"Unforgiven?"

Let me preface this by saying I have been a Clint Eastwood fan for longer than most of my readers have been alive. This is the first time I've ever felt sorry for him. I am just disappointed in him, but I am apalled at the RNC for allowing theselves to sink so low. This is rather like the NRA having Charlton Heston, well advanced into Alheimer's, give the keynote speech in Denver, years ago. If you are the RNC and you want someone to do what Eastwood did, shouldn't you at least pick someone who holds values at least similar to the Party's stated ideals of "Family Values," as Republican's understand that phrase. The man they chose to allow to humiliate himself in public is far from the ideal choice, here's why:

Eastwood has fathered at least seven children by five different women and been described as a "serial womanizer." He had affairs with actresses Catherine Deneuve Jill Banner Jamie Rose, Inger Stevens, Jo Ann Harris, Jean Seberg, script analyst Megan Rose, James Brolin's former wife Jane, columnist Bridget Byrne, and swimming champion Anita Lhoest.

Eastwood first married Maggie Johnson on December 19, 1953, six months after they met on a blind date While separated, bg not divorced, from Johnson, Eastwood had an affair with dancer Roxanne Tunis, with whom he had his first child, Kimber Tunis. He did not publicly acknowledge her until 1996. After a reconciliation, he had two children with Johnson: Kyle Eastwood and Aison Eastwood . Eastwood filed for divorce in 1979, but the divorce settlement was not finalized until May 1984.

Never one to batch it, Eastwoodtwood entered a relationship with actress Sondra Locke in 1975 (again while still married) They lived together for fourteen years, despite the fact that Locke remained married to her gay husband, Gordon Anderson. Locke had two abortions and a tubal ligation within the first four years of the relationship.

On April 10, 1989, while Locke was directing the film Impulse, Eastwood changed the locks on their Bel Air home, had many of her possessions removed and placed in storage. Locke filed a palimony suit against Eastwood, then sued him a second time for fraud, regarding a phony directing contract he set up for her in settlement of the first lawsuit. Eastwood and Locke finally resolved the dispute with a non-public settlement in 1999. Her autobiography, The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly, includes a harrowing account of Eastwood's treatment of her during the events surrounding their separation.

During the last four years of his cohabitation with Locke, Eastwood had an intermittent, hidden affair with flight attendant Jacelyn Reeves. According to biographers, the two met at a pub in Carmel, and conceived a son, Scott Reeves (born March 21, 1986), at the premiere of Pale Rider. They also had a daughter, Kathryn Reeves (born February 2, 1988. The birth certificates for both children stated "Father declined." Although they were mentioned in exposé articles as early as 1997, Eastwood did not present his and Reeves' children to the public until 2002.

In 1990, Eastwood began living with actress Frances Fisher, whom he had met on the set of Pink Cadillac (1989). They co-starred in Unforgiven, and had a daughter, Francesca Fisher-Eastwood (born August 7, 1993. The couple ended their relationship in early 1995.

Eastwood subsequently began dating Dina Ruiz, a television news anchor 35 years his junior, whom he had first met when she interviewed him in 1993. They married on March 31, 1996, when Eastwood surprised her with a private ceremony at a home on the Shadow Creek Golf Course in Las Vegas. After their wedding, Dina commented "The fact that I am only the second woman he has married really touches me." (very interesting because Ol' Clint has apparently touched many in a very real and personal fashion) The couple have one daughter, Morgan Eastwood (born December 12, 1996). Other than the marriage part, Eastwood makes Mitt's Mormon Polygamist ancestors seem chaste.

To is credit, Eastwood has been very vocal regarding his support for same sex marriage. He, by his actions also is pro-choice, and regards the institution of marriage very lightly.

So. Mitt and Paul, is this the family values plank in your platform or do you remain. as ever, characterless vote whores?

An Attempt to Demistify a Curious Phenemenon

                  

I guess what I find confusing in all the rhetoric flying about in these election year months is that the most ardent and violently partisan of the far right are really arguing against their own best interests! It also is interesting that the most vociferous fans of Mr. Romney (evangelicals and others) have no real idea of what his faith is, what its core  beliefs are, and how radically different from main stream Christianity they stray. This matters little to me, but by their own doctrines  should matter greatly to them, but apparently in the Boss's words, they have been "Blinded by the Light."

I've remarked on this before, but it bears another examination, I think. I'm going to start with a generalization and then deal with some representative specifics, else this will run to ten or 12 pages. The generalization is this: "Many middle class and below persons (Tea Party Neanderthals chief among them) support and parrot the Republican rhetoric about taxes, deficit,  Medicare, The Affordable Health Care Act, and all the other surface reasons for disliking the current administration's attempts to reduce the deficit and make all Americans pay their fair share. In the vast majority of cases, the issues they decry will never have any impact on their own lives. What this tells me is that the lords of the manor (so to speak - the 1%) have actually convinced the serfs that they,  they feudal magnates (the Romneys,  the Trumps, etc) care truly, deeply and passionately about the poor in spite of contraindicative  actions and lifestyles."         

      The examples I choose have no particular order or precedence.

 The claim:   A current "chain spam" e-mail circulating (and forwarded by persons whose intelligence I never questioned until now!) claims that  "there  will be a 3.8% real estate tax on all real estate transactions, as a part of the Affordable health care Act (hereafter referred to as the AHCA)"  The article goes on to say that this will apply to all transactions and will cost the seller of a $350,000 home  about $13k right off the top.

The reality:  The tax (a Medicare tax) applies to only those capital gains in excess of  $500k annually. If the proceeds of sale are used to buy another house, it isn't a capital gain. If a family has over half a million in  income from capital gains, they are not representative of the average American family by a long shot , and can well afford it.   Why are Tea Partiers, most of whom can't even conceive of investment income of over, say "nada," k  annually, complaining about this?

The claim: The ACHA has a provision which would limit expenditures from flexible health care spending accounts to prescription drugs or medical/dental costs.

The reality: true, but:  From the screams, you'd think a child had died, but think about it; do you, or anyone you know use flexible spending account money to buy a bottle of Robitussin or other OTC meds?  I know no one who does this, but there have been many cases of fraud where the CVS bill has been paid by tax free money and includes  diet drinks, magazines, etc.  Not the aim, I think, of flex spending accounts. So who is affected? Very few of us, and cheats, primarily.

The claim: The AHCA  increases the threshold for medical expense deduction from 7.5% to 10%, which will adversely affect millions of Americans.

The reality: The first part is true, the conclusion is bullshit! Of those taxpayers who choose to itemize, most do not claim medical expenses as deductions on their Schedule A. In fact, for the latest years that the IRS has made the data available, medical expenses were not the most popular Schedule A deduction – that would be taxes paid. They also were not the second, third or fourth most popular – those would be charitable deductions, home mortgage interest and miscellaneous deductions , respectively. According to the IRS, a mere 17% of taxpayers who itemized deductions in 2001 claimed medical expenses. If you do the quick math, that works out to about 6% of all taxpayers. It’s a rather unimpressive number. Of course, it’s not hard to understand why this happens when you look at the demographics and the restrictions. Most itemizers tend to be middle to upper income taxpayers since to hit the standard deduction limits requires generally – though not always – a certain level of income to support those expenses. The primary method by which those who do claim medical cost deductions reach this level is Health Insurance costs which is because the rich have Cadillac plans which cost a fortune (defined as in excess of 27k annually for a family!!!)  The "fun fact" here is that the rate used to be 3% of gross income until raised by another president. No, not Clinton or Carter. Reagan increased tax threshold for medical cost deductions by a factor of 2.5 (3% to 7.5%), Obama by factor of .33, (7.5% to 10%)! Those who weep at the memory of Ronnie have no clue.

The claim: The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

The reality: again True, BUT:  Simple solution, buy health insurance and stop being a drain on society. If you're a pack a day smoker - stop smoking and save double plus the cost of health coverage Buy health insurance, get checkups, preventive care, don't use the ER as a primary physician. No one who has cost issues will be forced into bankruptcy by this and most will be better off.  The key here is that the middle class whiners won't even be affected by it, so why whine?  Of course, if like the Ron Paul supporters  at the Republican primary debates, who shouted "Let 'em die"  (and who, I am almost certain regard themselves as fine, Christian folk) you have lost sight of morality altogether, you suffer from Conscience Deficit Disorder.

 The claim: The Republican Party is united in support of a platform. Corollary 1, the Republican Party supports women.

The reality: Clint Eastwood, who lamentably whored himself out in the "empty chair" charade in Tampa, has been  a  frequent and vocal supporter of same sex marriage, which is certainly not consistent with the 2012 platform. Regarding women's issues. Paul Ryan's voting record in Congress is as anti woman as is possible. He even rejected the "equal pay for equal work" Act.

  The claim: President Obama has increased the Deficit (and of course the debt) far beyond what Republicans (would have/have) done  

The reality: Sorry for the graphs, but they save a slew of words and will be easier for Republican readers (if any) to understand

 In 1981, the supply siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency (assisted by the fact that Reagan refused to listen to even the most conservative real economists)  and instituted their "Voodoo economics", as Bush senior had called it in 1980. As shown in the graph, the "magic" failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20-years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased.  Bush senior fought against it, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to supply-side economics.

G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Currently supply siders are still in full control of the Republican party. The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time." Conservatives were (and are) , naturally,  quite embarrassed by this performance, so they  invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for.

             Debt and Deficit   Details grounded in Fact, not emotion and ill concealed "other" issues

·         Income tax payments dropped 51% for corporations and 23% for people. So the government had to borrow.   Bush signed the FY 2009 budget and the TARP bank bailout,But, the Recession itself caused most of the deficit. It took off under Bush, because the recession caused it.

·         Obama's job stimulus barely got started before the FY 2009 budget ended on Sept. 30, and by then the deficit had exploded.

                                      What Are the Four Causes?

So what are the causes of the deficit; who's to blame?  There are four distinctly identifiable causes.

 1.The biggest cause: Reduced tax payments, due to business slowdown, triggered by: insufficient regulation of financial markets which allowed (among other things totally unregulated instruments like hedge funds and derivatives) weak mortgages to be bundled and considered as if they were real money instead of risky IOUs.

 2. Second: Automatic increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps, and people starting social security early because they couldn't (can't)  find jobs.

 3. Military spending also increased (Bush's war), but is now fading.

 4. Bush's TARP and Obama's Jobs Stimulus (top layer) account for little of the deficit, and they are temporary.  • The deficit is from the safety-net helping the poor and the unemployed in a terrible recession, and helping all of us  (including businesses!) with lower taxes.

        Facts regarding employment and jobs growth.

The claim:  This by Mr. Ryan - Medicare and Social Security are "entitlements" (in other words gifts we expect from the Government)

The reality: Working Americans pay into both Social Security and Medicare throughout their working lives. For those reaching retirement, these are simply returns on investment. As an employed American for 48 years, I paid into Social Security (SS) all my working life and as a percentage of my entire salary (about 6.2%, matched by my employer). Medicare after 1966 was the same process. Of course, I paid that same 6.2% of income into SS all year, every year, because I never exceeded the income level where I could stop paying for the rest of the year. Mitt Romney, of course hit the cutoff in February and paid none the rest of the year! As far as solvency, SS payout is based on income during working life.  In 1936, 65 was old!  Many Americans didn't live to draw SS. To "fix" SS today simply requires the guts to increase eligibility window to reflect current life expectancy. In 1900, combined male female life expectancy was about 49 years of age, in 1930, about 59, in 2002, 77 years plus. Additionally, the life span of those who reached  65 increased, albeit more modestly, about 5 years longer. In plain speak, the average American didn't live to collect SS in 1935, but now that is no longer true. A good starting point would be (just my suggestion) early SS at 68, full SS at 72 unless disabled. If I leave college today and pay at current rates from my $50,000 annual salary for 45 working years and assume (hugely low) no pay increase for the period, I will have paid $145,000 into SS. At even a modest 5% yield, that equates to $447,000. Don't you dare tell me it's an "entitlement!"

As far as Medicare, mandate insurance (like the AHCA), which will radically lower Medicaid costs, and provide earlier, much cheaper interventions. Secondly, jail cheaters like Florida governor Rick Scott. Remove medical licenses for MDs who are Medicare cheats.  Just don't tell me that the benefits of Government mandated health care payments over my working life are now an entitlement!

And I do believe that's all I have to say about that, for now.

I'm here to help!!

In these troubled political times, it's hard sometimes to figure out what's what and who you support. Accordingly, using the wisdom of my years, I've prepared a top ten list to help you.

                           Top ten ways to know if you are a Republican

10.  You believe the Government has never done anything good.

9.  You believe that, left alone, businesses will always act honorably and not just to further profits, no matter whom they hurt.

8.  You think (convicted felon) Oliver North is an American hero and Colin Powell is an "Uncle Tom."

7.  You dislike Hispanics, Blacks and Asians unless they are successful, in which case you suck up to them.

6.  If Male, you want the government to leave you alone,  but to police every uterus in America.

5.  You believe that same sex couples in committed relations should not marry or raise children, but each of Rush Limbaugh's  four unions was sacred.

4.  Your attitude toward the poor and health care can be summarized as:  "F**k  'em, I've got mine."

3. You think Lyndon Johnson was a borderline Commie  for pushing  Medicare,  Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  but loved that Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the carnage it spawned.

2.  You secretly just can't shake the feeling that every rape victim was "asking for it" and deserves to be punished.

1.  You say you believe children are a gift from God,  but after they're born  are just a drain on the system. It's ok if they starve to death or die of a childhood disease, but don't you dare touch a 150 cell mindless blob in the womb.

It's not THAT the wind is blowin'.....!

I've often wondered why the media outlets treat us as if we were candidates for the short bus. This storm season has provided us with yet one more example of the reason. They treat their own staffers that way!  Submitted as proof are the pictures below

 There is no reason known to the mind of man that makes this report more reliable than if the cam showed the storm and the reporter was safe in the studio. It's almost as if the Weather Channel is holding your hand to the stove to prove that it's hot. If you as a reputable weather observer tell me the wind velocity is 125 mph, I will take it on faith without seeing some poor sacrificial reporter get a small tree driven through his spleen!

 Poor Jim Cantore, the Weather Channel's poster child for daring the elements, seems to relish being blown, shaken (not stirred) and pushed around. I guess they'll keep on doing it until a sheet of corrugated roofing cuts a reporter in half, and then we'll hail them as a fallen hero rather than a dumbass without the sense to come in out of the rain. The whole concept of having to be on the scene makes little sense if video accompanies the analysis.

 I believed Walter Cronkite and he stayed behind his desk, and I wouldn't believe Sean Hannity if he were on the scene. It's about who you are, not where you are. A second layer of imbecility is the "eyewitness" interview by the "Action News" on scene reporter who apparently searches for the most mentally challenged individual in the crowd of gawkers following a tragedy and questions them as if they actually expect an intelligent/intelligible response. These guys must use the same selection criteria as those aliens, who faced with an entire population of humans, choose some nose picker from a trailer park in Arkansas

Top Ten Ways to enjoy the Republican National Comvention in Tampa

               Top ten ways to enjoy  the Republican National     
                        Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida

10.  Order 300 pizzas for the entire Romney family.

 9.   Order 300 pizzas for Chris Christie

 8.   Guess which batch of pizzas is gone first.

 7.  Remind Romney that his wife likes equestrians, laugh at him when he says, "no, really, she's       straight!"

6.  Sit in the stall next to Paul Ryan and tap out "Ave Maria" with your foot.  Have him arrested if he answers back.

5.  Put crazy glue in all the Fox News anchor's chairs and on their microphones.

4.  Rig the teleprompter so that in the middle of Ann Romney's speech it scrolls "OK, who farted?"

3.  Fill the balloons for the balloon drop with Orange Juice.

2. Replace the balloons for the balloon drop with condoms filled with cottage cheese.

1. Go to Las Vegas.

Hairspray!

Took a while to figure out how to do this, but here's a clip of the finale of the great production of "Hairspray" done as a communty theater project by St. Luke's UMC in Orlando. This cast could have done this on any stage and it would have rocked!! I actually liked the Tracy and Edna characters better than the movie version. So much talent, high school age through 60s (the guy that played Tracy's dad has legit Broadway credits) fabulous direction by Steve MacKinnon, kudos to all

Finally! (with reservations)

 

 

      I submitted this last Thursday to the Villages Daily Sun, our "news" paper in the Villages. All editorials are from the extreme right, featuring the likes of  Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Thomas Sowell, and others all far right, three of them persons of color, who are probably, along with Clarence Thomas, the smallest minority in America if you discount wheelchair bound lesbian Eskimos with 11 toes. I didn't expect the paper to run the letter, but they did, after carefully editing the last little bit which I will show you at the end of the post.

"A  column entitled"Obama Governs United States like Banana Republic Dictator" is certain to grab one's attention. What heinous act could precipitate such a scathing headline? As it turns out, the column was written by the aged (ed. note: he's 83) African American ultra- conservative, Thomas Sowell and ran in Thursday's edition of the Daily Sun.  Sowell's academic credentials are impeccable,which, makes his point of view and lack of veracity in this case much more troublesome. 

The focus of the column is the use by President Obama of  Executive Orders, which Sowell implies are unconstitutional  and enable the president to run and "end-around" on Congress. He complains about several  Executive Orders he doesn't like and, for good measure throws in the Affordable Health Care Act  which, in true far right style, he calls Obamacare, even though it was passed by a majority of Congress and is a law, not an Executive Order. He finishes the tirade with a slam at the US Supreme Courtwhich he laments will "rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5-4 majority." 

The problem here is that Sowell hasn't done his homework.Using the number of Executive Orders (issued by The President to date) and extrapolating to the end of his current term, President Obama will have issued far fewer (and most far less controversial)  than  Presidents Reagan and Clinton and significantly fewer than President G.W. Bush.  The issue grows murkier when one factors in that the Reagan administration actually did support several  "Banana  Republic Dictators," including El Salvador's brutal regime (yeah, the one that jails any woman who has had an abortion for any reason, with the express connivance of the Church!) 

 Apparently it isn'treally the use of Executive Orders,  but the subject matter, that troubles Sowell.

Here is where they cut it. below is the rest of it:

  "It is disappointing that the Daily Sun runs columns by three persons of color, all of whom are ultra conservative and yet can't seem to find space for opposing points of view on the Op-Ed page for the likes of a Eugene  Robinson, Brent Staples, Leonard Pitts or Mary Mitchell. This community would be better served by at least an illusion of a level playing field on the op-ed page." 

Oh well... half a loaf, etc.

Chris Christie is a big fat Liar (and a bully)

Big Fat Liar

The Governor of New Jersey, who may or may not be Snookie's big brother, has opined that Mitt Romney is "sorry" for the birther joke of several days ago at President Obama's expense. I worry about a candidate who cannot control his mouth, and does things he "wishes he coud take back."
I'm not delerious about how the Prez. has dealt with Vladimir Putin thus far, but Romney? Like "W", Mitt will probably look into his soul and think he's a nice guy. Danger, Danger, Danger! (channeling my inner Crocodile Hunter) Chris Christie is a loudmouth who believes that shouting down your opponents is a sport. He bullies and threatens his own constituents if they disagree with him. He would probably have locked up Pussy Riot, lol. Mitt is so NOT like his father, whom many of both parties admired. George Romney, who ran against Barry Goldwater, a  bona-fide extremist,  said  "‘rugged individualism’ ...is, nothing but a political banner to cover up greed.” Mitt, of course disagrees!

Lincoln Vs Churchill?

It seems that there are many who feel that military experience confers political acumen and historical perspective.  Many letters here begin with "I am [age], and have [years and branch of service] and I think...whatever."  In a recent letter in the Sun of Tuesday,  August, 21, a  Mr. Allen is apparently offended that President Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill  to its owners, the British Government, citing Churchill's position (in his opinion) as the "greatest person in the history of Western civilization!." This act apparently is reason enough to designate Obama as an "Enemy of the American Dream."  As is all too common in the internet age,  this reflects ignorance of the facts, and less than full understanding of who Churchill really was. 

The bust was lent to President George W. Bush when he was furnishing the Oval Office, as have all presidents in the 20 century, in accordance with his own tastes. He further asked that the loan be extended through his second term. President Obama's personal hero is Abraham Lincoln, and he therefore returned the statue with thanks to the British Government  and it now sits, not in England, as Mr. Allen states, but in the British Embassy. In its place is a bust of Abraham Lincoln.  If Mr. Allen takes issue with honoring Abraham Lincoln, an American president, in place of Churchill, we have greater issues!  

Secondarily, many here in the Villages lost family members in WWII. Churchill is remembered, and rightly so, as the man who bolstered British morale during that conflict, and, as such is a huge figure in western history.  He also is the man who tried desperately to keep the British Empire together through the first 40 years of the 20th century. In the furtherance of this goal he: 

Advocated using poison gas against Kurds  in the 20s, fought in three different military actions to keep politically enslaved persons under British rule, masterminded a failed attempt at Gallipoli that made his own party desert him, Introduced "The Peoples' Budget" in 1909 that greatly increased taxes on the rich, switched political parties twice, worshipped Mussolini ("The Roman genius, the greatest lawgiver of our time"),  hated Mohandas Gandhi for advocating Indian independence,  advocated forced sterilization of mentally challenged citizens, and publically stated his hopes that conflict between  Muslims and Hindus in India would be "bitter and bloody."  Even ultra rightist Patrick Buchanan draws moral equivalence between Churchill and Hitler in "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War."  Churchill also stated, "I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations."

The above are stated only to point out that sometimes our idols are just men and women with the same flaws many of us have. To criticize the President for his choice of heroes seems small minded and, especially if that hero is Lincoln, says more about the author than the subject! If I learned anything in 26 years in the nuclear navy and 20 years teaching history, it is that having the facts trumps having an opinion every time.

                                        Mike Dorman, Poinciana  

Morality??

   Feeling love and caring for others should be  one of the greatest sources of our own happiness, it entails a very deep concern for the happiness and suffering of those we love. Our own search for happiness, therefore, provides a rationale for self-sacrifice and self-denial. There is no question that there are times when making enormous sacrifices for the good of others is essential for one's own deeper well-being. Nothing has to be believed on insufficient evidence for people to form bonds of this sort. At various points in the Gospels, Jesus clearly tells us that love can transform human life. We need not believe that he was born of a virgin or will be returning to earth as a superhero to take these teachings to heart.

One of the most pernicious and divisive effects of religion is that it tends to separate concepts of  morality from the reality of human and animal suffering. Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation. In point of fact, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral—that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings. This explains why Christians evidence more concern and expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide. It explains why some are more concerned about human embryos than about the lifesaving promise of stem-cell research. And it explains why many can preach against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from AIDS there each year. They believe that their religious concerns about sex have something to do with morality. And yet, efforts to limit and define the sexual behavior of consenting adults are rarely geared toward the relief of human suffering. In fact, relieving suffering seems to rank rather low on the list of priorities. The principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. This prudery contributes daily and in huge measure to the surplus of human misery.

Consider human papillomavirus (HPV),  the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States. HPV infects over half the American population and causes nearly five thousand women to die each year from cervical cancer; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that more than two hundred thousand die worldwide. We now have a vaccine for HPV that appears to be both safe and effective. The vaccine produced 100 percent immunity in the six thousand women who received it as part of a clinical trial, yet Christian conservatives in our government have resisted a vaccination program on the grounds that HPV is a valuable impediment to premarital sex. These pious men and women want to preserve cervical cancer as an incentive toward abstinence, even if it sacrifices the lives of thousands of women each year.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging teens to abstain from having sex. But we know, beyond any doubt, that teaching abstinence alone is not a good way to curb teen pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted disease. In fact, kids who are taught abstinence alone are less likely to use contraceptives when they do have sex, as many of them inevitably will. One study found that teen "virginity pledges" postpone intercourse for eighteen months on average—while, in the meantime, these virgin teens were more likely than their peers to engage in oral and anal sex. American teenagers engage in about as much sex as teenagers in the rest of the developed world, but American girls are four to five times more likely to become pregnant, to have a baby, or to get an abortion. Young Americans are also far more likely to be infected by HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The rate of gonorrhea among American teens is seventy times higher than it is among their peers in the Netherlands and France. The fact that 30 percent of our sex-education programs teach abstinence only (at a cost of more than $200 million a year) surely has something to do with this.

The problem is that many monotheistic believers are not principally concerned about teen pregnancy and the spread of disease. That is, they are not worried about the suffering caused by sex; they're  worried about sex. Reginald Finger, an Evangelical member of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, recently announced that he would consider opposing an HIV vaccine—thereby condemning millions of men and women to die unnecessarily from AIDS each year—because such a vaccine would encourage premarital sex by making it less risky. This is one of many points on which religious beliefs become genuinely lethal.

    Qualms about embryonic stem-cell research are similarly obscene. Here are the facts: stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic break-throughs for every disease or injury process that human beings suffer—for the simple reason that embryonic stem cells can become any tissue in the human body. This research may also be essential for our understanding of cancer, along with a wide variety of developmental disorders. Given these facts, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the promise of stem-cell research. It is true, of course, that research on embryonic stem cells entails the destruction of three-day-old human embryos. This is what worries you.

Consider the details. A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.

Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential is devoid of merit.

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? If this and similar issues are troubling, then don't have an abortion and don't ever, ever, benefit from any medical advances "stemming" from stem cell research.

The nice thing about living in a free society is that we all should have the right to do or not do what we find morally acceptable or repugnant. The problem is that there are those who would impose their framework of morality upon us all because they have all the answers and feel duty bound to force us to do as they say. The human toll of this thinking has spawned the Inquisition, the Crusades, The 911 attacks, lynchings across the South, The genocidal attempts of Columbus, Hitler, Milosovic, et al.

     In summary, the next time you want to legislate your version of morality to the entire body politic, consider that those whose beliefs differ from yours have as much right to disbelieve (and more proof) than you do.

Neanderthal theology

According to a recent Gallup poll, only 12 percent of Americans believe that life on earth has evolved through a natural process, without the interference of a deity. Thirty one percent believe that evolution has been "guided by God." If our worldview were put to a vote, notions of "intelligent design" would defeat the science of biology by nearly three to one. This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design. But the current controversy over "intelligent design" should not blind us to the true scope of our religious bewilderment at the dawn of the twenty first century.

The same Gallup poll revealed that 53 percent of Americans are actually creationists. This means that despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect our presidents and congressmen - and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the earth, and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

Among developed nations, America stands alone in these convictions. Our country now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dimwitted giant. Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one's friends.

           Sam Harris, in "Letter to a Christian Nation"

"Word of Mouth"

            I have a friend who, when I stated that Paul Ryan's views were pretty much anti-women's rights (he really is the slightly saner Santorum) refused to believe it because "I haven't heard it out of his mouth." Many who might make this statement are totally willing to believe anything any conservative pundit says about the President without applying the same even handed approach. What, I wonder could cause such a double standard?  On the one hand, blame Biden for his comments relative to race (unwise and unproductive, though they were) and yet refuse to read the truth about the President while taking anything negative said about him or his policies as truth. What is it about President Obama that causes so many on the right to have unconditional negative regard about anything he does? Is he just too "tall?" It seems that if it's negative about the Right, it doesn't count if I didn't hear it personally from the lips of the person in question, but If Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh says the president butchered a 6 year old in the Oval Office, that's good enough for me!

            While we're at it, since when did my Medicare and Social Security, one of which I have paid into all my 49 working years, and the other since 1964 (and in fact, still pay for (Medicare part B) become "entitlements???"  The use of the word implies a negative aspect, like it's a government gift or welfare. The Tea Partiers  and, Romney's campaign use it like a curse word.  The issue with Social Security is that in the 1930s, when the act was passed, 65 was old, and, in fact the average male lived a bit less than that. Since then two things have changed the playing field, neither one of which is anyone's fault. First, we live and are healthier  longer, thanks to advances in medicine, so the eligibility age should be increased to reflect this longevity. Moving it to 67 was a good start, but to reflect the same statistical norm as the law was intended to, the age for full benefits should probably be raised to 70 or 72.  Second, the demand on Social Security is higher because the "boomers" are moving through the eligibility window. This situation will increase over the next 15 to 20 years and then diminish.  The real problem is that no one of either party wants to do what is required. It's not the system that's flawed, but the fact that the playing field is altered by natural causes and no one wants to call it what it is. And, please spare me the "privatization" rhetoric. Paul Ryan keeps talking about privatization of Medicare. Imagine  the possibilities if a Rick Scott or Bernie Maddoff was handling a guaranteed revenue stream of funds from a mandatory government program. The persons handling Medicare at present aren't perfect, but the administrators have no profit motive, as would be the case with private insurers.

            Those on the right who trumpet "privatization" as a cure for anything would do well to consider the number one motive for any corporation  - "make money for the stockholders."  For those with money to invest, that's the risk/reward factor of business. For those who live hand to mouth, the risk is unacceptable. If you want to fix Medicare, require everyone to have some sort of insurance (as the Affordable Health Care Act does), since as everyone knows (except, apparently, some in  Congress) preventive medicine saves lives and tons of money, but the uninsured don't, as a rule, get preventive care, and as a consequence wait until they are desperately sick and go to an emergency room.  Secondarily, jail Medicare fraud cases and pull medical licenses of doctors convicted of complicity. Jail a  Rick Scott and his ilk. Hold the top of the Financial pyramid accountable for what occurs on their watch.  Maddoff  is the sole case I can cite where the top of the food chain suffered punitive consequences, vice taking their "golden parachute" and slipping into luxurious retirement. And I do believe that's all I have to say about that!

Mitt Romney is a big fat liar!

There was a time  when, in my (rather more) youthful naiveté that I really believed that even if two Presidential  candidates differed diametrically on an issue, they both  had some sincerity regarding their point of view on what was the right course for the country.  Even Lyndon with his war, I believed was doing what he thought the right thing. Even  Nixon and his paranoia, I believed  wanted  the best for America. 

            The most recent Romney ad has convinced me that this may not be true of our friend Mitt. The ad leads with a statement to the effect that the Obama administration has "gutted" welfare reform. Since the truth has been the victim in many of Romney's ads, here is the real truth regarding this one.

             The 1996 bipartisan welfare reform act ended welfare as a federal entitlement and transformed it into a program run by states within certain federal rules. Last month, the Obama administration announced it would allow states to apply for waivers from some of the rules if states had better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs. This does not mean the relaxation of the "work for welfare" concept or time limit rules of the original bill, rather it does something every Republican should love, especially the Tea Partiers - it gives the states more leeway to innovate with programs that work better.  The Romney campaign ad  has suggests that the Obama administration made its welfare decision to foster a Democratic "culture of dependency" by making it easier for people to stay on welfare. Former President  Clinton pointed out that two Republican-controlled states had requested the waivers. "The recently announced waiver policy was originally requested by the Republican governors of Utah and Nevada to achieve more flexibility in designing programs more likely to work in this challenging environment," Clinton said, and added  that Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, sought a similar policy in 2005.  Clinton continued, 

Bottom of Form

"The Romney ad is especially disappointing because, as governor of Massachusetts, he requested changes in the welfare reform laws that could have eliminated time limits altogether, We need a bipartisan consensus to continue to help people move from welfare to work even during these hard times, not more misleading campaign ads."

            Remember, this is Bill Clinton, who has not gone out of his way to support President Obama, thus far! At least five governors, including Republicans Gary Herbert of Utah and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, have been seeking such regulatory relief for years, the White House pointed out. In return, the directive offers states a new level of flexibility and breathing room for innovation, something that Republicans and conservatives usually favor.

            Don't believe ol' Bill?  OK, then  listen to Ron Haskins,  George W. Bush's senior advisor on welfare and former House Ways and Means Human resources subcommittee welfare counsel to first the Republican staff and then to the entire subcommittee.  "There's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform," Ron Haskins, who is now co-director of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families, said in an interview with NPR that aired on Wednesday. Welfare, formally known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, is administered by states within federal rules. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services invited states to apply for waivers from some rules in order to run "demonstration projects" so that states could "consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of  helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment."

Haskins noted that the requirements states have to meet in order to receive the waivers are quite rigorous. "First of all, the states have to apply individually for waivers," he said. "And they have to explain in detail, sometimes using data, why this approach would lead to either more employment or better jobs for people who are trying to welfare or get off welfare.

            "Team Romney"  insists that the new Obama policy opens the door to a weakening of work requirements because it allows states to give a higher priority to the type of work recipients take than to their participation rate. “If I am president,” Romney said in Elk Grove Village, Ill., last week, “I will put work back in welfare.” But the Obama policy explicitly states that waivers will be granted only to proposals that will increase the percentages of cases to be moved off welfare rolls.

            So there is the truth, from both parties saner and senior members. So who and what does Mitt Romney really represent and what (other than desperately wanting to be President, so he can do something his daddy couldn't do)  does he really stand for?  When "W" was running in 2000, the Democrats in Texas described him as an "all hat and no cattle" cowboy. Mitt Romney doesn't even have a hat, and apparently the only bovine commodity at his disposal is bullshit!!

Really??

In answer to Julie's question, and to the naive responses to date: TARP was signed into law by George W.  Bush, not President Obama, so take that portion of the deficit and lay it where it belongs. Having said that, I believe any president would have done so.  The deficit is, if anything, symptomatic of the entire Western (Europe, Canada, US) economy which is running low on raw materials and facing competition from new sources (Brazil, China, India, etc.)  and in new areas (Indian tech ) which are new and never before seen, so no one can lay claim to ever having handled it "better."  What is absolute fact is that the rich have heralded the "Trickle down" theory of economics since I was in high school (a great long  time ago).  The Hoover administration (Conservative Republican, thank you) tried it in 1927-28 with the pumping in of massive federal money (the Reconstruction Finance Corporation [RFC]) to the top of the "food chain" which was supposed to start the economy working again. The principal result was a further weakening of the economy for  three significant reasons.

                 The RFC's concentration on "bailouts (by other names) .  The RFC program was controversial because the average person suffering the direct affects of the depression was not being aided directly. The big businesses who many people blamed for the economic mess were seen as being rewarded by the low rate loans and grants. Much of the trickle stopped in their bank accounts, not in pay envelopes.

                The 1920s had seen a widening of the gap between the poorest and richest Americans.  In 1928, the year before the US economy plummeted into the Great Depression, the top  . 01% of American families earned 892 times as much as the bottom 10%.   In  2006 the  top .01% of American families averaged 976 times more than the bottom 10%!  Any  Romney/Ryan further tax breaks for the already wealthy would simply serve to increase that gap even more.

                Ron Paul fans take note: another reason that the US (and in fact , world) economy continued to drop into the 1930s was the Republican insistence on adhering to the gold standard, which Mr. Paul maintains is a good idea. One of FDR's first actions was to order federal aid to stop people from starving (and head off possible revolution) and get the US off the gold standard.

                Regarding the Republican lies about taxes:  in 1944, the marginal tax rate on the highest income  bracket   was 94%. In that year, Americans earning the equivalent (in inflation adjusted dollars) of $1 million paid 65% of their  income in Federal income tax.  In 2005, taxpayers making more than $1 million paid 23% of their income in income tax,  three times less than in 1944. In 1953, during Eisenhower's first term, the highest tax bracket was 92%.  In 1964, during the LBJ administration, the "tax and spend"  Democrats lowered it to 77%.  Through the Reagan years a weird phenomenon  occurred: The income tax rate decreased and the deficit skyrocketed. (so much for fiscal responsibility) .  In the Clinton years another weird thing happened: The tax rate increased (a little) and the deficit actually disappeared. Those damned  Democrats just won't live up to the  lies told about their tax and spend ways, will they?  In 2000, another strange thing happened, President George W. Bush cut taxes, launched a war, the projected surplus vanished   and the deficit screamed upward.  Economics is all about the numbers, and Republican claims aren't supported by them at all! .  We also hear Republicans whining about the "death tax."  Their memories are short. The rate in 1976 for the top estate tax bracket was 77%;  it is now 45% .  

                As  previously stated,  one of the (universally agreed upon) triggers  of the Great depression was the  large and highest ever income gap between the highest earners and lowest earners in society.  In 1980, the last pre-Reagan year, the bottom 90% families averaged $30,446 in income. In 2006, adjusting for inflation, the bottom 90% averaged 30,374, an actual decrease . Over the same period, the top  .01% saw a factor of 5 increase in take home income!  We were there again, at a higher ratio by 2005, and the Republican  "solution" is to cut taxes on the rich and increase the gap even more? Really??

                Mr.  Romney is running a commercial right now bragging about starting his own business and "worrying about making ends meet." Trust me, Mitt Romney, the fourth richest man ever to run for President, like his Republican predecessor, "W," was born  rich and has never in his life had to worry about "making ends meet." The thing that is most astonishing to me is that anyone not of the same social status or class would believe for an instant that Romney  is in touch with any aspect of their lives, and even more significant in many cases, their concept of religion.

The "trickle down" theorists remind me of the old line, "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining!"