American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Which is it? The short answer is, no one knows. For all the talk we hear about Red States vs Blue States or how many more registered Democrats than Republicans there are, my take is that the issue is spun by both sides trying to buttress their respective claims to political ascendancy.
Jeff Jacoby, op-ed columnist for the Boston Globe defined Liberals and Conservatives as follows:
…Liberals (in American usage) are those who tend to favor government intervention as the response to any issue, while conservatives tend to favor private initiate and voluntary action. Liberals generally favor a reduction of choice in the economic realm, while conservatives tend to favor more choice. On social issues, liberals tend to favor the elimination of traditional restraints and taboos, while conservatives are more likely to support them.
So, how is it that we don’t know if the U.S. is more conservative or liberal? After all, isn’t it just a matter of counting heads?
Not really. “…putting all things in American Politics on to a single, one-dimensional, liberal or conservative scale is misleading at best and wholly inadequate at worst.” (nullbull.gnn.tv, 1 Mar 2007). “When you shove opinions about abortion, animal rights, big business, big government, the death penalty, foreign policy, gay rights, gun control, homelessness, immigration, labor unions, logging, Medicare, military power, national security, patriotism, property rights, race, taxation, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, voting machines, and welfare under one umbrella, something’s not going to fit.” (writersbbs.com, Liberal Vs. Conservative).
Looking at the U.S. through a Conservative vs Liberal prism reveals the following:
Mixed Positions on Issues
Those who are counted among the Left and Right often have mixed positions on various issues. For example, many Conservatives who oppose abortion may tend to be more liberal when it comes to social policies, such as education or health care.
Registered Democrats and Republicans
In the 2004 elections, “An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote…Of these about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats.” Approximately 27.3% are Republican, 35.7% Democrat, 37.0% are not registered. However, party affiliation notwithstanding, President Bush won the election by three million votes, which may or may not mean the 62 million people who voted for him are Conservative. In addition, the so-called “Blue Dog Democrats” in the South have traditionally been more conservative on various issues than many Republicans, particularly those from the more Liberal states, such as New York or Massachusetts.
To further confuse the issue of whether the U.S. is more Conservative or Liberal, the respective parties in each state often do not have a platform that agrees with their national parties, and candidates from one party may win in a state or states in which they do not have a majority of the officeholders. For example, in 2004, Maine had two Republican Senators but John Kerry won in that state, while George W. Bush won North Carolina in both 2000 and 2004 but “its governor is a Democrat and both houses of its legislature have Democratic majorities.”
Education
“In 2004, college graduates were split equally at 49% for both Kerry and Bush: those with postgraduate degrees voted for Kerry by a 10% margin and those with Bachelor’s Degrees voted for Bush by a 6% margin.” (Wikipedia, Red States and Blue States)
Household Income
“…Kerry won in households with less than $50,000 in annual income, and Bush won in households consisting of married couples and those with greater than $50,000 annual income.” (Wikipedia, Red States and Blue States)
Blue States, Red States
The distinction between the so-called Red and Blue states is not clearly delineated. “The county-by-county and district-by-district maps reveal that the true nature of the divide is between urban areas/inner suburbs and suburbs/rural areas. Even in ‘solidly Blue’ states, the majority of voters in rural counties and a slighter majority in suburban areas voted for Bush…and even in ‘solidly Red’ states, a majority of those in urban counties…voted for John Kerry.” (Wikipedia: Red States and Blue States).
Electoral Votes
“One thing that has been consistent over this period (2000-2004) is that the average ‘blue’ state has a greater number of people and electoral votes than does the average ‘red’ state. (When George W. Bush won 31 states in 2004, he gathered 286 electoral votes (53% of 538 total) – an average of 9 electoral votes for each state won…” (Wikipedia, Red States and Blue States). As we saw in the 2000 election, it is possible to be elected with a majority of the electoral votes but garner less than a majority of the popular vote.
Fiscal Responsibility
Not all Conservatives are fiscally responsible, nor are all Liberals fiscally irresponsible, in spite of their respective rhetoric, so this issue can hardly be considered the basis for judging whether America is more Conservative or Liberal. The current Republican administration has been one of the biggest spending parties in history, to the great displeasure of most true Conservatives.
Immigration
Until recently, the current Republican administration advocated a “Liberal” policy toward illegal immigration, that is, until they were forced to adjust their policy, at least ostensibly. But, it was not until a major grassroots campaign was mounted by “the people” that Congress changed its position.There are a host of other issues, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, which many Conservatives having now adopted the Liberal position in opposition, all of which further illustrates the difficulty of trying to determine with any degree of certainty whether the U.S. is more Conservative or Liberal. To the great frustration of both sides, sometimes the country is more Conservative, sometimes it is more Liberal.
Al Gore receives the Nobel Peace Prize - for what? Misrepresenting the facts about “Global Warming,” that’s what. I am amazed that this man, who claimed to have invented the Internet, would win a coveted Peace Prize for what amounts to a PowerPoint presentation that is riddled with inaccuracies, misstatements and outright misrepresentations. So much so, that a “British court recently found his film, An Inconvenient Truth, to be politically biased and ruled teachers must warn students of that bias before showing the film.” (Source: Gore’s price: A fraud on the people, Union Leader, October 14, 2007).
British High Court Rules “An Inconvenient Truth” Partisan Politics
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, elaborating on factual errors in the film that were identified by the court, noted: “Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents ‘partisan political views’ and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a British High Court judge has indicated. The British court was swayed by numerous factual inaccuracies portrayed in the movie,” which Mr. Taylor listed as follows:
–The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
–The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
–The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
–The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa’s Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
–The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
–The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
–The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
–The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
–The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.
Also highlighted in court arguments was Al Gore’s admission in Grist Magazine that “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is.”
The British High Court’s ruling also stated, “As a result of the partisan political nature of Gore’s film, school teachers will not be allowed to show the movie without telling their students the film is scientifically controversial.”
Mr. Taylor further observed, “The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore’s movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science (Emphasis added). Virtually every assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science…The British court decision should guide teachers in the U.S. to similarly treat Gore’s movie as the inaccurate and misleading propaganda tool that it is.”
Leading Meteorologist Calls Al Gore Award “Ridiculous”
In addition, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on October 14, 2007 that Dr. William Gray, one of the world's foremost meteorologists, has called the theory that was the basis for Al Gore’s sharing the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous,” stating that it is being promulgated by "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". On the very day the Nobel Committee honored Al Gore, Dr. Gray, who is a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth. "We're brainwashing our children," he said, adding, "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.”At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr. Gore said, “We have to quickly find a way to change the world’s consciousness about exactly what we’re facing,” while Dr. Gray said that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming. He also said that the same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years. “We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was,” Dr Gray added.During his speech to a crowd that included a host of professional meteorologists, Dr. Gray further said that those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error, citing statistics that show there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed. “The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures,” he noted.Dr. Gray also commented, “It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong…But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.”
Cycles of Global Warming and Cooling
In an article titled, “Gored,” Harry Jackson, Jr. noted that thirty years ago the earth was thought to be moving into another ice age, but “we are now told the world is on the verge of unprecedented global warming...there have been four climate change scares; a concern over global cooling beginning in 1895, followed by fears of global warming in 1929, only to be replaced by alarm over global cooling; now we are back to global warming.” (Townhall.com, October 15, 2007).
The Nobel Peace Prize and Politics
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Nobel Peace Prize award to Al Gore is the blatant political nature of the process. How is it possible that the Nobel Committee could honor a man whose work is challenged as nothing more than political hype and not award the prize to a retired Roman Catholic Polish woman who saved 2,500 Jewish children from the “ovens,” providing them with false documents and hiding them from the Nazis at the risk of her own life?This is the same Committee, incidentally, that nominated Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler – and awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat, a founder of modern terrorism and suicide bombing. (glennbeck.com, October 12, 2007).From my vantage point, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore not only further diminishes the stature of the award itself but reveals that it is politically motivated as well.
In Santa Barbara, animal rights activits protesting Wachovia Bank wore masks, which made me wonder why masked protestors shouldn’t give up their right to free speech. If you were an employee of the bank and someone came in wearing a mask, what would you do? Shoot first and ask questions later? If wearing a mask during a semi-violent and threatening protest is not terrorism, then I don’t know the meaning of the word.
Dale M., Buellton, CALynne Stewart, who has been disbarred and convicted in a federal court for providing material support to a terrorist organization (helping smuggle messages of violence from imprisoned Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and his network), was invited to address an ethics conference at Hofstra University Law School (Long Island). Without making it clear that she was invited as an example of ethical failure, Hofstra gives the impression that they endorse her illegal and unethical behavior. Is this what we are teaching our young attorneys?
HRS, Buellton, CA
Has the endless barrage of “politically correct” (PC) rules that we are subjected to these days finally overcome our nation’s treasured right of free speech? To me, PC is BS (Bad Speech). It’s censorship pure and simple. What concerns me is that it stifles dissent under the guise of being sensitive to the feelings and values of others.
I, for one, am fed up with “politically correct” demands and the PC straight jacket that has been placed around the minds and free expression of Americans. I don’t know anyone any more who feels free to openly express their personal opinions.
Pervasive PC Rules
Political correctness has now reached the point where it influences expression about almost every subject and includes efforts to pass laws that not only try to force everyone to conform to some group’s notion of “correct” speech but even to what they are supposed to think.Our language is becoming so codified and restrictive that we are no longer free to speak openly: “African-American,” not black; “Latino” or “Hispanic,” not Mexican; “Gay,” not homosexual (gay used to mean happy); “Ms.,” not Miss or Mrs.; “undocumented worker,” not illegal alien; “challenged,” not handicapped; etc., etc., etc. - ad nauseum.Many individuals and groups have become so hypersensitive about the speech of others that it’s almost impossible to find the right expressions to communicate effectively. Words that used to be simple statements have become pejorative slander in the eyes of many minority groups, and acceptable terms are periodically changed, so it becomes an artful dance just to find the right way to describe something or someone. It’s counterproductive, and why Americans tolerate such intimidation is a mystery to me.
PC In All Things
“…Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania banned the school’s bell tower from playing Christmas carols that have religious overtones.” (Brian.Carnell.com/508, December 14, 2000) Exactly what do Christmas carols without “religious overtones” sound like? – HRS”When a drug and alcohol awareness group on campus (at Bloomberg University) erected crosses on the university quad to commemorate the college students who have died due to alcohol related incidents, the campus was beset by protests that placing a religious symbol such as a cross on public grounds was inappropriate.” (brian.carnel.com/508, December 14, 2000).
The Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau decided to rename their annual Christmas Parade the “Little Rock Holiday Parade,” to make sure the event is “all-inclusive.” What is the “Holiday” if it’s not Christmas? - HRS
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia, along with 79 cities, have laws that ban “transgender” discrimination. In Portland, Oregon, the law protects men who come to work dressed in traditionally female clothing, even if they still look like men and even if it drives customers away. (Source: Transgender Law & Policy Institute, transgenderlaw.org) Who thinks of these things, anyway? - HRS
In 1998, an Arizona State University drama professor settled a lawsuit (for $395,000) against the school for wrongful termination because he taught the works of dead white males (Shakespeare and Moliere) over the objections of campus feminists. (Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, chronicle.com)
A student at Eastern Michigan University reported that the school was pressured to change their team name, “Hurons.” They picked “Eagles,” and in spite of the fact that the Huron Indians wanted them to change it back, government pressure kept them from doing so. The student’s reaction was, “All this civil rights B.S. is further erasing Native Americans from our history.”
The list of examples is endless.
PC Consequences
Those who don’t agree with PC speech and attempt to defend what they perceive to be their right of free speech are often mercilessly discredited or destroyed financially through public pressure or litigation, or perhaps risk physical harm. Don Imus exemplified this trend when he committed the unpardonable sin of making a prejudicial statement on his radio show and was promptly discredited and fired for his transgression.The result is that people repress honest expression, keeping their thoughts to themselves or discussing them only with others they know to be “safe”.
The consequence has been the opposite of what I believe is one of the PC objectives: that outlawing or repressing speech changes unacceptable ideas or makes them go away. But, they merely go underground, into a subconscious pressure cooker of suppressed and growing anger.
The people I know have become increasingly guarded about saying what they think, although their attitudes and beliefs have not changed one iota. If anything, they have hardened. They’re just more careful where and to whom they are willing to speak their minds.
Thought Control
Have we reached the point where not only can things we say be actionable but certain thoughts may eventually be considered a crime, as in “Hate Crime?” Does anyone else worry that we are embarked on a slippery slope to thought control?PC pressure puts a lid on free expression, but it doesn’t change attitudes.Preventing people from openly saying what they think may well be one of the causes of the growing violence in our society. Contrary or unpopular opinions and anger can only be contained for so long. When they are suppressed indefinitely, they eventually erupt.
We say we believe in the First Amendment, but do we really? Or do we now have the right of free speech only insofar as it meets some sort of PC test? Our cherished “land of the free and home of the brave” is being systematically turned into the land of scared rabbits and special interest censors.
“Gag me with a spoon” used to be a popular “Valley Girl” expression. It’s no longer part of our everyday vernacular, but the feeling is the same – which is exactly my reaction every time I hear politicians say, “It’s for the children.”
The current flap over reauthorizing the SCHIP health insurance program for children is just the latest example of the political hyperbole we have become all too accustomed to hearing come out of the Beltway.
Bush’s Veto
“…Democrats and their accomplices in the Leftmedia predictably portrayed the President as a Lone Ranger against “the children.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cried, “President Bush used his cruel veto pen to say ‘I forbid ten million children from getting the health benefits they deserve’.” (This from the party of abortion.) Of course, most of those ten million currently have health benefits—just not taxpayer funded. Yet. Furthermore, some of these “children” are as old as 25…The Heritage Foundation notes that roughly 70,000 families will be eligible for SCHIP and the Alternative Minimum Tax.” (Patriot Post, No. 07-40, October 5, 2007)
Political Opportunism
The Wall Street Journal highlighted the political opportunism of the SCHIP reauthorization bill with the following observation: “Known as a ‘funding cliff,’ the yearly SCHIP layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65 percent below current funding levels. This helps ‘score’ the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls. The chances of the latter happening are approximately zero.” Can you say “campaign issue”? (Patriot Post, No. 07-40, October 5, 2007)“
[The State Children’s Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP)] without a doubt makes it easier for illegal aliens to get taxpayer-funded healthcare. The legislation wipes away the current requirement for multiple sources of identification and requires merely a name and a Social Security number to apply for benefits. The only safeguard is a single statement that says no illegal aliens can get benefits. That’s like opening the door to the chicken coop, but saying its okay because we put up a sign that says ‘No Foxes Allowed’.” —Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) (Patriot Post, No. 07-41, October 8, 2007)
Financing The SCHIP Bill
Looking further at the detail of the SCHIP reauthorization bill, we find that since they don’t have the money in the budget to pay for the expansion of the program, the financing of choice is a tax on cigarettes. Never mind that a cigarette tax is regressive and that it’s a declining source of funding.“By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers…” (GOP.gov, House Republican Conference)
“‘I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days,’ Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga, said during the House debate. But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers.” (GOP.gov, House Republican Conference)
“If the federal cigarette tax nears $1 per pack, smokers in many states will pay hefty sums into government coffers unless they kick their habit. On top of the federal tax, New Jersey levies a $2.57 per pack tax on cigarettes, followed by Rhode Island at $2.46. (GOP.gov, House Republican Conference)
Columnist Debra J. Saunders also made the following observations, among others, about the SCHIP program in a recent column (Jewish World Review, October 8, 2007):
“The cigarette tax is regressive and inadequate.”
“Supporters talk about providing more health care for poor children. Yet in six states, the Bush administration points out, SCHIP spends more on adults than children.”
“The Bushies also argue that the congressional bill isn’t about providing health care for poor kids – as it would expand SCHIP for children of the middle class, with family incomes as high as $62,000 per year – many of whom already receive employer-funded health care. In short, the vetoed bill does not put the neediest kids first.”
“…a third of the children who would sign up with SCHIP if Congress overrides the Bush veto already have coverage through their parents’ employers.”
How We Can Really Help “The Children”
Following are some of the steps our politicians can take that might make a real difference “for the children” they seem to care so much about:
Stop spending us into the poorhouse. The very same children politicians are so eager to provide health care for will soon become the adults who will have to pay the bills that will be incurred to finance the SCHIP program now. This type of legislation is not free. As is so often the case, payment is being deferred in order to fund the program now, with a promise to pay it back later.
Deal with the immigration problem. Our failure to stop the flood of illegal immigrants is already “breaking the bank” because of the benefits many of them are able to receive, and there appears to be no end in sight.
Fix our tax system. “The children” deserve a fair and equitable tax system that will make it possible for them to live, work and plan for their own retirement after they become adults.
Fix our schools, many of which no longer educate “the children” adequately. The failures of our school system are well documented and, in spite of the fact that we spend more money on education that almost any society in the world, our students consistently score among the lowest in essential subjects, such as mathematics and science.
Do something realistic about the drug problem, which is destroying the lives of so many of “the children” our politicians say they want to help.
Change the “entitlement” mentality that has become part of the accepted agenda of too many Americans and is taking us down the wrong path – toward Socialism.
Fix Social Security - or it won’t be around for “the children” by the time they reach retirement age. “Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one…think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check…” (CATO Institute).
Choosing Between Alternatives
In the final analysis, we can’t have everything we want or think we need. No one can. There simply isn’t enough money available to do that – ever. So, what does that leave us? Choices, that’s what. We must choose between alternatives, and that includes the SCHIP program. President Bush asked for a $5 billion bill, Congress gave him a $35 billion program.The SCHIP bill that was passed by Congress is bad legislation, and President Bush was right to veto it.
If our politicians really cared about “the children” they would stop mortgaging their future with irresponsible spending and avoid the temptation to use these programs as a tool to gain political advantage. Unfortunately, that’s probably asking for too much.
In a widely reported, controversial acceptance speech at the recent Emmy Awards show, actress Sally Field attacked the U.S. involvement in Iraq, saying, “If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any ‘G-D’ wars in the first place,” adding, “This (her Emmy Award) belongs to all the mothers of the world - may they be seen and valued.”
Once again, an entertainment industry icon holds forth with an emotional political outburst that has little or no meaning – not if you examine it more closely, that is. Just how long should the public continue to tolerate high profile entertainers mouth off with unsolicited, often meaningless personal political opinions whenever they can get their hands on a microphone?
In this instance, Sally Field made an impassioned plea that not only has no substance but is also factually incorrect. I have always been a fan of hers, and although I’m disappointed I’m not surprised to find out how uninformed she is. However, just for the record, let’s examine her statement, “If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any ‘G-D’ wars in the first place.”
The careers of three famous leaders who were also mothers directly contradict Ms. Field’s assertion: Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher. A columnist who writes under the pen name, “The Stiletto,” recently made the following observations about these great women leaders, who also happened to be mothers (PoliticalMavens.com, August 9, 2007):
Golda Meir, a founder of the state of Israel and its Prime Minister from 1969 to 1974, was the mother of two children, Sarah and Menacham. The original ‘Iron Lady.’ Meir was at the helm during the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and a coalition of Arab countries led by Egypt and Syria determined to take back the Sinai and Golan Heights, which had been captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel prevailed, and the war paved the way to the Camp David Accords, which led to normalized relations between Egypt and Israel.
Prime Minister of India for three consecutive terms (1966 to 1977) and for a fourth term from 1980 until she was assassinated in 1984, Indira Gandhi was the mother of two sons, Sanjay and Rajiv. In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Gandhi backed East Pakistan against West Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh. Three years later, India developed a nuclear arsenal to counter the threat from Communist China. During Gandhi’s watch, India became the dominant power in the region.
…Margaret Thatcher, who served as British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 and is mother to twins, Mark and Carol. In 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, Thatcher dispatched the navy and recaptured the British territory for a decisive victory.
Furthermore, these three women leaders are not an anomaly. The history of mankind, dating back to Biblical times, is replete with stories of mothers who rose to positions of power that enabled them to at least “run” their corners of the world. There are too many such stories to recount here, but two other women leaders come to mind: Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka.
From 1984 to 1994, Benazir Bhutto (b. 1953) was Co-Chairperson of Pakistan People’s Party from 1994. She was also Leader of the Party in 1994. Ms. Bhutto was under house arrest from 1977-84 and in exile from 1984-86. She also held positions as minister of Defence, Atomic Energy, Finance, Economy, Information and Establishment. She has lived in exile in London and the United Arab Emirates since 1998. Her three children were born in 1988, 1989 and 1993. During her tenure in office, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, in spite of strenuous objections by the United States.
Ms. Dias Bandaranaike (1916-2000) was Chairperson of Sri Lanka’s Freedom Party from 1960 to 1993 and again from 1993 to 2000. She was President from 1965 to 1970 and again from 1988 to 1994 and also held positions as Leader of The Opposition and Chairperson of the Association of Non-Aligned Nations. As Prime Minister, she held posts as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Finance, and before her appointment as Prime Minister in 1994, she was Senior Minister without Portfolio, Second in her daughter, Chandrika’s Cabinet. She is the mother of three children and led her nation during a period when considerable fighting with “separatists” occurred.
Sally Field’s belief that if mothers ran the world there would not be any wars is overly simplistic – because it ignores the reality of geo-politics on the ground. Wars are usually not started simply because of the temperament of leaders, but for a variety of reasons, such as gaining control of resources or territory, advancing a particular political ideology (Communism, etc.) or for religious reasons, as in the Crusades or the current War on Terror, which was initiated by Islamic fundamentalists.
From another perspective, Ms. Field’s declaration, “If mothers ruled the world there wouldn’t be any ‘G-D’ wars in the first place,” makes me wonder about the growing number of Muslim women who strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up along with innocent women and children in the name of their religion. Or, even more horrific to contemplate, Muslim mothers who blow up their own children for their cause. That certainly doesn’t make them good candidates to “run the world” in my book. I wonder, does Sally Field have an explanation for this?
So, once again, we find the glitterati of the entertainment industry trumpeting meaningless platitudes about “world peace” or “stop the war” and making bogus claims to support their declarations, such as America deliberately targets civilians.
Another example of the anti-war mentality was demonstrated by the activists who traveled to Iraq prior to the start of the war, with the declared intention of putting themselves at personal risk as human shields to prevent the bombing of targets in Baghdad, only to find that they did not receive the cooperation they expected from Saddam’s regime, which merely used them for propaganda purposes. (Iraq Human Shields ‘No Deterrent,’ FoxNews.com, March 2, 2003; Human Shield Action to Iraq, p10k.net/humanshieldactiontoiraq.html)
More empty talk and silly posturing, perhaps well- intentioned, but foolish. My reaction to all this is: Get Real!
If you own your own business or are a manager at the company where you work, you may think you’re the boss and that the people who work for you are required to follow your instructions. If that’s what you believe, you may need a reality check.
Since the 1960s, the rights of employers have been steadily eroded, to the point that today the question is, or should be, who has more rights, employers or employees?
Forty or fifty years ago, there was no question of who controlled the employer-employee relationship. It was the boss, who could pretty much hire and fire at will and had the right to expect the people who worked for the company to do pretty much what they were asked to do. Not so any longer.
Hiring New Employees
One aspect of the relationship that has undergone major change is the hiring process. What employers are allowed to ask when they are interviewing prospective employees has become increasingly limited. A recent article in the California CPA magazine (Interviewing 101, September 2007) offers the following caution: “Employment-related issues have been a legal minefield for employers. Asking the wrong questions during the interview process – or in pre-interview applications – can spell disaster for a company or firm in the form of discrimination lawsuits.”
Wow! Who would’ve thunk we could be sued for asking the “wrong” questions when we’re interviewing people for a position with our company? If you think that’s not the case, think again. The list of questions that comprise the labyrinth of legal issues that must be negotiated today when we are interviewing prospective employees for a job opening seems almost endless.
Don’t Ask
We are admonished not to ask for the following information or documentation:
Whether someone’s original name has been changed or their maiden name.
Place of birth, or that of the applicant’s spouse or parents.
Age.
Birth certificate or baptismal record.
Religious affiliation or race.
Photographs (prior to employment).
Age or date of birth. Questions that relate to federal or state minimal age requirements are OK, such as “Are you over the age of 18.”
Specific years of attendance or graduation from high school or elementary school.
Whether an applicant is or plans to become an American citizen.
Questions about applicant’s lineage, ancestry, national origin, parentage, nationality of language that is commonly used.
Workers comp history.
Applicant’s mother tongue, names of or information about relatives.
Military experience, other than U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserve duty.
Clubs, societies, lodges or other organizations to which the applicant belongs which might indicate race, religion, etc.
Marital status or dependents.
Address of a “relative” to be notified in case of emergency. You can ask for an address of a “person” to be notified.
Existence or severity of a physical or mental condition or disability that is likely to elicit information about disability or workers’ comp history.
In addition to not being able to ask for the foregoing information, a physical exam can only be required after the job offer has been extended and before the applicant starts work.
Pre-employment drug tests are allowed, but they must be administered according to specific federal and state rules.
Psychological testing is not allowed unless the questions are related to the job and the employer must have a compelling interest in giving such tests.
Skills tests are only allowed if they comply with EEOC/California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Guidelines (to help avoid “adverse impact” claims.)
Polygraph tests are generally prohibited.
Be Wary of Lawsuits
It has reached the point where employers often find it necessary to consult their attorney or a Human Relations professional before taking almost any action on employee related matters.
Not only is it necessary for employers to be wary of lawsuits when they are interviewing prospective employees, but they should also tread carefully with people who are already working for them, particularly when problems arise and it becomes necessary to discipline or terminate someone.
Extreme caution must be exercised in almost any employee-related matter lest we run afoul of the law and draw a discrimination lawsuit of one sort or another. And, the amount of time, effort and energy that’s expended (read wasted) for that purpose often diverts management’s attention from conducting the business of the firm, at considerable loss of time and money.
One employer with whom I’m familiar felt it was necessary to give two weeks pay to someone who was terminated, but required the employee to leave the premises that day, because they were concerned about the person’s potential for causing trouble.
Some years ago, when I was running a firm with about 110 employees, we terminated an employee because her position had been eliminated in the course of reorganization. She sued for unlawful termination, and although we attempted to settle the case on several occasions, her attorney insisted on pursuing the claim, seeking extremely high damages. In spite of losing at trial, he persisted through two levels of appeal. The entire process cost us $50,000 in legal fees over and above the amount that was covered by our insurance carrier. In all, the matter cost our side something in the neighborhood of $150,000, and the employee received nothing. It was a complete waste of everyone’s time and resources, a circumstance that’s not unusual in this day of so-called enlightened personnel management. The unfortunate employee, whom I believe had been encouraged by an overly ambitious but not very competent attorney, was forced to endure a process that took many months to resolve, and in the end she got nothing.
Who IS The Boss?
So, the question remains, “Who’s the boss?” - The owner or manager of a business or the employees? My sense is that the pendulum has swung too far to the side of the employees, which causes management to jump through too many unnecessary and costly hoops simply to document a record in order to avoid litigation when it becomes necessary to discipline or terminate an employee.
The situation with the Santa Barbara News Press comes to mind, where it appears that many of the paper’s employees (or former employees) seem to think they have the right to tell the owner how she can run her own business. So far, the case has been in trial for the better part of a month, and still counting. One can only guess at the enormous expense that’s being incurred by the firm to defend its right to manage its own business. But, that’s just my opinion.
Here are some questions I have been asking myself. Some philosophical, some practical, some merely rhetorical, perhaps some even a bit naïve:
Are Americans so immature and self-centered that we really can’t see what is happening to us? Have we become too soft and self-centered to survive? Do we really care, or are we more concerned about personal advantage and profit than solving problems?
Is there really a connection between today’s decisions and future events? Seems obvious, doesn’t it, but all too often people behave as if their words and actions don’t have any consequences.
Why are we debating tactics as if the judgment of every citizen should be taken into account about how we conduct a war? Who should be in charge and make the major decisions about conducting the wars we fight: politicians, professional military or the general public?
Can America ever win another war? Not a battle but a war?
Do we really deserve to survive?
Is mankind destined to destroy himself?
Why is loyalty to one’s political party considered a greater virtue than loyalty to the country?
Where are the “statesmen” of our times, men like Churchill, Fulbright, Eisenhower and George Marshall?
Where are the political leaders with true courage, such as the Founding Fathers, Abe Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan?
Why do we continue to tolerate young people who deface their bodies in such a way as to make themselves not just unattractive but repulsive? Who on earth would want to hire them, except for the most menial jobs, such as washing cars, busing dishes, etc.?
Why does our society continue to tolerate such crimes as child abuse and molestation?
How is it that our government is so infused with fraud, corruption and misrepresentation and that no one really seems to care?
How did we manage to allow our government employees to reach the position where the taxpaying public is actually working for them and their generous pensions rather than the other way around? What, if anything, can be done about it?
Why do we tolerate a political system that has made “public service” a lifetime career, with pay and perks that far exceed those of the average American?
Doesn’t anyone do anything any more just because it’s “right,” not because they get something out of it?
What makes people who have little or no qualifications think they suddenly become instant experts on just about any subject immediately after they have been elected to public office? Fighting wars and managing the economy are good examples.
Why do so many people seem to think that out-screeching or preventing others from speaking makes for a convincing argument? Screeching types obviously don’t understand or care that tirades don’t help their cause or convince anyone of anything, except of course those who may already agree with them.
We are constantly being told that the public wants comity and consensus from our political types, so why do we so rarely see either?
The answers to these questions are obvious, you might say. But if they are, why are we talking everything to death? And, why aren’t the people we elect doing their jobs instead of playing politics with every issue that arises?
America is not a democracy, although a lot of people mistakenly think it is. It’s a republic, a representative government in which we are supposed to choose the people who will represent us and let them do the deciding. Unfortunately, too many Americans now confuse our system with a pure democracy, which is run by plebiscite, where almost every issue is put to a public vote to make decisions.
We elect people to represent us, but then, instead of letting them do the heavy lifting based on their special knowledge and privileged information, we try to influence them every possible way to make the decisions we want. Usually with money and perks, and all too often, for personal benefit or gain.
I sometimes become so befuddled by the endless cacophony of contention and contradiction that continuously swirls around us that I’ve started to wonder if it isn’t some sort of punishment visited on us by G-d for our many transgressions. It makes me think of the Tower of Babel, when, according to the Bible (Genesis 11:1-9), He disrupted work on the Tower by “so confusing the language of the workers that they could no longer understand one another. The city was never completed, and the people were dispersed over the face of the earth.” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Is that what’s going on now? Are we being tested or punished in some way?
The asylum is being run by the inmates, but the real problem is that we are letting them get away with it. How the hell did this happen?
I’m sick of listening to the endless stupid and vapid discussions and arguments that bludgeon our senses nonstop. Much of it isn’t even interesting or informative, just confrontational. And far too much of it is about people who are airheads with no special abilities or talent that makes them worth listening to or learning about. Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears come to mind, but there are many others. Too many. It’s no wonder people are so turned off and tuned out.
My experience has been that if you try to please everyone, you please no one, and that making important decisions necessarily involves having some people dislike, even hate you. Decision-making is not a popularity contest, nor should it be. And, decisions that are arrived at primarily through consensus building usually amount to nothing more than watered down pap, especially a national consensus on a major issue, such as fighting a war.
Why is it that so many average citizens seem to think our leaders should cater to them (translation: do as I say or want) when it comes to making decisions concerning matters about which the public in general has little or no knowledge, training or background?
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want my spouse being the national decider about how we should be handling situations like Iraq, Iran or North Korea. And, I’m confident she feels the same way about me. How about you and yours?
If only I could wave some sort of magic wand and make it all go away. But it never stops. Will it ever?
If you have any answers for me, please take me out of my misery and tell me what they are. But wait, isn’t that what we are asking our representatives to do for us, that is, make reasoned and informed decisions on our behalf?
I’m beginning to feel a little like a hamster, endlessly running on a wheel, going nowhere and never getting there.
Why are politicians and government employees so often referred to as being in “public service,” as if they are making some great sacrifice to work for the government?
We live in an era of the professional politician. “Public service” has become a career choice, and one that pays far better than most politicians could earn on their own, along with benefits and retirement plans that generally exceed anything the average taxpayer in the private sector receives.
From my perspective, what I see in politics and government service are people who, for the most part, make a career of being on a government payroll while the rest of the
population pays the tab. They often talk about the financial and career sacrifices they make, yet the combination of their compensation and benefits are often better than those in business and industry, without being subjected to comparable market risks.
Most politicians probably could not, in fact, earn a better living in another field. Yet, they persist in giving themselves raises, or establishing systems that make their raises automatic, without having to declare themselves by voting on their own pay increases. Midnight Congressional votes to increase their compensation while the voters are asleep have become routine, and their actions are justified with the argument that they are sacrificing to hold office and “serve the people.”
As far as I’m concerned, this is not only insulting, it is absolute nonsense. Perhaps the most offensive aspect is the fact that their compensation is not related in any way to performance. They get paid the same no matter how well or poorly they manage the “people’s business” that they so often talk about.
In May, 1999, Gary Ruskin, Director of the Congressional Accountability Project, stated in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives that a 1996 Roll Call study found that “all but six of the 73 newly elected House Members will receive large pay hikes when they take office, compared with their previous employment. . . During the last ten years, House Members gave themselves five pay raises, Senators six. Congressional salaries grew by $42,900 – more than $15,000 above inflation.”
Based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, in 2004 the annual median earnings (half above/half below) of four professions, teachers, engineers, lawyers and doctors, makes the case very effectively: The estimated median income for elementary school teachers was about $58,000 a year; for engineers, it was between $44,000 and $90,000, depending on the specialty, that is, chemical, civil, electrical, etc.; for lawyers, approximately $97,000 was the number; and for doctors, it was estimated at about $135,000.
Contrasting these income figures with the $158,100 annual compensation of rank and file members of the House and Senate, it is clear that, by any standard, most politicians receive a pay raise when they are elected to Congress, even compared with some of the higher paying professions.
Most Californians are not aware that their legislators currently earn over $145,000 a year, while the average annual income of the state’s residents is only about $33,000. People’s Advocate, Inc. has reported that, “California legislators are now the highest paid state officials in America!” At the state level, our “public servants” receive an annual salary of $110,880 plus a tax free “per diem” allowance of $138 a day (about $30,000 a year), a free car that they are also permitted to use for personal purposes, plus a $400 monthly car allowance, plus insurance, plus other perks. In addition, they are allowed to earn outside income over and above their pay as legislators – as lawyers, doctors, Accountants, insurance brokers, whatever.
In Santa Barbara County, the board of supervisors has increased their own annual salaries to over $80,000 a year – plus whatever benefits that are included in their compensation package.
And, who approves their raises? They do!
If there is a more glaring example of conflict of interest, I would like to know what it is. So much for “public service.”
Contrast the numbers above with other states, such as Alabama, which pays its legislators only $3,650 per year or New York and Michigan, which pay their lawmakers around $79,000.
Perhaps Mark Twain said it best when he observed, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly Native American criminal class except Congress.”
As for government employees, I have mixed feelings about them. For one thing, they are frequently whipsawed by the demands of the public and subjected to political pressures at the same time. But, I don’t believe that most of them are underpaid. They, too, make a career of “public service,” in spite of their frequent complaints that they are underpaid and that they have to work too hard.
However, government employees, at least in California, have established a seemingly foolproof system of guaranteeing regular increases in their salaries and benefits, by surveying their counterparts in other governmental entities, i.e., municipal, county, etc., then adjusting their own employee compensation programs accordingly. The other cities and counties do the same. This process goes on continuously, constantly surveying and comparing themselves to other governmental entities and granting increases based on the results, which then become the basis for the other agencies to approve their own increases, in a never ending cycle of increasing compensation.
At the same time, the other side of the equation can sometimes be very difficult for government employees: Too often they are forced to cater to political hacks or people who hold office without sufficient background, training or intelligence to make many of the decisions they face. Life in the public sector is not necessarily always easy, it’s just not as underpaid as it is so often made out to be, and “public service” has really become just another a career path in itself.
The Supreme Court has held that abortion is a constitutional right; however, that right has caused a great deal of confusion in our society. It is legal to abort a fetus at almost any stage of its development, including mere moments before the infant is born (“partial birth abortion”), but it is homicide if the fetus is killed, say, by a gunshot wound in the mother’s stomach. However, it is not murder for a mother to terminate her own pregnancy at the same stage of development for purely personal reasons. So, for some purposes, the law recognizes the same fetus as a living person, for others it does not.
Tobacco is a legal product and is heavily taxed by the same government that has subsidized tobacco farmers for decades. Both the Federal and state governments tax cigarettes, ostensibly to offset health care costs incurred by smokers or to establish programs designed to discourage young people from smoking. Then they use the money for other purposes, often completely unrelated to tobacco use. If the product is so bad, why not just make it illegal? The obvious answer is that there is just too much money in it for the government and our politicos. So, the product stays legal and is both heavily taxed and subsidized, health considerations aside, so long as it keeps feeding money into our tax coffers.
We put people in jail for ingesting something they like (as in drugs), while tolerating, even encouraging, the proliferation and aggressive marketing of prescription drugs throughout our culture, including the schools. At the same time, using marijuana for health reasons, even with a doctor’s prescription, is still a Federal crime, even in those states that have legalized it.
We tell our children that sex before marriage or at too early an age is a bad idea, while dispensing condoms to them at the schools.
In many states, underage girls must have their parents’ permission for a medical procedure, or to have their ears pierced, but they can get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.
We try to teach young people that they should be good citizens and respect the law, while at the same time we tolerate the airwaves being flooded with music, videos and TV programs that are vulgar, challenge authority, celebrate violence, preach hatred and generally pollutes their minds.
Americans treasure their rights, yet for generations have passed laws that intrude into the lives of people in a wide range of areas: limiting free speech, restricting the ownership of guns, intrusive tax regulation, making various consensual sexual acts illegal (even for married couples), and smoking, to name just a few.
Gambling is illegal or strictly regulated in various states, which often bemoan the fact that it can be addictive, yet many of those same governments operate and aggressively promote lotteries.
We constantly preach tolerance, but experience far too many shocking incidents of intolerance and prejudice, abuse, brutality and murder.
Is it any wonder there are so many problems in America today and that our children are often confused about the meaning of right and wrong when there is such contradictory, schizophrenic behavior in our society?
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
