Which Ox gets gored?

The Business Ox or the People's Ox ??

Some oxen are off-limits for goring - the rest are fair game - the powerful write up the separate lists

Hey Folks -

In the posting directly below, I shared my disgusted letter to the Dispatch over its biased, sensationalized series "ABCs of betrayal."

I received the letter below (in blue) from editor Ben Marrison. Obviously I was being condescendingly and hypocritically conned.

My response follows Mr. Marrison's letter.

- Uke Man

Mr. Harker,

Thanks for writing. Your hyperbole does not serve your arguments well.
There are times when you make some good points, but your recent letters have become something of a rant. I would encourage you return to your more thoughtful, and civil, discourse. They have a better chance of being read and seriously considered.

The series exposed a problem, and did so thoughtfully. Neither of the reporters is or were members of a teachers union, nor have they managed one. They bring no bias or agenda to the table other than to expose a problem. They are two journalists explaining to readers that a problem exists – and the legislature and the governor thought enough of their investigative report to change state law.

Hacks don’t get laws changed.

Have a good day.

Respectfully,

Ben Marrison
Editor
The Columbus Dispatch




Mr. Marrison,

You make me smile.

Since when has the Dispatch resisted publishing rants? Below, after your letter to me, I have included two of the paper's recently published letters to the editor. Reading these examples, it seems that hyperbole, uncivil discourse, even bigotry and racism can be and have been regularly published on your pages. Indeed, as a long-time reader I can safely say that, for at least the last fifty years, the Dispatch has seemed to relish printing such letters. If you are dubious, I'm sure Mr. Sheller can find hundreds - if not thousands - of other examples in your archives.

The evidence indicates quite clearly that my point of view rather than my recent "style" is the problem. You suggest I pursue "more thoughtful and civil discourse" but the paper regularly publishes bigoted, sarcastic, inaccurate, name-calling rants which have the advantage of supporting the paper's editorial agenda.

As I said, you make me smile.

Regarding the “good points” I have made, if anyone there has noticed them, I haven’t discovered any effect they may have had – either in the seemingly interminable ABCs episodes or in the few and extremely laconic personal responses I’ve received.

Moreover, I doubt that my delivery of these points had much to do with how they were received. I have pointed out, numerous times, the problem with the presentation of misleading statistics. Not only has no one responded, but the slanted statistics have been repeated at almost every opportunity – that is until the recent “physical abuse” piece in which the thesis was better supported by a different manipulation of the numbers.

Given your paper’s clear and long-standing animosity to public schools and teachers’ unions (not to mention unions in general), I don’t think I’m out of line to suspect political motivation. Still, it is possible that what ended up being presented over and over again in your series simply resulted from a faulty understanding of statistics, or simply from shoddy journalism. Whatever reason, it is nothing to be proud of.

You say the “series exposed a problem.” That has never been the issue. The issue is that the problem exposed is not the problem that exists. The problem “exposed” is rampant pedophilia (and now “physical abuse”) that is overwhelmingly being ignored, allowed to flourish, and supported by teachers’ unions. The actual problem is something else.

The problem you exposed inflated the numbers of criminals (you still haven’t made clear exactly how many of those 1,700 disciplined teachers were pedophiles). You also inflated the numbers who escaped losing their licenses (throughout the series the implication was that sixty-six percent of the criminals kept their licenses – now, when it serves your argument, you report that only twenty percent escaped with their licenses intact.

The problem you exposed clearly stimulated overblown fear in many and hysteria in some. The real problem could have been addressed more appropriately – perhaps, dare I say, in a more thoughtful and civil way; in a way that would not lead one of your letter-writers to teach her child to fear everyone, a way that would not be so destructive to an important democratic institution (albeit one which your editorial board doesn’t seem to like much), a way that didn’t take gratuitous potshots at unions (another favorite target of your editorial board).

Yes, there was a real problem, but what you exposed was the paper’s biases and its inability or unwillingness to separate those biases from its reporting.

Your suggestion that since your reporters have never been either union members or managers dealing with a union, they have no biases made me smile again.

Perhaps we are simply arguing over semantics here. I’ve heard that Hemingway claimed “bias” was based on experience,and “prejudice” referred to views without any basis. If that is the case, I stand corrected, and henceforth will describe your reporters’ tendency to hold certain unsubstantiated negative beliefs as “prejudice.”

Whatever one calls it, one need not have experienced unions, or anything else, to own prejudices. When it comes to unions, much of the upper class and upper class “wannabe’s” inherit their prejudice from their parents. I don’t know where Jill and Jen got it, and it’s possible that they truly aren’t prejudiced, but only suffer – like the proverbial Marie Antoinette - from a naïve, simplistic misunderstanding of both what they have observed and their responsibility in dealing with what they found.

I smiled again at your notion that the series is vindicated by the legislature and governor’s having taken action. The legislature is controlled by Republicans who share your paper’s disdain for public schools and unions. Getting them to take action on these matters is about as difficult as talking Neo-cons into invading Iraq. That is to say that you didn’t goad the legislature into anything; you greased their wheels.

As for the governor, what sane person would say he had any choice in the matter, given the situation?

As for the comment that “Hacks don’t get laws changed,” does the name “Spanish American War” mean anything to you? I guess if yellow journalism can get us into a foreign war, it shouldn’t be too hard to get Ohio’s legislature to pass laws aimed at public schools. (Now, if you could just get them to follow the state constitution by obeying the lawful decrees of our elected Supreme Court, you might have something to be proud of.)

Finally, I would like to say that, while you may find what I’ve said to be objectionable, it has certainly been civil and thoughtful. I have made some good points; and, while you may think some things I’ve said sting and, therefore, constitute a “rant” or fail the civility test, I must point out that the truth hurts. Being truthful, however, does not constitute a rant or – in my opinion – incivility.

Someone – perhaps Oscar Wilde - did warn, however: "If you are going to tell people the truth, be funny or they will kill you."

Somehow, I don’t think you are laughing.

Have a good day.

Yours respectfully,

Tom Harker


Don't put government in charge of health care
Saturday, November 17, 2007

Government-run health care? What a concept!

There are so many times I think how great it would be if only the government ran our health-care system, as has been suggested by some people.

Every time I fly, which is about a flight a week, I watch the Transportation Security Administration strip-search some 85-year-old grandma while a cadre of Middle Eastern men with 4-foot turbans and 3-inch-thick sandals pass through security unmolested, and I think to myself, "Man, I wish the government ran the health-care industry."

I sit in a 4-mile parking lot in Chicago called the Dan Ryan Expressway while five lanes of traffic try to pass through a single open lane so eight guys can patch a pothole, and think, "If only the government ran hospitals and told doctors what to do."

I look at the Veterans Affairs hospitals and think, "All health care should be just like this."

I consider the nearly bankrupt Social Security system, which pays a pittance to our elderly but still is on life support itself, and think, "Wow, man, if only Al Gore could put our health care in a lockbox, too! Hot dang!"

I admire our Democrat-controlled Congress with its 11 percent approval rating (now making even President Bush look like a popular overachiever) and I think wistfully, "Why can't the Congress of these United States personally conduct all of my transactions around and concerning my health?"

Like jolly old England, where the average wait for an MRI is somewhere between 10 months and a decade or two. And where 70,000 people last year alone got tired of waiting for (or scared thinking about) a visit to a local hospital and flew to Spain, Morocco, India or elsewhere. This number is expected to be about 210,000 by the year 2010.

Like Canada, where they pay twice as much in taxes in order to face the startling reality that you are twice as likely to heal naturally before seeing a specialist for nearly anything.

Yeah, I want one of those six good old Mideastern terrorists who posed as doctors in the UK so they could plot a bombing on innocent civilians taking my pulse and giving me a stress test. England is desperate for doctors, because of the lack of interest in the profession among the Brits.

If the point of health care is to be cheaper for those who use it most, then government health care is your cup of tea.

If the point, however, is to be healed by trained and motivated medical personnel who have a personal, professional stake in your wellness and who likely will see you immediately for emergencies, with or without insurance, and in a few days for scheduled visits, then you may want to think about how we can improve on, not throw out, the system we have.

DAVE GUSTIN
Leesburg



Some restrictions should apply to right to vote
Saturday, November 3, 2007

Just as the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted by reasonable laws, so the right to vote should have reasonable restrictions.

The right to vote should be granted to good citizens and should be denied to the following:

• All citizens who do not pay income taxes. Furthermore, all citizens should have to pay their income taxes in a lump sum once a year or, at most, quarterly, so a citizen would know just how much he has to pay to support the government. The idea that a company must confiscate the taxes with each paycheck treats citizens as incompetents. All Social Security taxes should be paid by the employee; the employer should pay the employee both halves, and the employee should pay it all, once a year or quarterly, the same as payroll taxes. Otherwise, the citizens have no idea how much the government is costing them.

• Anyone who has filed bankruptcy should be denied the right to vote until he has been solvent for at least five years, to show he is responsible with his own finances before he is allowed to vote for those who control the finances of the government.

• All citizens on the government dole, including those who receive government tax credits because they do not earn enough to pay income taxes, should be denied the right to vote, as should anyone on welfare, Social Security (after they have collected both halves plus 6 percent interest), Medicare, Medicaid or any other state or federal government handouts. Only those who pay for the government and do not receive government largess should be allowed to vote. Those on the dole are tempted to vote for those politicians who promise more of the same, and such disbursements from the public's purse are leading to the ruination of this country. To be truly free and independent, a citizen should be free and independent of governments.

• A citizen who does not have a basic understanding of history, mathematics, how the government works, the founding of our nation, the knowledge of where the government gets the money it spends and the knowledge needed to balance a checkbook. Citizens must know that it is basic that the government cannot spend more than it takes in, except by deficit spending, and the government cannot simply print more money when it needs it.

• Felons and mental incompetents. If a citizen does not qualify to own a firearm, he should not be allowed to vote. Voting is as important as defending your life. If you cannot be depended on to protect yourself from evil people, you should not be depended on to elect someone to rule over the lives of others.

• Elected government officials and government employees. Only those citizens involved in creation of capital, real wealth, should be allowed to vote. Although government employees pay taxes, they are not involved in creating products; their wages are paid with the taxes taken from the citizens creating products. And besides, there is no reason to allow (civil) servants to vote. The exceptions might be the postal workers and the military, as they are mentioned in the Constitution and do provide needed services.

• Homeless and the elderly housed in group homes who have no regard to the amount of property taxes they are costing the property owners.

This country is fast on the path of becoming the United Socialist Union of America unless we begin to put the brakes on and return it to a capitalistic country.

OSCAR G. SHEPHERD
Columbus

Why do these people hate America??

A Double-Dog Pox on All of Them!!!

(except maybe Doug - he's in the picture the paper printed to advertise their sensationalism, but he never got much "credit" in the by-lines for the hatchet job)



Hey Folks -

I mentioned a while back that I'd "let it out" in my correspondence with the slo-mo's at the Dispatch, the local newspaper. Time after time the reporters and the editors presented the same meaningless, misleading statistics in support of their attack on public schools and teachers' unions. This, in the face of numerous requests by me to clean up their numbers.

Time after time the same bolgna was sliced and again, identically placed upon the plate. UNTIL ... their switch, near the end, from pedophilia to "physical abuse," whereupon new pedophile statistics were used to support the "physical abuse" angle.

The clods at the paper showed no trepidation over reversing themselves from implying - over 15 or so consecutive articles - that only a third of pedophiles had lost their teaching licenses and then claiming that physical abusers got off easy because 80% of pedophiles lost their licenses.

That's all Popeye could stanz!! I wrote the letter below.

- Uke Man


Hey Jill & Jen (and your "bosses" in the private sector),

All this time while you were sweating over the outrageous number of un-defrocked teacher pedophiles, your favorite line has been that since 2000 there were 1,700 teachers investigated, but only a third lost their licenses. Golly ! Two thirds of the pedophiles must have gotten off.

Now that you are sweating to establish “physical abuse” as an additional horror that the system has “failed to address,” the statistics (about which I have written you several times for clarification) are suddenly broken down to the actual percentages of sexual abuse cases in which licenses actually were revoked: 80% - not 33% (of course you still haven't disclosed the actual number of sex-related matters within that number of 1,700 disciplined teachers).

Hmmmm . . . it makes one wonder.

Curiously, you seem to have made the sudden statistical revelation to bolster the argument that teachers guilty of “physical abuse” should be treated as severely as are pedophiles (whom you earlier implied were getting off lightly). It's certainly understandable that if one is taking that position, 80% of pedophiles being punished is obviously much more forceful that 33%.

Well, I'm sure you've heard what Twain had to say about this sort of thing: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I guess you have arrived.

I'm sorry, but you two are worse than hacks. More than simply bending to your masters' political will, you seem to have fully incorporated their upper-class, aristocratic attitudes into your own ideology. Even so, you don’t have the slightest clue as to what you are about.

Racist, classist structures enforced by our society and supported by the Dispatch editorial board have created terrible conditions for a large portion of society via economic segregation and exploitation. Instead of addressing these real, long-standing, and fundamental problems, you "opinion makers" flog scapegoats. "Invetigative reporting" pounds out sensational distractions helpful to maintaining the charade and avoiding reality.

I taught ten years in urban schools - four of those years at Linmoor Junior High School - and I know first-hand the effects of poverty and racism upon kids and parents crammed into ghettos on the basis of income and skin color.

Your sensational articles, far from addressing the overwhelming, systemic problem, will make matters even worse. You and the Dispatch brass live in a dream world of self-congratulatory denial. Together, you demand high standards; suggest that if only teachers taught right or weren’t so uncaring or so “corrupted” by unions, there’d be no problems; you pretend that if teachers from “good” schools took over “failing schools,” all would be well; that if “best practices” or “programmed texts” or phonics or ”new math” or some other fad were followed, all would be well; that “experts” like Yvette McGee Brown and Nadine Block, sitting in their ivory towers, have magical means, unknown to stupid teachers, to effect discipline; you assert that charter and private schools (the “magic” of “competition”) are the answer, that if only parents, legislators, Children’s Services, the state bureaucracy, conservative newspapers, experts, and businessmen can micromanage every aspect of education - without interference from teachers or their unions - all will be well.

You don’t have a clue.

Sometimes I think your bosses know exactly what they are doing; but maybe they are just stupid, too.

In any case, you all will get exactly the kinds of schools you deserve in Columbus. Most of you "well-intentioned" folks probably have not sent or will not send your kids to Columbus schools; so, maybe you don’t care. But, while your actions may hinder a handful of pedophiles who are not already in jail or already stripped of a teaching license, you have, nevertheless, done a terrible disservice to the entire institution of American public schools. You have marred the student-teacher relationship, reduced public trust and respect for a fundamental democratic asset, and made it even more difficult for anyone to truly address the overwhelming problems facing those who are impoverished and discriminated against in this land of ever-increasing inequality.

A pox on all of you!

And if that’s too Elizabethan for you, research our compassionate Vice President’s conservative comment to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html ) and try it on for size.

Yours - Tom Harkez

Jewish Nazis ????

Hey Folks -

Now I've seen everything - Jewish Nazis !! Can you believe it? Is there hope for the human race? Just how twisted are we??

- Uke Man


Police bust Israeli neo-Nazi ring
By ARON HELLER, Associated Press

JERUSALEM - Police said Sunday they have broken up a cell of young Israeli neo-Nazis accused of a string of brutal racist and anti-Semitic attacks, videos of which were played on television to a stunned national audience.The eight suspects, all immigrants from the former Soviet Union in their late teens or early 20s, are seen in the videos kicking victims on the ground to a bloody pulp, hitting a man over the head with an empty beer bottle and proclaiming their allegiance to Adolf Hitler with a Nazi salute.

Sixty years after the Nazi Holocaust killed 6 million Jews, incidents of anti-Semitism continue to outrage Israelis and the discovery of such violence in their own country dominated morning radio shows and made the front pages of newspapers with headlines such as "Unbelievable." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who viewed the footage with his ministers at the weekly Cabinet meeting, called it "violence for the sake of violence."

"I am sure that there is not a person in Israel who can remain indifferent to these scenes, which indicate that we too as a society have failed in the education of these youths," he said.

While Israel has experienced isolated incidents of anti-Semitism in the past, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the arrests were the first time an organized cell has been discovered.The eight youths, who immigrated to Israel as children, were arrested over the past two months in connection with at least 15 attacks against religious Jews, foreign workers from Asia, drug addicts, the homeless and gays. A ninth member has fled the country, he said.

A court decided Sunday to keep the suspects in custody on assault and vandalism charges.All eight had loose connections to Jewish heritage. They did not identify themselves as Jews and their families had come to Israel to escape hardships in the former Soviet Union, police said.Under the Israeli "law of return," a person can claim automatic citizenship if a parent or grandparent has Jewish roots. Authorities say that formula allowed many Soviets with questionable ties to Judaism to immigrate here after the Soviet Union disintegrated.About 1 million Soviets have moved here since the early 1990s, making up a significant part of Israel's 7 million citizens.

Olmert warned that the acts of the few should not tarnish the great achievements of the Russian immigrants, who include doctors, professors, scientists and Cabinet ministers. "I stress that we should not implicate an entire community and engage in generalizations," he said.

Cabinet Minister Eli Yishai of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party said he would propose taking away the suspects' citizenship. Several others suggested amending the law of return.

Ironically, Israel doesn't specifically have a hate crimes law, and the case has also drawn calls for new legislation.

The arrests drew condemnations from the Anti-Defamation League, a U.S.-based group that fights anti-Semitism, and Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial."The tragic irony in this is that they would have been chosen for annihilation by the Nazis they strive to emulate," the ADL said.

"While this is a marginal and extreme case, it is nevertheless intolerable," said Yad Vashem Chairman Avner Shalev.

The young men covered their faces with their shirts during the court hearing Sunday, revealing Nazi-themed tattoos on their arms. Some of the men had tattoos of the number "88," code for "Heil Hitler" because "H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet. Others wore tattoos of Celtic crosses — a symbol adopted by white supremacists — and barbed wire fences.

The gang documented its activities in detail on film and in photographs. Israeli TV stations showed grainy footage of the gang attacking victims with their fists, feet, buckets and bottles, leaving blood-splattered floors in their wake. The youths, whose faces were blurred or covered with Nazi insignia, also posed with German flags and giving the Nazi salute.

Authorities also found knives, spiked balls, explosives and other weapons in their possession, Rosenfeld said.

Police discovered the ring after investigating the desecration of two synagogues that had been sprayed with swastikas in the central Israeli city of Petah Tikva more than a year ago, Rosenfeld said. Police computer experts determined the group maintained contacts with neo-Nazi groups abroad, and materials seized include a German-language video about neo-Nazis in the U.S.

The group leader was identified as Eli Boanitov, 19, of Petah Tikva — known as "Eli the Nazi," police said. "I won't ever give up. I was a Nazi and I will stay a Nazi. Until we kill them all I will not rest," Boanitov was quoted as saying in a police statement.

Amos Herman, an official with the semiofficial Jewish Agency, which works with the government to encourage immigration to Israel, called the gang a group of frustrated, disgruntled youths trying to draw attention by striking at the nation's most sensitive core."We thought that it would never happen here, but it has and we have to deal with it," he said.

hi folks

hi folks,

i'm in new hampshire with family and limited internet opportunities!!

i've written up (with pen) an essay i think you'll like, but i can't get it typed up here. sorry.

i'll try to put up an occasional posting from the can until i get home.

having a fun time with my 2+ year old granddaughter. think i'll add "no more monkeys jumping on the bed" to my song list.

yours - uke man

You CAN Complain !!! Whether you voted or not, you SHOULD be complaining !!!

Hey Folks -

A while back we voted, and the local paper put out its usual comment that "If you don't vote, you can't complain." That's a laugh.

People who were incorrectly or underhandedly denied a chance to vote can complain. People whose absentee ballots were thrown out can complain. People whose votes were hacked can complain. People whose chads were supposedly found hanging can complain. People in a "safe" district but of the "unsafe" party who don't vote can complain. People of neither major party whose preferred candidates are denied a place on the ballot by the "two-party system" or whose party affiliation is not allowed on the ballot by the "two-party system" and, as a result, do not vote can complain. People who don’t vote because they know that no one in government gives a damn about what they think have a right to complain.

The election procedure is a farce. The major parties fuss with and jostle one another seeking to come out on top but fail to serve the people they con into voting for them. Whether one votes or not, and regardless of which person or party wins, everyone has a right - indeed a responsibility - to complain.

This farce ironically called “democracy” is an open sore begging to be complained about and either cured or eliminated.

Uke Man

Holiday Madness

Hey Folks -



With the holiday, I will be traveling some. If I can, I'll put up some postings, but I may be lacking in regard to the graphics.



Sorry, but I'll make it up to you!! Happy Thanksgiving !!



- Uke Man

Organize !!

Community Organizer Training Available

Hey Folks -

I recieved this email (below). I know nothing about the organization, but it sounds legit. If anyone is interested, there is info below and there is a website:

www.thedartcenter.org


- Uke Man




Dear P Thomas Harker,


Happy thanksgiving. My name is Ben MacConnell. I am a
community organizer working with a national network of
congregation-based community organizations working
toward social and economic justice called the Direct
Action & Research Training (DART) center. I got your
email address from the unitedforpeace.org directory and
noticed you were the local contact for Ukuleles for
Sanity.


I was hoping you could assist in our efforts to train
a new generation of community organizers by forwarding
along the simple announcement below regarding our
paid training positions available to appropriate
listserves, field organizers, volunteers, interns, or anyone
within the Ukuleles for Sanity network with an interest
in social and economic justice. Our paid training
program starts June 16, 2008 and runs through October 5,
2008, but our application deadline is right around the
corner on January 1, 2008


I realize that multiple announcements about our
positions can be a bit pesky, but this is an amazing
opportunity for those with an interest in improving the lives
of people living in low-moderate income
neighborhoods. Please broadcast the message below as widely as
possible. I also attached a brief e-flyer in case
something printed up may be helpful for upcoming meetings.


Thanks.


Sincerely,


Ben MacConnell

Recruitment Director

DART Network

ph: (785) 841-2680

email: ben@thedartcenter.org

www.thedartcenter.org

**************************

Message to forward:


The Direct Action & Research Training (DART) Center is
currently accepting resumes from those interested in
social and economic justice issues for their paid,
four-month community organizing training program known as
the DART Organizers Institute. The application
deadline for this program is January 1, 2008.


The DART Center has built non-partisan community
organizations throughout the country that have won
important improvements on a broad set of issues affecting
low-moderate income people including:


. Education reform in low-performing public schools

. Job Training

. Drugs and Violence

. Affordable Housing

. Criminal Recidivism

. Neighborhood Revitalization, etc.


The DART Organizers Institute starts June 17, 2008 and
combines a 7-day classroom with 15-week field
training. Organizer Trainees will learn such things as:


. Entering a community

. Identifying and training local leaders

. Strategic planning and issue cutting

. Relationship and community building

. Direct Action on community issues

. Fundraising


This is a paid training program designed to promote
successful graduates into permanent salaried positions
making up to $35,000/year in starting salaries, plus
benefits. Graduates from the DART Organizers Institute
have gone onto accept Executive Director and Associate
Community Organizing positions throughout the country.
We continue to train the best of those working to
build the power of low-moderate income neighborhoods to
win victories on important issues in their community.


To understand what graduates of the DART Organizers
Institute have accomplished, please take a moment and
read through a few examples:


1. Jeff Modzelewski finished his undergraduate degree
in 2004 at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. After
working for two years in the business world, he then
was accepted into the DART Organizers Institute. Eight
months after Jeff's paid community organizing
training, he organized over 750 community leaders in
Columbus, Ohio to reign in payday lending operations that prey
upon the most vulnerable by charging exorbitant fees
and interest on short-term loans. As a result, State
Senator Miller introduced statewide legislation that
will equitably regulate the rampant misuse of payday
lending. With the momentum of the State Senator's
commitment, Jeff and coalition leaders are now building a
statewide power base to ensure passage of this
legislation.


2. Leah Woodward finished her masters in film in 2005
at University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida and
then graduated from the Organizers Institute in 2005.
She then accepted a job with the FAST organization in
St. Petersburg, Florida. Using the training provided,
Leah and another organizer mobilized 1,800 people from
28 congregations to take action on affordable housing.
As a result of this action, County Commissioners
agreed to create a $10 million dollar housing trust fund
that will set public monies aside for building housing
that low- to moderate-income families can afford. In
addition, the commission unanimously approved a
mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance that will compel
builders to include affordable units in their developments
for years to come.


3. Andy Lee graduated from Michigan State University
and went into the DART Organizers Institute in 2004 and
was hired onto staff with the BUILD organization in
Lexington, Kentucky. Andy organized with local leaders
to create a drug recovery program in the women's jail
in 2006. During an in-depth research phase facilitated
by Andy, leaders discovered that over 80% of the jail
population in Fayette County are there for problems
related to drugs and alcohol, and with treatment the
re-arrest rate drops from 66% to 19%. While a drug
recovery program existed in the jail for men there was no
program for women. After initially denying any
consideration of BUILD's plan to add the needed $175,000 to
the city's annual budget for the program, the mayor
eventually agreed to do so after being confronted by 1,010
people from 20 congregations all pressing for the
program at a community action on March 20, 2006. Two
months later the Urban County Council made it official by
approving the Mayor's budget, and later that summer,the drug recovery
program in the women's jail opened. The program is
expected to save millions of dollars in tax money
previously spent on re-arrests, while also demonstrably
improving the lives of thousands of women who would have
continued wrestling with drug addiction and crime. Andy
is now the Executive Director of another community
organization in Broward County, Florida known as BOLD
Justice.


4. Virginia Lynch finished her undergraduate degree at
Emory University with a degree in religious studies
and then entered the DART Organizers Institute in 2004.
Following training she accepted a position on staff
with the PEACE organization in Lakeland, Florida. Using
the training provided by DART, Virginia led an
organizing drive that mobilized over 800 community leaders
to publicly call for action on health care related
issues. As a result of her work, the organization won the
approval of a permanent half cent sales tax that will
provide over $35 million dollars annually to fund one
new health clinic a year for the next five years and
increase indigent patients seen from the current 2,000
to 45,000 patients per year. Virginia is now the
Executive Director of a the RISC organization in Richmond,
Virginia.


While these are clear-cut victories with measurable
results, they are only snapshots in time depicting the
work of three of the graduates of our training program.
Along with over 30 others, Andy, Leah, Jeff, and
Virginia continue to organize and regularly express a
long-term commitment to the field. To apply, please send
an updated resume to: Ben MacConnell, the Recruitment
Director at: institute@thedartcenter.org before
January 1, 2008. You can also call him with questions: (785)
841-2680. To find out more about the DART center,
check out our website: www.thedartcenter.org.

The Dispatch prints another selfish moron's unexamined big idea

Hey Folks -

As I said, I've been going round and round with the brass at the Columbus Dispatch over their slanted editorial perspective. They admonished me, supposedly because I wasn't thoughtful and civil enough, but they print brain-dead letters like Daniel S. Robins' (below) that venally scapegoat a large part of the population - because it agrees with the paper's business/Chamber/Republican prejudices.


Big thinkers like Robins tend to believe in perpetual motion machines - if they can see some personal gain in it. And the Dispatch will get on the bandwagon if it fits the paper's agenda.


I have no doubts that Daniel S. Robins wouldn't want to eliminate health insurance companies or his own brokerage company that pimps for them or to smack the pharmaceutical companies into good citizenship. But public employees are different - as if their getting health care is the cause for the exploding cost of health care or the cause of so many Americans' (including public employees) difficult experience with obtaining decent health care.


Weak, fearful, and ignorant people like Robins won't take on the big boys. Scapegoats are more their style. And that's just fine with the Dispatch.


His letter is followed by my response below.


- Uke Man


Letter to the Columbus Dispatch

Taxpayers need to keep an eye on their schools' purse strings
Saturday, November 17, 2007

As a local employee-benefit broker who for the past 18 years has watched how school systems in Ohio negotiate for employee benefits, I feel compelled to begin a public debate in response to the Nov. 8 Dispatch article, "Levies getting hard to pass."

It has been my experience that when school systems fail to pass tax levies, the debate usually centers on certain expenses to be cut. These tend to hurt the students, such as reducing faculty, charging for or taking away certain sport activities or taking away extracurricular activities such as field trips or the arts. There tends not to be a public discussion regarding what could be a gold mine of opportunity to correct an expense item that is out of line and inefficient.

Most school systems are influenced by the collective-bargaining power that teacher unions use to keep their health-insurance benefits rich. Not many school-system superintendents or school boards have the power to counteract collective bargaining in this area. Rarely has this item been a source of public debate.

If the taxpayers only knew how rich and how expensive the health-insurance coverage is for schoolteachers, there would be a public backlash against the teachers union.

It used to be that certain populations in the work force were grossly underpaid and that rich benefits were used to attract talent. Back in the 1970s, the cost of health insurance was not as much of a factor. Over the past 10 years, the cost of health-insurance coverage has tripled. Today, it might cost more than $10,000 per year per teacher, on average, for health-insurance coverage.

Unlike most of the working class, schoolteachers, on average, might pay for only 5 percent to 10 percent of the cost of health coverage through payroll deductions. The rest of us pay, on average, 30 percent of the cost of health coverage, and our benefits are less rich. Teachers' co-pays for office visits and drugs are lower, deductibles are lower or even nonexistent, their co-insurance is richer and their out-of-pocket maximum exposure is lower than the rest of us.

As most of us pay more for less health-insurance coverage every year, teachers have been insulated from that experience, resulting in a huge disparity. Further, teachers have resisted some of the basic cost-maintenance strategies such as health-and-wellness programs and health-consumerism education.

Some help might be on the way, as over the past several years there have been studies and recommendations on this issue provided by collaborative efforts between representatives of Ohio schools systems and Ohio government. However, outcomes of that effort have not yielded mandates to cut health benefits. They have recommended optional best practices to control the rising cost of health coverage, with no teeth if recommendations are not met.

Not until the taxpayers in each school district demand town-hall meetings where full disclosure of plan designs and transparency on the cost of health insurance for teachers is revealed will there be any movement on this issue. If corrective measures occur in this area for any given school district, there could be a gold mine of resources that become available to help students and to help avoid future tax levies.

At the end of the day, I believe the taxpayers of each district are the boss, and they, in effect, sign the paychecks for teachers who serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers.

Wake up, taxpayers. You have been signing a blank check for too long as it pertains to schoolteacher health-insurance benefits. It might be time to exert your power as the boss.

DANIEL S. ROBINS
Columbus







To the Editor,

People like letter-writer Daniel S. Robins, 18 year employee-benefit broker, always see the sense of easing taxpayers’ burden by reducing public employees’ standard of living; but they never think to look at themselves.

Sure, if all public employees had minimal health care, Robins’ “gold mine” would be realized. If they had no health care provided, it would create even more gold. But even then, it would be a pitiful pile compared to the return of implementing national health care.

In addition to the relatively small savings made on the backs of public employees, by attacking the cause of high medical costs, tremendous savings would accrue. We could eliminate the “out of line and inefficient” insurance companies, force the “out of line and inefficient” pharmaceutical companies to make serving Americans more important than gouging them.

And even further savings, extra “gold nuggets” so to speak, would pan out since, with public employees – along with everyone else – under the national plan, we would no longer need the middle-man services of employee-benefit brokers like Daniel S. Robins.

Yours,

Tom Harker

The neon sign on the paper's roof

The Dispatch has a strange definition of calm, thoughtful civility - not to mention accuracy

Hey Folks -


I've been going round and round with the brass at the local newsrag about their biased reporting on a number of fronts. Finally, I told them to more or less kiss off (You've seen some of it here already - I'll have a full report on the rest of it at some point).

I'll admit that when I finally quit trying to reason with them, I spoke relatively bluntly, but their response indicated that they didn't print my earlier letters - or even seriously consider their content because they were "rants" and needed more thoughtful civility.

Well, they can say that they disregarded what I had to say because I ranted thoughtlessly and uncivily, but directly below is a letter they recently found calm, thoughtful, and civil enough to publish. You decide whether they were honest with me.

I've put what I found objectionable in red and my inserted comments in blue.

- Uke Man




Don't put government in charge of health care
Saturday, November 17, 2007

Government-run health care? What a concept! Privately run health care? What a concept!

There are so many times I think how great it would be if only the government ran our health-care system, as has been suggested by some people. Sarcasm

Every time I fly, which is about a flight a week, I watch the Transportation Security Administration strip-search some 85-year-old grandma (Yeah, he sees this every week. Have you ever seen ANYONE get strip-searched?) while a cadre of Middle Eastern men (racism/profiling) with 4-foot turbans (Right!! 4-foot turbans) and 3-inch-thick sandals [platform shoes??] pass through security unmolested, and I think to myself, "Man, I wish the government ran the health-care industry." Sarcasm

I sit in a 4-mile parking lot in Chicago called the Dan Ryan Expressway while five lanes of traffic try to pass through a single open lane so eight guys can patch a pothole, and think, "If only the government ran hospitals and told doctors what to do." So, this guy would hire his own private sector pot-hole filler? Yeah, and he could hire a private firm to build the roads he needs when he arrives at whatever destination his weekly flights take him to.

I look at the Veterans Affairs hospitals and think, "All health care should be just like this." I wonder if he thought about that before we invaded Iraq. I wonder if he supported that invasion.

I consider the nearly bankrupt Social Security system, which pays a pittance to our elderly but still is on life support itself, [the actual situation on Social Security has been dealt with here in depth recently - below] and think, "Wow, man, if only Al Gore could put our health care in a lockbox, too! Hot dang!"

I admire our Democrat-controlled Congress with its 11 percent approval rating (now making even President Bush look like a popular overachiever [hyperbole ??]) and I think wistfully, "Why can't the Congress of these United States personally conduct all of my transactions around and concerning my health?"

Like jolly old England, where the average wait for an MRI is somewhere between 10 months and a decade or two. And where 70,000 people last year alone got tired of waiting for (or scared thinking about) a visit to a local hospital and flew to Spain, Morocco, India or elsewhere. This number is expected to be about 210,000 by the year 2010.What are the chances that the Dispatch checked out the veracity of these claims?

Like Canada, where they pay twice as much in taxes in order to face the startling reality that you are twice as likely to heal naturally before seeing a specialist for nearly anything.
This statement is illogical on its face, as well as unlikely and probably unvetted.

Yeah, I want one of those six good old Mideastern terrorists who posed as doctors in the UK [they WERE doctors] so they could plot a bombing on innocent civilians taking my pulse and giving me a stress test. [The terrorists wanted to take Mr.Gustin's pulse and give him a stress test?] England is desperate for doctors, because of the lack of interest in the profession among the Brits. Where did he get this? Is he allowed to say anything as long as it meshes with Dispatch editorial policy?

If the point of health care is to be cheaper for those who use it most, then government health care is your cup of tea. He thinks it should be more expensive the more serious the need???

If the point, however, is to be healed by trained and motivated medical personnel who have a personal, professional stake in your wellness and who likely will see you immediately for emergencies, with or without insurance, and in a few days for scheduled visits, then you may want to think about how we can improve on, not throw out, the system we have. There are large numbers of trained and motivated doctors dedicated to Americans' wellness who support implementation of national health care.

DAVE GUSTIN
Leesburg

Provinctown, Cape Cod Bay

Hey Folks -

In getting ready to film a version of my new song, "Provincetown," I worked on some pictures of the bay.

I thought they turned out very nicely. So, here they are to share with you. They are arranged as if you were turning your head from left to right, taking in the entire view.

- Uke Man

Missing Link Discovered

living in Washington D.C.

Experts find jawbone of pre-human great ape in Kenya - - But the earth is only 7,000 years old

Hey Folks -

You've heard that some people believe the earth is less than 7,000 years old, but do you know why these silly people believe that? Well, here you go:

In the 1600's an Anglican Bishop worked backward from generally accepted classical-age dates associated with the Bible. Let's say he determined the actual dates of the actual pharoh ruling during the time of the Israelites' Egyptian slavery. Well, from there, based on the reported ages of those who begat whom who begat whom who begat whom, etc., he could move farther and farther into the past.

When he hit Adam, there were only five days left. Hence: nine o'clock in the morning of 23 October 4004 b.c.

from: Archaeology Dictionary

James Ussher (1581–1656)

Scholar, professor of divinity, and vice-chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, who subsequently became bishop of Meath and, in 1625, archbishop of Armagh. He is noted as a strict exponent of the Mosaic cosmogony.

Taking biblical accounts of the period from the Creation to the time of classical civilizations literally, in ad 1650 he famously published a book entitled Annales veteris et novi testamenti in which he set out his calculation to show that the earth was created in 4004 bc.

This was widely accepted and from 1701 was printed in the margins of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. Later, Bishop Lightfoot asserted that it was in fact nine o'clock in the morning of 23 October 4004 bc when the world first came into existence.

[Bio.: R. B. Knox, 1967, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh. Cardiff: University of Wales Press]



Experts find jawbone of pre-human great ape in KenyaTue Nov 13

NAIROBI (Reuters) - Researchers have discovered a 10-million-year-old jaw bone in Kenya they believe belonged to a new species of great ape that could be the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.

The Kenyan and Japanese team found the fragment in 2005 along with 11 teeth in volcanic mud flow deposits in Kenya's northern Nakali region.

The species -- somewhere between the size of a female gorilla and a female orangutan -- may prove to be the "missing link" in the evolution theory, Kenyan scientists said.

"Based on this particular discovery, we can comfortably say we are approaching the point at which we can pin down the so-called missing link," said Frederick Manthi, Senior Research Scientist at the National Museums of Kenya.

"We have to find more fossils from a cross-section of sites to sustain that particular theory," he told a news conference.

Christened Nakalipithecus nakayamai, the new species fed on nuts, seeds and fruit.

"The teeth were covered in thick enamel and the caps were low and voluminous, suggesting that the diet of this ape consisted of a considerable amount of hard objects, like nuts or seeds, and fruit," Yutaka Kunimatsu at Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute said in a telephone interview.

"It could be positioned before the split between gorillas, chimps and humans," he added.

Kunimatsu said it was hard to determine what Nakalipithecus nakayamai looked like.

"We only have some jaw fragments and some teeth ... but we hope to find other body parts in our future research. We plan to go back next year. We will try to find bones below the neck to tell us how the animal moved," he said.

Published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the finding is significant as it gives credence to the theory that the evolution from ape to man may have taken place entirely in Africa.

Prior to this finding, there had been so little fossil evidence in Africa dating between 7 to 13 million years ago that some experts began to surmise that the last common ancestor left Africa for Europe and Asia, and then returned later.

But Kunimatsu said the findings suggested that the ancestor of African great apes and humans likely evolved in Africa.

"Now, we have a good candidate in Africa. We do not need to think the common ancestor came back from Eurasia to Africa. I think it is more likely the common ancestor evolved from the apes in the Miocene in Africa," he said.

The Miocene is a period of time extending from 23.03 million to 5.33 million years ago.

"Some apes (then) left Africa and migrated to Eurasia. They then became orangutans in Southeast Asia. Today's orangutan evolved from the apes that left Africa," he said.

(Reporting by Katie Nguyen and Tan Ee Lyn in Hong Kong; Editing by Giles Elgood)

"Get a job, Grandpa !!"

Social Security is NOT a problem; Rich Fucks are the problem

Hey Folks -

Here is the straight scoop on Social Security - the facts - those things they want to keep from us - but it's pretty clear. Check it out for yourself, and then start screaming at the devils who actually DO hate Americans.

- Uke Man

Jim Hightower's LOWDOWN

March 2005

Last year's Big Lie was a grab for oil; this year's is for our Social Security trillions
Social Security ain't broke, so don't fix it, tweak it

He predicted Social Security would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people 'the chance to invest money the way they feel' is best.

USA Today, citing George W. Bush's determination to privatize Social Security.

The uniqueness of this prediction by our privatizer-in-chief is not in what he said, but when he said it: way back in 1978! Yes, the very guy who is now warning us so apocalyptically that our Social Security system "will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now" was making the same erroneous, Chicken Little prognostication three decades ago while running (unsuccessfully) for a West Texas congressional seat. In fairness, that was during his drinking period, so maybe he was DWI (Driving While Ignorant) when he said it—but what's his excuse today?


Let's be clear about one thing: Social Security works. It is a phenomenal success, having achieved (and continuing every day to achieve) its noble purpose, which was stated plainly by FDR when he signed the legislation in 1935: "We have tried to frame a law that will give some measure of protection to the average citizen...against poverty-ridden old age."

Social Security was never meant to be an elaborate investment scheme geared to maximizing returns, but a simple, straightforward social insurance program through which all Americans strive to see to it that none of us spends our golden years destitute. The key word is "security"—it's not intended to be yet another rollthe- dice stock market gambit. By putting money from each of our paychecks into this common pool during our working years, each of us is guaranteed a modest monthly check (now averaging $1,184) to provide a basic level of dignity, independence, and security in retirement.

Before this program, two thirds of Americans spent their last years in cold, hard, often-desperate poverty. Today only 10% of seniors fall below the poverty line.

Into the abyss

The program has achieved its goals with stunning efficiency, holding administrative costs to a mere 0.6% of annual benefits—a level that should make private pension executives blush at their own profligate level of 15 to 20% of benefits siphoned into corporate overhead.

Yet this is the program that George urgently says he must "fix." Because Social Security enjoys phenomenal public support (drawing approval ratings of nearly 90%), he cannot assail the program itself. Instead, the Bushites and a menagerie of corporate think-tankers, right-wing pontificators, and PR consultants are posing as the "saviors" of Social Security. And oh, what a show they've been putting on, wailing and moaning dramatically that our public pension fund faces a crisis of Biblical proportions! "A Titanic," shrieked one of our saviors. "Train wreck," shouted another. "On the verge of collapse," squawked still another. A fourth gasped, "Cancer."

Driving all these alarms of impending doom, which antigovernment ideologues have been ringing for 30 years, is one big lie: Social Security is going broke. "First step," Bush solemnly declared in December, "is to make sure everybody understands we have a problem."

If this sounds eerily like an echo of the Bushites' five-alarm warnings in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that were threatening America with "a mushroom cloud," it's because they are following the exact same political playbook for their assault on Social Security: Assert The Big Lie of a looming crisis while simultaneously demanding that Congress authorize The Big Rush into the ideological abyss where The Big Mess awaits.

George W proclaims that the drop-dead date for Social Security is nigh upon us. Prepare for 2018, he bleats—only 13 years from today! In that year, he direly forecasts, "you're either going to have to raise the taxes of the people or reduce the benefits." A tsunami of retiring Baby Boomers will have hit the program, says the doomsayer in the White House, and the trust fund will cross the line "into red."

Spooky. Only, Bush is lying. What happens in 2018 is merely that the amount of money being paid out to retirees will begin to exceed the amount being collected at that time in Social Security taxes. A crisis? Not at all. Indeed, the system has slipped into such a temporary deficit several times—and each time, the fund's trustees did what they can do again in 2018: Dip into the program's surplus, just as a family would dip into its rainy-day fund.

Surplus? Yes. What the Bushites try to hide is that Social Security actually is extraordinarily healthy. Thanks to modest adjustments made by Congress in 1983, the Social Security trust fund has been collecting way more in taxes than it pays out (about $150 billion will be stored up this year alone), and it will continue to amass these huge surpluses until at least 2018, when it will have some $5 trillion in assets. Far from being "flat bust," the system can then begin drawing on these monies. Or, with relatively minor tweaks in financing the program, we can avoid the deficit of 2018 altogether.

But even if no adjustments are made, Social Security is so sound financially that it can guarantee that every retiree will continue to receive full benefits at least until 2042 (the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says until 2052)—a time so distant, by the way, that nearly all of the dreaded Baby Boomers (including the Bushites) will be dead. Okay, concede the Bushites, it's not 2018, but 2042 when the bell tolls. Picky, picky. But that year the program really will be absolutely "exhausted and bankrupt," as George flatly declared in last month's stateof- the-union diatribe. So, see— we're still right that Social Security is doomed unless we perform radical surgery on it, pronto.

Hold your scalpel right there, privatizer- breath. Saying that the program goes kaput in 2042 is another lie. Again, even if Congress does nothing at all to adjust the financing, the trust fund will still be taking in enough money in payroll taxes after 2042 to pay 80% of currently scheduled benefits for all retirees for the foreseeable future—at least until 2075. Name me a corporate pension plan that can make such a statement!

Bugaboo

Well, say the wild-eyed fixers to younger Americans, if the "crisis of 2018" (or 2042, or whatever) doesn't scare you, try this: You're more likely to see a UFO than to see a Social Security benefit check in your lifetime.

The claim here is that even if the system does not go bankrupt, future retirees sill will be stiffed because the trust fund has been looted repeatedly by previous presidents to finance their pet political projects. The Bushites tell us that these scoundrels took the trust fund's cash, spent it, and left the fund with nothing but a bunch of "worthless IOUs."It's "all trust and no fund," snorted one privatizer.

Two problems with this screed. First, George himself has been the most energetic raider of the trust fund in history, taking billions out to cover both his war adventures and multitrillion-dollar tax giveaways to the rich.

Second, those "worthless IOUs" are U.S. treasury bonds, the next best thing to gold. Repayment of these bonds is a solemn obligation of our nation's government. They have the same status as the government bonds held by the likes of Bill Gates and other Wall Street high rollers, as well as by Japanese pension funds, the government of China, and other foreign investors. By law, the government MUST pay the principal and interest on all of these debts, specifically including the money "borrowed" by Bush and his predecessors from the Social Security trust fund. Only two things could keep Uncle Sam from making good on this pledge to retirees. One would be a general fiscal collapse in which the U.S. government defaults on all of its debts, essentially declaring bankruptcy. The other would be passage of a law that singles out seniors, declaring by fiat that the government's general revenue fund will not pay the debt it owes to retirees. For our country to default on its debts is unthinkable, and for Congress to decide that Bill Gates and foreign bondholders must be paid but that Grandma and Grandpa America will not have their bonds honored is unforgivable.

Bluntly put, anyone who tells you that our nation's retirement trust fund is either empty or an empty promise is lying. The trust fund is there, it is sound, and its promise is absolute…unless we let Bush and Congress mess with it to suit their ideological fancy.

Mr. Fix-It

Social Security needs tweaking, not smashing. Yet by constant crisismongering, Bush & Gang have bamboozled much of the media and a significant percentage of the public (especially younger people) into believing that the problem is immense, immediate, and can only be resolved by "bold and decisive action." In a word, privatization.

Oops, my mistake. Bush propagandists have recently decreed to the media that his scheme of "private accounts" for Social Security must now be referred to as "personal" accounts. It seems they've learned that "privatization" stinks as a sales term, polling so poorly that Karl Rove is trying to ban it from public use. Even though Bush himself had been parroting the "private account" phrase endlessly since the November election, he suddenly turned prickly in January and scolded a reporter for using it. "You mean the personal savings account," he snipped.

Another lie. No matter what kind of lipstick they put on their pig of a proposal, it's privatization they're pushing. Pathetically, however, most of America's corporate media immediately capitulated, switching the language to the more pollfriendly "personal accounts."

At first, it sounds like there's something good in Bush's plan: Let workers "own" their retirement by taking some of their monthly Social Security tax payments out of the system and investing that money in the stock market, thus giving them the possibility of retiring rich. But the plan is riddled with lies, sleights-ofhand, hidden costs, voodoo, and wishful thinking.

Here are some of the Bushites' claims, versus the reality:

We're only letting workers divert 4% of their wages into these private accounts, so what's the fuss? The fuss is that they're using Bush-style math to make the diversion of money seem trivial. The Social Security payroll tax is 12.4% of each worker's wage, so siphoning off four percentage points means a 32% reduction in payments going into the trust fund—a one-third cut that would drastically undermine the program's financing and force a huge cut in benefits.

Converting to private accounts will save Social Security. Since many workers will get retirement money in the future from the stock market, the government will not have to pay out as much in benefits, and, seamlessly, the system will be made "permanently solvent and sustainable."

Sure, Santa Claus, but what about those "transition costs?" Social Security takes in money from today's workers and pays out to yesterday's workers. Bush's plan would break the flow, diverting up to a third of the incoming funds while still having to pay all of the out-going obligations during the next several decades. This will quickly drain the trust fund...and more. Even on the wild assumption that the stock market will some day be a retirement gold mine, where will George get the money to pay benefits in the interim? By borrowing. A lot. When pushed, the White House admits that transition costs will run about $2 trillion, but even that's a lowball deceit. It only covers the first decade of the transition. Decade two will cost $3 trillion, decade three $5 trillion, and decade four another $5 trillion. That's $15 trillion (TRILLION!) worth of extra debt—plus interest—to be piled on the backs of future taxpayers in the vainglorious hope that someday privatization ideology might produce some savings in the distant future.

Why should Americans be stuck with some stodgy guaranteed payout from Social Security when the stock market can double that or better? C'mon, let's let people do better than a government check— let's let 'em get rich! If stocks were such a sure-fire ticket to profits, why wouldn't the Bushites take, say, the Pentagon budget and put it in the market each year? The truth, of course, is that stocks can do very well— but which stocks, in which years? If you'd had your Social Security nest egg in Enron and cashed out for retirement in 2000, you'd be in high cotton. But what if 2002 was your retirement year? Enron stock plummeted from $90 to 57 cents a share in that span. Likewise, in 2000 the S & P 500's index of stock values topped 1500. In 2003, it was only half that. Besides, there's another little nasty hidden inside Bush's privatization fantasy: Fees. Tens of millions of workers will have their own private accounts, each run by a gaggle of Wall Street fund managers eagerly collecting (and creating) fees. As with your telephone or credit card bills, fees will multiply like bacteria—even Bush's handpicked Social Security "reform" commission admitted in 2001 that the administrative costs of a privatized system will run 10 to 30 times more than our present system—and these fees will eat most of the gains that workers are theoretically supposed to get from investing in the market.

Still, we're offering people free money to spin the wheel...and maybe hit a big one. And guess what, spoilsport? Polls show that the public supports our idea of private accounts! There they go again—another flim-flam. It's true that on the general question of whether people should be allowed to invest some of their Social Security money in private accounts, 54% said it was a good idea. But here's the trick: The question fails to mention any of the tradeoffs in Bush's scheme. When informed that the government would have to borrow $2 trillion in the first decade for transition costs—and that their guaranteed Social Security benefits would be cut—69% opposed the plan and only 21 percent approved. Indeed, even among young people 18-34 years old, a whopping 73% oppose Bush's privatization plan when they hear the downside. Ironically, the age group that the Bushites are counting on to push privatization through is the one it will hurt the most: young people. Realizing that older folks are adamantly against this grab for their retirement money, Bush's operatives exempted everyone 55 or older. But, they calculated, 20-40 somethings don't pay much attention to retirement and are more open to the lure of the stock market. Perhaps, but they're not saps. Here are the numbers:

Middle-class workers who're now 50 would be hit with a 10% cut in their guaranteed benefits when they retire in 2022. Today's 30-year-olds who'll retire in 2042 will be cut by more than 25%. By 2075, retirees will have their Social Security benefits cut almost in half.

It's more than numbers that the Bushites are hiding—it's their true intention, which is to gut the basic premise of Social Security. Today, the program provides retired middleclass workers earning about $65,000 with an annual income of $26,400— about 42% of what they were making before retirement. That's not the life of Reilly, but neither is it poverty. Bush would cut that guarantee for future retirees to $14,600 a year—barely 20% of their preretirement incomes. These extremist ideologues abhor the very idea of a government program that works.

"Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," says Stephen Moore, a privatizing guru from the far-right-wing Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

These people are not conservatives. They are utterly irresponsible, reactionary social theorists, and they now have George W as their point man. They're not out to reform Social Security, but to drive their spear through it, killing FDR's guarantee "against poverty-ridden old age" and replacing it with a new guarantee of insecurity. This is a fight not over a program, but over what kind of society we want to have.

"Oh, THAT Middle-class !!"

"But what about Warren and Rupert??"

Hilary Clinton, part of the Social Security Scam !!

Hey Folks -

Nov. 12, the Columbus Dispatch printed an Associated Press report on a clash between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the “income ceiling” for the payroll deductions supporting Social Security.

As it stands now, workers pay on every penny they earn, up to $97,000 a year. The wealthy stop paying at $97,000 no matter how many millions they may pull in.

Obama, who is believed to be behind Clinton in the primary race appeared to be addressing the Democratic base by promising to eliminate the cap, requiring the wealthy to pay on every penny just as do working people.

Clinton seemed to take a less base-oriented position:

“ ‘I know it may sound good [Obama’s position] at first blush,’ Clinton said. ‘If you look at all the complexities of this, I think it’s much smarter to say: Look, we’re going to deal with the challenges by fiscal responsibility and we’re going to use a bipartisan commission.

And we’re not going to do it by further burdening middle-class families.’ “

Well, in that last statement, there is a serious problem.

Nov. 1, Bankrate.com published Federal Reserve statistics reporting on household income rankings, and Clinton is either bulldozing gullible Americans or has an extremely strange definition of “Middle-class.”

According to the Federal Reserve, middle-class Americans can’t be affected by raising the Social Security cap. Individual middle-class Americans don’t earn more than $97,000. Even middle-class HOUSEHOLDS don’t earn more than $97,000.

The median household (not individual) income is $40,000. Households (as opposed to individuals) don’t cross the individual cap threshold until near the top 15% of households. Since, in many cases, a household income is provided by two or more people, it seems safe to say that the income level actually to be affected by eliminating the cap is closer to the top ten percent of individual earners.

That's not the Middle-class!!! So, what is Clinton talking about, and are we stupid enough to believe it?



As I said in “Entitlements” posted below:

“It’s a scam. Propped up by lying propaganda,” a “’problem’ invented and created by the rich and powerful to serve their own ends” and “now that the payments are soon due – to escape their responsibility.” Those “who spent the working peoples’ excess donations to the payroll tax don’t want to pay up as the bill comes due.”

Again, the only “problem” is that those who are responsible for “barrowing” the surplus and who aren’t paying payroll taxes on their whole paycheck don’t want to meet their responsibility. The only honorable “solution” is for these whiny pigs to step up and meet their responsibility.

Clinton apparently doesn’t see it that way. Her answer:

“I think primary voters do know where I am . . . I am for solving the long-term challenges of the Social Security trust fund . . . I think there are a lot of solutions with many variations.”

Well, the solution the “voters” never heard (until Obama got desperate) is having the top ten percent (what Clinton calls “middle-class”) pay their share. That’s the solution Clinton has problems with.

The other solutions, which one hears about on a regular basis, are: cut benefits, raise the retirement age to 70, increase the percentage paid by working people (up to the cap), and replacing Social Security with some stock scheme.

Yes, Hilary, there are a lot of solutions with many variations, and we DO know where you stand and with whom.

- Uke Man

The Poor are "entitled"

to serve the wealthy

"Entitlements" "Runaway entitlement programs"????

Hey Folks –

It’s a scam. Propped up by lying propaganda as displayed in the David Broder piece below. The “problem” was invented and created by the rich and powerful to serve their own ends, and - now that the payments are soon due – to escape their responsibility.

For decades, to fund their pet military adventures, to reward their wealthy benefactors, to cut taxes for the wealthy while preening over their not having “raised taxes,” the politicians have been raiding the excess funds collected from working people’s payroll taxes. Now that the excess will cease in 2018 – that is, in 2018 instead of the money coming in being more than what is sent out, it will be less – suddenly there is a “problem.”

Well, the problem is simply that the fuckers who spent the working peoples’ excess donations to the payroll tax don’t want to pay up as the bill comes due. Plain and simple. Bush, himself, has called Treasury Bonds “worthless IOU’s." Right! Tell that to China and our other creditors.

Having commandeered the people’s savings, they now want to welsh on the loan and balance the books by increasing the age of retirement, decreasing the payments, and increasing the percentage of working people’s “contribution” (payroll tax). Steal from the people - then pay them back by stealing from them again.

Then there’s the crap about “ENTITLEMENTS.” These social programs are supposedly just so much swill for greedy “special interest” groups. Well, folks, all of us can be put in some group. These fat slugs have called poor, uninsured children a “special interest group.” Everybody except themselves are “special interest groups” who arrogantly feel “entitled” to special consideration: old people, sick people, hungry people, kids, the handicapped – scum like that.

But, of course, the rich are never labeled that way, nor are their entitlements ever identified. They get special treatment because that’s how god wants it, not because they own government. God wants working people to have payroll tax deductions on EVERY CENT they earn; but he doesn’t want the wealthy to pay a penny on anything they make over $97,000. Now who would call that an “entitlement” supplied by a fiscally irresponsible government to a “special interest group”?

Finally, there’s the notion that this is a thorny, difficult, nearly impossible problem to solve. Broder argues at length how a certain proposed committee would guarantee everyone a voice, but that’s bull. Early on he claims that all involved “clearly see” the “problem.” What he doesn’t spell out for us is that the rich and powerful are the problem because they are welshers; and the politicians – of both parties – are the problem because they are dependant on the welshers. It's only a "problem" because those responsible want out of their responsibility.

Economically, there is no problem – that is, no problem beyond the oligarchy demanding that they not contribute to the well-being of others, but only vice-versa.

Soon I will be posting an article on this topic written by Jim Hightower that will comment on this in finer detail.

Come the revolution !!!

- Uke Man






Bipartisan effort to tame entitlements needs support
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:30 AM
By David Broder

If I had the power to summon all 16 of the people running for president to be in one place, I would want them in a Senate hearing room for a session that is taking place today.

The hearing has been arranged by Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican ranking member.

They have invited David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States and the head of the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress; William Novelli, the head of AARP, the senior-citizens lobby; Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader; and Leon Panetta, the former White House chief of staff, budget director and former congressman.

What brings all these worthies together is an effort to revive the idea of a bipartisan effort to head off the bankrupting of America by runaway entitlement programs.

They and others, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, clearly see that unless ways are found to reform the financing and benefits of Social Security and Medicare, the demands imposed by the retirement of millions of baby boomers will consume the federal budget and blight the prospects of the next generations.

Because neither party can solve this problem by itself, Conrad and Gregg have proposed the creation of a bipartisan task force, whose recommendations to the president and Congress chosen next November would be guaranteed quick consideration.

The idea was greeted favorably by leaders of both parties in the Senate, and Paulson found support for it in the White House. But it has encountered criticism from the opposing flanks. Vice President Dick Cheney objected publicly to any consideration of tax increases, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw cold water on the idea. Apparently, she does not trust the administration to deal fairly or she may want the Social Security issue saved for Democrats in the coming campaign.

So Conrad and Gregg backed off and decided to begin again, making the case through expert testimony that a policy of inaction is dangerous to the country's fiscal health.

As Gregg has noted, the first of the baby boomers filed for Social Security benefits this year, and millions more soon will follow. By most official estimates, Medicare and Social Security by 2034 will eat up 20 percent of the gross domestic product -- equivalent to the entire federal budget of today.

To Gregg, that flashes a clear warning: "The next president, if he or she serves eight years, will find themselves in very dangerous waters. There is no way to support this system as it is constituted."

Conrad, who says he inherited a fear of debt from his Depression-era ancestors in North Dakota, said he laments that the government has added $500 billion to the national debt this year, just as those boomers are starting to retire. "You see the dollar going down, and interest rates going up," he said. "And there's more to come."

Neither man expects a quick fix, but both insist that delay is the most costly and wasteful strategy. The task-force idea that they developed during a congressional trip to South America this past winter is an effort to assure all parties a voice and a fair process.

It would have 16 members, equally balanced between Republicans and Democrats. Fourteen would be members of Congress, chosen by the leadership and presumably representing the major economic-policy committees. Two would be from the administration, with one of them, the secretary of treasury, serving as chairman.

It would take 12 of the 16 votes to submit a report, guaranteeing each party a voice in the outcome. And the report would be translated into bill form and given a fast track to a final vote in the House and Senate, with a requirement of 60 percent support for it to go to the president -- again, protection for the minority.

Despite all these safeguards, neither Cheney nor Pelosi is satisfied, and without their backing, its prospects seem dim. But the issue will haunt the next president unless at least the first steps to deal with it are taken now.

That is why those candidates ought to be at this hearing.
David S. Broder writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
davidbroder@washpost.com

Grover Norquist wouldn't drown THIS government

And this comes from those who say government can't do ANYTHING right !!

Ahhh, Folks -

Yes, it's time we people in the United States change our definition of "privacy."

In the future, there will be no "privacy" as we know it. Government and business will have knowledge - or easy access to it - of our most intimate thoughts and actions. But "privacy" will be maintained by our secure knowledge that government and business can be trusted to altruistically look out for our well-being.

At least that is the latest announcement from the Bush Regime.

- Uke Man


Government seeks to redefine privacy
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a court order between 2001 and 2007.

Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies.

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

I wouldn't drown THIS Grover

Elementary Teacher, Frank N. Stein

Columbus Dispatch investigators claim, "He's a Monster !!"

Torch-and-Pitchfork Repellant, anyone??

Hey Folks -

I thought I was done with this thread, but the local rag that masquerades as a newspaper just keeps on and on and on and on!!

Below is the latest hysterical letter to the editor. Below that is my response.

- Uke Man



Letter to the Dispatch Editor

'Betrayal' series was public service
Friday, November 9, 2007 3:25 AM

Thanks to The Dispatch for the Oct. 14-17 series "The ABCs of Betrayal," about teachers who are child molesters. I'm astounded to see letters objecting to exposing these people, as well as letters supporting their return to teaching.


For heavens sake, these are the scum who are abusing children! I hope The Dispatch keeps up the good work of exposing them.

KAY S. CARTER
Groveport




To the Editor,

The letter “'Betrayal' series was public service” shows how the sensational handling of a real threat energizes a mob mentality beneficial to demagogic political agendas.

Kay Carter, responding to a real problem that has been sensationalized sounds almost hysterical. From her perspective the ABCs series was focused on a narrow matter: pedophiles who preyed on children. She can’t get around the horror of child abuse to understand how anyone could object to the newspaper’s going after and exposing “scum.”

Well, no one – other than pedophiles - objects to that. But there ARE things objectionable about this “public service.” The series dealt with more than pedophilia; the 1,700 cases since 2000 in which only a third lost their licenses were never broken down. Many of those cases had nothing to do with anything related to pedophilia; many had nothing to do with children at all.

Nevertheless, the Dispatch pounded those misleading statistics in almost every ABCs article. That is objectionable. Such behavior leads casual readers to inaccurate assumptions about, in this case, the teaching profession.

Time will show how valid my second objection is.

Ms. Carter writes: “these [educators] are the scum who are abusing children!” Well, they are not the only ones. Wherever there are young people you will find sick people who wish to prey on them – in Congress, churches, children’s organizations, in one’s own neighborhood, in one’s own family.

For as long as I can remember the Dispatch has been critical of teachers and public schools. The ABCs series certainly didn’t show any serious attempt, while going after the guilty, to avoid tarring the innocent. If the paper continues its series, going after the Boy Scouts or local clergy or YMCA personnel or other institutions; I will apologize for my political suspicions. Time will tell.

Finally, while all those connected with the series are patting themselves on the back, it might be well to consider the unintended consequences of what they have done.

While it may have become more difficult for the few criminals to harm children (it certainly won’t stop them), it also affects how innocent teachers can teach and how they will be treated.

Now, elementary teachers who pat a head, give a consoling hug, write encouraging notes on class work, or show special attention to needy kids are putting their professional careers on the line. There will be a definite chill, an emotional withdrawing from students by frightened teachers and an emotional withdrawing from teachers by frightened students - frightened by the hysteria – the hysteria expressed by one Dispatch letter-writer who says she has reluctantly taught her child to trust no one.

Innocent gay and lesbian teachers will particularly feel this threat. Already the focus of prejudice, the series has increased the likelihood of hysterical witch hunts. Teachers who deal with difficult children have had their authority and leverage further reduced, as savvy kids learn they can use the “sex-abuse” card against those who demand appropriate behavior. And the ripples expand.

They say that Mussolini got the trains running on time in Italy, and that was, indeed, a “public service”; but there were other aspects of El Duce that did not serve the public as well.

Yours –

Tom Harker

Calvin Coolidge, mental midget

(but a genius compared to the Texas cowboy)

Calvin Coolidge - What a guy !!

Hey Folks -

The Dispatch has a long editorial history of opposing the "Nanny-State." They don't like the government "intruding" into “private” matters. They resent such things as the government increasing the minimum wage or requiring sick leave days for workers. Decisions on matters purported to helping the people are best left to business.

To that end, however, they have lately shown support for what might be called "Nanny-Capitalism." Business, it seems, can help the people by coercing, punishing, or even firing workers who - the employer believes - are not healthy or might become less than healthy. Business could make greater profit if none of their workers ever got sick; so, for the good of the worker, companies are refusing to hire smokers, firing current employees who won’t quit smoking, checking for nicotine via enforced urine testing, and – apparently – looking for the next, new group of workers to “help.”

This is all with the blessings of the Dispatch. The paper has previously editorialized in favor of the Scotts company which first instituted the no-smoking, “help-the-worker” program. In their Nov. 11 editorial they go further, praising companies that penalize workers whose spouses smoke. Moreover, they write:

“Smokers aren't the only people who will be targeted. Policies that provide incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors will become more prevalent as health-care costs continue to rise. People who are overweight, for example, might have to pay more for insurance than people who are not, because obesity and poor health go hand in hand.”

The editorial justifies it this way:

“Because health-care costs are so painful, some companies are adopting drastic measures in an attempt to reduce expenses. One of the latest is refusing to employ smokers.

That might seem harsh, because smoking is legal, but it makes economic sense.”

Although not mentioned in the editorial, handicapped workers, elderly workers, workers with “pre-existing conditions,” workers who develop “conditions,” women of child-bearing age, and others can increase medical expenses too. Getting rid of these workers might seem harsh, but it makes economic sense.

Yes, and as with the Scotts’ program, those who refuse to starve themselves, heal their disability, rejuvenate themselves, cure their “condition,” avoid “conditions,” or have their tubes tied can – and should - be fired.

So, that’s what we can look forward to: economic sense.

Instead of incompetent government screwing things up trying to “help” people, business will be set free to dispense its grace upon us.

It makes economic sense.

I have only one question.

We live – we are told – in a “democracy,” and the government, for all its incompetence, was elected by the people.

Who elected business?

Even so, I guess it's true, as good ol' Calvin Coolidge said, "What's good for the Dispatch is good for America."

- Uke Man


The Dispatch editorial:

Smokers need not apply
Companies can't be blamed for trying to make health-care plans affordable
Saturday, November 10

Because health-care costs are so painful, some companies are adopting drastic measures in an attempt to reduce expenses. One of the latest is refusing to employ smokers.

That might seem harsh, because smoking is legal, but it makes economic sense. It's a sign of the times that companies are looking under every rock for ways to stretch their health-care dollars.
Smokers cost employers more than nonsmokers do. Smokers take more sick days. They have higher medical bills. Companies' bottom lines would be a lot healthier without them.

Other companies have instituted fees for employees who smoke or even for those whose spouses smoke. Some aren't just taking their workers' word for it; they are testing their workers for nicotine, just as they can do for illegal drugs and alcohol.

Smokers aren't the only people who will be targeted. Policies that provide incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors will become more prevalent as health-care costs continue to rise. People who are overweight, for example, might have to pay more for insurance than people who are not, because obesity and poor health go hand in hand. Similarly, people who are in good health might be offered free or reduced-cost medical benefits.

Everyone knows that smoking is bad. And many smokers want to quit. But many people will not change their ways until it hits them hard in the wallet. The carrot-and-stick approach will be good for them as well as their employers.

If incentives are successful in pushing people in the right direction, everyone's health-care costs will go down.

Jesus loves you

If you are a RICH Brazilian

Rich greedy Brazilians again stewing in their own juice

Hey Folks –

Here’s where the world is heading. We hear how Brazil is an economic powerhouse with natural resources, sugar cane ethanol out their ears, Rio !!, Jesus of the Andes; but this capitalistic, wealth-producing child of the invisible, infallible, irrepressible, and magical hand of The Market is rotten and stinking.

It might not be obvious from the brief news item below, but return with me to those exciting days of yestermonths (June 2, 2007) when I posted William Langewiesche’s exposé of the situation in Sao Paulo, Brazil:



http://www.ukuleleman.net/2007/06/city-world-of-fear.html



The situation is truly appalling, and it isn't too much of a stretch to see the USA trending, over time, toward a similar utterly degraded situation.



- Uke Man







Brazil offensive on crime stirs rights concerns
By Raymond Colitt Fri Oct 19

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Human rights groups criticized Brazilian authorities on Friday for endorsing a new police offensive against urban crime in which a dozen people were killed in Rio de Janeiro and security forces were deployed around the capital Brasilia.

Television images of suspected criminals and residents in a Rio de Janeiro slum running for their lives under heavy machine-gun fire from helicopters on Wednesday shocked a city accustomed to violence. Schools and shops in the area shut down.

A 4-year-old boy, a police officer and 10 suspected drug traffickers were killed in that raid.

Police said two more suspects were killed on Friday in an operation in Cidade de Deus (City of God) slum that featured in a hit film of the same name about Rio gangs. They seized small arms and drugs.

Police killed 870 civilians between January and August, about 20 percent more than a year ago, according to Rio state Public Security Institute. Police describe most of the victims as criminal suspects resisting arrest -- a definition rights groups criticize as nebulous. Meanwhile, 20 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Rio police are notorious for their heavy-handed tactics against the drug gangs that control many of the city's shantytowns, killing innocent bystanders and, according to watchdogs, often executing suspected criminals.

Government officials have justified this week's operation.

"We don't want painful incidents involving children and good people. But we need to disarm the traffickers urgently," Rio Public Security Secretary Jose Mariano Beltrame said on Thursday at the funeral of the police officer.

DENOUNCED POLICE ACTIONS

Defense Minister Nelson Jobim also praised the Rio crackdown saying the government made the right decision "to seek confrontation and abandon reconciliation."

Human rights groups criticized their comments and denounced the police action as excessive.

"The messages supporting such violent and random killing underline the government's negligence and possible ignorance in really dealing with crime," Tim Cahill of Amnesty International told Reuters on Friday by telephone. "These raids are for TV. Where are the social policies to curb crime?"

Others agreed that the poor bear the brunt of the battle.

"The Rio government, now apparently backed by Lula, is practicing a policy of social cleansing," said Sandra Carvalho, head of Global Justice advocacy group in Rio, referring to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

"The life of the poor is worth nothing -- an operation like that in Ipanema would create an international scandal," she said, referring to a posh district of Rio.

A group of 35 other nongovernmental groups demanded a full investigation and want officials to be held responsible. "For 10 months the Rio population has repeatedly watched arbitrary executions of supposed traffickers," they said in a statement.

Lula has increased aid to state governments after being accused of doing too little to tackle urban violence.

Some 1,200 troops of the National Security Force police unit sent to Rio de Janeiro before the PanAmerican Games in June are still patrolling the city's streets.

In addition, the first of 500 troops were deployed on Friday to the impoverished satellite cities surrounding Brasilia, which are among the most violent in the country.

Jobim said on Thursday he wanted to review the policy that prevents army soldiers from policing city streets.

"I have no doubt the Armed Forces would boost the security perception in Rio," Jobim said.
(Additional reporting by Andrei Khalip in Rio de Janeiro)

"Dick & Bush" - Economic Whorehouse to the Elite

Doing unto others can bite you on the ass !!

Hey Folks -

A little reality therapy for the lying ginks who feed us economic malarkey!!

When factories laid-off thousands, Wall Street cheered!! When 200,000 new jobs were created and "only" 300,000 new unemployment claims were filed, Wall Street cheered. As high-paying manufacturing jobs are "replaced" by low-paying "service-sector" jobs, Wall Street celebrates.

While the blood was dripping out of the vast majority of us, the media never failed to declare that we were doing just fine - the economy was doing fine - indeed, the economy was fantastic !! Nothing to worry about; go out and spend, spend, spend!!!!

Well, that worked for a while, until millions of regular folks started losing their homes and were denigrated as stupid, lazy, self-deluding losers who deserved just what they got and had better not dare ask for any help - "They should have read the fine print." That pulled the curtain back a bit.

Then it got pulled back a little more when the vampire money-lenders who had exploited naive, financially ignorant Americans got in trouble themselves but reaped instant support from their dependent pets in government.

Now, the fit is hitting the shan big-time. As long as the ginks could chum WAL-MART shoppers into spending like drunken sailors, "Consumer Confidence" kept the big ginks' leaky boat floating high in the water. Consumer spending is the largest part of the capitalist economy.

Well, it's dropping. People don't have the money to keep throwing it at trash. The stock market is reeling; banks are squeeling; the Fed is mumbling and dropping interest rates. NOW, with THEIR tit in the wringer, it's ooooohhh !! bad times!!!! They can't understand why the people they have forced into poverty don't keep spending like high rollers.

It might make us as stupid as they are, but maybe the rest of us should start cheering !!! WE don't get that many opportunities.

- Uke Man



Retailers report sluggish October sales
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - The outlook for the holiday shopping season grew bleaker Thursday after retailers announced disappointing October sales results due to consumers' ongoing worries about the housing slump and higher energy prices.

The downbeat news came from all sectors including mall-based apparel stores like Limited Brands Inc. and department stores like Macy's Inc. Even upscale Nordstrom Inc. posted a rare sales decline while Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, posted sales that were below expectations despite its aggressive discounting heading into the holidays.

"Overall, the sales trend continues to slow," said Ken Perkins, president of RetailMetrics LLC, a research company in Swampscott, Mass. "I think the consumer is certainly feeling the (economic) pressure heading into the holidays."

Milder than normal weather also affected sales, wiping out consumers' appetite for winter wear.

According to Thomson Financial, 18 retailers missed expectations, while 10 beat projections. The tally is based on same-store sales or sales at stores opened at least a year and are considered a key indicator of a retailer's health.

With Dec. 25 about seven weeks away, the retail industry is struggling with consumers' eroding confidence and a weakening sales trend amid mounting problems in the economy. Throughout the year, shoppers have been faced with higher gas and food bill and depreciating value of their homes. Tighter credit has also become an issue in recent months. And while last week's move by the Federal Reserve to cut a key interest rate by a quarter-point will make it cheaper to borrow money, economists say it may be too late to help boost holiday spending.

Amid such challenges, many stores including Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us Inc. aimed to jump start the season early this year by offering door busters and big discounts starting last weekend. But shoppers don't seem to be in a hurry to buy.

Wal-Mart posted a 0.4 percent gain in same-store sales. The results were below the 1.1 percent gain expected by analysts polled by Thomson Financial. Same-store sales are a key indicator of a retailer's health. In a release, it said sales of Halloween merchandise were solid across all departments, but seasonal categories related to cold weather including apparel and home furnishings were weak.

The company forecast that same-store sales growth will be no more than 2 percent in November. Wal-Mart,which kicked off its holiday discounts with price cuts on toys in early last month, promised that it will continue to be aggressive in its price cutting throughout the season.

Rival Target Corp., which stumbled in September with disappointing results, fared well in October, posting a 4.1 percent gain in same-store sales. Analysts expected a 2.5 percent gain.

Costco Wholesale Corp. had a 9 percent gain in same-store sales, well exceeding the 5.7 percent estimate.

Among department stores, Nordstrom, which reported a weaker-than-expected 3.2 percent same-store sales gain in September, posted a 2.4 percent drop in October. Analysts had expected a 1 percent gain.

Macy's had a 1.5 percent decline in same-store sales, worse than the 0.6 percent decrease forecast.

Limited had a 6 percent drop in same-store sales, worse than the 1.6 percent drop expected by Wall Street.

Pacific Sunwear had a 0.8 percent decline in same-store sales; analysts expected a 2.8 percent increase.

Wet Seal had a 4.5 percent decline in same-store sales, worse than the 2.1 percent decrease expected.

Golfer William Howard Daft

Politicians love to smack balls - all across America !!

Bush, the Democrats, & the Golf War

Hey Folks -

There IS a difference between Republicans and Democrats. It's just that one screws the people a lot faster and more ruthlessly than the other. Under Bush & Co. it's the plantation for us. Under the Democrats, genteel serfdom comes first - for a while.

If "democracy" means government "of, by, and for the people," we don't have democracy (unless "the people" means the few wealthy vampires at the top of the food chain).

Krugman is right in his belief that the public wants change, but he's also right to wonder if it will make any damned difference - serving ALL the people could interfere with tee times.

- Uke Man


November 5, 2007
Wobbled by Wealth?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
a ukethanks to Phyll

At just about every stop I’ve made so far on my book tour, what I’ve come to think of as The Question comes up. I talk about the origins of the long right-wing dominance of American politics, and the reasons I believe that dominance is coming to an end. Then someone asks, “How can you be optimistic about the prospects for progressive change, when big money has so much influence on politics?”

It’s a good question.

The public wants change. “If Americans have ever been angrier with the state of the country,” begins a new strategy memo from the polling organization Democracy Corps, “we have not witnessed it.”

Nor is the demand for change solely about Iraq: there has been a strong revival of economic populism. Democracy Corps asked those who believe America is on the wrong track to choose phrases that best described their views of what’s gone wrong. The most commonly chosen were “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington” and “Leaders have forgotten the middle class.”

So much, by the way, for pundits who claim that Americans don’t care about economic inequality.

Longer-term studies of public opinion suggest a substantial leftward shift. James Stimson, a political scientist who uses data from many polls to construct an index of the overall liberalism or conservatism of the electorate, finds that America is now more liberal than it has been since the early 1960s. And the tactics the right has historically used to distract voters from economic issues, above all the exploitation of racial tensions, have been losing their effectiveness.

But the Democracy Corps memo warns that “Democrats have not yet found their voice as agents of change.” Indeed. What the memo doesn’t say, but is all too obvious, is that one big reason the Democrats are having trouble finding their voice is the influence of big money.

The most conspicuous example of this influence right now is the way Senate Democrats are dithering over whether to close the hedge fund tax loophole — which allows executives at private equity firms and hedge funds to pay a tax rate of only 15 percent on most of their income.

Only a handful of very wealthy people benefit from this loophole, while closing the loophole would yield billions of dollars each year in revenue. Retrieving this revenue is a key ingredient in legislation approved by the House Ways and Means Committee to reform the alternative minimum tax, something that must be done to avoid a de facto tax increase for millions of middle-class Americans.

A handful of superwealthy hedge fund managers versus millions of middle-class Americans — it sounds like a no-brainer.

But as The Financial Times reports, “Key votes have been delayed and time bought after the investment industry hired some of Washington’s most prominent lobbyists to influence lawmakers and spread largesse through campaign donations.” It goes on to describe how Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, was “toasted by industry lobbyists” (and serenaded by Barry Manilow) at a money-raising party for his special fund to help Democrats get elected next year.

Is this the shape of things to come? My questioners fear that it is. [and so does the Uke Man !!]

Fears of betrayal are often focused on Hillary Clinton. Some people who raise The Question cite an article in The Nation from last summer, which suggested that Hillary Clinton’s commitment to change is suspect. “Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals,” warned the article, “but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, G.O.P. operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.” [ this is disgusting - Uke Man]

O.K., some perspective. I sometimes hear people say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans; that’s foolish. Look at the fight over children’s health insurance, and you can see how different the parties’ philosophies and priorities really are. All of the leading Democratic candidates are offering strongly progressive policy proposals; the Republicans are, if anything, running to the right of the Bush administration.

Also, even history’s greatest progressives had to make compromises to win their victories. F.D.R.’s New Deal depended on the support of Southern segregationists. Compared with that, Senator Clinton’s acceptance of lots of corporate donations doesn’t look so bad — though I’d be reassured if she made her views on tax reform clearer, and matched John Edwards’s focus on corporate reform.

Still, I am worried.

One of the saddest stories I tell in my book is that of Al Smith, the great reformist governor of New York, who gradually turned into a narrow-minded economic conservative and bitter critic of F.D.R. H. L. Mencken explained it thusly: “His association with the rich has apparently wobbled him and changed him. He has become a golf player.”

So, how wobbled are today’s Democrats? I guess we’ll find out.

"Whatever you say, Buffalo Bob!!"

Are there strings on us??

Hey Folks -

Tomorrow I'm off to Worthington High School again. One of the major issues is "freedom." Are we free? Here's one of the things we're going to do.

You try it, too.

- Uke Man

Please Answer Yes or No

(answer quickly – don’t ponder over it but keep track of your answers – maybe print it out first and mark a “Y” or “N” for each one – there are no “correct” answers)

No one in America is “above the law.”

Over the years have our soldiers died in order to protect our rights?

Do you agree that “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain”?

Did God give us the Ten Commandments?

Are people on welfare lazy?

Is this a Christian country?

Is the policeman your friend?

Is capitalism good ?

Does everyone’s vote count?

Is there a Heaven?

In America is there Liberty and Justice for all ?

Is socialism bad?

Is there a Hell?

Can everyone escape poverty by working hard?

Are taxes too high?

Is voting “Them” out the best way to achieve change?

Is there a God?

Do you agree that the two-party system is best for America?

Over the years have soldiers died so that we could vote?

Can a Christian support capital Punishment?

Is it true that government can’t solve our problems?

Is Communism especially bad?

Does Satan exist?

Does the USA basically want to help the rest of the world?

Can a Christian be a capitalist?

Were unions once a good thing but are no longer needed?

Is there a right way and a wrong way to go about something?

Are Zeus, Thor, and Osiris fictional ?

Should a Christian oppose socialism?

Do our elected representatives represent us?

Should government be run like a business?

Is marriage between one man and one woman?

Are we fighting in Iraq to establish Democracy?

Is our government of, by, and for the People?

Can anyone grow up to be president?

Should we never discuss religion or politics?

Are our elected officials the best and brightest among us?




scroll down







scroll down





Now, look at your answers. There are established arguments on both sides of these issues. My intent was to group all the culturally “correct” views in the “Yes” column and all the culturally “incorrect” views in the “No” column.

Whether you answered “Yes” or “No” is not the point of this exercise, however. Ask yourself, however you answered, “Can I give the opposing argument?” If so, then most likely your choice was “yours,” informed by your personal consideration. If not, then most likely that view is one placed in your head by the culture without your involvement.

Are we free???

The results of this exercise should give most people some reason to reassess at least some of what they thought they “believed” and whether it is their ideas or someone else's.

- Uke Man

In a Democracy of Pigs, Only Pigs Can Vote !!

The Columbus Dispatch printed this shit!!

Folks -


Do you think a newspaper is obligated to publish letters from the insane? Do you think it shows tolerance and compassion if they do? Are they required to publish insane rants from the entire political spectrum, and if they restrict publishing only to nuts somehow helpful to their political agenda, can they still claim to be tolerant and compassionate??


I've been wondering for some time. For years the Columbus Dispatch has been publishing letters from enlightened right-wing-nuts like Oscar below. They won't print brain-dead, ignorant, mean, obnoxious, stupid letters from insane lefties. It makes me wonder.


Of course, maybe the Uke Man is crazy himself. Read the letter below that appeared in the Nov. 3 Dispatch, and decide for yourself who needs to be committed. Depending on what you decide, write a nasty letter to the Dispatch ( letters@dispatch.com ) or me (leave a comment here).


- Uke Man
p.s. Notice that Oscar, as bigoted as he is, does believe in "reasonable" restriction of firearms. I guess that makes sense, since his hatefulness toward so many Americans would likely increase his chances of being shot come the revolution.


Some restrictions should apply to right to vote
Saturday, November 3, 2007

Just as the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted by reasonable laws, so the right to vote should have reasonable restrictions.

The right to vote should be granted to good citizens and should be denied to the following:

• All citizens who do not pay income taxes. Furthermore, all citizens should have to pay their income taxes in a lump sum once a year or, at most, quarterly, so a citizen would know just how much he has to pay to support the government. The idea that a company must confiscate the taxes with each paycheck treats citizens as incompetents. All Social Security taxes should be paid by the employee; the employer should pay the employee both halves, and the employee should pay it all, once a year or quarterly, the same as payroll taxes. Otherwise, the citizens have no idea how much the government is costing them.

• Anyone who has filed bankruptcy should be denied the right to vote until he has been solvent for at least five years, to show he is responsible with his own finances before he is allowed to vote for those who control the finances of the government.

• All citizens on the government dole, including those who receive government tax credits because they do not earn enough to pay income taxes, should be denied the right to vote, as should anyone on welfare, Social Security (after they have collected both halves plus 6 percent interest), Medicare, Medicaid or any other state or federal government handouts. Only those who pay for the government and do not receive government largess should be allowed to vote. Those on the dole are tempted to vote for those politicians who promise more of the same, and such disbursements from the public's purse are leading to the ruination of this country. To be truly free and independent, a citizen should be free and independent of governments.

• A citizen who does not have a basic understanding of history, mathematics, how the government works, the founding of our nation, the knowledge of where the government gets the money it spends and the knowledge needed to balance a checkbook. Citizens must know that it is basic that the government cannot spend more than it takes in, except by deficit spending, and the government cannot simply print more money when it needs it.

• Felons and mental incompetents. If a citizen does not qualify to own a firearm, he should not be allowed to vote. Voting is as important as defending your life. If you cannot be depended on to protect yourself from evil people, you should not be depended on to elect someone to rule over the lives of others.

• Elected government officials and government employees. Only those citizens involved in creation of capital, real wealth, should be allowed to vote. Although government employees pay taxes, they are not involved in creating products; their wages are paid with the taxes taken from the citizens creating products. And besides, there is no reason to allow (civil) servants to vote. The exceptions might be the postal workers and the military, as they are mentioned in the Constitution and do provide needed services.

• Homeless and the elderly housed in group homes who have no regard to the amount of property taxes they are costing the property owners.

This country is fast on the path of becoming the United Socialist Union of America unless we begin to put the brakes on and return it to a capitalistic country.

OSCAR G. SHEPHERD

Columbus

"Eh, what's up, Dispatch ?"

For Introduction to "Dropout SOCIETY" click below:

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/bugs_bunny/ltbb_261.wav

"Dropout SOCIETY"

Hey Folks -

October 30 the Columbus Dispatch ran two stories - one front-page (continued on A-4) and one on page 5; once again demonstrating that our "free" press is brain dead, incapable of knowing what their right and left hands are simultaneously doing:

Study of nation's high schools
Columbus on list of 'dropout factories'

Columbus Dispatch Oct. 30

At 14 of Columbus' 17 high schools, nearly 40 percent or more of the students who started as freshmen have disappeared before graduation day, a trend that's affecting about 1 out of 10 public high schools statewide, a new analysis has found.
Just under 70 Ohio high schools have rates of retention that are so low that they could be nicknamed "dropout factories," according to a Johns Hopkins University analysis of education data for the Associated Press. That description fits 12 percent of all high schools in America.

Schools in South pressured by increase in poor students
By Halimah Abdullah
McClatchy Newspapers (reprinted in the Dispatch Oct. 30)

According to the report, public schools in the West may face similar problems in the next five to seven years. Already 51 percent of public-school children in California and 62 percent in New Mexico are considered low-income.

Nationally, 46 percent of public-school students are low-income.


******************************************


The on-line Dispatch "Hot Issue" blog asked: "What do you think is the biggest cause of students dropping out of high school?"

As you might guess, a number of central Ahia yahoos blamed godless schools, "liberals," the ACLU, and not failing enough kids.

Here is my email to Hot Issue (shortened on line because of the number of "characters" permitted):


Well, folks,


It's not the liberals or God. In fact, it is our society. The same day that high schools were announced to be "dropout factories" because "no more than 60 percent of students who started as freshmen at 19 central Ohio high schools were found to have made it to their senior year"; a page 5 story reported: "According to the report, public schools in the West may face similar problems in the next five to seven years. Already 51 percent of public-school children in California and 62 percent in New Mexico are considered low-income.
Nationally, 46 percent of public-school students are low-income."

There you have it, folks - almost a perfect match: more than 40% of the kids are poor, and 40% drop out.

It's time to stop blaming liberals, teachers' unions, and supposed lack of respect for a Christian god, and start evaluating a socio-economic system that allows 40% poverty while decrying a 40% dropout rate.


- Uke Man