sex warehouse

Don't have sex. It's so obvious. It's so logical. Why are we even talking? Don't have sex and you don't pregnant. Don't have sex and you don't get an STD. Don't have sex and you don't get AIDS. What's not to get about this?

Drive safely and you won't have an accident. Follow the posted speed limit and not only will you not get a speeding ticket, you won't have an accident. Keep your hands on the wheel and your attention focused on driving without talking on a cellphone or texting or reading or eating your lunch and you won't have an accident. Heck, who needs a seat belt? If we all follow the rules, we won't need traffic cops or radar traps. Why are we even talking?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published that 33,808 people died in traffic accidents in the United States in 2009. The published stats going back 16 years show a total of 661,403 deaths or an average of 41,338 per year. It seems that 2009 was a good year.

Drive safely and you won't have an accident? How's that one workin' out for ya?

According to UNAIDS.Org, there are 33 million on the planet currently living with HIV (2009). The same report estimates that in 2009, 1.8 million died from AIDS.

In the United States, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 18,000 people die each year from AIDS.

The CDC reports for 2009 more than 1.2 million cases of chlamydia, 301,174 reported cases of gonorrhea and 13,997 reported cases of syphilis. CDC estimates that undiagnosed and untreated STDs cause at least 24,000 women in the U.S. each year to become infertile.

827,609 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC in 2007 although the Guttmacher Institute reports 1.2 million in 2008. (CDC reporting is voluntary while the institute actively gets the numbers.) Statistics Canada reports 96,815 induced abortions were performed in Canada in 2005.

Theory versus Reality
In theory, if we all drove safely, there would be no accidents. In theory, if we all followed the speed limit, there would be no speeding tickets hence no need for traffic cops. The reality is so far from the theory that anybody would laugh if we suggested retiring our traffic cops and letting the citizenry police themselves. It would seem that the word freedom means the freedom to make mistakes or to deliberately do what's not right or to thumb your nose at the rules because nobody's going to tell you what to do.

Anti-abortionists actually increase the number of abortions
Christina Page, author of a 2006 book about the pro-life movement and its war on sex, wrote in the Huffington Post on February 24, 2009:

A new report released today by the Guttmacher Institute found that increasing access to contraception is the most effective approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and the need for abortion. That report specifically concluded that making contraception available to low income women reduces the number of abortions by nearly 40%. When birth control isn't available unintended pregnancy increases by 2 million and the number of abortions spikes by more than 800,000 each year. Researchers noted that providing contraception saves taxpayers 4 times as much as not providing it.

Time: Healthland - Aug 31/2011
Gov. Rick Perry's Weird Science: Teen Pregnancy Aside, "Abstinence Works" By Meredith Melnick
Texas has the highest teen birth rate and the fourth highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S., according to the Guttmacher Institute. So when Gov. Perry turned down $4.4 million in federal funding for pregnancy prevention programs and decided to continue with state-funded abstinence-only education in October 2010, a reporter from the Texas Tribune asked him why. Specifically, why, in the face of rising teen pregnancy rates, would the governor stick with a method that didn't seem to be working?

"Abstinence works," Perry replied to a roomful of laughter. The reporter pressed on, asking for data to back up the assertion that abstinence education leads to lower teen pregnancy rates. Flustered, Perry said that he knew abstinence worked from his "own personal life."

Uploaded by thecentristword on Aug 15, 2011
Rick Perry Struggles to answer Question on Abstinence
Rick Perry Struggles to answer Question on Abstinence - what seems to be a rather simple question turns into a bit of a confusing mess. Give this guy the nuclear button? I wouldn't suggest it.



Final Word
I think that Rick Perry is absolutely right: abstinence does work. And to support Mr. Perry in his promotion of abstinence, I would propose that all voters plan to abstain from voting for him.

I sit here literally stunned by the level of stupidity, incompetence and outright blindness to reality that comes from the faith-based movements. Albert Einstein supposedly said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Abstinence in theory seems logical. However a truly great visionary will see that while theory is a start, it is only a start and the implementation of a theory leads one to discover the flaws in the original theory.

Theory: If we all abstain from sex, nobody gets pregnant. Reality: People are not going to stop having sex. Theory: We all drive safely, there will be no accidents. Reality: Do I really have to fill this one in?

Sarah Palin is intellectually challenged. Michele Bachmann is cerebrally deficient. And Rick Perry? Hey, nice suit! Mr. Perry blindly persists in a course of action dictated by his whimsical interpretation of the Bible and his own limited experience in life. I am reminded of a blogger at Open Salon called Cranky Cuss who has written in his bio:

My motto: The conventional wisdom has too much convention, not enough wisdom.

Corollary: Even Einstein was wrong sometimes, and you're not Einstein.

Yes, Einstein. That is a reminder about this election season of just how little Einstein we'll get and how much Forrest Gump. Then again, Forrest demonstrated a very down to earth practical approach to life and its problems. When I look at Rick Perry, I begin to think Forrest was a genius.


References

Wikipedia: Abstinence
Abstinence is a voluntary restraint from indulging in bodily activities that are widely experienced as giving pleasure. Most frequently, the term refers to sexual abstinence, or abstention from alcohol or food. The practice can arise from religious prohibitions or practical considerations. Abstinence may also refer to drugs. For example you can abstain from smoking. Abstinence has diverse forms. Commonly it refers to a temporary or partial abstinence from food, as in fasting. In the twelve-step program of Overeaters Anonymous abstinence is the term for refraining from compulsive eating, akin in meaning to sobriety for alcoholics. Because the regimen is intended to be a conscious act, freely chosen to enhance life, abstinence is sometimes distinguished from the psychological mechanism of repression. The latter is an unconscious state, having unhealthy consequences. Freud termed the channeling of sexual energies into other more culturally or socially acceptable activities, "sublimation".

Wikipedia: Sexual abstinence
Sexual abstinence is the practice of refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity for medical, psychological, legal, social or religious reasons.

Huffington Post - Feb 24/2009
"Pro-Life" Movement Admits Pro-Abortion Stance by Christina Page
Sometimes referred to as "The Pro-life Paradox," researchers and women's health advocates in recent years have drawn attention to the disparities between the mission statements of so-called "anti-abortion" groups and the effects of their policies. For example, the countries considered the most "pro-choice," where contraception is widely available and abortion is legal, and often free of charge, are those that also have the lowest abortion rates in the world. The countries with the highest rates of abortion are those that have adopted the policies of the so-called "anti-abortion" movement and have banned abortion and opposed efforts to make contraception more widely available.

Guttmacher Institute - Feb 24/2009
1.94 million unintended pregnancies and 810,000 abortions prevented each year
By providing millions of young and low-income women access to voluntary contraceptive services, the national family planning program prevents 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies, each year. These pregnancies would result in 860,000 unintended births, 810,000 abortions and 270,000 miscarriages, according to a new Guttmacher Institute report.

Amazon
How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex
by Christina Page
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Basic Books (December 26, 2006)
The abortion issue is a cover for a fundamentalist "anti-contraception" and "anti-sex movement," argues this vigorous broadside. In a well-researched and pointed critique of prolife excesses, NARAL official Page (The Smart Girl's Guide to College) details the multifaceted opposition the Christian right has mounted to a broad range of reproductive rights. Prolife groups, she notes, have fraudulently conflated contraceptives with devices or substances that cause abortion, championed pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives, and organized to block over-the-counter sale of "Plan B" emergency contraceptive pills. Attacking both feminism and premarital sex, she contends, they vilify working moms and push ineffective abstinence-only sex-ed curricula, and have even opposed a vaccine against the HPV virus, a major cause of cervical cancer, claiming it would promote promiscuity. The irony, she argues, is that prolifers' effort to restrict access to contraception actually increases the number of abortions. Against what she believes is the fundamentalists' dour procreationist ideology and animus toward sexual pleasure itself, Page celebrates the blessings conferred by contraceptives in liberating women, and their families, in our modern "pro-choice world," claiming that "regular sex brings people as much happiness as a $50,000-a-year raise." If sometimes a tad facile, her defense of the sexual revolution in upbeat—even patriotic—terms makes this a spirited, thought-provoking addition to the culture wars. (review by Publishers Weekly - Dec 19/2005)

Wikipedia: Seat belt legislation
Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved. An earlier statistical analysis by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US.

Freakonomics - April 2/2010
Life (and Death) in the Fast Lane by Eric A. Morris
According to a recent paper by Lee S. Friedman, Donald Hedeker, and Elihu D. Richter, the lifting of the federal 55 mph speed limit in 1995 was responsible for 12,545 deaths between 1995 and 2005. That’s about 45 percent more American fatalities than we have suffered in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

2011-09-01

Site Map - William Quincy Belle

Follow me on Twitter

Considering the fallout all Americans, in fact the entire world, continue to face from the various events which occurred during the Bush presidency like the war in Iraq, the financial crisis and the war on terror, this question has been discussed over and over again by pundits, political analysts and your average Joe in the street without having yet arrived at a satisfactory answer. Even during Mr. Bush's time in office, there were those who doubted his ability to lead and certainly doubted his decisions.

On June 10, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and co-sponsor Robert Wexler introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives. On July 25, a vote of 251 to 166 saw the House refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee where no further action was taken on it. The second term of the Bush presidency ended on January 20, 2009 rendering impeachment efforts moot.

Wow. Is that a condemnation or what? But let's not forget history. Eventually, somebody in the distant future is going to look back on the Bush era with a more objective eye.

On July 30, 2003, George Bush gave a news conference on Iraq. During his talk he explained his reasons for the invasion talking about the supposed weapons program.

"I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision."
- George Bush: The Washington Post - July 30/2003

This apparently was not the first time Mr. Bush suggested, in the face of criticism of his decision, that he would eventually be vindicated at some time in the future. In 1993, Bush was the owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. At a September 1993 meeting of the Major League Baseball owners, Bush was the only baseball executive to vote against the plan to allow more teams into the playoffs each year.

"I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right."
- George Bush: The Atlantic - Oct 6/2007

The change was implemented and has been enormously popular with the fans and an unprecedented financial success for Major League Baseball.

Thomas Fleming
Mr. Fleming is an American military historian and historical novelist. On February 28, 2009, he penned the Wall Street Journal article "Was George W. Bush the Worst President?" to give his take on this question which was asked quite naturally when Bush's term in office came to an end on January 20, 2009. Apparently a number of historians had ranked Bush as the worst and Mr. Fleming found this to be perplexing.

Fleming goes on to enumerate various presidents like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Woodrow Wilson and their various actions which could be considered as catastrophic. When shooting started with revolutionary France in 1798, Adams offered to resign so that Washington could resume the job. Instead of building a navy to deal with the British, Jefferson declared an embargo on all trade with England and Europe and brought the American economy to a standstill. Wilson talked Congress into declaring war on Germany saying America would not have to send a single soldier. Before the end of the war, over two million troops were overseas. In modern times, Fleming cites Jimmy Carter as presiding over the most horrendous stagflation in U.S. history.

Fleming concludes:

In this light, however wavering, maybe it's time to suspend the rush to judgment on George W. Bush for 10 or 20 years. I suspect we will decide Mr. Bush's first term, with his decisive response to 9/11, deserves some praise, and that his second term succumbed to an awesome amount of bad luck, from his generals' disagreements on how to fight the war in Iraq to the Wall Street collapse of 2008.

Many presidents have run out of luck in their second terms, but Mr. Bush's record in this department will be hard to match. Beyond the popularity polls there may be a dimension we should remember in judging every president: sympathy.

Richard Adams
Adams is a journalist for the Guardian in England and his July 1, 2010 article "George Bush: Worst. President. Ever?" has him concluding as did Fleming that we may be rushing to condemn Bush when history has other examples which may better qualify. Adams feels that Nixon with his resigning in disgrace, his foreign policy in Laos and Cambodia and his disastrous economic policies should be ranked worse than Bush. However he points out that William Henry Harrison may have a leg up on anybody else because he took office on 4 March 1841 and left it on 4 April 1841. I suppose one could argue that he didn't have time to do anything wrong but he certainly didn't have time to do anything right.

Alan Grayson
Mr. Grayson was the U.S. Representative for Florida's 8th congressional district from 2009 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. This blog posting and the re-asking of the eternal question of where George Bush ranks among the worst presidents was prompted by a recent video clip of an interview with this gentleman on MSNBC. Amusingly enough, the interview at first gives the impression that Grayson supports Bush but you soon realize that no, Mr. Grayson is not in any way a Bush fan.

Uploaded by RepAlanGrayson on May 6, 2011
Bush: The Worst President of My Lifetime
Alan Grayson appears on MSNBC's The Ed Show to help give President George W. Bush the proper credit for his role in the killing of Osama bin Laden. Bush gets credit for torture, ruining America's reputation around the world, destroying the American economy, and getting us into two endless wars. The interview took place on May 5, 2011.


Final Word
The jury is still out. However leave it to politics to polarize opinions. Certainly looking back in time one sees things differently as one knows things one didn't know then. I remember a press conference held about three months before the war in Iraq started and Donald Rumsfeld said to the reporters that the war would not last longer than six months and cost no more than one billion dollars. The Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom started on March 20, 2003. Estimates on the cost of the war are $1 trillion in direct costs and $1 trillion in complementary costs (interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars, extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050).

There are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.
- Donald Rumsfeld, Press Conference at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, June 6, 2002

The historian Thomas Fleming suggested that instead of rushing to judge Bush, we should look at him as with every president with "sympathy". I suppose that any of us have to remember that the president is a man just like any of us. And any of us could very well ask the question as to what we would have done in any of the circumstances the president faced and whether or not we would have made the "right" decision. Yes, we could ask ourselves that. However when I look back on 9/11, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror, Katrina, the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, etc. I have to say to myself, "Wow!"


References

Wikipedia: George W. Bush
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, serving from 1995 to 2000.

Wikipedia: Efforts to impeach George W. Bush
During the presidency of George W. Bush, several American politicians sought to either investigate Bush for allegedly impeachable offenses, or to bring actual impeachment charges on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. The most significant of these efforts occurred on June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25, where no further action was taken on it. Bush's presidency ended on January 20, 2009 with the completion of his second term in office, rendering impeachment efforts moot.

Wikipedia: Public image of George W. Bush
George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, has elicited a variety of public perceptions regarding his policies, personality, and performance as a head of state. In the U.S. and elsewhere, journalists, polling organizations, and others have documented the expression of an evolving array of opinions of President Bush. Time magazine named George W. Bush as its Person of the Year for 2000 and 2004, citing him as the most influential person during these two years. According to Time, the distinction goes to the person who, for good or ill, has most affected the course of the year; it is therefore not necessarily an honor or a reward.

Wikipedia: Legality of the Iraq War
The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."

Wikipedia: Alan Grayson
Alan Mark Grayson (born March 13, 1958) is the former U.S. Representative for Florida's 8th congressional district, serving from 2009 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

Wikipedia: Thomas Fleming (historian)
Thomas James Fleming (born 1927) is an American military historian and historical novelist.

Wikipedia: Iraq War
The Iraq War or War in Iraq, also referred to in the United States as the Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom, began on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by the United States under the administration of President George W. Bush and the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Wikipedia: Financial cost of the Iraq War
The following is a partial accounting of financial costs of the 2003 Iraq War by the United States and the United Kingdom, the two largest non Iraqi participants of the multinational force in Iraq.

2011-08-25

Site Map - William Quincy Belle

Follow me on Twitter

Back in May of this year, one Harold Camping of the Family Radio predicted the end of the world and many of us had a field day repeating, analysing and mocking this gentleman's announcement of the Rapture. For those not quite familiar with the term, the Rapture is the Biblical ascension of God's elect people, approximately 200 million people, into heaven. - That's 200 million out of 7 billion; I'll let you ponder those numbers for a moment. - For further information, you can click over to my blog posting May 21: The End of the World (Afterword May 22) for Biblical references, a video interview with Mr. Camping and this press release from the New York Police Department: "We don't plan any additional coverage for the end of the world. Indeed, if it happens, fewer officers will be required for streets that presumably will be empty." This struck a chord with many people as this particular posting had the highest numbers of pageviews in the history of this blog. As a matter of record, I think my second most popular posting was the one about Michele Bachmann eating a corn dog. See Michele Bachmann, a Corn Dog and the Oral Office. I will take that to mean readers are strongly interested in both religious and phallic symbolism. Go figure.

As the United States gears up for its election campaign 2012, much attention is being paid to who will win the GOP spot to run against the Democrats. Who will get a chance to topple the current leader and make him a one term president?

A lot of ink has been spilled about Sarah Palin, an intellectual featherweight who is so dumb, she... well, there are so many metaphors deserving to be written, where can one possibly begin? If McCain did anything, he gave the most undeserving presidential contender in the world 15 minutes of fame by elevating a complete idiot to being one step away from the Oval Office.

Michele Bachmann is another twit whose cerebral cortex defies categorisation. While I can make a humorous reference to tourettes in order to explain this woman's compulsive vocalisation of whatever random thought enters her brain, the truth is that Bachmann's singular obsession with leadership is not in any way accompanied by a thorough and profound grasp of the issues and a comprehensive, well thought out strategy for dealing with said issues. She is sustained by a religious fervour which has clouded her judgement and blinded her to anything outside of her own small realm of experience.

The new right wing pin-up boy is Rick Perry, a frightening amalgam of personal conviction and religious zeal which seems to be capable of arriving at leaps of faith in the face of logic where two plus two equals five because the interpretation of an obscure Biblical passage by some obscure self-proclaimed lay expert says so. Fifty percent of the time I'm right and fifty percent of the time you're wrong. If I jump out of an airplane without a parachute, Jesus will save me. Of course I'm not sure how "God helps those who help themselves" is supposed to fit into any of this.

Uploaded by oldfartrants on Aug 12, 2011
"Danger Rick Perry!" by Old Fart Rants
Rick Perry - the governor of Texas - the guy who just held "The Response" a week ago in Houston -- that day of fasting and praying to Jesus to fix all our problems - just announced he's running for president - and that makes him the most dangerous person in the country. If you thought George Bush was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet! And here's why you should be worried. Gov. Perry is affiliated with a fanatical right wing Christian group called the New Apostolic Reformation. They were involved in setting up the big "pray-in" in Houston. Do a little research on these guys -- it'll blow your mind! The New Apostolic Reformation believes that certain Christians (them) have been hand picked by God to take over society. These people are insane, and their goal is power, dominion and total control. Now you know the real reason why Rick Perry held his big everybody pray to Jesus event. Now you know why he says he's "doing what he's supposed to be doing - following God's calling to serve". Now you know why Rick Perry is running for president. And now you know why Rick Perry is the most dangerous person in America!


Wikipedia: New Apostolic Reformation
The New Apostolic Reformation is a movement in Protestant Christianity largely associated with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. The basic thesis asserts that God is restoring the lost offices of church governance, namely the offices of Prophet and Apostle.

General beliefs
The New Apostolic Reformation has Pentecostal and Charismatic origins, with those traditions' interpretations of the nature of the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit within a believer. Unlike some parts of Protestant Christianity, these include the performance of miracles (such as healing), prophecy and the direct revelation of Christ to each believer.

Although the movement regards the church as the true body of saved believers, as most Evangelical Protestants do, it differs from the broader Protestant tradition in its view on the nature of church leadership, specifically the doctrine of Five-Fold Ministry, which is based upon a non-traditional interpretation of Ephesians 4:11.

Forrest Wilder describes the New Apostolic Reformation as having "taken Pentecostalism, with its emphasis on ecstatic worship and the supernatural, and given it an adrenaline shot." Wilder adds that beliefs of people associated with the movement "can tend toward the bizarre" and that it has "taken biblical literalism to an extreme."

The organization has become increasingly involved in political activism, with many of its leaders supporting the 2012 presidential candidacy of Rick Perry.

The Texas Observer - Aug 3/2011
Rick Perry's Army of God by Forrest Wilder
On September 28, 2009, at 1:40 p.m., God’s messengers visited Rick Perry.

On this day, the Lord’s messengers arrived in the form of two Texas pastors, Tom Schlueter of Arlington and Bob Long of San Marcos, who called on Perry in the governor’s office inside the state Capitol. Schlueter and Long both oversee small congregations, but they are more than just pastors. They consider themselves modern-day apostles and prophets, blessed with the same gifts as Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles.

The pastors told Perry of God’s grand plan for Texas. A chain of powerful prophecies had proclaimed that Texas was “The Prophet State,” anointed by God to lead the United States into revival and Godly government. And the governor would have a special role.

Religion Dispatches - July 15/2011
Rick Perry and the New Apostolic Reformation by Sarah Posner
Perry, [Forrest] Wilder argues, is venturing into new territory for an aspiring presidential candidate by courting pastors who are followers of the New Apostolic Reformation. The NAR apostles, he writes, have "bizarre" beliefs, including "some" who "consider Freemasonry a 'demonic stronghold' tantamount to witchcraft" and one who thinks the Democratic Party "is controlled by Jezebel and three lesser demons." These unusual beliefs, says Wilder, wouldn't be so remarkable except for the NAR's "growing fascination with infiltrating politics and government." NAR adherents want to "not just take 'dominion' over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the 'Seven Mountains' of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world. They believe they’re intended to lord over it all. As a first step, they’re leading an 'army of God' to commandeer civilian government."

Final Word
What is the "right" answer? I mean the real "right" answer? Anybody? Anybody at all? The issues we're talk about are complex, really, really, really complex. "If it was that easy, it would be done by now." Since it isn't done now, is it safe to assume that it isn't that easy?

So why is it when I ask for the "right" answer, Palin, Bachmann and Perry raise their hands? The best minds on the entire planet have worked on these issues and do not necessarily know what the "right" answer is and yet these candidates and by proxy their backers know exactly what to do. Really. You guys know what the "right" answer is. All of you. Amazing. Would I seem like a doubting Thomas if I said that I may be harbouring just a smidgen of misgivings about you guys running the show?

George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq. Several months before the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld stood up at a press conference and told everybody the war would last no more than 6 months and cost no more than one billion dollars. What do we know now? There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The war has lasted longer than 6 months and cost more than a billion dollars.

Time Magazine - Dec 13/2005
The President Will Now Answer Your Questions By Mike Allen
Squinting into the television lights, Bush later called on Faeze Woodville, 44, of Stratford, Pa., who cares for two sons at home. "Mr. President," she began, "I would like to know why it is that you and others in your administration keep linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalist or Middle Eastern expert confirmed that such a link existed." She got a burst of applause—this was no Bush-Cheney campaign audience. The President and other administration officials have often implied a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and polls have shown that lots of Americans believe it. Bush was not so forthcoming with this answer. "I appreciate that," he began, which is the way he often begins the answers to questions he does not appreciate. He repeated some of his stock lines about how 9/11 had changed his view of foreign policy and then got even bigger applause by concluding: "Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country." Chatting afterward with reporters from TIME and The Washington Post, Woodville said she was disappointed by the non-answer. "He must think we're morons," she said.

That's why this keeps happening. We're morons. The question isn't about Sarah Palin being a moron. The question isn't about Michele Bachman or even Rick Perry being a moron. It's about us being morons. We want some great parent-like leader to take on the responsibility of keeping the electricity on so we can go out and play like a bunch of children. We don't want to responsibly participate in running the country; we just want to vote for the next snake-oil salesman who's going to promise to deliver our peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a nice day in the park. We haven't got a f**king clue of what the "right" answer is, any more than those vying for the reins of power and as a consequence we all fall victim of overblown false promises which in no way represent the practical reality of us collectively tightening our belts and putting our noses to the grindstone. We are all jumping up and down on Oprah's couch with unbridled enthusiasm for that which we don't understand.

Is Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry a moron? Yes, but guess what? So are we.


References

Wikipedia: New Apostolic Reformation
The New Apostolic Reformation is a movement in Protestant Christianity largely associated with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. The basic thesis asserts that God is restoring the lost offices of church governance, namely the offices of Prophet and Apostle.

Although the movement regards the church as the true body of saved believers, as most Evangelical Protestants do, it differs from the broader Protestant tradition in its view on the nature of church leadership, specifically the doctrine of Five-Fold Ministry, which is based upon a non-traditional interpretation of Ephesians 4:11.

Wikipedia: Fivefold ministry
Fivefold Ministry is a Christian belief that the five offices of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher referred to in Ephesians 4:11 remain active and valid offices in the contemporary Christian church.

Wikipedia: Tourettes: Characteristics
Coprolalia (the spontaneous utterance of socially objectionable or taboo words or phrases) is the most publicized symptom of Tourette's, but it is not required for a diagnosis of Tourette's and only about 10% of Tourette's patients exhibit it. Echolalia (repeating the words of others) and palilalia (repeating one's own words) occur in a minority of cases, while the most common initial motor and vocal tics are, respectively, eye blinking and throat clearing.

my blog: Michele Bachmann and the far, far, far, far, far right
Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States.

2011-08-22

Site Map - William Quincy Belle

Follow me on Twitter

Two plus two doesn't equal five. Seems obvious; it's a no brainer, right? Heck, I'm sure even Forest Gump would get that one. However, when you enter the political arena, all bets are off. Two plus two can be made to equal five. If anybody says two plus two equals four, they could find themselves branded a socialist or worse. Hitler said two plus two equals four and we all know how bad he was so if you say the answer is four, I say you're anti-Semitic and denying the Holocaust.

At this point, you may be smiling or giving a little chuckle while thinking that I'm being funny and will to go on to write some hilarious comments about government. Who doesn't laugh at stupidity? However what if I'm serious? What if the issue I'm trying to describe isn't about stupidity being funny but about stupidity being institutionalized, idolized and raised to the heights of blind worship as the lemmings follow one another over the cliff?

The Daily Show - Aug 18/2011
Granted, this television show is a comedy show. But as the host Jon Stewart likes to say himself by leaning into the camera, "We don't have make a joke here. We're not making this up." because the story itself is so absurd, it defies belief.

In the August 18th episode, Mr. Stewart talks about the "uneccentric" billionaire Warren Buffett and his op-ed piece in the New York Times "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" where he states that he and his other mega-rich friends have been coddled long enough and should be paying their fair share in taxes. In a clip of Buffett, he makes the statement that his tax rate is less than his cleaning lady.

USA: The Comedy Network: The Daily Show

Canada: Comedy Central: The Daily Show

Mr. Stewart goes on to show clips from various media outlets, conservative media outlets like Fox News, which label this "class warfare". Neil Cavuto of Fox News says, and I quote, "Class warfare from the affable billionaire Warren Buffett who should stop assuming that the rich are all billionaires." Another commentator asks, "Is he completely a socialist?"

Stewart certainly milks that last line for a lot of laughs. The second richest man in the U.S., the third richest man in the world is a socialist. "You really haven't got a f**kin' clue what socialism is, do you?" Stewart goes on to mock the Fox news commentator by saying with a Brooklyn accent, "Hey that George Clooney always bangin' different broads. What a queer."

Now what follows is the most amazing illogical reasoning I have seen in a long, long time. Critics go after the idea of raising the marginal tax rate on the top 2% of the rich by saying that this would not solve the debt crisis of the United States. Such an increase has been estimated at providing an extra $700 billion over the next ten years but is dwarfed by the U.S. debt currently standing at $14.5 trillion dollars with a 2011 deficit of $1.3 trillion (About.Com). However the same people turn around and say that 50% of Americans pay no tax and "that hole" needs to be plugged. Note that the emphasis is on the idea of people paying no tax and at first glance, that seems like a huge injustice in the system. After all, why go after those who are already paying taxes? Why not go after those who are not paying taxes?

Stewart goes on to point out the facts. 50% of Americans own 2.5% of the wealth in the U.S. or $1.45 trillion. These people are for the most part so poor, they pay no taxes because they earn nothing or next to nothing or they earn so little tax credits for the poor reduce their taxable income to nothing. However Stewart now points out the big joke by saying that if you took half of everything these people own, that is, half of $1.45 trillion, you would end up with $700 billion, the same amount of money you would get if you implemented the proposed increase of the marginal tax rate on the top 2% of the rich.

The Business Insider provides a chart which graphically shows that 50% of the American population own only 2.5% of the wealth in the country.


The Business Insider goes on to analyse Mr. Buffett's op-ed piece.

When presented with these facts, those who argue against tax increases on the super-rich--or, even more absurdly, for more tax cuts--often point to President Ronald Reagan, observing that his tax cuts for the wealthy helped usher in a long economic boom.

This ignores the point that Reagan also raised taxes. And it ignores how high tax rates on super-rich people were when Reagan cut them: In 1980, the top bracket was a startling 70%. It also ignores how Bill Clinton raised taxes and took the US budget from the perpetual deficits of the Reagan years to a surplus. It ignores how George Bush's tax cuts helped plunge the budget back into a deficit and lead to the worst recession since the Depression. It ignores how the US prospered all through the 1950s and 1960s, when marginal tax rates were super-high. And so on.

In short, it ignores almost all the economic data we have. And it appears to be based on a rigid ideology--almost a religion--rather than common sense.

Ignore economic data. Based on a rigid ideology rather common sense. Reagan gives tax cuts: the perpetual deficits of the Reagan years. Clinton raises taxes: surplus. George Bush cuts taxes: plunge the budget back into a deficit and lead to the worst recession since the Depression. I can't help thinking that even Forest Gump would be able to see this one.

But let's come back to this idea of a "rigid ideology". Notice how the conservative media use buzzwords like "class warfare" and "socialism". Notice how the conservative media focus on the idea that 50% of Americans pay no taxes. But, but, but the "no tax" refers to federal income tax and the statement in no way looks at what taxes anybody would be paying elsewhere at a state level or a municipal level. However the most important point left out of this rhetoric is that these 50% of Americans are the poorest in the country. The poorest! Stewart comically adds, "Ya hear that poors? The free ride esta over. So it looks like you'll be walking to work... assuming you have a job. Chances are you don't have a job."

I repeat: the poorest 50% of Americans only own 2.5% of the wealth in the U.S. Is anybody asking who owns the other 97.5% of that wealth? The conservatives don't stop there though. They go on to push the idea that in America, everybody can work hard and get rich or sit idly on their duff and do nothing. Yep, those poor 50% of Americans are a lazy, no good for nothing burden on society.

At the beginning of this article, I tried to be funny. I don't find this amusing anymore. This is no longer a Forest Gump lack of I.Q.; this is no longer Three Stooges stupidity. This is a blind adherence to an ideology. This is a stubbornness to make the solution fit the theory regardless of logic or facts.

Final Word
Is this a phenomenon of people getting together as groups? Do we all become a little stupid when we're surrounded by other people? Do we naturally gravitate to others we perceive as being the leader? Do we follow whatever we perceive to be the common opinion? Are we basically passive and want somebody else to run our lives? Are we too lazy to investigate the issues and find out the right answers and opt to blind follow the voice of our accepted leader? Are we really no better than an individual gazelle that unquestioningly follows the herd?

Tax the poorest people in America. Think about that. The U.S. has a $14 trillion debt and a $1.3 trillion deficit and people are saying that the answer is to go after a group of people who have a measly 2.5% of the wealth. Nobody is going to mention anything about the other 97.5%?

Reagan lowered taxes and had deficits. Clinton raised taxes and had a surplus. Bush lowered taxes and had deficits. Obama wants to raise taxes and the Conservatives go nuts? Neil Cavuto of Fox News said, "Warren Buffett should stop assuming that the rich are all billionaires."

I sit here writing this and I am stunned. No, I am beyond stunned. Two plus two truly does equal five. Or three, or six, or whatever you want the answer to be.

"There is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact or not.... There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
-Michele Bachmann, October 2006, candidates debate in St. Cloud, Minnesota

[Policeman on sidewalk directing the crowd] Move along folks. Nothing intelligent here.


References

Wikipedia: Distribution of wealth
The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It differs from the distribution of income in that it looks at the distribution of ownership of the assets in a society, rather than the current income of members of that society.

Wikipedia: Wealth inequality in the United States
Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."

Professor G. William Domhoff, Sociology Dept., University of California at Santa Cruz
Who Rules America?
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is.

Business Insider - Apr 9/2010
15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America by Gus Lubin
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Cliché, sure, but it's also more true than at any time since the Gilded Age. The poor are getting poorer, wages are falling behind inflation, and social mobility is at an all-time low. If you're in that top 1%, life is grand.

chart: Distribution of wealth 2007
bottom 50% have 2.5% of the wealth

**************************************

I couldn't resist throwing this humdinger in.

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."
-Rep. Michele Bachmann , on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford was president, April 28, 2009

Wikipedia: 1976 swine flu outbreak
Infections were only detected from January 19 to February 9, and were not found outside Fort Dix.

Wikipedia: Gerald Ford
Ford was the 38th President of the United States, serving from August 9, 1974 to January 20, 1977. He was Republican.

2011-08-19

Site Map - William Quincy Belle

Follow me on Twitter

Skewer the new guy. Quarter the big cheese. Burn that pinko commie socialist at the stake. It's all his fault; we would be so much better without him. If we could just get rid of this incompetent idiot, the entire nation would be so much better, out of the red and in the black.

Really? That's your diagnosis, Mr. Armchair General, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback? The guy standing in front of you, the most visible guy in the entire country is entirely to blame for the credit rating downgrade, the debt ceiling debacle and the 2008 financial crisis? Heck, he caused the BP oil spill. (Wikipedia) There isn't any direct proof, but he may be the reason pizza delivery has gone from 30 minutes or it's free to 40 minutes or it's free to you'll get it when we deliver it. (Wikipedia) Don't get me started on global warming and Snookie's weight loss.

Economy vs Politics: 10 years vs 4 years
Okay, I'm trying to be funny. However in reading some of the accusations lobbed at Obama, I question the lobber's ability to connect to dots to the lobbee. Years ago, in a university course on macroeconomics, I was introduced to the bizarre partnership between politics and the economy. The economy, it was said, works in 10 year cycles; implement a policy, you need to wait 10 years to see it bear fruit. Politics on the other hand works in a 4 year cycle and those who seek power promise what in the short run may lead to their being elected as opposed to what may be best for everyone. There is this on-going conflict between doing what's right for the economy and doing what's right to keep your job. The majority of the electorate are concerned with their own situation right now with little regard for what's coming down the road so politicians are catering to them and their short-term vision of what's right.

General Electric
A comment on one of my blog postings brought up this item which made a number of waves when it hit the headlines a few months ago: GE paid no income tax in 2010 after making a profit of five billion dollars. True or not true?

Megan McArdle, a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics, penned an article for the magazine discussing this. (Did GE Really Pay No U.S. Taxes in 2010?) After mentioning how various writers were outraged by this state of affairs, she points out that any company has the right to minimize its tax burden while complying with the law. She goes on to present the question as to whether any of the writers who complained about GE had refused any of the deductions they were entitled to by law. Now note the keyword in all this: law. GE is not doing anything illegal. Maybe the statement that a company which supposedly made five billion dollars then turned around and paid no income tax is difficult to swallow but is the problem that GE is doing something against the law or GE is just a "bad company"?

Here's the root of the problem that the cursory look and the subsequent anger has missed. The system has set up tax laws which allow GE to do what it's doing. Can you or I or anybody blame them for doing what we collectively allow them to do? The fault isn't in GE; the fault is in the system. Heck, if I or my accountant finds a tax deduction which favours my financial situation, do you think I'm not going to take it? Am I that altruistic? Am I that much of an idiot? Change the system; I'll pay my taxes. Don't change the system; I'll take my deductions.

The Conservatives: Less Government
Over and over again, the right repeats with a glazed eye look that America needs less government. Instead of focusing on size, has anybody considered better government? When I get into an elevator, there is a certificate up on the wall which states when the device was last inspected and by whom. Knowing it's there gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I am not going to plummet into the basement. Government involvement is good.

BP Oil Spill
2010 saw the BP oil spill in the Gulf considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. The story goes that BP, amongst other oil companies, lobbied the U.S. government to stop regulation which would have required certain safety measures. These companies felt such measures were onerous to their operations or as restated by reporters, onerous to their bottom lines. From what I understand, BP was not obliged to shell out $500,000 for a safety valve. Such a valve would have apparently prevented the oil from leaking as it did. When the platform sank and the pipe disconnected from the rig itself, this safety valve would have kicked in and sealed off the pipe at the seabed.

Okay, the joke is now on BP. The company has had to shell out billions of dollars because it didn't spend half a million dollars. But the point is that regulations, if they had been in place, would have stopped this from ever happening. Government involvement is good.

Safety Belts
Seatbelts reduce injury and death in car accidents. We all accept it now, but decades ago, this seemed like an infringement of our rights. Many moons ago, I was driving with my brother as a passenger in the front seat. I suggested he put on his safety belt. He started mouthing off about how nobody was going to tell him what to do and he didn't care if the police tried to give him a ticket or not. I slammed on the brakes. My brother slide forward on the seat but managed to get his arm up on the dashboard to stop himself from going head first into the windshield. "What the F did you do that for?" he yelled at me. I paused, looked at him for a sec then said, "If you had been wearing your seatbelt, that wouldn't have happened." Yes, he nearly killed me but I did make my point. Statistically, wearing a safety belt means less injury and fewer deaths. Government involvement is good.

Subprime Mortgage Crisis
In the United States, financial institutions were able to set up lending practices that emphasized profit over prudence. Loans were being granted to people who would have been otherwise deemed incapable of repaying said loan. Terms were given that now seem to have only fuelled the precariousness of the loan. While many factors come into play to fully explain the complexity of the entire crisis, the rather simple reason is that a whole lot of people failed to pay back their loans, whether it is a mortgage on a house or some other form of debt. The entire system, in the quest for profit, failed to take into account the possibility of debtors being unable to repay their debt. Like a pyramid scheme, the entire house of cards fell over. Greater and greater risks were being taken in search for greater and greater profits.

Don't believe me? Need more proof? See the movies Inside Job and Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer. If years ago, the government had not deregulated the financial industry, if the government had done a better job of overseeing the banks, this financial meltdown never would have happened. Sidebar: Canada had a stricter regulation of its banking system which meant its financial institutions were never allowed to do the wild, unsecured loans its American counterparts did. The Canadian financial sector never collapsed like the American financial sector. Government involvement is good.

Don't Tell Me What To Do
An American was telling me that he didn't want regulations; he wanted less government. He very much wanted to be free. I told this person that we can all agree that a speed limit of 60 mph or 100 km is a reasonable restriction on our driving. Such a rule can save lives. The American nodded his head and agreed with me. I then added that such a rule does not restrict where we can go; it only tells us how fast we can go. The American became thoughtful.

I continued by explaining that the government imposes a speed limit because going faster is more dangerous and statistics prove that with speed, more people lose their lives. Nevertheless, the government is not trying to tell us where we can drive. It is not telling us where we can go. It is only trying to tell us the safest way of getting to where we have decided to go. The rule about the speed limit is for safety because the government actually wants us to get to where we are going. It imposes these rules for our own collective good.

The American admitted that I made a good point; he had never looked at regulations that way saying that this made sense. How much sense? A study proved that the lifting of the federal 55 mph speed limit in 1995 was responsible for 12,545 deaths between 1995 and 2005. (see links below)

Rules are good
When I was a boy, my father showed me the proper way of using a table saw. Explaining how a rotating saw blade can sometimes grab a piece of wood, he showed how in a twinkling of an eye a finger can be easily drawn into the whirling blade and be amputated. Proper procedure dictated guiding a piece of wood not with one's hand, but with another piece of wood. If the piece which is being cut ever got pinched by the saw blade, instead of one's hand being pulled into the blade, the piece of wood being used to guide the wood being cut would be drawn in.

Rules are there to help us, to protect us. There are not there to take away freedom; unless, of course, we want the freedom to maim or kill ourselves. Rules have been put in place by others who have gone before us who have observed phenomenon, analysed the results, figured out the why and determined what's necessary to avoid the bad.

If BP had been forced through regulation to purchase and install the safety valve, we wouldn't have had the Gulf Oil Spill. If financial institutions were forced through regulation to only loan money to people who could realistically be able to repay it, we would not have had the subprime mortgage crisis. I am not advocating for more government but I do think some well thought out rules would not hurt. When I get on an elevator, when I turn onto the highway, I do not necessarily feel apprehensive. I think the rules in place are helping me and statistically doing their best to ensure that I get safely to the dinner table that evening.

Final Word
We could go on and on and on. The point is that politics is a game and the goal of the game is to win. The goal of economics is to have everybody win. We ourselves, the electorate, are simple, narrow minded and focused on the short-term. We tend to not see the big picture.

Obama is not a bad man. He isn't even the boogeyman. But running a country is really, really, really complicated and it's even more complicated when you think about trying to get everybody to agree to the same thing at the same time and get them to all pull in the same direction. Whether it's the electorate or it's the politicians, everybody has their own ideas of what's right but I'm afraid that the majority of these people have a poor grasp of the problems and their causes. Consequently their proposed solutions are ofttimes ill-conceived, poorly thought out and maybe just plain stupid. I am reminded of a blogger at Open Salon called Cranky Cuss who has written in his bio:

My motto: The conventional wisdom has too much convention, not enough wisdom.

Corollary: Even Einstein was wrong sometimes, and you're not Einstein.

Yes, Einstein. That is a reminder about this election season of just how little Einstein we'll get and how much Forrest Gump.

In the spring of 2009, during what appeared to be the beginnings of a swine-flu epidemic, Bachmann said, “I find it interesting that it was back in the nineteen-seventies that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter. And I’m not blaming this on President Obama—I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.” (New Yorker, Aug 14/2011: Leap of Faith by Ryan Lizza)

The media have been portraying [Rick Perry] as something verging on a loose cannon. One example was his response to a question about whether President Obama loves his country. Perry said the questioner would have to ask Obama--which left the impression that Perry has doubts about the president's patriotism. (US Politics, Aug 18/2011: Rick Perry's Gaffe Problem by Kenneth T. Walsh)

As the campaigning for the election in 2012 ramps up, various contenders to the throne are planting the seeds of doubt about Obama. Will he be a one term president? I note that with any crop, the planting of seeds is always accompanied by fertiliser and I can certainly smell the manure.


References

Wikipedia: Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout) is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico which flowed for three months in 2010. It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.

Wikipedia: Domino's Pizza: 30-minute guarantee
The guarantee was dropped [in 1993] because of the "public perception of reckless driving and irresponsibility."

The Atlantic - May 29/2011
Did GE Really Pay No U.S. Taxes in 2010? by Megan McArdle
Last week, the New York Times published a rather indignant article on how GE paid no US taxes in 2010 despite earning $5.1 billion in US income; "In fact," says the New York Times, "GE claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion".

Wikipedia: Seat belt legislation
Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved. An earlier statistical analysis by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US.

Freakonomics - April 2/2010
Life (and Death) in the Fast Lane by Eric A. Morris
According to a recent paper by Lee S. Friedman, Donald Hedeker, and Elihu D. Richter, the lifting of the federal 55 mph speed limit in 1995 was responsible for 12,545 deaths between 1995 and 2005. That’s about 45 percent more American fatalities than we have suffered in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

American Journal of Public Health
Long-Term Effects of Repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States
by Lee S. Friedman, PhD, Donald Hedeker, PhD and Elihu D. Richter, MD
Objectives. We examined the long-term effects of the 1995 repeal of federal speed limit controls on road fatalities and injuries in fatal crashes.

Results. We found a 3.2% increase in road fatalities attributable to the raised speed limits on all road types in the United States. The highest increases were on rural interstates (9.1%) and urban interstates (4.0%). We estimated that 12,545 deaths and 36,583 injuries in fatal crashes were attributable to increases in speed limits across the United States.

Conclusions. Reduced speed limits and improved enforcement with speed camera networks could immediately reduce speeds and save lives, in addition to reducing gas consumption, cutting emissions of air pollutants, saving valuable years of productivity, and reducing the cost of motor vehicle crashes.

Huffington Post - Aug 18/2011
Rick Perry Coverage Gets Sexy: Ad Seeks Dirt, Others Press Porn Past by Jason Linkens
Rumours swirling around the Texas governor about liasons with hookers and an investment in a movie company distributing porn.

Open Salon - Aug 16/2011
Rick Perry's Texas Leaves Much to be Desired by Ryan Ebersole
Not surprisingly, Perry clings to abstinence-only sexual education for Texas students. Despite evidence to the contrary, Perry claims that "abstinence works," citing his "personal life" as evidence. By 2009, over 94 percent of Texas school districts had adopted abstinence-only sexual education. This education included curriculum emphasizing that birth control is ineffective, contrary to the facts. These programs combine an overemphasis on sexually transmitted diseases and death with Christian views of morality. Many public school districts use handouts containing Bible verses as part of their sexual education.

What are the results? Texas has the third highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. In fact, pregnancy rates under Perry have skyrocketed, and are now over 50 percent higher than the national average. Even more alarming: Texas has the highest teen repeat pregnancy rate as well as the third highest rate of youths with HIV.
[Politicians are well known for fudging the facts but even if half of what Mr. Ebersole has said is true, is Rick Perry not lying?]

my blog - Aug 26/2010
We always come back to Hitler
Hitler is the embodiment of evil. Nazism probably evokes in all of us a visceral reaction to the horrors of World War II. Anyone who has any knowledge of WW II reacts negatively to any mention of this. Consequently, making the association between Hitler and anybody, between Nazism and any proposed policy or idea is a sure fire way of making a connection in the mind of the public to something horrible; so horrible, it must be stopped at any cost. At that point, rational debate stops; a search for the facts stops; the quest for the truth stops and we all hunker down in our tightly held beliefs only to periodically emerge to point an accusatory finger at our opponents and yell some obscenity.

2011-08-18

Site Map - William Quincy Belle

Follow me on Twitter

According to Forbes, Mr. Warren E. Buffett, age 80, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, investor extraordinaire, is worth fifty billion dollars and ranked the third wealthiest man on the planet, number two in the United States. In the New York Times dated August 14, 2011, Mr. Buffett has penned an article in The Opinion Pages called "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich". He starts out by making this statement:

Our leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

He goes on to make some comparisons between the rich and poor, the rich and middle class which I can only qualify as startling. Starting with the admission that he paid nearly seven million dollars in income tax last year - he says himself that this sounds like a lot of money - he notes that his tax rate was 17.4%, lower than the 20 other people working at his office. In fact, those people paid from 33% to 41% with the average being 36%. Mr. Buffett recognises that the rich are not like you and me and explains how all of us get hit with income tax and payroll tax while the rich pay income tax but virtually nothing in payroll tax.

The billionaire closes with some suggestions for Congress. First, leave the rates alone for 99.7% of taxpayers while continuing to reduce the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for millionaires, people with taxable income in excess of one million dollars, he would raise the rates immediately and make an addition increase for those over ten million dollars.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

I don't know Warren Buffett personally or all that well. However, what I have read about him is that he is a very, very, very astute businessman and based on his philanthropic efforts, a very nice man. When somebody of this stature and of this level of business acumen asks to pay more taxes, I have to seriously question what my leaders are telling me. If the proof is in the pudding as the old saying goes, am I to believe the politicians or a gazillionaire who seems to know how to make money hand over fist?

Obama and the Democrats say raise taxes for the rich. The Republicans say no. The U.S. nearly defaults and gets its credit rating downgraded from AAA to AA+. The Conservatives go nuts saying this happened under Obama's watch with the not too subtle suggestion that it's Obama's fault as though nothing preceding the event could have contributed to the downgrade. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Viable Opposition - Aug 9/2011
America's Presidents: Who was the biggest spendthrift?
The worst President for building up the debt was the much venerated President Ronald Reagan considering that the Cold War buildup ended under his tenure.  In fact, I was so surprised that I went back and triple checked the numbers and my calculations because the debt growth was so out of line with the other Administrations in this study.  Under the Reagan Administration, the debt rose a massive 188 percent or 14.18 percent on an annual basis, far worse than either the Bush I, Bush II or Obama Administrations.

Wikipedia: Reaganomics
In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.

Viable Opposition - Apr 25/2011
The Rich get Richer - How Taxation in America Impacts Wealth
In 2010, General Electric reported world-wide profits of $14.2 billion with $5.1 billion of that coming from its American operations.  Its total tax bill?  Zero. According to the New York Times, the company is claiming a tax benefit of $3.2 billion!
...
Tax laws have resulted in greater and greater inequalities both in society among individuals and between corporations and small businesses. Rather than equalizing society, governments have shifted the burden of taxes from the wealthy to those of lower and middle income America, from large corporations to small businesses and from the federal government to the state and local government levels.

My Opinion
I make a good buck. I'm not rich, but I do make a good buck. I expect to pay more than the next guy. I don't regret it; I just realise we all have to do our part. Why? Let's look at an example.

For the sake of argument, I'll peg living expenses at $20,000 and taxes at 50%. This is pretty simple so bear with me. Let's say that I make a hundred grand, $100,000 while you make $50,000. Both of us are taxed at 50% so I end up with $50,000 of disposable income and while you have $25,000. We both have to pay $20,000 to live so that leaves you with $5,000 while I have $30,000. Now I grant you this is very, very simple but my point is this. Warren Buffett says above that he paid nearly $7 million in income tax last year. He's worth $50 billion. You have $5,000 left over after living expenses while I have left over more than all your disposable income. Shouldn't I be paying more? I'm richer relatively speaking. Exactly just how much does anybody need? Just imagine that $7 million is only 0.014% of fifty billion. That's less than two hundredths of a percent. Somehow I think Mr. Buffett could be coughing up more, a whole lot more, without feeling the slightest pinch to his wallet.

When the Conservatives put forward this idea that there are X number of Americans paying no taxes, they are obscuring the truth. These people are the poorest people of America. They pay nothing because they earn so little any taxes are wiped out by tax credits. Asking the poor to pay more is just plain ludicrous while letting people like Buffett off the hook is, well, criminal.

Final Word
Hope springs eternal. Or are we all just plain nuts? We vote the next guy into office with the unrealistic expectation he or she is going to fix everything not understanding the complexity of the problems and the frustrations of the political process which invariably puts the kibosh on all great plans.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
- Earnest Benn (1875-1954); British publisher, writer and political publicist

At the end of the day, if the lights are still on, can any of us complain?


References

Wikipedia: Warren Buffett
Warren Edward Buffett (born August 30, 1930) is an American investor, industrialist and philanthropist. He is widely regarded as one of the most successful investors in the world. Often introduced as "legendary investor, Warren Buffett", he is the primary shareholder, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. He is consistently ranked among the world's wealthiest people. He was ranked as the world's wealthiest person in 2008 and is the third wealthiest person in the world as of 2011.

Buffett is called the "Oracle of Omaha" or the "Sage of Omaha" and is noted for his adherence to the value investing philosophy and for his personal frugality despite his immense wealth. Buffett is also a notable philanthropist, having pledged to give away 99 percent of his fortune to philanthropic causes, primarily via the Gates Foundation.

New York Times - Aug 14/2011
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich by Warren E. Buffett
[Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.]
Our leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

Forbes: The World's Billionaires
#1: Carlos Slim Helu and Family: Mexico: $74 billion
#2: Bill Gates: U.S.: $56 billion
#3: Warren Buffett: U.S.: $50 billion
#52: Mark Zuckerberg: U.S.: $13.5 billion

Uploaded by slatester on Aug 15, 2011
Warren Buffett: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich"; Billionaire Investor Renews Call for Higher Taxes
Warren Buffett is trending after the billionaire investor penned an op-ed in the New York Times calling for the United States to stop coddling the mega-rich. Buffett has made a case for higher taxes on the rich before, this time noting, "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off." Buffett pointed out that between 1980 and 2000, nearly 40 million jobs were added to the economy even though tax rates on investment income were significantly higher. He called on the newly created debt "super committee" in Congress to raise taxes on the richest 0.3 percent of wealthy Americans, though he never specified an exact rate.

Forbes - Aug 15/2011
Warren Buffett's Very Strange Tax Argument by Tim Worstall
What he says, with the qualifications he uses, is true as far as it goes. It is, however, extremely misleading, because he’s left out the effect of the corporate income tax.
[Who am I going to believe? Warren Buffett investor gazillionaire or Tim Worstall a guy who writes? Mr. Worstall has completely missed the big picture: rich people are richer than poor people and should pay more to the system. Period. Who gives a rat's ass about this pedantic pickiness about corporate income tax? Congratulations Mr. Worstall; you're right but you are oh so wrong.]

Forbes - Aug 15/2011
Warren Buffett's Fiscal Innumeracy by Daniel J. Mitchell
His numbers are flawed in two important ways.

1. When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays “only” 15 percent of that money on his tax return. But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.

Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, Buffett completely ignores the impact of the death tax, which will result in the federal government seizing 45 percent of his assets. To be sure, Buffett may be engaging in clever tax planning, so it is hard to know the impact on his effective tax rate, but it will be significant.

2. Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding  retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).
[See comment on previous Forbes article. Congratulations Mr. Mitchell, you too are right but oh so wrong.]

2011-08-15

Site Map - William Quincy Belle

Follow me on Twitter