fair” share of the increase would mean approximately the same percentage increase for everyone. Mathematics being what it is, that would mean that the top brackets would still gain more dollars than anyone else because they started out with more.
Assume for a moment that all increases were equal to the percentage gain experienced for the boundary into the middle quintile (the 3rd) since 1979 which was 24.3%. The gap in real dollars between the 2nd quintile boundary and all the others would still have increased.
For example, in 1979 the gap between the boundary into the 2nd quintile and the 5th quintile was $35,400. If both groups had grown at the same percentage of 24.3%, by 2007 the gap would have grown to $43,993.
In 1979 the gap between the boundary into 2nd quintile and the top 1% was $150,100. If both groups had grown at the same percentage of 24.3%, by 2007 the gap would have grown to $186,537. That’s a lot of money.
Yes these are big differences, but relative to where things started, this is actually a fair distribution of the increased prosperity.
Now some people would argue that this in fact isn’t fair and that the lower quintile boundaries should have gone up by a higher percentage in order to keep the gaps from growing so much. I sort of agree with that but I’d settle for everyone benefitting by the same percentage.
However that’s not what happened. What happened is that the boundaries grew by different percentages and do I have to tell you which grew by the larger percentages?
The 2nd quintile boundary grew by 17.8%, the 3rd by 24.3%, the 4th by 41.5%, the 5th by 52.4% and the boundary into the top 1% by a whopping 110.7%.
This is an unfair distribution of the increased prosperity.
The gap between the 2nd quintile and the 5th quintile grew from $35,400 to $54,200 and between the 2nd quintile and the top 1% grew to $332,400.
Now what do you think is going to happen when we reduce federal spending? Guess who’s going to get an unfair share of the money being saved? For you Tea Party types, try real hard now, you can do it.
In parallel with reducing government spending we desperately need to reform the tax code so that the benefit of the reduced spending falls more upon the lower income quintiles than the higher income ones. As a matter of fact, I don’t see why the highest quintile needs any tax reduction at all.
If you want to restore a healthy robust economy this is how you do it. Why you ask? Because the households in the lowest four quintiles have a much higher propensity to consume (in other words they’re going to spend the money) and they’re most likely to spend it locally. This would strengthen small businesses in towns and cities all over the country rather than having the money invested in large corporations or, worst of all, in foreign countries.
You will hear every right wing wacko telling you this is Socialism. Oh my god, the “S” word. Quick, let’s all go run under our beds while the working and middle classes get their pockets picked again. Ignore those assholes; this is what needs to be done.
Ignore the Supply Side types as well. They’ll tell you that we should cut taxes more for the upper quintile because they’ll invest the money and it will “trickle down” and create jobs. Like daddy George H.W. Bush, and just about every real economist has said, this is voodoo economics. Trickle down my ass. Give the working stiffs the money, let them spend it at local small businesses and let the prosperity trickle up. That is how you build a strong economy.
Now, in case you’re thinking that somehow using quintile boundaries is some kind of trick, let’s quickly consider average pre-tax income.
In 1979, the average pre-tax income for the lowest quintile, the 1st, was $16,600, for the highest quintile, the 5th, it was $140,300 and for the top 1% it was $550,000. So the gap between the 1st and the 5th was $123,700 and between the 1st and the top 1% was $533,400.
By 2007 those gaps had grown to $246,300 and $1,854,600 respectively. Now let’s look at the percentages. The average income of the 1st quintile grew by 10.8%; the income for the 5th quintile grew by 88.7% and the income for the top 1% by 240.5%.
For the other quintiles, the 2nd, 17.7%, the 3rd, 19.2% and the 4th, 28.6%. The boundaries, for a family of 4, in 2007 were, for the 2nd, $41,000, for the 3rd, $68,600, for the 4th, $100,000 and for the 5th, $149,400. In order to be in the top 1% in 2007, a family of 4 would have required a minimum adjusted income of $705,100.
Here’s the bottom line. For the past 30 years, ever since Donald Regan talked Ronald Reagan into dramatically reducing the top income tax percentages, the gap in income and wealth between the top households and everyone else has grown dangerously wide.
Those reductions did two things. First it immediately widened the already enormous gap in discretionary income between the wealthy and the not so wealthy and we all know that money begets money. The second thing it did was make unrestrained greed worthwhile!
The marginal taxed rate went from 70% in 1981, to 50% in 1982, then to 38.5% in 1986 and then to 28% in 1987. It went back up to 39.6% in 1993 and is currently at 35%.
If you want to know why you can’t pay your mortgage, why you’re maxing out your credit cards and why the very thought of college tuition makes you go into a cold sweat, this is probably it.
The disparity is utterly ridiculous. If the distribution had been fairer, far fewer people would be having the kind of money troubles that are common these days and the economy would be a hell of a lot stronger.
Something has to be done to correct this.
Let me start by saying that federal government spending needs to be gotten under control and reduced. The federal government has to learn that it can’t spend money it doesn’t have and we would all like to have more of our money to spend. I say “our money” because every dollar generated in this economy is the result of someone’s hard work.
However, that is a problem that cannot be resolved without also reforming the tax code. The basic problem in the U.S. today is the growing disparity between the wealthiest households and everyone else.
Let’s consider a few numbers (all dollar amounts are in 2007 dollars so everything is adjusted for inflation.)
In 1979, the boundary between the lowest quintile of households and the 2nd quintile was $17,400 in minimum adjusted income. Minimum adjusted income is total household income divided by the square root of the number of people in the household. So for a household of 4 to be in the 2nd quintile would require a pre-tax income of $17,400*2 = $34,800.
In 1979 the boundary between the 2nd quintile and the 3rd was $27,600, between the 3rd and the 4th $37,900 and between the 4th and the 5th $52,800.
So in 1979, in order to be in the top quintile, a family of 4 would have to have a household income of $105,600. The boundary into the top 1% in 1979 was $167,500 so a family of 4 would need a household income of $335,000 to be in the top 1%.
Now the good news is that since 1979, the boundaries for all quintiles and the top 1% have increased. That means everyone has more money to spend. A “fair” share of the increase would mean approximately the same percentage increase for everyone. Mathematics being what it is, that would mean that the top brackets would still gain more dollars than anyone else because they started out with more.
Assume for a moment that all increases were equal to the percentage gain experienced for the boundary into the middle quintile (the 3rd) since 1979 which was 24.3%. The gap in real dollars between the 2nd quintile boundary and all the others would still have increased.
For example, in 1979 the gap between the boundary into the 2nd quintile and the 5th quintile was $35,400. If both groups had grown at the same percentage of 24.3%, by 2007 the gap would have grown to $43,993.
In 1979 the gap between the boundary into 2nd quintile and the top 1% was $150,100. If both groups had grown at the same percentage of 24.3%, by 2007 the gap would have grown to $186,537. That’s a lot of money.
Yes these are big differences, but relative to where things started, this is actually a fair distribution of the increased prosperity.
Now some people would argue that this in fact isn’t fair and that the lower quintile boundaries should have gone up by a higher percentage in order to keep the gaps from growing so much. I sort of agree with that but I’d settle for everyone benefitting by the same percentage.
However that’s not what happened. What happened is that the boundaries grew by different percentages and do I have to tell you which grew by the larger percentages?
The 2nd quintile boundary grew by 17.8%, the 3rd by 24.3%, the 4th by 41.5%, the 5th by 52.4% and the boundary into the top 1% by a whopping 110.7%.
This is an unfair distribution of the increased prosperity.
The gap between the 2nd quintile and the 5th quintile grew from $35,400 to $54,200 and between the 2nd quintile and the top 1% grew to $332,400.
Now what do you think is going to happen when we reduce federal spending? Guess who’s going to get an unfair share of the money being saved? For you Tea Party types, try real hard now, you can do it.
In parallel with reducing government spending we desperately need to reform the tax code so that the benefit of the reduced spending falls more upon the lower income quintiles than the higher income ones. As a matter of fact, I don’t see why the highest quintile needs any tax reduction at all.
If you want to restore a healthy robust economy this is how you do it. Why you ask? Because the households in the lowest four quintiles have a much higher propensity to consume (in other words they’re going to spend the money) and they’re most likely to spend it locally. This would strengthen small businesses in towns and cities all over the country rather than having the money invested in large corporations or, worst of all, in foreign countries.
You will hear every right wing wacko telling you this is Socialism. Oh my god, the “S” word. Quick, let’s all go run under our beds while the working and middle classes get their pockets picked again. Ignore those assholes; this is what needs to be done.
Ignore the Supply Side types as well. They’ll tell you that we should cut taxes more for the upper quintile because they’ll invest the money and it will “trickle down” and create jobs. Like daddy George H.W. Bush, and just about every real economist has said, this is voodoo economics. Trickle down my ass. Give the working stiffs the money, let them spend it at local small businesses and let the prosperity trickle up. That is how you build a strong economy.
Now, in case you’re thinking that somehow using quintile boundaries is some kind of trick, let’s quickly consider average pre-tax income.
In 1979, the average pre-tax income for the lowest quintile, the 1st, was $16,600, for the highest quintile, the 5th, it was $140,300 and for the top 1% it was $550,000. So the gap between the 1st and the 5th was $123,700 and between the 1st and the top 1% was $533,400.
By 2007 those gaps had grown to $246,300 and $1,854,600 respectively. Now let’s look at the percentages. The average income of the 1st quintile grew by 10.8%; the income for the 5th quintile grew by 88.7% and the income for the top 1% by 240.5%.
For the other quintiles, the 2nd, 17.7%, the 3rd, 19.2% and the 4th, 28.6%. The boundaries, for a family of 4, in 2007 were, for the 2nd, $41,000, for the 3rd, $68,600, for the 4th, $100,000 and for the 5th, $149,400. In order to be in the top 1% in 2007, a family of 4 would have required a minimum adjusted income of $705,100.
Here’s the bottom line. For the past 30 years, ever since Donald Regan talked Ronald Reagan into dramatically reducing the top income tax percentages, the gap in income and wealth between the top households and everyone else has grown dangerously wide.
Those reductions did two things. First it immediately widened the already enormous gap in discretionary income between the wealthy and the not so wealthy and we all know that money begets money. The second thing it did was make unrestrained greed worthwhile!
The marginal taxed rate went from 70% in 1981, to 50% in 1982, then to 38.5% in 1986 and then to 28% in 1987. It went back up to 39.6% in 1993 and is currently at 35%.
If you want to know why you can’t pay your mortgage, why you’re maxing out your credit cards and why the very thought of college tuition makes you go into a cold sweat, this is probably it.
The disparity is utterly ridiculous. If the distribution had been fairer, far fewer people would be having the kind of money troubles that are common these days and the economy would be a hell of a lot stronger.
Something has to be done to correct this.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Ok, so those weren’t the final thoughts on the World Cup
Hey, it’s not my fault. Ryan Bailey at “Dirty Tackle” published an article about the “Ten things we’d like to see at World Cup 2014” and I can’t let that go by without putting in my two cents.
#1 – More Superstar Performances
Nay, I disagree. Bailey seems disappointed that the heralded players didn’t dominate more. I don’t have a problem with superstar performances but personally I’m more enamored with the emergence of the surprise hero, the guy who comes out of the pack to the surprise and joy of the sports world.
#2 – A less annoying fan craze
Oh I agree with this one. I don’t EVER want to hear another vuvuzela.
#3 – Less empty seats
I don’t think you have to worry about this one in Brazil.
#4 – More Maradona
Oh yeah, I could do with lots more Maradona. The man is a treasure.
#5 – The introduction of video technology
Agreed, it’s foolish not to provide the refs with the technology to do their job better.
#6 – Less psychic animals
I hope you don’t mean by this no psychic animals? Paul was part of the whole panorama of the tournament. Nobody paid any attention to those false prophets put forward by zoos and aquariums trying to cash in on Paul’s talent and fame anyway.
#7 – More ambush marketing
Agreed, as a matter of fact I think there should be a trophy for the best ambush marketing stunt especially when good looking Dutch girls in short skirts are involved.
#8 – More French mishaps
Aw, come on, give the French a break. They’ve suffered enough (*cough, cough*).
#9 – Better stadium security
Absolutely, there are too many nuts in the world. The pranks in South Africa were semi-playful but the bombings in Uganda weren't and I'm more worried about the latter than the former.
#10 – A better final
I’m betting the Brazilian national team will have a lot to say about this one and I'm also betting that you can take it to the bank that there will be more fireworks in the final four years from now.
The one you missed is less goddamned feigned injury flopping.
#1 – More Superstar Performances
Nay, I disagree. Bailey seems disappointed that the heralded players didn’t dominate more. I don’t have a problem with superstar performances but personally I’m more enamored with the emergence of the surprise hero, the guy who comes out of the pack to the surprise and joy of the sports world.
#2 – A less annoying fan craze
Oh I agree with this one. I don’t EVER want to hear another vuvuzela.
#3 – Less empty seats
I don’t think you have to worry about this one in Brazil.
#4 – More Maradona
Oh yeah, I could do with lots more Maradona. The man is a treasure.
#5 – The introduction of video technology
Agreed, it’s foolish not to provide the refs with the technology to do their job better.
#6 – Less psychic animals
I hope you don’t mean by this no psychic animals? Paul was part of the whole panorama of the tournament. Nobody paid any attention to those false prophets put forward by zoos and aquariums trying to cash in on Paul’s talent and fame anyway.
#7 – More ambush marketing
Agreed, as a matter of fact I think there should be a trophy for the best ambush marketing stunt especially when good looking Dutch girls in short skirts are involved.
#8 – More French mishaps
Aw, come on, give the French a break. They’ve suffered enough (*cough, cough*).
#9 – Better stadium security
Absolutely, there are too many nuts in the world. The pranks in South Africa were semi-playful but the bombings in Uganda weren't and I'm more worried about the latter than the former.
#10 – A better final
I’m betting the Brazilian national team will have a lot to say about this one and I'm also betting that you can take it to the bank that there will be more fireworks in the final four years from now.
The one you missed is less goddamned feigned injury flopping.
Final Thoughts on the World Cup
Well, the World Cup is over and that’s probably the last we’ll hear about soccer in the U.S. until the next cup approaches in 2014. It was a pretty weird one if you think about it so here are some final thoughts.
The Jabulani Ball
The complaints came loud and often from the players about this ball. According to NASA, the ball will exhibit a knuckle ball effect at speeds above 40 miles per hour. I also suspect that the triangular designs on the ball provide an optical illusion making the ball look like it’s moving even more erratically than it actually is. You’ll excuse me, but can you imagine the NFL introducing a new ball design for the playoffs? That would get some people lynched.
Vuvuzelas
Not only should they be banned, they should all be gathered up and burned. The incessant buzz could drive you crazy. Yes, after a while they became just white noise in the background but I still think they should be outlawed. Brazil, take note. The New York Yankees did the right thing when they banned them. Hopefully no one shows up with them at NFL games because it could get bloody.
Ambush Marketing
I think FIFA needs less starch in its shirts. I thought the Dutch girls that converted themselves into a Bavaria beer commercial during the Denmark v. Netherlands game was damned funny and didn’t cost FIFA one nickel. That being the case, having the girls arrested was more than a little overkill.
Bad Calls
Bad calls by referees and umpires are part of any game; live with it already. However, that doesn’t mean refs should be hung out to dry when there is technology that can help them get it right or at least keep them from looking ridiculous.
Certainly a buzzer like they have in hockey for when the ball breaks the plane of the goal makes sense. So does an instant replay look see on disputed offside, or lack of offside, calls when goals are at stake. FIFA should drag itself into at least the 1990s.
The U.S. Team
They have a ways to go. They just seemed rough around the edges when compared to the other teams. It’s hard to believe they’re ranked 14th in the world.
The Hand of God
Luis Suarez, by denying Ghana the winning goal with his hands, did what any other player would have done. Was it cheating? Absolutely, but it was a spur of the moment reaction and not premeditated. The action was covered by the rules and the appropriate penalties applied. FIFA need not look at changing the rules as a result of Suarez’s action. If Ghana had made the penalty kick, the whole incident would already have been forgotten. If Uruguay had won the World Cup, we’d be hearing about nothing but. I say let it sit.
The Final
Man it was ugly. Phantom fouls, flopping and a whole bunch of short midfield passing. It could be sold as a cure for insomnia. I am especially appalled at the constant spectacle of professional athletes falling to the group and writhing in pain over contact that wouldn’t inconvenience a butterfly. Give me a break. These guys should try a little rugby.
Andres Iniestra
The one silver lining in the final was the play of Andres Iniestra. Not only did he score the winning goal, and the only goal, in an athletic move of pure artistry, but he played with a tenacity and persistence throughout the entire game. As part of his goal scoring celebration Iniestra tore off his shirt to reveal a memorial to a fallen comrade on his t-shirt. It read “Dani Jarque siempre con nosotros,” which translates to “Dani Jargue always with us.” That was a yellow card admirably achieved.
Soccer in the U.S.
The World Cup as a tournament is an interesting spectacle. The drama of each win and loss, the characters involved and the weird stuff that comes along with international events of this sort combine to make following the cup at the operational level fascinating.
Unfortunately, the individual games are DULL.
The lack of scoring (Spain, the winner, only scored 8 goals in the entire tournament), the amount of time spent passing the ball around in midfield, the fact that the overwhelming majority of opportunities amount to nothing and the little girl antics of rolling around on the ground while clutching your knee, only to pop up again and keep playing, sort of put off American fans.
Like I’ve said before, it doesn’t have the tradition of baseball, the explosiveness of football or the acrobatic high scoring of basketball so I don’t see it ever making much of a dent here as an adult spectator sport.
So, it was fun while it lasted. Here’s hoping I’ll still be around for the next cup and has anyone heard anything about when Larissa is planning to make her run?
The Jabulani Ball
The complaints came loud and often from the players about this ball. According to NASA, the ball will exhibit a knuckle ball effect at speeds above 40 miles per hour. I also suspect that the triangular designs on the ball provide an optical illusion making the ball look like it’s moving even more erratically than it actually is. You’ll excuse me, but can you imagine the NFL introducing a new ball design for the playoffs? That would get some people lynched.
Vuvuzelas
Not only should they be banned, they should all be gathered up and burned. The incessant buzz could drive you crazy. Yes, after a while they became just white noise in the background but I still think they should be outlawed. Brazil, take note. The New York Yankees did the right thing when they banned them. Hopefully no one shows up with them at NFL games because it could get bloody.
Ambush Marketing
I think FIFA needs less starch in its shirts. I thought the Dutch girls that converted themselves into a Bavaria beer commercial during the Denmark v. Netherlands game was damned funny and didn’t cost FIFA one nickel. That being the case, having the girls arrested was more than a little overkill.
Bad Calls
Bad calls by referees and umpires are part of any game; live with it already. However, that doesn’t mean refs should be hung out to dry when there is technology that can help them get it right or at least keep them from looking ridiculous.
Certainly a buzzer like they have in hockey for when the ball breaks the plane of the goal makes sense. So does an instant replay look see on disputed offside, or lack of offside, calls when goals are at stake. FIFA should drag itself into at least the 1990s.
The U.S. Team
They have a ways to go. They just seemed rough around the edges when compared to the other teams. It’s hard to believe they’re ranked 14th in the world.
The Hand of God
Luis Suarez, by denying Ghana the winning goal with his hands, did what any other player would have done. Was it cheating? Absolutely, but it was a spur of the moment reaction and not premeditated. The action was covered by the rules and the appropriate penalties applied. FIFA need not look at changing the rules as a result of Suarez’s action. If Ghana had made the penalty kick, the whole incident would already have been forgotten. If Uruguay had won the World Cup, we’d be hearing about nothing but. I say let it sit.
The Final
Man it was ugly. Phantom fouls, flopping and a whole bunch of short midfield passing. It could be sold as a cure for insomnia. I am especially appalled at the constant spectacle of professional athletes falling to the group and writhing in pain over contact that wouldn’t inconvenience a butterfly. Give me a break. These guys should try a little rugby.
Andres Iniestra
The one silver lining in the final was the play of Andres Iniestra. Not only did he score the winning goal, and the only goal, in an athletic move of pure artistry, but he played with a tenacity and persistence throughout the entire game. As part of his goal scoring celebration Iniestra tore off his shirt to reveal a memorial to a fallen comrade on his t-shirt. It read “Dani Jarque siempre con nosotros,” which translates to “Dani Jargue always with us.” That was a yellow card admirably achieved.
Soccer in the U.S.
The World Cup as a tournament is an interesting spectacle. The drama of each win and loss, the characters involved and the weird stuff that comes along with international events of this sort combine to make following the cup at the operational level fascinating.
Unfortunately, the individual games are DULL.
The lack of scoring (Spain, the winner, only scored 8 goals in the entire tournament), the amount of time spent passing the ball around in midfield, the fact that the overwhelming majority of opportunities amount to nothing and the little girl antics of rolling around on the ground while clutching your knee, only to pop up again and keep playing, sort of put off American fans.
Like I’ve said before, it doesn’t have the tradition of baseball, the explosiveness of football or the acrobatic high scoring of basketball so I don’t see it ever making much of a dent here as an adult spectator sport.
So, it was fun while it lasted. Here’s hoping I’ll still be around for the next cup and has anyone heard anything about when Larissa is planning to make her run?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Viva Espana!
I said when Spain lost its first game to Switzerland that the loss might actually help Spain by forcing them to refocus. Well it certainly didn't hurt them.
The cardiac kids pulled out another 1-0 victory in the 115th minute of the final. Andres Iniesta had the winner with a line drive into the net which, I have to admit, was a thing of beauty. The goal came with the Netherlands down to 10 men after Johnny Heitinga was sent off with his second yellow card.
Congratulations to Spain on their first World Cup championship. They'll be dancing in the streets of Madrid tonight. As for the Netherlands, that's three trips to the final without a win.
Spain wins the World Cup while scoring a total of only 8 goals in the entire tournament. That's by far the lowest goal total for the championship team in the history of the cup.
You could have put lipstick, makeup and expensive French perfume on this game and it still would have been a pig. Referee Howard Webb gave 14 yellow cards! The previous high for a World Cup final was 5. In addition to Heitinga's 2 cards, the Netherlands earned 7 more for a total of 9. Spain joined in with 5 cards of their own.
I called the Spanish team the cardiac kids due to their four consecutive 1-0 wins with late goals. However, given their center field passing ad nauseam sort of game, I could have called them the snooze patrol.
Yes, they won, and in the final analysis that's what counts, but the sound of snoring all over Northern New Jersey and Southern New York almost drowned out the vuvuzelas. If soccer gained any ground in popularity in the U.S. due to this tournament, the final undid all or most of it. I napped through much of the second half and the first 15 minutes of extra time. I happened to be eating pistachios when Spain scored otherwise I might have missed it.
In the 3rd place game Uruguay, after taking a 2-1 lead, ended up losing to Germany 3-2. Diego Forlan scored another goal and sent me off looking for a "Forlan" Uruguay jersey. Unfortunately for me, they were all sold out.
So Paul the octopus wins the head to head competition with Mani the parakeet and maintains his perfect prediction record for the 2010 World Cup. I also went 2-0 on the weekend making me 13-3 for the knockout rounds and 24-8 overall.
So the World Cup is over. It certainly was a wild one. The 2014 tournament will be in Brazil. Would you like an early prediction on who's going to win that one?
The cardiac kids pulled out another 1-0 victory in the 115th minute of the final. Andres Iniesta had the winner with a line drive into the net which, I have to admit, was a thing of beauty. The goal came with the Netherlands down to 10 men after Johnny Heitinga was sent off with his second yellow card.
Congratulations to Spain on their first World Cup championship. They'll be dancing in the streets of Madrid tonight. As for the Netherlands, that's three trips to the final without a win.
Spain wins the World Cup while scoring a total of only 8 goals in the entire tournament. That's by far the lowest goal total for the championship team in the history of the cup.
You could have put lipstick, makeup and expensive French perfume on this game and it still would have been a pig. Referee Howard Webb gave 14 yellow cards! The previous high for a World Cup final was 5. In addition to Heitinga's 2 cards, the Netherlands earned 7 more for a total of 9. Spain joined in with 5 cards of their own.
I called the Spanish team the cardiac kids due to their four consecutive 1-0 wins with late goals. However, given their center field passing ad nauseam sort of game, I could have called them the snooze patrol.
Yes, they won, and in the final analysis that's what counts, but the sound of snoring all over Northern New Jersey and Southern New York almost drowned out the vuvuzelas. If soccer gained any ground in popularity in the U.S. due to this tournament, the final undid all or most of it. I napped through much of the second half and the first 15 minutes of extra time. I happened to be eating pistachios when Spain scored otherwise I might have missed it.
In the 3rd place game Uruguay, after taking a 2-1 lead, ended up losing to Germany 3-2. Diego Forlan scored another goal and sent me off looking for a "Forlan" Uruguay jersey. Unfortunately for me, they were all sold out.
So Paul the octopus wins the head to head competition with Mani the parakeet and maintains his perfect prediction record for the 2010 World Cup. I also went 2-0 on the weekend making me 13-3 for the knockout rounds and 24-8 overall.
So the World Cup is over. It certainly was a wild one. The 2014 tournament will be in Brazil. Would you like an early prediction on who's going to win that one?
Friday, July 09, 2010
If you could be an inanimate object…
I’d be Larissa Riquelme’s cell phone.
I don’t know why any red blooded male would be rooting for Spain. Larissa had promised a nude run through the streets of Paraguay and those bozos, by beating Paraguay, screwed it up.
I mean, national pride is one thing, but guys, Jesus, look at this lady!
Now comes word from Paraguay that Larissa says she will run naked through the streets of Asuncion anyway as “a present to all of the players, and for all the people in Paraguay to enjoy."
I suspect a few of us outside Paraguay might enjoy it as well. Hell, if she times it during the World Cup final it could be a close call in the ratings.
The exact date hasn’t been announced but I need to go check on flights to South America anyway. I mean, no sense waiting for the last minute right?
I don’t know why any red blooded male would be rooting for Spain. Larissa had promised a nude run through the streets of Paraguay and those bozos, by beating Paraguay, screwed it up.
I mean, national pride is one thing, but guys, Jesus, look at this lady!
Now comes word from Paraguay that Larissa says she will run naked through the streets of Asuncion anyway as “a present to all of the players, and for all the people in Paraguay to enjoy."
I suspect a few of us outside Paraguay might enjoy it as well. Hell, if she times it during the World Cup final it could be a close call in the ratings.
The exact date hasn’t been announced but I need to go check on flights to South America anyway. I mean, no sense waiting for the last minute right?
Paul says I’m right, Mani says I’m wrong
Who are Paul and Mani you ask? They’re friends of my pet goat Frankie. While Frankie specializes in making me look silly over my NFL football picks, Paul, an octopus in Oberhausen Germany, and Mani, a parakeet in Singapore, specialize in World Cup predictions.
Paul, so they say, has correctly predicted the outcome of all of Germany’s games this year including the loss to Spain. That prediction spurred a number of Germans to speculate on how Paul would taste for dinner and some even sent in recipes. According to the AP, that prompted Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to become concerned about the safety of “El Pulpo Paul,” as he’s known in Spain, and offered Paul protection.
However Paul appears to be quite safe as his loving admirers far outnumber the would be octopus gourmets.
Paul agrees with my picks and has chosen Germany to win over Uruguay and Spain to triumph over the Netherlands in the final.
Mani, the Singapore based parakeet, begs to differ however. Mani has chosen the Netherlands to win on Sunday. I’m not aware of any prediction for the Germany v. Uruguay game.
So it’s an Octopus v. Parakeet showdown. Oh, the excitement is almost unbearable *snore*.
Paul, so they say, has correctly predicted the outcome of all of Germany’s games this year including the loss to Spain. That prediction spurred a number of Germans to speculate on how Paul would taste for dinner and some even sent in recipes. According to the AP, that prompted Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to become concerned about the safety of “El Pulpo Paul,” as he’s known in Spain, and offered Paul protection.
However Paul appears to be quite safe as his loving admirers far outnumber the would be octopus gourmets.
Paul agrees with my picks and has chosen Germany to win over Uruguay and Spain to triumph over the Netherlands in the final.
Mani, the Singapore based parakeet, begs to differ however. Mani has chosen the Netherlands to win on Sunday. I’m not aware of any prediction for the Germany v. Uruguay game.
So it’s an Octopus v. Parakeet showdown. Oh, the excitement is almost unbearable *snore*.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
DOMA Unconstitutional
A U.S. District judge in Boston has ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in two separate cases.
In the first case, brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that DOMA interfered with a state's right to define marriage and forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
In a second case, filed by Gay Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I can hear the howls of indignation about "activist judges" from the right already.
The fact of the matter is that the judge is correct on both counts. I've searched every page of the Constitution and no place can I find anything that would lead me to believe that equal protection under the law applies to everyone but gays.
I also find it wryly amusing that the same people that are constantly screaming about the federal government over stepping its bound have no problem with a federal law that defines who a state can declare is married.
I doubt this decision will survive the current right leaning Supreme Court but that will be a problem with the Supreme Court and not with the current ruling.
In the first case, brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that DOMA interfered with a state's right to define marriage and forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
In a second case, filed by Gay Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I can hear the howls of indignation about "activist judges" from the right already.
The fact of the matter is that the judge is correct on both counts. I've searched every page of the Constitution and no place can I find anything that would lead me to believe that equal protection under the law applies to everyone but gays.
I also find it wryly amusing that the same people that are constantly screaming about the federal government over stepping its bound have no problem with a federal law that defines who a state can declare is married.
I doubt this decision will survive the current right leaning Supreme Court but that will be a problem with the Supreme Court and not with the current ruling.
Really Dumb Ideas
I have two really dumb ones to talk about today.
The first is one of little or no consequence but simply annoying. Blizzard has decided to transition to using real subscriber names on its forums including the World of Warcraft forums.
This has got to be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of in a long time. I understand the problem of Trolls, Flamers etc., but this is simply going to drive people off the forums. Yes anonymity allows some people to act like assholes but it also allows others to freely express opinions they might not be willing to have their names attached to for any number of legitimate reasons.
Another major problem with this idea is it violates the compartmentalization that I have taken great care to organize my life around. My work persona is not my home persona, is not my blogger persona and is not my gamer persona. I would prefer it if people couldn’t trace me from on-line to real life and from real life to on-line. My name is fairly unique and it would be very easy for someone to locate me once they have it.
The second really dumb idea comes from the not so great state of Louisiana. Governor Bobby Jindel has signed into law a bill allowing concealed weapons to be carried in church.
WTF is wrong with these people that think it’s necessary to have a gun with them everywhere they go? The bigger the gun, the smaller the dick I’m betting. This country is rapidly becoming screwed up beyond all recognition.
Here’s hoping someone blows Jindel’s family jewels off, in church, with a once concealed weapon.
The first is one of little or no consequence but simply annoying. Blizzard has decided to transition to using real subscriber names on its forums including the World of Warcraft forums.
This has got to be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of in a long time. I understand the problem of Trolls, Flamers etc., but this is simply going to drive people off the forums. Yes anonymity allows some people to act like assholes but it also allows others to freely express opinions they might not be willing to have their names attached to for any number of legitimate reasons.
Another major problem with this idea is it violates the compartmentalization that I have taken great care to organize my life around. My work persona is not my home persona, is not my blogger persona and is not my gamer persona. I would prefer it if people couldn’t trace me from on-line to real life and from real life to on-line. My name is fairly unique and it would be very easy for someone to locate me once they have it.
The second really dumb idea comes from the not so great state of Louisiana. Governor Bobby Jindel has signed into law a bill allowing concealed weapons to be carried in church.
WTF is wrong with these people that think it’s necessary to have a gun with them everywhere they go? The bigger the gun, the smaller the dick I’m betting. This country is rapidly becoming screwed up beyond all recognition.
Here’s hoping someone blows Jindel’s family jewels off, in church, with a once concealed weapon.
It’ll be Spain v. Holland in the Final
Spain managed to clog the middle and slow things down against Germany yesterday and pull out a 1-0 victory with a goal in the 72nd minute by Carles Puyol.
It was a clear case of age and treachery overcoming youth and skill. In other words, Spain used their experience to control the play and take the prize. Of course Germany having to sit Thomas Muller didn’t help any.
Spain’s victory means we’ll have a new World Cup Champion. Neither Spain nor Holland has ever won a World Cup.
So, that leaves me 11-3 in the Knockout Rounds, 22-8 overall and it’s on to the finals.
In the 3rd Place game I have to go with Germany over Uruguay.
In the Championship Game it’s obvious to me that I have no idea who’s going to win. Either team would make a worthy champion. I’d love to see the Dutch win it, but, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I’m going with Spain.
So, my final World Cup summary:
Germany over Uruguay
Spain over the Netherlands
It was a clear case of age and treachery overcoming youth and skill. In other words, Spain used their experience to control the play and take the prize. Of course Germany having to sit Thomas Muller didn’t help any.
Spain’s victory means we’ll have a new World Cup Champion. Neither Spain nor Holland has ever won a World Cup.
So, that leaves me 11-3 in the Knockout Rounds, 22-8 overall and it’s on to the finals.
In the 3rd Place game I have to go with Germany over Uruguay.
In the Championship Game it’s obvious to me that I have no idea who’s going to win. Either team would make a worthy champion. I’d love to see the Dutch win it, but, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I’m going with Spain.
So, my final World Cup summary:
Germany over Uruguay
Spain over the Netherlands
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
