Immigration for Dummies

Immigration for dummies

We are  daily bombarded by pundits, whose political affiliations are well known, hurling invective and insults at the Obama Administration for the current  surge of illegals entering the country across the Mexican border even though these persons are being detained for return. The legislation which prescribes the process is a Bush administration piece of legislation. 

Such (un)worthies as Rick Santorum and Lou Dobbs have specifically blamed the surge in illegals on the Obama Administration's 2012 policy statement which applied only to those who have been in the US more than 5 years, and before 2012. It has no relevance to the current surge in crossings.

Santorum specifically stated, " Children are crossing the border because President Barack Obama said "if you come, you’re going to be able to stay, because we’re not going to enforce the law."    If that were true, that would be problematic; the problem is however , that it's far from true, to the point of being simply a partisan lie.

  Dealing first with Santorum's fallacious claims:  A few months before the 2012 election, Obama issued an executive order that allowed certain young people without legal immigration status to apply for a two-year deferral of any removal proceedings. That deferral could be extended, and anyone who was accepted would also gain the ability to work in this country. Generally speaking, it targeted people who had come across the border with their parents when they were little and had lived in the United States for many years. The move came after Republicans rejected a bill, the DREAM Act, that would have put these people on the path to citizenship. The Homeland Security Department summarized who qualified:

You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;

You have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

You entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained your certificate of completion from high school, have obtained your general educational development certification, or you are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

You have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat.

No child arriving at the border today would meet those criteria. Santorum claimed that Obama said, "If you come, you’re going to be able to stay." That would not follow under Obama’s deferred action memo, nor his public statements about the situation. The president didn't say it, and it has no relevance to the current crisis! It's a blatant lie, and has been rated "Pants on Fire" (blatant lie) by conservative fact checker, Politifact

As for Dobbs: Faux news Business analyst Lou Dobbs, who has made immigration his straw man since 2008, said: "They (the administration)  manipulated deportation data to make it appear that the Border Patrol was deporting more illegal immigrants than the Bush administration," Dobbs said July 1, 2014. "The Homeland Security secretary had to admit before Congress that was not the case -- that, in fact, they were manipulating the numbers."

The issue here is, or should be, are we getting more or fewer illegals out of the country and back across the border? Dobbs is playing fast and loose with terminology in keeping with Faux News' policy of excoriating the administration and especially the President at any and every opportunity. There are several mechanisms by which persons who have illegally entered the US are sent back to their points of origin -  removal, return, and deportation. Dobbs chooses to look at only those actions specifically called "deportations" and ignore any other method by which illegals are dealt with, even if the result is the same.

Defining deportations is not as easy as it sounds.

In federal government lingo, official judicial or administrative orders to leave the country are called "removals," and they can happen right at the border or anywhere else on American soil. A removal is what most people would consider a deportation.

For people caught illegally crossing the border and simply turned around, there’s another term: "return."

Unlike removals, a return does not bar someone from legally entering the country someday, though that is hard for most because they do not have a family or employment connection necessary to get in line for citizenship, says David Martin, a University of Virginia School of Law professor. Martin also worked as Immigration and Naturalization Service general counsel in the Clinton administration and as DHS deputy general counsel from 2009-10 under Obama.

The Border Patrol primarily handles voluntary returns to Mexico, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , equipped with immigration judges and detention center beds, generally handles removals.

Over the past several administrations, the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its immigration focus to undocumented immigrants who commit crimes or are caught at the border. The idea is to get them out, and keep them out. The shift picked up in the George W. Bush administration and intensified under Obama’s watch.

Whereas many immigrants previously caught at the border simply were bused back to Mexico, they now are returned with official deportation orders, prosecuted, or moved to different parts of the border so they cannot reconnect with their smuggler, Martin said.  In short, these people previously would have been classified as a "return," but the policy has been to put them through removal proceedings. As such, they are classified as a "removal."

The figure shows those illegals leaving the country by all means. It is worthy of note that Dobbs, apparently an equal opportunity hater, was also critical of the  Bush administration in this area, and the fact that he is attempting to flay President Obama with Bush statistics says much about both his faces.  

Take note that in 2009, President Obama's first year in office,  the total numbers of illegals being sent back (by all methods) rose dramatically. whether it was by border removal (allowing reentry, favored by Bush,) or  interior removals. While the number of border removals remains high (remember, these persons can come back as legal immigrants, the use of interior removals (permanent deportation) has skyrocketed under the Obama administration.   Total removals, which is what Dobbs would cite if he were a person of integrity, were in 2012, over 100 million higher than the largest Bush are number! Dobbs is liar and even conservative fact checkers have said so.

There can be little doubt that there is an immigration crisis at our southern border. There has been zero willingness on the part of Tea Partiers especially and Republicans in general to create meaningful bipartisan immigration legislation. Blaming the guy who would eventually sign such legislation instead of those tasked with writing it is morally bankrupt political posturing. 

Let me Explain it to You

Let me explain it to you

The editorial cartoon above ran in the Villages Daily Sun Tuesday, July 15. The hubris of the cartoonist is astounding, as is the lack of homework done prior to drawing this piece of drivel.

Where to start? Ok, let's start by pointing out that rarely is a speaking fee based on wisdom. Dr. Ben Carson commands high fees yet he believes the earth is about 4800 years old! Few high school dropouts are so naive. Former President George W. Bush routinely (141 times since leaving office) "earns" (is paid)  $100-150 thousand per talk.  Most, including Republicans would hesitate to use the adjective "wise" when discussing Bush 43. Sarah Palin has been paid $100,000 for speaking at the graduation ceremonies of a college no one has even heard of.

So, what implies and  imparts  "wisdom" in a person? Experience? Education? Diversity of  endeavor? By those yardsticks, at 34, Chelsea  Cinton leads the above mentioned in most categories. Consider Chelsea Clinton at 34 years of age compared to previous three I named.

I'll simply be kind and point out that Dr. Ben Carson, a groundbreaking neurosurgeon, overcame significant personal obstacles to achieve his well deserved renown in the medical community  In other areas of science, he is a relative dunce. I'm not being unkind, I am simply telling the (probably now highly offended) reader to check out his stances on other scientific issues. His fundamentalist religious beliefs have stunted his intellectual growth outside the neuroscience field. Good guy, scientific tunnel vision.

George W. Bush at 34? Well, it took him 29 years to accomplish an (almost assuredly charitable, since he was a "C" student) MBA. he  then worked a bit in the oil business and by 34 failed in a run for Congress. We know the rest of the publically known and not so publically known facts, including cocaine use, alcoholism, etc. Wisdom? Not so much.

As for Sarah Palin, after five different college stints, she earned a bachelor's degree in communication and, by 32 was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a metropolis of about 7500 persons and huskies, from which , she alleged, she could  "see Russia,"  which apparently constitutes her entire foreign policy portfolio, which earned her second seat on John McCain's ticket in 2008. She resigned from her only elected position as Governor of Alaska.  

So what of Chelsea Cinton? Start with 8 years in the White House, from ages 8 to 16, exposed to the inner workings of government as few ever are. No one ever elected president other than John Quincy Adams has  had similar experience  (I know, "W"s daddy was......., yes, but "W" wasn't there!)  In fact, during his  father's vice presidency, there was at least one incident where brother Jeb Bush intervened between a drunken "W" and George Senior. Chelsea, on the other hand delivered over 100 speeches in support of her mother's Presidential campaign, supporting her, as she had done during Hillary's New York Senate campaign.

Chelsea Clinton has been essentially constantly involved in politics as observer or participant since the age of 2 when she actually accompanied her dad during his Arkansas Gubernatorial race, which is a ton of experience. But, you say, what is experience without the intellectual means to apply it? A National Merit Scholar finalist, Ms. Clinton has a BA in History from Stanford,  an MPhil  in International relations from Oxford, a PhD in International Relations from Oxford, which makes her far better prepared at 34 than either Bush or Palin ever were at any time. Additionally, Ms. Clinton has earned a Master's of Public Health at Columbia, where she is also adjunct faculty.   

Unlike the other three mentioned, Ms Clinton has  broad

 background outside the political In addition to her adjunct faculty post at Columbia University, Ms. Clinton has worked for McKinsey & Company, Avenue Capital Group, and New York University and serves on several boards, including those of the School of American Ballet, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Common Sense Media, Weill Cornell Medical  College and IAC/InterActiveCorp.

So for those who might still agree with the cartoonist regarding choosing one's parents wisely and wisdom....I have two words - Bristol Palin.

This ain't those Bundys

Apparently in Nevada some apples don't fall all that far from the tree. Remember ol' Cliven Bundy? C'mon, you remember:  the rancher who has been breaking federal law since the Clinton administration by refusing to pay for his cattle grazing lease like law abiding citizens around him do?  The common scofflaw, the mention of whose name gave all the NRA members a stiffie for about two weeks. That paragon of good old American  independence who stood up to the "gummint" when they came to legally seize his cattle. The old asshole who should have been jailed for threatening federal law enforcement officials for simply enforcing a law that was on the books for aver 40 years? Oooh, him, yeah right, we forgot about him after his 15 minutes of fame.

Well, it turns out that Cliven Bundy has a son, Cliven Lance Bundy (goes by Lance, wouldn't you? Really...Cliven?) who is also a felon. Apparently Lance has the same regard for the law and other peoples' property as his daddy, except Lance doesn't use it illegally, he steals it! Lance Bundy now faces arrest in a separate criminal case stemming from his felony conviction on burglary and weapon theft  charges.

Cliven Lance Bundy, 34, said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press that he knows he’s named in a contempt-of-court warrant issued July 8 in Las Vegas for failing to appear before a Clark County District Court judge who oversees a drug diversion program.  “I’m trying to get ahold of my counselor to see what I’m supposed to do,” said Lance Bundy, who is not currently represented by a lawyer. It appears that  Lance ought to "get ahold" of himself and show up in court. It seems Lance chose to have minor outpatient surgery instead of go to court, an appointment he has missed not once or even twice, but three times. Court records show Bundy missed several previous hearings, and that officials said they were unable to reach him to notify him of court dates, although he says he was at his parents' home. 

Lance could face up to eight years in prison for his crimes, which he says were a result of his addiction to opiates, having  attributed his conviction to an addiction to opiate pain killers, and alleging  he has been getting counseling. One has to wonder how the elder Bundy would have felt if instead of his white son, the crime had been committed by a person of color who used the "addicted to opiates" excuse. Would Ol' Cliven still think court ordered counseling was adequate punishment. I think we all know the answer to that question.

 Apparently the Bundy's of Nevada are as dysfunctional as the Bundy's of TV land.  Unfortunately they are  nowhere near as funny.

In search of the lowest common denominator

I remember when The Learning Channel, A & E, and even occasionally the networks,  used to produce and air meaningful television. That illusion is dead and the decision that killed it was the decision to show the "Honey Boo-Boo show." For those of you fortunate enough to have no idea regarding the subject of this rant, warning: save yourself and look no further. This "show"  featured a thoroughly repulsive six year old troll from Georgia and her equally grotesque supporting cast of inbred family members. My introduction to this was my inadvertent following of an "interesting" link on my news page that took me to "Toddlers and Tiaras," another TLC show exploiting the already exploitative world of child beauty pageants.

Apparently, not satisfied with creating programming that exemplifies  Dante's  third and fourth levels of hell (greed and gluttony, as exemplified by "The Apprentice" and   Fox's late, unlamented "The Glutton Bowl")  we moved on down the list to levels eight and nine, fraud and treachery, all neatly wrapped up in , among others, "The real Housewives of (apparently anywhere)" Toss in the hefty dose of racism, sexism  and unhealthy addiction to camouflage clothing  that is "Duck Dynasty, " and the nether regions are filling up rapidly.

Pundits lament America's 27th place academic standing in the world. All the conservatives, of course blame teachers' unions (for not teaching them "Creation 'Science' " ???!!!). To worsen the reality, innovative teachers are sometimes punished for utilizing more creative ways to get students to think and actually express themselves in writing. What arrant bullshit! When kids come to school having been raised on mindless garbage, real education becomes very difficult. The dumbing down of America begins at home, not in the classroom. The very same advertisers who pay the pundits and critics also cultivate the cult of the mind numbingly stupid and vacuous with tripe such as "Toddlers and Tiaras," " Dance Moms," "Big Smo'", "Hillbilly Handfishin' " and the like. Really?? This is all you got?

Merely a small sampling of the vapid human detritus who populate Reality Television. Of course the real blame goes to TV executives who figured out that simply showcasing the behavior of persons of marginal mental acuity, morals , or even better, both, was far cheaper than hiring writers, directors and/or actors to do real drama!    

When more young adults (actually older adults as well)  can identify any "housewife" of "anywhere" and every  datum related to things Kardashian than can identify any member of  the U.S. Supreme Court, I smell decay in the wind. I recently downloaded and am re-watching the BBC series "Civilisation - A Personal Perspective with Kenneth Clark." We certainly have come a long way in the wrong direction since its original airing. I  lament the loss of programming of this kind. I'd write more, but it's time for "Jersey Shore." This week Snooki's s going to demonstrate how to become a media personality without even a vestige of discernible talent other than fecundity.  I can barely wait!

True or false for Dummies

     It seems that pointing out lies of the right has become a never ending task. Of course the bulk of them are aimed at POTUS because he's, well, you know....."tall."  A recent sampling includes:

The mystery executive order decisions

     From RNC national Communications Director, Sean Spicer on July 6, 2014: "In the last three years alone, 13 times, the Supreme Court, unanimously, 9-0, including all of the president's liberal picks, have struck down the president's executive orders."

     The truth: This would be less troubling if it had even a ring of truth to it. Not only has President Obama signed fewer executive orders than G.W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Nixon , but 14 of the executive orders claimed by the Republicans to be the most heinous, were actually signed by JFK, LBJ, and Ford!

     It is worthy of note that these wildly false claims come from a chain e-mail of several years ago, since debunked by everyone, except, apparently the communications office of the RNC. If I were a Republican, I'd be very concerned that the person being paid to provide factual communications to party members apparently gets their data from such discredited sources.

     Regarding the SCOTUS rulings:  To begin with,  nine of the 13 cases actually originated when President George W. Bush was in office. Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most of those instances. Only one of the 13 cases actually had to do directly with Obama’s overreach: National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning. In that case, decided in June, the Supreme Court said unanimously that Obama went too far when he appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate wasn’t technically in session. But even that case had nothing to do with what Spicer said last weekend on CNN. Spicer claimed that the court has unanimously rejected "the president's executive orders" 13 times in three years.  None of these  cases actually has to do with executive orders issued by Obama. More wrong than this is impossible!

     Summary: Most of the litigation cited by Spicer as SCOTUS refutations of Obama actually came in response to actions under the Bush administration. In the few cases initiated during Obama’s two terms, the court wasn't even ruling on challenges to  executive orders. Spicer took an already debunked argument and made another mistake in repeating it, so it was even more incorrect. In other words, he's a liar.

Who released whom and when?

     Another tried and true far right smear tool is blaming virtually everything that went wrong in Iraq on POTUS. In my opinion, that is correct; what's wrong is that it's the PPOTUS (previous Potus!)

      On June 14, as the forces of ISIS were engaged in the genocide between Islamic sects which we have gotten far too used to,  Jeanine Pirro, Faux News talking head said: "The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden," Pirro said. "A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York. "  Wow! "Why did President free the bad man, daddy?" Well, Bobby, it turns out he didn't.

The pentagon confirms , "Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon said in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."  In short, according to the Defense Department, the man who heads ISIS was released in 2004, long before Obama took office, and was not recaptured! Apparently according to a former commander of Camp Bucca,  He  "looked familiar." The colonel who said this has refused further comment after it became obvious his recollection might be flawed.

      As in most of these fabrications, there are multiple levels of deception and chicanery.  Toward the end of Bush’s second term in 2008, American and Iraqi negotiators moved toward getting the United States out of the business of holding large numbers of Iraqis. Neither side wanted to see the network of detention centers continue.  Its demise reflected a "deliberate policy choice by the United States and Iraq to phase out that system and to rely instead on the Iraqi criminal justice system as the sole mechanism for detention going forward."

      That goal became part of the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed in November 2008. It should be noted that this Bush agreement was being followed by POTUS in pulling troops from Iraq per the agreement. Events subsequent may reflect flawed policy, but not the current administration's policy.   Under that agreement the United States agreed to "turn over custody of such wanted detainees to Iraqi authorities pursuant to a valid Iraqi arrest warrant and shall release all the remaining detainees in a safe and orderly manner."

    The United States continued to hold about 200 prisoners judged to pose the greatest risk. They were what remained from a group that numbered about 14,000 at the start of 2009.

      Other  from the ‘Deck of Cards’ detainees held at Camp Cropper (the top leaders in Saddam’s government), it’s hard to imagine how anyone in Washington would have any interest in who we held or released,  By the end of 2009, it’s hard to imagine how we could have continued to hold anyone if the Iraqis themselves didn’t decide to detain them.

Summary:  The legal contract between the United States and Iraq that guaranteed that the United States would give up custody of virtually every detainee was signed during the Bush administration. It would have required an extraordinary effort to have held on to Baghdadi ( or "Puff Baghdadi" as he now wants to be known), (sorry)and there is no evidence that he was on anyone’s radar screen, even assuming that he was in custody at all in 2009. The U.S.-Iraq agreement drove the release of thousands of detainees in 2009, but President Obama had nothing to do with that.

Jeanine Pirro is a liar

"Let's pile on the ACA"

One of my favorite names, if I had a favorite rad right name would have to be  "Reince Priebus."  Sounds like a problem for a  urologist, doesn't it? Actually it the name of the Republican  National Committee chairman. He was an unsuccessful Wisconsin state Senate candidate in 2004. He  also worked  as general counsel to the Republican National Committee. Apparently his reward for losing the state senate seat. His record of truth telling is horrid. More than half of every statement he has publically made in criticism of the current administration has been false , really false, or arrant bullshit!

Recent statements include but are not limited to:

"Thanks to ObamaCare, average E.R. wait in California is 5 hours."   A brief summary of reality shows :  The statement and statistic  was based on data from 2012 -- two years before the provisions of the ACA could have had any impact. Meanwhile, the five-hour figure is just one of three measurements of E.R. wait times -- and not even necessarily the best one. If you count from the time of a patient's arrival to being seen by a health care professional, the wait time was actually 31 minutes in California. A far cry from 5 hours!

Another claim: On the Today show in 2011, a low point of the current recession, Priebus claimed, "We’ve lost 26 million jobs, since he’s (Obama) been president. He promised under an $850 billion stimulus program that we’d be on a path to recovery. We’ll none of that has come true. … I think that pointing out a snail’s pace in the job (growth) numbers is not going to be enough to undo 26 million jobs that are lost."

Without going into why he's an idiot, the number is wildly inaccurate, off  by at more than a factor of 10! Even if true, that was 2011, and totally inaccurate today.

Reince Priebus is a liar.

I was going to quit with Reince Priebus, because I want the reader to be as unable as I in trying to get that weird name out of their heads, but I stumbled across one last liar who needs to be revealed for what he is and what he tried to do.

Playing the Veteran card

    Bill Cassidy is a Republican Congressman from Louisiana, that bastion of honest politics, who wants to be a Senator more than anything.

     On July 5, 2014, he said. "Only after news broke that our veterans are dying because of inadequate health care did Harry Reid and Senate Democrats take action." By extension , of course, this lays the blame for what are, in fact, truly egregious conditions in some VA facilities on Senate Democrats. Only in Cassidy's world is this a reality; examination of the truth reveals a different set of facts.

 The bill Cassidy refered to was  H.R. 3251, the Department of Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act of 2013. The bill, authored by Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., authorized the funding of 27 new Veterans Affairs health facilities around the country. On Dec. 10, 2013, the House passed the bill almost unanimously with a vote of 346 to 1. (Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., was the lone "no" vote.)

The bill stalled in the Senate. In fact, it never made it out of the Veterans' Affairs committee. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced S. 1950, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014, on Jan. 16. The bill was much broader than just funding 27 new VA health clinics. For example, it also included an expansion of physical and mental health benefits for some veterans and their families. Republicans objected to several components of Sanders’ bill, including its funding mechanism. Sanders would pay for his bill with money that would have gone toward the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Republicans  made support for the bill contingent on the inclusion of sanctions against Iran. Democrats tried to bring Sanders’ bill up for a vote on Feb. 27. Republicans made a parliamentary maneuver that imposed a 60-vote threshold to bring it to the floor. With just 56 Senators voting "yea" — including only two Republicans — the bill failed to advance.

     Understand;  this meant that a bill which would have addressed  many VA problems was stifled by the Republicans in the Senate. In a press release, the American Legion lamented the bill’s failure."There was a right way to vote and a wrong way to vote today, and 41 senators chose the wrong way," American Legion National Commander Daniel Dellinger said. "That’s inexcusable."  The votes in question were those of all save two Republican Senators. Once again Republicans blocked needed legislation and then blamed the administration for inactivity.

Bill Cassidy is a liar

                                          Truthiness

In truth, writing these is almost too easy, since the avalanche of lies is almost overwhelming and easy to show. So let's finish with some "truthiness"  (with all due acknowledgement to Steven Colbert for the term)

Poor John gets confused!

     A critical voice raised against the administration regarding the ransoming of Bowe Bergdahl comes from none other than tjhat old warhorse, Senator John  (I'm really too old for this shit") McCain. Among other soundbites he has said, "It is a mistake and it is putting the lives of American servicemen and women at risk and that to me is unacceptable," (Republican news conference June 3) On CNN on June 8, McCain affirmed he would never have released the five Taliban officials. "What we're doing here is reconstituting the Taliban government, the same guys that are mass murderers," McCain said.  

If this were consistent with McCain's track record on prisoner swaps, there would be no issue here. Unfortunately, it is inconsistent.  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper 2 months earlier, McCain sang another tune:

 Here is the exchange between Cooper and McCain:

COOPER: "Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable."

MCCAIN: "Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. "I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details." Whaaat?

COOPER: "So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?"

MCCAIN: "I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider."

Oh, I know what you're thinking, he didn't know we'd release bad guys for this deserter (which is what, it turns out he is/was). The problem is that he actually did know who four of the five Taliban were! McCain sits on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees and was familiar with who was in play when he spoke to Cooper, calling them "five really hard-core Taliban leaders."

I won't call McCain a liar in this instance, out of deference for his age and his service;  let's just call him....... confused!? By the way, Rachel Maddow broke  this story, which is true, but then, Rachel Maddow isn't a Republican liar, is she? 

Minimum Wage explanation for Dummies

      In what has to be one of the most self serving and disingenuous acts ever to be disguised as a good deed, McDonald’s has partnered with Visa to make a website dedicated to showing its employees how “to properly budget” their meager peasant salaries. However, what it actually does is illustrate the fact that it is nearly impossible to get by on minimum wage, as shown in this “example” budget chart actually taken from that website: On first glance, the $1105 top line seems like it might be a part time McDonald’s employee’s pay, but, that is actually what you would make if you were working full-time at McDonald’s - $1,105 dollars a month. Oh, but wait; that’s actually $1160 before taxes at $7.25 hourly (national minimum wage) but less when FICA and Taxes are deducted.

Now let’s say that the “second” job that they budget in here is also minimum wage. That would mean you were working about 74 hours a week, using the national minimum wage on average. That’s almost another whole full time job.

 

    And what do you get for working 74 hours a week? Well, you don’t get to heat the apartment, clearly. There’s a zero next to the line item for “heat” in that chart. In most apartments there are separate checks for gas and electric– that would mean that not only do you not get to heat and cool your home, but also that you do not get to heat your water, or cook on your stove, if you have a gas stove. Also noticeably absent in this budget - food and gas. There’s a line for a car payment, but not for gasoline, which is odd, because if you’re working two jobs it’s possible you will pay more for your gas than you’d be paying for your car.

Perhaps the biggest lie herein is health insurance for $20 a month? Maybe if your state gets off its ass and implements the Affordable Health care Act, otherwise there simply is no such thing as health insurance for $20 a month if you’re buying your health insurance on your own. A more reasonable figure is around about $200 a month– and that only covers hospital emergencies, and only for the insured him or herself.

     “But Mike,” you say, “this isn’t so bad for a kid working a first job. Surely this minimum wage budget is for the under 20 young employee. Right?” Dead wrong! You may think that most of these minimum wage earners are teenagers. The Michelle Bachmanns and others in Congress who would love to hold, lower or eliminate the minimum wage incorrectly repeat this falsehood all the time. It is an incontrovertible lie!

Anyone interested in the facts? Nationally 87.9% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 20. In fact, the state with the largest percentage of minimum wage earners below age 20 only has 27% at that level or below. 28% of those minimum wage earners people are parents trying to raise a kid on this budget. That is not a good thing for our future and it is not a good thing for our economy.. In order for the economy to thrive, people have to be able to buy things. All the money going to people at the top does not help us.

The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity, according to a March 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. While advancements in technology have increased the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a set amount of time, wages have remained relatively flat, the study points out. Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study. The graph below illustrates this reality. 

So perhaps a better question is “If productivity has far outstripped the minimum wage, someone’s making more money, right?” Look to the corporations for the answer.

Right now, The Bachmanns, Rand Pauls and others in our government are saying that we shouldn’t even have a minimum wage. That employers should be free to pay people whatever they can get someone to agree to work for. If they can get someone to work for $3 an hour, then it should be allowed. These are usually the selfsame people who comfort themselves by telling themselves that poor people are only poor because poor people are “lazy”. I’m fairly certain that someone who works 74 hours a week isn’t lazy. To repeat: If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be over $10 an hour. If it had kept up with productivity It would be $21.72.

     I don’t want to live in some dog-eat-dog Ayn Rand erotic fantasy. Human beings are worth more than that. Anyone who works 40 hours a week (never mind 74 hours) ought be able to take care of all the basic necessities in life. This isn’t about redistribution of wealth for Socialism’s sake. In fact, on a national basis it’s the opposite and should be embraced by those who cry for a balanced budget. Corporations shouldn’t be able to pay their workers a pittance, keep all of the profits to themselves, and expect taxpayers to make up the difference with social programs. It’s not fair to the workers, and it’s not fair to any of us.

Climate Change for Dummies.

     With regard to climate change: Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.

     In another area, however variations in the earth's orbit over long periods have been shown to contribute to changes in average temperatures. The problem when considering this contributor to climate change (it works both ways) is that, while orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years, they at present are in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards a glacial period within the current ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures. This would imply that other contributory causes  are causing warming at a rate which offsets the cooling  expected if orbital cycles were sole determinants of global temperature change.  

     A third area for consideration which should also, if a sole contributor, cause a decrease in overall global temperatures is concentration of atmospheric particulates such as volcanic ash, soot, and other man made pollutants. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "global dimming," since the effect is to allow less solar radiation through the atmosphere.

    The problem with global dimming is that it is also largely man made, but the atmospheric contaminants are hazardous to human life. One need only look at Beijing's constant state of smoggy haze and a population forced to wear respiratory protection to see the problem. This does not take into account long term effects of carbon combustion such as the litany of carcinogens produced by burning coal. While in the US, stack scrubbers and better burning have seriously reduced stack pollutants (and, therefore acid rain and carcinogens), China is more than making up for it, with 2014 Beijing's atmosphere reminiscent of London's worst period during the industrial revolution or Pittsburgh's in 1900!

   Those products of combustion which become wet particulates and contribute to dimming have a half life in the atmosphere - that time required for half of a given quantity to be "washed out" of about a week and a half. Unfortunately, the invisible by-product of the same combustion which produces these particulates in either man made (stack gasses) or natural (volcanic) processes is carbon dioxide.  Unlike all the other causes, carbon dioxide is strictly a product of man's burning  of fuels which produce it as an unwanted by-product. Unlike the other causes which might actually result in global cooling, CO2  trapped in the atmosphere causes increased retention of the heat caused by solar radiation. This balance is already unbelievably fine, and its precision is one of the key reasons why life as we know it exists on  earth and nowhere else in the solar system.  Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface. How much of this energy is retained is the key.

     Unfortunately, as this solar radiation is absorbed by various things on earth, its wavelength becomes longer (or frequency becomes less, and its energy reduced, same thing).  This reflected energy is emitted at these lower energy levels as  infrared thermal radiation and some (just enough, mind you if all is well) escapes back, maintaining the earth's mean temperature , as baby bear said, "just right."   Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.

    Earth’s natural "greenhouse effect" makes life as we know it possible. If there were no greenhouse effect, we'd freeze, or rather more likely, life on earth would never have existed. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming. The understanding of this is not new, or theoretical, as some on the far right (generally) would have you believe.  It was proposed 190 years ago by Joseph Fourier, shown to be real in 1860 by John Tyndall, was first quantitatively  investigated  by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and was developed in the 1930s through 1960s by Guy Stewart Callendar.

     On earth, naturally occurring  greenhouse gases have an average  warming effect of about 59 °F.   Without the Earth's atmosphere, the temperature across almost the entire surface of the Earth would be below freezing. The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.  

     Human activity, since the Industrial Revolution led to a huge increase in the use of fossil fuels for production, has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased levels of   CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. According to one study completed in 2007,  the concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.  These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years. We know or can determine this because ice cores taken  from glacier borings  can show us snapshots of climate conditions at a given time in the past back a considerable distance. There is absolutely no disputing that fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation, since trees, which absorb CO2 and emit Oxygen, are an integral part of the cycle. )  "It's the Circle of Life"

     Methane increases since 1750 reflect the huge increase in beef and dairy production over that period, since cattle are essentially methane generators, as are pigs to a lesser extent. Cows eat grass, fart methane - a lot!

      Estimates of global CO2 emissions in 2011 from fossil fuel combustion, including cement production and gas flaring, was 34.8 billion tons,  an increase of 54% above emissions in 1990. Coal burning was responsible for 43% of the total emissions, oil 34%, gas 18%, cement 4.9% and gas flaring 0.7% In May 2013, it was reported that readings for CO2 taken at the world's primary benchmark site in Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm. According to professor Brian Hoskins, this is likely the first time CO2 levels have been this high for about 4.5 million years.!

     Over the last three decades of the 20th century, gross domestic product per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.  Emissions can be attributed to different regions, e.g., see the figure opposite. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.

     As I earlier pointed out, the particulate by products of combustion last in the atmosphere at a "half life of about 10-11 days.  Unfortunately the CO2 produced by these same processes lasts about 100 years! The implication being that even if man stops using fossil fuels now, it will be quite a while until its effects are diminished.

      So what of the future?   Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. In most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, emissions are reduced.  Fossil fuel reserves are abundant, and will not limit carbon emissions in the 21st century. Emission scenarios,  have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases might change in the future. Using six "marker" scenarios (contributors weighted per their impact on CO2 formation, retention and deletion), models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is 90–250% above the concentration in the year 1750!

    The popular media and the public often confuse global warming with ozone depletion, i.e., the destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons. Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong.  Ozone depletion allows more dangerous Ultra-violet (high frequency, short wavelength, high energy) solar radiation in through the atmosphere, resulting in greater damage to humans by the sun in some areas, "Oz", for example. Unfortunately, the "hole in the Ozone layer" doesn't let much infra-red, the other end of the radiation energy scale, out, since CFC's don't deplete greenhouse gasses like CO2 and Methane.

     So: why is there even any discussion regarding this phenomenon, let alone deniers claiming that it's all some "Liberal invention?" I think perhaps the answer to that lies in four places.

    First is the fact that Global warming is slow and invisible to the vast majority of people on the planet. Relatively few humans witness polar bears unable to go to sea until a month after they used to be able to do so. Even fewer measure glacial recession.  Only scientists analyze atmospheric conditions over time  and many Americans (especially) are dismally ignorant when it comes to understanding Science and its role in society, unless it has  an immediate impact on their lives, like the Salk vaccine, Lasik surgery,  bariatric gastric reduction  or the "Lifestyle Lift."

     Second is the fact that taking steps on an individual level to reduce greenhouse emissions seems like an inconsequential thing, not to mention a damned nuisance. Why, Hell, I might even have to trade the Hummer for a Prius! Take the train and leave the car home, surely you jest! Next thing they'll (it's always "they," isn't it) make me use different light bulbs. A corollary to that is that while there are alternate energy sources (and we will have energy, how else can I use Facebook?) , they are relatively expensive, have a very long payback time and are just, well, just a pain in the ass; I mean,  who's got time to set up a windmill or put solar cells on the roof, anyway?  

     

     Which leaves us with the third and perhaps most significant real reason, so well outlined by my dear nephew. John,  earlier - money! Not our money, spent to conserve or use alternate energy sources, but the incredible wealth represented by the Energy industry fat cats  who seem to have an attitude of "Fiddle dee-dee,  I'll worry about that tomorrow." If there is no financial incentive for the energy industry to look elsewhere for alternate power sources which don't effect the greenhouse gas inventory, then they simply won't. These companies will wait until the last barrel of oil has been pumped and their coffers filled, and then say "Don't blame us. you all bought it, even when it costs $10 per gallon."    

     A great example is the current enthusiasm for fracking, which is now being shown to cause quakes in hitherto quake free Ohio, as well as in some areas resulting in citizens having natural gas issue from their kitchen sink taps. No mind, though, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, received the most contributions from the fracking industry, raking in $509,447 between the 2004 and 2012 election cycles — over $100,000 more than the next closest recipient, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who received $384,700. While serving as chairman of the committee, Rep. Barton sponsored the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Overall, nearly 80 percent of fracking industry contributions went to Republican congressional candidates.

   As long as supporting the continued dependence on fossil fuels is this profitable for politicians (of both parties, the energy industry is an equal opportunity briber), Global warming will be real and worsening. Science denying conservatives will be the last to truly see the disastrous results, since it's already warm and moist where they have their collective heads!

     Finally, and most pathetic are the true believers for who the meaning of Global Warming, if real, would be that we humans have the power to degrade something that "God made." At some level this must be the huge denial factor for these zealots, since we see the Palin, Bachmann, Perry camps all waving the "It ain't so" banner. One wonders what Neanderthals believed they had done to piss off their particular supernatural sky-God and precipitate the last ice age. Modern Neanderthals (including a fair number of members of Congress, sucking up to their fundamentalist voter bloc) have the same attitude. Science is not anti-religious. It isn't "anti" anything.  That perspective belongs to persons of the same caliber as those who persecuted Galileo, burned "witches", and drank the Kool -Aid at Jonestown.