Thanks for the links, Reg.

Say, did you read any of the comments on their (Occupy Pittsburgh) site?

Here's y favorite, form someone who doesn't want the protesters ruing Light-Up Night:

"Light up night is not supposed to smell like hobos!"

I guess the commentator doesn't want any olfactory challenges on his or her way to visit the baby Jesus in the creche across the street from the camp.

I'm curious,though. How does he/she know what a hobo smells like? I haven't encountyered a real, honest-to-gosh train-ridin' hobo in years.

Prob'ly the real manger didn't smell like goats or sheep or chickensh!t 'n stuff.

Formerly,

Right on.

Someone else wrote the following about those who call for a defined message from OWS:

"We who support the Wall Street protest are misguided if we are waiting for the protesters to define the protest. Their job is to be place keepers on the street until the rest of us frame the point, from the safety of our homes and offices, free from pepper spray and police batons. It is our responsibility to do this - and we number in the millions."
The Nation.

theartisteformerlyknownasthescarletpumpernickel-

Eventually, I'll bet the real manger smelled [sic] like baby Jesus. I saw it many years ago in the Santa Maria Maggiore Basilica.

Thanks for publishing those links.

And thanks to Bram for Occupying Pittsburgh and providing the links.

There was a nationwide effort via Occupy to walk to symbols of decaying infrastructure on Nov 18 to demand jobs. According to the PG report, about 750 people attended:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...792-53.stm

From MSNBC:

Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall StreetBy Jonathan Larsen and Ken Olshansky, MSNBC TV

A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”

The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.

CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

Two of the memo’s authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker; Cranford joined CLGC this year after serving as the speaker’s assistant for policy. A third partner, Steve Clark, is reportedly “tight” with Boehner, according to a story by Roll Call that CLGC features on its website.

Jeff Sigmund, an ABA spokesperson, confirmed that the association got the memo. “Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal – it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way,” he said in a statement to "Up."

CLGC did not return calls seeking comment.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, “My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street.”

The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. “Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism,” the memo says. “…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”

advertisementadvertisement
advertisement
The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies “likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause,” according to the memo. “A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost.”

Part of the plan CLGC proposes is to do “statewide surveys in at least eight states that are shaping up to be the most important of the 2012 cycle.”

Specific races listed in the memo are U.S. Senate races in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada as well as the gubernatorial race in North Carolina.

The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, “Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others.”

"It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.”

Very interesting, Sally, that it's necessary to PAY to put a negative spin on the OWS movement. This cracks me up:

if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

No worries, I'm sure Democrats will cave in to Wall Street and the Republicans just like they always do. On the other hand, Republicans are just doing what they have to do to get elected: somehow make the 99% that they have something to offer. It does indeed take craploads of money to achieve that feat, but as we've seen, it can be done. They just get more and more practiced, they've been doing it for 30 years.

Scarlet, I know you at least will love this classic George Carlin on this very subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2QxqJBJN6w

George Carlin as prophet. Whoda thunk?

Thanks, Yinzer. My sinuses needed that coffee lavage this morning!

RIP Walt Hazzard. Saw him play for UCLA -- one of the greats!

Glad to help out with your irrigation project there, Diva.

Comedians are often the only ones who can tell the truth. At least two studies showed that Jon Stewart's audience is better informed that Fox News's.

George wrote the original manifesto for OWS too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=share

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...TE=DEFAULT

Yinzerati,

A couple of days ago you said more or less that the ballot box may not be a sufficient solution for the problems the OWS movement wants to remedy. I understand that its easy to overlook posts or glaze over parts addressed to a specific person, but I had asked what exactly you meant by that, and what means you think would be required and appropriate.

From George Carlin:

" I look at it this way... For centuries now, man has done everything he can to destroy, defile, and interfere with nature: clear-cutting forests, strip-mining mountains, poisoning the atmosphere, over-fishing the oceans, polluting the rivers and lakes, destroying wetlands and aquifers... so when nature strikes back, and smacks him on the head and kicks him in the nuts, I enjoy that. I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it's natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse. "

Very nice. Sounds like he hates for being born. He should have Mapquested Utopia before he passed on so he could have spent one happy day in his life.

Op-ed from a SMART Republican (not an oxymoron after all):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...story.html

The Palinization of the GOP
By Kathleen Parker, Published: November 18

The headline on Democratic strategist Paul Begala’s recent Newsweek essay dodged subtlety: “The Stupid Party.”

“Republicans used to admire intelligence. But now they’re dumbing themselves down,” was the subhead.

Democrats couldn’t agree more. And quietly, many Republicans share the sentiment. They just can’t seem to stop themselves.

Republicans aren’t really stupid, of course, and Begala acknowledges this. But, as he also pointed out, the conservative brain trust once led by William F. Buckley has been supplanted by talk radio hosts who love to quote Buckley (and boast of his friendship) but who do not share the man’s pedigree or his nimble mind. Moreover, where Buckley tried to rid the GOP of fringe elements, notably the John Birch Society, today’s conservatives have let them back in. The 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference was co-sponsored by the Birchers.

Meanwhile, the big tent fashioned by Ronald Reagan has become bilious with the hot air of religious fervor. No one was more devout than the very-Catholic Buckley, but you didn’t see him convening revivals in the public square. Nor is it likely he would have embraced fundamentalist views that increasingly have forced the party into a corner where science and religion can’t coexist.

Scientific skepticism, the engine that propels intellectual inquiry, has morphed into skepticism of science fueled by religious certitude. In this strange world, it is heresy to express concern about, for example, climate change — or even to suggest that human behavior may be a contributing factor. Jon Huntsman committed blasphemy when he told ABC’s Jake Tapper that he trusts scientists on global warming.

What Huntsman next said, though refreshing and true, ensured that his poll numbers would remain in the basement: “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and, therefore, in a losing position.”

Of course, plenty of Republicans agree with this appraisal, including other presidential candidates. They understand that the challenge is to figure out to what extent humans contribute and what humans can reasonably do without bankrupting the planet.

Nevertheless, the Republican base requires that candidates tack away from science toward the theistic position — only God controls climate. More to the point, Rush Limbaugh says that climate change is a hoax and so it must be. Huntsman may as well be a Democrat.

It takes courage to swim against the tide of know-nothingness that has become de rigueur among the anti-elite, anti-intellectual Republican base. Call it the Palinization of the GOP, in which the least informed earns the loudest applause. The latest to this spectacle is Herman Cain, who has figured out how to turn his liabilities into assets. After fumbling for an answer during an editorial board meeting to a simple question about his position on Libya, a lead news item since February, Cain blamed — who else? — the media.

The problem wasn’t that he had no idea. The problem, he said, was that he likes to think before he speaks. Besides, there are so many countries out there.

“Who knows every detail of every country on the planet?” he asked a crowd in Nashua, N.H., a few days later. “The people that get on the Cain train, they don’t get off because of that crap.”

It’s safe to say that nobody knows every detail of every country, but Libya isn’t just any country and the United States did not play a minor role in helping Libyans liberate themselves from the 40-year tyranny of Moammar Gaddafi. But Cain is banking on the hope that GOP contempt for smarty-pants, gotcha journalists will outweigh concerns that he may be out of his league.

He may be right. Despite his difficulties, Cain is still polling in the top tier, just behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Even so, there are signs that the GOP is recognizing its weaknesses and is ready to play smarter. To wit: The sudden surge of Gingrich, who, whatever his flaws and despite the weight of his considerable baggage, is no intellectual slouch. Whether he can pull off a victory in Iowa remains to be seen, but a populist professor — a bombastic smarty-pants Republicans can call their own — may be just the ticket.

...when nature strikes back, and smacks him on the head and kicks him in the nuts, I enjoy that.

Likewise I always cheer for the bulls to gore the sh!t out of those stupid jerks who torture/kill them at bullfights or run with them in Pamplona (including PSU's newly-ex-Pres.).

The only "Running of the Bulls" I ever found acceptable was on Northern Exposure

Nevertheless, the Republican base requires that candidates tack away from science toward the theistic position — only God controls climate

I saw someone being interviewed who wrote a book basically saying that the right wing extremist movement is a religious movement, not a political movement, and is only using politics to create a theocracy - more or less. And I can't remember who is was and can't find his book. Much of those anti-intellectual stances stem from this. I mean, they have a museum where Adam and Eve ride dinosaurs (with saddles). But by all means let's give our tax dollars via vouchers to schools that teach this.

I'll just keep clinging to my guns & religion, I guess. Thank goodness I have intellectuals like you to point me in the right direction.

I honestly do get a chuckle at some of you who look for articles & studies to convince yourselves that you're smarter than your political opponents, as if it proves something about your own personal intellectual superiority.

TD, no convincing needed - we already know we're smarter than our political opponents - especially since they've largely purged people like Buckley out of the ranks.

I didn't agree with Buckley, but nobody could call him stupid. Who is supposed to fill Buckley's shoes today, Newt?

Oh, there's that coffee lavage again...

...you who look for articles & studies to convince yourselves that you're smarter than your political opponents, as if it proves something about your own personal intellectual superiority.

Fish, meet barrel

Smug alert.

I'll just keep clinging to my guns & religion...

OK. so now we know the the religious right's REAL view of the public education mission: enough mechanics to shoot and maintain firearms, and barely enough literacy instruction to read the bible and post tirades on blogs against those who believe in knowledge, science and reason. Just think of all the taxes they could save everyone (but especially the wealthy 1% or 2%) with such an agenda.

Damn education to hell, anyhow

*t's the perfect storm of self-satisfaction.

http://www.southparkstudios.co...tisfaction

TD: I'll just keep clinging to my guns & religion...

TD: Smug alert.

Diva: TD, no convincing needed

For all I hear about how liberals care for the little guy, I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of contempt for what a lot of those little people think & believe.

But I guess that's why we need you to take care of us.

...contempt for what a lot of those little people think & believe.

I'm sure you wouldn't want them practicing medicine or dentistry on you or a loved one, conducting the research on scientific (including biomedical) breakthroughs to benefit humankind, doing anything technological that you need, not understanding our legal system (law enforcement and judicial officers alike), or...

Damn knowledge and those who support it anyhow

Sally

I was ready to post the very article you linked to about the lobbying. The most basic lesson to be derived from this is that OWS has the establishment at least somewhat worried. That is good news.

One doesn't employ howitzers to knock a merely pesky fly of one's shoulder.

Voting is a way for the 99% to make their desires known. What makes effectuating that difficult are three distinct factors.

First of all, a remarkable number of the 99% do not believe they belong to that demographic, or at least do not believe that their residency there is anything but transient. That belief defies logic and at least thirty years of hard, overwhelming, statistical evidence to the contrary.

Second, greater voter participation has been espoused by most responsible people even as the actual voter turnout has been below 65% in presidential elections for over a century. There has been a slight upward trend the past few elections but that simply returns us to the levels of the fifties and sixties. Of course offyear turnout is utterly abysmal unless local issues are significant enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ...l_electio
ns

The third factor is the dominating financial aspects. Elections have gotten so expensive for the candidates that no matter their personal inclinations, they willinhly pursue and accept contributions from people and organizations antithetical to their beliefs if those entities are trying to cover all bets.

That is why you still get anti-corporate money rhetoric from so many Democrats who receive that money, too.

Despite pure numbers in their favor, at least theoretically, fighting this money machine, especially when it buys so many lying, misleading attack ads, means those majority numbers diminish in importance.

But OWS people recognize that ultimately any victories will derive from success at the ballot box. One local protester, a WVU student, was quoted on this in yesterday's student paper, saying that the protesters must turn action into votes.

Those who continually deride this movement should reconsider, particularly if they are within the 99%. There is so much substance that has been obfuscated by the profane and the mundane and the trivial. It is important for the future of this country that the substance is recognized and corrective action be pursued.

We may disagree about what this corrective action should be. We may find we make some false starts. But we damn well better do something.

I probably won't live long enough to view the absolute worst, but frankly I care about other people and what they might experience, even after I'm gone.

little_minx,


Speaking of those who hold some really deep-seated contempt for what others believe... Find a mirror in your house for Exhibit A.

TD, the difference is that my views are based on science and knowledge and caring about humanity, while yours are based on fear and ignorance and suspicion. No moral equivalency there...

Speaking of those who hold some really deep-seated contempt for what others believe.../quote]

So you defend First Lady Nancy Reagan's making scheduling decisions for her husband based on what an astrologer told her, because to you it's wrong to hold scientifically-disprovable beliefs in contempt. Yeah, right

The following was my original comment, not a quote (darn Joomla formatting )

So you defend First Lady Nancy Reagan's making scheduling decisions for her husband based on what an astrologer told her, because to you it's wrong to hold scientifically-disprovable beliefs in contempt. Yeah, right

You know little_minx, your average Western Pennsylvanian is usually the type with a scruffy beard who wears his still blood-covered camo to the grocery store after spending his morning hunting with one of his many rifles. Probably drinks his beer out of a can poured at the local dive bar. He probably looks to Jesus for more answers to life's problems than he does some politician, and he's probably never watched an episode of The Daily Show, either.

Ironically, he probably works at the local plant as a wage-worker, pays into union dues, and pulls the lever for Democrats. And heaven forbid he ever be too dumb to know what's good for him to do otherwise.

He's what you would call ignorant, anti-science, superstitious, etc.

I think you're the one that's afraid, I think you're far more suspicious of others beliefs than I am.

I would love to talk about political philosophy with you, but when I try that I'm shut down as some 19th century relic that deserves to be mocked more than debated with.

I'd love to talk about the science of life, things like conception. But if I do that, I'm a sexist, or some kind of religious zealot, and a person who has a foundation in any kind of religion is probably too dumb to waste your time on, regardless of how they approach an issue.

Why do you even bother going back & forth with me, anyways? You've got studies that say you're smarter & better informed. I think that's great, whatever helps you feel smarter than me and boost your self-esteem, I guess. It really must be like the buzzing of gnats in your ears to hear a conservative talk about philosophy or science.

Actually I think I get why you would even bother arguing with a conservative. It's probably the same reason I like to shine a laser-pointer on the wall and watch my cat chase it. It's the simple amusements in life that make it worthwhile...

Rocky

I'm wondering what the point was of quoting Carlin out of context. I know you know he was a satirist and took a skewed look at things quite different from the normal perspective.

There's a lot more to his routine pertaining to those words which gives them a different meaning than what you ascribe to them.

This is the entire concert from which that quote was taken. That part starts about an hour five minutes or so in.http://vimeo.com/19270955

Quite funny, as you might expect.

I'm actually regretting that I said anything. If there's anyone here who would like to underestimate the intelligence of those they disagree with politically, I would encourage you to continue in doing so. The fatal conceit for you is the pretense of knowledge.

http://blogs.sites.post-gazett...he-marines

written by Yinzerati, November 17, 2011 - 05:24 PM
I am skeptical of bloggers who hide behind multiple identities and attempt to win arguments with outlandish anecdotes never referred to before or since.

Uh-huh

Well good for you then. Hope you have a fresh set of AAA's for the pointer.

Here's some scientific research at a public university that the religious right will want to stop if they gain control of the Federal (or the NJ state) government:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...237976.php

No doubt "Ladies Against Women" will also be properly shocked

TD

I watched the South Park you posted and it reminded of a time when i was in college. A fraternity brother, also a nightowl, and I used to sit up late talking. One night we spoke of one of our brothers, a good guy overall, who could be self-righteous.

From then on we would occasionally re-visit the topic and add another brother to our list of self-righteous bastards.

One late night, or early morning I said, "Dale, we've got two others to add to that list." When he asked who I told him,"you and me".

There's a double lesson pertinent to this blog.

Yes, there is a certain liberal superiority/self-righteousness/smugness that rears its ugly head from time to time.

At the same time that same "air" can be attributed to those across the aisle on occasion when they claim personal offense when none was meant, or deny facts about the worst of their right wing brethren putting them in a bad light.

And that's why South Park is great, because they point out the lesser sides of both sides of the American political scene.

written by Touchdown, November 19, 2011 - 03:12 PM

For all I hear about how liberals care for the little guy, I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of contempt for what a lot of those little people think & believe.

You are making an illogical comparison. You are saying that "little people" (and by that I assume you mean the average, middle/working class person) somehow translates into a person that isn't very smart.

Nothing could be further from the truth. What those of us have a problem with are the polls that show that many (sometimes majorities) on the right believe the most outrageous things despite proof to the contrary. Like that Obama is a Muslim or not born in the U.S. or that he has raised our taxes. And when they reject scientific evidence. Or when everything goes back to God as an answer/solution. You can believe in God and be religious and still support science. These polls show that many don't. It is those people, regardless of whether you'd characterize them as the little people or even as educated or wealthy people. It's their views, not their social status that is problematic.

Ironically, he probably works at the local plant as a wage-worker, pays into union dues, and pulls the lever for Democrats. And heaven forbid he ever be too dumb to know what's good for him to do otherwise.

Why in the world would a middle class, union worker like this vote for a Republican? What have the Republicans ever done for the middle class in this country? Nothing. Everything that the American worker has today (union or non-union) is a result of what the unions fought for. The New Deal,Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, workers comp, unemployment, 40 hour work week, pensions, minimum wage, civil rights, women's right, environmental rights, disability rights, gay rights, etc.. These were all fought for by Democrats and unions.

And the Republicans want to abolish all of them.

Their motto: There's been a lot of progress in the last 75 years and we've been against all of it.

Like I said, thank God there are folks like you to save us from ourselves.

We’ve all seen it: A comic or a band leader in a tough club in Dallas says, “Hey, how ‘bout them Cowboys!” and a hostile room is suddenly cheering.

Sally presents a list of specific programs and standards that conservatives opposed and now want to repeal, and Touchdown’s response is: “Thank God there are folks like you to save us from ourselves.”

What, if anything, “save us from ourselves” means, and how, if at all, it is responsive, doesn’t matter. The faithful cheer.

“How ‘bout them Cowboys!”

Yinzerati -

Enjoyed the Carlin link.

Oliver North?!!!

Father was a Marine - Old Corps, the one's who didn't lie.

North sjould have been dishonorably discharged.

Also a Republican - until Reagan. Quit voting after that, a fool's game.

Hey - check your mail. Gluten-free pancakes are catching-on.

Evenin' all.

Hey Scarlet, I modified the pancake recipe. I will share:

Mashed up baked sweet potatoes (about six);
Between 1/2 and 3/4 cup of almond butter depending how oily it is;
About six cruelty-free eggs;
Trader Joes 72% chocolate smashed into bits (bout a 1/2 cup); (double ziploc plastic bag rolling pin method)
Cupful of sliced dates (for sweetness and goo)

Bake in batches on griddle for best results. Low heat, takes longer before you can flip than you can possibly imagine.

Yields about 2 dozen pancakes.

Serve with butter. Nom.

And, I think my eggs are pretty cruelty free but I'm still looking for signed affadavits from the chickens, so if anyone knows of a better way, short of keeping my own chickens which I believe is prevented by law in my neck of the woods . . .

Oh RHA I'm so glad you bothered to watch to George Carlin and thank you for bothering but so sad you don't see the humor, truth and beauty in it. You see something different from the rest of us, I guess. But again, kudos to you for even bothering.

I was struck, the other day, listening to radio show in which somebody defended stores opening at midnight on Thanksgiving. "They should be grateful they have a job, and getting time and half for working on a holiday."

WTF was that idiot on the radio talking about. The retail drones make minimum wage and don't get overtime until they work 50 hours and oh, how surprising, their employers ensure they only get 25 hours per week.

When George Carlin talked about "where have all the good jobs gone, no overtime and no benefits and no good jobs" in his skit from 20 years ago -- how right he was. The only people who get overtime around here now have union jobs or possibly petrochemical (fracking) jobs. Everyone else -- "at will employment." Oh boy, ain't "freedom" wonderful -- if you are a corporation on the government teat of no taxes and no regulations with no enforcement.

Mmmm, Yinzer, those flapjacks sound yummy (and we don't have even a gluten problem)! Would some pure PA. maple syrup constitute gilding the lily?

Minx - the whole idea is to avoid sugar and sadly, maple syrup is basically sugar but if you dont' have a problem with incipient sugar addiction, then I say -- pour it on!!

BTW your cream recipe (which I've adapted to mean using either creme fraiche or mascarpone mixed with whipped heavy cream) is now a staple ingredient of many a "cream tea" -- nom, again. I never make it without thinking of you

Yinzer

Agree generally about the idiocy of Black Friday early openings from midnight on, but Pa. law requires overtime pay after 40 hours, not 50. As you say, many employers make sure they don't get near that amount.

Yinzer

Agree generally about the idiocy of Black Friday early openings from midnight on, but Pa. law requires overtime pay after 40 hours, not 50. As you say, many employers make sure they don't get near that amount.

yinzer
I use gluten free flower in my modified palio pancakes.

Check it out:

http://www.kingarthurflour.com/glutenfree/

The P-G has sports writers. The P-G has thinkers who write sports. Gene Collier today:

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/...d=bcpanel2

Of course you are right UMOC, the forty hour week union achievement, duh.

Happy Sunday everyone; check out this beautiful story from the OWS movement, about their new non-violent, innovative tactic, the Bat Signal.

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/...-wall.html

OWS has provided two inventions: the human microphone and now, the Bat Signal. Oh, and a way to change the national conversation through nonviolent direct public action.

And once again, I'd say: this movement is directly related to the abject failure of president Obama and the democrats to provide the meaningful change that people voted for. They didn't vote for bipartisanship, and there's a reason for that which the administration, upon taking office and occupying it for 3 years, has totally failed to act on. Shame on them.

Cheers Deke. I will.

I'll refrain from using any "f" words, either the one I was rebuked for the other day or my favorite which has appeared from time to time. However, the police tactics being used in NYC and elsewhere with regards to OWS protesters and their kin are reprehensible. (I hope that word offends no one's political sensibilities.)

The other day Norm Stamper, a former Seattle police chief, lamented the increased militarization of our police forces. The examples he cited were mostly in the realm of drug raids where overwhelming force has been used when the warrant is stale, when the offenses of the people raided have been minor, and where police have raided the wrong house or the right house but where the raid targets have moved from there.

Now Bob Ostertag, a professor at UC Davis where 200 peaceful OWS protesters were pepper sprayed a couple of days ago, has written about the concurrent militarization of campus police and how those forces have been misused at UC Davis and other campuses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...html[/url

The group was informed in writing... that if they did not dismantle the encampment, it would have to be removed... However a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.


That is a statement from the chancellor and this is Ostertag's response.

No other options? The list of options is endless. To begin with, the chancellor could have thanked them for their sense of civic duty. The occupation could have been turned into a teach-in on the role of public education in this country. There could have been a call for professors to hold classes on the quad. The list of "other options" is endless.



He posts a picture of a campus officer at Columbia, sans weapon, arresting a student for a cocaine offense. He then notes:

It is worth noting that in the Columbia photo, the one without helmets, guns, or chemical assault weapons, the student is being arrested for selling cocaine. In the Davis photo the students were defending public education.


(UPDATE)
I just saw on the morning news that the chancellor, after viewing the actual tape of the police assault, has called for an investigation.

I phrased it somewhat differently earlier but it is obvious that these protesters are striking a nerve in the establishment. They are scared and vastly overreacting. That will be to their detriment.

Those of you who still insist the protesters message is murky at best ignore the fact that the "message" is getting through to the targets.

So while some want to keep their heads in the sand and lightly dismiss the protesters as irrelevant, these concerned citizens are being assaulted while doing no property damage and not making any attempt to do anything at all violent. Why?

It is because the guilty are afraid that if these protests continue, the message will finally be absorbed by the remarkable numbers of the 99% who still don't acknowledge their membership in that group.

The attacks this week have backfired in that it seems many of the protesters have renewed energy and, as the movement spreads to more college, picks up more followers.

The movement has voiced many complaints, some neither cogent nor cohesive. But the list of grievances is long and does not lend itself to the easy soundbites or simplistic slogans as, for instance, the tea party adopted.

Reg is correct that the conversation has shifted, but too much of the talk still focuses on fashion and odor, not the real substance that is there.

yinzer
Giant Eagle carries Bob's Red Mill Gluten free sweet white sorghum flour. Gluten and wheat free. I use it this morning to make sweet potato pancakes:
Grate one sweet potato or yam in a mixing bowl.
frate 1 sweet or spanish onion in the bowl.
crack one Omega 3 egg into the bowl.
Add s ;ittle of Bob's flour and mix. You have to decide how much flour you want to use to thicken the mix without using any dairy product.
Once this is accomplish you spoon out into a 12inch iron skillet the mix. Of course the skillet should have enough olive oil to prevent sticking. Also the olive oil PAM and a few table spoons of olive oil work well.
These pancakes are saute in the olive oil until golden brown.
I ate three topped with unsweetened apple sauce, and three strips of turkey bacon. Two cups of Typhoo decaf tea.
A heart and blood sugar healthy treat for a fine Sunday morning.

Tourist, Gene Collier's work used to appear in the opinion pages. It was a great comfort to me when mr ciejai was Iraq.

This op-ed piece made me think of you, Tourist:

Occupying, the Millennial way
The occupiers may seem unfocused, but that's not their concern, says MTV's STEPHEN K. FRIEDMAN

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...z1eFz2Yx5X



Another cogent piece in today's Forum section, highlights the fact that we are pumping tons of fetus damaging IQ stunting mercury into the environment in order to save a few cents on kilowatts.

To save pennies on food and fuel, we let industries poison our children
Professor STANLEY J. KABALA thinks we're selling out our grandkids

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...z1eFzAmIIW


It also explores pesticides and mountain-top removal.

On pesticides:

Effects in humans include testicular, breast and vaginal cancers, lowered IQ and learning disabilities. And these effects are permanent.

So, you might ask, why are we subjecting our children to a hazard with such tragic effects?

Once again, the answer is a few pennies, this time on our grocery bills. For cheap fruit and vegetables, we are selling our grandchildren down the river.

George Carlin and many here ramble on endlessly with the list of destroyed earth talking points that reaches a level of pessimism with which I'm not aware was reachable.

I'll take a big hit for this but my concerns for the earth are the low points of morality being reached. Yes, that includes starving people, slaughtered women in Africa and the daily lifestyle of common folk. The way people dress, act in public, their language, loose language by young women, ( men have always been pigs, why do women want to emulate them? ), the high teenage birth rate, out of control narcicissim, what is accepted as TV and movie entertainment, blah blah blah blah blah. I could name others, but why pile on. In my opinion society will fail apart and fail many times more quickly because of it's loss of morality than it will for clear cutting of forests.

Carlin has an act, yes. But at the 1:05 mark, he states his ruining of the earth rant which he believes and is entitled to, by all means. His first comment after that I believe he believes, that he hopes for the worst to get worser. It's how I interpret it, and I feel I'm right about it.

My original Carlin quote not taken from a video. Until UMOC's link, I didn't know it was part of his act.

From FOX News:

Teen Birth Rates Hit All-Time Low

Teens and women in their early 20s had the most dramatic dip to the lowest rates since record-keeping began in the 1940s.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/...z1eGArGeA8

Rocky

Two things about the Carlin piece.

If you look at the one paragraph by itself, it does take on the appearance you suggest. But in the larger context of the entire show it loses much of its impact as a statement of the state of the earth.

Secondly, Carlin is a comedian, one who had a particular knack for using the English language to highlight the absurdities of life, some merely harmlessly funny, and some frighteningly prescient.

His ultimate intent was to get us to look at all sides of so many things we normally take for granted. His football vs baseball analogy is one brilliant example.

Before this one paragraph he bemoaned, I believe sarcastically, that people who get flooded out every year keep returning to their homes in that same flood plain. That observation has been made by a number of politicians wondering why the government bails them out each time.

That paragraph is part of an amazing performance entailing many phrasings that turn back on themselves and carom off in an unexpected direction. That performance is part lament, part anger, part cynicism, part depression, part revelation but all justifiable observation.

Watching the whole of it led me nowhere to the conclusion you arrived at.

BTW, I referred back to your post only to find it was low-rated and not visible. I hate when that happens to anyone, even the occasion total idiocy that gets posted here, of which your comment was not one.

UMOC hear hear.

Deke -- thanks, sounds awesome. I can recommend an electric griddle, really helps with not needing any fat to fry with. I was lucky and got given a brand new one which was sitting in a friend's basement unused for years. I'd have never bought one but oh boy is that thing nice for smoke and grease free pancakes.

Ciejai -- excellent links and perfectly wonderful topics of which everyone should be aware.

RHA -- thanks for letting us know why you and I (we) are from Mars and we are from Venus. Or something. No really, I mean it, your honesty does you credit. Your sentiments are appalling and your reaction to the truth -- which you dismiss as "angry" and "pessimistic" is not a surprise at this point in our acquaintance. But this doesn't mean I hate you. Actually, I feel sorry for you that the truth makes you so nervous you have to attack the messenger. Your input helps us all understand where your -- and perhaps other people's -- conservative impulses come from. These are the facts: life is hard and we're all doomed. Yes.

However, looking at the cold hard facts of a cold hard world does not, in fact, make us (liberals, if I may be so bold) either miserable or pessimistic.

Some of us, I believe, view part of being a responsible adult as balancing the knowledge that we're all doomed and life is neither fair, easy nor safe, never has been, never will be and that our presence on this planet is at best a short, dangerous miracle -- as a challenge to be risen to.

A challenge to do all we can to improve what we can improve (starting with ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods and on out in a circle of love, caring and responsibility).

In the long arc of human history, we see that a few determined, ethical human have, in fact, achieved great things for themselves, their family and their species.

That we've often unknowingly done that in ways that bring detriment, we now have enough data over time to know many things about what we've done are wrong and even more important -- as the OWS movement points out -- it doesn't have to be this way.

That's what looking at the truth does -- forces you to imagine a better way. This is the core of liberal political thought and always has been. If I may say so, the core of conservative thought is the opposite, apparently.

In my opinion society will fail apart and fail many times more quickly because of it's loss of morality than it will for clear cutting of forests.

You appear to be conflating "society" with the survival of the planet. If there is no planet, there will be no society.

"Society" is merely the human family currently residing on the planet. The planet will endure regardless of society, but whether it can support the family for an indefinite period into the future is the main cause of our concerns, of course.

In my opinion society will fail apart and fail many times more quickly because of it's loss of morality than it will for clear cutting of forests.

RHA, care for the planet is the ultimate moral responsibility. Get that right and the rest will fall into place.

Aside from the unpleasant fact that clear cutting, mercury poisoning, factory farming, pesticides and mountain-top removal will destroy us -- as in like the dinosaurs -- if they continue unchecked. Do you really not accept this truth -- is this not a fact?

yinzerati, It will happen to "someone else."

Women talking bad, dressing bad, and having babies will sink us.

Aside from the unpleasant fact that clear cutting, mercury poisoning, factory farming, pesticides and mountain-top removal will destroy us

I agree that most of the above are detrimental, but as to factory farming, I must respectfully disagree. I will defer to Norman Borlaug as to why.


"I now say that the world has the technology — either available or well advanced in the research pipeline — to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called 'organic' methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot." However, Borlaug remained on the advisory board of Population Media Center, an organization working to stabilize world population, until his death


Of environmental lobbyists he stated, "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.

If anyone has the qualifications to make these statements, it is Mr. Borlaug.

A couple of random things...

The only people who get overtime around here now have union jobs or possibly petrochemical (fracking) jobs. Everyone else -- "at will employment."

I get 40 hours per week with time and a half for anything outside of my scheduled working time (8-5 M-F)or any holidays and double time for Sunday. I do not work in the petro-chemical industry and do not belong to a union.

I wish that everybody had a day off to be with their friends and families for Thanksgiving, my favorite holiday, and I really wish that stores would have normal business hours the following day and that shoppers would refrain from the inexplicable desire to become idiots when the stores do open.

I don't really like the statement 'They should be happy to have a job'. I have a job, and I am happy that I do, but that doesn't mean that I have no right to object when something seems wrong. The entire idea of this Friday after Thanksgiving thing is an absurd exercise in a childish need to have something because you saw it on TV, and that even one person has to endure these people and their childishness is worthy of scorn.There is no toy or item that can't wait until normal business hours, there is no sale worth forfeiting your dignity over, and there is no excuse for a person being trampled to death by shoppers so eager to get the latest peice of junk that they disregard the dignity of the person opening the door or the others who have to sacrifice time with their own families to service this pack of animals. (with appropriate apologies to any pack of animals that I may have offended)

mugsy, the quickest way to NOT get something in my family was to say you saw it on tv.

Nothing in the article I linked to said anything about hybridization and better crops. It specifically took on the idea that mountaintop removal mining, mercury poisoning from burning coal, and indescriminate use of petrochemical pesticides is worth the damage to children so that we may save a few pennies.

The author, I would argue, is an optimist in that he underpins his reasoning with the idea that we can do better if we are willing to quit selling out future generation. That's real optimism.

Great point and a great source, Brookline. I think the point is balance. Nobody wants to see people starving where genetically altered crops and factory farming could help them.

However, American families eating fast food because they are cheaper and easier than actually buying fresh vegetables and meats is the result of big Ag and big Gov going way too far.

Environmental, social and economic degredation from the pork, cattle and chicken gulags in which animals and humans are exploited for meat and labor is no better now, if not worse, than the stockyards depicted in Upton Sinclair's classic; The Jungle.

Mugsy, great post, and lucky you for having such a good job, I'm sure you deserve it and have earned it. Others may too, is all OWS is saying. That person who was trampled to death (was it last year) on "black" Friday, what a disgrace for our race, our culture and our values.

From starvation in Africa to factory farming and obesity in America to shopping frenzy that actually kills people. We gotta lotta 'splainin to do.

How about we who gather here on a fairly "regular" basis get together for a drink and snacks sometime in the next six weeks.

What about a Tuesday or Thursday night in some fairly central location downtown or on the Southside or Butler Street (Larryville). I've got a couple ideas for a place.

Message me if you're interested and want to hear the specific location. Time and date I'd suggest we hash out here this upcoming week to be decided by this time next week, Sunday, Nov 27?

These are our date options, going with the T/TH idea:

Tuesday Nov. 29
Thursday Dec. 1

Tuesday December 6.
Thursday Dec. 8.

Tuesday Dec 13.
Thursday Dec 15.

Tuesday Dec 20.
Thursday Dec 22.

Message me or post date preferences here

Invite of course includes Reg and John Allison, our blog hosts, too, of course. And really anyone else who would care to join us!

mugsy, the quickest way to NOT get something in my family was to say you saw it on tv.

That's a good rule.

Yinzer, I am fortunate to have a job that pays me for my work and respects my personal time enough to pay me for that when it encroaches on it. And yes, we do have alot of 'splainin' to do, Mr. Ricardo...

Yinzer said:

That's what looking at the truth does -- forces you to imagine a better way. This is the core of liberal political thought and always has been. If I may say so, the core of conservative thought is the opposite, apparently.

So you don't think there is a morality problem here. That's fine. I understand because that's the core of liberal thinking. That's fine too. But too often,you presume to think it's your way or the highway, and sorry to tell ya, but you might be surprised to know that you just might be wrong. I don'y need intellect, science and knowledge to tell me that.

It's one thing to discuss things. It's another to be reminded that every way you look at something is incorrect.

CJ-- Don't say anything about the other things that concern me. Just label me a hater of women, that'll do. And take a ride along Arlington Avenue in the morning while the buses are picking up the kids, and see why stats can be so misleading.Or take a look at the Wood St T Station. While the Mt Lebo and Sewickley young are holding off getting pregnant probably because of resources and having both parents at home to talk sense into them........... Ah, but we can't talk about that inconvenient truth, now can we?

Yeah that teenage birth rate is so good. Goody-goody for our perfect little neighborhoods. Look, it says right here we ain't got no teenage birth rate problems.

Damn conservatives.

Mugsy, great post. I have often said, you could not pay me any amount of money to go anywhere near a store on the day after Thanksgiving. Even if I do have the day off (which our company gives, every year). I intensely dislike everything about the whole "Black Friday" hoopla. Actually, I dislike nearly everything about "holiday shopping," and buy online or knit many gifts.

It's actually the federal Fair Labor Standards Act that mandates overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a single week. Unfortunately, the Act does not state the number of hours an employee must work to be considered "full time," as opposed to "part time" - that distinction is left up to the individual employer. The distinction is important - companies usually provide benefits to "full time" employees, but not to part-time employees.

Once upon a time, in the days before law school, I worked in Retail Hell. IIRC, the company defined as "full time" anyone who worked 35 hours per week. You can bet your sweet azz that the managers (all of whom were full-time employees) made absolutely sure that nobody else ever worked more than 35 hours in a single week. It didn't matter if we were short-staffed, if someone got sick, if there was a sale, if it was the holiday rush - the most you could get was 34.5 hours. The company would actually hire someone else to work something like 10 hours a week before they would make anyone full-time.

As to the Scroogelike sentiment that "they" should be "happy" to have a "job," I would dearly love everyone who holds that statement dear to have to work in Retail Hell on Black Friday. Then we will see how "thankful" they are.

Some jobs really suck, and Retail Hell provides its own kind of suckfulness. Retail employees are, too often, everyone's whipping boy or girl - management beats them up by cutting their hours, customers beat them up because they can, and the employees absolutely cannot fight back. Most people can take that kind of abuse for the short-term - think "seasonal employees" - but in the long-term, it is soul crushing. I was lucky to have escaped.

Tourist,

I found Collier's article to be interesting also.

Is it what you would like to see happen? I'm still struggling with what I think is a realistic approach after seeing what's happened there with the scandal.

Thoughts?

Where's the label?

Interview with one of the UC Davis protestors who was pepper-sprayed by a police thug - while sitting cross-legged on the ground, arms linked with other students. Which is to say, doing nothing at all that could be considered "violent" or "threatening" to the cops.

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/...tness.html

There is a petition circulating which demands the resignation of the University's chancellor and the officer who did the pepper-spraying. A faculty member has written an open letter to the chancellor demanding her resignation.

What a big man, pepper-spraying unarmed, non-violent young men and women, as if they were bugs. Shame!

So you don't think there is a morality problem here. That's fine. I understand because that's the core of liberal thinking.

You misunderstand completely. I do think there is a morality problem. That problem starts at the top, not the bottom. That is where we disagree.

When I look at folks getting on the bus, I don't know which ones are irresponsible, immoral people who are ruining the country.

Maybe I need a lesson in how to spot that.

So you don't think there is a morality problem here. That's fine. I understand because that's the core of liberal thinking.


You understand nothing, apparently.

written by ciejai, November 20, 2011 - 02:48 PM

When I look at folks getting on the bus, I don't know which ones are irresponsible, immoral people who are ruining the country.


Yeah, sign me up too, I'm clueless. Somehow the ability to judge people's "morals" based on location, appearance and a momentary snapshot of their life was not covered in the 13 years of post-high school education I've been lucky -- or foolish -- enough to provide for myself.

When I teach a class, I look at all the students and have no idea which ones are going to do well, do poorly, flake out halfway through, or succeed wildly. Naturally, being human, I tend to make some assumptions. Nobody is more delighted -- or saddened -- than me when my ability to judge people based on a momentary snapshot of their life is proven to be complete load of bollocks.

That's the fun of it!!

eah that teenage birth rate is so good. Goody-goody for our perfect little neighborhoods. Look, it says right here we ain't got no teenage birth rate problem

Who says this? How about NOBODY???

Making stuff up again. And from such a self determined paragon of "morals" !!

When I look at folks getting on the bus, I don't know which ones are irresponsible, immoral people who are ruining the country.

Don't you think right-winters consider them ALL irresponsible for sucking additional tax revenues out of them in order to help support -- horrors! -- PUBLIC transportation? In conservative-world, everyone should be riding alone in their own huge fossil-fuel-guzzling air-polluting vehicle

Erratum: Should read "right-wingers"

It's one thing to discuss things. It's another to be reminded that every way you look at something is incorrect.

I see.

So coming to a liberal blog to share favorite conservative memes(immoral poor people are our main problem, wealthy elites, pollution and corruption are just the way it is) is too insulting to you?

But according to you, it's fine for you to just drive through neighborhoods and watch people getting off the bus and think "everything these people do is wrong." That's not insulting to them?

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, is that it?

But too often,you presume to think it's your way or the highway, and sorry to tell ya, but you might be surprised to know that you just might be wrong. I don'y need intellect, science and knowledge to tell me that.

Maybe so. As my example from my work shows, I am regularly surprised to find I'm wrong, so I doubt I'd be surprised to find I'm wrong in another forum either. It's part of the Western intellectual tradition to be always conscious of that very real possibility. In fact, it is a moral duty as a scholar to be continually open to that possibility.

On the other hand, that means one is duty bound to question all assertions and if an assertion is made without any "intellect, science or knowledge" then the person so presenting the assertion must realize they are open to refutation if not ridicule. That is not insulting, that is the way it is.

In courts of law, another manifestation of the Western intellectual tradition, you can't just say "I think it was him." You have to prove it -- beyond a reasonable doubt. While education and blogging do not have quite the rigidity of that standard, the basic idea is the same. I think. I might be wrong?

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, is that it?

Oooh, careful there, or you'll get your lady-parts impugned by some crazed right-winger, too

Doesn't Mr Scaife's venture provide forums like these?

It's one thing to discuss things. It's another to be reminded that every way you look at something is incorrect.

Yep, it sure is a danged nuisance when facts get in the way of a dogma-based argument. Guess education's a real threat to them thar true-believers. Gee, I wonder where right-wingers got inculcated to embrace the mindset of eschewing facts, knowledge, science...

Ah, now it's morals too.

Just put the pot-it note at the bottom of the screen.

Don't bring up:

1. God
2. Morals

I love when the smell of certain words is like blood in the shark infested waters.

I'm yelling uncle.

I can't answer questions being asked of statements that I made that I never made.

Poor immoral people being the root of all problems? Busses vs cars? That's what you got out of my comments?

Nowhere intellectual enough to compete with that.

Thank God.

Oooh, careful there, or you'll get your lady-parts impugned by some crazed right-winger, too

Your implication that every conservative is some sort of misogynist has become quite tiresome

Ciejei,

Thanks. I think “The Beginning is Near” makes a perfect pair with “I’m So Angry I Made a Sign” – open, sure and confident, not lost.

I remember Gene Collier’s opinion column. If memory serves, he was sports, and then that was added. I thought it was one of the best things at the paper at the time. Then it disappeared and he was back to only sports. (If there is more to that story, I’m unaware.)

Rocky,

Is that what I want to see happen? Not specifically. I think “football must go” and “football must be saved” are both wrong places to start. I suspect saving it, though, is a major priority of many/most of those involved right now. Their aim is to “get past this.” It’s a safe bet that no children will be molested in Penn State showers in the foreseeable future. Is that the only problem that’s surfaced here? Losing the program may be the only way to get their attention, if we are serious about the rest. If.

Sally presents a list of specific programs and standards that conservatives opposed and now want to repeal, and Touchdown’s response is: “Thank God there are folks like you to save us from ourselves.”

Do you really want me to write a treatise on my views of The New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, workers comp, unemployment, 40 hour work week, pensions, minimum wage, civil rights, women's right, environmental rights, disability rights, gay rights, etc?

Because I disagree with the way most liberals attempt to solve a problem does not mean I disagree on the problem itself.

The problem is, things usually get framed in such ways as sally does that because I disagree on solutions, that I don't care about or simply dislike all the people affected by those programs. I really don't think there's anything I could say that would convince her that Republicans weren't the root of all evils and that Democrats were the saviors of America, so my comment was targeted at the idea that we'd all be lost if it wasn't for the programs that Democrats have enacted throughout the decades.

Conservatives want to repeal Social Security! Oh my God! Yeah, that works really well to scare grandma, because it implies that conservatives just want to cut off grandma and put her on the Alpo retirement program. The enemy actually had a good article on S.S. yesterday, a paragraph reflects my own views on not how to abolish Social Security, but make it more manageable.

There are ways to fix Social Security to the benefit of all. Allow younger workers to invest most of their payroll taxes in conservative, regulated investments that grow. Provide a government floor benefit so lower income workers can be assured of adequate benefits. And raise the full Social Security eligibility age to 70 or higher, reinvigorating the concept that workers should be saving money to retire.

When Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, average life expectancy was 61.7 years and the Social Security retirement age, 65, was 3.3 years later. By 2006, life expectancy was 77.7.

If we used the same reasoning now that Roosevelt used then, we'd have a Social Security full eligibility age of 74.4 today.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/...z1eHZLw9Lm

We could go through the same process for all those other programs she mentioned, like block-granting Medicaid and vouchering Medicare, for example. But it's really a pointless exercise if I have to start from the premise that liberals are simply smarter than I am, and by virtue of that intelligence gap, anything I say can be thrown out the window because well, liberals just know better... That's a bit insulting to everyone in the room.

And civil rights? Really? Must I bring up who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Who said "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"? I seem to remember a Republican President using the National Guard to enforce integration against the wishes of a Democrat governor, harkening back to the days of Reconstruction and Union troops having to enforce civil rights legislation, and the pushing through of things like the 14th Amendment by "radical Republicans."

I'm sure if you ask sally, she'll simply say that all those racist & segregationist Democrats just became Republicans (just ask Al Gore's father, right?). But I'm more inclined to believe that neither party has some sort of monopoly on civil rights or racism in our past, but one party has sure done one heck of a job by making it seem like that in contemporary political parlance.

I've also heard how Social Security is a really popular program. Well duh, if you ask a person if they like getting a check in the mail as opposed to not getting a check in the mail, the answer is really easy.

What I scratch my head at is why "popular" and "compulsory" should have to be used when talking about the same thing.

And as it now time for Sunday lunch, I offer this delightful column titled:

"A Conspiracy of Hogs: The McRib as Arbitrage."

A few small samplings may be in order to tempt the faint of heart:

One of McDonald’s most divisive products, the McRib, made its return last week. For three decades, the sandwich has come in and out of existence, popping up in certain regional markets for short promotions, then retreating underground to its porky lair—only to be revived once again for reasons never made entirely clear. snip

And though the sandwich is made of pork shoulder and/or reconstituted pork offal slurry, it is pressed into patties(that)sit in warm tubs of barbecue sauce before an order comes up on those little screens that look nearly impossible to read, at which point it is placed on a six-inch sesame seed roll and topped with pickle chips and inexpertly chopped white onion.

Fast food involves both hideously violent economies of scale and sad, sad end users who volunteer to be taken advantage of. What makes the McRib different from this everyday horror is that a) McDonald’s is huge to the point that it’s more useful to think of it as a company trading in commodities than it is to think of it as a chain of restaurants b) it is made of pork, which makes it a unique product in the QSR world and c) it is only available sometimes, but refuses to go away entirely.

Core argument alert:

If you can demonstrate that McDonald’s only introduces the sandwich when pork prices are lower than usual, then you’re but a couple logical steps from concluding that McDonald’s is essentially exploiting a market imbalance between what normal food producers are willing to pay for hog meat at certain times of the year, and what Americans are willing to pay for it once it is processed, molded into illogically anatomical shapes, and slathered in HFCS-rich BBQ sauce.


There is no skilled labor involved anywhere along the McRib’s Dickensian journey from hog to tray, and certainly no regional variety, except for the binary sort—Yes, the McRib is available/No, it is not—that McDonald’s uses to promote the product. And while it hasn’t replaced barbecue, it does make a mockery of it.


http://www.theawl.com/2011/11/...-arbitrage

Sup up.

Has anyone else been following the scientific debate over an assertion that neutrinos may travel faster than the speed of light? It's a perfect example of how the whole point of science is to experiment to try to test an assertion -- or, more accurately, to disprove its null hypothesis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...t-15791236

Good morning, Touchdown!

. . . anything I say can be thrown out the window because well, liberals just know better . . . .

That’s not the reason.

Chuck Yeager in “The Right Stuff,” on the theory that the sound barrier was an absolute and could never be broken:

“I’ll tell you, half these engineers have never been off the ground, you know.”

Too nuanced?

Oh minx stop being so elitist and you know, intellectual and stuff. Neutrinos? Give us a break.

We know what we know OK? And don't you forget it.

I drive around, I look at neighborhoods. Duh.

Maybe not the reason entirely, but I think it factors into the equation, as referenced by a few posts above.

I love that move, one of my favorites.

*love that movie

I was an even better book.

Never read the book, sure you're right about it being better than the movie.

As much as I agree with Counselor on what should be posted, and not dragging on posts, I am quoting Sally on her earlier post on how Democrats have only done good for this country and the Republican Party and by proxy conservatives, have actively tried to destroy this country and its people for the past 150 years.

The New Deal,Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, workers comp, unemployment, 40 hour work week, pensions, minimum wage, civil rights, women's right, environmental rights, disability rights, gay rights, etc.. These were all fought for by Democrats and unions

1. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970
2.President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to uphold the desgregation of Little Rock's Central High School.
3. The American's with Disablities Act was signed into law by George W. Bush
4. Unions and democrats were against the ERA amendment

TD: Those programs I mentioned lifted people out of poverty and went a long way to creating a strong middle class upon which this country is dependent.

And the hypocrisy from those who would change, "fix" or eliminate these programs is that they willingly accept and use all of them.

Social Security is the most successful social program in the world. It is funded for the next 27 years. What other government program that is funded for the next 27 years are we talking about "fixing"? Want to "fix" it? Mandate SS contributions on 100% of everyone's wages.

And btw, "fixing" for the right wing is code for privatizing. Hand over these programs to their for-profit buddies. And vouchers is the new code word for: take our tax dollars and give it to private enterprises. Wall Street is salivating to get their hands on SS. They did such a bang up job with our investments in the last couple of years, why not?

The civil rights legislation was first promoted by Democratic president JFK and later Democratic president LBJ, who signed it. The southern Democrats and Republicans voted against it, but the nothern Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it.
Johnson said upon signing - we have lost the south. And he was right. And Nixon capitalized on this with his "Southern Strategy."

And for every one of those programs that I mentioned, there is a tea party candidate who wants to not just "fix" it but eliminate it entirely. If you're not aware of this, then you haven't been paying attention.

Their extremist goal is to repeal the 20th century.

I really don't think there's anything I could say that would convince her that Republicans weren't the root of all evils and that Democrats were the saviors of America...

I've also heard how Social Security is a really popular program. Well duh, if you ask a person if they like getting a check in the mail as opposed to not getting a check in the mail, the answer is really easy.

Reminder: It's INSURANCE that folks have paid into!

And your point is...?

TD, you make it sound as though Social Security were some sort of government charity to recipients.

You can call it whatever you want, doesn't change the mechanics of how it works.

Touchdown,

I love that movie, one of my favorites.

We think a lot alike. Have you happened to have pursued who Pancho Barnes was?

TD, CJ,

I enjoyed the book for the story, but not the writing, and could do without a whole chapter on what the monkeys were thinking. The movie takes serious time-and-place liberties and I don’t normally have much patience with that, but on this one, if it was a choice between only reading it and only watching it, I’d say watch it.

Sorry, ADA was signed into law by George H.W. Bush

There are ways to fix Social Security to the benefit of all. Allow younger workers to invest most of their payroll taxes in conservative, regulated investments that grow. Provide a government floor benefit so lower income workers can be assured of adequate benefits. And raise the full Social Security eligibility age to 70 or higher, reinvigorating the concept that workers should be saving money to retire.

When Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, average life expectancy was 61.7 years and the Social Security retirement age, 65, was 3.3 years later. By 2006, life expectancy was 77.7.

If we used the same reasoning now that Roosevelt used then, we'd have a Social Security full eligibility age of 74.4 today.

This argument keeps reappearing just like the turd in the second floor bathroom of my fraternity house that would surface from time to time until flushed away again.

You don't say which "enemy" put it forth but I would love to know what investments there are which are guaranteed to grow. And how is this regulation to take place? Does it mean that the government limits what options may be used, or does it mean that the industry is regulated.

None of this gives me much confidence that money will be there for these people's retirement and the public fisc will not need to be tapped.

Are these young people compelled to put this money away? If so, isn't that just like the individual health care mandate?

If it is not compulsory there will be two major consequences.

First these young people will fail to save or make investments that bottom out and will not have sufficient funds built up for their retirement.

Second, everyone basically agrees that SS currently depends on the contributions of those still working to pay the benefits of the ones currently receiving them or who will be doing so shortly.

Since those funds will be drying up, doesn't that mean increased budgetary pressure on the federal government? Rght now no part of the national debt is attributable to Social Security. That will change in a hurry under the alternative proposed.

I am also in the dark as to FDR's "reasoning" that would mean a much higher retirement age today due to increased longevity. Was there some magic proportion he had in mind to be tied to SS? i don't think so.

We have at least 15 million people sans jobs these days, including many I'm sure who are at or near the traditional retirement age but would prefer to keep working. But then again, many have already been pushed out the door by their companies seeking younger, less expensive workers.

Even if the young people do invest in these retirement accounts, they can always withdraw the money to use for houses or cars or paying off student loans or whatever.

I can't think of anyone who really benefits from such a change other than the stockbrokers and investment folk who profit whether the investment succeeds or fails.

Pure nonsense.

I can't think of anyone who really benefits from such a change other than the stockbrokers and investment folk who profit whether the investment succeeds or fails.

Same folks who've suckered "little people" into believing the system will make them rich, too. About as good an investment as the lottery, but they're too innumerate to recognize the scam.

So there it is, us little people are too stupid to know what is good for us, and we need the government to do it for us. What investments investments are as risky as the lottery? I invest safely and enjoy about 7% returns right now. If investing in the financial markets is a scam,is pray tell us what you invest in,so we can all share in your success.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...story.html

Penguins All-Star Sidney Crosby returning on Monday against Islanders
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, November 20, 5:16 PM

PITTSBURGH — Sid the Kid is back.

Pittsburgh Penguins superstar Sidney Crosby will make his season debut on Monday against the New York Islanders, his first game in nearly a year since being sidelined with concussion-like symptoms...

His return ends weeks of speculation that appeared to put the ever-polite Crosby on edge but hardly bothered his teammates. The 24-year-old declined repeated interview requests in recent weeks as the speculation about a possible return date reached a fever pitch...

Pittsburgh has been good without Crosby. His job is to make them great. Bylsma has kept quiet on who he’ll pair Crosby with and it’s still unclear how heavy Crosby’s workload will be.

Not that it matters. Not this week anyway. His return will start with a three-game homestand that will generate the kind of buzz normally reserved for late spring.

“We know what he means to this team, this city,” defenseman Kris Letang said. “He’s a special player”...

The "enemy" was the Pitt Trib. You know billionaires trying to destroy the country with their newspapers, etc.


Don't think FDR had a magic number in mind, but he obviously had a number in mind that was higher than life expectancy. When first introduced I'd say it was more like an insurance program since the average person didn't live long enough to collect it, or didn't live very long after starting their collections.

Today I'd say its more like a pension program, since people leave work, start collecting, and on average live another 10-15yrs, with that number only on the rise.

If we're going to have a national pension program, then I think we need to take a different approach to funding it, the 1930's model for what was designed to be an insurance against poverty in old age has been outgrown by the population.

I think it'd have to be compulsory as well, but I think it should be more personalized, less accessible by grubby Congressmen, with redistributed payouts targeted more towards those who really cannot save enough over a lifetime to live out old age in comfort.

I would like to imagine some system where people weren't frightened every election cycle by politicians using scare-tactics against each other. You've said before you collect S.S. already. There isn't any plan I can imagine myself or one I would endorse that would involve pulling the rug out from people who are collecting or are set to collect anytime soon.


Tourist, I know of her and her background, but I can't say I've done in-depth research into her life.

I invest safely and enjoy about 7% returns right now.

In what? Do tell...

When Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, average life expectancy was 61.7 years and the Social Security retirement age, 65, was 3.3 years later. By 2006, life expectancy was 77.7

The issue isn't life expectancy then vs now. The issue is how long did the first recipients live past the age of 65 compared to today? And today we only live about 3 years longer than they did past the age of 65.

Touchdown,

Naw, I didn't mean in depth -- just that she was a pioneering pilot in her own right.

I think [Social Security]... should be... less accessible by grubby Congressmen

Examples of how legislators have poached Social Security benefits into which people have paid?

A mixture of government bonds, t-bills, stocks, commodities, savings bonds and cash. I invest agressively when the market is up, and pull back when it is soft( around June 2011). I have a work 401k and several personal IRA's. I have seen it proudly mentioned on this blog that Social Security is funded for 27 years, unfortunately that is when I can start thinking about retiring. I don't feel comfortable that it will still be around for me to collect what I have paid into it. So I have to make sure that myself and my family are provided for. I don't have any faith that the government will fix the problem by then. I wish I did, because my contributions sure take a big wet bite out of each pay check

Well, the S.S.A. buys government bonds with S.S. contributions, which is spent by Congress, and which has to be pack back to the federal government by you & me through other taxes, so the federal government can pay the bonds back to the S.S.A.

That, and Presidents from both parties have been using the surplus of S.S. in past years to mask deficits in the general budget. Doesn't make much sense to count the surpluses of a program that is supposedly sequestered from the general fund in the general fund's accounting column. That's led to secondary spending problems in the sense that the true nature of our debt has been masked by the surpluses of S.S. I wonder if when S.S. turns into a yearly deficit of Presidents will still choose to count it against the general budget...

*has to be paid back

From the SSA Website:
Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.

So there is actually no money in the trust fund,just paper? The actual money is mixed in the general fund and spent. With the hopes that these special issue securities can keep bein redeemed. Am I reading this right?

And sally, I think you're going to be really hard pressed to prove that not only are more people living past the age of 65, but amongst that greater number of those reaching 65, more are living into their late 70's & 80's.

I heard a report in the news the other day that one of the largest growing demographics in America are those people in their 90's.

The age-pyramid is different now than it was then, and so is the worker to recipient ratio. Both those are trends that do not bode well for the longevity of S.S.. It's 70yrs old, it won't make it another 70yrs as is when you look at simple demographics.

That's the exact same problem European national pension systems are facing. Less workers funding more retirees with defined benefits for longer periods of time. And like us, they are becoming more & more reliant on influxes of new immigrants (often themselves reliant on other government-funded social welfare programs) to prop up the worker to recipient ratio.

I think a more stable approach would be to have defined contributions into a personal retirement account, a portion of which should be available for different types of approved investment opportunities. A small portion of that defined contribution could go towards a fund meant to supplement the retirement accounts of those who fail to meet a certain income & savings threshold by retirement. The main point being that the poor are still cared for, and as a personal retirement account, it is solely yours and not the governments, which is the opposite of how the S.S. system currently operates.

I'd apply the same idea to the insurance problem. Pay into an HSA instead of an insurance plan and have tax credits & deductions for routine medical expenses.

This would allow out-of-pocket payment for most medical treatment, largely cut out the insurance middle-man, introduce a market function into the pricing system, while ensuring that you and not a federal bureaucracy are the main handlers of your medical care. Beyond that there could be catastrophic insurance plans for things you can't expect to simply save or pay for up front, and beyond that block-grants to states and vouchers for people when it comes to programs like Medicare & Medicaid that are meant for the poor & elderly. States themselves would also have need-based programs, many of which already do.

I'll take that over a system that simply injects steroids into the insurance market (the mandate) or just takes over the entire system at the national level (single-payer).

First of all I believe people need to prepare for retirement during their working lives so that SS is a supplement or serves as a safety net.

Congratulations to people who have enjoyed or are enjoying a steady return on their investments no matter the vehicle.

During the recession my brother and several friends lost huge chunks of their 401k's and still haven't recovered to pre-crash value. There is no guarantee that will not recur.

One of these friends took early SS at a discount because he needed the extra income due to these 401k losses.

I also know or know of many people who have prematurely tapped their 401k's to meet various expenses, some serious, some frivolous. Despite the rules for such accounts and possible penalties this is a frequent occurrence. What does the future bode for the people who have done this? What would it bode for the future if they had only private investments and no SS in present form to rely on for retirement?

I haven't seen any answers to how to prevent the fiscal effects I cited if private investment replaces SS as it is now.

There are some ideas in here on how to manage that, it's from the SSA's own website.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs...9n3p45.pdf

I could get behind a program mandatory for everyone, like a national version of the three part TSP program offered to government employees. One part Social Security, one part annuity, and one part 401k. That seems reasonable

written by Touchdown, November 20, 2011 - 06:28 PM

And sally, I think you're going to be really hard pressed to prove that not only are more people living past the age of 65, but amongst that greater number of those reaching 65, more are living into their late 70's & 80's.

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.


I was off by 2 years.

Tourist,

I guess they better darn well be serious about their decisions, whatever they might be.

The hell with IF's, huh?

Btw, if it hasn't been brought up since the news broke, is this indeed the most controversial issue in sports history? Talked it over with sports nuts like me, and can't come up with anything that matches the depth this has, or depths it might reach.

Betting? eh
Fixing? eh
OJ? We on this end suppose that might match.

But when you talk about the depths of child rape, can anything really match it? I personally don't think so.

Not like it's a competition, of course. I just hope to God that this brings an awareness to do the right thing right off of the bat.

Once a second child was abused, the original cover-uppers were in deep crap. I think that thinking about it beyond 24 hours sets one up for a point of no return indictment of fault.

Sally,

What you didn't bother to note from the table you didn't link to (which I found) was that in 1940 the percentage of population surviving from age 21 to age 65 for a male was 53.9% and 60.6% for a female. In 1990 it was 72.3% and 83.6%, respectively.

Translation: more old people living longer now than there was then.

Then if you look at the gross number of people over 65 and coralate it with the overall population estimates from the Census Beaurau, for the years 1940 & 2000 you'll see that the number grew from approximately 7% to approximately 12%.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

http://www.census.gov/popest/a...ockest.txt

Keep in mind that this is 10yrs ago, and only now are baby-boomers beginning to find themselves in the 65 or older category. With that demographic aging and the birth rates according to the CDC approaching historic lows in the US, that percentage of older Americans will only grow larger in coming years.

More older Americans living longer with a shrinking tax base to support their payments and government $15t in debt that's been using S.S. surpluses to fund other things... this is why I don't prefer keeping the system as is.

Like I said, its the worker to retiree ratio.

In 1940 it was 159.4:1, in 1945 41.9:1, 1950 it was 16.9:1, etc. Understandably, it stabilized under this number as more recipients came under the fold as the program matured, so the early stats are misleading.

But in 1990 & 2000 it was 3.4:1, in 2010 2.9:1. That ratio isn't going to be trending any better in the coming decades, it'll get worse, unless you continue the influx of low-skill, low-paid immigrant workers to balloon the worker ratio.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

I would imagine your preferred solution would be to increase contributions and restrict benefits for top income earners. That's a predictable solution, but at least its an offered solution.

The solutions I put forward are to reform the system to allow for a greater degree of ownership, a lesser degree for government manipulation, and getting away from a system that requires taxes on those not yet born to pay for us right now - talk about taxation without representation.

Even with privatized retirement accounts with compulsory contributions, I acknowledge that there would need to be government oversight into what kind of investments and to an extent what percentage of contributions would be eligible for that portion of personal income segregated for retirement purposes.

And of course, everything hinges on economic growth. No jobs, no contributions. There is a ton of growth potential if we adopt regulated privatization. Not just Wall Street, but your local bank and credit union that could be targeted for investment, and your local small businesses who would see growth when relieved of much of the burden of the matched contributions under the S.S. system.

We can have fundamental differences in how to approach the same problem, I would just appreciate that a difference in solutions isn't because of a difference in intelligence or intellectual aptitude - I've said here before that we're all relatively well-informed and intelligent people.

I would also not that for Social Security, a small snap-shot highlighting fundamental differences, that nowhere in what I and others advocate is there the "f the poor, already got mine" and "let grandma rot" platform of reform.

*would also note. I think my keyboard needs new batteries or I need to type slower.

Ok, the government taps into SS funds to spend on the general budget. So? That is reason to change the SS system rather than set up the "lockbox" for SS funds?

I still haven't heard what happens when these young pups fail to salt away their money in investments for retirement. Or pull them out to but the latest Gucci handbags. Again, if it is compulsory that they save, what is the difference between that and the individual mandate for health insurance?

And since the SS fund relies on those working to pay for those retired, doesn't that mean that Congress is going to have to take from the general fund to pay SS benefits? Or does that mean those benefits will be cut to balance lower revenues?

Or these personal accounts lose money. Who provides the safety net then?

Actually Congress has basically the same retirement pay system as do many employers. Deductions are taken to put into a pension fund with employer contributionsand there is a formula for defined benefits. The members also pay into SS. Of course they are free to establish IRAs or 401k's as is any citizen.

Of course many private employers no longer provide defined benefits plans. Even among those who do it is rare to be employed there long enough to receive anything close to the maximum payout.

I still haven't heard how these negatives for private SS will be addressed. Then again, my feeble mind cannot conceive of any way they would be without essentially destroying the safety net now in place.

BTW, my complaint a few weeks ago about COLA was the fact that Congress is considering a formula for COLA for SS that would assume beneficiaries always seek the least expensive alternative, i.e. generics or store brands as opposed to Heinz Ketchup or Crest Toothpaste.

However the current COLA formula applied to SS has found our cost of living increasing for the first time in three years, about 3.5% worth this time around. Yet the COLA applied to Congressional pay has awarded a raise these years when it was denied to SS, though it was turned down by members.

How about this for fairness. If there is a COLA for government pay or benefits, let's have the same formula apply across the board for all categories. I know, that's a radical idea only a socialist could love.

Pardon me for ruminating. Whenever I read nonsense prose I become discombobulated.

Reg's entry here suggests the OWS protesters need to beging using the ballot box to be effective. That is a very reasonable proposition on its face but Glenn Greenwald in Salon takes a contrarian view.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/1...singleton/

First he notes that the Service Employees Internation Union (SEIU) has already endorsed Obam for President in 2012. Greenwald believes this to be a mistake, antithetical to the OWS movement.

...those who have animated the Occupy movement are not motivated by partisan allegiance or an overarching desire to devote themselves to one of the two parties. In fact, one of the original Occupy groups — as opposed to partisan organizations swooping in to exploit it — has announced its own D.C. occupation to, in part, “demonstrate the failure of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to represent the views of the majority of people.”



After all, Greenwald continues (and as has been noted here) democrats are as much beholden to Wall Street as are Republicans. He discounts the assumption that partisan politics will serve the ideals of the protesters.

I disagree with the prevailing wisdom that OWS should begin formulating specific legislative demands and working to elect specific candidates. I have no doubt that many OWS protesters will ultimately vote and even work for certain candidates — and that makes sense — but the U.S. desperately needs a citizen movement devoted to working outside of political and legal institutions and that is designed to be a place of dissent against it. Integrating it into that system is a way of narrowing its appeal and, worse, sapping it of its unique attributes and fear-generating potency. Even if you believe the U.S. has some sort of vibrant democracy — rather than a democracy-immune oligarchy — not all change needs to come exclusively from voting and electoral politics. Citizen movements can change the political culture in ways other than working within that pre-established electoral system; indeed, when that system becomes fundamentally corrupted, working outside of it is the only means of effectuating real change. Here’s how former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson put it in The Atlantic when equating the contemporary United States to the corrupted “emerging market” oligarchies which caused past financial crises on which he worked:



There is a cartoon at the end of Greenwald's piece which capsulizes his views, but, alas, I have not yet learned how to present an image in this space.

Earlier I had criticized the police action at UC Davis where students were pepper-sprayed. I had seen a video of that as it occurred, but this video chronicles the aftermath. It is extraordinary.

A couple of students were arrested and you can see them being hauled away. But the larger group of students that were more observers than protesters soon take up a chant of "Shame on you".

The campus police begin backing away but still have guns and pepper spray canisters at the ready. The crowd slowly follows. But they stop and take up a declaration that the police will be allowed a moment of peace, an opportunity to completely withdraw without the crowd following or threatening. At last the cops fully retreat.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/1...e_cruelty/

UC Davis has placed the 2 officers who pepper-sprayed students for, essentially, doing nothing have been placed on administrative leave, according to today's NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11...leave.html

I wonder if that's with or without pay.

Yikes, 'scuse the bad sentence structure...it's too early.

Diva,

While I disagreed with your use of the thug word prior to this instance, It's totally applicable in this case.

They should fired on the spot. It was despicable.

I still haven't heard what happens when these young pups fail to salt away their money in investments for retirement.

You said:

I haven't seen any answers to how to prevent the fiscal effects I cited if private investment replaces SS as it is now.

So I said:

There are some ideas in here on how to manage that, it's from the SSA's own website.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs...9n3p45.pdf

This article goes through a basic model that’s already been implemented; several Republican candidates have referred to it as the “Chilean model.” It’s worth a read even if you disagree with it.

Ok, the government taps into SS funds to spend on the general budget. So? That is reason to change the SS system rather than set up the "lockbox" for SS funds?

Hasn’t worked in the last 70yrs, why would I believe any new lockbox held in trust by Congress would be any different? Let the people own the lockbox, not the politician.

Or these personal accounts lose money. Who provides the safety net then?

To which I’ve already stated:

A small portion of that defined contribution could go towards a fund meant to supplement the retirement accounts of those who fail to meet a certain income & savings threshold by retirement.

Again, if it is compulsory that they save, what is the difference between that and the individual mandate for health insurance?

Welp, I never thought I’d be in the position to defend one against the other, but after looking at the relevant court cases, S.S. scraped by because it is a literal tax on income. The individual mandate on the other hand isn’t a tax on earned income; it’s a penalty on personal actions on what one must do with income that’s already been taxed. Taking it from me to do something and telling me what to do with what I have are fundamentally different. I have my qualms about the courts logic with S.S., but I realize the court isn’t going to overturn 70yr old stare decisis. I’m hoping the individual mandate never gets it foot in the door with case law precedent, and I’m confident that there will finally be a Constitutional line in the sand with the misrepresentation of the interstate commerce & general welfare clauses that has been going on since the 30’s.

If we must have some sort of national compulsory retirement system, something I don’t think you’ll ever be willing to let go, then I’m trying to suggest a system that would do that. It’s not what I would call ideal, but it’s the 70% solution that’s better than doing nothing at all with the current system.

I hope that answered a few questions that you had. I’d still like an answer to one I posed to you a few days ago:

So just to be perfectly clear, you're perfectly fine with taxes on economic inactivity as long as it influences behavior on others in a way you find favorable, correct?

From today's Cipher Puzzle in the Post-Gazette paper edition:

"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts."

E. B. White

written by Touchdown, November 20, 2011 - 08:35 PM

Sally,

What you didn't bother to note from the table you didn't link to (which I found) was that in 1940 the percentage of population surviving from age 21 to age 65 for a male was 53.9% and 60.6% for a female. In 1990 it was 72.3% and 83.6%, respectively.

Translation: more old people living longer now than there was then.

Those who want to change social security and medicare by raising the eligibility age use the arguement that we are living longer today. While in sheer numbers there are more people today - and therefore more people over the age of 65. However, the applicable statistic is how much past the age of 65 do people today live than they did in 1940 - in other words - how long do they receive benefits. And today it's only 5 years longer than in 1940. Not a justification for raising the eligibility age.

So the solution is to kick the can down the road then.

We, the individuals of Occupy Pittsburgh, have assembled to resist and abolish the political, social, and economic injustices that confront us and our communities.

We recognize that the current system encourages large corporations and the wealthy 1% to wield excessive influence over our political and legal systems, economy and culture.

We recognize that this prevents genuine democracy and deprives us of our liberties, sacrifices our health, safety and well-being, threatens our relationship with the rest of the world, has destroyed and continues to destroy cultures and peoples throughout the world, and critically compromises the ecological systems that sustain life itself.

We are a nonviolent, decentralized movement working to create a just society.

We are claiming a space for public dialogue and the practice of direct democracy for the purpose of generating and implementing solutions accessible to everyone.

To this end, we are exercising our rights to assemble peacefully and to speak freely, thus demonstrating our commitment to the long work of transforming the structures that produce and sustain these injustices.

Also to that end, we are working against all forms of inequality and discrimination including those based on age, ability, diagnosis, size, religion or lack thereof, class, culture, immigration status, nationality, history of incarceration, housing status, race, color, ethnicity, indigenous status, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

We stand in solidarity with those who have come before us, in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, who have fought for political, social and economic justice.

We are united, in strength and courage with the Occupations around the world.

We are your next-door neighbors. We are your friends. We are your relatives. We are the 99%.

I finally got around to reading the links provided on OWS. This is the introductory statement. I added emphasis.

Looks pretty good to me.

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.

-SSA Board of Trustees

Not, Touchdown pulling rabbits out of hats, but the warning from the people running the program.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

That is, I tried to add emphasis. Highlights for me were:

*resist and abolish injustices

*recognize excessive corporate influence

*which prevents genuine democracy and deprives one of liberties

*nonviolent movement

*practicing direct democracy to generate solutions

*exercising right to assemble

*commitment to long work

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...story.html

President Obama’s base of support remains solid heading into 2012
By Chris Cillizza, Published: November 20

Everyone knows that President Obama has a problem with his political base heading into 2012. Except that he doesn’t.

One of the most persistent story lines for the president has been that the liberal left has grown increasingly dissatisfied with his actions (or inaction) on some of its priorities — including single-payer health insurance, the extension of the George W. Bush tax cuts and whether to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But an examination of the polling data among key subgroups that constitute Obama’s base makes clear that he has as much support from them as any modern president seeking a second term...

Someone here (Mugsy?) was recently dismissing the Occupy movement protesters for not having suffered the way the civil rights movement demonstrators of the '60s did with, e.g., high-pressure water hoses turned on them by police. By such logic, I suppose the police pepper-spraying of seated non-violent folks in Davis, CA., gives the Occupiers more street cred now, right? Sad.

Actually, minx, I think someone indicated here that they thought the police were actually escorting marchers during the Civil Rights movement.

Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor

Actually, minx, I think someone indicated here that they thought the police were actually escorting marchers during the Civil Rights movement.

Did he also think that the police were giving the Civil Rights marchers free baths? Bringing them therapy dogs to pet? And offering them Dr. Kevorkian-like services?

I wasn't dismissing the OWS kids for not having suffered, I commented that there seemed to be a liberal tendency to equate everything to the civil rights movement.

For me, asking or demanding to be judged according to the content of your charecter rather than the color of your skin, and well, we don't really have enough focus to have coherent demands but we would like our student loans payed off don't go together. Maybe that's just me.

Lots of people have physical confrontations with authority, some deserved, some undeserved, but none of it qualifies or disqualifies your issues as civil rights issues to me. I don't think that a job is a civil right, I don't think that loan forgiveness is a civil right, I don't think that ending capatalism is a civil right, and I don't think that being able to camp out in the park is a civil right either.

Do you think health care is a civil right, or a privilege (or a luxury)? How about clean air and water, unpoisoned soil, untainted food, etc.?

Since this latest twist of the tale started with my nic and appears to associate me with it, I feel compelled to say that I never said that any civil rights marchers were escorted by the police and never said any of the inventions that minx' imagination is crediting "someone" and "he" with either.

Minx;

I haven't been following the discussion on the assertion that neutrinos may travel faster than the speed of light, what are your thoughts on it?

Do you think health care is a civil right, or a privilege (or a luxury)? How about clean air and water, unpoisoned soil, untainted food, etc.?

Well, perhaps these are up for discussion. When the OWS movement gets past, Ralphie says this, Billy wants that, Susie has a list of thirty demands but Arnold gave seven of them a thumbs down, then I guess they can talk about it. Until then, they're not a movement, they're a mob.

...
written by Touchdown, November 21, 2011 - 11:21 AM

So the solution is to kick the can down the road then.

No, here is a link to some sensible, workable and achievable solutions as well as facts about SS.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/4982-how-to-fix-social-security

I do remember the comments regarding the OWS folks not having "suffered" enough, as I found the notion ludicrous.

I also distinctly recall that it was NOT Mugsy who made those comments. Or RHA, or any of the other long-time contributors here.

As for equating OWS with civil rights - I don't find it acceptable that we all have a right to be equally trampled by corporations and rich people, regardless of the color of our skin or the content of our character. What good is equality if all it means is an equal right to be exploited?

Technical question here

What am I doing wrong that my links aren't blue so you can just click on them?

sally - did you click the blue globe icon-thingy above the comment box? It will give you a pair of brackets, between which you paste your link to make it "live."

Mugsy, I was extending the metaphor in response to CJ's post:

Actually, minx, I think someone indicated here that they thought the police were actually escorting marchers during the Civil Rights movement.

What's the matter, you don't have a sense of humor?

Minx, I might be able to save you some trouble here...are you trying to shaow that I don't have what you believe to be the proper amount of respect for the OWS kids? I'll stipulate to that. I give the protesters credit for being engaged in the issues that concern them, but after that, I have very little respect for whatever it is that they call a political movement. If they want to delight in their refusal to engage in any aspect of the system rather than just take a rebellious stance in some parks here and there then that's fine, but their only accomplishment to date seems to be non-accomplishment. Bravo.

I would say that the Pittsburgh OWS manifesto has some admirable things in it. The way its phrased makes it almost impossible to say you disagree with any of it. I read the wish-list and think "Yeah, that all sounds pretty good."

What I ask though is what are your means to achieve those ends? I've asked this to Yinzerati, and I would extend the question to anyone who cares to answer:

A couple of days ago you said more or less that the ballot box may not be a sufficient solution for the problems the OWS movement wants to remedy. I understand that its easy to overlook posts or glaze over parts addressed to a specific person, but I had asked what exactly you meant by that, and what means you think would be required and appropriate.

I would say to those protesters that they have some admirable points that deserve to be addressed, but I would add that actions speak much louder than words, and I want to know what actions they plan on taking to back up those words. I imagine that's where our common ground will diverge.

I'm sure I could post different Tea Party group platforms and we'd find common ground on a lot of the grievances, but we diverge on the ends. The means they took could be called "Occupy Congress", because they got a lot of people elected to that body, and although not a majority, their minority voice has done a great deal to frame the tone of conversation within Congress. If OWS does the same, good on them.

The only part I raise an eyebrow to directly is this:

We are claiming a space for public dialogue and the practice of direct democracy for the purpose of generating and implementing solutions accessible to everyone.

You don't have the right to squat in a public (or in the case of Zuccotti Park, a private space), disrupt that spaces use by other citizens, demand the use of things like lavatories in surrounding private establishments, etc. I've heard that the cost to the municipalities across the country to accommodate these occupations is running into the millions of dollars, which falls on taxpayers and city budgets that are already strained.

The UC Davis police chief has also been placed on administrative leave, as well as the two officers who pepper-sprayed the students:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11...leave.html

What's the matter, you don't have a sense of humor?

Couldn't be farther from truth, Minx, people laugh at me all the time. I only wish that I knew what they were laughing at......

Okay, I stand corrected, again.

I don't think that being able to camp out in the park is a civil right either.

So you opposed the WW I Bonus Marchers' encampment on the National Mall, which they called "Hoovervilles" after the President who was doing nothing to help them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

Uh-oh, now Rocky's liable to lambaste me for looking up actual facts to post, instead of merely expressing unsubstantiated opinions

So you opposed the WW I Bonus Marchers' encampment on the National Mall, which they called "Hoovervilles" after the President who was doing nothing to help them?

I don't oppose them, nor do I consider it to be a civil right.

You've just demonstrated far better than I could have the problem, if I approve of the bonus marchers encampment on the mall then it must be a civil right. Not everything that I approve of becomes a civil right simply because I approve, you should consider that for yourself as well.

Change of subject, has anybody seen that the woman who was attacked in Conneticut by a chimp a few years back felt comfortable enough to go on TV ? She looks remarkable well and seems to have a very strong spirit, it's quite a good story.

What happened to the Bonus Army was sad. But at the same time, they were also protesting something they were actually entitled to as veterans of the worst war in human history up to that point.

I don't think it's a very apt comparison to put the Bonus Army and the OWS people side-by-side.

How's this for a fact, little_minx. FDR actually vetoed an act giving the Bonus Army their bonuses early, which was overridden by Congress.

This isn't anything new. I look to guys like George Washington in during the Newburgh Conspiracy for inspiration on how Americans should act in times of distress.


I've also seen the video of the pepper-spraying cop. You don't unload a can of spray on a bunch of kids sitting down and locking arms. That's wrong.

I haven't been following the discussion on the assertion that neutrinos may travel faster than the speed of light, what are your thoughts on it?

For me it's less about the neutrinos and more about the scientific method. It's a great way for people to learn that knowledge is an ongoing process subject to rigorous testing, not articles of faith to be believed blindly.

Ditto too for the successful challenges to the supposed "cold fusion" experimental results several years ago -- not to mention that fraudster in England who proclaimed loudly that childhood vaccinations could cause autism, which bogus claim prompted celebrity idiots like Jenny McCarthy to promote his cause, even though it turned out to be a criminal scam.

TD, you said this:

I've heard that the cost to the municipalities across the country to accommodate these occupations is running into the millions of dollars, which falls on taxpayers and city budgets that are already strained.

I would harbor a guess that many who support the campers could care less about the cost to the locals. A do whatever it takes type attitude, with little regard for the collateral damage.

How much was the cost to taxpayers of Tea Party rallies (including keeping a close eye on gun-toters, since a potential assassin could blend into the crowd easily)?

written by slavicdiva, November 21, 2011 - 12:31 PM

sally - did you click the blue globe icon-thingy above the comment box? It will give you a pair of brackets, between which you paste your link to make it "live."

No, I didn't. Thanks for the information.

Okay, here it is again. I'll see if I did it right.

http://readersupportednews.org...ix-social-

You mean those Tea Party rallies where everyone goes home that night to their own beds instead of pretending every patch of grass is a KOA campground?

Harbor an educated guess yourself.

I didn't explore the Chilean model for in detail as explained in the 1996 SSA memo. I'll revisit it later when my eyes quit bleeding. But I was able to derive a couple of bits of useful information that raise more questions fifteen years later.

First before changes were implemented in Chile there were actually three separate systems of SS depending on the type of occupation. One class was entitled to benefits equal to 100%, that is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of final pay.

American SS pays nowhere near that percentage in benefits. Frankly I think it is insane to do so.

Second there were many Chileans grandfathered (and grandmothered, I assume) to remain in the old system for which the government must provide substantial subsidies till about 2050.

That is exactly the point I made in one of my questions.

Third the new system is MANDATORY. In other words, workers are required to PURCHASE INVESTMENTS. And that is the only way such a system can work. Just the same as the individual health care mandate!

Fourth the system allows for investments in certain categories offering returns, with a percentage limit as to how much may be invested in any one category. The limit for mortgage loans is 50%.

Following that model there would be millions of Americans under water not only in their home mortgages but also in their investment in other people's home mortgages right now.

Now perhaps you have the wrong impression but I have never claimed that there are not long term funding problems with both SS and Medicare. The SSA report acknowledges and details these projections.

However, the SSA report notes that legislative action is needed sooner rather than later. The trustees do not say there is either a current crisis or that a complete restructuring of these programs is recommended as a solution.

Part II coming

You mean those Tea Party rallies where everyone goes home that night to their own beds...

You mean because only those with homes have a constitutional right to assemble peaceably, while the homeless and others have forfeited that right?

You know very well what I mean.

Google violence at TP rallies, or cost of policing TP rallies and that'l explain it.

Any drug dealing, any sexual attacks, anything violent happen at Tea Party rallies costing society the monies that the campers have cost?

And people accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. If your group HAD assembled peacefully, there wouldn't be a conversation here.

The excuses some make sometimes are incredible.

Those groups got permits to occupy space that everyone has a right to use (not abuse), coordinated with police, and never had to be dispersed because of the sanitation problem being created.

I can only imagine your reaction, little_minx, if those Tea Party protests exercised the same occupation tactics being used now. If a Tea Party squatte on private property or a public space and refused to move for months, coordinated to disrupt things like public transportation, or took part in the abuse of private property, I doubt you would have stood in support of it.

In fact, the drum beat was that these Tea Parties were nothing but dangerous right-wing revolutionaries, anti-government whackos, klansmen minus the hood, etc.

Occupy ballot boxes, not parks... I wonder how many people down there will actually remember to register to vote.

Want to harbor an educated guess what it cost to send in the police to stop the dope-dealing alone at the campers rallies?

A lot more than keepin' an eye on potential assassins, I'd bet.

Part II is here!

No doubt that increasing numbers of retirees must be supported by decreasing numbers of workers. But there are many ways to address this fact other than privatizing the system.

First the cap on earnings to which FICA applies could, and should, be raised. I would increase that in increments until it reaches $200,000/year.

I realize there is also an effect on employers in doing this but the relative scarcity of employees earning that much would lessen the impact. The limit has been hiked previously with no adverse effects on employment.

There is temporary lower FICA rate in place which Obama's jobs bill would make lower still and extend. We have found with the Bush tax cuts that it is difficult to restore such cuts, or let them expire. So skeptics maintain these are as good as permanent.

The problem is that Congress must make up the shortfall between the permanent and temporary rates which does contribute to the deficit. There are some projections that ending these cuts will cost jobs.

This subissue will need to be addressed to resolve these conflicts.

Second I do not disagree in principle that the age to receive benefits, or at least full benefits, can be raised. But since I "already have mine" that is an easier position to adopt and I might, and probably would, feel otherwise if I were younger.

Even if that age is raised most proposals have said it would affect only those workers under a certain age today, usually 55. Is that a magic number? Is there a compelling rationale why it should be 55 as opposed to 45 or 54 or 58? Is that age chosen due to actuarial considerations?

Now we get to Medicare. Its financial stability, or instablity if you will, lies not so much in the number of beneficiaries but in overall medical costs.

Some steps have already been taken to alleviate the problem. The ACA provides for P0 billion in lower reimbursements over 10 years under Medicare Advantage to bring them more in line with regular Medicare.

The Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) is a method currently used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the United States to control spending by Medicare on physician services.[1] Enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to amend Section 1848(f) of the Social Security Act, the SGR replaced the Medicare Volume Performance Standard (MVPS), which was the previous method that CMS used in an attempt to control costs.[2] Generally, this is a method to ensure that the yearly increase in the expense per Medicare beneficiary does not exceed the growth in GDP.[3] Every year, the CMS sends a report to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises the U.S. Congress on the previous year's total expenditures and the target expenditures. The report also includes a conversion factor that will change the payments for physician services for the next year in order to match the target SGR. If the expenditures for the previous year exceeded the target expenditures, then the conversion factor will decrease payments for the next year. If the expenditures were less than expected, the conversion factor would increase the payments to physicians for the next year. On March 1 of each year, the physician fee schedule is updated accordingly. The implementation of the physician fee schedule update to meet the target SGR can be suspended or adjusted by Congress, as has been done regularly in the past (a doc fix).[4] The estimated SGR for 2010 is -8.8%, and the conversion factor for the physician fee schedule is -21.3%.[2] On December 16, 2010, President Obama signed the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 into law, delaying the implementation of the SGR until January 1, 2012.[5] The implementation of the conversion factor had previously been delayed until December 1, 2010.[6] Physician groups, including the American Medical Association, lobby for a permanent reform to the SGR so that physician payment rates are not subject to annual cuts (a permanent doc fix).



That is what the law is, but implementation has always been delayed. Either enforce the law or repeal it. Enforcement will bring reimbursement cuts, which may affect services, while repeal will bring certainty to physicians which may stabilize fees.

Medicare costs are simply a reflection of the rise in overall medical costs. A huge part of that is due to for profit insurers, or even not for profit private insurers. Witness UPMC and Highmark.

Ultimately a single payer system will be the best for the country.

You know very well what I mean.

Ooooh, guess you told me off but good, huh

Bet you opposed the anti-Vietnam War marchers too, and the aforementioned WW I Bonus Army marchers on DC as well. No matter how just the cause, it's their manners and grooming that count, righty-ho?

And I do wonder how it is that if the Tea Parties were the 'anti-government' protesters, why its the OWS protesters you see clashing with police?

And aren't the cities where you see the most hostile confrontations also places of entrenched and perennial Democrat-controlled government? It isn't like Oakland or New York is being run by some hobnailed bootheal f-word conservative regime...

Great point, TD.

Ladies, next time we attend an Occupy Pittsburgh rally, we must remember to get our hair done, have fresh mani-pedis, and wear our best skirt-suits, flesh-tone panty-hose, and match-matchy high-heels, handbags, gloves and hats. Wouldn't want the men-folk bad-mouthin' us, now would we?

Minx,

Be genuine for a change and google cost to communities to police Tea Party rallies instead of twisting, again and again, whatever fits to get your foot out of your mouth.

The bonus army merely inhabited an existing Hooverville. Those were encampments set up by the homeless, veterans or not.

The bonus march began in 1932 while Hoover was still in office. They wanted full redemption of their bonus certificates which did not mature until 1945. The bonus law had been passed in 1924 over Coolidge's veto. (Damned Republican)

The U.S. Army attack was led by McArthur with the tanks under Patton. Eisenhower was an aid to Old Dougie and advised him against participating.

Believing it wrong for the Army's highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there," he said later. "I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff."[16] Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army's official incident report which endorsed MacArthur's conduct.[17]



Following FDR's election he sent Eleanor to talk with the veterans.

One veteran commented: "Hoover sent the army, Roosevelt sent his wife". In a press conference following her visit, the First Lady described her reception as courteous and praised the marchers, highlighting how comfortable she felt despite critics of the marchers who described them as Communists and criminals.[19]



That last part sounds familiar, doesn't it.


Roosevelt later issued an executive order allowing the enrollment of 25,000 veterans in the CCC, exempting them from the normal requirement that applicants be unmarried and under the age of 25.[21] Congress, where Democrats held majorities in both houses, passed the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act in 1936 authorizing the immediate payment of the $2 billion in WWI bonuses over the President's veto.[22] The House vote was 324 to 61,[23] and the Senate vote was 76 to 19.[24]

written by rockhardabs, November 21, 2011 - 01:36 PM

You mean those Tea Party rallies where everyone goes home that night to their own beds

On buses paid for by big Koch brother's money. Hardly "grass roots".

Be genuine for a change and google cost to communities to police Tea Party rallies

Google yourself

That last part sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Well, they are becoming more and more open about it. Who, you ask? Why the passengers in the GOP clown car making a stop in Iowa on Saturday for the "Thanksgiving Family Forum" sponsored by a couple of different groups.

Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum and their sane but powerless chaperone Paul took part.

William Saletan's review of the proceedings concludes that these idiots want a theocracy. He condenses a three hour forum into several statements from each of the candidates that certainly give that impression.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...gop_would
_abolish_courts_and_legislate_morality_.html

Santorum, for instance, believes that if something is immoral, it should also be illegal. Of course his idea of what is immoral may differ greatly from what others, including fellow Christians, think are immoral, but we know subtleties are lost on Rick.

Gingrich believes when a federal court issues a ruling contrary to Christian beliefe, the court should just be eliminated.

Newtie also wants to adopt a view that the 14th Amendment allows Congress to define a person. He proposes it do so much in the manner of the recently rejected Mississippi constitutional amendment.

Sadly his source for this argument "Robby" or Robert George of Princeton, is a Morgantown native who I met when I had dealings with his dad some thirty years ago. Who knew that Ivy League Princeton harbored any color other than pinko?

Saletan provides links to the video of the forum but it is 3 hours long so I haven't watched it. Assuming the video proves him out, even though none of these clowns is likely to be the nominee, the fact that such prominent GOPers hold this position is frightening.

"A do whatever it takes type attitude, with little regard for the collateral damage."


Sorta like the corporations who pump tons of mercury into the environment with little regard for the effect on human beings' health.

As long as it's being done in pursuit of profits, I guess some couldn't care less as long as they are comfortable in the knowledge that millionaires and billionaires are getting tax-advantaged dividends. Who cares about the collateral damage?

If anyone can stand anything more about Sandusky here's an article from yesterday's Washington paper where a number of former classmates and teammates are interviewed.

http://www.observer-reporter.c...arly-years

None can believe that the Sandusky they knew could have done this but they do have their doubts in his innocence. Some still live in Washington. I know or know of all of them and they are good people themselves, surely confused by what will probably seem a betrayal if Sandusky is found guilty.

UMOC, thanks for the link. If Sandusky is guilty, then his betrayals are manifold -- first and foremost of course the children he's accused of molesting, then his family, then the past and present colleagues he duped at PSU and Second Mile, and finally old friends like these (the ones to whom most people can relate the most easily).

minx, I like your idea of us ageing OWS sympathizers showing up en masse like secretaries from Mad Men.

CJ, don't forget your strand of pearls!

Minx said:

Google yourself

Oh, I did, and that's the point. You made the point, and I'm saying there are facts to dispute your assassin point. You intellectuals on this blog shout from the roof tops when we make a point that is disputable by facts. But do you think you'd, for once on this blog, say you might have been incorrect in an assessment? Like almost everyone here has done, to their credit?

Even your own side called you out on the George Bush issue months ago, and you gutlessly hid behind whatever you hid behind.

You made a statement about the cost of keeping an eye on possible assassins at Tea Party rallies. You've been asked to reconsider that statement. You refuse to do that, like a 7 year old. You are disingenuous at best. At most, you're an adult who should know better. You hide like a coward behind computer keyboard.

Shine up those pearls, girls.

Check. I'll have to work on my bouffante. Low tasteful heels. Perhaps I could find some 50's-styled gloves at the thrift store.

Oh dear. The myriad character defects spotted here.

Doesn't the virtuous purveyor of the Trib provide a more decorous forum?

Everything and everybody has to be divided up into "sides?"

On Zucotti Park and drugs:

The side of the park adjacent to Broadway, where the main protests are held and where the media center and library are, forms the clean, public face of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Long after midnight, a frenetic burst of activity continues under the bright lights.

By contrast, the other side of the square, adjacent to Trinity Place, has become an unlit camping area for overnight protestors, where sleeping bodies occupy pretty much every available space. Anyone who wants to spend the night can do so. Obviously, nobody asks people about their history with drugs and alcohol, or mental health before allowing them entry into the public space. The lack of oversight means has allowed less savory elements to set up shop among the mostly law-abiding protestors. Street medic Paul Kostry, a 27-year-old volunteer from New Mexico, told The Fix on Sunday that several drug dealers had taken over a few of the sleeping tents on the dark side of the park, selling drugs from cocaine to heroin to marijuana. "We've got our own set of drug lords here, unfortunately," Kostry says. "We know what tents they're operating out of, and we're doing our best to deal with them." But Zuccotti Park, he adds, is a microcosm of New York City itself—including people with drug problems and those who prey on them. "Everyone recognizes that we cannot allow the drug dealing, and there are certainly steps being taken to deal with that," Kostry says. "But we are here to help the victims of that. There's a reason the medical tent is where it is."

The makeshift medical tent—easy to take down and put up, covered on four sides with opaque white plastic—provides free health care to all the occupiers, and is staffed by volunteer medics of all backgrounds—doctors, nurses, EMTs, mental health professionals, and street medics, some of whom accompany the protesters on street marches and other direct actions, when they often need medical attention due to violent responses of the police.

It is here that people dealing with drug and alcohol problems can find help from a dedicated group of medics who treat people suffering from overdoses and detoxing from alcohol. Kostry estimates that medics treat about a dozen people for drug or alcohol-related problems every day. "We've had a few people who've been brought in after ODing on heroin," he says. "We usually treat them with Narcan, a short-term opiate blocker, and take them to a hospital, if necessary. There's ketamine and coke available here here, too—generally the addicts here prefer stuff that can be sniffed and easily concealed. We've also had people with alcohol poisoning who needed immediate detox. We are medics. We try to treat them on site, stabilize them, and get them the help they need. We heavily discourage them from using in the park. It's certainly not something we support."

So it appears OWS has a no drugs policy and it has volunteer medical staff.

http://gawker.com/5853262/does...ug-problem

There's a lot of other stuff to access via Google but most of looks to be rightwingnews "quality."

Pretty sure when the second amendment zealots showed up on the Mall in DC, there were more than a few Secret Service and undercover officers paid to police the events.

Don't forget that right-wing reporter who instigated the invasion of a building at the Occupy protest in DC, then bragged re it.

Fox News reports teen pregnancy is the lowest its been since 1940 and who cries Uncle? Stats don't matter.

And why does teen pregnancy get brought up in a discussion about a Forum article on mercury poisoning written by a Duquesne University scientist?

Uncle, Uncle, Uncle.

I also know or know of many people who have prematurely tapped their 401k's to meet various expenses, some serious, some frivolous. Despite the rules for such accounts and possible penalties this is a frequent occurrence. What does the future bode for the people who have done this? What would it bode for the future if they had only private investments and no SS in present form to rely on for retirement?

Hi UMOC,

We financed our last two cars and some home improvements through loans from our 401K. They are paid back in installments, including intrest, like any other loan except that the loan money and intrest all belong to us. No such thing available from ssn so far as I know, but it's perfectly legal and has allowed us to make some major purchases without giving the intrest to somebody else for the loan.

I'm not sure about how your friends 401K works, but mine has regained it's losses. My return is low this year, 1.7 %, but since I am getting closer to retirement I have become a conservative investor with only 20 % of our savings in 401K in the stock market.

All in all, I have participated in my 401K since I got a job that offered one, twenty three years ago, and I am happy to have it. I understand about risk and so on, but if the money that was taken from me and from my employer had produced a simalar return over the past thiry eight years that I've paid into it, I would be contemplating a sooner retirement, I think.But, as I think we've discussed in the past, my complaint is less with the return on money and more with the allowance style of doling your own money back to you.

Mugsy

Never said borrowing against a 401k isn't legal. It is unwise according to many economic nd investment experts. Yours could have grown even more if you had not borrowed against it.

But there are always individual winners and losers in investments. The only people assured of profiting are the ones handling the transactions.

But what if you hadn't been able to pay your self loan back? More penalties, I believe, and less money available at retirement.

TD recommended the Chilean plan, based on self investment. But that is mandatory. If it's unconstitutyional to reuire a person to purchase insurance, it surely is unconstitutional to require them to purchase stock.

The Chilean government has another 30-40 years to make up the shortfalls in benefits to those grandfathered into the old system.

Our present SS system spreads the wealth and the risk. There are flaws, but corrections have been made before without destroying the whole system.

Yours could have grown even more if you had not borrowed against it.

I don't see how, the intrest on the loan was paid back into my account as well. The cost of the loan was that I had to pay the intrest rather than earning it by my investment, that was a reasonable choice for me. If I hadn't been able to pay the loan, due to employment termination or some other cause that I couldf no longer work, the loan would have been satisfied instantly, since the funds borrowed actually belonged to me. Yes, this would have left less for retirement, but I would suggest that any time you borrow money for any reason you are taking the chance that there will be less of something if you can't pay it off.

I read about the chilean plan a few years ago and it enjoyed some success, but I agree with your point, if a person can not be compelled to purchase health insurance then they can not be compelled to purchase investments either. I think that the programs suggested have actually just presented people with a choice to invest a small portion of their social security funds into private investments. Let's be clear; this will never work, but not because private investing poses too great a risk, these investments were to be very conservative. The reason why this will never work is because the government needs your money right now; and not for you.

UMOC, what do you think about social security funds, do the funds collected from you and your employer (or you and you if self employed) belong to you, or do they belong to the government. I've noticed a tendency among liberals to stress that this is an insurance program, with the assumption that perhaps there should be a needs based return of the funds, but that's not really how it's presented.

CJ

I believe I said above I find high teen birth rate to be a problem. I didn't say a rising teen birth rate, did I ?

Here's a stat:

Despite declines in rates of teen pregnancy in the U.S., about 820,000 teens become pregnant each year. That means that 34 percent of teenagers have at least one pregnancy before they turn 20

Yeah, hooray, fantastic!!!!!!!! Only 34 of every 100 teens have at least one pregnancy before the age of 20.

I guess I see how you would be so happy to show me a stat. It could have been 35 out of 100.

Imagine jumping on someone for thinking 34 out of 100 is an unacceptable number.

Naw, we ain't got no stinkin' teen birth rate problem.

BTW, you could be right about the secret service for that day. Wanna bet you can't find one of your stats that says the cost of looking out for assassins in the TP crowd doesn't compare to what NY has spent policing the campers 24/7 for 2 months????????

BTW CJ, I brought it up because I felt like it.

Your forum, or Reg's???????

Wow. Thirty four percent. That is a problem. One-third of all teenaged girls. 34 out 100. Wow. That's a lot. Such a lot of immorality out there it could make a guy crazy just thinking about all those s!uts.

On the other hand, the Guttmacher Institute that is the expert on the epidemiology of teen pregnancy says:

In 2006, 750,000 women younger than 20 became pregnant. The pregnancy rate was 71.5
pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19, and pregnancies occurred among about 7% of women
in this age-group.

Their figure of 71.5 translates to 7 percent. Gee. I guess a decimal point can really make a big difference.

Who said teen pregnancy wasn't a problem? Please cite a reference. Who defended teen pregnancy as desirable in this forum?

Some random points in response to other comments.

Conservative investments are fine, but the only ones that are truly safe are those FDIC protected, and their rate of return is miniscule these days, less, I believe, than the guaranteed return to SS funds.

Much of the policing cost of OWS protests is due to the overreaction to peaceful demonstrators who, as a group, have caused no trouble with a couple of exceptions. Even that trouble has been more of a response to a major police presence than to any patterns of looting.

Especially in NYC individual miscreants have drawn attention who, in large part, were not active demonstrators but slimy predators.

Citing the teen birth rate as an example of immorality is laughable. States which emphasize abstinence above all or as the only means of birth control in school sex education curriculums have the highest rate of teen pregnancies, all over 60 per 1000.

New Hampshire has no abstinence nonsense taught and its rate is 19.8 of 1000.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healt...ancy-rates

That report uses the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute as sources.

From those figures one could easily conclude that the more morality is taught, the less it is practiced. I will refrain from so concluding.

Greater religiosity correlates to a higher teen pregnancy rate. http://www.reproductive-health...ent/6/1/14

This report from just a year ago has information, some of which conflicts with other sources, that shows the teen birth rate has dropped significantly since 1990.
http://www.pregnantteenhelp.or...tatistics/

The bonus army was not protesting to get something they were entitled to. They were protesting to get something they were to be entitled to receive in another 13 years.

I’d still like an answer to one I posed to you a few days ago:

So just to be perfectly clear, you're perfectly fine with taxes on economic inactivity as long as it influences behavior on others in a way you find favorable, correct?

Don't put words in my mouth.

CJ

You misread Rocky's post about teen pregnancies. He stated 34% of teen girls will get pregnant in their teens, not 34% get pregnant each year.

CJ, you misread Rocky's post . . . .

Whew! Does that mean those two can return to being inspirations to us all?

I mean well, guys. I mean well.

I like what Driver said recently about personalities. I particularly like what functions as our organic (that word again) self-governance. Some of the clashes are painful to watch, but so far the kiss-and-make-ups have done the job. It was none other than that lying fascist jackass Mugsy who called this “an extraordinary group of people.” I hesitate here, lest someone be tempted to return the favor, but two observations, if they are not in fact the same thing: There is no point pounding it in when there is no point pounding it in. Everybody sees. Even the good give-and-takes, the personal, bloody, vicious ones, reach a point where it’s the obvious time to stop.

Okay, one more, to whom it may concern: Stop flagging your jokes.

Is that what he said, UMOC? Geez. My reading of Guttmacher's material is way off then. You are far more statistically adroit than I am. Maybe you could explain how the 34 in 100 figure relates to this.

Ten percent of all U.S. births are to girls aged 19 or younger.

Most births to teen mothers are first births. Nineteen percent are second or higher order births. [22]

In 2008, some 42 births occurred per 1,000 women aged 15–19; this rate marks a 33% decline from the peak rate of 62 reached in 1991. However, after decades of decline, the teen birthrate increased in 2006 and 2007, only to fall again in 2008.

Tourist, sorry to burst your bubble. I have resigned from being the mediator and middle child.

CJ

You continue as you always have to get unbelievably defensive when anyone states anything about girls/women. Finding a teenage birthrate too high for me doesn't equate with assuming I am calling them sluts.

It's a freaking societal problem. Do you really believe I'd call a 14 who got pregnant a s**t, or that I think we have a morals problem that the rate is so high? It has always taken 2 to tango. It also takes an immoral whatever attitude by so called parents.

Seriously, if it's worth using that word, do you get what I mean?

And of all of the things I said I had a problem with, toy pick on the one because you're assuming I'm assuming they're sluts?

Another character defect spotted. Add it to the list.

CJ

The link in my 1:39 post to pregnantteenhelp supports Rocky's claim that a third of teenage girls will get pregnant, just not all in one year. Your reading of Guttmacher is correct, but Rocky was citing the overall stats, not the yearly ones.

Since these studies generally cover girls age 15-19, multiplying your 7.1 by 4 is essentially the same as Rocky's 34. I suspect the latter figure simply counts all pregnancies among teens over that 4 year period and and simply derives the percentage from that.

Conceivably there could be multiple pregnancies by many of the same girls so the 34% number is less, but that number is accurate without delving into multiple occurrences.

I have seen the same methodology applied to other statistical studies.

"1/3 of Americans get hangnails every year." Well there may have been a total of 110 million hangnails, but I know I've had more than one. (A simple example I admit...and made up to boot!)

I tried to point something out to help explain my original rant. Again, you refuse to look past one aspect of it to see the whole picture of what concerns me. And then turn and twist it with clever words.

We all have our character defects pointed out here. Every one of us.

When you lump everything into this:

written by ciejai, November 20, 2011 - 10:44 AM

Women talking bad, dressing bad, and having babies will sink us.



then you've decided to overlook everything else that was said so as to pick up on something that was not there in the first place.

I know this will be mocked, as mockery is the sincerest form of mockery. You've heard this before: I have six wonderful women who are my sisters. The most important item my father stressed to his 3 sons when growing up was the special gift that women were to men. And so many men that I've seen choose to ignore the fact that we as men would be nowhere without the women in our lives.

I celebrate my 10th wedding anniversary tomorrow to the most beautiful and remarkable woman on the face of the earth. Dad was right about how special women are, and the love and respect they are due.

I'm sorry that through this whole discussion you have chosen not to take what you know of me as the truth.

And I'm sorry If I've bored the crap out of the rest of the blog trying to defend my position.

"The way people dress, act in public, their language, loose language by young women, (men have always been pigs, why do women want to emulate them?), the high teenage birth rate, out of control narcicissim..."


These are the things that indicate a lack of morality, according to your post, that will cause society to fail. Your words, not mine.


You still haven't explained how to figure out which people at the bus station are the immoral irresponsible ones who are causing civilization to fail.


At no point did I call you any name.

You still hung up on that and not able to figure it out?

That would be the sad rate of kids having kids in other places than just our lilly white suburbs. Go ahead, take a drive to the two points I mentioned. I see it every morning on the way to the office, or passing through town between my routine stops.

Again, a societal thing. And I don't sit there at a red light and label the individual young lady with a word you choose to use.. I shake my head at what is happening and all of the little children who haven't a chance in hell. Society is failing them.

The rates you state are unacceptable in my corner of the world. If 34/100 isn't a sign of moral parental failings or individual morality problems in some of those instances, then I don't know what is. Just because the rate is decreasing doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy when I know damn well it's unacceptably high in.

I had a chart to show what I'm talking about but of course someone thought it funny to equate a picture of a horse's ass with with either Republicans or conservatives and got our little privilege revoked. Isn't childish pushing of buttons great fun?

It is OK for me to feel that what I consider to be moral failings to differ than yours, right?

I said this:

"Yes, that includes starving people, slaughtered women in Africa and the daily lifestyle of common folk. The way people dress, act in public, their language, loose language by young women, ( men have always been pigs, why do women want to emulate them? ), the high teenage birth rate, out of control narcicissim, what is accepted as TV and movie entertainment, blah blah blah blah blah. "

Like i said, you are conveniently leaving out many other instances I stated to make it look and sound like I'm choosing women as the root of all evil.

That's your choice.