More Lies and the Lying liars who tell them (with a tip of the hat to Senator Franken for the title)

Recently (re) posted to Facebook. It's not new but it speaks volumes about the bias and gullibility of those who repost it:  

"A B C and the Washington Post are one and the same. Now we know part of the reasons that A B C will not say anything negative about Barack Hussein Obama.
Did you know these connections?
A B C News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Advisor.
C B S President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
A B C News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney.
A B C News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.
A B C President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
C N N President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
And now you know why it is no surprise the media is in Obama's pocket."

Of course this is just like the creationists who assume that these simple statements also prove that all these spouses are bound to do or say whatever they're told, even though the likes of James Carville and Mary Matalin show just how wrong that might be!

      So what are the issues here?  I'll save the substantive for last. First note the use of the president's middle name. 

      This is the "He must be a secret Muslim" card.  Apparently this comes from a person who thinks he got to choose his own name. I know that if my grandfather had had such a choice he probably would not have chosen "Orion,"  and maybe President Obama might not have chosen Hussein either. One of the first imbeciles who played this card was Sarah Palin. I certainly hope someone pointed out that Sarah is the quintessential  Hebrew name, so she  must be Jewish (to my Jewish friends, I apologize).

The last comment regarding someone being in the President's pocket - really? And all you far right blogosphere morons with all your inside dope and tech wizardry have had 6 years to find the money trail? How's that working for you? 

     Simple truth, elaborated in the following paragraphs is that any media outlet showing bias and which lives and dies economically by selling advertisement  would have to be suicidal to exhibit the least bias because doing so will lose some advertisers either way.  Faux and MSNBC are both  biased media outlets, no doubt, and CNN is all over the place, dependent upon topic. None of them however is truly a "News" outlet. They are 24 hour editorials.  I will opine that the average IQ of MSNBC's talking heads is higher, however, but that is based on a very small sample. Rachel Maddow vs Sarah Palin - steel cage match!
What follows is my response to the principle thread, that being that no one in broadcast  journalism is capable of independent thought, and that the major networks are all "the liberal media."

        Let's refute immediately by pointing out that David Muir on ABC last night teased and later did a story on the "salute" fiasco. Unlike Faux, he didn't call the president disrespectful for his half salute with cup in hand. He just reported it and showed a photo of Reagan saluting (he was the first to do so.)  This even , balanced approach is obvious proof of bias, I guess. It seems that to the far Rightists, bias means "refusal to smear by rumor and innuendo."

     "I love this because it exposes the mindset of the Faux News crowd.  This based on the assumption that impartiality and simple reporting versus blatant editorializing is impossible! Secondarily it assumes all the network spouses are the mindless meat puppet zombie slaves of their respective spouses. Well, apparently at Faux it is, so idiots of similar mindset assume it must be so everywhere. Read essentially any interview you can find from someone who left Faux News and you hear  the same song, roughly along the lines of what I just said, that they were guided and pushed into a certain place with regard to what they said and how they said it as a condition of continued employment.  I now defy you to find anything of a similar nature from anyone who left the big three network news staffs, even to go to Faux.  It ain't there because the network news departments are a relatively non moneymaking part of the entire network's  operation. In recent past years they sometimes ran at a loss. 

  A Harvard study from several years ago makes it fairly clear to a literate person with any business sense that if the network's least monetarily productive division even hints at favoritism or editorializing, they will be losing some portion of their viewers, and sponsors won't have it. Ask yourself honestly, if that is even possible, if an ultra conservative, high dollar  ad buyer like Chik Fil A or Walmart (and we know damned well where their politics lie)  would simply lie back and  spend their multimillions of advertising dollars with a network  which editorialized overtly or covertly against their interests. This was the conclusion of the Harvard study after lengthy evaluation of actual network news content. There was a time, during Vietnam when NBC anchor John Chancellor could barely contain himself, and Dan Rather at CBS had some moments. Of course neither died in the job, but were let go, Rather because he did just exactly what this charges, he editorially slighted George W Bush.

 I would never say the same about MSNBC , which I don't  watch for the same reason I don't watch Faux News . The problem is that the term Liberal media, really only applies to MSNBC,  Air America, (radio) and other local radio hosts, The same is true for Faux News, except that they are also supported by such lunatics as Glenn Beck and  Limbaugh the addict. The three major networks, constantly slammed by the Palinator and her coven mate Michele Bachmann as the "liberal Media" simply aren't. Why? The most basic of reasons - because they can't afford to be. 

     I regularly watch ABC news, anchored until very recently by Diane Sawyer (former Nixon speech writer, by the way). I am in the habit of listening assiduously for bias either way, because it is an issue I am concerned about. I can truly say I have never detected bias in reporting either way on the ABC Nightly News. I have seen several really great initiatives such as the "Made in America" segment, the sort of content totally lacking at Faux because apparently it's not negative enough. This "hate speech" isn't new, it has its origins in the  newspapers sponsored by supporters of  Adams and Jefferson during the months prior to the election of 1800. It was honed to an even sharper edge by the likes of father Coughlin (the radio priest, Huey Long, and Gerald L.K Smith i their violent anti FDR rants. Coughlin was finally forced off the radio by the church and the economics of hatred, Long was shot, and Smith was a hate filled  Fundamentalist preaching, pre-Limbaugh until he died. So "go ahead on," Faux News: Your legacy of venality, bias and negative spin probably won't be the last, more's the pity. The real pity , however is the fact that so many Americans, apparently incapable of critical thinking, mindlessly drink the Kool Aid whenever you make a batch.

More Bad Science Hurting Kids!

       Apparently not satisfied with putting other peoples kids at risk by their refusal to vaccinate their own against measles, there is a new "anti-science" wave sweeping the nation - refusal to allow newborns to have the routine Vitamin K shot. ( I will use V. K for brevity) This procedure has all but eliminated the once too common newborn bleeds which happened because newborns are by nature low in V. K, a necessary clotting agent. 

      It is believed that experientially, this period of a number of days of low Vitamin K is why the Hebrews eventually settled on waiting eight days post partum to circumcise boy babies. The same loonies who used not just bad, but almost criminally bad science, (as in the researcher whose fudged findings fueled the firestorm was "de-licensed" by the British government) now are refusing the V. K shot. There has never been one scintilla of reason for doing so, as this is considered the safest thing we can do for a newborn, and there has never been an adverse reaction to it. 

     In parts of the world where this isn't routinely done, infant deaths due to V. K deficiency bleeds are about 5 times more frequent than nations where V. K is given by injection at birth. I find it interesting that in several studies done in the US of newborns babies with delayed V. K related bleeds, all were breast fed! The rationale of those moms who decide their child will get no formula is that it's healthier, and in many areas they'd be right. Unfortunately, this "natures way" mentality also extends in a portion (not all, so spare me the e-mails) of these moms to "no vaccines, no Vitamin K." Interesting fact: No (or very few) delayed Vitamin K deficient bleeds occur in formula fed babies. It might have something to do with the fact that babies fed formula receive about 100 times as much vitamin K daily as those exclusively breastfed. Contrary to what the nature girls believe, while colostrum and mother's milk are rich in many newborn necessities, V. K ain't one of them, formula usually having about 100 times as much per unit volume.

     The sad part of this is that, just like the totally bullshit "no vaccines": scare, debunked for years, but perpetuated by imbeciles like Jenny McCarthy, bad science has caused a scare of leukemia from Vitamin K injection, based on one cherry picked study. "Cherry picked" means that the data was manipulated to "prove " something that it actually doesn't (you know, like Creationism, "no Global Warming", etc.) Real studies using far more cases show no link whatsoever between neonatal V. K and childhood leukemia, in fact the best one done actually shows a very slightly lower incidence among those receiving V.K at birth. 

     I know, Mike , why do you care about this? I guess it's because I like kids, and the loss of even one to sheer dumbass stupidity is offensive. It is even more egregious when that loss happens because some ignoramus spreads rumor and innuendo with zero regard for the harm done. Again Jenny McCarthy comes to mind. she has two sons who have Autism spectrum disorders, and she needs to blame someone, so she blames vaccines. No one can tell these "true believers" differently, regardless of how many studies show it to be a load of crap. See the study link below  for more:  

      

http://evidencebasedbirth.com/evidence-for-the-vitamin-k-shot-in-newborns/        

I am linking to this blogger's page, which I never do, simply because she so eloquently bashes all the mythology with the best weapon ever - the truth!    That is all for now, go on with your days!

Nostalgia vs Reality

      A dear  friend recently forwarded to  me yet one more spam e-mail, this time  photos of  iconic '50s figures in various settings and a sentence at the bottom bewailing the loss of such "values and morals" as shown in the photos.   While understanding the strong attachment nostalgia may give one to the past,  it was obvious that only a micro thin veneer of reason had been applied in this instance .

       One photo showed a secretary with a typewriter smoking  a cigarette!  First of all, anyone who at this point longs for the smoke filled office atmosphere of the '50s is, simply put, an idiot. In fact anyone who smokes, period, knowing all the myriad of negative health factors is also an idiot. Any woman who realizes the impact of smoking on her complexion and smokes,  is an idiot. If you don't believe me, look at a current photo of Joni Mitchell.

  

      One photo shows Sinatra  getting off a helicopter with a drink in hand.  Apparently even a short hop requires booze? Again, staying with Sinatra, the '50s concept of  woman's "place," and  required them to pretty much be relegated to subordinate rolls in society, held there not by lack of ability, but by many males' concept  of  their "place."  Sinatra used code words (broad, chick, skirt, frail etc.) to convey this. Commonly, executive secretaries ran offices while the nominal boss did the 2 martini lunch, also, by the way  almost a sacrosanct  '50s concept, especially in corporations like IBM.

        A photo of Cary Grant cites him as the icon of manly behavior, of course as we now know, he was, at best, bi-sexual and who truly knows his own mind, because in the Hollywood of the 50s,  gay men (like Grant, Randolph Scott, et al) and women stayed closeted because of the social and in many  cases physical consequences of coming out (Can you say Rock Hudson?) In an environment where women  swooned over Liberace, anything is possible, one supposes. As bad as that may have been for them, consider the youngster in school, scared to death to be who he knew he really was.

          Many of  today's '50s nostalgics are highly religious persons, and in some cases reject modern science in such areas as global warming and tissue research.  Of course some of  same people  who today criticize science when it refutes Creationists, are only alive because another scientist, Dr. Jonas Salk, conquered that '50s terror, polio. So in the eyes of those who long for yesteryear,  curing physical diseases is fine, but curing our rational thought disease isn't.

        Another '50s value,  widely held by many at decade's beginning, was that only some Americans should be allowed to vote, attend good schools, ride public transportation without supervision, live where they could afford, etc.  I get the feeling that people like the poster of this spam e-mail still think it should be so.     

       The "family values" crowd  also tends to cite divorce statistics as evidence for the decade's superiority. Of course , lost in the shuffle is the fact that many families "stayed together for the kids" even when that meant exposing them to the hostility, infidelity and poor parenting example exhibited in such households.  The idea that living with two parents who obviously hate each other is better, is laughable and tragic all at once, but they did it in the good ol' '50s.

       Another  '50s staple "value" was anything to do with rape. Of course, when reported, which it frequently wasn't, it was considered (by men) to be a sex crime, even when  rapists invariably exhibited animus toward women.  Judges had little problem with assuring women that they were "asking  for it,"  apparently not realizing that they were spouting drivel parallel to Muslim  interpretations which require women to cover because apparently they are all natural temptresses from whom men must be protected.  It would be interesting to know how many women's lives  have been negatively impacted because they either didn't report a rape, or were badly treated when they did back in the '50s

       Of course, women were considered, even when doing exactly the same job as a man, to deserve less pay for the effort. There is zero rational justification for this, but plenty of   traditionalists  who are ok with it. In fact, the '50s was a time of  subservient women with little chance of ever breaking out of the mold. A classic article in Seventeen magazine admonished  girls that when they marry ""Even in instances where you are correct and he is incorrect, it is wise to yield to his decisions"  I assume the reason is so she doesn't get beaten up?    Which brings me to yet another '50's attitude very much in the news. We heard very little about domestic violence in the '50s, almost to that point where you might actually believe there wasn't much (or any).

        In truth, the difference results from one of those  '50s values again ("We don't talk about it"). Spousal  abuse victims of the '50s rarely reported it because they were either: Unskilled and needed support (and there wasn't any) or ashamed and conditioned to being an enabler, or even worse, believing that they deserved such treatment.   In any case, abuse that was non-crippling was rarely reported, but it was (and is) certainly observed by children, whose interpersonal relationship  skills were/are formed by a corrupted model. We now know that many abusers  were children of abusers, just as we know that parents who physically beat their kids were almost always victims themselves, even when they won't or don't  understand it that way.   

       Of course the ultimate breeding ground of maltreatment and  bad behavior was, and is the frat/ and to a lesser degree, sorority house, where so many of America's top tier movers and shakers learned to abuse the helpless. Hazing is no more than bullying  with the guise of brotherhood or sisterhood covering the real sickness, the group behavior of abusing the weak.  Another '50s iconic behavior, though!

       So take your '50s values and reflect on whether the good old days were really as good as temporal displacement makes them seem. And the next time you're tempted to make such and asinine observation, think first and save me the trouble of responding.

More Things Which Make me Wonder

More things that make me wonder:  Friday, September 19, 2014

        We  read with appropriate concern and sadness that a UVA coed has gone missing some 48 hours ago and Charlottesville police and the girl's friends are very concerned regarding her safety as well they should be.  What seems to be added by the talking (heads?) almost as an afterthought is that she was, apparently, very intoxicated and that her last known communication was from her cell phone letting someone know that she was on her way to yet another party.

        In none of the several media sources I watch/read throughout the day , has more than a passing reference been made to the obvious , at least to me, fact that at 19 years of age, she should never have had access to alcohol. Period! Having played for frat parties at UVA in the remote past, I guarantee that the Charlottesville Police turn right much of a blind eye to events on UVA campus involving alcohol. This isn't simply restating  the standard  "UVA is the ACC's biggest party school"  line, it is based on my own eyewitness account. Making matters worse, is the fact that the young lady was very drunk and got that way off campus  in a public  facility, where she obviously was illegally served the substance which made her lower her judgment.   This makes the fourth UVA coed missing in the lat 5 years. If this were an isolated account, it would be  bad enough but it is, it seems, an almost daily occurrence  somewhere in America.  

     We read a little over a year ago of the Ohio  high school girl who was raped and drunk out of her mind at the time, There was attempt to "victim blame" in that instance - wrong and always invalid, but the third leg of the argument is seldom given as much emphasis - that we seem to have in many cases an unspoken agreement  that "kids will be kids" and this implies that getting drunk at as early as 13 is somehow either a rite of passage or simply unpreventable. I would  call an emphatic "bullshit!" on both arguments.

        As a public school teacher, I knew of many parents who rationalized that "Well, they'll drink anyway, so why not at home?"  This manifested itself in, one case, in a ninth grader (who may well read this!) showing up to their first high school dance  snot flinging, commode hugging, drunk! The answer, when questioned as to how was alcohol available in the first place, was that another student's  mom had allowed drinking at her house before the dance! Had I been the parent of an early teen  child given alcohol by another adult, I'm not sure what I'd have done, but you'd probably have been able to read about in  the paper!

       We know from brain research that humans don't get their 'full set" of  intellectual services (specifically including judgment and evaluation of consequences for actions) until their 20s. Although age 21 was chosen in some distant past as the age of majority, neuro-science and research from those most impartial judges,  Insurance actuaries, tells us that it was actually a remarkably accurate age setting. Some parents, either having alcohol issues themselves, or wanting their child to "like" them, don't ever send the right message regarding the hazards of teens with poor, or no,  impulse  control mixed with seven or eight wine coolers.

         I recall as a teen (eons ago) making judgments,   considering actions, and holding opinions which I know now were ill advised and dangerous.  A strong parental involvement, by example as well as verbally, kept me far "straighter and narrower" than I might have done left to my own counsel and the example of some of my peers. I hurt for the parents of the lost girl and her friends who tell anyone and everyone what a wonderful person she was. It would all be unnecessary if she had also been a prudent and law abiding one. This, as it always does, will be forgotten by most UVA students in a week or so, and remain a distant memory until another illegally (or legally, for that matter) alcohol impaired student is raped, taken, or killed driving while drunk. Pity, that!     

                                  Next

        I wonder why we recently saw the picture of the "journalist" held in Syria and felt sorry for him once we were made aware that this idiot had been captured once before by the same (essentially) bad guys and had escaped! At the point where you manage to escape those who would behead you in public just for being there And YOU GO BACK , you're simply fulfilling your death wish.  Have you noticed that no female journalists seem to be that stupid? Is there a sex linked chromosome for "dumber than dirt adrenalin seeking imbecile?" I can guarantee that even if a female journalist somehow found herself  in such a situation and escaped, the first person who even hinted that maybe she'd like to go back would be impaled on a spike heel.

                                 Last

        What's going on in the NFL these days is being seen by some pundits  to some degree in the media as an upswing  in domestic violence and that it is somehow the league's fault. Domestic violence, as child abuse, has always existed, unfortunately. What has changed is media and communications channels of information taking very public notice of both. I think it possible, actually probable, that many of the current crop of publically exposed  abusers of their significant others are doing little more than parroting the behavior seen in their own childhood homes. 

      The dean of American sportswriters, Grantland Rice, told of being on a train while covering the Yankees on a western road trip, and being in the club car when  Babe Ruth, clad only in boxers, ran through the car, chased by a woman, not his wife, clad only in her scanties, waving a knife. The consensus among the several reporters was that it was a good thing that they "hadn't really seen what they had just witnessed, or they would have had to write about it!"  Today, the cell phone video would be viral in 10 minutes.

        Blaming Roger Goodell for the NFL's domestic violence is somewhat akin to blaming Victoria's Secret for rape. In business, an employee charged but not indicted or tried would still be an employee. Several of the recently uncovered (yeah, I think they're like cockroaches) abusers have  been given zero due process, because of the public uproar surrounding the Ray Rice case. Is Rice a shithead? Of course, and a violent one as well. It is specious, however, in true NFL fan fashion, to blame Goodell for not already having a policy in place for "what do we do if some animal is so uncontrolled that he KO's his fiancée in public?"  Ten years ago, only Rice, his fiancée and maybe a bellhop would ever know truly what happened.  

       I guess what I find a bit strange  is that an organization which glorifies violence every day and encourages players to be "tough,"  "hit hard", and (clandestinely) do whatever it takes to maintain an unnaturally large and hard physique have suddenly developed such a conscience.  I doubt very seriously that the incidence of domestic violence is really any greater, in fact may be less, since finance drives so much marital discord, than the general public. 

       The issues surrounding the Adrian Peterson child abuse accusations come from another place, however.  Many players have acknowledged what  we already knew to be true, that they were harshly physically disciplined as children. Here's a revelation, many lower income parents and a  surprising number of affluent ones, have marginal (or, in fact, zero)  parenting skills!!!  Of course in Peterson's case, he has so many children from so many different women that he may have acted out of ignorance. Why would we suspect that Peterson, who recently had a child die that he didn't even know existed until weeks before , would have a strong sense of  mature reasoned approach to parenthood? Why should we expect men, some of who have only one skill set, hurting people, and have lived with a heightened, although unmerited,  sense of entitlement due to this ability, to be rational, literate and concerned parents?  Isn't that why they finally married the woman they occasionally beat after a bad game - to raise their kids?    

The next precipice?

The current debate over student loan debt is multi-faceted and disturbing (to me, at least) on several levels. In no particular order:

Interest rates: Quicken Loans, an online funder is granting rates as low as 3.19%  apr and most mainstream lenders are, and have been for some time, granting 30 year fixed rates of the low to mid 4% range.  Contrast this with rates as high as 7.2%  (parents and grad students), 6.21%  (professional and Grad loans) and the 4.66% rate for more mundane undergraduate loans.

        Compound this with lenders selling bundled loans as if they were real money, and we have a potential mini version of the housing bubble /subprime mortgage  collapse  of  late 2006 which triggered the recession we're still trying to get out of 8 years later. The $1.2 trillion student debt monster isn't going away, yet today Republicans in Congress blocked an attempt to allow some  (the Forgiveness Program was designed to offer borrowers who have financial difficulties a reasonable loan repayment alternative) relief and restructure to avert mass defaults. But there are certain requirements which borrowers must before they may qualify for the plan) to reduce and refinance (not forgive or delete) At 31% + of total US Govt. assets, total student loan debt (just to the federal government, forget private loans!) now exceeds credit card and auto loan debt! Important safety tip, Egon, if students can't repay loans,  they aren't assets anymore.

College costs: Not all bachelor's degrees are created equal, and some colleges have become incredibly adept at victimizing ingenuous students in the name of being affiliated with a "prestige" school. As it happens this is not the case with some of the better schools in America. Princeton, for example, grads have one of the lowest student debt loads in the nation. While seven of ten students nationwide have debt, averaging $29,400 each,  fewer than 25% of Princeton  undergrads had student debt, and the average amount was $5,096. Compare this to Felician College (who? what? where?) also in New Jersey whose grads shared an average  per student debt of in excess of $38,000! Ask yourself which degree will take you further. Many boutique colleges in America offer mostly BAs, causing advanced degree seekers to resort to other schools , entering as outside grad students. These schools are some of the least heard of and most expensive schools in the nation, offering relatively little value for dollar spent than a really cool environment and memories of sitting on the quad making s'mores and singing along with Cat Stevens' greatest hits, while completing a BA in Psychology or Social Work. Wheelock College, in Boston is a prime example of such a school.   

        Other factors include such misleading information as that offered by the ubiquitous University of Phoenix. While they style themselves as affordable, one year's tuition is exceeded only by Boston University's online program credit hour cost. Phoenix charges about three times as much per credit hour as does U of Florida (and most state and public  universities) for in state students!  This fact notwithstanding, financial aid officers at schools like Phoenix and Devry  have gotten very good at convincing  potential students to take on debt which, on graduation will be financially crippling.

    

    Need for College: Most experts agree that college has been oversold in the last thirty years, as rapidly emerging and changing technologies make two year tech schools far more suited to many careers. The "You must have a college degree to succeed" is baseless. Ask the guy who installs your new Air conditioner  or manages the network  for any of thousands of large information driven business. Hell, ask Bill Gates.

Ignorance of Alternatives:    Many State formerly Junior Colleges are now four year schools heavy in tech (and relevant) programs. At $103 per credit hour, for example, Valencia College in Orlando, awards several different Bachelor of Science  degrees in tech areas. So - spend $12,630 for a relevant degree at Valencia, or go to Wheelock, and spend $118,800 for a (as most experts would agree)  useless by itself, BA in Psychology.  That Wheelock figure, by the way is tuition only, S'mores not included. Of course one could actually live at home while attending Valencia. Completing  the Valencia Honors College program also guarantees state University acceptance  if desired for pursuance of another degree field.  

Unfamiliarity with Finance and the dangers of Credit: As it currently stands, many student debts will never be repaid, so a program offering recovery of any of this potential loss seems a no brainer. Go figure. This inability of debt ridden students to repay regularly and within the time frame of the loan,  bleeds over into home mortgage refusal, credit card refusal and in many cases inability to buy a new car. It threatens the entire economy. Paying less per payment  over longer is far better than bankruptcy and default. Many students manage to graduate High School, at least in Florida, with only a token 1/2  semester course in economics, with relatively little focus on the most "micro" of economic studies - that of personal finance and debt management. The cavalier nature of the average 18 year old regarding debt and its accumulation is staggering, and is worsened steadily by the almost undetected wild card - That  middle income  families have seen their average yearly income, adjusted for inflation, steadily decrease  over the last 7 years, while tuition costs go steadily up as state legislatures underfund education from K-12 to Grad School. Most High School seniors have never actually calculated home buying factors, shopped for insurance or researched buying a car. They have only the knowledge they accumulate from whatever they overhear at home regarding finances, which in far too many instances is precious little.

   

But, never you mind, Far Right obstructionists, wait until the mass default occurs and stand back, point fingers at someone else  shout in your best Tea Party scream -"We told you so." That, of course will be a lie, but we've come to expect nothing less from you lot. 

Learn before you Type

Among the lies and exaggerations of the Far Right (FR) circulating these days is the chain e-mail (always a reliable source right?) that reads in some version of the following:

"*sigh* I don’t like talking about politics, ( which means they certainly are, and since raising minimum wage is generally a Democrat initiative, well, you know!) I really don’t, especially not on here. But earlier my twitter feed showed me an image that stated outright that the minimum wage paid more than our military. Others stated that while this was not the case, it would be for a $15 minimum wage. And the idea that either would be true ticked me off to a fair degree.

So if you’re here to read the fantasy stories, I promise, this won’t become a habit. After finals this week, I promise to go back to producing regular content for my followers. You can go ahead and leave now, if you prefer.

Let’s break it down, shall we? Assuming 2000 hours (40 hours per week, plus two weeks with no pay or work) a wage of 7.25 an hour adds up to 14,500 gross income. According to goarmy.com, a private (as stated on the page, a new soldier generally enters as a private) with less than 2 years of experience earns $18,194 (though the website stipulates that the first few months of service pay will be lower, so make of that what you will). A minimum wage of 9.097 would get you that same pay. So while no, the military does not earn less than the minimum wage right now, they’re less than 2 dollars an hour from it. "

As a 26 year military veteran, and not a female blogger with absolutely no grasp of the reality of the whole thing, I once again must set out armed only with facts and normal intelligence in a quest for truth.

First of all: The initial pay quoted is for an E-1 only. In the modern military, essentially every soldier, airman or sailor completing  Basic  Training  successfully is promoted to  E-2, so that is the dollar starting point. The real figure for basic pay alone is $1734/month. This correlates to $10.83 hourly. But wait, there's more. A minimum wage earner in civilian life must then pay for rent, food, health care (good luck with that) dental and vision care, and clothing. Possible add ins include heat and other utilities. A single military E-2 pays none of those things if he lives, as most do, on base. Contrary to the misguided ramblings of  the above blog/e-mail, the average single junior service member, if he or she chooses to, living on base, has more disposable income than any two minimum wage civilian household and it ain't really close.

Of course I have an advantage over the ignorant bloggers and e-mailers, in that I actually served in Navy training commands for 11 of my 26 active duty years, so I actually know whereof  I speak. I recall having E-3 students with less than 2 years of service who drive far nicer vehicles that I could afford!

But Mike, you say, what about the young marrieds who enter the service? Surely they must suffer financially!  As it turns out, further examination of facts (vice BS) shows the following: Most young married couples don't  (in fact, aren't allowed to) live together during basic training, since Boots aren't even granted off base privileges for a period of weeks during basic. Let's assume, for the worst case scenario, that a man (or woman) completes Basic as an E-2 , and sets up housekeeping with a spouse  in the local economy while attending whatever advanced training they receive  prior to deployment. Understand, that this is a relatively small minority of service members and  that they choose this, it isn't thrust upon them. Again, I say this from the vantage point of having trained, counseled and loved  thousands of such dedicated kids.

Basic pay for this guy is   the aforementioned $1734/month, but,  as they say in those infomercials, "Wait, There's more!" Military compensation includes base pay and allowances.   In addition to basic pay, the new E-2 living in the local economy, gets $357/month as a food allowance (for not eating in base messes) this BAS, or basic allowance for subsistence, has been increased annually for years.

Additionally, the married serviceman (E-2) with a spouse, in Orlando, Fl., just as an example , receives an additional; $1332/month in housing allowance! If he or she were assigned to say, the Brooklyn  Navy Yard, that figure would be $3360/month!

Because other than these basic allowances, there are other allowances (Sub pay, War Zone pay, Sea pay) which many never get, let's reanalyze this E-2's annual compensation using pay and allowances, as the serviceman really sees them. Of course this doesn't include the one timer initial clothing allowance of $1567 (men, more for women).

Basic pay: $1734, Housing allowance (Orlando): $1332,  BAS (food): $357 - for a total of  $3427 monthly. This works out to just about  $21 hourly. Remember, this family has no medical bills, no health care insurance, and if they choose and can get into base housing and forfeit Housing allowance, no rent. This no rent scenario, reduces income to about $13.60 hourly with zero rent, utilities or health care costs.

At current minimum wage in Florida the equivalent McDonald's employee make$7.93 hourly. With a national poverty threshold of  $15,510 for a family of two, the Florida worker just comes in below the poverty line working full time. Of course, the FR lie (see Michele Bachmann for numerous idiotic quotes on this subject) is that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are kids, a statement  proven false numerous times. Note that the minimum wage at present is about half that of the E-2 living in base housing. Of course the sailor /soldier /airman has no rent, no utility bills, no health insurance costs.  As an aside, the military person, should they complete 20 years of service will also have (under current law) medical insurance for self and spouse , and non-contributory retirement pay equal to a minimum of half of their basic pay. How does this compare to MacDonald's IRA plans for their minimum wage earners?

So, back to the original assertion, that military makes less than minimum wage.  For essentially all  of married members, that is blatantly false. For single members, it is totally erroneous, as well. In fact single, senior barracks living enlisteds are flush with cash

I guess what I'm trying to say is that before you begin shooting off your keyboard on subjects in areas in which you are vastly under informed, you should try learning first, typing later.  

Follow on to previous post

A dear friend sent the previous post re: Scottish independence to Scottish friends who liked the history part but who, as a couple, are split on the issue. The hubby asked how I would have felt if 1776  had never happened, and America was still ruled from England. A fair question. 

     While there are huge differences, I get his point, but he lives in a nation, not a colony, and whether or not he sees it this way, Scots  are a full fledged citizens of the UK, having a right to vote. Had England extended the franchise to it colonies, things might well be different. A better analogy would have been to compare the US' Southern states to the Northern states in 1860, but being a Scot, those events are probably not as well understood there as here. The huge difference is that while a terrible civil war was required to keep our union together, the Scots may accomplish separation it in a way that is far to easy to effect, and far to harmful to their interests to accept in time. Thomas Wolfe eloquently wrote: "You can't go home again."  What follows is the post from my Facebook page:   

     I would answer that then, as now, a Government which was run by rational intelligent men could have avoided both the loss of the colonies and, in the present, the loss of Scotland. One significant difference is the presence of many more non-English in America by 1776. The other significant factor is that because of such issues as raw materials and trade constraints between France and England which affected the largely un-involved and even less interested colonists adversely, there were actual advantages to separation from England which are not evident in the present situation.

     If you remember, at the close of the fourth French/English war, (the one fought primarily in North America, known here as the French and Indian War, known in Europe as either the Seven Year's war or in England (sometimes) as King George's War) good feelings between Britain and her American colonies were at an all time high. Then, in a reversal of a promise made by PM Pitt that England would finance it if Americans fought, taxes and tariffs were raised as a series of incompetent Ministers of Finance (among others) reneged on that promise. In a span of just 13 years, things soured to the point of revolution. 

     There are several other factors differing then from now. First, America was rich in natural resources beyond all European comprehension and could easily become self sufficient in all necessities, which is certainly not the situation in either England or Scotland today. Second, America had markets with other nations that assured their success (if GB let them alone) As it turned out, we got caught up in the friction between England and France caused by Napoleon. The resultant War of 1812 saw us at odds again, resulting in the White House being burned by British troops. Britain, tired of war by 1815, quit, we didn't defeat them. 

     The relationship of Scotland to England is far different, and each entity is much smaller and isolated from all but each other. Again, I am not a Scot (but I have spent time there periodically from 1967 to 1985 and again this past May) It seems a shame that two peoples with so much commonality will risk their economy and general happiness for the sake of issues that could be met in the middle by men of good will. In close, I have seen several comments by separatists citing a desire to model on the Scandinavian example. That ship has long sailed, due to the nature of present day Scotland compared to, say, The Finns, who have a far more homogeneous society. A closer look at Norway and Sweden shows huge numbers of state dependents, with drug use a common problem as well as astronomical taxes to support the system. Scotland would be wise to avoid even considering going that route.