Think carefully of your city. Wherever it is. (Mine is Seattle.) Think of it without policemen. Truly think. Walk out the door heading to, say, the grocery store. Pass a big guy and he decides to take your purse. Maybe he pushes you, hits you, whatever, and simply takes your purse. (My former mother-in-law was mugged and had her purse stolen a couple months ago. Age? 92. The police found the guy and took him off the streets.) Then think if there were no police. Who would you call? What would you do? You could call a meeting of your friends, or, say, the others in your apartment building. Get together and form a committee. And talk. And talk. And talk. Then put up a note for the perpetrator not to do it again. Done. Feel better? But what will stop him from walking the streets in search of his next victim?
Now let us consider the world. It had a policeman with the United States of America. Fresh from winning World War II for the world, crushing fascism, Nazism and the Axis; we were the power. Then came Korea. I guess it was a truce, but it put North Korea and China in check. Next was the domino theory in Vietnam. Many Americans didn't think it was appropriate to attempt to put those Communists in check. Our citizens demonstrated, rioted, sat in, be-ed in (or be-ined), and so on and forced the United States out of that conflict. And ever since that internal conflict, our uncivil-war, the United States has withdrawn from the role of policeman. Except Ronald Reagan as world policeman stared down the Soviet Union, shattering it in 1991. Then came 9/11. And once again the United States became the policeman to try and force Saddam Hussein out of power for fear he was near to producing weapons of mass destruction. (He had used poison gas on his countrymen in the past.) Our country was pretty unified. But the invasion was poorly managed. And the Left struck. Some now argue that President Bush and his advisors lied about the whole matter. Others think that Iraq was the wrong target. But there was deja vu Vietnam all over again. Barack Obama became president of the United States in part based on the war in Iraq. OurHe is continuing the emasculation of our country by the Left. Why? Women don't like masculinity? Minorities are afraid of power abused? What is wrong with strength? The United States mostly has used it for good. Obama has power and is using it to completely restructure the society of the United States. Why is that power good, and similar power used as the international policeman bad?
Senator Obama also ran, and since becoming president, has speechified that the cause of the "greatest recession since the Depression" was caused by free markets. Free markets in finance and mortgages with a lack of regulation. No effective policeman. We need a policeman, he says.
Well Mr. President, there is now a free-market in nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them. But no policeman. Yes, there's the United Nations, a gaggle of committees that can't commit. Bureaucrats bloviating. Sending notes to potential perps. North Korea, Iran, Taliban-Pakistan, Syria, Libya, wherever. They could be perps who don't read notes. The United States has withdrawn into its turtle shell, peeking out and asking friends to get together and form a committee to...write a note, send a "message"? There is no regulation. No policeman. But the consequence you can't grasp or acknowledge is that at some point a nuclear weapon might be dropped on, say, Israel, to pick a name out of a hat. Then what, Mr. President? What then? Why is the Left afraid of power?
There is no policeman, and the United States now doesn't have the will to be it. To the danger of the world. You think global warming is a century in the future, Mr. President? A nuclear weapon will hasten that up. Please think carefully of your city, your country, your world.
Superamerican.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Global Warming and Other Fortune Telling
Our government forecasters can't forecast weather a year ahead to spot hurricanes.
"Cap and Trade" was rammed barely through the U. S. House of Representatives: Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'Cap and Trade Energy Bill'), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why. Then on the day of the vote, Pelosi's House added another 255 pages to the bill at 3:00 AM (EST) and limited debate to three hours before passing this massive "national energy tax". Did each Member of the House read and carefully analyze the bill? Not a chance. Even so, myraid Democrats chose not to go along and only 8 Republicans boarded the Democratic ship of fools. Be clear: this has nothing to do with "global warming" and all about power...raw power of Democrats over others: us.
A recent (May 2009) Associated Press article stated that because of unusual circumstances, the government projections of when minorities will become the majority were wrong. By as much as a decade to more than three decades from now, so says David Waddington, the Census Bureau chief of projections. Whatever figures it projected are now subject to revision. So much for fortune telling. Global warming projections are just that. Projections by computers from keyboard inputs fingered in by humans. And I'd guess mostly humans who could be registered Democrats! And out a century. Get real, global warming is a method by which liberals gain and retain power over others. To many it has become an ineluctable belief in the end of civilization. Thomas Malthus thought the same thing. He was dead wrong! So are they. But who'll know, it's out a century and power is now! And see my post about a world policeman or lack thereof, which says that since there's no world policeman to keep nuclear weaponry and delivery systems under control a nuc dropped on, say, Israel would hasten global warming rapidly. Why has America neutered itself?
Well, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is now fiction. Or at least only on-line. I thought the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wasn't supposed to print fiction. The article "Less water, more heat forecast for state" is nothing but fiction. I mean, do you really think anyone can forecast 90 years ahead about anything? Anything? The national weather forecast can't even forecast hurricanes a year ahead. Give me a break, the only way you'd print this piece of garbage is to influence the spending of our tax dollars (my money) on programs to counteract these computer programs developed by liberals with agendas. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the worst economic times in twenty years and we should be looking ways to save money not throw it away on hallucinations.
Superamerican
The article about which I write (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Front Page):
Less water, more heat forecast for state
Report details climate change in Washington
By ROBERT McCLUREP-I REPORTER
Fewer cherries and apples -- but possibly more wheat.
More summer days when streams grow dangerously warm for salmon -- and worse winter floods flushing away or burying their eggs.
More people dying in King County from heat stress. Less drinking water in the summer. A quadrupling of the acreage burned statewide in summer wildfires.
But more electricity to heat our homes in the winter.
Those are a few of the effects projected for Washington by the first comprehensive look at how climate change is likely to affect the state by the end of the century.
Released early Wednesday, the study was ordered by the Legislature and carried out by 64 scientists, many affiliated with the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington.
"This is the most detailed description of the effects of future climate change that we've ever had for any of the Northwest states," said Philip Mote, a report author and the outgoing Washington state climatologist.
On Thursday, the scientists plan to huddle with state officials to brief them on actions that can be taken to prepare for climate change and -- they hope -- blunt its worst effects. Many of the impacts outlined in the new report assume continued use of fuels whose emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. Those effects could at least theoretically be lessened through technological innovations or reduced fuel use.
The new study delves into some areas not researched thoroughly for Washington in the past: How a changing climate will affect agriculture, human health and the systems that carry away rainwater to prevent flooding.
"There's more work to do, but this is a first step," said Jeremy Littell, a forest ecologist who helped organize the report.
The picture is not uniformly grim. For instance, because winter storms are likely to bring more rain and less snow, we should see higher stream flows in the winter. That means we can make more hydropower -- a plus, since winter heating sometimes requires importing electricity.
But the flip side of that coin is that there will be less snow left around in the summer -- when we count on it to melt slowly, recharging reservoirs and dropping stream temperatures enough to keep salmon healthy. Plus, more people will be cranking up the air conditioning in the summer -- the very time Northwesterners now profit by selling the juice to sweltering Californians.
That kind of if-then-but scenario is played out in a number of sections of the report. For example, increased carbon dioxide, or CO2, and the increased productivity that comes with warmth should help forests grow more vigorously. On the other hand, the drier, hotter climate is likely to mean more fires -- not to mention increasing the range of the forest-shredding mountain pine beetle.
And it looks like overall, forests will grow better in the early decades of the century, as CO2 increases, but then show worse growth as the climate dries and warms, particularly in Eastern Washington. There are likely to be wide variations among sections of the state, though.
"It's one of those issues that, it very much depends on where you look," Littell said. "When you take it statewide, that's what we're looking at."
The report, titled "The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment," pulls back from previous projections on whether we're likely to see more of the intense winter storms that caused flooding the past three years.
That's because when scientists examined whether intense downpours had increased over the last few decades, they saw little difference. However, the analysis did not include the storms that sparked state-of-emergency declarations the last three years. Also, two computer-based projections showed increases in intense storms are likely -- but disagreed on how much, and where, they are likely to occur.
So while on balance scientists still expect more of these cats-and-dogs downpours, they're not nearly as confident about that as, say, their projection that wildfires will increase from burning an average of 425,000 acres annually to 800,000 in the 2020s and 2 million in the 2080s.
Or look at agriculture. Dryland wheat farming is likely to benefit, because a major climate-warming gas is carbon dioxide, which helps plants grow more vigorously. That same CO2 benefit holds true for cherries and apples, but because the warming stands to exacerbate water shortages in the Yakima Valley, where many are grown, overall the state is likely to see lower yields.
For salmon, the picture is bleak -- but it depends on the species and its location.
"The stream conditions in the summertime are just looking to be deteriorating," said Nathan Mantua, a fish researcher who helped produce the report. "It's hard to see it any other way."
For sockeye and chinook that return to spawn in the summer, that could mean big trouble. Currently they seek deep water or other spots that stay cold longest. But some of those are likely to disappear as temperatures increase. And even fish that make it to cold water refuges may not be able to leave in time to swim to their spawning grounds before exhausting themselves and dying, Mantua said.
We already saw an example of the kind of thing that's likely in the extremely hot summer of 2004, Mantua said. Workers counted some 300,000 sockeye salmon swimming past the Ballard Locks on their way to Lake Washington. Biologists estimated only 100,000 made it to the spawning grounds. Maybe 20,000 or so got caught by anglers, Mantua said. The remainder presumably died, probably because of extremely warm temperatures in the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
Coho and steelhead are also likely to be affected, but at the other end of their lives, when they spend summers in fresh water before heading to sea.
On the other hand, pink salmon, chum salmon and fall-returning chinook aren't likely to be affected very much, because they're out at sea in the summer.
Human health is also likely to be affected. And while the picture in Washington may not be as dire as some other regions, "Climate change in Washington state will likely lead to larger numbers of heat-related deaths," the report says. "The greater Seattle area in particular can expect substantial mortality during future heat events due to the combination of hotter summer and population growth."
At the meeting Thursday to discuss courses of action, officials hope to begin sketching out steps to prevent as much damage as possible.
"Adapting to climate change must be seen as a continuous series of decisions and activities undertaken by individuals, groups, and governments rather than a one-time activity," the report says.
P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com. Read his blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.
"Cap and Trade" was rammed barely through the U. S. House of Representatives: Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'Cap and Trade Energy Bill'), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why. Then on the day of the vote, Pelosi's House added another 255 pages to the bill at 3:00 AM (EST) and limited debate to three hours before passing this massive "national energy tax". Did each Member of the House read and carefully analyze the bill? Not a chance. Even so, myraid Democrats chose not to go along and only 8 Republicans boarded the Democratic ship of fools. Be clear: this has nothing to do with "global warming" and all about power...raw power of Democrats over others: us.
A recent (May 2009) Associated Press article stated that because of unusual circumstances, the government projections of when minorities will become the majority were wrong. By as much as a decade to more than three decades from now, so says David Waddington, the Census Bureau chief of projections. Whatever figures it projected are now subject to revision. So much for fortune telling. Global warming projections are just that. Projections by computers from keyboard inputs fingered in by humans. And I'd guess mostly humans who could be registered Democrats! And out a century. Get real, global warming is a method by which liberals gain and retain power over others. To many it has become an ineluctable belief in the end of civilization. Thomas Malthus thought the same thing. He was dead wrong! So are they. But who'll know, it's out a century and power is now! And see my post about a world policeman or lack thereof, which says that since there's no world policeman to keep nuclear weaponry and delivery systems under control a nuc dropped on, say, Israel would hasten global warming rapidly. Why has America neutered itself?
Well, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is now fiction. Or at least only on-line. I thought the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wasn't supposed to print fiction. The article "Less water, more heat forecast for state" is nothing but fiction. I mean, do you really think anyone can forecast 90 years ahead about anything? Anything? The national weather forecast can't even forecast hurricanes a year ahead. Give me a break, the only way you'd print this piece of garbage is to influence the spending of our tax dollars (my money) on programs to counteract these computer programs developed by liberals with agendas. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the worst economic times in twenty years and we should be looking ways to save money not throw it away on hallucinations.
Superamerican
The article about which I write (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Front Page):
Less water, more heat forecast for state
Report details climate change in Washington
By ROBERT McCLUREP-I REPORTER
Fewer cherries and apples -- but possibly more wheat.
More summer days when streams grow dangerously warm for salmon -- and worse winter floods flushing away or burying their eggs.
More people dying in King County from heat stress. Less drinking water in the summer. A quadrupling of the acreage burned statewide in summer wildfires.
But more electricity to heat our homes in the winter.
Those are a few of the effects projected for Washington by the first comprehensive look at how climate change is likely to affect the state by the end of the century.
Released early Wednesday, the study was ordered by the Legislature and carried out by 64 scientists, many affiliated with the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington.
"This is the most detailed description of the effects of future climate change that we've ever had for any of the Northwest states," said Philip Mote, a report author and the outgoing Washington state climatologist.
On Thursday, the scientists plan to huddle with state officials to brief them on actions that can be taken to prepare for climate change and -- they hope -- blunt its worst effects. Many of the impacts outlined in the new report assume continued use of fuels whose emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. Those effects could at least theoretically be lessened through technological innovations or reduced fuel use.
The new study delves into some areas not researched thoroughly for Washington in the past: How a changing climate will affect agriculture, human health and the systems that carry away rainwater to prevent flooding.
"There's more work to do, but this is a first step," said Jeremy Littell, a forest ecologist who helped organize the report.
The picture is not uniformly grim. For instance, because winter storms are likely to bring more rain and less snow, we should see higher stream flows in the winter. That means we can make more hydropower -- a plus, since winter heating sometimes requires importing electricity.
But the flip side of that coin is that there will be less snow left around in the summer -- when we count on it to melt slowly, recharging reservoirs and dropping stream temperatures enough to keep salmon healthy. Plus, more people will be cranking up the air conditioning in the summer -- the very time Northwesterners now profit by selling the juice to sweltering Californians.
That kind of if-then-but scenario is played out in a number of sections of the report. For example, increased carbon dioxide, or CO2, and the increased productivity that comes with warmth should help forests grow more vigorously. On the other hand, the drier, hotter climate is likely to mean more fires -- not to mention increasing the range of the forest-shredding mountain pine beetle.
And it looks like overall, forests will grow better in the early decades of the century, as CO2 increases, but then show worse growth as the climate dries and warms, particularly in Eastern Washington. There are likely to be wide variations among sections of the state, though.
"It's one of those issues that, it very much depends on where you look," Littell said. "When you take it statewide, that's what we're looking at."
The report, titled "The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment," pulls back from previous projections on whether we're likely to see more of the intense winter storms that caused flooding the past three years.
That's because when scientists examined whether intense downpours had increased over the last few decades, they saw little difference. However, the analysis did not include the storms that sparked state-of-emergency declarations the last three years. Also, two computer-based projections showed increases in intense storms are likely -- but disagreed on how much, and where, they are likely to occur.
So while on balance scientists still expect more of these cats-and-dogs downpours, they're not nearly as confident about that as, say, their projection that wildfires will increase from burning an average of 425,000 acres annually to 800,000 in the 2020s and 2 million in the 2080s.
Or look at agriculture. Dryland wheat farming is likely to benefit, because a major climate-warming gas is carbon dioxide, which helps plants grow more vigorously. That same CO2 benefit holds true for cherries and apples, but because the warming stands to exacerbate water shortages in the Yakima Valley, where many are grown, overall the state is likely to see lower yields.
For salmon, the picture is bleak -- but it depends on the species and its location.
"The stream conditions in the summertime are just looking to be deteriorating," said Nathan Mantua, a fish researcher who helped produce the report. "It's hard to see it any other way."
For sockeye and chinook that return to spawn in the summer, that could mean big trouble. Currently they seek deep water or other spots that stay cold longest. But some of those are likely to disappear as temperatures increase. And even fish that make it to cold water refuges may not be able to leave in time to swim to their spawning grounds before exhausting themselves and dying, Mantua said.
We already saw an example of the kind of thing that's likely in the extremely hot summer of 2004, Mantua said. Workers counted some 300,000 sockeye salmon swimming past the Ballard Locks on their way to Lake Washington. Biologists estimated only 100,000 made it to the spawning grounds. Maybe 20,000 or so got caught by anglers, Mantua said. The remainder presumably died, probably because of extremely warm temperatures in the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
Coho and steelhead are also likely to be affected, but at the other end of their lives, when they spend summers in fresh water before heading to sea.
On the other hand, pink salmon, chum salmon and fall-returning chinook aren't likely to be affected very much, because they're out at sea in the summer.
Human health is also likely to be affected. And while the picture in Washington may not be as dire as some other regions, "Climate change in Washington state will likely lead to larger numbers of heat-related deaths," the report says. "The greater Seattle area in particular can expect substantial mortality during future heat events due to the combination of hotter summer and population growth."
At the meeting Thursday to discuss courses of action, officials hope to begin sketching out steps to prevent as much damage as possible.
"Adapting to climate change must be seen as a continuous series of decisions and activities undertaken by individuals, groups, and governments rather than a one-time activity," the report says.
P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com. Read his blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thank You Dick Cheney / The Party of "NO!"
Dick Cheney delivered a speech last night (Thursday, May 21, 2009). He was forthright, unafraid, proud of what he did for his country and of his country and fiercely outspoken. Thank you, Mr. Cheney. Republicans seem to be afraid to speak out. They are defensive when attacked by the Left, rather than accepting it and attacking back. For example, when the left-leaning media and liberals labelled Republicans "The Party of No", Republicans blathered on about how they really weren't, blah, blah, blah, and hurriedly put out initiatives to prove they weren't. Defense is exactly where the Left wants Republicans. And they fall in lockstep like little Stepford Liberals. The "Party of No!" Yes we are, proudly.
Party of NO!
I am a proud member of the “Party of NO!” I have been joined by the citizens of the formerly-great State of California. Just say “NO!” Speak up loudly and proudly, Republicans.
No to Big Government
No to High Taxes
No to Huge Deficits
No to Crippling Regulations
No to Robbery of Freedoms
No to Empathetic Supreme Court Justices
No to the Democratic Party
(And from Californians, a resounding:
"No" to tax increase
"No" to supplemental educational payments
"No" to borrowing from the state lottery
"No" to taking money from adult mental-health programs
"No" to shifting tobacco tax money from kids
“Yes” to banning raises for state officials, which is a “no” to the raises
And at May 22, 2009 California Leads State Job Losses: 44 states lost jobs in April, led by California where employers slashed 63,700 positions)
Liberals label the Republican Party the "Party of “No!” Let’s proudly accept it.
A proud Member of the Party of “NO!”
Superamerican.
Seattle.
Party of NO!
I am a proud member of the “Party of NO!” I have been joined by the citizens of the formerly-great State of California. Just say “NO!” Speak up loudly and proudly, Republicans.
No to Big Government
No to High Taxes
No to Huge Deficits
No to Crippling Regulations
No to Robbery of Freedoms
No to Empathetic Supreme Court Justices
No to the Democratic Party
(And from Californians, a resounding:
"No" to tax increase
"No" to supplemental educational payments
"No" to borrowing from the state lottery
"No" to taking money from adult mental-health programs
"No" to shifting tobacco tax money from kids
“Yes” to banning raises for state officials, which is a “no” to the raises
And at May 22, 2009 California Leads State Job Losses: 44 states lost jobs in April, led by California where employers slashed 63,700 positions)
Liberals label the Republican Party the "Party of “No!” Let’s proudly accept it.
A proud Member of the Party of “NO!”
Superamerican.
Seattle.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Taking from the MANY to Enrich the FEW
This is a new, never-ending blog post. "Taking from the MANY to Enrich the FEW".
This will highlight steps, orders, laws and so on which takes money -- and rights -- from the many of politically-weak citizens and gives it to the few of Obama-favored, or perhaps to be more fair, Democrat-favored people, or special-interest groups, who can support, finance or otherwise re-elect Democrats, especially President Barack Obama.
Yesterday, the president ordered rigorous new federally-mandated gas mileage dictates for automobiles sold in the United States. 35.5 miles for each gallon of gasoline used by 2016. In part this was to preempt a smorgesbord of individual states rights. Many states, notably California, have established their own stringent standards by statute or threatened litigation. Obama-government-owned car industry entities agreed to the certainty of a single national diktat, as did others. That the technology isn't extant, nor consumer acceptance assured didn't matter; car companies can certainly simply make the cars lighter, thus killing more drivers. Of course, cars'll cost American consumers upwards of $1,300 more per car.
On the other hand, taking from consumers and giving to hugely-wealthy, jet-airplane-travelling trial- or tort- and class-action lawyer-supporters is Obama's order to allow exactly what the single auto-mileage standard stops: a gaggle of individual state laws to encourage said rich lawyers to sue companies. Oh, yes, to give our money to his supporters, Obama supports states' rights. Article, The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, May 21, 2009, page A 3:(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124285702885340713.html), "Shift Toward State Rules..." In a two-page order Obama reversed former-president Bush's 10-year encouragement of single federal standards on a variety of issues for simplicity's sake. Happily celebrating was the lobby for trial lawyers, the humorously-named American Association of Justice (for lawyers).
Maybe the grandest money redistribution scheme is the "American Clean Energy and Security Act". Which will take money from companies -- Democrat-leaning farmers are already exempt from emissions caps, but looking to grap some dough -- such as dirty oil refiners, coal miners, steel producers and distribute it where the most campaign contributions flow (in my belief). One such entity will doubtless be the General Electric Company, whose Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt sat next -- not sure if left side or right -- to god (President Obama) at a White House meeting May 20, 2009, of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. General Electric owns the former National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and MSNBC both inarguably propaganda arms of the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration. (In other news, President Obama is backing an agreement for the U. S. to share nuclear technology with the United Arab Emirates which, if it passes Congress, could mean billions of dollars for bidder the General Electric Company. Abu Dhabi has renounced its right to make weapons materials and agreed to U. N. inspections. Could this spark a Mideast nuclear arms race? Who cares as long as NBC gets supported.) Back to the "cap and trade" bill. This could dwarf FDR in its ambition to re-engineer United States social behavior and economy; President Obama stated he's "excited about the opportunity."
This will highlight steps, orders, laws and so on which takes money -- and rights -- from the many of politically-weak citizens and gives it to the few of Obama-favored, or perhaps to be more fair, Democrat-favored people, or special-interest groups, who can support, finance or otherwise re-elect Democrats, especially President Barack Obama.
Yesterday, the president ordered rigorous new federally-mandated gas mileage dictates for automobiles sold in the United States. 35.5 miles for each gallon of gasoline used by 2016. In part this was to preempt a smorgesbord of individual states rights. Many states, notably California, have established their own stringent standards by statute or threatened litigation. Obama-government-owned car industry entities agreed to the certainty of a single national diktat, as did others. That the technology isn't extant, nor consumer acceptance assured didn't matter; car companies can certainly simply make the cars lighter, thus killing more drivers. Of course, cars'll cost American consumers upwards of $1,300 more per car.
On the other hand, taking from consumers and giving to hugely-wealthy, jet-airplane-travelling trial- or tort- and class-action lawyer-supporters is Obama's order to allow exactly what the single auto-mileage standard stops: a gaggle of individual state laws to encourage said rich lawyers to sue companies. Oh, yes, to give our money to his supporters, Obama supports states' rights. Article, The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, May 21, 2009, page A 3:(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124285702885340713.html), "Shift Toward State Rules..." In a two-page order Obama reversed former-president Bush's 10-year encouragement of single federal standards on a variety of issues for simplicity's sake. Happily celebrating was the lobby for trial lawyers, the humorously-named American Association of Justice (for lawyers).
Maybe the grandest money redistribution scheme is the "American Clean Energy and Security Act". Which will take money from companies -- Democrat-leaning farmers are already exempt from emissions caps, but looking to grap some dough -- such as dirty oil refiners, coal miners, steel producers and distribute it where the most campaign contributions flow (in my belief). One such entity will doubtless be the General Electric Company, whose Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt sat next -- not sure if left side or right -- to god (President Obama) at a White House meeting May 20, 2009, of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. General Electric owns the former National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and MSNBC both inarguably propaganda arms of the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration. (In other news, President Obama is backing an agreement for the U. S. to share nuclear technology with the United Arab Emirates which, if it passes Congress, could mean billions of dollars for bidder the General Electric Company. Abu Dhabi has renounced its right to make weapons materials and agreed to U. N. inspections. Could this spark a Mideast nuclear arms race? Who cares as long as NBC gets supported.) Back to the "cap and trade" bill. This could dwarf FDR in its ambition to re-engineer United States social behavior and economy; President Obama stated he's "excited about the opportunity."
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Obama's further Hollywood ties
Endeavor Agency run by Ari Emanuel, the brother of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, and the William Morris Agency, Jim Wiatt, CEO, will merge to become an organization that will bring further Hollywood muscle to the Obama Administration.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Dictator Wannabe Obama?
Our president, as has been widely publicized, believes America is a nasty, dirty, unfair nation that, apparently has never done anyone any good. Look at what America has done to the world's great Democracies, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua at the same time former president Bush diminished his new best friends, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. It seems possible that the president of the United States looks up to these gentlemen and would like to be like them. They are widely loved in their countries, clearly. Or is it feared? Not too certain. We could go to their jails and ask. One thing is clear, Democratic-run states such as California and New York have replicated the successes of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua and let's throw in Argentina. Is the United States of America far behind?
Just asking.
Just asking.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Pirates from Somalia and Washington, D.C.
An uncharacteristically strong president allowed the United States Navy SEALS to kill three Somalian pirates who kidnapped the captain of the U. S. merchant ship Maersk Alabama and free the captain, Richard Phillips. The anarchical country of Somalia is controlled by independent warlords with no central government. Rampant crime is driven by poverty and virtually no commerce or industry. The start-up service industry of capturing and holding for ransom ships and crews has proven profitable, thus bringing it hockey-stick-like growth as ship owners pay millions of dollars in ransom to regain their ships, cargos and crews. A lack of defense mechanisms extend the safe operations of the pirates. It is easier and cheaper for the ship owners to pay rather than resist. Payment of ransom leads to more piracy, the costs of which are paid for ultimately by consumers...sort of taxation without representation.
An analogy might be trial lawyers extort business executives, and they pay and it gets worse.
Another analogy might be union bosses extort business executives, and they pay and it gets worse.
Another analogy might be Congress extorts seekers of favors, and they pay and it gets worse.
And the world gets corrupted.
Think about it: the world needs be rid of all pirates.
An analogy might be trial lawyers extort business executives, and they pay and it gets worse.
Another analogy might be union bosses extort business executives, and they pay and it gets worse.
Another analogy might be Congress extorts seekers of favors, and they pay and it gets worse.
And the world gets corrupted.
Think about it: the world needs be rid of all pirates.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
"Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%"
From the Seattle Times Front Page Wednesday, April 8, 2009. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009001043_apwaxgrgregoirehighered2ndldwritethru.html)
Headline: "Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%"
I sent to the Seattle Times the following Letter, which hasn't been published:
The Return of the Company Store
Little understood is the relationship between increasingly higher college costs and government participation in higher education. In today's article, "Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%" it becomes starkly evident. Coming before Gov. Gregoire's proposal were "increases to federal Pell grants and education tax credits" from which, according to the article "families earning up to $160,00 would be no worse off" after the tuition increases "for the first year anyway". So here's how it works. The federal government takes some of the income tax money from citizens of Washington and turns around and offers some of it back for higher education. The state government seeing this "new money" coming into the state for higher education, raises the prices for said higher education. Everything's hunky dory except for the second year. Then perhaps grants aren't sufficient, so students and their families borrow from the government to pay for college. They become indebted -- financially and emotionally -- to the government. Like a company store. So think of the cause and effect (supply and demand) for the huge inflation in college costs, and remember it began when our federal government started interfering in higher education. This is the government we want?
http://www.periodictablet.com
Headline: "Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%"
I sent to the Seattle Times the following Letter, which hasn't been published:
The Return of the Company Store
Little understood is the relationship between increasingly higher college costs and government participation in higher education. In today's article, "Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%" it becomes starkly evident. Coming before Gov. Gregoire's proposal were "increases to federal Pell grants and education tax credits" from which, according to the article "families earning up to $160,00 would be no worse off" after the tuition increases "for the first year anyway". So here's how it works. The federal government takes some of the income tax money from citizens of Washington and turns around and offers some of it back for higher education. The state government seeing this "new money" coming into the state for higher education, raises the prices for said higher education. Everything's hunky dory except for the second year. Then perhaps grants aren't sufficient, so students and their families borrow from the government to pay for college. They become indebted -- financially and emotionally -- to the government. Like a company store. So think of the cause and effect (supply and demand) for the huge inflation in college costs, and remember it began when our federal government started interfering in higher education. This is the government we want?
http://www.periodictablet.com
Monday, March 30, 2009
Tax the Rich, Tax the Poor, and Lie About It
President Obama who promised only to tax the "rich" (as he defines it) is now dictating the largest federal tobacco tax increase ever. Everyone knows that such a tax hits poorer people far more than the middle class or rich people. New York Times, do you care that poor people are taxed much more than rich people? At least his tobacco tax won't go into the hands of trial lawyers. Now get this, Obama's "stimulative" Make Work Pay gives eight bucks a week to workers (and CEOs alike I guess) which will be burned up in a two packs a day smoker's lungs. So Mr. Obama thanks for stimulative cigarette smoking and burning the poor guy, ince slightly more than half of today's smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year.
(Article in The Wall Street Journal, Monday, March 30, 2009, page B5:)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Tobacco users are facing a big financial hit as the largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.
Tobacco companies and public-health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are each trying to turn the situation to their advantage. Major cigarette makers raised prices in recent weeks, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01. Medical groups, meanwhile, see a tax increase in the middle of a recession as a great incentive for smokers to quit.
President Barack Obama signed a health initiative soon after taking office to increase the tobacco taxes to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. Other tobacco products, from cigars to pipes and smokeless tobacco, will also see similarly large tax increases. For example, the tax on chewing tobacco will go from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents. The total expected to be raised over the 4½ year health-insurance expansion is nearly $33 billion.
Separately, Congress is considering legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. That could lead to reformulated cigarettes. President Obama, who has struggled with his own cigarette habit, said he would sign such a bill.
Prospects for reducing the harm from smoking are better than they have been in years, said Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. "Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down," he said.
And speaking of taxes. Today is April 15, 2009. Tax Day. Let's see I have, of course, read the 70,320 pages (up 2-1/2 times, or 44,020 pages from 1984) that is almost 4 million words (up from 1.4 million in 2001!) and spent nearly the average 24 hours on the 1040 and related schedules...well, no, as with 60% of Americans I hired it out. The total cost: $90 billion a year. No, that's not just me, it's everyone. Now simplification so the average person knows what he is paying on, how much and where it goes. The flat-rate tax? The consumption tax? No so fast, say the politicians. Now I can reap campaign cash for making or only threatening to change the tax code. Why should I change that gravy train? And they don't. Extortion, you say?
(Article in The Wall Street Journal, Monday, March 30, 2009, page B5:)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Tobacco users are facing a big financial hit as the largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.
Tobacco companies and public-health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are each trying to turn the situation to their advantage. Major cigarette makers raised prices in recent weeks, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01. Medical groups, meanwhile, see a tax increase in the middle of a recession as a great incentive for smokers to quit.
President Barack Obama signed a health initiative soon after taking office to increase the tobacco taxes to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. Other tobacco products, from cigars to pipes and smokeless tobacco, will also see similarly large tax increases. For example, the tax on chewing tobacco will go from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents. The total expected to be raised over the 4½ year health-insurance expansion is nearly $33 billion.
Separately, Congress is considering legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. That could lead to reformulated cigarettes. President Obama, who has struggled with his own cigarette habit, said he would sign such a bill.
Prospects for reducing the harm from smoking are better than they have been in years, said Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. "Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down," he said.
And speaking of taxes. Today is April 15, 2009. Tax Day. Let's see I have, of course, read the 70,320 pages (up 2-1/2 times, or 44,020 pages from 1984) that is almost 4 million words (up from 1.4 million in 2001!) and spent nearly the average 24 hours on the 1040 and related schedules...well, no, as with 60% of Americans I hired it out. The total cost: $90 billion a year. No, that's not just me, it's everyone. Now simplification so the average person knows what he is paying on, how much and where it goes. The flat-rate tax? The consumption tax? No so fast, say the politicians. Now I can reap campaign cash for making or only threatening to change the tax code. Why should I change that gravy train? And they don't. Extortion, you say?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Bumper Stickers For Sale, Proceeds to the U. S. Government
THE FOLLOWING BUMPER STICKERS ARE AVAILABLE FOR SALE. $1.00 EACH. MINIMUM QUANTITY 1,000,000,000,000 ALL PROCEEDS WILL BE DONATED TO THE U. S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
You have to fail to succeed, Barack Obama, 2009
______________________________________________
A Pretty Face, Silver Tongue, Empty Head and Black Heart
Barack Obama, America's First Quiche President
________________________________________
Beat a Liberal
Start a Company
_________________________________________
Want a Raise?
Drop the Union!
__________________________________________
Trickle-up Poverty
Cut up the Pie
Trickle-down Wealth
Grow the Pie
________________________________________
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
U. S. Heads to Poverty
Not only did I read this article, I bought the book ("Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo)! There are no revelations in it other than putting names and numbers on feelings I have had about much of our foreign aid for years. Like many harmful activities which have become trendy, mindless, yet harmful, foreign aid to Africa is not about to end. But in considering the "insidious aid culture which has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable…" one must draw an analogy to us here in the United States. Are we not a country dependent on governmental aid? Aid which doesn't come from faceless third-party countries, but from ourselves. We tax ourselves, hire elected officials (our "employees") who turn around and re-distribute all that money to...ourselves, keeping a sizeable amount for themselves. Hmmm. How is that different? And isn't it an "insidious aid culture" which is leaving us more dependent, not to mention debt-laden, and prone to upcoming almost guaranteed inflation? Aren't we more vulnerable to those holding all that debt? According to the author, Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian female who was educated and has worked only in the West, corruption costs Africa something like $50 billion a year. Is it too much of a stretch to ask: doesn't Congress in its own legal way threaten to pass laws, or not, and change taxation, or not, to demand campaign contributions? Is that corruption? Aid creates dependency; dependency strangles freedom. Dependency is the antithesis of freedom. Can you think of one small area in our country that the government's tentacles aren't wrapped around our freedoms? President Obama and the Democratic Congress intend to turn the octopus into a giant squid. As Ms. Moyo explained, we know what works (and what doesn't work) to reduce poverty and encourage growth. It is not where we are headed in the United States.
The parallel of the discovery of the need for rich countries to "save" the African continent from abject poverty and the emergence of the moral authority of the United States to save Negroes from racism, discrimination and poverty heaped upon them by centuries of slavery. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were big screen displays of ridding our country of racism, discrimination and poverty. Not to matter that it didn't work even after 35 years, it was in the trying that mattered: the ability of citizens to feel good about themselves. Of course, the real goal was for Democrats to continue the charade of helping targeted segments of American voters to get votes. As rich, mostly western countries spread aid to Africa, America was spreading aid and changing laws to provide for African Americans. While the goals of the aid to Africa started out for political reasons, to wit to "win" the cold war through real estate, it morphed into a trendy thing for liberals to discuss over cocktail parties and for which to throw benefits. What both have in common is the establishment of gigantic bureaucracies which the members depend for income and to some extent their vary identites. Those bureacracies need to continue the dependency on government. And those dependencies guarantee poverty and a lack of opportunity for Africans and African Americans. Both are still endemic in the continent of Africa and in African American society in the United States.
Democratic policies have destroyed two generations of African Americans.
Cut the apron strings, which really are tentacles, and empower.
Democrats have used the words "poverty" and "Middle class stagnation" with great impact, they have been lying. According to official government figures, the best (lowest) poverty rate was -- get this -- in 1973, but percapita income is 50% higher today than in 1973, median family income (smaller families) 20%. Yet spending on "antipoverty" programs doubled. Consider what Democrats don't want known-- they use misleading numbers to obfuscate people's standards of living -- using consumption figures , what people actually buy and get, are far better now than then. Then 50% of the "poor" didn't have cars and today nearly 75% do, and 14% have two! Poverty? Today the "poor" spend more than than they get in income, assuming welfare like food stamps and earned income credits aren't "income", so why does the left-leaning government bureaucracy measure "income"? In order for Democrats to keep and get the votes of the poor. Democrats need to keep the "poor" (of course as Democrats define "poor") thinking they need aid; then the act of giving it to them keeps them voting Democrat.
And the Obama government plans to change the Bush emphasis on the free market and private companies to purchase for the government and will hire 13,00 new civil servants plus up to 30,000 more within five years to replace private contractors. More Democrats to vote to keep Democrats in power.
And then there's healthcare. But that's another story.
The United States needs real conservatives to right this listing ship of state. It needs a coda of growth not dependency. With Democrats continuing in power the entire United States population ultimately will end up like the African American generations of hopelessness and poverty.
The parallel of the discovery of the need for rich countries to "save" the African continent from abject poverty and the emergence of the moral authority of the United States to save Negroes from racism, discrimination and poverty heaped upon them by centuries of slavery. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were big screen displays of ridding our country of racism, discrimination and poverty. Not to matter that it didn't work even after 35 years, it was in the trying that mattered: the ability of citizens to feel good about themselves. Of course, the real goal was for Democrats to continue the charade of helping targeted segments of American voters to get votes. As rich, mostly western countries spread aid to Africa, America was spreading aid and changing laws to provide for African Americans. While the goals of the aid to Africa started out for political reasons, to wit to "win" the cold war through real estate, it morphed into a trendy thing for liberals to discuss over cocktail parties and for which to throw benefits. What both have in common is the establishment of gigantic bureaucracies which the members depend for income and to some extent their vary identites. Those bureacracies need to continue the dependency on government. And those dependencies guarantee poverty and a lack of opportunity for Africans and African Americans. Both are still endemic in the continent of Africa and in African American society in the United States.
Democratic policies have destroyed two generations of African Americans.
Cut the apron strings, which really are tentacles, and empower.
Democrats have used the words "poverty" and "Middle class stagnation" with great impact, they have been lying. According to official government figures, the best (lowest) poverty rate was -- get this -- in 1973, but percapita income is 50% higher today than in 1973, median family income (smaller families) 20%. Yet spending on "antipoverty" programs doubled. Consider what Democrats don't want known-- they use misleading numbers to obfuscate people's standards of living -- using consumption figures , what people actually buy and get, are far better now than then. Then 50% of the "poor" didn't have cars and today nearly 75% do, and 14% have two! Poverty? Today the "poor" spend more than than they get in income, assuming welfare like food stamps and earned income credits aren't "income", so why does the left-leaning government bureaucracy measure "income"? In order for Democrats to keep and get the votes of the poor. Democrats need to keep the "poor" (of course as Democrats define "poor") thinking they need aid; then the act of giving it to them keeps them voting Democrat.
And the Obama government plans to change the Bush emphasis on the free market and private companies to purchase for the government and will hire 13,00 new civil servants plus up to 30,000 more within five years to replace private contractors. More Democrats to vote to keep Democrats in power.
And then there's healthcare. But that's another story.
The United States needs real conservatives to right this listing ship of state. It needs a coda of growth not dependency. With Democrats continuing in power the entire United States population ultimately will end up like the African American generations of hopelessness and poverty.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Government Support vs. Personal Responsibility: Letter to the Editor
A Letter to the Editor from your correspondent
Editorials / Opinion
Our network sites seattletimes.com Advanced
Northwest Voices Letters to the Editor
Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words opinion@seattletimes.com.
E-mail Subscribe Blog Home
March 20, 2009 4:21 PM
Tackling homelessness
Posted by Letters editor
Throwing money not the answer
["Group hopes to cut number of homeless families in state," Local News, March 19 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008884912_gateshomeless19.html ] argues against these blanket leftist schemes that throw money at perceived problems, thus extending the problems.
Carefully read about Jackilin Abiem. She has gotten pregnant twice and, so, can't find or afford an apartment. Now think if she hadn't gotten pregnant. Would her life and opportunities be better? What about her personal responsibility?
Certainly there are many people "down on their luck" from circumstances beyond their control. They should be assisted. But Ms. Abiem? I have trouble either feeling sorry for her or being supportive of spending tax money on encouraging unwed births.
Another article in Thursday's paper ("More kids born in '07; fewer moms married," News) states that 40 percent of births are to unwed mothers. I don't think that is necessarily good for society as a whole, to which Ms. Abiem's problems attest.
-- Theodore M. Wight, Seattle
The Original Article is:
Originally published Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM
NEW - Introducing a new blog
Gates Foundation joins others in goal to cut homelessness
A partnership of governments, businesses and nonprofits is pledging today to redouble its efforts to help the growing number of homeless families in Washington state. The pledge includes up to $60 million over 10 years by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
By Kristi Heim
Seattle Times staff reporter
COURTNEY BLETHEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The Gates Foundation and other partners have committed $60 million toward helping homeless families in Washington state. One family in particular is 25-year-old Jackilin Abiem, of Sudan, right, and her 17 month old son, Nassir Getdet. Abiem is expecting her second son to be born in two weeks to join her family at their home at Katherine's Place, a local nonprofit offering affordable housing and support services.
A partnership of governments, businesses and nonprofits is pledging today to redouble its efforts to help the growing number of homeless families in Washington state. The pledge includes up to $60 million over 10 years by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Partners in the Washington Families Fund vowed to reduce the number of homeless families by 50 percent over the next decade.
"I feel this is an opportunity right now, as much as I'm a realist about the economy," said Alice Shobe, deputy director of Building Changes, which administers the fund. "It is ambitious, but we have a vision about how to do it. We have the creativity and broad partnership to make it happen."
As the recession throws more people into poverty, "we must do more to help families achieve and maintain stability," said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who signed an agreement with King, Snohomish and Pierce counties and the cities of Seattle, Everett and Tacoma to collaborate with the private partners.
Created by the state Legislature in 2004, the Washington Families Fund has received contributions of more than $20 million — $12 million from the state and $8.3 million from 18 other partners, including the Gates Foundation, Boeing, Microsoft, the Campion Foundation, the Greater Tacoma Community Foundation, the Ben B. Cheney Foundation and United Way. It has awarded $13 million in grants so far.
The Washington Families Fund has not yet revealed any new financial commitments other than the Gates Foundation's pledge.
Governments and private groups together spend about $200 million a year to address the problem in Washington state, but as economic conditions worsen, the number of homeless families keeps going up. About half of the state's estimated 22,000 homeless households are families with children.
Winter nights
The family of Jackilin Abiem, 25, was one of them. She arrived in 2001 as an orphan from Sudan after fleeing civil war and walking for three months across the country and eventually to a refugee camp. Once in Washington, she lived with two foster families, graduated from Garfield High School and landed her first job at McDonald's.
Abiem then worked for two years as a cook at a retirement home, but she never earned quite enough money to afford her own apartment. She became homeless after the youth housing where she was staying made her leave when she became pregnant.
She then bounced around, staying with four different friends and her foster mom through the birth of her son, Nassir. She remembers "window shopping" outside on winter nights as she waited for friends to get off work.
"When I was pregnant, I didn't have a place to live, so I was just running around between friends," she said. "It was hard for me to go house to house and to old friends. I keep them worried ... that I may give birth [at] their house."
Spending some nights with her foster mom in Mount Vernon and other nights with friends in South King County made it tough to be in West Seattle consistently for her job, and she lost that, too.
Abiem is now at Katharine's Place, in a transitional apartment for homeless families in Rainier Valley, but her two-year term ends in December. She is about to give birth to her second son. Katharine's Place had so many people on its two-year waiting list that it closed the list to new applicants in January.
Prevention
That reflects a rise in the number of homeless families in 2008 over 2007, especially in South King County.
"The trend lines have gone in the wrong direction, period," said David Bley, director of the Pacific Northwest Initiative at the Gates Foundation. "We need to go about tackling the problem differently than we have in the past."
For one thing, there's not enough emphasis on preventing homelessness by keeping people in affordable housing. Only 3 percent of the $200 million is used for prevention, he said.
"It feels totally out of whack from what we know works — it's easier to keep people in a home than put them back once they've lost one," Bley said.
Bley said other needed changes include providing permanent housing as soon as possible, rather than "transitional housing," and standardizing the fragmented systems used to determine what families need, so they get access to the same services no matter where they go for help.
"Some people will need a lot of services and some people will need nothing more than a rent subsidy," he said.
The program also will focus on improving the economic prospects of people with low incomes or no income, connecting them with work-force development and job training. And more money will be invested in getting better data on homeless families to understand the problem.
"It is difficult to assess progress if you don't have good numbers," Bley said, "and it is very difficult to serve individual parents and children well if no one is tracking their needs, the support they get and the progress they are making."
"Gains being lost"
The Gates Foundation has previously given $40 million in grants to help homeless families and learn how to better tackle the problem. Grants to help homeless families are part of the foundation's Pacific Northwest giving, which totaled $33 million in 2009.
While that money is only a fraction of the billions the foundation gives away globally, it does make it the largest private human-service grantmaker in the state, said T.J. Bucholz, Gates Foundation senior program officer.
Washington is studying the practices of other communities that have managed to reduce homelessness by 40 to 50 percent. But even the most effective programs are seeing some erosion of progress.
"That's what was really frightening about the current economic climate," Bley said. "We see a lot of those gains being lost in those communities that were very innovative."
However, he added, "there would be a lot more homeless families if we weren't doing this work."
Kristi Heim: 206-464-2718 or kheim@seattletimes.com
Editorials / Opinion
Our network sites seattletimes.com Advanced
Northwest Voices Letters to the Editor
Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words opinion@seattletimes.com.
E-mail Subscribe Blog Home
March 20, 2009 4:21 PM
Tackling homelessness
Posted by Letters editor
Throwing money not the answer
["Group hopes to cut number of homeless families in state," Local News, March 19 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008884912_gateshomeless19.html ] argues against these blanket leftist schemes that throw money at perceived problems, thus extending the problems.
Carefully read about Jackilin Abiem. She has gotten pregnant twice and, so, can't find or afford an apartment. Now think if she hadn't gotten pregnant. Would her life and opportunities be better? What about her personal responsibility?
Certainly there are many people "down on their luck" from circumstances beyond their control. They should be assisted. But Ms. Abiem? I have trouble either feeling sorry for her or being supportive of spending tax money on encouraging unwed births.
Another article in Thursday's paper ("More kids born in '07; fewer moms married," News) states that 40 percent of births are to unwed mothers. I don't think that is necessarily good for society as a whole, to which Ms. Abiem's problems attest.
-- Theodore M. Wight, Seattle
The Original Article is:
Originally published Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM
NEW - Introducing a new blog
Gates Foundation joins others in goal to cut homelessness
A partnership of governments, businesses and nonprofits is pledging today to redouble its efforts to help the growing number of homeless families in Washington state. The pledge includes up to $60 million over 10 years by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
By Kristi Heim
Seattle Times staff reporter
COURTNEY BLETHEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The Gates Foundation and other partners have committed $60 million toward helping homeless families in Washington state. One family in particular is 25-year-old Jackilin Abiem, of Sudan, right, and her 17 month old son, Nassir Getdet. Abiem is expecting her second son to be born in two weeks to join her family at their home at Katherine's Place, a local nonprofit offering affordable housing and support services.
A partnership of governments, businesses and nonprofits is pledging today to redouble its efforts to help the growing number of homeless families in Washington state. The pledge includes up to $60 million over 10 years by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Partners in the Washington Families Fund vowed to reduce the number of homeless families by 50 percent over the next decade.
"I feel this is an opportunity right now, as much as I'm a realist about the economy," said Alice Shobe, deputy director of Building Changes, which administers the fund. "It is ambitious, but we have a vision about how to do it. We have the creativity and broad partnership to make it happen."
As the recession throws more people into poverty, "we must do more to help families achieve and maintain stability," said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who signed an agreement with King, Snohomish and Pierce counties and the cities of Seattle, Everett and Tacoma to collaborate with the private partners.
Created by the state Legislature in 2004, the Washington Families Fund has received contributions of more than $20 million — $12 million from the state and $8.3 million from 18 other partners, including the Gates Foundation, Boeing, Microsoft, the Campion Foundation, the Greater Tacoma Community Foundation, the Ben B. Cheney Foundation and United Way. It has awarded $13 million in grants so far.
The Washington Families Fund has not yet revealed any new financial commitments other than the Gates Foundation's pledge.
Governments and private groups together spend about $200 million a year to address the problem in Washington state, but as economic conditions worsen, the number of homeless families keeps going up. About half of the state's estimated 22,000 homeless households are families with children.
Winter nights
The family of Jackilin Abiem, 25, was one of them. She arrived in 2001 as an orphan from Sudan after fleeing civil war and walking for three months across the country and eventually to a refugee camp. Once in Washington, she lived with two foster families, graduated from Garfield High School and landed her first job at McDonald's.
Abiem then worked for two years as a cook at a retirement home, but she never earned quite enough money to afford her own apartment. She became homeless after the youth housing where she was staying made her leave when she became pregnant.
She then bounced around, staying with four different friends and her foster mom through the birth of her son, Nassir. She remembers "window shopping" outside on winter nights as she waited for friends to get off work.
"When I was pregnant, I didn't have a place to live, so I was just running around between friends," she said. "It was hard for me to go house to house and to old friends. I keep them worried ... that I may give birth [at] their house."
Spending some nights with her foster mom in Mount Vernon and other nights with friends in South King County made it tough to be in West Seattle consistently for her job, and she lost that, too.
Abiem is now at Katharine's Place, in a transitional apartment for homeless families in Rainier Valley, but her two-year term ends in December. She is about to give birth to her second son. Katharine's Place had so many people on its two-year waiting list that it closed the list to new applicants in January.
Prevention
That reflects a rise in the number of homeless families in 2008 over 2007, especially in South King County.
"The trend lines have gone in the wrong direction, period," said David Bley, director of the Pacific Northwest Initiative at the Gates Foundation. "We need to go about tackling the problem differently than we have in the past."
For one thing, there's not enough emphasis on preventing homelessness by keeping people in affordable housing. Only 3 percent of the $200 million is used for prevention, he said.
"It feels totally out of whack from what we know works — it's easier to keep people in a home than put them back once they've lost one," Bley said.
Bley said other needed changes include providing permanent housing as soon as possible, rather than "transitional housing," and standardizing the fragmented systems used to determine what families need, so they get access to the same services no matter where they go for help.
"Some people will need a lot of services and some people will need nothing more than a rent subsidy," he said.
The program also will focus on improving the economic prospects of people with low incomes or no income, connecting them with work-force development and job training. And more money will be invested in getting better data on homeless families to understand the problem.
"It is difficult to assess progress if you don't have good numbers," Bley said, "and it is very difficult to serve individual parents and children well if no one is tracking their needs, the support they get and the progress they are making."
"Gains being lost"
The Gates Foundation has previously given $40 million in grants to help homeless families and learn how to better tackle the problem. Grants to help homeless families are part of the foundation's Pacific Northwest giving, which totaled $33 million in 2009.
While that money is only a fraction of the billions the foundation gives away globally, it does make it the largest private human-service grantmaker in the state, said T.J. Bucholz, Gates Foundation senior program officer.
Washington is studying the practices of other communities that have managed to reduce homelessness by 40 to 50 percent. But even the most effective programs are seeing some erosion of progress.
"That's what was really frightening about the current economic climate," Bley said. "We see a lot of those gains being lost in those communities that were very innovative."
However, he added, "there would be a lot more homeless families if we weren't doing this work."
Kristi Heim: 206-464-2718 or kheim@seattletimes.com
Friday, March 20, 2009
Nero Hero of the Week III
NERO HERO OF THE WEEK III
(Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (15 December 37 – 9 June 68), born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also called Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus)
While it may not be fact, it is a belief that has lasted over two thousand years: Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Well, that is what is happening in Washington, District of Columbia, right now. Especially in the White House and Halls of Congress. I feel it incumbent upon me to laud one person each week for fiddling while the United States of America burns. Some might argue that the burn is intentional and set by liberals and Democrats beginning with the inauguration Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. Others might simply state that the Chief Executive Officer, newly elected, of the United States of America (hereinafter defined as "US&A) is laughably and predictably acting as a neophite. In other words, with no experience in running anything and no experience in hiring exceptional -- or even unexceptional -- executives to report to him, he's floundering and with his fishy behavior the nation is going belly-up. And he seems to be copying a recent whale: former president George Bush, Junior.
While I stated that I would designate one person as Nero Hero of the Week each week, circumstances have caused me to designate a gaggle of geese: Congress and the Obama Administration for railing against legally-contracted bonuses to hard-working employees of the American International Group (AIG). These AIG people, including administration-appointed CEO Edward Liddy who is working for $1 a year, have been demonized by those who have caused this whole fiasco: Congressional Democrats and President Obama and his team of Keystone Kops...or is it the Three Stooges? OK, House of Representatives financial king-pin, Barney Frank, as far as I can see has never held a job other than political (including teaching at Harvard). Beginning in 1968 as Boston mayor Kevin White's Chief Assistant, Frank has suckled at the teat of the taxpayers since then. Frank was a steller, moral arbiter in 1990, when the House Ethics Committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Steve Gobie's parking tickets. Frank confirmed that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials. September 2003, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. In addition, Frank's former partner, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie from 1991 to 1998, where Moses helped develop many of Fannie’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. Frank and Moses' relationship ended around the same time Moses left the company. Oh, did I mention, Frank is a homosexual who has used his power to pass laws favoring the homosexual affinity group. He also has been the recipient of substantial Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions. (And I don't know about Frank and Fannies, so to speak.)
Christopher John Dodd graduated in 1972, Dodd earning a Juris Doctor at the University of Louisville, one of the best known law schools in Louisville. (He is from Connecticut.) He dated at different times Bianca Jagger and Carrie Fisher and got suckle from taxpayers starting in 1975. He must have started practicing law in 1972 and certainly still is practicing because he hasn't gotten anything right so far, except being re-elected. Being a member of the so-called "Watergate class of '74, Dodd obviously learned from President Nixon when in June 2008 he stated: "I don't believe I did anything wrong" ["I am not a crook"] in being given a couple of below-market mortgages as a Friend of Angelo, CEO of Countrywide Financial Services, prime suspect in the meltdown of sub-prime mortgages, most of which were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the prodding of Barney Fife (oops, I mean Frank) and Dodd. Sen. Dodd received more campaign contributions from AIG than any other candidate in 2008!
I don't know if it's the corruption (both Barney and Chrissie took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the financial industry they were laughably "regulating" -- Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking and Extortion Committee) or the complete lack of real-world experience in anything, that is most troubling about these two. Add President Obama, who, except for a brief unsuccessful stint at IBM (affirmative action? I don't know) has also been on the public dole all of his adult life.
Perhaps the rules of Congress that gives committee and sub-committee to those with seniority, not knowledge and experience should be to blame. In companies (a term the above three don't regard seriously) generally board of directors members are those with some experience and knowledge, especially in committees, such as audit. That Congress doesn't do this is disgraceful and I would submit one of the reasons the economic meltdown has occurred. To counter, inexperienced President Obama is mindlessly shovelling out future tax dollars to any squeeky, compaign contributing wheel in our country.
And Congress and the Administration are attempting to deflect blame by demonizing bonuses, those that approved them, except Congress and the Administration who did, and those who received them ("fiddling"or "playing the fiddle") while this economy, this country and the economies around the world burn. Burn to the ground. Yes Dictator Barack Nero and Congresspeople Barney and Chris Nero would be proud.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Break Union Monopolies
The Far-left Congress joins the Far-left president to impose on the American economy the most draconian shackles on its ability to create jobs, grow and provide tax income to the U. S. Government and for companies to be free to create products and services that consumers desire. Union bosses themselves say that this bill (the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act")would add 20 million more union members to their rolls, resulting in up to $12 billion more in forced union dues taken from the pockets of American workers. Where will these bosses spend all tht new money? On higher salaries, perks, vacations, cars for themselves and, most importantly, much will be spent to elect Far-left Democrats to continue the business-killing monopolies of unions.
What do unions really do?
Well first, The National Right to Work Committee recently reported "that union violence is responsible for at least 203 Americans deaths since 1975; 5,869 incidents of personal injury; and more than 6,435 incidents of vandalism and tens of millions of dollars in property damage."
Artificially jack up wages of a tiny minority of workers at the expense of more jobs. Artificially jack up prices, which amount to an additional tax on consumers, the proceeds of which line union leaders pockets and elect Far-left Democrats. Union leaders tell businesses how to manage their employees. The same employees who freely accept jobs created by these businesses. Why hobble business now? Well, union bosses using their members' dues elect Far-left Democrats.
"A study recently released by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist with the non-partisan LECG Consulting Group, concluded that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs in just the first year after enactment of Card Check (as predicted by union leaders) would lead to an initial loss of 600,000 American jobs."
Recently union leaders in cahoots with Congress have triggered a possibly-devastating trade war with our third-largest trading partner and next-door neighbor, Mexico. Mexico has slapped tariffs on 89 products American companies ship there. From an added 10% to a killing 45% on a variety of products, including table grapes, wine, almonds, Christmas trees (liberals hate these anyway), pears from my Washington State, scrap batteries, some personal hygiene products and precious metal jewelry among other things. Why? To protect a perceived handful of Teamster jobs from Mexicans driving their trucks over the border as the North American Trade Agreement allows. Just to remind: it was trade barriers that helped start and continued The Great Depression. Check out this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742090606978583.html
Obviously union leaders are playing the strings of Obama the puppet and, of course, Democrats in Congress. Is Obama simply another Uncle Tom: "yessa, yessa, mastah! Please elect me!" When Obama talks of a strong economy and job saving and job creating, he is lying to America. Lying! And those same leaders to whom our president is so beholden have killed U. S. industries, steel, airlines, auto manufacturing and auto parts manufacturing, not to mention government entities such as Amtrak, the U. S. Postal Service. And unions have destroyed generations of African American kids who can't get decent educations, among other "students".
Cahoots?: From "The Audacity of Hope," "I owe those unions... When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't mind feeling obligated."
Check out this link for a comment by a former U. S. Secretary of Labor: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742166937078741.html
Another article in The Wall Street Journal (Monday, March 16, 2009, page A18 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123723839801146937.html ) describes what labor bosses have done to Germany, Italy and France; Margaret Thatcher turned them back in England, but those other three countries are competitively on the bottom rung and financially crippled by welfare to those who are not productive.
Now is the time Republicans need to stand up and fight for America: Break the job- and business-killing union monopolies. If business monopolies were broken a century ago, because of misuse of power, now is the time to apply those same considerations to the union monopolies. The first start is stopping the addendum to Obama's Elect Democrats in 2010 "stimulus bill which is the Employee No Choice Act. It must be stopped if there is to be any small chance of an economic comeback in the United States and the world.
What do unions really do?
Well first, The National Right to Work Committee recently reported "that union violence is responsible for at least 203 Americans deaths since 1975; 5,869 incidents of personal injury; and more than 6,435 incidents of vandalism and tens of millions of dollars in property damage."
Artificially jack up wages of a tiny minority of workers at the expense of more jobs. Artificially jack up prices, which amount to an additional tax on consumers, the proceeds of which line union leaders pockets and elect Far-left Democrats. Union leaders tell businesses how to manage their employees. The same employees who freely accept jobs created by these businesses. Why hobble business now? Well, union bosses using their members' dues elect Far-left Democrats.
"A study recently released by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist with the non-partisan LECG Consulting Group, concluded that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs in just the first year after enactment of Card Check (as predicted by union leaders) would lead to an initial loss of 600,000 American jobs."
Recently union leaders in cahoots with Congress have triggered a possibly-devastating trade war with our third-largest trading partner and next-door neighbor, Mexico. Mexico has slapped tariffs on 89 products American companies ship there. From an added 10% to a killing 45% on a variety of products, including table grapes, wine, almonds, Christmas trees (liberals hate these anyway), pears from my Washington State, scrap batteries, some personal hygiene products and precious metal jewelry among other things. Why? To protect a perceived handful of Teamster jobs from Mexicans driving their trucks over the border as the North American Trade Agreement allows. Just to remind: it was trade barriers that helped start and continued The Great Depression. Check out this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742090606978583.html
Obviously union leaders are playing the strings of Obama the puppet and, of course, Democrats in Congress. Is Obama simply another Uncle Tom: "yessa, yessa, mastah! Please elect me!" When Obama talks of a strong economy and job saving and job creating, he is lying to America. Lying! And those same leaders to whom our president is so beholden have killed U. S. industries, steel, airlines, auto manufacturing and auto parts manufacturing, not to mention government entities such as Amtrak, the U. S. Postal Service. And unions have destroyed generations of African American kids who can't get decent educations, among other "students".
Cahoots?: From "The Audacity of Hope," "I owe those unions... When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't mind feeling obligated."
Check out this link for a comment by a former U. S. Secretary of Labor: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742166937078741.html
Another article in The Wall Street Journal (Monday, March 16, 2009, page A18 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123723839801146937.html ) describes what labor bosses have done to Germany, Italy and France; Margaret Thatcher turned them back in England, but those other three countries are competitively on the bottom rung and financially crippled by welfare to those who are not productive.
Now is the time Republicans need to stand up and fight for America: Break the job- and business-killing union monopolies. If business monopolies were broken a century ago, because of misuse of power, now is the time to apply those same considerations to the union monopolies. The first start is stopping the addendum to Obama's Elect Democrats in 2010 "stimulus bill which is the Employee No Choice Act. It must be stopped if there is to be any small chance of an economic comeback in the United States and the world.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
NERO HERO OF THE WEEK II
NERO HERO OF THE WEEK II
NERO HERO OF THE WEEKNero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (15 December 37 – 9 June 68) born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also called Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus.
While it may or may not be fact, it is a belief that has lasted over two thousand years: Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Well, that is what is happening in Washington, District of Columbia, right now. Especially in the White House and Halls of Congress. I feel it incumbent upon me to laud one person each week for fiddling while the United States of America burns. Some might argue that the burn is intentional and set by liberals and Democrats beginning with the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933.
The first Weekly Hero was the president of the United States of America (hereinafter described as the US&A), Barack Obama for reasons outlined March 6, 2009.
This week the Nero Hero of the Week is Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro (Patty D? Patsy? No that's us) Pelosi (born March 26, 1940) one of the richest members of the Senate. (Worth around $20 million a couple years ago.) Representing the Union of Socialist San Francisco and like-minded left-wing socialists and apparently a politician for life, she's been elected 11 times as well as being a second generation Congressperson, sister to a politician and sister-in-law to a politician. Can't these Pelosis work for a living? Oh, yes, she's also the first non-male-gendered Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives.
Nancy Patty is working hard (if you can believe it, three whole days a week) to be reelected, electing and reelecting Democrats in general and liberalizing everything in sight. She's using our hard- really hard-earned pay for taxes to do so, a trillion here, a trillion there. And she wants more, but not all of our money, only as much as she deems "fair". A twenty-times-millionaire deciding how much of my money she gets for electing Democrats. All the while having a Gulfstream III (or several; in fact all of them the U. S. Air Force has) at her disposal. Isn't that queen-like? Life is good here in the US&A (for politicians).
As Vice President of the US&A Joe Biden informed everyone, Aging Queen Nancy Patty's luxury jet(s) will require hard-working American tax payers (that's us), to buy thousands of gallons of expensive jet fuel for her every week. She flies home to California on a whim for only $60,000 each way! As Honest Joe noted, "Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back" so there goes another $60,000. Weekly flights cost us at least $480,000 per month ($5,760,000 a year). And she complains that a plane isn't waiting for her, that the GIII isn't big enough to fly without stopping on the way at a gas station for more gas and, bye the bye that the war in Iraq is expensive. Oh yeah, she also flies around the world, too, from time to time. And yes, she's happily warming the globe!
As Vice President of the US&A Joe Biden informed everyone, Aging Queen Nancy Patty's luxury jet(s) will require hard-working American tax payers (that's us), to buy thousands of gallons of expensive jet fuel for her every week. She flies home to California on a whim for only $60,000 each way! As Honest Joe noted, "Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back" so there goes another $60,000. Weekly flights cost us at least $480,000 per month ($5,760,000 a year). And she complains that a plane isn't waiting for her, that the GIII isn't big enough to fly without stopping on the way at a gas station for more gas and, bye the bye that the war in Iraq is expensive. Oh yeah, she also flies around the world, too, from time to time. And yes, she's happily warming the globe!
Showing concern for the financial meltdown and high unemployment of her subjects, Aging Queen Nancy Patty stopped in its tracks an attempt to rein in automatic pay raises for members of Congress. Their latest pay raise of $4,700 took effect in January 2009 and brought congressional salaries to $174,000.
I wonder if the luxury jet is large enough for the lyre she must be playing while the US&A is burning. By the way, a lyre is like a small harp (sometimes played by small harpies), using a plectrum. Well, as Aging Queen Nancy Patty sung recently accompanied by a lyre: "Burn Baby Burn!" and take the free-enterprise system down with you. Who needs the capitalism when you have the government?
I wonder if the luxury jet is large enough for the lyre she must be playing while the US&A is burning. By the way, a lyre is like a small harp (sometimes played by small harpies), using a plectrum. Well, as Aging Queen Nancy Patty sung recently accompanied by a lyre: "Burn Baby Burn!" and take the free-enterprise system down with you. Who needs the capitalism when you have the government?
American Idol - The President Obama and Aging Queen Nancy Patty, are they liars playing lyres or what? Congratulations, Nero would be proud. To Aging Queen Nancy Patty Nero Hero of the Week II, Friday The Thirteenth (March, 2009).
Is Soros Obama's Svengali?
Is Hungarian speculator and convicted inside trader, György Schwartz, aka George Soros, Svengali to President Barack Obama? That is an interesting question. Brilliant, if dishonest (convicted of insider trading, I have read), speculator, Soros financed the failed attempt to unseat then-president George Bush. In spite of making something like $7 billion dollars (Forbes ) in his adopted United States of America's free-enterprise system, Soros seems to have embraced the fall of the very system that has made him rich. Go figure.
To this end, I wonder if -- wonder only -- if the Chicago Mafia is in for a pound. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama kicks buffoon Biden gets kicked to the curb for Rahm Israel Emanuel his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel becomes president for two terms and voila the Democrats have their one-party oligarchy. ACORN and the 250,000 new Americorps recruits ($5.6 billion a year @ $22,400 pay) could arguably become his Brown Shirts, with educational centers, campuses and uniforms? The U. S. becomes Cuba North. Would the "conservative rich" be equivalent to German Jews?
To this end, I wonder if -- wonder only -- if the Chicago Mafia is in for a pound. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama kicks buffoon Biden gets kicked to the curb for Rahm Israel Emanuel his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel becomes president for two terms and voila the Democrats have their one-party oligarchy. ACORN and the 250,000 new Americorps recruits ($5.6 billion a year @ $22,400 pay) could arguably become his Brown Shirts, with educational centers, campuses and uniforms? The U. S. becomes Cuba North. Would the "conservative rich" be equivalent to German Jews?
Stock Market Up With Possible Pause in Card Check Law
I believe yesterday's stock market jump -- or was it a dead cat bounce? -- up 379.44 points, 5.8% the most in almost 4 months -- is attributed to the announcement that the holy grail of union leaders -- the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 1409, S. 560) " but in actuality the "Easily Add Union Dues to Union Leaders' Funds Act" -- is perhaps being delayed by the doubts of some Democrats, along with most Republicans, free-market advocates, and business people not otherwise cowed by fierce union strength. The act makes forcing unions on companies a walk in the park, while diminishing the rights of those very workers that work in the companies who will be intimidated by union organizers who will know who is resisting signing a simple card to dictate union "bargaining". Further, if the union can't come to an agreement with the companies, liberal bureaucrats can write union contracts, including wages, benefits, work assignments, promotion procedures, and any major changes to business practices and operations and compel them to unionize plus there is no meaningful small businesses exemption so it would cover millions of small and newly-organized businesses. While in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission the Supreme Court wrote of the importance of secret ballots in voting one's conscience "without fear of retribution" recently (in 1995), those self-same politicians elected by secret ballot will deny that right to workers, whose "leaders" -- union officials -- elect those legislating Congresspeople.
Unions kill jobs. FDR proved that in extending the Great Depression almost a decade with the forced unionization of the National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act signed July 5, 1935), which benefitted a small percentage of workers (but all union leaders) and cost the jobs of many, many others. It is telling that only government workers' unions -- whose leader contribute union funds mightily to the Democrat Party in exchange -- haven't lost huge ground over the past 20 years, while in the private sector they have dropped to 7.8% down from nearly 21% thirty years ago. Government-employee union membership is 36.8%! A major reason for the decline in the private sector is that union leaders' demands cripple companies and kill many. Airlines, steel companies, auto companies and related parts suppliers all come to mind.
The stock market as well understands the absolute harm to jobs, thus sends it crashing downward with the spectre of the card check act passing. And apparently vice versa, as yesterday's performance proved.
Take note President Obama.
Unions kill jobs. FDR proved that in extending the Great Depression almost a decade with the forced unionization of the National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act signed July 5, 1935), which benefitted a small percentage of workers (but all union leaders) and cost the jobs of many, many others. It is telling that only government workers' unions -- whose leader contribute union funds mightily to the Democrat Party in exchange -- haven't lost huge ground over the past 20 years, while in the private sector they have dropped to 7.8% down from nearly 21% thirty years ago. Government-employee union membership is 36.8%! A major reason for the decline in the private sector is that union leaders' demands cripple companies and kill many. Airlines, steel companies, auto companies and related parts suppliers all come to mind.
The stock market as well understands the absolute harm to jobs, thus sends it crashing downward with the spectre of the card check act passing. And apparently vice versa, as yesterday's performance proved.
Take note President Obama.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Miscellaneous Ramblings from Today's The Wall Street Journal
"Retail Sales Show Signs of Life" (Front Page, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, March 6, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123625531533739283.html ) Wall-Mart Stores Inc. showed same store sales increase of 5.1% (the first since September 2008). This one behemoth chain pulled up national industry same store sales to .7% when they otherwise would have dropped 4.1%. This is the retailer that is targeted for unionization by union leaders in the United States, owners of the Obama Administration and Congress. Look out America, don't let this happen.
"Political lobbying Drove FDA Process" (Same issue, Front Page http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629954783946701.html ) Well duh! Our entire political activity -- the very future of this country -- is steered by political lobbying, coupled with the concomitant campaign contributions. I was saddened a bit that the amount of political contribution by ReGen Biologics Inc to the politicians, Menendez, Pallone, Rothman and Lautenberg...some leaders of healthcare in Congress...was not detailed. Our system, our Congress, our administration...all are corrupted by lobbying. The politicians want to be reelected and live the cushy life on the taxpayers. We have made being a politician for life more valuable to a citizen than working for a living and contributing to the economy. I think Republicans killed the term limits and perhaps sunsetting of laws. They are all to blame and should be retired in 2010. Retire in 2010. That has a catchy ring to it. In the meantime, The Wall Street Journal doesn't have enough room to write about all the lobbying that drives government.
"Obama, Health-Care Players Agree to Seek Overhaul" (Same issue, Page A4, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123627593496542123.html ) While Obama laughingly states that "exploding costs of health care in America today" could doom the country or something he ignores the 150,000 pages of Medicare regulations brought to you by the same party. Then he rails against "special interests" for killing previous attempts at "reform". Special interests, of course, are those that espouse opinions opposite those of Democrats. And saving costs by spending a trillion or so dollars seems so...Obamaian. True reform -- impossible as it sounds -- can only come from competition. Check out laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery. Piling regulations on regulations and fixing prices according to lobbyists' contributions bring coverage for every perceived "cure" leaving out, of course, physicians, nurses, CEOs of healthcare organizations and those that know something through experience. Yes, I think I'll go to Henry Waxman for my sore throat. Democrats see fraud in profits, not understanding the basis of free-enterprise, that profits bring innovation, efficiency and cost reduction. They do not understand that legislation cannot stop crooks. Know this: Obama and the Democratic Congress wants government to own the healthcare industry and as the deficit blows up, so will healthcare regulations. 500,000 pages here we come brought to you by the party that brought us California, Amtrak and the U. S. Postal Service.
"Political lobbying Drove FDA Process" (Same issue, Front Page http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629954783946701.html ) Well duh! Our entire political activity -- the very future of this country -- is steered by political lobbying, coupled with the concomitant campaign contributions. I was saddened a bit that the amount of political contribution by ReGen Biologics Inc to the politicians, Menendez, Pallone, Rothman and Lautenberg...some leaders of healthcare in Congress...was not detailed. Our system, our Congress, our administration...all are corrupted by lobbying. The politicians want to be reelected and live the cushy life on the taxpayers. We have made being a politician for life more valuable to a citizen than working for a living and contributing to the economy. I think Republicans killed the term limits and perhaps sunsetting of laws. They are all to blame and should be retired in 2010. Retire in 2010. That has a catchy ring to it. In the meantime, The Wall Street Journal doesn't have enough room to write about all the lobbying that drives government.
"Obama, Health-Care Players Agree to Seek Overhaul" (Same issue, Page A4, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123627593496542123.html ) While Obama laughingly states that "exploding costs of health care in America today" could doom the country or something he ignores the 150,000 pages of Medicare regulations brought to you by the same party. Then he rails against "special interests" for killing previous attempts at "reform". Special interests, of course, are those that espouse opinions opposite those of Democrats. And saving costs by spending a trillion or so dollars seems so...Obamaian. True reform -- impossible as it sounds -- can only come from competition. Check out laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery. Piling regulations on regulations and fixing prices according to lobbyists' contributions bring coverage for every perceived "cure" leaving out, of course, physicians, nurses, CEOs of healthcare organizations and those that know something through experience. Yes, I think I'll go to Henry Waxman for my sore throat. Democrats see fraud in profits, not understanding the basis of free-enterprise, that profits bring innovation, efficiency and cost reduction. They do not understand that legislation cannot stop crooks. Know this: Obama and the Democratic Congress wants government to own the healthcare industry and as the deficit blows up, so will healthcare regulations. 500,000 pages here we come brought to you by the party that brought us California, Amtrak and the U. S. Postal Service.
Nero Hero of the Week
NERO HERO OF THE WEEK
(Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (15 December 37 – 9 June 68), born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also called Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus)
While it may not be fact, it is a belief that has lasted over two thousand years: Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Well, that is what is happening in Washington, District of Columbia, right now. Especially in the White House and Halls of Congress. I feel it incumbent upon me to laud one person each week for fiddling while the United States of America burns. Some might argue that the burn is intentional and set by liberals and Democrats beginning with the inauguration Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. Others might simply state that the Chief Executive Officer, newly elected, of the United States of America (hereinafter defined as "US&A) is laughably and predictably acting as a neophite. In other words, with no experience in running anything and no experience in hiring exceptional -- or even unexceptional -- executives to report to him, he's floundering and with his fishy behavior the nation is going belly-up. And he seems to be copying a recent whale: former president George Bush, Junior.
So the first weekly person to be honored with the Nero Hero of the Week Award is President Barack H. Obama.
He announced this week that the stock market, where something like 55 million of his subjects' households own stock through mutual funds -- nearly 48% of all households -- is like a popularity poll. Apparently all he is worried about with the plunge of the Dow Jones Industrial Averages this year is, "Am I popular today?" Well, Mr. President, yes, you are, according to the polls that really count by MSNBCCBSPPBSABC and the New York (and most other cities') Times. So fiddle away. Oh, by the way, Wikipedia, the on-line source of acknowledged fact wrote: "Over the course of his reign, Nero often made rulings that pleased the lower class. Nero was criticised as being obsessed with being popular." Sounds like another absolute-ruler wannabe.
But one last laugh. In order to show the world you understand, you mentioned something like "profits and earnings ratios". Well, Mr. President you might sound presidential, but you are ignorant. There is no such thing as "profits and earnings ratios", profits and earnings are essentially the same. Did you mean "price earnings ratios" perhaps?
Well the last last laugh is on us, we who elected him. He's putting us in several trillion dollars of additional debt, apparently more than every president since George Washington COMBINED!
So laugh and fiddle Mr. President I hope you like the tune, we don't.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Equalitism
Equalitism
My definition of "Equalitism" is one person or a group of people who espouse the philosophy that a population of individuals should be relatively equal in income, equal in standard of living or, if not equal, tending toward equality. Espouse they might, but they can't really believe it. It might be the opposite of meritocracy. Equalitism is grabbag of political behaviors and speeches constituting this political idealogy, the term and definition coined by me (as far as I know). It identifies typically left-wing liberal pronouncements given with the aim of winning elections and gaining power by diminishing success and those who have achieved it. It reaches close but not quite all the way to socialism, in which everyone together owns everything communally, and thus are equal. But in practice both are essentially the same, describing everyone as equal, except, of course, those in power. Those in power dictate to those "governed" by them how to live and what to have. Equalitism's converse might be exceptualism, or differentialism, or, God forbid, Capitalism, where people are born with equal opportunity and freedom to pursue happiness as they individually define it for themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
In case Democrats don't understand, most people are average. Read that again: most people are average. There's a bell -shaped population curve with those least-exceptional -- in ability and intelligence, for example -- at one end and those most-exceptional at the other end; everyone else is average...they are the vast majority. (Although it is probably understood even by liberals that everyone is differently-capable intellectually, physically, socially and in ambition, they rarely admit it.) Democrats have gained power by successfully convincing those in the middle that they should have more. Not by earning it but by simply by deserving it. [Democrats have used the same strategy for several generations to get African Americans' votes without providing them opportunity. Democrats, especially those with financial or power interests in the civil rights bureaucracies, have convinced African Americans that discrimination by white Americans (especially Republicans) have kept them down and brought for many a life of drugs, crime and fatherless families. This is the Democrats' contention of equality denied. Another Equalitism argument: in which citizens should have a right to equality (not opportunity) without effort but don't get it.] Equalitism does not reward achievement, but gives everything for simply being alive. A further argument by Democrats is that equality is a zero-sum game, where those who have, have taken it from those who don't have and who "need".
Democrats completely disregard the self-satisfaction one gets by sacrifice and the pride from accomplishment. Not to mention innovation and the creation of job-creating businesses by incentive. They do not seem to care about anything but power, absolute power for themselves and use Equalitism to get it. Obama promised us CHANGE and gave us CHAINS, the shackles held by the Chinese government. When our president rails against debt yet indebts our country several trillions of dollars, something is terribly wrong. And the reason: to get him and his Congress reelected in 2010 perhaps? Or to simply punish the successful? In any event, they have successfully used equalitism to get there. (Obama's 2009 deficit could reach $3 - 4,000,000,000,000 a sum over three-quarters of all the sovereign-wealth funds' assets, so maybe China won't hold the shackels, the U. S. will have to declare bankruptcy instead.)
Democratic/liberal dogma demands that in order to achieve equality, those less capable should be supported and elevated by government. And those more capable are deemed able to stand on their own. The question of whether this is better for society as a whole has never been openly debated because Democrats don't want Equalitism questioned. Does belief in Equalitism and its goal of pushing inward the edges of the bell-shaped curve, thus making the unexceptional and exceptional more average, yield a "better" society? Or does it simply buy votes of the average to gain and retain power?
I believe exceptualism should be encouraged, because the exceptional have always been the ones to invent, create, and take risk to better society as a whole as they better themselves. But the exceptional -- in ability and intellignce -- are always few in number, so they represent a small number of voters. Few could argue that the exceptional become the successful entrepreneurs and, yes, small business creators. While the "trickle-down" theory has been roundly discredited by liberals, it was said to be invented by a liberal, Will Rogers. It is a typical distortion of reality. Reality is: only businesses create lasting jobs. Only business creates wealth.
Equalitism tends to diminish wealth, jobs and society as a whole. But it elects Democrats.
In summary, in my view Equalitism is simply a vehicle by the use of which Democrats achieve power over others. If Republicans and conservatives are aware of this, they are afraid or otherwise unable to publicize it. We need to get back to having incentives to succeed, not just be alive. Government diminishes opportunity by diminishing achievement.
It might be like this:
(Bell-shaped Curve)
10% of population /80% of population/ /10% of population
Support their exceptualness /Leave alone/ /Assist their needs
Thursday, February 26, 2009
ObamaNation (Abomination)
OBAMANATION
All For The One
The One for The One
Candidate Obama promised CHANGE
Instead President Obama has given us CHAINS
With the shackles held by the Chinese Government
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The One-Trillion Dollar One Party Quest
The One-trillion Dollar One Party Quest
The Obama Administration and the present Democratic Party aren’t about equality, fairness or what’s good for this country or its citizens. It is about power, raw power over others. It is the culmination of a quest that began in earnest with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's inauguration 76 years ago this month (March 2009).
Their rise to current power may be the end of the free-enterprise system in the United States of America. The reward for risk and the achievement of success in the rough and tumble capitalist system is becoming so yesterday. The irresponsible are being rewarded at the expense of the responsible. As has been proven in myriad countries, including the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, socialism doesn’t work and doesn’t last. (And neither does Keynesian economics.) But it does ruin countries. FDR’s (or his advisors’) brilliant strategy of segmenting voter blocs of affinity groups and purchasing their votes using taxpayer money has reached fruition with the current Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama. FDR’s union leaders, seniors, the unemployed and the poor, Negroes and in a brilliant coup, writers and artists (through the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration’s Writers’ Projects) have been leveraged into Democrats winning this country a step at a time from Republicans, most of whom were busy creating businesses and jobs. While the Democrats ruthlessly buy votes, they spray the mantra of Socialist fairness (unfairness by conservatives) and equality for all (except for its puppeteers) and yes, Change! and utopia over all of us like piss.
Modern-day Democrats have added more affinity groups, such as gays, feminists, anti-warriors, environmentalists, Hispanics, the disabled and, of course the catch-all, the “disadvantaged”, whoever and wherever the Democrats want them to be. Socialism and Communism in the end aren’t about utopia, social harmony or equality, they have always been used as vehicles to gain and retain power. Karl Marx may have been quoted but fear, retribution and subjugation gained the power and the wealth. Ordinary citizens were left with what was left.
And so it is with the Obama Administration and the present Democratic Party, power at all costs. And clearly they are well on their way to a one-party system. The “Elect Democrats in 2010” Bill was $787,000,000,000 devoted to gaining a one-party system. Adding today’s (February 19, 2009) $275,000,000,000 Obama Housing Plan to subsidize losers (a majority of whom are Democrats) and penalize the responsible (a majority of which are Republicans) exceeds $1,000,000,000,000 ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to completely obliterate the Republican Party.
Yes, this is the same party that managed California to its present success!
Superamerican
The Obama Administration and the present Democratic Party aren’t about equality, fairness or what’s good for this country or its citizens. It is about power, raw power over others. It is the culmination of a quest that began in earnest with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's inauguration 76 years ago this month (March 2009).
Their rise to current power may be the end of the free-enterprise system in the United States of America. The reward for risk and the achievement of success in the rough and tumble capitalist system is becoming so yesterday. The irresponsible are being rewarded at the expense of the responsible. As has been proven in myriad countries, including the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, socialism doesn’t work and doesn’t last. (And neither does Keynesian economics.) But it does ruin countries. FDR’s (or his advisors’) brilliant strategy of segmenting voter blocs of affinity groups and purchasing their votes using taxpayer money has reached fruition with the current Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama. FDR’s union leaders, seniors, the unemployed and the poor, Negroes and in a brilliant coup, writers and artists (through the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration’s Writers’ Projects) have been leveraged into Democrats winning this country a step at a time from Republicans, most of whom were busy creating businesses and jobs. While the Democrats ruthlessly buy votes, they spray the mantra of Socialist fairness (unfairness by conservatives) and equality for all (except for its puppeteers) and yes, Change! and utopia over all of us like piss.
Modern-day Democrats have added more affinity groups, such as gays, feminists, anti-warriors, environmentalists, Hispanics, the disabled and, of course the catch-all, the “disadvantaged”, whoever and wherever the Democrats want them to be. Socialism and Communism in the end aren’t about utopia, social harmony or equality, they have always been used as vehicles to gain and retain power. Karl Marx may have been quoted but fear, retribution and subjugation gained the power and the wealth. Ordinary citizens were left with what was left.
And so it is with the Obama Administration and the present Democratic Party, power at all costs. And clearly they are well on their way to a one-party system. The “Elect Democrats in 2010” Bill was $787,000,000,000 devoted to gaining a one-party system. Adding today’s (February 19, 2009) $275,000,000,000 Obama Housing Plan to subsidize losers (a majority of whom are Democrats) and penalize the responsible (a majority of which are Republicans) exceeds $1,000,000,000,000 ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to completely obliterate the Republican Party.
Yes, this is the same party that managed California to its present success!
Superamerican
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Rambling Through the Left-leaning Press
"Starbucks spars over union"...(Headline, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Tuesday, February 17, 2009 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/400295starbucksunion17.html)
Committed left-wing supporter of Democrats and President Obama, Starbucks CEO, apparent anti-union Howard Schultz, is reaping what he helped sow. The even-further left Industrial Workers of the World, professed anti-capitalist and pro-worker, wants to "take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the world." Sounds like the Democratic Congress! An IWW leader is quoted as saying, "It's a problem [Schultz' anti-union, pro-"partner" mantra] because it means that whoever (sic.) runs the company believes they (sic.) know what's better for their workers than their workers." Sounds like the Democratic Congress criticizing the American citizenry. And by the way the IWW doesn't like traditional unions which focus on negotiation and bargaining. Well, under Obama and the Democratic Congress, unionizing will soon in all likelihood be a walk in the park. So, Mr. Schultz, enjoy as your once-gigantic investment in Starbucks evaporates like Carnation milk.
"California on fiscal cliff", Page A6. Seattle post-Intelligencer, Tuesday, Febraury 17, 2007 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/400360califbudget17.html) Yes this is a prelude to the United States of America, also run by Democrats.
And for Katrina redux: "Education chief faces decisisions" (Page A6, same paper, same edition. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/400357education17.html) Congress doubles the budget of the U. S. Education Department by spreading $100,000,000,000 "emergency" aid for unionized public schools and left-leaning colleges. There is absolutely NO WAY this money can do any good thrown around in this bureaucracy. Might as well simply give it to ACORN. And most of it is for the disabled and disadvantaged; what? nothing for those who are exceptionally capable to contribute to society? No, they might not vote Democratic. Congress does, of course, penalize those who might be able to lead the banking system out of its present problems (because some might be Republicans.) Congress constrained "pay for performance" -- incentive comp -- for those who will manage the institutions which need "bailout" money. Doesn't matter if they had the reins during the fall, they can't make much money by turning them around. Sure, Congress, they'll pitch right in! Oh, I noticed, Congress that you all just got raises.
All in all another depressing day for the future of the United States, being managed by the International Workers of the Congress.
Committed left-wing supporter of Democrats and President Obama, Starbucks CEO, apparent anti-union Howard Schultz, is reaping what he helped sow. The even-further left Industrial Workers of the World, professed anti-capitalist and pro-worker, wants to "take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the world." Sounds like the Democratic Congress! An IWW leader is quoted as saying, "It's a problem [Schultz' anti-union, pro-"partner" mantra] because it means that whoever (sic.) runs the company believes they (sic.) know what's better for their workers than their workers." Sounds like the Democratic Congress criticizing the American citizenry. And by the way the IWW doesn't like traditional unions which focus on negotiation and bargaining. Well, under Obama and the Democratic Congress, unionizing will soon in all likelihood be a walk in the park. So, Mr. Schultz, enjoy as your once-gigantic investment in Starbucks evaporates like Carnation milk.
"California on fiscal cliff", Page A6. Seattle post-Intelligencer, Tuesday, Febraury 17, 2007 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/400360califbudget17.html) Yes this is a prelude to the United States of America, also run by Democrats.
And for Katrina redux: "Education chief faces decisisions" (Page A6, same paper, same edition. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/400357education17.html) Congress doubles the budget of the U. S. Education Department by spreading $100,000,000,000 "emergency" aid for unionized public schools and left-leaning colleges. There is absolutely NO WAY this money can do any good thrown around in this bureaucracy. Might as well simply give it to ACORN. And most of it is for the disabled and disadvantaged; what? nothing for those who are exceptionally capable to contribute to society? No, they might not vote Democratic. Congress does, of course, penalize those who might be able to lead the banking system out of its present problems (because some might be Republicans.) Congress constrained "pay for performance" -- incentive comp -- for those who will manage the institutions which need "bailout" money. Doesn't matter if they had the reins during the fall, they can't make much money by turning them around. Sure, Congress, they'll pitch right in! Oh, I noticed, Congress that you all just got raises.
All in all another depressing day for the future of the United States, being managed by the International Workers of the Congress.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Elect Democrats in 2010 Act passed.
An update to the so-called "Stimulus Act" as of July 2009: it hasn't worked. Unemployement was 7.6% when Obama took over and he then promised unemployment would only reach 8% and save or create 3 million jobs. Unemployment now 9.5% and heading over 10, with 2.6 million jobs lost. Now of course he's backtracking, saying that the stimulus bill was for two years (safely making it after the 2010 elections, where it planned to re-elect Democrats.)
The Elect Democrats in 2010 Act has been passed. Everyone in America, with the exception of one minority group: successful businesspeople, has been bought by the Democrats in the fruition of a 75 year quest begun by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He segmented the voters into a number of blocs: the aged, the unemployed, the creative (artists, writers and the like), the union leaders controlling workers, blacks, and through deficit spending bought each of them. Purchases that have lasted. In the intervening years the Democratic Party has added other affinity groups: gays, anti-warriors, environmentalists. Again almost every voter in America except those who finance the country: businesspeople. Toss a few more trillions of dollars of government debt onto foreign markets, and, at some point not only carrying costs become impossible to finance, with diminished business, but what if those foreign entities either can't or decide not to buy our paper? I don't know if there's a Chapter 11 for countries. But probably not. They call our debt and they own us.
And to even get Democrats on board it was a difficult buy. The Senate made a strategic purchase of three "Republicans" (now is the time to differentiate between Republicans who belong to a party but don't necessarily share and ideals and conservatives who have many deep ideals, such as, to start: a trust in the citizens to make the best decisions for themselves; support of business - the engine of all growth and wealth; and a distrust of large, invasive government - the diminisher of growth and wealth.) Rep. Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe got an additional $420 million for Maine's Medicaid program, a well-known economic stimulator; and Senator Arlen Specter got an additional $6.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health to help him with his cancer. He also got to watch the Superbowl with President Obama. These purchases go along with $300 million for government cars, to boost the automakers union leaders; $75 million for the left-leaning Smithsonian Institution; $2 billion for the Obama powerplant in Illinois (wonder what fuel it'll consume); and let's get a little something for the Speaker: Instead of protecting citizens $30 million will protect a tiny salt marsh harvest mouse with wetlands restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area because the little rat is endangered. Or perhaps Speaker Pelosi has other reasons. And some cash for welfare to those who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes. Roughly half the voters now won't contribute anything to support the federal government. FDR must be smiling in Hell right now.
Goodbye Our United States of America. Hello One-Party System. Or perhaps a Chinese overseer.
Superamericanperiodictablet.com
The Elect Democrats in 2010 Act has been passed. Everyone in America, with the exception of one minority group: successful businesspeople, has been bought by the Democrats in the fruition of a 75 year quest begun by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He segmented the voters into a number of blocs: the aged, the unemployed, the creative (artists, writers and the like), the union leaders controlling workers, blacks, and through deficit spending bought each of them. Purchases that have lasted. In the intervening years the Democratic Party has added other affinity groups: gays, anti-warriors, environmentalists. Again almost every voter in America except those who finance the country: businesspeople. Toss a few more trillions of dollars of government debt onto foreign markets, and, at some point not only carrying costs become impossible to finance, with diminished business, but what if those foreign entities either can't or decide not to buy our paper? I don't know if there's a Chapter 11 for countries. But probably not. They call our debt and they own us.
And to even get Democrats on board it was a difficult buy. The Senate made a strategic purchase of three "Republicans" (now is the time to differentiate between Republicans who belong to a party but don't necessarily share and ideals and conservatives who have many deep ideals, such as, to start: a trust in the citizens to make the best decisions for themselves; support of business - the engine of all growth and wealth; and a distrust of large, invasive government - the diminisher of growth and wealth.) Rep. Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe got an additional $420 million for Maine's Medicaid program, a well-known economic stimulator; and Senator Arlen Specter got an additional $6.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health to help him with his cancer. He also got to watch the Superbowl with President Obama. These purchases go along with $300 million for government cars, to boost the automakers union leaders; $75 million for the left-leaning Smithsonian Institution; $2 billion for the Obama powerplant in Illinois (wonder what fuel it'll consume); and let's get a little something for the Speaker: Instead of protecting citizens $30 million will protect a tiny salt marsh harvest mouse with wetlands restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area because the little rat is endangered. Or perhaps Speaker Pelosi has other reasons. And some cash for welfare to those who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes. Roughly half the voters now won't contribute anything to support the federal government. FDR must be smiling in Hell right now.
Goodbye Our United States of America. Hello One-Party System. Or perhaps a Chinese overseer.
Superamericanperiodictablet.com
Monday, February 2, 2009
President Makes Down Payment on Obligation to Union Leaders and Trial Lawyers for Electing Him
Re: the so-called Lilly Ledbetter "fair pay" bill --
Questions and answers about the equal pay bill that the House passed and sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday:
By The Associated Press
Questions and answers about the equal pay bill that the House passed and sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday:
Q: When may claimants file suits?
A: President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday. With that, claimants may file suits immediately under the newly clarified statute of limitations provisions.
Q: The personnel or records involved in original acts of discrimination that occurred years ago may no longer be available. Who is responsible for providing evidence in a discrimination suit?
A: The burden of proof ultimately falls on the plaintiff, or employee. It is up to the plaintiff to show there was the intent to discriminate.
Q: Who is Lilly Ledbetter?
A: Ledbetter,70, worked for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Ala., from 1979 to 1998. Near the end of her career, she received an anonymous tip that she was earning less than her male colleagues. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A jury initially awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages, a sum that a judge later reduced to $300,000.
Q: Was there a Supreme Court ruling in the Ledbetter case?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in May 2007 threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination even though she was not aware at the time that she was receiving less than her male colleagues.
Q: What does the bill do?
A: It clarifies that the 180-day statute of limitations is extended every time an employer violates the law by issuing a paycheck or engages in other practices that discriminate. Therefore, if an employee alleges that she received a salary 20 years ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations. The bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back pay awards to two years.
Q: What is the legal basis of the equal pay bill?
A: Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate in paying wages based on race, gender, national origin and religion.
"Letter to the Editor" as published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sunday, February 1, 2009, Page B 6:
OTHER SIDE
Unions get their payback
The Obama administration and Congress began their payback to the unions for electing them with the bill that will make it easier for trial lawyers to sue companies on behalf of their "plaintiffs" for pay "discrimination" over years, perhaps decades. That will kill jobs. Add it to the stimulus bill and any "recovery" will be extended to years.
Why don't you present this side of our government to your readers?
Theodore M. Wight
Seattle
Questions and answers about the equal pay bill that the House passed and sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday:
By The Associated Press
Questions and answers about the equal pay bill that the House passed and sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday:
Q: When may claimants file suits?
A: President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday. With that, claimants may file suits immediately under the newly clarified statute of limitations provisions.
Q: The personnel or records involved in original acts of discrimination that occurred years ago may no longer be available. Who is responsible for providing evidence in a discrimination suit?
A: The burden of proof ultimately falls on the plaintiff, or employee. It is up to the plaintiff to show there was the intent to discriminate.
Q: Who is Lilly Ledbetter?
A: Ledbetter,70, worked for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Ala., from 1979 to 1998. Near the end of her career, she received an anonymous tip that she was earning less than her male colleagues. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A jury initially awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages, a sum that a judge later reduced to $300,000.
Q: Was there a Supreme Court ruling in the Ledbetter case?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in May 2007 threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination even though she was not aware at the time that she was receiving less than her male colleagues.
Q: What does the bill do?
A: It clarifies that the 180-day statute of limitations is extended every time an employer violates the law by issuing a paycheck or engages in other practices that discriminate. Therefore, if an employee alleges that she received a salary 20 years ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations. The bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back pay awards to two years.
Q: What is the legal basis of the equal pay bill?
A: Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate in paying wages based on race, gender, national origin and religion.
"Letter to the Editor" as published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sunday, February 1, 2009, Page B 6:
OTHER SIDE
Unions get their payback
The Obama administration and Congress began their payback to the unions for electing them with the bill that will make it easier for trial lawyers to sue companies on behalf of their "plaintiffs" for pay "discrimination" over years, perhaps decades. That will kill jobs. Add it to the stimulus bill and any "recovery" will be extended to years.
Why don't you present this side of our government to your readers?
Theodore M. Wight
Seattle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
