If you listen to some people, Blacks don't graduate at the same rate from college as white students because of affirmative action.
Right now, overall, the percentage of Blacks in college is around 14%.
The number of Blacks with a college degree is around 12% while, for whites, it's about 28%.
I bring this up for one reason:
Study: Most College Students Lack Skills
Jan 19 2:43 PM US/Eastern
By BEN FELLER
Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.Those are the sobering findings of a study of literacy on college campuses, the first to target the skills of students as they approach the start of their careers.
More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks.
More than 50%?
That can't be mainly Black students, can it?
This is one of the reasons why I think the No Child Left Behind act is bad policy:
The majority of Maryland's fourth-graders are either reading whizzes or they are stumbling miserably. It all depends on who is doing the testing.
If it's the federal government, only 32 percent of Maryland's fourth-graders are proficient at reading. But if state educators are accurate, 81 percent of fourth-graders have met a passing standard.
A renewed debate over testing erupted across the country after the release of a new round of national assessments in reading and math that showed enormous gaps between the national tests and the state tests required under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Some educators say states might be setting standards that are too low, in essence dumbing-down their tests to meet a federal requirement that says 100 percent of schoolchildren should be able to pass the exams by 2014.
When Clinton was in office, I believed that the Republicans and conservatives who were crowing about the low moral of the war fighters, "because of Bill Clinton", was taking things too far. In the case of Clinton, it was another case of the "opposition" going too far.
Now, we have this statement by Rep. John Murtha:
Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.
I thought in the past, and I think now, that the enemies of the U.S. read and view our news media. Statements like that quoted, does nothing but give strength to our enemies as well has hurt the moral of our war fighters.
Murtha should know better.
The Civil Rights Movement was about changing public policy to allow full access to the promise of America.
It was about allowing full access to all schools.
It was about allowing full access to the voting booth.
It was about allowing full access to jobs.
It was about allowing full access to opportunities.
It WASN'T about disallowing people to "act the fool". That is a home training and/or moral and/or gray matter issue. It's not a "Civil Rights" issue.
Stopping rappers from spewing filth isn't a "Civil Rights" issue, it is a moral and human rights issue.
Stopping the insane use of "nigger" by Black people is not a "Civil Rights" issue, it is a self-respect issue.
Stopping crime is a moral and community issue not a "Civil Rights" issue.
Lowering the high rate of out of wedlock births is a moral issue and a poverty issue and a social issue, not a "Civil Rights" issue.
At least that's how I see it.
During the too late "debate" concerning the Patriot Act, defenders of the abuse of power asked for instances of government abuse. In particular, I remember Diane Feinstein defending the Patriot Act.
Wiretaps and search warrants require a high level of proof and permission from a judge. The tools in the Patriot Act are fully consistent with the U.S. Constitution. As Senator Diane Feinstein said, "I have no reported abuses."
OK, so what about this?
Previously classified documents being released Monday show numerous misuses of FBI surveillance, including improper searches and seizures of e-mails and bank records, The Washington Post reported in Monday's editions.The documents, which were turned over under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, show that FBI auditors have investigated hundreds of potential violations related to the agency's domestic surveillance since Sept. 11, 2001, the Post said.
Some of the violations found in the documents included:
- FBI agents failing to file annual updates on ongoing surveillance, as required by Justice Department guidelines.
- A violation of bank privacy statutes.
- An improper physical search.
- Improper collection of e-mails after warrants had expired.
Convicted Calif. sex offender shot, killed by alleged victim
Convicted Calif. sex offender shot, killed by alleged victim
Friday, September 16, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A northern Idaho man who was shot and killed by a woman he was attacking was a registered sex offender convicted in California, Bonner County Sheriff's Capt. John Valdez says.
A 34-year-old Clark Fork woman shot Christopher Michael Schmidt, 42, Tuesday night during a struggle after she gave him a ride home, Valdez said.
"He grabbed her and physically attacked her and told her she was coming with him," Valdez told the Spokesman-Review newspaper of Spokane, Wash. "There was a struggle and she couldn't overcome him. All the physical evidence matches what she says, all down the line."
----
I lubs me some pistol packin' mommas!
Let's examine some of the details of the speech.
| What Was Said | My Comment |
|---|---|
| Right now, many are sleeping on ships we have brought to the Port of New Orleans -- and more ships are on their way to the region. And we'll provide mobile homes, and supply them with basic services, as close to construction areas as possible, so the rebuilding process can go forward as quickly as possible. | Don't people make jokes about living in a trailer park. |
| Federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone, from roads and bridges to schools and water systems. Our goal is to get the work done quickly. And taxpayers expect this work to be done honestly and wisely -- so we'll have a team of inspectors general reviewing all expenditures. | This was directed at people, like myself, who have commented on the wasteful spending of Homeland Security. |
| Our third commitment is this: When communities are rebuilt, they must be even better and stronger than before the storm. Within the Gulf region are some of the most beautiful and historic places in America. As all of us saw on television, there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality. When the streets are rebuilt, there should be many new businesses, including minority-owned businesses, along those streets. When the houses are rebuilt, more families should own, not rent, those houses. When the regional economy revives, local people should be prepared for the jobs being created. | In one paragraph, he comments on racism and the legacy it leaves. That seems to be what some Blacks say about racism in America and why poverty is high in the Black community. For those who say Blacks need to own more businesses, he also touches upon that as well. His comment seems to go against those comments and articles that point out a struggle in New Orleans to change the racial makeup of the city as a result of Katrina. |
| Tonight I propose the creation of a Gulf Opportunity Zone, encompassing the region of the disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. Within this zone, we should provide immediate incentives for job-creating investment, tax relief for small businesses, incentives to companies that create jobs, and loans and loan guarantees for small businesses, including minority-owned enterprises, to get them up and running again. It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region. | Empowerment Zones! That used to be a big talking point for Republicans. But, I've noticed that Empowerment Zones seem to have lost favor with them, although Black politicians seem to like the idea. |
| I propose the creation of Worker Recovery Accounts to help those evacuees who need extra help finding work. Under this plan, the federal government would provide accounts of up to $5,000, which these evacuees could draw upon for job training and education to help them get a good job, and for child care expenses during their job search. | OK, now this seems like Job Corp. I haven't heard many people speaking out against that concept. So, what's not to like about this one? |
| And to help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives, I also propose that Congress pass an Urban Homesteading Act. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery. In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity. Home ownership is one of the great strengths of any community, and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of this region. | Here we have another effort to get more people into houses they own. Given the CBC's efforts to provide programs for home ownership, this should be cheered by them. And Blacks building homes in the area should blunt the gentrification charge a little bit. |
This seems like a strong shot across the bow of the Democrats and the support of Democrats by Blacks.
Empowerment zones?
Vouchers for schools?
Business creation?
Funding for home ownership?
It sounds like a New Deal with the Republican twist. And, I have to say, I don't see how Black Democrat politicians can not support what was proposed. So, he just defanged the CBC as they were trying to grow back their canine teeth.
The President's speech was really a lot of hot air. What comes next is the House and the Senate going through their processes to get the bill, pun intended, on the President's desk.
But, there are storm clouds forming. Already there are complaints coming from some Republicans asking how this is going to be funded.
For the Black people who say "Bush doesn't care about Blacks," given that Blacks will be the primary recipients, it seems like those comments are "shown" to be false.
For me, I say wait until the bill is signed and watch what programs are cut to pay for NOLA repair.
The game is on!
After I do some work around the house, (I took off today after pulling
massive hours doing work in FL), I'm going to break down the Bush
speech.
I am prompted to do so because, like I said, there are things that
Blacks should like in the speech. Plus, after seeing excepts of last
night's Nightline, where Blacks in the Texas Dome like what they
heard, if this gets through, the Dems are in a world of hurt.
Lets be real for a moment. How can Dems claim people are racist to
support what Bush says? How can Black Dems call supporters of what
Bush said, sellouts or Uncle Toms?
Uhhh....
The speech sounded good.
He hit things Blacks, in theory, should support.
More later after sleep.
Have I mentioned that business travel gets old?
Right now, one of the things being discussed in the aftermath of Katrina is race.
Well, as usual, it's infantile if you ask me.
But, THIS is what should be watched. This is race in America, 2005: Old-line families plot the future. Note the class issues that are also involved.
The power elite of New Orleans -- whether they are still in the city or have moved temporarily to enclaves such as Destin, Fla., and Vail, Colo. -- insist the remade city won't simply restore the old order. New Orleans before the flood was burdened by a teeming underclass, substandard schools and a high crime rate. The city has few corporate headquarters.The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically," he says. "I'm not just speaking for myself here. The way we've been living is not going to happen again, or we're out."
...
Black politicians have controlled City Hall here since the late 1970s, but the wealthy white families of New Orleans have never been fully eclipsed. Stuffing campaign coffers with donations, these families dominate the city's professional and executive classes, including the white-shoe law firms, engineering offices, and local shipping companies. White voters often act as a swing bloc, propelling blacks or Creoles into the city's top political jobs. That was the case with Mr. Nagin, who defeated another African American to win the mayoral election in 2002.
The government fails, time and time again, and it is due to its massive size, politics, hubris, incompetance, and graft.
While I wasn't blogging when the Department of Homeland Security was created, I stated in web forums and email lists that creating that department was nothing but a waste of time and money.
If its main job was to prevent another 9/11, all that had to be done was to add a cabinet position to head over seeing of the different 3 letter agencies to make sure that they share information in a timely and efficient manner. Then all that had to be done was to give that position the authority to fire people at will and remove regulations that prevented information from being shared. That position should also have had an inside track to be able to go to congress and state what laws needed to be changed or removed to bring down the legal barriers between the different 3 letter agencies.
Note: Some of those laws are the reason for "The Wall" and those laws are on the books because of prior abuses by the different 3 letter agencies. I know this, but some of the resulting regulations were a burden.
As anyone should be able to see right now, putting FEMA under Homeland Defense was a stupid move. And putting Brown in charge of FEMA was also a stupid move. Yes, it was everyday politics, but the man is in over his head.
Before the hurricane, the mayor of New Orleans said that because of the size of the hurricane, the people of NOLA would be essentially on their own. After the hurricane hit, he was on the air, rightly, blasting lack of a response from the federal government.
Well, he should have included local government and state government in that, but he didn't.
Note: I'm on the road again and I just don't feel like web surfing to find the links to back what I'm writing. Yeah, I'm lazy, cranky, my head hurts, and I ate some bad airport food that is tearing my stomach up. So go look for it for yourself.
The local and state authorities told those who couldn't get out to go to the Super Dome. They did. Then they were subject to searches before being allowed to enter the Dome. The local authorites in the Dome, apparently, couldn't do anything about the criminals who entered the Dome and took advantage of the situation. They should have let people keep knives and such.
Note: I've started to question what is being reported about the crime. Not because of race issues, but because of things like this. Yeah, I linked it. It's in another tab right now, that's why.
Trying to get back on track....
The local and state government failed those who couldn't get out. They failed the hospitals. When the local police were in search and rescue mode, they let the looters rules, so they failed to protect those who needed protecting.
The authorities are sending children without parents or guardians to locations outside of LA. Now you have parentless children, possibly STATES away from their family. Children are being harmed while being saved. This is like foster care. When it goes right, it goes right. When it goes wrong, the foster care system destroys families and harms kids. (Don't. Even. Get. Me. Going. About. The. Foster. Care. System).
There is a radio interview being played on talk radio concerning a woman who is relaying her experience with FEMA. FEMA asked her for an address. She has none. They asked her for her telephone number. She has none. She was calling from a temporary space set up by Allstate. The location? A field. They asked for a fax number. She had none.
Oh, and let us not forget about the NOLA evacuation plan that called for buses to be used to transport people out of The Big Easy. Instead, they are flooded.
That's the government in action.
The government is best at confiscating money from tax payers. But otherwise, people should consider to be on your own and operate from that premise.
If you didn't know before, now you know.
And to anyone who is surprised by what I'm writing, it's because you never asked, otherwise I would have told you something like this before.
That line is from Pink Floyd, "The Wall". I think about the song when the talk show pundits, spinmasters, and liars "discuss" the Able Danger situation.
We are going to discuss the 3 letter goverment agencies: NSA, CIA, and FBI.
The NSA is the evesdropping agency of the the United States. Because of prior abuses by this agency, the NSA is bound by law to only do its spying on entities outside of the geographic boundaries of the U.S. Entities are people and American owned businesses. Additionally, anyone legally in the U.S. is considered to be, for the sake of spying, a U.S. citizen.
The CIA is a "spying" organization of the U.S. It is allowed to conduct espionage activities in the defense of the United States.
The FBI is a law enforcement organization of the U.S. It is allowed to "spy" on U.S. citizens for the purposes of gathering information to be used in the prosecution of individuals believed to have committed crimes.
What does this have to do with "The Wall"?
Everything!
Let's use this story that appeared in the UK Times Online as the discussion point.
According to Colonel Shaffer, a small, highly secret intelligence unit known as Able Danger had used data-sorting techniques to identify Atta and his accomplices as possible US-based terrorists by mid-2000, but military lawyers prevented the team from sharing their information.
Colonel Shaffer said that lawyers working for the Special Operations Command of the Defence Department, cancelled the meetings because they believed that the surveillance techniques used by Able Danger could be understood as a violation of the rights of people who were living legally in the US.
That's all you really need to read. The information about the terrorist group was collected on people who legally reside in the U.S. If there was concern about breaking The LAW, how can this be blamed on the Clinton administration and the so-called "Wall" that the "Clinton administration put in place"?
The fact is, the "Wall" is a set of laws enacted before Clinton was in office. It is NOT a set of regulations or guidelines put in place by each administration.
Background information of the 3 agencies listed and more.
This is the reason why the congress-criters, who all know that the alternative minimum tax is a problem, aren't doing a thing about it.
"When the stock market took a nosedive, we were stuck with huge amount of AMT which we could not pay even if we sold all the stocks that we exercised," said one recent letter. "My brother was hit by the AMT and is now facing financial ruin," said another.For a host of worthy reasons, Connie Mack, a former U.S. senator who chairs the panel, reported it will recommend repealing the AMT.
He had no sooner uttered these words when a chorus of voices said the government's accounts couldn't stand the revenue loss, which would have to be made up some other way.
As always, follow the money.
OK, I've been writing that Ward Connerly has taken advantage of affirmative action programs. I have no problem with people taking advantage of such programs.
I've come to understand affirmative action programs, in government contracts, as being pure set asides OR requirements that companies who win government contracts use some percentage of "disadvantaged companies" as subcontractors. Here "disadvantaged companies" tend to mean minority and/or women owned companies.
LaShawn Barber found it "repugnant" that I mention this because in previous "discussions", she has mentioned that she discussed this with him and he denied it.
So, I did some Googling...
The African American website had this:
Though some of his critics believed that Wilson contributed to his success, others disagreed. In addition, a Jet article cited a story in the San Francisco Chronicle which stated that he had accepted $140,000 over the years in affirmative action contracts from the government. Though roughly half of his business did indeed come from the government, Connerly disputed that it was affirmative action money, telling Donna St. George of the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, "I don't think there's a minority around who hasn't benefited from the climate of inclusion that affirmative action has fostered. But I have never gone after the preference." He mentioned that he never listed himself on minority rosters, nor did he apply for minority "set-asides." However, Ayres in the New York Times reported that Connerly had indeed listed his firm as minority-owned in order to "keep all the benefits of a government contract." Pooley in Time, on the other hand, noted that Connerly had only disclosed his race after it was required.
The article mentioned is one that Ms. Barber said that Connerly disputed. The full article can be found here.
A follow up article by the Chronicle stated the following:
Contrary to the report, Connerly did not register as a minority businessman before receiving a 1989 contract for $1.1 million. Kent Smith, executive director of the Energy Commission, said he erred when he told The Chronicle that the contract was awarded under the state affirmative action law.
Although the law had been enacted when the contract was awarded, the law was not implemented at the Energy Commission until 1990.
It then continues:
Connerly did, however, receive two Energy Commission contracts in 1992 and 1994 as a minority businessman and agent for the California Building Officials, a group that, by law, had to be trained in energy conservation. The contracts were legally awarded without competitive bidding.
Furthermore, records made public this week by the Energy Commission show that Connerly again enlisted in the minority program on April 26 and May 4 of this year -- but the two contracts he sought were awarded to other bidders.
...
In an effort to explain his use of the program, Connerly submitted a statement last month to the Energy Commission that read in part: `We are disclosing our group identities solely because the state procurement process requires that minority and women owned businesses be used and it would work an extreme disadvantage to the proposer of this proposal to involve an additional subcontractor merely to comply with the (minority) requirement.'
This comes from the first article:
Connerly, in an interview, acknowledged that his firm participated in the `repugnant' race-based program, but he denied that it was affirmative action. Instead, he characterized the program as a `policy that requires that every contract . . . include participation of at least 15 percent of minority businesses and 5 percent of women.'
OK, that looks like an affirmative action program. In fact, this type of requirement has been called such and fought against by people who disagree with affirmative action. Lastly, Connerly filed a law suit against the law that required contractors to get minority contractor participation, but after the report.
Unless I'm missing something here, it looks like he took advantage of affirmative action programs. It doesn't matter that he didn't go after "disadvantaged" set asides or "disadvantaged" company participation.
Frank Rich writes an editorial in the New York Times arguing that the outing of Valerie Plame and the prosecution of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper represent something far worse than Watergate. It represents nothing less than the crumbling of American democracy. While I think Rich has the kernel of a case here--given the decline of transparency, and the decline of investigative reporting--he's definitely off his rocker. And while some bloggers seem to understand, they all neglect a painfully obvious point.
The whistleblower that needed to be protected in this case was Wilson. The best way to protect him was to punish the person/s responsible for outing his wife. The best way to do this was to get the journalists aware of the person/s to reveal that information to the public.
Though it is apparent to me that Robert Novak should be the one behind bars, I cannot think of any other way to get what is now commonplace knowledge.
For some reason, Rich is actually arguing that ROVE is the one needing protection, that protecting Rove protects the third estate.
When nothing could be further from the truth.
Some thoughts on the fact that local governments can now, in the open, take your land for private use:
In a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can take your property under the guise of public good, and then give/sell the stolen property to a private interest.
Before, when the government did it, it had to sneak to do it. Now they have "the right" to do it in the open.
Let's see...
A developer lines the pockets of select politicians and then asks the local government to consider a block of property for "improvement." Those politicians who are on the take have received donations from the developer, then push through an "urban renewal plan" that benefits the "public good". They then grab your property, pay you "fair cost" which is less than what you could get if you sold it on your own, and then "sell it" to the developer for a little more than the government paid. The developer then makes a killing "renewing" the property.
So one of the best ways to ensure security for your heirs, is now gone.
This really stinks.
More later...
This is rough. Real rough. I wanted to put it out a few days ago, but it got lost. So, I'm just throwing this out here now.
Years ago, Kurt Schmoke said that the U.S. needs to consider decriminalizing or legalizing drugs to take the profit motive out of the drug trade. That would cause the violence and crime associated with the drug trade to go down.
I somewhat disagree.
Would crime related to drugs go down? Sure. But that's because of the change in legal status. The question to ask is will the crimes committed by people on drugs go up, stay the same, or go down?
Let's assume the government taxes the sale of drugs. What do you think is going to happen to the money? Do you think it will go towards addiction programs?
No. It will go towards the general government fund where the politicians will spend it at their will. That's what happened with the tobacco settlement money. Most of it went to other purposes, not towards tobacco use prevention and addiction programs.
Amersterdam is shown as the model for drug legalization but the proponents don't examine the rise in addiction nor do they examine the break down of families of drug users.
People like to point out that the end of alcohol prohibition took out the profit motive for the mob to be involved in alcohol production and distribution.
Not exactly. "Moonshine" production and distribution still occurs. It is a low key multi-million dollar business.
Let's assume it does become decriminalized. What would the local dealers do? Maybe run cigarettes? In New York and Maryland, states with high cigarette taxes, state authorities are finding out there is a growing business in shipment of cigarettes to get around the taxes placed on them.
My point? New illegal areas of making money will be found.
Why not concentrate of getting kids to not get involved in selling drugs in the first place? Maybe the problem is it is "harder".
Earlier Scalia had said, “In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.”
So, this year I had to write another check to the I.R.S., and again I wasn't happy. I made, what I thought were, the necessary adjustments and still I owed. But at least I didn't get caught in the A.M.T. trap that 2 other people I know did.
The A.M.T. has been talked about by politicians on both sides of the aisle, yet nothing has been done about it.
Why? Could it be because they both want to spend our money? Naaaahhhhhhhhh. We know only the Democrats spend our money.
So, I was sent a link about a government program that over spent its budget by hundreds of millions of dollars, is running late, isn't going to produce what was supposed to be produced, and is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars more to "complete".
Wonderful.
I have to sign onto an idea I heard somewhere else.
Let everyone who gets a check from their employer be responsible for sending in their own taxes. That way, when the government does something silly with our tax money, maybe the public will feel the pain and do more demanding on the public officials to spend our money better.
I guess I should mention that I get rowdy about taxes this time of year. And I guess I should mention that I was told that the A.M.T. will get more people next year and in 5 years, about 60% of middle class families are going to get hit.
So, why are the congress-criters not doing anything?
Of the Sunday talking head shows, Fox Sunday and Meet the Press are the cream of the crop. Meet the Press, in my opinion, towers above all. Russert really is non-partial in his questioning and does not let the politicians get away with much.
Today, I saw Fox Sunday but not Meet the Press. If you watched the show, and if you are not so much of a partisan that you just refuse to admit "your side" is ingenuous, then you have to admit that the Republican and Democratic senators discussing judges and the blockage of voting for judge appointees are a good reason why politicans are held in such low regard.
Fact: Republicans did not allow many of Clinton's appointees to get a vote by using secret holds or just refusing to allow appointees to get a vote in the conference committee. If Republicans want to discuss constitutional issues, then they have to admit that there is no constitutional support for conference committees in the Constitution.
Fact: Democrats are not allowing some appointees to get a vote by invoking the fillibuster tactics. Republicans have firm ground in saying that judge appointees, by tradition, have not been fillibustered, although there is one situation in the 1800s that it happened.
From my point of view, they both came off looking like snake-oil salesmen. They both are playing the American public for fools.
Now, why in the world would any politican want to do something this stupid?
Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.
"We're looking for responsible businesses to ante up . . . and provide adequate health care," said Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles), the Finance Committee chairman, as the Senate approved the measure with a majority wide enough to survive an anticipated veto. A similar bill has cleared the House of Delegates, and legislators expect to reconcile their differences easily.
Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits -- or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.
But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.
It's one thing to have the "not in my back yard" nut jobs crying about WalMart (while shopping there!), it's totally another thing to create a bill targeting ONE COMPANY and dictating what they have to provide, IN THE FORM OF BENEFITS to the employees!
There are no laws, until now, that requires a company to provide health care! In fact, to me, it makes no sense!
This is going to come back and bite Maryland WalMart shoppers, MANY OF WHOM ARE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, in the ass.
Why?
Do you think WalMart is going to eat this cost? No. They are going to pass the expense on to the customers!
Or, they will do something like provide it's own health care service, which turns out to be no damn good.
Unbelievable.
Give me 100% of the money I already put in.
OR
Give me a federal tax credit for 100% of the money I already put in.
Let me direct investment of the 12.4% of soc. sec. tax that comes out of my check either as employee or owner. Of that 12.4%, allow me to direct what ever is needed for long term disability, life insurance, and long term care.
I'll settle for 50% and 6.2%. The other 6.2% goes towards current retirees and zeroes out when no one else is left on the old system.
No max on IRAs of any kind.
Remove the cap on social security.
These links are presented without comment:
Sleeping lawyers in the court room.
BUSH: Couple issues I do want to talk about, Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life. (Cheers and applause.) This is a complex case, with serious issues. But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.
The Senate voted yes on drilling in ANWR:
The provision would allow oil companies to drill in a coastal plain that covers about 1.5 million acres of the wildlife refuge, which encompasses a total of about 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. More than 10 billion barrels of crude oil are estimated to lie under the refuge, and President Bush today urged that they be tapped to help ease high fuel prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Big whoop. Let's suppose drilling in ANWR happens. Will it really reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil?
Uhh... no?
Think about this for a bit.
Global companies will extract the oil. The oil will be refined at locations that can be any place in the world. It may be refined in the U.S. or it may be refined outside of the U.S. But that still doesn't matter.
The global companies will then send the refined products to where ever the market dictates that it go.
There is no guarantee that the refined product will go to the U.S. for further refining (turning into plastic products) or consumption (fuel).
Thus the opening of ANWR and reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil can't be determined because the oil will go where the market determines it needs to go.
Some believe that China will be the place that it goes because of the growing demand and the growing economy.
It's more oil on the market, but ANWR doesn't appear to be a big enough reserve to make a difference on the global market.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to drill in ANWR, I'm just saying people are being given vaporware.
Hat tips: Ramblings Journal
From the Black Commentator:
Instead, the BET founder, who was an early backer of Social Security privatization and organized fellow wealthy Blacks in support of George Bushs bid to repeal the Estate Tax, crafted an agenda designed to peel African Americans away from the Democratic Party
Every once in awhile BC fires off a good nugget.
This ISN'T one of those times.
So what if Johnson asks these questions? Is BC afraid that more Blacks will see things differently and give more consideration to the Republicans?
I'm not one for saying Blacks should go for Republicans because "it's not good to have all eggs in one basket" but this article makes me look and wonder they are afraid to leave Dems behind.
What good is giving the Dems the votes and having no power associated with the votes?
(reprinted in full with permission)
We are the editors of the Research/Information Portal at www.blackprogress.net, which currently features several links to reports, papers, articles, commentaries, critiques, websites/initiatives, etc. that reflect all ideological & political perspectives on topics such as: Business/Entrepreneurship/Capital; Fostering Educational Excellence; The Cosby Indictment & Call to Action; Wealth-Building/The Wealth Gap/Financial & Economic Empowerment; Etc.
We are currently compiling similar information on Social Security Reform & African Americans but have yet to locate any rigorous research/analyses (empirical or non-empirical) that examine the issue -- beyond op-eds -- by black conservative economists and policy analysts. We are therefore posting this message on black conservative/centrist blog sites to seek your help in locating such analyses. (We have located a few by "liberal" economists/analysts such as those at the end of this post.)
It would, of course, be great to have more vigorous discourse on this and other economic issues that are important to African Americans by black conservative, liberal, and moderate analysts/economists alike--discourse that is backed by solid analyses and goes beyond recitation of the talking points of the respective ideological and partisan political groups.
For example, it would have been nice to see such black analysts join the recent debate (?) between Paul Krugman & the Heritage Foundation's David C. John and William W. Beach--see: "Consider A Few Facts About African Americans and Social Security" -- http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012805e.cfm
This brings up a larger question: Why is there no vibrant black conservative think-tank that does rigorous research & analyses on critical issues such as black entrepreneurship and market-based approaches for fostering educational and economic progress in inner-cities, for example?
Such an organization would have been an obvious prominent player in President Bush's Urban Entrepreneur Partnership initiative -- http://www.kauffman.org/news.cfm/582
-- which, interestingly, includes the National Urban League, but not a black conservative organization.
If black conservatives do not think that a black conservative think-tank that counters the liberal Joint Center is necessary (in the way that a Project 21 is in general public discourse), are there black economists/policy analysts at top conservative/libertarian think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution (besides Dr. Thomas Sowell)?
If there are, we'd like to locate their publications. We have checked the websites of Dr. Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University and found no recent scholarly work by them on contemporary black economic development issues (entrepreneurship, wealth-building, etc.), which is perhaps understandable since they are close to retirement. And, of course, they do not have to do any work in this area just because they are black, but it would be nice to have a few black conservative intellectuals in think-tanks doing intellectually rigorous work on critical issues that impact black economic progress.
We recall that the Center for New Black Leadership was founded about 10 years ago for such a purpose, but the organization has yet to have a significant impact and appears to be inactive (the website -- http://www.cnbl.org/ -- currently has no information other than "The future home of the Centre for New Black Leadership").
Many critics of black conservatives wonder why wealthy black Republicans/conservatives, and/or the wealthy individuals and organizations that fund the big and influential think-tanks cited above, cannot finance one that focuses on African American issues.
Establishment of a think-tank that vigorously advances intellectual and policy discourse would be one way of heeding the exhortation by Black conservative & Bush supporter Robert Woodson [National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise], who reportedly noted in the May 1996 issue of Headway magazine:
"In general Black conservatives have not defined themselves in a positive manner. Too many have been reflexive "me-too" conservatives, merely echoing the views and opinions of established white conservatives and their stands against affirmative action, set-asides, and the welfare system?It is important for Black conservatives to offer positive alternatives to be originators of ideas that go beyond the bi-polar debates of the left and the right ... that Black conservatives should be less concerned about what they call themselves, but rather, be concerned how their actions define them in the eyes of everyday people, particularly their own people."
The recent Armstrong Williams debacle has only reinforced "the black-conservatives-are-sellouts stereotype", as blogger LaShawn Barber laments -- http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/08/armstrong/#more-861
As a research/policy/business-oriented entity that promotes discourse and innovative solutions to problems, we at blackprogress.net believe that establishing a vibrant black conservative think-tank that does independent intellectual and practical, action-oriented work to foster entrepreneurship and other market-based solutions for black economic and educational progress (parental education, academic excellence, etc.) will help to destroy these stereotypes.
This will be a potent way to seize the black leadership mantle rather than simply assailing the current black leadership. Perhaps the Heritage Foundation conference on Feb 24 ("Responding to the Call: The New Black Vanguard Conference" -- http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev022405a.cfm) will go beyond bashing liberal leaders (however well-deserved) and examine this and other ways.
We'd greatly appreciate any relevant information. Thank you.
editor@blackprogress.net
///////////////////
Changing Social Security: The Impact on African Americans
http://www.jointcenter.org/news1/NewsDetail.php?recordID=24
The Social Security Privatization Crisis: Assessing the Impact on African
American Families. Maya Rockeymoore, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation,
January 2005
http://cbcfinc.org/pdf/CBCFSocialSecurityPrivatizationReport4.pdf
African Americans and Social Security. Why the Privatization Advocates Are
Wrong. WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/1104spriggs.html
Social Security Privatization and African Americans: A Comparative Analysis.
Nwafor. Journal of Black Studies. 2005; 35: 248-266
http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/248
When it's a government handout for something you believe in.
Conservatives have castigated the Black community for "relying on government handouts." However, those same conservatives, for the most part, support the idea of giving money to Black churches, and churches in general, to fund programs that the church may offer.
Personally, I really don't have a problem with the idea. It should be up to the individual church to decide if they want to deal with the regulations involved with getting money from the government.
But, rhetorically speaking, I find it interesting that NOW it's okay to accept the government handout.
When social security reform is mentioned, I keep asking about survivor benefits and disability benefits.
I love the idea about having money in private accounts. But, that doesn't mean the plans shouldn't be investigated.
From Salon:
To begin with, there is no evidence that blacks, as a group, are cheated by Social Security. Yes, whites do live longer than blacks, which means that the average white woman will collect more benefit checks than the average black man. But, Baker points out, blacks also generally make less money than whites, which means that they get a higher rate of return on their contributions to the system. And because African-Americans suffer higher rates of disability than whites, they draw more from Social Security's disability benefits than whites. Meanwhile, spouses and minor children of African-Americans heavily depend on the system's survivor benefits. When economists have studied all that blacks put into the system compared with all they get out of it, Baker says, blacks, as a group, aren't being treated unfairly -- and they may even be doing better than whites.
I will have to look at the numbers to make a conclusion, although something tells me all of the numbers are cooked.
In a Social Security briefing paper, Shelton declares that "almost 80 percent of African Americans over age 65 depend on Social Security for more than half of their income, and more than half rely on it for 90 percent or more of their income." Basically, she writes, "without the guaranteed Social Security benefits they receive today, the poverty rate among older African Americans would more than double, pushing most African American seniors into squalor and poverty during their most vulnerable years."
OK, the Republicans pulled the race card and now the opposition is pulling out their own race cards.
Armstrong Williams has lost media outlets. What about the others?
Armstrong Williams needs to disclose the names of other people who he knows also accepts money. Or, he needs to say that he will give those people X days to disclose themselves or he will do it.
Publicly, this will give the public an idea of what is going on with media pundits, whether they are partisans, idealists, or hired guns.
This is smelling on two levels. The first, it seems as though Armstrong Williams is being treated more harshly than others. Second, I wonder more how much this really goes on.
I was cruising LaShawn's site and found her inveighing against thoughtcrime. It makes sense, but I think there are two important thigs she's overlooking in actual hate crimes. Motive & Method.
As I said in my Boohabian Hate Crime Standard.
To win a hate crime prosecution, the prosecution has to show a clear expression of group hatred through the felony. It is not a "hate crime" merely because the perpetrator hates people of that group. The crime has to be intended to communicate that hatred of the group to the victim. The idea that police search for hidden hate motivations is antithetical to the notion of hate crime. Hate crime statutes don't enhance your punishment merely for thinking bad thoughts. They enhance your punishment for committing your crime in a manner that creates added psychological injury to the victim and society.
In other words, hate crime is terrorism. It is a crime done not simply out of animus against the victim, but against a group. Committing a hate crime means, or should mean if prosecutors have their heads on straight, that it is a crime designed to intimidate people who were not around. You don't spraypaint 'Nigger' on somebody's sidewalk just to intimidate the residents of one house, but everyone in the neighborhood. You don't car bomb a police station to get back at the cops who arrested you, but to intimidate everyone who depends on the police.
We ask juries all the time to assess the motive of the suspect. Its the entire difference between first and second degree murder. What did the suspect intend to accomplish with this crime. That's the difference. A Hate Crime Standard should mean nothing more nor less than this, was it a terroristic crime. Was it designed to intimidate, or to 'send a message'? If so, then I think rational people will understand and have even less tolerance for that kind of criminal, and their acts.
Can someone tell me who has the right numbers concerning the health of social security? By this I mean, when will money coming in under run money going out? How are they basing the projections of money coming in? How can they guess, accurately, the state of the economy 10, 20, 30+ years when they can't accurately guess the state of the economy next year? In fact, the government routinely adjusts economic numbers for the recent past.
They can project the life expectancy of people years in advance. Life insurance companies do it as a matter of survival. But they are constantly adjusting the numbers. How can politicians, today, work off of tables that will be adjusted next year, the year after that, the year after that, and so on?
Those supporting social security reform, do so based on nonsense numbers. Those opposing social security reform, do so based on nonsense numbers.
GIGO is the rule.
Good night.
At last, an honest mayor!
D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams cited the "urgent need" to collect revenue in his recent request to continue the city's automated traffic-enforcement program, which added four new cameras yesterday, despite previous assurances that use of the technology is driven by concerns for safety, not profits. "There is an urgent need for the approval of this contract to ensure the continued processing of District tickets and the collection of District revenues," Mr. Williams wrote in a Dec. 16 letter to D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp. In the letter, Mr. Williams was seeking support for the District's $14.6 million contract with ACS State and Local Solutions, which the council later approved. ACS, a private company, handles fines for the city's automated traffic-enforcement program.
Wonderful...
OK, this one made me shout at my television:
Bush, Clinton to Lead Tsunami Fund Raising By JENNIFER LOVENWASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush enlisted two former presidents for an ambitious private fund-raising drive for victims of the deadly tsunami on Monday, asking Americans to open their wallets to help the millions left homeless, hungry and injured.
"The devastation in the region defies comprehension," Bush said as he announced the campaign to be led by his father and Bill Clinton. "I ask every American to contribute as they are able to do so."
...
Under the new fund-raising drive, to be coordinated by the White House's USA Freedom Corps, an office that encourages volunteering, Clinton and the first President Bush will solicit donations by doing media interviews and traveling the country. They also will tap into their own networks of contacts to try to pry donations from corporations, foundations and the wealthy, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
What the hell???????
Why is this needed? The American people are stepping up to the plate. For example, donations to Catholic Charities is pouring in at a great rate. I heard that Amazon users, ALONE, have donated more money than some countries.
So why is this necessary?
Is it part of George W. Bush's larger goal of using public money to fund religious programs that address problems in the society? By "encouraging private donations", the idea of getting government out of that business is made stronger. But, it's not necessary! He's getting the government involved in private donations.
Is it part of his larger goal of setting up his brother, Jeb, to make a strong run for president?
He has tapped Jeb Bush to go overseas to "head" relief efforts. Why does he have to go over there? Sure, Florida suffered with hurricanes, but Florida and the U.S. government STILL haven't gotten things straightened out yet.
Why else would Jeb Bush write a Washington Post editorial concerning education in Florida?
This makes no sense otherwise. There is no need for the federal government to be involved in coordinating private efforts. This is another waste of money, like the Department of Homeland Security is a waste of money.
Lately, I've been hearing more people refer to criminals in high crime areas as terrorists. I've been hearing more people refer to drug dealers who apply fear to the neighborhoods where they do their criminal activities as terrorists. I've been hearing people say that the dealers using intimidation is nothing more than terrorism.
I am not a wordsmith and I am guilty of loose use of the American version of English, but the use of terrorism and terrorist, as I have given it, is an abuse of the language that should not be allowed to stand.
I understand the seriousness of crime in some areas. I helped board up a dwelling that was being used as a drug den. A police officer saw what we were doing, parked his car, and watched. Later, the people who wanted to get into the dwelling undid our work and continued to do what they did. The only reason why we boarded up the dwelling is because complaints to the city about the problem resulted in nothing. About 2 years later, a 70-80 something year old woman was dragged into that dwelling and raped. The woman was kind to everyone in the neighborhood. One teenage girl heard what happened and told the police that some people in that dwelling had raped her as well. The city then tore down the building.
If the authorities did their jobs, from policing, to applying correct terms to those convicted, to keeping them locked up when they have committed violent crimes, more people would be willing to speak up and help out the authorities.
We don't need to call criminals terrorists. We need to call them criminals and deal with them as such.
This move by the Archdiocese Of Baltimore would tick me off. This may be an example that voucher opponents may use in the future.
There is no freedom of movement here.
Transfer edict angers parents Catholic education chief bans midyear enrollment; Three schools merging into one; Decision made to prevent 'mass exodus' by pupils
By Lynn Anderson
Sun StaffDecember 27, 2004
Plans by the Archdiocese Of Baltimore to combine three Catholic schools next fall to cut costs and boost enrollment are angering some parents of children who attend.
They are particularly upset about an edict by the Catholic school system's superintendent prohibiting other schools in the archdiocese from accepting midyear transfers from the affected schools - St. Anthony of Padua, St. Dominic and Shrine of the Little Flower schools - for fear of a mass exodus.
Parents who don't want their children to attend the new combined school are calling Superintendent Ronald J. Valenti's decree - issued in a letter to principals shortly after the Nov. 17 merger announcement - unfair. They worry that if they wait too long to change where they enroll their children, all the open seats will be taken.
"He wants everyone to give the new school a chance, and so he is strong-arming everyone and not allowing them to transfer in the middle of the school year," said Lilly Santmyer, the mother of a third-grader at St. Dominic School in Hamilton. "It is unheard-of. I don't get it."
Parents say they are concerned that the new school - housed at St. Anthony's in Gardenville and named after Mother Mary Lange, a Haitian who became a nun after opening the first Catholic school for black children in Baltimore in 1828 - will offer a different curriculum and larger class sizes. They say detailed information, including preschool schedules, has been slow to come out.
Is it just me, or is all of the talk about Social Security reform missing commentary about survior and disability benefits?
As the failed policies of the War on Drugs tread a furious 11th hour conflationary path into the failing policies of the War on Terror, Stanley Crouch - taking a long overdue queue from the former mayor of Baltimore Kurt Schmoke - drops a little common sense.
"For safer world, legalize drugs....,
The recent reduction of the harsh mandatory sentencing once common to New York drug laws makes an interesting combination when thought of with the concept of legalized, taxable gambling. I say that because the real solution to the drug problem this country faces has little to do with how much time some lightweight drug pusher or user is sentenced to spend behind bars. It is not about finding better ways to get the big guys and put them where they belong. That's all a waste of time.
What we need to do is legalize all the drugs and face the consequences. That's right. With drug dealers put out of business, I am sure those consequences would be much less dangerous - and much less expensive - to our society. Legalization could not even begin to approach the downside in the illegal dope world - torture, murder, beatings and sexual exploitation.
Drug money is very nearly the petroleum of the most violent criminal world. It is the fuel that keeps the destructive engine running. Drug violence dramatically influences the nature of public health. The violence perpetuated by drug gangs fighting over turf is one of the bloody burdens the lower class must bear. The health costs of treating those with gunshot wounds, whether actual members of the trade or innocent bystanders, must amount to hundreds of millions over the last 30 years. All those bandages, all of those operations, all of that rehabilitation, all of those crutches, prescriptions, painkillers and wheelchairs.
None of it is free.
So while states, including this one, are considering legal gambling as a way to raise their tax revenues and provide better services for their citizens, I believe that they should start thinking about the same thing in the area of illegal drugs. The taxes from drugs alone would greatly deepen the resources necessary to fight the educational shortages in this nation, for one.
The impact on crime would be enormous because young men seeking the fast track to wealth through illegal drug trafficking would have to calm down. We would save thousands of kids. Who knows? They might even have to take school seriously. At least they wouldn't be found gunned down on a streetcorner or in an alley or some dilapidated apartment. Legalizing drugs would end that. The big drug companies would be quite happy once they were able to take over the kinds of drugs that have made billions for dope lords.
The other advantage with the big drug companies like Lilly and Pfizer is that they would be the only ones able to sustain a fight against the enormous lobby that illegal drug profiteers would underwrite to keep their product in the shadow world.
We have to face the fact that recreational drugs have made their appearance and are part of the colossal market of modern entertainment. They are going nowhere, and it is time for our nation to look at things as they are. When we do, we can take some giant steps that must be taken.
Originally published on December 13, 2004
I'd been hearing that brothers and sisters of various backgrounds had been leaving organizations like the Ford Foundation in droves, largely because these institutions became unwilling to fund research and programs dedicated to dealing with the problems of black and brown communities. Melvin Oliver who co-authored Black Wealth White Wealth for example, used to be a Vice-President at the Ford Foundation, and now he's an academic Dean in the UC system (either Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz, I forget which).
Turns out people aren't just blowing in the wind.
The report "Short Changed: Foundation Giving and Communities of Color" has been made available by the kind people of the Applied Research Center.
I recall reading something about Greyhound cutting off rural routes. I'm willing to bet the high school populations of those areas are going to be the recruiting grounds for the future military. Given the degree to which the administration is gutting social programs and now gutting college grant programs I think critics of the administration focusing on the draft are looking at the wrong place. With kids in working class schools cut off from all options besides the armed forces, there will be no problem filling slots.
The blog entry by Scott about the final straw, has me asking, again, questions that seem to not get answered or are hand waved away when vouchers are mentioned.
If conservatives really want vouchers to succeed, they need to do more to at least address the concerns of people who are anti-voucher.
One, does public school funding get cut for those students who remain in public schools? If so, is that a "fair" outcome?
Two for those who stay, now what? People who say that it will force the government schools to improve are either fooling themselves or are straight out lying.
How often does a big government entity actually improve when competition is introduced? Exhibit A is the post office.
Three, let's assume that the competition model works, and competition comes about. What about the rural areas where the less dense population means that there is less of a chance for other opportunitites to be created?
And, for the record, I'm reluctantly pro-voucher. I'm pro-voucher because I believe it's an emergency situation in some public schools. At this point, however, triage is needed.
But I think these are valid questions that need to be addressed.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday that "accountability will be carried out" against whoever slipped a provision into an omnibus spending bill that would have allowed two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American.
The language was caught and removed in the Senate on Saturday, but the House will have to approve the fix before the spending bill can be sent to the White House for President Bush's signature.
"I have no earthly idea how it got in there," Frist said on CBS's "Face The Nation." "Nobody is going to defend this."
Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the episode points up the problems created when Congress passes gigantic spending bills at the end of a session, before anyone has time to read them.
Drudge says Istook, R-OK is responsible for it.