About Me

Name: Brenda Bee
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Greed Killing the Golden Goose! Deficit at all time high

Read the following report from the Congressional Budget Office's latest report on the budget deficit this year.  Then go again to Suicidal Spending  put out by Ross Perot.  ( http://perotcharts.com/challenges/ )  The little man appears to be right on.  He was right in 1996 and he is right now.  Our goose is cooked for sure and the greatest nation on Earth, the richest  and the most democratic and free nation of it's time  is being destroyed by the mob  who know nothing but what they want and to Hell with the society as a whole.  And to Hell with the nation as they squandered  away our resources. 

People, do you not understand that when you kill the Golden Goose you too will starve?  BB


Headlines: Estimates say fed budget deficit nearing $407B

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 9, 12:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The federal government will run a near-record deficit of $407 billion this year, according to the latest Capitol Hill estimates.

The Congressional Budget Office released figures Tuesday that indicate the red ink will spill over into next year, when the deficit would reach a record $438 billion — and could go even higher as the government takes over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The worsening deficit is largely due to continuing weakness in the economy, high energy and food prices, and the slump in the housing and financial markets, the CBO said. And the economy could still slide into a recession, according to the forecast.

"The economy is likely to experience at least several more months of very slow growth," the new report said. "Whether this period will ultimately be designated a recession or not is still uncertain, but the increase in the unemployment rate and the pace of economic growth are similar to conditions during previous periods of mild recession."

The CBO predicts that the economy will grow 1.5 percent this year in real terms and slip to just 1.1 percent growth in 2009."

To better understand what this all means you should go to: 

http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NY Times series on energy: possiblities and problems

The article below is the first in a New York Times series on   energy needs, possibilities and  problems  in the United States.    The first sentence quoted  "The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not."  is the kicker.  No matter what energy source we use the problem is our  antiquated and mismanaged  power grid. 


Not only is the grid unable to carry the amount of energy needed even today, it has approximately 500 owners!  Yes the 200,000+ miles of transmission lines belong to 500 companies.  All of these companies have their own policies for use of their lines, plus the 50 states all have their own regulations dealing with the transmission of energy.  This makes it impossible for a solar energy farm in the desert of the southwest to transmit power to the large cities where it is needed.

What is needed is for the federal  government to take over the management  and ownership the nation's power grid just as they once had to take over and build an Interstate highway system.  Before President Eisenhower  demanded Congress make easy travel possible  all across the country the roads were miserable as they changed  from state line to state line. 

Eisenhower knew from his experience in moving his army in Europe over  both miserable and good roads just how important decent highways were  a country.  He knew that our economy's growth  would be curtailed  unless companies were able to move products quickly and easily across the country.  So the federal government stepped into the breech and our economy and very way of life has changed because of it.

I personally hate the federal government's involvement in my life but there are certain things that only the federal government can do and the national power grid is one of these things.  If we are ever to achieve some energy self sufficiency  this must be done.

This is a large and rather all inclusive series so you may want to pick and choose, but by all means  check it out.  This is our only future if we are to continue to prosper.  It is also the only way the United States can become independent of the fickle world leaders and the blackmail that has so often been used to tie our hands when action was needed. 

This latest crisis with Russia invading Georgia is a prime example of energy blackmail.  The European countries are dependent on Russian oil so our President's hands were tied as were those of the other NATO countries.  Of course this was all planned by the Russian leaders  of whom many if not most come from the ranks of the KGB.   Putin and his communist-in-hiding are  on the march and oil is their ace in the hole.

It behooves all of us to understand the energy crisis, needs and possible future and to get the message  to our Congressmen.  In fact, if the federal government wants to get our economy moving  this project would certainly provide the jobs to stimulate the economy much better than the ill conceived "stimulus package".  

The articles also speaks to the gasoline shortage.  BB


Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits
Published: August 26, 2008       http://nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html

"The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not.

The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.

“We need an interstate transmission superhighway system,” said Suedeen G. Kelly,  a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin's only mistake as Governor of Alaska

  I am so pleased with Senator McCain's choice of  Sarah Palin as his running mate!  I have been watching the lady for some time now and  like what she has done in Alaska and like her views  on most thing.  If you are not familiar with her Wikipedia has a very good bio on her.

There was only one decision that she made that really upset me greatly.  i will just quote Wikipedia to save time here: 

"She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[15] Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court[39] [40] She supported a non-binding referendum on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[41] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[42] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[15] order and signed an implementation of same-sex benefits into law under protest, stating that legal options to avoid doing so had run out.

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation."

***************************************************
When the topic of providing health insurance benefits to gay or lesbian partners has been cussed and discussed, the discussions always seem to bog down in the side issues of right and wrong of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which have nothing to do with this particular issue. The issue is: who should be allowed to be included on the employees health insurance period; no emotional side issues.

Eligibility for employee health care coverage has always been simple: the only people eligible for coverage under the employees health insurance plan is the employees immediate family. That is, wife or husband and children to age 18 or 23 if in college. No aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws or parents because they are indeed family but not immediate family. Neither may health benefits be extended to one who is not related in any way to the employee.

Now our City Manager and Mayor have opened this eligibility up to the "partners" of gay and lesbian employees. Or, more accurately, to individuals not legally related to the employee by blood or a legal contract. There is a little clause thrown in to the city's agreement that the employee must sign stating that the relationship is "a committed relationship" and "the partners are financially co-dependent", but just as their sexual relationship has no bearing on the real issue neither does their commitment or financial co-dependency. No matter how "committed" or how "financially co-dependent" the partners or live-in companions may be they are still unrelated by the blood relationship of being siblings or by the legally approved contract of marriage which are the only two criteria that define "immediate family".

So what the two city officials have done is open the city's obligation of employee health insurance coverage to a non-family entity, and by implication to virtually anyone the employee should wish to designate as a "dependent" and willingly pay the employees share of the tax payer subsidized health care insurance for that person. All of the named family members listed above and including friends, neighbors and the man down the block ! But the real kicker give away is that our Mayor under the City Charter doesn't need any city councilman's approval because once the budget is passed he can act on this on his own authority as mayor.

This extended coverage is not a novel idea either in the country or in North Carolina. Greensboro would be the second city in the state to establish such a policy. Those living in the liberal thinking University bastions of Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro were the first local governments to do so. Durham County and Orange County have also extended benefits to domestic partners. The legality of Chapel Hill and Carrboro's policies have been challenged, but have been upheld by a superior court judge in Orange County. The law has not been tested by a court with statewide jurisdiction as of this writing.


The policies generally allow employees to add unmarried partners and their children to employer health plans and allow unmarried employees to take sick leave to care for their partner or family members. In the case of Chapel Hill, it is specified that the coverage is for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples who live together in a relationship of indefinite duration, have an exclusive mutual commitment to each other and can demonstrate financial interdependence to qualify for the benefits.

Our Mayor did not undertake this mission without asking some questions and trying to get some clarification from the state for his proposal. His first question concerned the North Carolina law banning co-habitation. It was settled when a state court decision was made declaring North Carolina's 201-year ban on cohabitation to be unconstitutional. Citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law, State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford ruled that Debora Hobbs' constitutional rights were violated when the 911 dispatcher was fired from her job at the Pender County Sheriff's Office because she chose to live with her boyfriend.

I have no idea what Texas law against sodomy has to do with a man and a woman living together and presumably having sex as normal men and women do, rather than the performance of sodomy, has to do with couples in North Carolina co-habiting, but apparently North Carolina State Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Alford sees a connection. Go figure. I truly believe this ruling could successfully be challenged if anyone cared to do so. The fact is in our society today co-habitation without benefit of marriage is accepted so this ruling is not likely to be challenged. But how our Mayor was able to connect this ruling to extending Health Care insurance benefits to co-habiting individuals is clearly baffling.

At any rate, our Mayor's first concern was answered, but he first intended to only extend the coverage to same sex couples since opposite sex couples could get married and comply with the original provisions if they want to. City Hall erupted like Mount St. Helena! And well it should have because the plan was exclusionary. Which proves my point that once you open the doors and dispense with the time honored two definitive aspects of family then you have made any and all relationships equally eligible.

Of course our Mayor being a careful fellow did ask the State Attorney General's office, "Would it be a violation of equal protection under the federal and state constitutions for the city of Greensboro to choose to offer domestic partner health benefits to same-sex couples while denying the benefit to unmarried opposite sex couples." The North Carolina State Attorney General's Office refused to offer any guidance on this subject.

So now we have breached the only barriers and definitions of family health care coverage to include persons and their children who are not related by blood or by legal marriage contract to the employees. There is absolutely nothing to stop the employee from placing anyone at all on his policy. He has merely to pay the premium for them and this would show a financial dependence. And if he continues this obligation of paying the premium for anyone's insurance this would be all that was legally needed to show a commitment.

As for the "live with" clause, well what does "live with" really mean? in one space? or could paying as little as $1 a month on the rent and going over for dinner once a month qualify as "living with" granny and pops? and why shouldn't an employee be able to add a person and their children he/she is having a long term affair with and can show commitment and financial dependency but does not share the same space with? I think it is safe to say he/she certainly "sleeps" with the person and could eat in their residence and could pay that $1 per month rent. It is certainly feasible that a man could then have his legal family (wife by marriage and children) covered as well as his mistress and her children. Why not? It would fit the criteria that has to be met to receive this tax payer subsidized health care insurance.

What I am saying is that  once you shatter the time honored definition of dependent or family relationship then you open it up to a whole host of new configurations. This would make anyone eligible for tax payer subsidized city employee health insurance. Aunts, uncles, cousins, kissin' cousins, grand parents, parents and in-laws. Also conceivable as eligible are neighbors, homeless people, orphans, friends and Joe the bartender at the employee's favorite watering hole.


This is the real issue here folks! Not the pros and cons of same-sex marriage or homosexuality or whether or not people need insurance because of the high cost of medical care, but this opening of a Pandora's Box.

The re-defining "family" is a matter for the courts, the legislature, or more democratically, the ballot box. And until "partners" are given the legal definition of family my rights as a tax payer are being violated when I am forced to pay for non-family members insurance. And when companies and businesses offer these benefits to their employees then I am an unwilling contributor thru the higher prices I must pay for goods and services of these businesses, I have not, and will not, judge these actions on a moral or personal or religious basis in an open forum because the issue will not be judged on this basis in a court of law. And if the issue comes to the ballot box then each person will make a decision based on their beliefs whether religious or secular.

I would like to point out that while the country is absorbed with the issue of same-sex marriage businesses, cities and counties all over the country are making headway in dissolving the tradition definition of family by the same method used in my city. The more companies, cities, counties and states who breech the traditional definition of family by offering benefits to those outside of the family unit then the closer our country is to making the issue of same-sex marriage a forgone conclusion appearing to have the population's tacit approval and needing only the legalities to make it the law of the land.  
BB
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It worked in the 1930's so why not now.

President Franklin Roosevelt put people back to work with government work projects in the 1930's and it seems  that  somewhat the same things are happening now.  Construction projects of the Federal government, the states and  local governments that were authorized previous to the  current conditions  in the economy are just now being undertaken and thus providing blue collar jobs all over the nation.  This worked by design before to drag the economy  out of the depression, so maybe it will work  by accident now. 

There really won't be many government work projects following these however because  budgets are being cut at all levels since the tax payers are screaming for relief.  Inflation nearing 10% is also putting the breaks on governments spending.  The projects that are in the works right now however will likely have to absorb the inflated costs with cost overruns.  (Mitch will enjoy this since writing Change Orders is his favorite past time.  This is where he gets to pay people $83,000 for a project rather than the bid price of $31,000.)

Bottom line: the tax payer is getting it in the pocket regardless.

Good news: Bridges are being repaired and replaced all over the country so we may not see too many more bridges collapsing with any luck.  BB


Headline:  Governments' building projects shore up economy
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-08-19-spending_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

"Construction spending by federal, state and local governments has reached record levels, lifting the economy and employing some blue-collar workers despite a collapse in home building."

"Governments are on track to spend a record $300 billion this year on schools, roads, bridges and other projects, the Census Bureau reports. That's a 7% increase on top of a 12.4% jump last year, the biggest increase since 1993, when the agency began tracking construction spending."
Tags: economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putin Rollin'

Soon after  Vladimir Putin came on the scene in the mid 1990's  I saw him on TV and  told my husband that the majority of the Russian people have finally gotten back what they had lost when the Berlin Wall fell.  They had gotten back their cradle to grave security. 

Of course for this security there is a huge price that must be paid in freedom and dignity, but the Russian population had had 70 years of this  lifestyle and they really didn't want anything else.  Most little people once they have lost their ability to face life on their own two feet haven't the courage to  stand up again.  The few in Russia who yearned for freedom to  make their own way did prosper, but the slackers, the dullards, the lazy, the cheats  didn't do as well.  You see they were required to work for a living for the first time in their lives.   A privately owned  business expects their employees to earn their pay or they are replaced.  The state owned  businesses on the other hand accepted the inferior products  and productivity of the "employed for life"  workers.

You might point out just how much Vladimir Putin has done for the Russian people.  Russia fell because the Communist system of government doesn't work and the state was finally bankrupt.  This of course precipitated  terrible hardships on most of the population who due to the bare essentials provided from Communist Russia  had no resources to carry them thru the difficulty.   As stated above, those who were enterprising  found ways to survive and prosper, but most did not.  Then of course the criminals and mobs took over and the weakened state could not control the crime.

Vladimir Putin had been Head of the KGB so he knew what to do to control the criminals and he did.  Then he concentrated on running the state own businesses more efficiently.  Then came the kicker:  he took over all the privately own businesses that had  come about to supply the needs no longer supplied by the state.

During his eight years as President of Russia he has
been very popular with the Russian people because he was the man who "saved" them.  The economy skyrocketed because of the measures he took,   wages increased  from an average of $80 a month to $640  (of course so did prices! but people just feel richer with more money to spent just ask us Americans).   Best of all,  poverty was cut in half.  Poverty of those who hadn't been able to stand on their own two feet after the bankruptcy of the state run system.  Poverty that happen when the state no longer provided jobs because any good comunist will tell you there was no poverty before the Berlin Wall fell.

So while Putin was violating every single human rights issue in his own country the majority of his country men were praising him.

In the meantime, other countries that had once been under the hard heel of  Communist Russia had managed to prosper under their own forms of capitalism and relatively free elections.  It is these countries that Putin wants back in the fold and he has been working towards this end.  Attacking Georgia is, I believe, the first step.  The tanks are rolling and will continue to roll right over all the small independent countries  so that Putin can recreate the Russian Empire.  And there is absolutely no one to stop him.

And make no mistake, Vladimir Putin the former head of thje Communist KGB   has no love for America.  he has been able to keep the United States from putting in  missile bases in some of the former  Russian provinces.  He has managed to get moist of Europe hooked on Russian oil.  He is manuevering to get and keep the US and the UN tied up in the Middle East fiddling with Iran.  He has watched China become a  now greedy semi-capitalist country that doesn't want to shake the boat so they will look to their own interest by looking the other way while he plunders.
 
For a student of history it is going to be quite a show, albeit a  sad show  for  any who love liberty.  BB

Robert Kagan in today's Washington Post says it very well and gives some pertinent facts that I didn't  include with my opinion:

"This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move. "

See the rest of this article in today's  Washington Post

Headline: Putin Makes His Move

Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Addendum:  
EDITORIAL: Subverting Iran sanctions
The Washington Times Wed, 13 Aug 2008 1:28 AM PDT
While the United States emphasizes the need to halt investment in Iran's energy sector, Russia and China continue to forge ahead with billions of dollars in new investments that will enable Iran to finance its military buildup and fund terrorist groups. During the past year, Washington has had some success in persuading European allies not to go forward with projects that would provide capital ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Puti

Soon after  Vladimir Putin came on the scene in the mid 1990's  I saw him on TV and  told my husband that the majority of the Russian people have finally gotten back what they had lost when the Berlin Wall fell.  They had gotten back their cradle to grave security. 

Of course for this security there is a huge price that must be paid in freedom and dignity, but the Russian population had had 70 years of this  lifestyle and they really didn't want anything else.  Most little people once they have lost their ability to face life on their own two feet haven't the courage to  stand up again.  The few in Russia who yearned for freedom to  make their own way did prosper, but the slackers, the dullards, the lazy, the cheats  didn't do as well.  You see they were required to work for a living for the first time in their lives.   A privately owned  business expects their employees to earn their pay or they are replaced.  The state owned  businesses on the other hand accepted the inferior products  and productivity of the "employed for life"  workers.

You might point out just how much Vladimir Putin has done for the Russian people.  Russia fell because the Communist system of government doesn't work and the state was finally bankrupt.  This of course precipitated  terrible hardships on most of the population who due to the bare essentials provided from Communist Russia  had no resources to carry them thru the difficulty.   As stated above, those who were enterprising  found ways to survive and prosper, but most did not.  Then of course the criminals and mobs took over and the weakened state could not control the crime.

Vladimir Putin had been Head of the KGB so he knew what to do to control the criminals and he did.  Then he concentrated on running the state own businesses more efficiently.  Then came the kicker:  he took over all the privately own businesses that had  come about to supply the needs no longer supplied by the state.

During his eight years as President of Russia he has
been very popular with the Russian people because he was the man who "saved" them.  The economy skyrocketed because of the measures he took,   wages increased  from an average of $80 a month to $640  (of course so did prices! but people just feel richer with more money to spent just ask us Americans).   Best of all,  poverty was cut in half.  Poverty of those who hadn't been able to stand on their own two feet after the bankruptcy of the state run system.  Poverty that happen when the state no longer provided jobs because any good comunist will tell you there was no poverty before the Berlin Wall fell.

So while Putin was violating every single human rights issue in his own country the majority of his country men were praising him.

In the meantime, other countries that had once been under the hard heel of  Communist Russia had managed to prosper under their own forms of capitalism and relatively free elections.  It is these countries that Putin wants back in the fold and he has been working towards this end.  Attacking Georgia is, I believe, the first step.  The tanks are rolling and will continue to roll right over all the small independent countries  so that Putin can recreate the Russian Empire.  And there is absolutely no one to stop him.

And make no mistake, Vladimir Putin the former head of thje Communist KGB   has no love for America.  he has been able to keep the United States from putting in  missile bases in some of the former  Russian provinces.  He has managed to get moist of Europe hooked on Russian oil.  He is manuevering to get and keep the US and the UN tied up in the Middle East fiddling with Iran.  He has watched China become a  now greedy semi-capitalist country that doesn't want to shake the boat so they will look to their own interest by looking the other way while he plunders.
 
For a student of history it is going to be quite a show, albeit a  sad show  for  any who love liberty.  BB

Robert Kagan in today's Washington Post says it very well and gives some pertinent facts that I didn't  include with my opinion:

"This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move. "

See the rest of this article in today's  Washington Post

Headline: Putin Makes His Move

Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Addendum:  
EDITORIAL: Subverting Iran sanctions
The Washington Times Wed, 13 Aug 2008 1:28 AM PDT
While the United States emphasizes the need to halt investment in Iran's energy sector, Russia and China continue to forge ahead with billions of dollars in new investments that will enable Iran to finance its military buildup and fund terrorist groups. During the past year, Washington has had some success in persuading European allies not to go forward with projects that would provide capital ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Low Tech Jobs May Be Coming Back to US

Good and bad coming out of the energy crisis.  Today's New York Times reports on a trend that  bodes well for the low tech/skills jobs that may be coming back to the US due to the high costs of energy.  This should take care of the high unemployment rate among the unskilled/uneducated segment of the population.  Therefore this should prove to be a cure for some of our increasing social ills because employed people are more likely to keep to the straight and narrow and build for a future.  Marriages and stable families are more likely to increase among the minorities leading to upward mobility and a better educated second generation.  These things that the United States has lost in the last 30 years  with a corresponding rise in crime.

It will not however do a great deal to save the high tech jobs that have been going overseas unfortunately.  When I call for help with my new Dell computer I get this help from the Philippines.

Then again the United States will undoubtedly continue to be the creators of new technology. Surely ours will be the new technology for alternative sources of energy which will perhaps save the earth from further degradation from fossil fuels, as well as reducing our need to placate the more unstable and troublesome countries who seem to have the lions share of fossil fuels (Middle East, Russia, some South American countries) .

We have always been the inventors and   entrepreneurs while other countries have taken the role of  copiers.  Other countries reap the benefits of our first rate minds and then out perform us because we have a gigantic gape between our super intelligent inventors and our workers!  It would be a joke if not so sad.  ( this is of course simplistic because much more is involved that just an inadequate work force that caused jobs to go overseas, but it certainly is a very significant yet unacknowledged reason for being upstaged by others.  Americans tend to be a pampered, greedy and very  lazy people.)

Anyhow, I have lifted some quotes from the article if you want to read more about it. BB

Headline: " Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/03global.html?th&emc=th

Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.

"The industries most likely to be affected by the sharp rise in transportation costs are those producing heavy or bulky goods that are particularly expensive to ship relative to their sale price. Steel is an example. China’s steel exports to the United States are now tumbling by more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis, their worst performance in a decade, while American steel production has been rising after years of decline. Motors and machinery of all types, car parts, industrial presses, refrigerators, television sets and other home appliances could also be affected."

"The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing. Many companies have in recent years shifted production from countries with greater energy efficiency and more rigorous standards on carbon emissions, especially in Europe, to those that are more lax, like China and India.o avoid having to ship all its products from abroad, the Swedish furniture manufacturer Ikea opened its first factory in the United States in May. Some electronics companies that left Mexico in recent years for the lower wages in China are now returning to Mexico, because they can lower costs by trucking their output overland to American consumers."

"But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States."

"But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator McCain had a better example than P. Hilton or B. Spears

Controversial McCain campaign likens Obama to Paris Hilton

By David Usborne in Cedar Rapids, Iowa  Friday, August 1, 2008

“John McCain has unleashed a withering television commercial interweaving clips of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears with footage of Barack Obama addressing 200,000 Germans in Berlin a week ago in an apparent attempt to portray the Illinois senator as a bimbo celebrity with more smile than substance.”

Senator McCain’s staff  missed the boat on this one because they should have run a clip of the Dixie Chicks and their little tirade in London.

(From Wikipedia:  The music group Dixie Chicks were mired in political controversy after comments made by one of the band members about the 2003 Iraqi war and George W. Bush. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre. During this concert, the band gave a monologue to introduce their song Travelin’ Soldier,Natalie Maines, a Texas native, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, “Just so you know, [...] we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”[1]

Though this is the official circulation of the comment, the full text of the statement Natalie Maines made was as follows: “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all.  We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

“Maines’ remark sparked intense criticism; many Americans believed that she should not criticize George Bush on foreign shores.”)

Country music fans dropped the group after that and it took them four  years to make their way back into the fans good graces even tho many celebrities came out for their right to speak.  But it was their speaking out against the President and thus the United States on foreign soil that caused all the back lash.  The same statement could probably have been made here in country and not even cause a ripple since so many were bad mouthing Bush and his run up to the Iraqi War.

Is Senator McCain’s staff too far removed from the rednecks who vote to have not known which notorious female “mouth” to use?  Or maybe it was just that Paris shows better on camera?

This all is a big joke to me of course because Obama’s handlers are now referring to McCain as “McNasty”.   Obama however continues to play the race card, so just who is nastier?

Putting all the petty political rhetoric aside tho, I feel that race will not play out as having any influence in November UNLESS Obama continues to play the race card as he has been doing recently in some of his remarks.  He is careful not to mention the word race, but the inference is clear.  BB

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/controversial-mccain-campaign-likens-obama-to-paris-hilton-882630.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Caught Up in Our Own Greedy Consumption with No Easy Fix.

Here is an interesting article from FactCheck.org that hits at both presidential candidates and their  quick fix for the energy crisis.    There is no "quick fix" for the mess we have gotten ourselves into by living like we were not aware that fossil fuels were a finite resource.  Of course as long as the United States was the only  profligate user we could continue in our greedy ways. Like who knew  India and China both with larger populations  than the United  States would ever wake up from their long sleep stuck in the pre-oil days and suddenly demand their share of this resource?  

Thinking about this is rather ironic is it not?  That we would be caught up in our own greedy consumption and now be crying like the spoiled brats we are because we are suddenly having to pay the actual price of oil as the rest of the world have always done.  Still at $4 a gallon we in the US are still being pampered  since the costs in Europe is now up to $8 a gallon. 

And after reading the fallowing that exposes the clay feet of Obama's fix it be sure to go to the bottom of the age and click on the article entitled "McCain's Power Outage".    BB

_________________________________

From FactCheck.org

Straining a Point

Summary
Obama released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.

Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released the ad and said it would run on national cable TV networks starting July 17. According to the news release, the 30-second spot "underscores Barack Obama’s understanding of national security in a new century." Perhaps so. Much of what it says is accurate enough, but on one point we find that it strains the truth and could easily give viewers a false impression.

Obama 08 Ad:
Changing World

obama ad world changing


Announcer:
40 years ago it was missile silos and the Cold War.
Today, it’s cyber attacks…loose nukes…oil money funding terrorism.
Barack Obama understands our changing world.

On the Foreign Relations Committee, he co-sponsored a law to lock down loose nuclear weapons.

As president, he’ll rebuild our alliances to take out terrorist networks... And fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations.

New leadership for a changing world.

Obama:
I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Fast Track

As an example of Obama's supposed grasp of 21st-century security threats, the ad says he has "fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations." Pictured on screen are images of whirling windmills generating electricity, a solar array against a blue sky, and a couple of white-coated lab workers, one of them peering into a microscope.

The campaign says the ad is referring to Obama's long-standing proposal to spend $150 billion over 10 years for research into alternative energy – "to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid."

Spending that money may well be a good idea, but it's not our place to judge. We do object to describing a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, as a "fast track" to anything.

We also point out that even over the long term there can be no guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse the growth of oil imports. Keep in mind that the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year, up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a long time. Reversing it will not be "fast" or painless.

We repeat: We're not knocking Obama's 10-year plan. We cited it in our July 9 article as the reason that a Republican National Committee ad was wrong to say that Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem. We're not endorsing Obama's plan either. We are saying Obama is stretching the truth to call this decade-long program a "fast-track" alternative or to say that "we [will] stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations" as a result. 

by Brooks Jackson
Sources
Obama08 "OBAMA FOR AMERICA, “CHANGING WORLD,” :30 FOR TV" campaign fact sheet 17 July 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from All Countries (Thousand Barrels per Day)" Web site accessed 17 July 2008.
Related Articles
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Multiple Choice Moralities"

I read the following and felt I had   try to figure it out ikn my normal way which is with my keyboard.  So here goes.  Maybe after reading the quote we will arrive at the meaning together.  Stranger things have happened you know; upon occasion there has been a wild bird out there who agreed with me!    BB


May 06, 2008

Multiple Choice Moralities
—Albert Mohler

"Our vocabulary betrays us. Instead of saying "I made a mistake," politicians say "mistakes were made." Similarly, some now want to speak of moral "values," but not of morals.

The contemporary talk of "values" is what is left when society accepts the notion that there is no genuine right or wrong. Moral issues are reduced to matters of personal preference and conviction. My "values" may not match your "values," but we all must respect each other's convictions equally in matters of common concern.

The reduction of morality to values was a hallmark of the 1980s, when progressive educators pushed this agenda in the public schools. That generation of young people is now well into adulthood, and we can see the moral damage inflicted by those who instructed students to look only within themselves for a system of values, and to doubt or defy traditional morality.

A generation raised in the incubator of moral relativism is groping for enduring truth in the moral wilderness."



How did we get here?  Is Albert Mohler correct in blaming the educators of the 1980's or there about?  That would the first group of Baby Boomers   who would have begun their careers in the mid 1960's and still teaching when Mohler says this all began.    We were not the first young people to rebel against our parents.  Plato speaks of the unruly youth of his day.   Neither were we the first generation to lose faith in  their government (VietNam).  So  how did we get here?  And how do we get back to being a society whose people are able to determine right from wrong?

I knew right from wrong.  I was taught right from wrong with my Daddy's size 13 hand that went with his size 13 shoe if my memory slipped or my built in conscience wasn't strong enough to guide me. 

I taught my children right from wrong.  I never ever demanded good grades from them as so many parents do, because I knew they were both intelligent enough and would find their way  in life regardless of how the schools mauled them over. I never demanded a great deal of work from them as I wanted them to have a childhood.  Childhoods are so very short.   Their only chores were the dinner dishes, helping me with the weekend house cleaning by running the vacuum and dusting furniture before going out to play and be with friends.  (Note: as well as keeping their rooms  clean enough that I didn't have to have the exterminator make an extra trip between regular visits.  We lived in the southeast where bugs, or more specifically, roaches are a fact of life that one never expects to win over and is happy with just keeping them at bay.).     The only thing I did require/demand from my children was that they be decent human beings.  By which I naturally thought it was understood that honesty/morality/integrity was paramount.    

 Yet I see them  making these "value" judgements that are based really on what is  expedient for them at the time.  Not what is right, but what is the most comfortable, politically correct or whatever the moment demanded of them  personally.  The easy way out so that they won't be  judged by the crowd as being an outsider.  And Puleeeze, not like their Mom! 

Not that they are bad people by a long shot.  No.  They are just the typical people of the Generation X (35 to 50) who are the teachers and young  leaders today.  And they have so much that I admire  as they seem at ease with themselves and society.  They don't feel the need to always be striving and pushing and pulling to get things "right".  There are many things I  especially envy.  No one is pushing my daughter into nursing, teaching, hair dresser or wife roles.  Those were my choices as a blue collar kid  entering the male dominated work force.  I had to work twice as hard for half as much, keep my head down, look the other way when my work was used as my superior's required magazine articles for the term,  keep my  mouth shut and leave good jobs when my superior wished an outside of work relationship.

The sky is the limit for Elaine.  And she is well on her way!  Miles is doing what he loves.  My son comes alive in a kitchen.  His greatest joy is standing over a hot stove and hearing the people around him laughing, talking and eating food he had prepared.

No they are not bad people.  In fact, they and others in their age group consider them rather straight arrow types.  But as they pointed out to me once, "Your values are not our values Mom." 

My answer, "Values?  Who is talking about values?  I'm talking about morals!  Right and wrong!  Values are things you decide for yourself; things that are important to you personally.  Morals are the glue of a society, the rules by which everyone plays.  God's laws for mankind."

So I had my "think for yourself and step up and speak out when you believe society  is wrong.  Stand up for everyones right to speak his mind  and live his life.  Society (the government) must care for the  less able  until they can care for themselves, etc, etc."   It was called liberalism in my day and today goes by the moniker "progressives".  Somewhere along the line I looked at where we were, and where we were headed, and grew up.  Many others of my generation are still stuck in the age of the flower children; out of touch with reality.

 My children have their "values" that constitute their self determined  morals that govern their actions.  Always subject to change of course!  Because things must remain in their comfortable politically correct close my eyes so I won't see what is happening and leave me be to live my own life.  Living that life behind locked doors and security systems.

And now with all  this  rambling it is coming clear: it is my grandchildren  from  age 3 years to 22 who are the ones left to wander  in the moral wilderness.  Dear Lord may they discover thy truth.  BB
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Facts related to the War with Islam that the World is Engaged In

This is an e-mail that has been making the rounds for since mid 2004.  It is true, the letter was written and  as I have checked the facts are accurate.  What is not  true is that it has been attributed to Dr. Vernon Chong.  Dr. Chong denies writing it and instead said he found it on the internet and forwarded it to a friend and somehow it became attributed to him.  The man who wrote it  is an attorney and it was meant as a letter to his three sons. 


The name of the author really is immaterial because it is the facts of this  War on Terror, or more accurately this war with Islam and the Muslims of the world.  So many are still keeping their heads in the sand and denying  the facts when the facts are overwhelming.  If you want more information see my blog http://triadblogs.com/BrendaFayBowers and read the posts under the Categories Muslims, Middle East and War on Terror.  I have referenced all of my data so you are free to check my sources.  BB

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp  (url for the letter at Snopes.com)


This WAR is REAL
(the Original title was  "The World Situation, a Letter to my Sons)

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.


First, let's examine a few basics:


1 When did the threat to us start?


Many will say
September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
*
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie ,
ScotlandPan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* FirstNew YorkWorld Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya USEmbassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.


(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)


2 Why were we attacked?


Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.


3 Who were the attackers?


In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.


4 What is the Muslim population of the World?


25%.


5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?


Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).


(seehttp
://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.


Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?


6 So who are we at war with?


There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.


So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?


2 What does losing really mean?


If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:


We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?


It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.


What losing really means is:


We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.


We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..


They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.


The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.


Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.


If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?


The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.


Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.


So, how can we lose the war?


Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.


Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:


President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.


And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.


Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?


No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.


Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.


I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.


Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.


And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of
Iraq. And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.


Can they be for real?


The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.


To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.


These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.


We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.WeWe can't!


If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.


qual rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.


This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.


If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.


The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?


Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.


And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.


Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.


What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"


I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It ilose.I future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What do we want: Schools or Armed Camps?

Undisciplined behavior in our public schools is finally being acknowledged as a problem.  Just this week I have read several articles from all over the country  about school violence (including our own News & Record, Greensboro, NC).  Of course lack of discipline  at home and/or at school is the root cause of  this violence in the school setting.  Busy involved students who are in school to learn aren't the ones fighting, rioting, attacking teachers and other students or bringing weapons to school.  Everyone finally acknowledges that our public schools are in  trouble.  Everyone is asking the same question:  what can be done about it?

Unfortunately everyone but classroom teachers appears to be taken by surprise at this "new" phenomena.  Whereas it  has been the hope of classroom teachers for years that the administration would listen to their pleas for help.  They didn't, and haven't, and now the situation is totally out of hand. 

They are finally listening but the remedies offered by the administrations and school boards to alleviate  the problem  in most cases is much like that imposed on classroom teachers and students who are in school to learn here in Guilford County :  No more suspensions!  In other words,  if the problem can be ignored by the office then it can continue to be denied, and God help  the teacher who sends students to the office because  he/she will be judged lacking in ability. 

When the numbers of "couldn't care less" and therefore disruptive students were much smaller is when the problem should have been addressed.  But somewhere along in the 1970's it was decided by parents that their children were perfect and never to be disciplined, and by administrations  that students were "to be understood".  When dealing with a disruptive student one must consider if the child had a decent breakfast, or any breakfast at all, before coming to school.  The child's home life had to be taken into consideration.  There was not one standard of behavior that was expected of the students regardless of their personal background or problems.  No longer was the school staff limited to a principal, secretary, janitor, cafeteria workers and teachers. All sorts of councilors and social workers had to be brought in to "help" students adjust to their life outside of school so they could function in school.  The result is that the administrative and support staff  in most school systems is now larger than the teaching staff.  Any yet it is this teaching staff on whom the burden falls to  council,  discipline, inspire, encourage, understand, be counseled endlessly by the "experts" on how to handle students and, oh yes by the way, teach so the test scores  measure up to the national standards or you will be held responsible.

While all sorts of remedies have been proposed by "experts" ( who probably have never been near a classroom except to walk in for a few minutes to observe in order to get data for their "research") have been tried and at great expense to the tax payers, none have worked.  While those proposed by the teachers, students and parents are acknowledged with smilingly condescending attitudes by administrations and boards at education forums and then promptly forgotten in most cases.

It is a fact that students perform better in neighborhood schools.  When the schools are a part of the community and  parents who couldn't care less (the leading cause of students who couldn't careless)  are known and made aware of the problems their children are causing their neighbor's children some problems are controlled where they should be, at home.  Also in neighborhood schools parents feel included and become involved with the schools whereas a school across town is remote and parents hesitate to intrude on unfamiliar territory.  And since most of the students are also from out of the community where the school is located the parents who do try to become involved are simply a group of strangers with nothing really in common but their own child education.  There is no common ground on which to base a community wide action towards easing the problems both students and teacher are having in the school, so again the burden to deal with the problems are placed by individual parents on the teacher.

All this we know and have known about neighborhood schools and  yet we continue to drag children all over counties even when parents have gone so far as to demand their children remain in the community.   In recent years parents  (especially Black parents)  have turned their backs on the civil rights movement of  "integration" in the schools.  They want an education for their children and have found thru years of effort and forced busing that sitting together does not necessarily bring about color blindness among the students.  In most cases  separate groups are formed around ethnicity when out of the classroom regardless of how well they cooperate in the classroom.  Even less has  sitting next to each other in classrooms  added one iota to the child's ability to read, write and cipher.  But administrations and school boards continue to ignore the known facts and will not permit neighborhood schools.

Evidence is also building that Charter Schools are out performing public schools.  So what are the Charter Schools doing.  Well for one thing they are individually administered  and they do not come under the public school's administration or the school board's influence.  Their mandate is to teach and not be bothered with the experimental programs such as after school classes for the "special" (read disruptive) students. They are required in most cases to have a counselor on staff and that is what they have "a" counselor.  Money is more limited than in the regular public schools and if they wish to continue they are required to out produce the public schools so staffing is concentrated on teaching personnel and  teacher's aids.

Charter schools are most easily defined as publicly funded  schools that act as private schools.  Most Charter Schools have long waiting lists of students begging to get in.  And contrary to what some critics like to claim is the basis of their success,   they do not pick and choose what students  are enrolled  so they "don't have to take problems student". All students are free to apply  and are taken as space allows in most cases.  Only if there is some logistics problem can a student be denied enrollment.   It is true however that usually the "problem" students don't apply to go to the Charter Schools  because they have the reputation of actually being schools where learning takes place. It would seem that more charter schools to get those who want to learn out of the public school zoos would to be one solution to the educating of our children.  However states under pressure by public schools teachers unions and administrations have limited the number of charter schools there may be in each state.  North Carolina at present allows 100 Charter Schools in the entire state.

It is also a fact that Black males are the majority of  the "couldn't care less"  students.  So do we build more prison's?  Or does the Black community finally realize that their own behavior of  accepting one parent families with no father figure in site is the problem?  Study after study has been done and children with two parent families do better in school regardless of any other factors taken into consideration.  Many more studies have shown beyond a doubt that female head of household  families are the most likely to foster male children who are angry and disruptive and who join gangs and ultimately end up in prisons.  The female children of these homes are more likely to follow in the footsteps of their mothers and in turn become unmarried mothers.  But Black leaders and ministers  are reluctant to accept this fact and work to try changing the moral dilemma destroying the Black underclass.  The number of illegitimate Black babies born increases every year.  Neither do they encourage doing anything as a community to help these children because the real problems   are not acknowledged.

Recently I have heard and read more and more people of some authority suggesting the  more drastic overhaul of our public schools system of having two  types of public schools: one for the learners that are run like charter schools and the other type for the "problem" students  run more on the military school model.  This may work.  A  well disciplined military school model is certainly better than the armed camp we are quickly approaching even here in Greensboro/Guilford  and all over the country.  It would however take a major shift in  the thoughts of the huge bloated school administrations and school boards  in that they would have to relinquish their iron fisted control, so I really have no hopes for any solution to this problem in the near, or even distant,  future.   BB

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What if Roe vs Wade were Overturned?

Abortion rights (Roe vs Wade) has been the one most controversial  Supreme Court judgments ever made.  It is an issue on which opponents can find no middle point on which they can compromise.  The fetus is dead or it is left to live; there is no in between!  I have often considered what would happen if Roe vs Wade was overturned.  This now is not a wholly impossible event given the current make up of the Court.  If the next President is a antyi-abortionist it becomes even more possible because the more liberals judges are getting old and being replaced.

Well I don't have to do my own research if I truly wanted to get into this question because  FactCheck.org has done that for me in this article .

As it turns out  abortion would still be rather handily available regardless of the best the anti-abortionists can do.  Here is the assessment of just what might happen: 

"T
he Center for Reproductive Rights also predicts that some states that don't have bans now will institute them if the Supreme Court gives them the authority. In all, the center estimates that 21 states are likely to outlaw abortion immediately. This assessment is based not only on current law, but on the political makeup of the state legislatures.

According to the center, those states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

On the other hand, abortion is likely to remain legal in many states, according to these groups. Seven states already have specific laws protecting the right to abortion, with or without Roe, according to Guttmacher. The Center for Reproductive Rights identifies 20 states in which legal abortion would likely be preserved: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. The remaining nine states, according to the Center, are at "middle risk" of an abortion ban."

So really all that would happen if Roe vs Wade were to be overturned is to put poor women back in the back alley abortion hack shops that Roe vs Wade was  initially enacted to eliminate.  And it would also open  up a huge black market for any "abortion pill" that anyone can concoct.  All of which means one of two things: damaged or dead  pregnant women.  Or far worse, if not dead then certainly severely damaged babies.

Aborting unwanted babies is as old as pregnancy and will never be eliminated, it will only go back underground which will cause far more problems, but being underground they will be out of sight of most  who are yelling to go back before 1973.  Then all the  people who have been so vocal in this fight will go their merry way and only the social workers,  police and hospital emergency rooms will be aware of and dealing with the consequences.

I will repeat what I have always said and believed:  I hate abortion.  The only thing I hate more is bringing an unwanted and therefore unloved baby into this world.  People there are worse things than death!  Far better an innocent soul be returned to the Creator than to be twisted and damaged by a wicked world and not being at least partially protected by loving parents.  BB
Tags: abortion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Martin Luther King of my youth



I  have been trying to find the words to tell you how I felt about Martin Luther King.  He was not to me or my friends who worked for his cause what he is being portrayed as today.  The Blacks of today, even those who lived when he did and heard him speak,  do his memory a dishonor in the way they hold him up as the ultimate racist.   Martin Luther King had no color!  Martin Luther King refused to see color as a disadvantage or a crutch or a reason for anger as is common today among black leaders.  Most of all, Martin Luther King refused to allow  the color black to be an excuse for the irresponsible, hateful, degenerate and self-destructive behavior  used  by Black leaders today to explain how and why  so many Blacks have slide from poor in material goods to poverty stricken in moral values. 

The above is as far as I got and then I stopped because I was telling what he was not and not as I wanted to tell.  I wanted to tell what he was.  It took a Black man to do that for me.   Juan Williams (The Wall Street Journal o4/06/08) wrote  the right words.   I as a white woman and older civil rights worker could not  because I somehow could not work thru my disillusion and heart break that somehow what he started had gone so wrong.  So  wrong that the first  Black man to actually come within sight of the presidency of the United States would have spent 20 years worshiping the God of us all in the church of a virulent racist like Jeremiah Wright.

The words of Juan Williams:

"While speaking to black people, King never condescended to offer Rev. Wright-style diatribes or conspiracy theories. He did not paint black people as victims. To the contrary, he spoke about black people as American patriots who believed in the democratic ideals of the country, in nonviolence and the Judeo-Christian ethic, even as they overcame slavery, discrimination and disadvantage. King challenged white America to do the same, to live up to their ideals and create racial unity. He challenged white Christians, asking them how they could treat their fellow black Christians as anything but brothers in Christ.

When King spoke about the racist past, he gloried in black people beating the odds to win equal rights by arming "ourselves with dignity and self-respect." He expressed regret that some black leaders reveled in grievance, malice and self-indulgent anger in place of a focus on strong families, education and love of God. Even in the days before Congress passed civil rights laws, King spoke to black Americans about the pride that comes from "assuming primary responsibility" for achieving "first class citizenship."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A View of Man's Future? Is it man-made?

"Bees’ role in the natural order of our world is crucial, and their importance as pollinators, both for agriculture and for wild plants, can’t be underestimated. Nor can it simply be quantified in monetary terms. Bees are what is known as a “keystone species,” ensuring the continued reproduction and survival not only of plants but of other organisms that depend on those plants for survival. Once a keystone species disappears, other species begin to disappear too, thus Albert Einstein’s apocalyptic and, these days, oft-quoted view: “If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

I suppose the above quote from this article
   just about says it all.  We are in effect witnessing our own decline and extinction as we study that of the not so humble bumble bee.  this article gives some theories as to what is happening and this I suppose is the beginning of finding a fix.  But will it come in time to save the bee and therefore save us?


http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/50/give-bees-a-chance
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »