Physiological need for sleep varies according to age. Sleeps 18-20 hours a day for a new born baby. A little boy sleep 12-14 hours a day. An adult person per day varies between 7-9 hours sleep time, at least 5-6 hours of sleep per day is required in the elderly. Human sleep and would have as much as the young. An adult person must be at least 5-6 hours sleep. Normal sleep 7-9 hours. In some cases, people even sleep in 10 hours is not abnormal. for the body because it may be a need for.
Phase passes through a normal night of sleep 5. Also experienced the so-called rabbit's sleep to dream. and often woken up after dreaming. Or, during a dream. During the first 1-2 hours of sleep is an important growth hormone in the body, and then secretes the hormone cortisone. From the fatigue resulting from long-time sleep, caused by the lack of hormones mentioned. Review, some people are complaining can not get sleep, slept a normal person shows up. These people can not play them for that deep and long sleep patterns. They have to get out of bed early in the morning.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Unconditional Surrender
By Fuzzyone
The details are still filtering out but it looks like the "deal" that Obama has made is total capitulation to the Republicans. No taxes of any kind, cuts in Medicaid, an additional vote where the Republican's get to vote against raising the debt ceiling again, and a "Super Committee" that will figure out how to cut $1.2 trillion or there would be automatic cuts, half to defense and half to domestic programs (though not Medicare of Social Security).
The Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus call it "a sugar coated Satan sandwich." The House Progressive Caucus has also rejected the deal. Even Nancy Pelosi does not seem so hot on saying "I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide." Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Given all that it will be interesting to see if this can get through the House. Boehner says that nothing in the deal "violates our [Republican] principles" the determination of the Tea Baggers to say no should not be underestimated so it will be interesting to see if the votes are really there. Tea Party leader Rep. Joe Walsh has already said he won't vote for it.
Once again Obama has shown his total lack of spine or conviction and complete incompetence as a negotiator. Just as he insisted in December that the tax cuts for the rich would not be continued, that he would close Guantanamo, and fight for a public option he had insisted that tax increases had to be part of a debt limit deal. I've never been a dead ender but right this minute I'm not sure I could bring myself to pull the lever for him.
The details are still filtering out but it looks like the "deal" that Obama has made is total capitulation to the Republicans. No taxes of any kind, cuts in Medicaid, an additional vote where the Republican's get to vote against raising the debt ceiling again, and a "Super Committee" that will figure out how to cut $1.2 trillion or there would be automatic cuts, half to defense and half to domestic programs (though not Medicare of Social Security).
The Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus call it "a sugar coated Satan sandwich." The House Progressive Caucus has also rejected the deal. Even Nancy Pelosi does not seem so hot on saying "I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide." Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Given all that it will be interesting to see if this can get through the House. Boehner says that nothing in the deal "violates our [Republican] principles" the determination of the Tea Baggers to say no should not be underestimated so it will be interesting to see if the votes are really there. Tea Party leader Rep. Joe Walsh has already said he won't vote for it.
Once again Obama has shown his total lack of spine or conviction and complete incompetence as a negotiator. Just as he insisted in December that the tax cuts for the rich would not be continued, that he would close Guantanamo, and fight for a public option he had insisted that tax increases had to be part of a debt limit deal. I've never been a dead ender but right this minute I'm not sure I could bring myself to pull the lever for him.
Great Jazz Albums (IMO) #44
Wynton Kelly. Kelly at Midnight (1960). Another great yet unsung piano player who was a prolific sideman. Best known for his work with Miles Davis, Kelly played on the iconic album, Kind of Blue. He also recorded some great albums as a leader, often bringing together the rest of Miles' rhythm section, Paul Chambers on bass and Jimmy Cobb on drums, to form a formidable trio. Kelly was a "distinctive soloist," described as having "a rhythmically infectious solo style in which he combined boppish lines with a great feeling for the blues." (See, e.g., this recently posted a video Green Dolphin Street featuring John Coltrane which includes a typically great solo from Kelly.) I am particularly fond of Kelly at Midnight, which one critic calls a"first-rate trio outing with Kelly given the space to demonstrate subtlety and flair, harmonic precision, melodic brilliance and rhythmic diversity." This trio includes Chambers on bass and the great Philly Joe Jones on drums.
[Related posts: Great Jazz Albums #1 (Hank Mobley), #2 (Horace Silver), #3 (Sonny Rollins), #4 (Sonny Clark), #5 (Dexter Gordon), #6 (Cannonball Adderley); #7 (Bill Evans), #8 (McCoy Tyner), #9 (Clifford Brown), #10 (Sinatra), #11 (Monk), #12 (Kenny Dorham), #13 (Coltrane), #14 (Duke Ellington), #15 (Miles Davis), #16 (Wayne Shorter), #17 (Dinah Washington); #18 (Sarah Vaughan); #19 (Stan Getz); #20 (Blue Mitchell); #21 (Gene Ammons); #22 (Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers); #23 (Red Garland); #24 (Ella Fitzgerald); #25 (Charlie Parker); #26 (Art Pepper); #27 (Bud Powell); #28 (John Hicks); #29 (Kenny Barron); #30 (Coleman Hawkins); #31 (Count Basie); #32 (Benny Carter w/ Ben Webster and Barney Bigard); #33 (Chet Baker); #34 (Thad Jones); #35 (The Great Jazz Trio); #36 (Ahmad Jamal); #37 (Dave Brubeck and Paul Desmond); #38 (Johnny Griffin and Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis); #39 (Charles McPherson);
#40 (Harold Land); #41 Booker Little); #42 (Elis Regina & Antonio Carlos Jobim); #43 (Art Farmer & Benny Golson)]
[Related posts: Great Jazz Albums #1 (Hank Mobley), #2 (Horace Silver), #3 (Sonny Rollins), #4 (Sonny Clark), #5 (Dexter Gordon), #6 (Cannonball Adderley); #7 (Bill Evans), #8 (McCoy Tyner), #9 (Clifford Brown), #10 (Sinatra), #11 (Monk), #12 (Kenny Dorham), #13 (Coltrane), #14 (Duke Ellington), #15 (Miles Davis), #16 (Wayne Shorter), #17 (Dinah Washington); #18 (Sarah Vaughan); #19 (Stan Getz); #20 (Blue Mitchell); #21 (Gene Ammons); #22 (Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers); #23 (Red Garland); #24 (Ella Fitzgerald); #25 (Charlie Parker); #26 (Art Pepper); #27 (Bud Powell); #28 (John Hicks); #29 (Kenny Barron); #30 (Coleman Hawkins); #31 (Count Basie); #32 (Benny Carter w/ Ben Webster and Barney Bigard); #33 (Chet Baker); #34 (Thad Jones); #35 (The Great Jazz Trio); #36 (Ahmad Jamal); #37 (Dave Brubeck and Paul Desmond); #38 (Johnny Griffin and Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis); #39 (Charles McPherson);
#40 (Harold Land); #41 Booker Little); #42 (Elis Regina & Antonio Carlos Jobim); #43 (Art Farmer & Benny Golson)]
Raw Broccoli Crunch Salad
I can successfully say that I will never again wonder what it's like to ride 50 miles on a bicycle in one day. This summer it's been great to get back on my bike and I've been pushing myself to do more long rides out of my comfort zone. Yesterday some friends and I rode the Lake Washington loop and my legs still feel like jelly.
I've decided to sign up for the Cycle the WAVE (Women Against Violence Everywhere) ride in September. It's a non-competitive women's ride meant to inspire awareness and hope for domestic violence victims. This year's proceeds will support the Eastside Domestic Violence Program, DAWN, and New Beginnings. Before I discovered my passions for food and food justice, I used to do anti-violence awareness and recovery work with women. This ride feels like a great way to support a cause I feel deeply about and keep myself motived on my bike.
When I was on the trail yesterday and began feeling defeated by a big hill I would picture myself in my apartment sitting on the couch and eating this salad. That's been the majority of my day today and I'm not ashamed to admit it. You certainly don't have to go on a long bike ride to enjoy this salad. It's super healthy, quick and easy to make, and the leftovers make a wonderful lunch. In fact, I think this tastes even better the next day after the vinegar has had a chance to soften the broccoli a bit.
If broccoli isn't a favorite vegetable of yours, this salad might just change your mind. I love using broccoli stems because they have a milder flavor than the head, but you could also use broccoli heads if you wish. This salad is crunchy, tangy, and sweet and is the perfect reward after a long hard day on the trail.
Raw Broccoli Crunch Salad
4 servings
Dressing:
1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil
1 Tablespoon raw agave syrup
2 Tablespoons apple cider vinegar
3 cups broccoli stems, shredded
1.5 cups carrots, shredded
3 green onions, chopped
1/3 cup dried cranberries
1/4 cup cashews
Freshly-ground black pepper to taste
1/3 cup dried cranberries
1/4 cup cashews
Freshly-ground black pepper to taste
Mix the olive oil, agave, and apple cider vinegar together in a small bowl and set aside. Toss the broccoli and carrots together in a medium bowl and top with the dressing. Work the dressing in with your hands. Mix in the green onions, cranberries, and cashews and serve. Top with some freshly-ground black pepper to taste.
If this salad will not be eaten right away, leave the cashews out until just before serving to keep them from getting mushy.
Labels:
Ash picks,
broccoli,
carrots,
gluten-free,
raw,
salad,
soy-free,
summer,
vegetables
Is Long Term Care Insurance for me?
You’ve done a good job saving for retirement. You’ve got your living expenses covered, with something left over for some travel and fun.
Just one thing: Did you remember to plan for long-term care? It’s no fun to talk about, but the unfortunate truth is that many of us will have a need for long-term care sometime in our lives.
But still no one wants to talk about it. You have to make a decision as soon as possible. Because the more you delay, the more expensive it can be...or maybe you even can not apply anymore due to health problems.
Other question you have to ask yourself :
Can you count on a family member when that need could be many years down the road? Do you really want to put this issue over the shoulders of your loved ones? They do have their own lives and problems. You should not count on them.
You could self-fund your care if you’re sufficiently wealthy—but do you want to allocate a substantial portion of your retirement assets to pay for long term care, when that money could be earning a return and funding retirement for your spouse when you’re no longer around?
If you do decide to buy a policy, it’s important to shop carefully and get good advice. Insurance companies can’t cancel long-term care policies and can’t change the terms—but neither can you.
For a free quote send us an e-mail to anecamara@mintcofinancial.com
with the answers for the questions below:
Do you own assets worth over $75,000? (Do not include your home or car.)
Age:
Do you expect to have annual retirement income over $30,000 individually, or over $50,000 including your spouse?
We will provide you a free quote from the Top Insurance Companies such as Genworth & John Hancock.
www.MintcoFinancial.com
Just one thing: Did you remember to plan for long-term care? It’s no fun to talk about, but the unfortunate truth is that many of us will have a need for long-term care sometime in our lives.
But still no one wants to talk about it. You have to make a decision as soon as possible. Because the more you delay, the more expensive it can be...or maybe you even can not apply anymore due to health problems.
Other question you have to ask yourself :
Can you count on a family member when that need could be many years down the road? Do you really want to put this issue over the shoulders of your loved ones? They do have their own lives and problems. You should not count on them.
You could self-fund your care if you’re sufficiently wealthy—but do you want to allocate a substantial portion of your retirement assets to pay for long term care, when that money could be earning a return and funding retirement for your spouse when you’re no longer around?
If you do decide to buy a policy, it’s important to shop carefully and get good advice. Insurance companies can’t cancel long-term care policies and can’t change the terms—but neither can you.
For a free quote send us an e-mail to anecamara@mintcofinancial.com
with the answers for the questions below:
Do you own assets worth over $75,000? (Do not include your home or car.)
Age:
Do you expect to have annual retirement income over $30,000 individually, or over $50,000 including your spouse?
We will provide you a free quote from the Top Insurance Companies such as Genworth & John Hancock.
www.MintcoFinancial.com
Spotted: The Actor and His Benefactor
Actor in blue, Benefactor in red
This actor in his 20's was spotted a few days ago with his generous benefactor. According to a source, the benefactor recently gave the actor cash for him to buy a new car. I guess love does come with an expensive price tag after all.
Please observe the guidelines in posting comments and be reminded that initials are not allowed. I suggest that you follow micsylim on Twitter if you want to get additional clues.
xoxo,
Fashion PULIS
Redefining age 66 - when your job description is "rockstar"
Deep Purple and Orchestra - Maybe I'm a Leo, Mainz, Germany, July 2011:
Ian Gillan, 65, is best known as the lead singer and lyricist for Deep Purple. Roger Glover, 65, is the bassist and songwriter for the group. Ian Paice, 63, is the drummer. He is the only founding member of the band who never stopped performing with the group, and the only member to appear on every album the band has released during the last 43 years (Deep Purple was founded in 1968).
This is the same group almost 40 years ago, in 1972:
I have attended two concerts of Deep Purple, the last one was in June 2011 and it was quite impressive. The audience age ranged from 5 to 75 and everyone rose to their feet to the sound of Smoke on the Water.
From Time-Colonist, Vancouver, Canada:
Welsh-born Roger Glover, now a 66-year-old grandfather, says "when you're on stage, you're still the 19-year-old boy you once were, in thrall with the music. I probably enjoy it more than I did before."
Back in the early 1970s, Deep Purple toured relentlessly. In 1972 alone, the band undertook six tours of North America and a tour of Japan — and wrote an album. Overwork sapped their joy, with the band folding (albeit temporarily) in 1976.
"Now, every night I step on stage I value it immensely. [Performing] is something very few people get to experience, therefore I can't take it for granted," Glover said.
"That's the only time when there's no distractions. There's no phone calls, there's no computers, there's no family, there's no children. There's nothing except for your music and the audience. . . . It's a lovely moment in time, and you're so in the moment. You brain is whizzing along at light speed, because you react to what the others are playing. It's a moving, liquid thing. You keep it together as possible, and also as expressive as possible."
Older and greyer, Glover nonetheless remains slim and trim. Asked whether he maintains a fitness regime, he laughed. He is, after all, still a rock 'n' roll star.
"I'm not really an exercise person. I should be," he said. "I work out on stage. Two hours every night is like two hours in a gym. It is physical."
How long can the group go on? According to Ian Gillan: “People like to do stuff that they’re good at, that they enjoy, that they get something out of. So while it’s fun and we’re all getting older and bits are dropping off here and there, it’s still great. I think there probably will be another album.”
References:
Videos from Deep Purple at Ravinia Festival 2011, 3 part series.
Deep Purple – review, The Guardian, 2011.
"During the monster-rocking ““Smoke on the Water” the middle-aged man in front of me inserted a pair of earplugs and started singing as if for all his life" http://goo.gl/OaWCa
Jon Lord says thank you for Classic Rock Innovator Award, 2011, http://goo.gl/aAFRG
Deep Purple live: 66-year-old vocalist, a plastic cast on his foot, seems to build up steam as the night goes on http://goo.gl/roZzH
Legendary UK Deep Purple band soldiers on: "We haven’t eaten for 2 days, we look at each other, and "it’s the glamour that keeps us going" http://goo.gl/N4SGV
Deep Purple not for the faint of heart. Time-Colonist, Vancouver, Canada, 02, 2012.
Ian Gillan on his vocal style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBk95Lfgb_A#t=31m10s
Comments from Facebook:
Deep Purple shows shades of youth - British hard rock group are still on the road after 40 years, a feat in itself - Toronto, 2012
I've seen Deep Purple in concert twice (2000 and 2012), Ian Gillan once, in the 1990s. Amazing energy.
They're the basis of my "How to be a Twitter rockstar" talk for physicians... :)
Ian Gillan, 65, is best known as the lead singer and lyricist for Deep Purple. Roger Glover, 65, is the bassist and songwriter for the group. Ian Paice, 63, is the drummer. He is the only founding member of the band who never stopped performing with the group, and the only member to appear on every album the band has released during the last 43 years (Deep Purple was founded in 1968).
This is the same group almost 40 years ago, in 1972:
I have attended two concerts of Deep Purple, the last one was in June 2011 and it was quite impressive. The audience age ranged from 5 to 75 and everyone rose to their feet to the sound of Smoke on the Water.
From Time-Colonist, Vancouver, Canada:
Welsh-born Roger Glover, now a 66-year-old grandfather, says "when you're on stage, you're still the 19-year-old boy you once were, in thrall with the music. I probably enjoy it more than I did before."
Back in the early 1970s, Deep Purple toured relentlessly. In 1972 alone, the band undertook six tours of North America and a tour of Japan — and wrote an album. Overwork sapped their joy, with the band folding (albeit temporarily) in 1976.
"Now, every night I step on stage I value it immensely. [Performing] is something very few people get to experience, therefore I can't take it for granted," Glover said.
"That's the only time when there's no distractions. There's no phone calls, there's no computers, there's no family, there's no children. There's nothing except for your music and the audience. . . . It's a lovely moment in time, and you're so in the moment. You brain is whizzing along at light speed, because you react to what the others are playing. It's a moving, liquid thing. You keep it together as possible, and also as expressive as possible."
Older and greyer, Glover nonetheless remains slim and trim. Asked whether he maintains a fitness regime, he laughed. He is, after all, still a rock 'n' roll star.
"I'm not really an exercise person. I should be," he said. "I work out on stage. Two hours every night is like two hours in a gym. It is physical."
How long can the group go on? According to Ian Gillan: “People like to do stuff that they’re good at, that they enjoy, that they get something out of. So while it’s fun and we’re all getting older and bits are dropping off here and there, it’s still great. I think there probably will be another album.”
References:
Videos from Deep Purple at Ravinia Festival 2011, 3 part series.
Deep Purple – review, The Guardian, 2011.
"During the monster-rocking ““Smoke on the Water” the middle-aged man in front of me inserted a pair of earplugs and started singing as if for all his life" http://goo.gl/OaWCa
Jon Lord says thank you for Classic Rock Innovator Award, 2011, http://goo.gl/aAFRG
Deep Purple live: 66-year-old vocalist, a plastic cast on his foot, seems to build up steam as the night goes on http://goo.gl/roZzH
Legendary UK Deep Purple band soldiers on: "We haven’t eaten for 2 days, we look at each other, and "it’s the glamour that keeps us going" http://goo.gl/N4SGV
Deep Purple not for the faint of heart. Time-Colonist, Vancouver, Canada, 02, 2012.
Ian Gillan on his vocal style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBk95Lfgb_A#t=31m10s
Comments from Facebook:
Deep Purple shows shades of youth - British hard rock group are still on the road after 40 years, a feat in itself - Toronto, 2012
I've seen Deep Purple in concert twice (2000 and 2012), Ian Gillan once, in the 1990s. Amazing energy.
They're the basis of my "How to be a Twitter rockstar" talk for physicians... :)
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Bye Bye Beltran
"What we’ve seen from Beltran is ours to keep forever, no matter what team he’s playing for tomorrow. Carlos Beltran playing baseball at the peak of his ability is a beautiful sight to behold, and we got to watch it hundreds of times." Ted Berg
There are some Met fans who have never forgiven Carlos Beltran for taking a called strike three with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning of the seventh and final game of the 2006 playoffs. It was a brutal end to a great season and the Mets have suffered nothing but heartbreak and frustration since. But the Mets would not have come close to making the playoffs that year without the incredible season Carlos had. He was an All Star, played a brilliant centerfield, earning him the first of three consecutive Gold Glove awards, and put up huge offensive numbers, especially for a Met (41 home runs, 127 runs scored, 116 RBIs).
I recently wrote about great players who came to the Mets with high expectation only to flounder. Carlos was not one of them. The Mets signed him after his monstrous 2004 post-season with the Astros to a 7-year contract that at the time was the biggest in franchise history. In his first year, he suffered from injuries, including those stemming from an outfield collision with Mike Cameron, and his numbers were off . But for three years, 2006-2008, before getting hurt once again, he was great. And this year, finally healthy after knee surgery, he has rebounded superbly, making the All Star team once again, and becoming the much sought after hitter for contending teams.
As a Met, Beltran hit 149 home runs (6th All Time), had 557 RBIs (6th), scored 548 runs (6th) and stole 100 bases (11th). He has been a great leader on the field and was known for charitable works off the field. Although admittedly not a deep pool, he is one of the greatest Mets ever. But with his 7-year contract coming to an end and the Mets going nowhere this season, they decided to trade the 34-year old to the Giants.
I understand why the Mets made this deal. They got an excellent pitching prospect, Zach Wheeler, in exchange for two months of Beltran. But it is a shame that the business of baseball comes down to buyers and sellers in the second half of the year, with struggling teams having to give up players before they are lost to free agency -- especially players as fun to watch and who have given so much to the team as Carlos Beltran. He will be missed.
Unpaid Prize Money
Image courtesy of www.siusic.com
She won the competition last November 2010. Two months later (January 2011), she finally got part of her prize money from the production company that was in charge of the said competition. She was also told she will receive the remaining balance of her prize money six months (July 2011) later.
It is almost August and she has not received any word from the production company. She tried to get in touch with the people in charge but they have been ignoring her messages. Her mom even tried sending a demand letter but it did not work either.
This year's competition is scheduled to begin in a week's time despite the fact that last year's winner has not been paid in full. So, to all the ladies who are planning to join this year's competition, I suggest you think twice before filing your application.
SB 490: Let The Voters Make An Informed Decision
By James Clark, cross-posted from ACLU of Southern California's blog.
No one is surprised to learn that California’s death penalty is a broken and dysfunctional system. After all, you don’t have to go far in California to find any government bureaucracy that’s broken or dysfunctional – it’s finding a functional government program that might take a while. The question is: How do we fix it? How do we punish the worst criminals in a way that maximizes public safety without bankrupting the budget?
A new bill in the California State Assembly, SB 490, has a shockingly simple solution: give voters the facts and let the voters decide. (The shock is that it’s taken 30 years to figure that out.)
In 1978, when California voters first reinstated the death penalty, no one knew how much it would cost. No one knew how long executions would take, how many attorneys would be required to prosecute and defend the appeals, how large a facility would be needed to house death row inmates – in short, no one knew what a big, expensive mess it would be.
Thirty-three years later, we know. We now know that the death penalty is a hollow promise to victims’ family members. These families wait 25 years– on average– for resolution to a death sentence. 99% of those sentenced to die are never executed and die from old age or sickness instead.
And we know from empirical research that the death penalty costs vastly more than the alternative of life without parole – $184 million every year. We also know from common sense that public safety improves when money is used for real solutions, like law enforcement officers on the street or violence prevention and education in schools.
Don Heller is the man behind the 1978 initiative to reinstate the death penalty. The Don Heller of 2011, however, acknowledges that he simply didn’t know enough 33 years ago. No one in California, including him, had the experience or foresight to predict such a dismal failure. In 2011, even Don Heller supports SB 490 to replace the death penalty. He thinks California voters will too — once they know the facts.
SB 490 will give voters the option of replacing the death penalty with life without parole. If passed, it will save us $1 billion over the next five years. It’s often assumed that voters strongly support the death penalty, but people are rarely asked if they really think it’s worth a billion dollars. With the real-world costs and real-world solutions laid plainly on the table, California voters must decide once and for all if the death penalty is really the most efficient use of those dollars.
Here are some other things California could invest in. For the cost of one execution ($308 million), California taxpayers could afford to:
A new bill in the California State Assembly, SB 490, has a shockingly simple solution: give voters the facts and let the voters decide. (The shock is that it’s taken 30 years to figure that out.)
In 1978, when California voters first reinstated the death penalty, no one knew how much it would cost. No one knew how long executions would take, how many attorneys would be required to prosecute and defend the appeals, how large a facility would be needed to house death row inmates – in short, no one knew what a big, expensive mess it would be.
Thirty-three years later, we know. We now know that the death penalty is a hollow promise to victims’ family members. These families wait 25 years– on average– for resolution to a death sentence. 99% of those sentenced to die are never executed and die from old age or sickness instead.
And we know from empirical research that the death penalty costs vastly more than the alternative of life without parole – $184 million every year. We also know from common sense that public safety improves when money is used for real solutions, like law enforcement officers on the street or violence prevention and education in schools.
Don Heller is the man behind the 1978 initiative to reinstate the death penalty. The Don Heller of 2011, however, acknowledges that he simply didn’t know enough 33 years ago. No one in California, including him, had the experience or foresight to predict such a dismal failure. In 2011, even Don Heller supports SB 490 to replace the death penalty. He thinks California voters will too — once they know the facts.
SB 490 will give voters the option of replacing the death penalty with life without parole. If passed, it will save us $1 billion over the next five years. It’s often assumed that voters strongly support the death penalty, but people are rarely asked if they really think it’s worth a billion dollars. With the real-world costs and real-world solutions laid plainly on the table, California voters must decide once and for all if the death penalty is really the most efficient use of those dollars.
Here are some other things California could invest in. For the cost of one execution ($308 million), California taxpayers could afford to:
- Provide a complete K-12 education, including food and transportation, for 2,865 kids.
- Pay for a four-year Cal State education for 14,569 college students.
- Cover the average middle-income cost of raising 1,385 children from birth to age 18.
- Sign Alexander Rodriguez to the Dodgers for 11.2 years.
- Hire 3,579 new police officers.
- Hire 3,407 new fire fighters.
- Shut down and remodel the 405 freeway a la “Carmageddon” every five years.
Obese children from their families
David Ludwig of America: The critical borderline obese children springing from their families aspirations to discuss
Children's Hospital in Boston who served United States of America Dr David Ludwig in America Medicine, wrote the journal article stirred up a row.
Obesity is a serious disease in the United States and growing every day as it is known, in case of illness. And every day that are also taking new measures may be taken against obesity.
D. Ludwig wrote in the journal American Medicine article stating that the United State a large number of obese children has included the following words: task of the state will have to help obese children. Rarely seen a solution to get the children from their homes "he said.
This promises to American and then saw their colleagues as well as families react. Arising from having to make explanations D. Ludwig, I'm just exhausted all the remedies I wanted to draw attention to the training halls of residence may be the last address. "he said.
100-year-old doctor still practicing at UCSF, shares unconventional longevity secrets
Even though he recently turned 100, Dr. Ephraim Engleman still sees arthritis patients regularly at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). He has some rather unconventional longevity secrets to share:
"I think exercise is mostly overrated. And the use of vitamins, forget it. And I don't encourage a lot of doctors.
Fall in love and get married. Sex is to be encouraged. Children are a priority."
His two sons are physicians. His daugher, a lawyer, is a married to a doctor, and their son is a physician.
From NBC’s Nightly News:
The extended 17-minute version of the report is embedded below:
Comments from Twitter:
@theRealAnubis: Hum...If he was right, 1/2 of the world population would reach 100 yrs.... For what I see about his case, money is the biggest ally..
"I think exercise is mostly overrated. And the use of vitamins, forget it. And I don't encourage a lot of doctors.
Fall in love and get married. Sex is to be encouraged. Children are a priority."
His two sons are physicians. His daugher, a lawyer, is a married to a doctor, and their son is a physician.
From NBC’s Nightly News:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The extended 17-minute version of the report is embedded below:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Comments from Twitter:
@theRealAnubis: Hum...If he was right, 1/2 of the world population would reach 100 yrs.... For what I see about his case, money is the biggest ally..
Poor Sleep Affect Health
Of course, a period of time is required to listen to all the people. Lack of sleep, Lead to physiological and psychological problems. Insomnia may occur as a sign of serious diseases. Among the problem caused by inadequate sleep: fatigue, nervous, forgetfulness comes first. Avoid taking sleeping pills to combat insomnia. Because of these benefits is more than temporary harm.Health Information
Mayo Clinic on procedure competency: "140 colonoscopies isn't cool. You know what's cool, 275 colonoscopies"
Mayo Clinic: GI professional organizations have traditionally recommended that gastroenterology (GI) fellows perform 140 colonoscopies before assessing competency. Robert E. Sedlack, M.D., of the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, discusses findings that suggest it takes an average of 275 procedures to acquire the skills needed to perform safe and effective exams.
The quote is from here:
"The Social Network" tells the story of how Facebook went from a college startup to essentially the only way that old friends keep in touch. Napster founder-turned-Facebook president Sean Parker gives site creator Mark Zuckerberg, some shrewd financial advice. "A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion dollars," he says.
Letter from a Reader: Are Credit Card Companies Allowed to Share Our Personal Information?
Image courtesy of www.liveinthephilippines.com
I am an avid and loyal follower of your blog! I know that many of your readers are credit card holders and they will be able to relate with this story.
Recently, I have been receiving SMS messages from anonymous numbers offering personal loans, cash loans and the likes from different banks. The messages have been very frequent so one time, I replied to this particular message:
From mobile number: +639266110833
Attention! Need CASH? Personal Load up to P2m for as LOW as1.3%/mo. For FAST & EAST Approval, ACT NOW. Message me. Adrian.
I was so fed up from receiving these kinds of messages so I send this message "Will you just stop texting me with those offers?" After sending this message, Adrian replied and said "I'm sorry Joseph Bolos. Rest assured you are monitored." After a few minutes, he also texted me my exact home address.
I was very shocked as to why he knows my complete name and my exact home address. Then I realized that he must have gotten these pieces of information from my credit card company. So I called my credit card company and told the customer service guy that there is a loan agent from another credit card company that is harassing me. He told me that the agent might have secured my personal information from the database of the other credit card company.
I understand that there is a database for the reference of the different credit card companies but why do these companies share these pieces of information with the loan agents without our permission? It truly bothers me that these people are sharing my personal information for their marketing purposes without my consent! Fellow Fashion PULIS readers, is there anything we can do about this?
Yours truly,
Joseph Bolos
Attention! Need CASH? Personal Load up to P2m for as LOW as1.3%/mo. For FAST & EAST Approval, ACT NOW. Message me. Adrian.
I was so fed up from receiving these kinds of messages so I send this message "Will you just stop texting me with those offers?" After sending this message, Adrian replied and said "I'm sorry Joseph Bolos. Rest assured you are monitored." After a few minutes, he also texted me my exact home address.
I was very shocked as to why he knows my complete name and my exact home address. Then I realized that he must have gotten these pieces of information from my credit card company. So I called my credit card company and told the customer service guy that there is a loan agent from another credit card company that is harassing me. He told me that the agent might have secured my personal information from the database of the other credit card company.
I understand that there is a database for the reference of the different credit card companies but why do these companies share these pieces of information with the loan agents without our permission? It truly bothers me that these people are sharing my personal information for their marketing purposes without my consent! Fellow Fashion PULIS readers, is there anything we can do about this?
Yours truly,
Joseph Bolos
Do You Want to be a Make-up Artist?
Click on the image to read more about the Studio SnR
and Shu Uemura Make-up Workshop
Click on the image to read more about the Studio SnR
and Lancome Skincare/Make-up Workshop
and Lancome Skincare/Make-up Workshop
Click on the image to read more about the Studio SnR
and Majorca Make-up Workshop
Friday, July 29, 2011
Our Growing Boy
We are the parents of a 13 month old boy who seems to be growing by the minute. Since we were the last of our friends and family that have entered the parenting arena, we are lucky enough that our loved ones have gifted us smartly. For our baby shower and our sons birthday party our friends and family gave very thoughtful and useful items. Especially when it came to clothing items. Just the right sizes for him to grow into. Experienced parents just know exactly what would be most helpful to new parents & a new baby. Up until now we haven't really had to shop much. Our son had received so many clothing items that we were covered for his first year of his life. So much that we really need to invest in a larger storage system for just his clothes. We are now finding that we have to shop more since he quickly outgrows EVERYTHING. Items tagged for 18 to 24 mo olds are starting to need replacements...the things that were given to him to "grow into" are dwindling! He is already into most of them. Mom & Dad will now have to shop more often for baby clothes. It can be quite an adventure. I do enjoy shopping for outfits for our little guy. There are so many really cute outfits to choose from. I can only imagine the fun that moms of daughters must have!
Since he does outgrow things so fast I try to find the best deals that I can. We always gift his outgrown items (which are usually nearly new and worn just a few times) or donate them. No need to store them "just in case" we have another boy. Some people that we know have done that but we don't have the space to store an accumulation of clothes and would rather it be put to use than put away.
Baby clothes are fun to shop for and so are accessories! For our Maui trip I had the best time shopping for baby sunglasses, hats, and beachwear! Toys are another beast altogether. Our son has received SO MANY TOYS. Is there such a thing as too many?! YES! Soon it will be time to find new homes for his toys. It won't be too tough now since he hasn't really developed any attachments to any one particular thing. BUT as he gets older I'm sure it will turn into a battle.
Since he does outgrow things so fast I try to find the best deals that I can. We always gift his outgrown items (which are usually nearly new and worn just a few times) or donate them. No need to store them "just in case" we have another boy. Some people that we know have done that but we don't have the space to store an accumulation of clothes and would rather it be put to use than put away.
Baby clothes are fun to shop for and so are accessories! For our Maui trip I had the best time shopping for baby sunglasses, hats, and beachwear! Toys are another beast altogether. Our son has received SO MANY TOYS. Is there such a thing as too many?! YES! Soon it will be time to find new homes for his toys. It won't be too tough now since he hasn't really developed any attachments to any one particular thing. BUT as he gets older I'm sure it will turn into a battle.
High Blood Pressure Who gets
Blood pressure in the arteries varies according to age of the person. In general, how young people in the low blood pressure, insomuch, how old is the blood pressure insomuch if highs. Younger a person is considered high blood pressure, a pressure, a person normally include the elderly. High blood pressure is often between 40 and 60 years of age, who tend to gain in weight, and most occur in people who smoke. But at the same time, for any reason, for example, was very angry in his youth had fun with the disease has been picked more or rising blood pressure in people, advanced age, high blood pressure can be seen constantly.
Both mother and father, people with high blood pressure, high blood pressure likely to be later than fifty percent. If you have hops to high blood pressure in one of the parents alone, the probability drops to 30 percent.
Jazz Interlude: John Coltrane
It does get much better than this. John Coltrane performing Green Dolphin Street, with a typically brilliant solo by Wynton Kelly on piano. Also, Paul Chambers on bass and Jimmy Cobb on drums.
Playing Ball With The Pentagon
Back in October, when I started this blog, one of my early posts was on the unquestioned baseball tradition of singing the Star Spangled Banner, which after 9/11 was supplemented with God Bless America. Apparently one song no longer seemed sufficient for fans and players (including the 28% of Major League Baseball players who are foreign born) to express their love of the United States.
The playing of the National Anthem at ballgames began in earnest during World War II, partly to make sure fans didn't question the patriotism of the players who weren't fighting in the war. It seems that the double dose of patriotic singing post-9/11, and the military spectacles like the one at Fenway Park that Andrew Bacevich writes about below, not only humanize and normalize what feels like our state of perpetual war but help to ensure that our own patriotism isn't questioned despite our disconnection from any real sacrifice.
Ballpark Liturgy: America’s New Civic Religion
Cheap Grace at Fenway
By Andrew Bacevich, cross-posted from TomDispatch.
Fenway Park, Boston, July 4, 2011. On this warm summer day, the Red Sox will play the Toronto Blue Jays. First come pre-game festivities, especially tailored for the occasion. The ensuing spectacle -- a carefully scripted encounter between the armed forces and society -- expresses the distilled essence of present-day American patriotism. A masterpiece of contrived spontaneity, the event leaves spectators feeling good about their baseball team, about their military, and not least of all about themselves -- precisely as it was meant to do.
In this theatrical production, the Red Sox provide the stage, and the Pentagon the props. In military parlance, it is a joint operation. In front of a gigantic American flag draped over the left-field wall, an Air Force contingent, clad in blue, stands at attention. To carry a smaller version of the Stars and Stripes onto the playing field, the Navy provides a color guard in crisp summer whites. The United States Marine Corps kicks in with a choral ensemble that leads the singing of the national anthem. As the anthem’s final notes sound, four U. S. Air Force F-15C Eagles scream overhead. The sellout crowd roars its approval.
But there is more to come. “On this Independence Day,” the voice of the Red Sox booms over the public address system, “we pay a debt of gratitude to the families whose sons and daughters are serving our country.” On this particular occasion the designated recipients of that gratitude are members of the Lydon family, hailing from Squantum, Massachusetts. Young Bridget Lydon is a sailor -- Aviation Ordnanceman Airman is her official title -- serving aboard the carrier USS Ronald Reagan, currently deployed in support of the Afghanistan War, now in its 10th year.
From Out of Nowhere
The Lydons are Every Family, decked out for the Fourth. Garbed in random bits of Red Sox paraphernalia and Mardi Gras necklaces, they wear their shirts untucked and ball caps backwards. Neither sleek nor fancy, they are without pretension. Yet they exude good cheer. As they are ushered onto the field, their eagerness is palpable. Like TV game show contestants, they know that this is their lucky day and they are keen to make the most of it.
As the Lydons gather near the pitcher’s mound, the voice directs their attention to the 38-by-100-foot Jumbotron mounted above the centerfield bleachers. On the screen, Bridget appears. She is aboard ship, in duty uniform, posed below decks in front of an F/A-18 fighter jet. Waiflike, but pert and confident, she looks directly into the camera, sending a “shout-out” to family and friends. She wishes she could join them at Fenway.
As if by magic, wish becomes fulfillment. While the video clip is still running, Bridget herself, now in dress whites, emerges from behind the flag covering the leftfield wall. On the Jumbotron, in place of Bridget below decks, an image of Bridget marching smartly toward the infield appears. In the stands pandemonium erupts. After a moment of confusion, members of her family -- surrounded by camera crews -- rush to embrace their sailor, a reunion shared vicariously by the 38,000 fans in attendance along with many thousands more watching at home on the Red Sox television network.
Once the Lydons finish with hugs and kisses and the crowd settles down, Navy veteran Bridget (annual salary approximately $22,000) throws the ceremonial first pitch to aging Red Sox veteran Tim Wakefield (annual salary $2,000,000). More cheers. As a souvenir, Wakefield gives her the baseball along with his own hug. All smiles, Bridget and her family shout “Play Ball!” into a microphone. As they are escorted off the field and out of sight, the game begins.
Cheap Grace
What does this event signify?
For the Lydons, the day will no doubt long remain a happy memory. If they were to some degree manipulated -- their utter and genuine astonishment at Bridget’s seemingly miraculous appearance lending the occasion its emotional punch -- they played their allotted roles without complaint and with considerable élan. However briefly, they stood in the spotlight, quasi-celebrities, all eyes trained on them, a contemporary version of the American dream fulfilled. And if offstage puppet-masters used Bridget herself, at least she got a visit home and a few days off -- no doubt a welcome break.
Yet this feel-good story was political as well as personal. As a collaboration between two well-heeled but image-conscious institutions, the Lydon reunion represented a small but not inconsequential public relations triumph. The Red Sox and the Navy had worked together to perform an act of kindness for a sailor and her loved ones. Both organizations came away looking good, not only because the event itself was so deftly executed, but because it showed that the large for-profit professional sports team and the even larger military bureaucracy both care about ordinary people. The message conveyed to fans/taxpayers could not be clearer: the corporate executives who run the Red Sox have a heart. So, too, do the admirals who run the Navy.
Better still, these benefits accrued at essentially no cost to the sponsors. The military personnel arrayed around Fenway showed up because they were told to do so. They are already “paid for,” as are the F-15s, the pilots who fly them, and the ground crews that service them. As for whatever outlays the Red Sox may have made, they are trivial and easily absorbed. For the 2011 season, the average price of a ticket at Fenway Park had climbed to $52. A soft drink in a commemorative plastic cup runs you $5.50 and a beer $8. Then there is the television ad revenue, all contributing the previous year to corporate profits exceeding $58 million. A decade of war culminating in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression hasn’t done much good for the country but it has been strangely good for the Red Sox -- and a no-less well funded Pentagon. Any money expended in bringing Bridget to Fenway and entertaining the Lydons had to be the baseball/military equivalent of pocket change.
And the holiday festivities at Fenway had another significance as well, one that extended beyond burnishing institutional reputations and boosting bottom lines. Here was America’s civic religion made manifest.
In recent decades, an injunction to “support the troops” has emerged as a central tenet of that religion. Since 9/11 this imperative has become, if anything, even more binding. Indeed, as citizens, Americans today acknowledge no higher obligation.
Fulfilling that obligation has posed a challenge, however. Rather than doing so concretely, Americans -- with a few honorable exceptions -- have settled for symbolism. With their pronounced aversion to collective service and sacrifice (an inclination indulged by leaders of both political parties), Americans resist any definition of civic duty that threatens to crimp lifestyles.
To stand in solidarity with those on whom the burden of service and sacrifice falls is about as far as they will go. Expressions of solidarity affirm that the existing relationship between soldiers and society is consistent with democratic practice. By extension, so, too, is the distribution of prerogatives and responsibilities entailed by that relationship: a few fight, the rest applaud. Put simply, the message that citizens wish to convey to their soldiers is this: although choosing not to be with you, we are still for you (so long as being for you entails nothing on our part). Cheering for the troops, in effect, provides a convenient mechanism for voiding obligation and easing guilty consciences.
In ways far more satisfying than displaying banners or bumper stickers, the Fenway Park Independence Day event provided a made-to-order opportunity for conscience easing. It did so in three ways. First, it brought members of Red Sox Nation into close proximity (even if not direct contact) with living, breathing members of the armed forces, figuratively closing any gap between the two. (In New England, where few active duty military installations remain, such encounters are increasingly infrequent.) Second, it manufactured one excuse after another to whistle and shout, whoop and holler, thereby allowing the assembled multitudes to express -- and to be seen expressing -- their affection and respect for the troops. Finally, it rewarded participants and witnesses alike with a sense of validation, the reunion of Bridget and her family, even if temporary, serving as a proxy for a much larger, if imaginary, reconciliation of the American military and the American people. That debt? Mark it paid in full.
The late German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a name for this unearned self-forgiveness and undeserved self-regard. He called it cheap grace. Were he alive today, Bonhoeffer might suggest that a taste for cheap grace, compounded by an appetite for false freedom, is leading Americans down the road to perdition.
Andrew J. Bacevich, the author of Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. Tomdispatch.com’s mission is “to connect some of the global dots regularly left unconnected by the mainstream media and to offer a clearer sense of how this imperial globe of ours actually works.” Tom Engelhardt and the other progressive writers do just that. Tomdispatch.com is a project of The Nation Institute, a 501(c)(3) public charity. By clicking on the Tomdispatch badge on the right panel of this blog you will be directed to a link where you can make a tax deductible donation.
The playing of the National Anthem at ballgames began in earnest during World War II, partly to make sure fans didn't question the patriotism of the players who weren't fighting in the war. It seems that the double dose of patriotic singing post-9/11, and the military spectacles like the one at Fenway Park that Andrew Bacevich writes about below, not only humanize and normalize what feels like our state of perpetual war but help to ensure that our own patriotism isn't questioned despite our disconnection from any real sacrifice.
Ballpark Liturgy: America’s New Civic Religion
Cheap Grace at Fenway
By Andrew Bacevich, cross-posted from TomDispatch.
Fenway Park, Boston, July 4, 2011. On this warm summer day, the Red Sox will play the Toronto Blue Jays. First come pre-game festivities, especially tailored for the occasion. The ensuing spectacle -- a carefully scripted encounter between the armed forces and society -- expresses the distilled essence of present-day American patriotism. A masterpiece of contrived spontaneity, the event leaves spectators feeling good about their baseball team, about their military, and not least of all about themselves -- precisely as it was meant to do.
In this theatrical production, the Red Sox provide the stage, and the Pentagon the props. In military parlance, it is a joint operation. In front of a gigantic American flag draped over the left-field wall, an Air Force contingent, clad in blue, stands at attention. To carry a smaller version of the Stars and Stripes onto the playing field, the Navy provides a color guard in crisp summer whites. The United States Marine Corps kicks in with a choral ensemble that leads the singing of the national anthem. As the anthem’s final notes sound, four U. S. Air Force F-15C Eagles scream overhead. The sellout crowd roars its approval.
But there is more to come. “On this Independence Day,” the voice of the Red Sox booms over the public address system, “we pay a debt of gratitude to the families whose sons and daughters are serving our country.” On this particular occasion the designated recipients of that gratitude are members of the Lydon family, hailing from Squantum, Massachusetts. Young Bridget Lydon is a sailor -- Aviation Ordnanceman Airman is her official title -- serving aboard the carrier USS Ronald Reagan, currently deployed in support of the Afghanistan War, now in its 10th year.
From Out of Nowhere
The Lydons are Every Family, decked out for the Fourth. Garbed in random bits of Red Sox paraphernalia and Mardi Gras necklaces, they wear their shirts untucked and ball caps backwards. Neither sleek nor fancy, they are without pretension. Yet they exude good cheer. As they are ushered onto the field, their eagerness is palpable. Like TV game show contestants, they know that this is their lucky day and they are keen to make the most of it.
As the Lydons gather near the pitcher’s mound, the voice directs their attention to the 38-by-100-foot Jumbotron mounted above the centerfield bleachers. On the screen, Bridget appears. She is aboard ship, in duty uniform, posed below decks in front of an F/A-18 fighter jet. Waiflike, but pert and confident, she looks directly into the camera, sending a “shout-out” to family and friends. She wishes she could join them at Fenway.
As if by magic, wish becomes fulfillment. While the video clip is still running, Bridget herself, now in dress whites, emerges from behind the flag covering the leftfield wall. On the Jumbotron, in place of Bridget below decks, an image of Bridget marching smartly toward the infield appears. In the stands pandemonium erupts. After a moment of confusion, members of her family -- surrounded by camera crews -- rush to embrace their sailor, a reunion shared vicariously by the 38,000 fans in attendance along with many thousands more watching at home on the Red Sox television network.
Once the Lydons finish with hugs and kisses and the crowd settles down, Navy veteran Bridget (annual salary approximately $22,000) throws the ceremonial first pitch to aging Red Sox veteran Tim Wakefield (annual salary $2,000,000). More cheers. As a souvenir, Wakefield gives her the baseball along with his own hug. All smiles, Bridget and her family shout “Play Ball!” into a microphone. As they are escorted off the field and out of sight, the game begins.
Cheap Grace
What does this event signify?
For the Lydons, the day will no doubt long remain a happy memory. If they were to some degree manipulated -- their utter and genuine astonishment at Bridget’s seemingly miraculous appearance lending the occasion its emotional punch -- they played their allotted roles without complaint and with considerable élan. However briefly, they stood in the spotlight, quasi-celebrities, all eyes trained on them, a contemporary version of the American dream fulfilled. And if offstage puppet-masters used Bridget herself, at least she got a visit home and a few days off -- no doubt a welcome break.
Yet this feel-good story was political as well as personal. As a collaboration between two well-heeled but image-conscious institutions, the Lydon reunion represented a small but not inconsequential public relations triumph. The Red Sox and the Navy had worked together to perform an act of kindness for a sailor and her loved ones. Both organizations came away looking good, not only because the event itself was so deftly executed, but because it showed that the large for-profit professional sports team and the even larger military bureaucracy both care about ordinary people. The message conveyed to fans/taxpayers could not be clearer: the corporate executives who run the Red Sox have a heart. So, too, do the admirals who run the Navy.
Better still, these benefits accrued at essentially no cost to the sponsors. The military personnel arrayed around Fenway showed up because they were told to do so. They are already “paid for,” as are the F-15s, the pilots who fly them, and the ground crews that service them. As for whatever outlays the Red Sox may have made, they are trivial and easily absorbed. For the 2011 season, the average price of a ticket at Fenway Park had climbed to $52. A soft drink in a commemorative plastic cup runs you $5.50 and a beer $8. Then there is the television ad revenue, all contributing the previous year to corporate profits exceeding $58 million. A decade of war culminating in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression hasn’t done much good for the country but it has been strangely good for the Red Sox -- and a no-less well funded Pentagon. Any money expended in bringing Bridget to Fenway and entertaining the Lydons had to be the baseball/military equivalent of pocket change.
And the holiday festivities at Fenway had another significance as well, one that extended beyond burnishing institutional reputations and boosting bottom lines. Here was America’s civic religion made manifest.
In recent decades, an injunction to “support the troops” has emerged as a central tenet of that religion. Since 9/11 this imperative has become, if anything, even more binding. Indeed, as citizens, Americans today acknowledge no higher obligation.
Fulfilling that obligation has posed a challenge, however. Rather than doing so concretely, Americans -- with a few honorable exceptions -- have settled for symbolism. With their pronounced aversion to collective service and sacrifice (an inclination indulged by leaders of both political parties), Americans resist any definition of civic duty that threatens to crimp lifestyles.
To stand in solidarity with those on whom the burden of service and sacrifice falls is about as far as they will go. Expressions of solidarity affirm that the existing relationship between soldiers and society is consistent with democratic practice. By extension, so, too, is the distribution of prerogatives and responsibilities entailed by that relationship: a few fight, the rest applaud. Put simply, the message that citizens wish to convey to their soldiers is this: although choosing not to be with you, we are still for you (so long as being for you entails nothing on our part). Cheering for the troops, in effect, provides a convenient mechanism for voiding obligation and easing guilty consciences.
In ways far more satisfying than displaying banners or bumper stickers, the Fenway Park Independence Day event provided a made-to-order opportunity for conscience easing. It did so in three ways. First, it brought members of Red Sox Nation into close proximity (even if not direct contact) with living, breathing members of the armed forces, figuratively closing any gap between the two. (In New England, where few active duty military installations remain, such encounters are increasingly infrequent.) Second, it manufactured one excuse after another to whistle and shout, whoop and holler, thereby allowing the assembled multitudes to express -- and to be seen expressing -- their affection and respect for the troops. Finally, it rewarded participants and witnesses alike with a sense of validation, the reunion of Bridget and her family, even if temporary, serving as a proxy for a much larger, if imaginary, reconciliation of the American military and the American people. That debt? Mark it paid in full.
The late German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a name for this unearned self-forgiveness and undeserved self-regard. He called it cheap grace. Were he alive today, Bonhoeffer might suggest that a taste for cheap grace, compounded by an appetite for false freedom, is leading Americans down the road to perdition.
Andrew J. Bacevich, the author of Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. Tomdispatch.com’s mission is “to connect some of the global dots regularly left unconnected by the mainstream media and to offer a clearer sense of how this imperial globe of ours actually works.” Tom Engelhardt and the other progressive writers do just that. Tomdispatch.com is a project of The Nation Institute, a 501(c)(3) public charity. By clicking on the Tomdispatch badge on the right panel of this blog you will be directed to a link where you can make a tax deductible donation.
Would Annuities fit in your portfolio?
Annuities have an appropriate and valuable place in your portfolio. Let’s compare them to two other popular products — mutual funds and bank certificates of deposit — to see where they fit.
Bank certificates of deposit: These are clearly very safe, as the principal is guaranteed first by the issuing bank and second, up to a limit, by the FDIC. The interest rate you will earn is also guaranteed for the duration you select. If you choose to take your money out early, the penalty is typically very modest, equal to only a few months of interest. As a result of their safety and predictability, interest rates on bank certificates of deposit are usually fairly low.
Mutual Funds: These are securities, and that gives you a clue that we are now entering much riskier territory. The principal is not guaranteed by anyone. The return in any one given year can be sharply positive or negative. For example, a common proxy for stock fund returns is the S&P 500 index, which rose 26 percent in 2003 and dropped 38 percent in 2008. Thus, for mutual funds to attract money, they must offer the prospect of a higher likely return than indexed annuities. Over the last century, they have done so, although over the last decade, they have fallen woefully short.
Variable deferred annuities are long-term vehicles, designed to help your assets grow and provide a steady stream of income in retirement An annuity provides tax-deferral of any growth. No taxes are due until you take a withdrawal.Choice of investment portfolios. These stock and bond investment options may be managed by the same portfolio manager and have the same investment objective as a similarly named mutual fund. However, they invest in separate and distinct portfolios from any publicly available mutual fund and the underlying portfolios have different holdings and fees, so their performance can vary. Tax-free transfers among the investment choices. No taxes are due when you transfer money from one funding choice to another within an annuity.Guaranteed Income for Life. You can convert your investment into a steady income stream that cannot be outlived.Guaranteed Death Benefits. A variable annuity can provide a death benefit that guarantees your beneficiary will receive at least what you contributed to the account, less withdrawals and fees, if you should die before the income payments begin. The death benefit can increase over time.
Talk to your financial advisor and check if Annuities would fit in your portfolio according to your goals and needs.
If you have any question, please contact us for a free review:anecamara@mintcofinancial.com
Please make sure you send your questions and contact name and phone number.
Also check our website for more information: www.MintcoFinancial.com
Bank certificates of deposit: These are clearly very safe, as the principal is guaranteed first by the issuing bank and second, up to a limit, by the FDIC. The interest rate you will earn is also guaranteed for the duration you select. If you choose to take your money out early, the penalty is typically very modest, equal to only a few months of interest. As a result of their safety and predictability, interest rates on bank certificates of deposit are usually fairly low.
Mutual Funds: These are securities, and that gives you a clue that we are now entering much riskier territory. The principal is not guaranteed by anyone. The return in any one given year can be sharply positive or negative. For example, a common proxy for stock fund returns is the S&P 500 index, which rose 26 percent in 2003 and dropped 38 percent in 2008. Thus, for mutual funds to attract money, they must offer the prospect of a higher likely return than indexed annuities. Over the last century, they have done so, although over the last decade, they have fallen woefully short.
Variable deferred annuities are long-term vehicles, designed to help your assets grow and provide a steady stream of income in retirement An annuity provides tax-deferral of any growth. No taxes are due until you take a withdrawal.Choice of investment portfolios. These stock and bond investment options may be managed by the same portfolio manager and have the same investment objective as a similarly named mutual fund. However, they invest in separate and distinct portfolios from any publicly available mutual fund and the underlying portfolios have different holdings and fees, so their performance can vary. Tax-free transfers among the investment choices. No taxes are due when you transfer money from one funding choice to another within an annuity.Guaranteed Income for Life. You can convert your investment into a steady income stream that cannot be outlived.Guaranteed Death Benefits. A variable annuity can provide a death benefit that guarantees your beneficiary will receive at least what you contributed to the account, less withdrawals and fees, if you should die before the income payments begin. The death benefit can increase over time.
Talk to your financial advisor and check if Annuities would fit in your portfolio according to your goals and needs.
If you have any question, please contact us for a free review:anecamara@mintcofinancial.com
Please make sure you send your questions and contact name and phone number.
Also check our website for more information: www.MintcoFinancial.com
R.I.P. Robert Jackson III
Roman Colosseum lit to protest an execution |
This is the 30th execution in the United States in 2011, the first in Delaware since 2005.
Don't Fall For The GOP Lie: There Is No Budget Crisis. There's A Job And A Growth Crisis
By Robert Reich, cross-posted from his blog.
A friend who’s been watching the absurd machinations in Congress asked me “what happens if we don’t solve the budget crisis and we run out of money to pay the nation’s bills?”
It was only then I realized how effective Republicans lies have been. That we’re calling it a “budget crisis” and worrying that if we don’t “solve” it we can’t pay our nation’s bills is testament to how successful Republicans have been distorting the truth.
The federal budget deficit has no economic relationship to the debt limit. Republicans have linked the two, and the Administration has played along, but they are entirely separate. Republicans are using what would otherwise be a routine, legally technical vote to raise the debt limit as a means of holding the nation hostage to their own political goal of shrinking the size of the federal government.
In economic terms, we will not “run out of money” next week. We’re still the richest nation in the world, and the Federal Reserve has unlimited capacity to print money.
Nor is there any economic imperative to reach an agreement on how to fix the budget deficit by Tuesday. It’s not even clear the federal budget needs that much fixing anyway.
Yes, the ratio of the national debt to the total economy is high relative to what it’s been. But it’s not nearly as high as it was after World War II – when it reached 120 percent of the economy’s total output.
If and when the economy begins to grow faster – if more Americans get jobs, and we move toward a full recovery – the debt/GDP ratio will fall, as it did in the 1950s, and as it does in every solid recovery. Revenues will pour into the Treasury, and much of the current “budget crisis” will be evaporate.
Get it? We’re really in a “jobs and growth” crisis – not a budget crisis.
And the best way to get jobs and growth back is for the federal government to spend more right now, not less – for example, by exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes this year and next, recreating a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, creating an infrastructure bank, providing tax incentives for small businesses to hire, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
But what happens next week if Congress can’t or won’t deliver the President a bill to raise the debt ceiling? Remember: This is all politics, mixed in with legal technicalities. Economics has nothing to do with it.
One possibility, therefore, is for the Treasury to keep paying the nation’s bills regardless. It would continue to issue Treasury bills, which are our nation’s IOUs. When those IOUs are cashed at the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed would do what it has always done: Honor them.
How long could this go on without the debt ceiling being lifted? That’s a legal question. Republicans in Congress could mount a legal challenge, but no court in its right mind would stop the Fed from honoring the full faith and credit of the United States.
The wild card is what the three big credit-rating agencies will do. As long as the Fed keeps honoring the nation’s IOUs, America’s credit should be deemed sound. We’re not Greece or Portugal, after all. We’ll still be the richest nation in the world, whose currency is the basis for most business transactions in the world.
Standard & Poor’s has warned it will downgrade the nation’s debt from a triple-A to a double-A rating if we don’t tend to the long-term deficit. But, as I’ve noted, S&P has no business meddling in American politics – especially since its own non-feasance was partly responsible for the current size of the federal debt (had it done its job the debt and housing bubbles wouldn’t have precipitated the terrible recession, and the federal outlays it required).
As long as we pay our debts on time, our global creditors should be satisfied. And if they’re satisfied, S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch should be, too.
Repeat after me: The federal deficit is not the nation’s biggest problem. The anemic recovery, huge unemployment, falling wages, and declining home prices are bigger problems. We don’t have a budget crisis. We have a jobs and growth crisis.
The GOP has manufactured a budget crisis out of the Republicans’ extortionate demands over raising the debt limit. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the public, including my friend.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He writes a blog at www.robertreich.org. His most recent book is Aftershock.
A friend who’s been watching the absurd machinations in Congress asked me “what happens if we don’t solve the budget crisis and we run out of money to pay the nation’s bills?”
It was only then I realized how effective Republicans lies have been. That we’re calling it a “budget crisis” and worrying that if we don’t “solve” it we can’t pay our nation’s bills is testament to how successful Republicans have been distorting the truth.
The federal budget deficit has no economic relationship to the debt limit. Republicans have linked the two, and the Administration has played along, but they are entirely separate. Republicans are using what would otherwise be a routine, legally technical vote to raise the debt limit as a means of holding the nation hostage to their own political goal of shrinking the size of the federal government.
In economic terms, we will not “run out of money” next week. We’re still the richest nation in the world, and the Federal Reserve has unlimited capacity to print money.
Nor is there any economic imperative to reach an agreement on how to fix the budget deficit by Tuesday. It’s not even clear the federal budget needs that much fixing anyway.
Yes, the ratio of the national debt to the total economy is high relative to what it’s been. But it’s not nearly as high as it was after World War II – when it reached 120 percent of the economy’s total output.
If and when the economy begins to grow faster – if more Americans get jobs, and we move toward a full recovery – the debt/GDP ratio will fall, as it did in the 1950s, and as it does in every solid recovery. Revenues will pour into the Treasury, and much of the current “budget crisis” will be evaporate.
Get it? We’re really in a “jobs and growth” crisis – not a budget crisis.
And the best way to get jobs and growth back is for the federal government to spend more right now, not less – for example, by exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes this year and next, recreating a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, creating an infrastructure bank, providing tax incentives for small businesses to hire, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
But what happens next week if Congress can’t or won’t deliver the President a bill to raise the debt ceiling? Remember: This is all politics, mixed in with legal technicalities. Economics has nothing to do with it.
One possibility, therefore, is for the Treasury to keep paying the nation’s bills regardless. It would continue to issue Treasury bills, which are our nation’s IOUs. When those IOUs are cashed at the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed would do what it has always done: Honor them.
How long could this go on without the debt ceiling being lifted? That’s a legal question. Republicans in Congress could mount a legal challenge, but no court in its right mind would stop the Fed from honoring the full faith and credit of the United States.
The wild card is what the three big credit-rating agencies will do. As long as the Fed keeps honoring the nation’s IOUs, America’s credit should be deemed sound. We’re not Greece or Portugal, after all. We’ll still be the richest nation in the world, whose currency is the basis for most business transactions in the world.
Standard & Poor’s has warned it will downgrade the nation’s debt from a triple-A to a double-A rating if we don’t tend to the long-term deficit. But, as I’ve noted, S&P has no business meddling in American politics – especially since its own non-feasance was partly responsible for the current size of the federal debt (had it done its job the debt and housing bubbles wouldn’t have precipitated the terrible recession, and the federal outlays it required).
As long as we pay our debts on time, our global creditors should be satisfied. And if they’re satisfied, S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch should be, too.
Repeat after me: The federal deficit is not the nation’s biggest problem. The anemic recovery, huge unemployment, falling wages, and declining home prices are bigger problems. We don’t have a budget crisis. We have a jobs and growth crisis.
The GOP has manufactured a budget crisis out of the Republicans’ extortionate demands over raising the debt limit. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the public, including my friend.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He writes a blog at www.robertreich.org. His most recent book is Aftershock.
How much heat you can take? 232 years ago, three British gentlemen found out
Have you ever wondered how much heat you can take? 232 years ago, three British gentlemen decided to find out: 260 degrees Fahrenheit (126.6 degrees Celsius).
From NPR:
Be sure to check the cartoon slideshow too.
From NPR:
Be sure to check the cartoon slideshow too.
Favorite Thing Friday
Finally! It's Friday. Favorite thing: A FULL tank of gas. Driving home from work yesterday I found myself staring at the lowfuel [EMPTY] light. GREAT. I was too tired to go to the gas station so went straight home. Re-fueled this morning on the way into the office. Upside: full tank of gasoline. Downside: $55.74. Happy Friday Everyone!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Palate Cleanser: Monsters of Folk
Temazcal by Monsters of Folk
Comic Con
Dear Luna,
I was moved by your comment in defense of your best friend and have decided to close the post. Good luck to you and your friend.
Thank you for visiting and commenting on this blog.
I was moved by your comment in defense of your best friend and have decided to close the post. Good luck to you and your friend.
Thank you for visiting and commenting on this blog.
Choose Your Poison
As The Economy Burns, GOP & Dems Fight Over How To Make Things Worse
By Richard (RJ) Eskow, cross-posted from Huffington Post.
Gandhi famously answered the question "What do you think of Western Civilization?" by saying "I think it would be a good idea." That phrase might come in handy the next time somebody asks what you think of a two-party democracy: It would be a good idea. As the economy burns to the ground, nobody's calling the Fire Department. Both parties want to throw gasoline on the fire, and their only disagreement is whether to use regular gas or unleaded.
Here's a challenge, if anyone's willing to take it: Can you read the statistics below without concluding that our current debate is a national disgrace? Both parties are pushing radical and counterproductive cuts that would devastate middle class and lower-income Americans, compounding the misery for ninety percent of us. Neither asks the top one percent of earners, some of whom caused this crisis, to help repair the damag after enjoying historically low tax rates.
And this isn't just somebody's opinion. These are the numbers talking, not me. John Boehner's plan is a radical right-wing assault on government that would have embarrassed previous generations of Republicans. Nevertheless, his party's base and members of the House will probably reject it. Harry Reid's proposal is also devastating - and his party's rank and file may very well support it. It's hard to know which is a sadder statement on the degraded state of our politics.
Both proposals would defer the most brutal cuts until after the election. Both try to insulate their architects from the consequences of their actions - actions which the public strongly opposes - by placing them in the hands of an unelected 'Super Congress'whose directives would be given a high pressure up-or-down vote. That's cowardice, not courage. A vote for either plan is a vote against democratic process, and a vote against the middle class and those in need.
Democratic failure of leadership
There are sane and courageous Democrats and independents, to be sure, like the Progressive Caucus in the House and Bernie Sanders in the Senate. But the party's leadership have become "leaders" in name only. Even Nancy Pelosi, who could once be counted on to be a voice of reason, has suddenly begun murmuring the mad mantra of austerity economics as her friends and supporters struggle to decode her words for a hidden explanation.
""It is clear we must enter an era of austerity," said Pelosi, "to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice," "She said 'we must ,'" one told me yesterday, "so she might have meant 'she has no choice.'" But that's like trying looking for hidden messages in the gestures of kidnapped soldiers as they make their taped confessions to a hostile government. This is a time for clear calls to action, not coded signals sent by semaphore.
The Democratic failure starts at the top. The President has relentlessly sought to cut Social Security and Medicare, apparently to prove his "postpartisan" nature before the 2012 elections. He appointed a "deficit commission" led by two entitlement haters; had senior Administration officials privately tell people (including this writer) that "a deal will be done" to cut benefits (although Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit); planned to include Social Security cuts in the State of the Union message, until a political backlash loomed: and now insists on including entitlements in these negotiations by saying "let's do all of it at once." (Who insists on negotiating cherished programs when your opponent has something as effective as the debt ceiling to use as leverage?)
It's a replay of health and financial reform. The President's relentless pursuit of a deal - any deal - that he can hang on his wall means he's eager to sacrifice popular and needed programs, both for expediency and to burnish his own chosen image as "above left and right." His focus on process over policy has led him to chide members in both parties of Congress to "eat their peas" by embracing explosive cuts that will harm the economy. This "ap-peas-ment" strategy would sacrifice the middle class in pursuit of "peas in our time."
Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi may feel that these are the only proposals that have a chance of being enacted. But they're not saying that. And they're certainly not proposing urgently-needed solutions to our jobs and housing crisis. Where is the real debate we should be having? Where is the distinction being drawn between Republican and Democratic policies, so that voters have a choice and not an echo? Not in Washington.
What do the numbers tell us about the debate we should be having? Here are the flickering vital signs for an economy on life support:
A dying middle class
Jobs and Wages
Poverty USA
The overall figures are staggering:
Ready for some good news? When it comes to the wealthy, there's plenty:
By failing to fight for job-creating infrastructure programs, Democrats are losing a chance to put people to work and save the economy trillions. As a new report explains, "the nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure will cost the American economy more than 870,000 jobs, and suppress the growth of the country's Gross Domestic Product by $3.1 trillion by 2020." Savings include lost productivity and added travel time as well as safety and travel costs.
Austerity measures in Great Britain, on the other hand, have weakened the economy more than expected. The International Monetary Fund notes that a cut of themagnitude being debated here " typically reduces GDP by about 0.5 percent within two years and raises the unemployment rate by about 0.3 percentage point." And since both the Boehner and Reid plans leave the tough decisions until later, the actual impact could be even greater.
Austerity's already hurt us. As a senior Goldman Sachs analyst (not one of the trading guys you probably despise - an analyst) explains,"fiscal adjustment ... (in) the first quarter of 2011 showed the largest negative impact of government spending (cuts) on real GDP growth since the mid-1980s..." He estimates that we've already lost more than 1% of our growth through austerity measures like those being proposed by Reid and Boehner.
Who would be affected most by these cuts? The poor, as programs for them are cut back. Seniors, as Social Security and Medicare are slashed. (Yes, Mr. President and Leader Reid, the "chained CPI" and a raised retirement age are "slashes.") The middle class, as their taxes go up through a "chained CPI" and the elimination of deductions that benefit them. In other words, between 90% and 99% of the country would suffer.
Real Solutions
Where are the real solutions? We need an 18-month "job surge," where governments invest in job-creating programs that also build up our crumbling infrastructure. That will prime the pump and get the economy moving again.
If we can restore $313 billion in lost wages and then build to an acceptable employment level we'll see billions of dollars billions in added income -- which will leaded to new spending, which creates even more jobs. And the taxes paid by these newly-employed people would go a long was toward reaching the Boehner and Reid goals for cutting the deficit. The remainder could be addressed in a couple of years, once the economy's moving again.
Democracy Fail
The political posturing by leaders of both parties isn't just ruthless, or foolish, or cynical, though it is all of those things. It's counterproductive. The nation's two capitals - its political capital in Washington and its financial capital on Wall Street - aren't just refusing to help the suffering majority. They're actively working to inflict more damage. Don't believe for a moment our leaders will be there for you when you need them. The public will need to pressure them through calls, votes, and demonstrations.
The economy's burning, and the leaders of both parties are treating you the way Rhett Butler treated Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind: Frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn. Or if they do, they've either miscalculated badly or they're too intimidated to say so. Either way, it's up to us to act.
By Richard (RJ) Eskow, cross-posted from Huffington Post.
Gandhi famously answered the question "What do you think of Western Civilization?" by saying "I think it would be a good idea." That phrase might come in handy the next time somebody asks what you think of a two-party democracy: It would be a good idea. As the economy burns to the ground, nobody's calling the Fire Department. Both parties want to throw gasoline on the fire, and their only disagreement is whether to use regular gas or unleaded.
Here's a challenge, if anyone's willing to take it: Can you read the statistics below without concluding that our current debate is a national disgrace? Both parties are pushing radical and counterproductive cuts that would devastate middle class and lower-income Americans, compounding the misery for ninety percent of us. Neither asks the top one percent of earners, some of whom caused this crisis, to help repair the damag after enjoying historically low tax rates.
And this isn't just somebody's opinion. These are the numbers talking, not me. John Boehner's plan is a radical right-wing assault on government that would have embarrassed previous generations of Republicans. Nevertheless, his party's base and members of the House will probably reject it. Harry Reid's proposal is also devastating - and his party's rank and file may very well support it. It's hard to know which is a sadder statement on the degraded state of our politics.
Both proposals would defer the most brutal cuts until after the election. Both try to insulate their architects from the consequences of their actions - actions which the public strongly opposes - by placing them in the hands of an unelected 'Super Congress'whose directives would be given a high pressure up-or-down vote. That's cowardice, not courage. A vote for either plan is a vote against democratic process, and a vote against the middle class and those in need.
Democratic failure of leadership
There are sane and courageous Democrats and independents, to be sure, like the Progressive Caucus in the House and Bernie Sanders in the Senate. But the party's leadership have become "leaders" in name only. Even Nancy Pelosi, who could once be counted on to be a voice of reason, has suddenly begun murmuring the mad mantra of austerity economics as her friends and supporters struggle to decode her words for a hidden explanation.
""It is clear we must enter an era of austerity," said Pelosi, "to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice," "She said 'we must ,'" one told me yesterday, "so she might have meant 'she has no choice.'" But that's like trying looking for hidden messages in the gestures of kidnapped soldiers as they make their taped confessions to a hostile government. This is a time for clear calls to action, not coded signals sent by semaphore.
The Democratic failure starts at the top. The President has relentlessly sought to cut Social Security and Medicare, apparently to prove his "postpartisan" nature before the 2012 elections. He appointed a "deficit commission" led by two entitlement haters; had senior Administration officials privately tell people (including this writer) that "a deal will be done" to cut benefits (although Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit); planned to include Social Security cuts in the State of the Union message, until a political backlash loomed: and now insists on including entitlements in these negotiations by saying "let's do all of it at once." (Who insists on negotiating cherished programs when your opponent has something as effective as the debt ceiling to use as leverage?)
It's a replay of health and financial reform. The President's relentless pursuit of a deal - any deal - that he can hang on his wall means he's eager to sacrifice popular and needed programs, both for expediency and to burnish his own chosen image as "above left and right." His focus on process over policy has led him to chide members in both parties of Congress to "eat their peas" by embracing explosive cuts that will harm the economy. This "ap-peas-ment" strategy would sacrifice the middle class in pursuit of "peas in our time."
Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi may feel that these are the only proposals that have a chance of being enacted. But they're not saying that. And they're certainly not proposing urgently-needed solutions to our jobs and housing crisis. Where is the real debate we should be having? Where is the distinction being drawn between Republican and Democratic policies, so that voters have a choice and not an echo? Not in Washington.
What do the numbers tell us about the debate we should be having? Here are the flickering vital signs for an economy on life support:
A dying middle class
Jobs and Wages
- The real combined figure for unemployment and under-employment is approximately 22 percent
- The number of Americans who "live paycheck to paycheck," has gone from 43% in 2007 to 61% today, and more people are tapping their 401(k) accounts and other retirement savings.
- Total wages have fallen 5% from 2007, or about313 billion (in fixed dollars). But incomes went up at the very top, so the real figure for everybody but the wealthiest among us is even worse.
- The median wage fell by $159 to $26,261 between 2009 and 2010, which means half of all workers made $505 a week or less. The median wage is now $196 less than it was in 2000.
- From 1930 to 1980, income for the bottom 90% of Americans grew by 74%. Since 1980, the year of Ronald Reagan's election, it's grown 1%.
- The average cost of a house nearly doubled between 1975 and 2008. Prices have been falling since the crisis, but tens of millions carry a worthless debt burden and can't unload their houses to achieve relief. Only the top 5% earners have seen their incomes increase enough to cover this explosion in housing costs.
- The number of employed Americans grew by more than 21 million between 1992 and 1990, but only 2.8 million more were on the employment rolls nine years later.
- 108 million people, 45 percent of working-age Americans, are either unemployed, underemployed, or "not in the labor force" (which often means they've given up altogether - there are 85 million people in that category).
- Residential real estate has lost more than six trillion dollars in value since 2008, after 57 consecutive months of decline - although a large chunk of that money is still being repaid as bank loans.
- Housing values are down by a third over the last three years. Even more ominously, they're down 4.6% since their 2009 lows, and they're still falling.
- Overall, middle-class Americans have lost an estimated $7.7 trillion in assets - and the end is not in sight.
- College tuitions have gone up 900% since 1978. The country's total student debt is now greater than its credit card debt, and will reach1 trillion this year.
- Only 44% of those polled believe that children will have "a better life than their parents." Ten years ago that figure was 71%.
Poverty USA
The overall figures are staggering:
- Since the financial crisis, more than two million Americans have fallen into poverty.
- More than 43 million Americans now live below the poverty line. More than 20% of this country's children now live in poverty, more than twice the figure for children in Great Britain or France.
- More than one household in twenty lives with "extreme food insecurity," which means normal eating patterns have been disrupted "at times" during the year because they didn't have money for food.
- Median wealth of Hispanic households fell by 66 percent from 2005 to 2009 (versus 16 percent for white).
- Median wealth for African Americans fell 53 percent.
- Median wealth of whites is now 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic household, twice the difference that existed before the year 2000. (And that disparity was disgraceful.)
- Wealth disparities in this country are the greatest they've been in a quarter century, since this data was first collected.
Ready for some good news? When it comes to the wealthy, there's plenty:
- 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
- The average income for Americans earning 50 million or more surged from91.2 million in 2008 to518.8 million in 2009. In the midst of the recession, there were fewer of these high earners, but the survivors - just 74 people - made as much as the 19 million lowest-paid people in America.
- The top 5% of American households have seen their income increase by 103% since 1975 (as opposed to a 1% increase since 1980 for the bottom 90%).
By failing to fight for job-creating infrastructure programs, Democrats are losing a chance to put people to work and save the economy trillions. As a new report explains, "the nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure will cost the American economy more than 870,000 jobs, and suppress the growth of the country's Gross Domestic Product by $3.1 trillion by 2020." Savings include lost productivity and added travel time as well as safety and travel costs.
Austerity measures in Great Britain, on the other hand, have weakened the economy more than expected. The International Monetary Fund notes that a cut of themagnitude being debated here " typically reduces GDP by about 0.5 percent within two years and raises the unemployment rate by about 0.3 percentage point." And since both the Boehner and Reid plans leave the tough decisions until later, the actual impact could be even greater.
Austerity's already hurt us. As a senior Goldman Sachs analyst (not one of the trading guys you probably despise - an analyst) explains,"fiscal adjustment ... (in) the first quarter of 2011 showed the largest negative impact of government spending (cuts) on real GDP growth since the mid-1980s..." He estimates that we've already lost more than 1% of our growth through austerity measures like those being proposed by Reid and Boehner.
Who would be affected most by these cuts? The poor, as programs for them are cut back. Seniors, as Social Security and Medicare are slashed. (Yes, Mr. President and Leader Reid, the "chained CPI" and a raised retirement age are "slashes.") The middle class, as their taxes go up through a "chained CPI" and the elimination of deductions that benefit them. In other words, between 90% and 99% of the country would suffer.
Real Solutions
Where are the real solutions? We need an 18-month "job surge," where governments invest in job-creating programs that also build up our crumbling infrastructure. That will prime the pump and get the economy moving again.
If we can restore $313 billion in lost wages and then build to an acceptable employment level we'll see billions of dollars billions in added income -- which will leaded to new spending, which creates even more jobs. And the taxes paid by these newly-employed people would go a long was toward reaching the Boehner and Reid goals for cutting the deficit. The remainder could be addressed in a couple of years, once the economy's moving again.
Democracy Fail
The political posturing by leaders of both parties isn't just ruthless, or foolish, or cynical, though it is all of those things. It's counterproductive. The nation's two capitals - its political capital in Washington and its financial capital on Wall Street - aren't just refusing to help the suffering majority. They're actively working to inflict more damage. Don't believe for a moment our leaders will be there for you when you need them. The public will need to pressure them through calls, votes, and demonstrations.
The economy's burning, and the leaders of both parties are treating you the way Rhett Butler treated Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind: Frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn. Or if they do, they've either miscalculated badly or they're too intimidated to say so. Either way, it's up to us to act.
How Did We Get Here? Ask the Bus Driver
By Fuzzyone
As Lovechilde rightly noted earlier today what used to be something routine has been turned by the Republicans into what could be a major economic disaster for the United States and the entire world. While the Republicans should get most of the blame if this occurs, and polls suggest them will, its still worth noting how we got here. I argued in my very first post here that Obama had made a fundimental mistake in adopting the Republican frame that the budget deficit and not jobs or reviving the economy should be the focus of economic policy. Because of this the only argument we are having is how much to cut, not whether budget cutting in a down economy is a good idea.
Obama has also proved to be a terrible negotiator. He could have demanded a debt ceiling increase back in December in exchange for the terrible tax cut deal, which is part of the reason the deficit is so big, but he did not. Way back then Ezra Klein explained the Democrats' logic and why he thought it was faulty. He doubted that the Democratic Party would have the stomach to face down the Republicans. We don't know how the game of chicken will turn out but I think it is tough to argue that the Dems and Obama would be worse off if the debt ceiling had been raised in December.
But its more than that. Robert Kuttner argues persuasively in the American Prospect today that Obama has encouraged the Republican behavior we are now witnessing by training them to keep demanding more, because he will always give them more. Now it may be that they have finally reached the point where he wont give more, but there is no reason for them to think that. This entire presidency has in some ways been a hostage negotiation. The hostage taker is obviously the most culpable party, but if the negotiator does a terrible job he is not without fault.
As Kuttner argues the dynamic that has been created has led to a truly dangerous situation, one that he analogizes to Europe in August 1914--both sides are convinced the other will blink first. If the Democrats can't give in but the Republicans think they will there is a real possibility that this problem does not get solved and then we get to see what exactly that looks like. I suspect its not as bad as World War I, but its not going to be pretty.
As Lovechilde rightly noted earlier today what used to be something routine has been turned by the Republicans into what could be a major economic disaster for the United States and the entire world. While the Republicans should get most of the blame if this occurs, and polls suggest them will, its still worth noting how we got here. I argued in my very first post here that Obama had made a fundimental mistake in adopting the Republican frame that the budget deficit and not jobs or reviving the economy should be the focus of economic policy. Because of this the only argument we are having is how much to cut, not whether budget cutting in a down economy is a good idea.
Obama has also proved to be a terrible negotiator. He could have demanded a debt ceiling increase back in December in exchange for the terrible tax cut deal, which is part of the reason the deficit is so big, but he did not. Way back then Ezra Klein explained the Democrats' logic and why he thought it was faulty. He doubted that the Democratic Party would have the stomach to face down the Republicans. We don't know how the game of chicken will turn out but I think it is tough to argue that the Dems and Obama would be worse off if the debt ceiling had been raised in December.
But its more than that. Robert Kuttner argues persuasively in the American Prospect today that Obama has encouraged the Republican behavior we are now witnessing by training them to keep demanding more, because he will always give them more. Now it may be that they have finally reached the point where he wont give more, but there is no reason for them to think that. This entire presidency has in some ways been a hostage negotiation. The hostage taker is obviously the most culpable party, but if the negotiator does a terrible job he is not without fault.
As Kuttner argues the dynamic that has been created has led to a truly dangerous situation, one that he analogizes to Europe in August 1914--both sides are convinced the other will blink first. If the Democrats can't give in but the Republicans think they will there is a real possibility that this problem does not get solved and then we get to see what exactly that looks like. I suspect its not as bad as World War I, but its not going to be pretty.
When the Cat's Away. . . . .
Image courtesy of www.titlerakk.com
This actor is very good at hiding secrets from his girlfriend. Just last month, his network made public an issue that he has been keeping from his girlfriend. Ever since this expose, he has been seriously thinking of transferring to another network because he felt betrayed.
Well, it seems like this actor is hiding other secrets from his girlfriend. She is clueless that apart from her, her boyfriend is said to be seeing other women on the side. Whenever she goes out of town, the actor would invite different women to his place to spend quality time with him. Obviously, when the cat’s away, the mouse will play.
Do you know who this actor is? Please observe the guidelines in posting comments and be reminded that initials are not allowed. I suggest that you follow micsylim on Twitter for you to get additional clues.
Continue to send your juicy stories to: michaelsylim@gmail.com. Thank you for spreading the love for Fashion PULIS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)