The President has proposed that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10 over a period of three years. Of course this has raised a big hue and cry. What doesn't seem to get mentioned is that the minimum wage is a "level playing field," something that business used to wish for during most of my life. Yes, you have to raise the wages of your employees for your restaurant, but so does the restaurant down the street. Yes, I presume that places like restaurants will have to increase their prices by a bit to accomodate the increase. but it shouldn't be enough to discourage people from using restaurants.
All sorts of misinformation goes on in the news media. I heard one person in an interview say that a jump from $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr is too big of a schock. Yes, that is why it is stretched over three years. But the interviewee was not corrected.
Some have proposed that this increase will goad small business owners to pursue automation, e.g. ordering your meal from your iPhone, but isn't there an incentive to do this now? And of course, there are many restaurants that are highly automated already, consider the fast food restaurants. And then are cafeterias where you grab a tray and select items to eat from a server. Then there are automated machines where you select an item, put your money in a slot and out comes your selection. some of these even serve sandwiches. There are things like coffee machines where you have many choices about how you want your coffee or hot chocolate or even soup in some cases. But resturants still exist that use table service and people go there even to just get a cup of coffee.
There is an area of unfortunate concern. Caregivers of the elderly and infirm that work for caregiving companies earn close to minimu wage, even if they have worked for the organization for many years, and the cost the patient pays is much higher, perhaps close to $20/hr. So to raise the minimum wage for them by $1/hr increases the expense of caregiving by $365/yr so raising their wage from $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr is an increae of $1040.25/hr of the person being cared for. If the need is for round-the-clock service, you are talking about an increase of over $24,966/yr. Many people in need of caregiving will not be able to afford this increase. And there may be others in the organization earning minimum or near minimum wage too, increasing the price even more.
It turns out that bank tellers earn minimum wage or clse thereto. I'm uncertain what bank will do. Perhaps they will cut back on tellers even more than they have done. But I once used a bank where you paid $0.50 cents to use their autotelle outside the building, even though the cost of a person using it rather than a teller was miniscule.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FIVE YEARS LATER
My problem with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was that about 30% of it went to one-time tax breaks which would have little effect. Many people would use them to pay down debt which may be admirable but does not help the economy. And few companies would expand their business plans because of a one-time pulse put into the economy. I think it would have been much better to expand the infrastructure of the country. while this expansion would provide only temporary increases in employment, at least we would have had something to show for it afterward resulting in a better America. These tax breaks were added mainly to attract conservative votes in congress which did not materialize.
The final report of the ARRA* includes summaries of the Jobs Legislation Included a Mixture of Investments, Tax Cuts for Families and Businesses, and Relief for Individuals and States.
 |
| ARRA Employment and Fiscal Information (See the original report for enlarged figures.) |
As indicated in CBO’s initial cost projections, the Recovery Act was fairly evenly distributed. It included tax cuts ($212 billion), mandatory spending on programs such as Medicaid and unemployment benefits ($296 billion), and discretionary spending ($279 billion) in areas ranging from aid to individuals to investments in infrastructure, energy, education, and health care. Excluding the AMT patch, the Recovery Act is expected to provide a total fiscal impulse of $763 billion by 2019, with over 90 percent of that impulse occurring before the end of fiscal year 2012.
Over two - thirds of the money in the subsequent fiscal measures (also excluding routine tax extenders and other expected policies) went to tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Of the $674 billion in fiscal support following the Recovery Act through 2012, the largest components were the payroll tax cut from 2011 to 2012 ($ 207 billion) and extended unemployment insurance benefits ($161 billion). The remaining portion of the subsequent fiscal measures included relief for States, tax incentives for businesses, and investments in education, infrastructure, among other areas.
Combining both the Recovery Act and subsequent fiscal measures, half of the total fiscal support for the economy , or $689 billion, came in the form of tax cuts —mostly directed at families. The remainder went to investments in critical areas such as rebuilding
bridges and roads, supporting teacher jobs, or providing temporary help for those who found themselves unemployed because of the impact of the Great Recession. Note these totals remove routine extensions of pre-existing provisions like the Alternative Minimum Tax patch or the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) fix.
......................................................................
For examples, some positive accomplishments of the Recovery Act:
o Initiated more than 15,000 transportation projects, which will improve nearly 42,000 miles of road, mend or replace over 2,700 bridges, and provide funds for over 12,220 transit vehicles.
o Made the largest-ever investments in American high-speed rail, constructing or improving approximately 6,000 miles of high-performance passenger rail corridors and procurement of 120 next-generation rail cars or locomotives.
o Cleaned up 1,566 acres of properties that are now ready for reuse, far exceeding the original target of 500 acres, and led to 30,900 old diesel engines being retrofitted, replaced, or retired, which has reduced lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide by 840,300 tons and particulate matter by 3,900 tons.
o Improved more than 3,000 water quality infrastructure projects and Clean Water projects, serving more than 78 million people nationwide, as well as bringing 693 drinking water systems (serving over 48 million Americans) into compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
o Launched the innovative Race to the Top Program, which rewarded States that implemented critical reforms. Encouraged by the incentives in Race to the Top, 34 states modified state education laws and policies in ways known to help close the achievement gap and improve student outcomes.
o Provided the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) with an initial appropriation of $400 million, to begin researching transformative energy technologies such as second-generation biofuels, more efficient batteries, superconducting wires, and vehicles powered by natural gas.
o Boosted federal funding to renewable wind, solar, and geothermal energy as well as leveraging private dollars to help increase wind electricity net generation nationwide by 145 percent, and solar thermal and photovoltaic electricity net generation by more than fourfold from 2008 to 2012.
......................................................................
For examples, some positive accomplishments of the Recovery Act:
o Initiated more than 15,000 transportation projects, which will improve nearly 42,000 miles of road, mend or replace over 2,700 bridges, and provide funds for over 12,220 transit vehicles.
o Made the largest-ever investments in American high-speed rail, constructing or improving approximately 6,000 miles of high-performance passenger rail corridors and procurement of 120 next-generation rail cars or locomotives.
o Cleaned up 1,566 acres of properties that are now ready for reuse, far exceeding the original target of 500 acres, and led to 30,900 old diesel engines being retrofitted, replaced, or retired, which has reduced lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide by 840,300 tons and particulate matter by 3,900 tons.
o Improved more than 3,000 water quality infrastructure projects and Clean Water projects, serving more than 78 million people nationwide, as well as bringing 693 drinking water systems (serving over 48 million Americans) into compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
o Launched the innovative Race to the Top Program, which rewarded States that implemented critical reforms. Encouraged by the incentives in Race to the Top, 34 states modified state education laws and policies in ways known to help close the achievement gap and improve student outcomes.
o Provided the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) with an initial appropriation of $400 million, to begin researching transformative energy technologies such as second-generation biofuels, more efficient batteries, superconducting wires, and vehicles powered by natural gas.
o Boosted federal funding to renewable wind, solar, and geothermal energy as well as leveraging private dollars to help increase wind electricity net generation nationwide by 145 percent, and solar thermal and photovoltaic electricity net generation by more than fourfold from 2008 to 2012.
* http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_arra_report.pdf?wpisrc=nl_wonk
Thursday, February 13, 2014
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS BY PRESIDENT
President Obama is accused of overstepping his bounds with overuse of Presidential Executive Orders;* however, and analysis shows that he sparsely used Executive Orders. His use of Executive Orders is the fewest since Grover Cleveland. It is dangerous for politicians to tell the truth. See Figure 1 (Click on it to enlarge):**
Fig. 1:
Though when President Obama uses Executive Orders, they may have a major effect (Greater than $100 million, not corrected for inflation.). See Figure 2 (Click to enlarge):***
Fog. 2:
* "Sen. Mike Lee charged that President Barack Obama had used executive orders to change laws for political benefits, and called the practice for that purpose 'unprecedented.'"(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Mike-Lee-Obama-executive-order/2014/01/30/id/549960)
“There is a pattern of lawlessness in this administration that is breathtaking,” Cruz told Glenn Beck on his radio program Tuesday. (http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/cruz-obama-guilty-lawlessness)
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/31/obamas-love-affair-with-executive-orders-or-not-in-1-chart/
*** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/11/republicans-say-obamas-use-of-executive-power-is-unprecedented-the-data-say-otherwise/?wprss=rss_business&clsrd&wpisrc=nl_wonk
Though when President Obama uses Executive Orders, they may have a major effect (Greater than $100 million, not corrected for inflation.). See Figure 2 (Click to enlarge):***
Fog. 2:
* "Sen. Mike Lee charged that President Barack Obama had used executive orders to change laws for political benefits, and called the practice for that purpose 'unprecedented.'"(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Mike-Lee-Obama-executive-order/2014/01/30/id/549960)
“There is a pattern of lawlessness in this administration that is breathtaking,” Cruz told Glenn Beck on his radio program Tuesday. (http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/cruz-obama-guilty-lawlessness)
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/31/obamas-love-affair-with-executive-orders-or-not-in-1-chart/
*** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/11/republicans-say-obamas-use-of-executive-power-is-unprecedented-the-data-say-otherwise/?wprss=rss_business&clsrd&wpisrc=nl_wonk
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
IS THE ATMOSPHERE AN INFINITE SEWER?
Nearly 25 years ago I gave an address at the University of Missouri at Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology) called The Challenge of Global Housekeeping.* Is the atmosphere an infinite sewer into which we may dump all the pollutants we want? I conclude that it appears to be not so, and we have pretty much reached a limit where both anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification are occurring. Of the 10 warmest years globally, 9 have occurred in this century and the outlier was 1998:**
| Year | Global[66] | Land[67] | Ocean[68] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 0.6590 | 1.0748 | 0.5027 |
| 2005 | 0.6523 | 1.0505 | 0.5007 |
| 1998 | 0.6325 | 0.9351 | 0.5160 |
| 2003 | 0.6219 | 0.8859 | 0.5207 |
| 2002 | 0.6130 | 0.9351 | 0.4902 |
| 2006 | 0.5978 | 0.9091 | 0.4792 |
| 2009 | 0.5957 | 0.8621 | 0.4953 |
| 2007 | 0.5914 | 1.0886 | 0.3900 |
| 2004 | 0.5779 | 0.8132 | 0.4885 |
| 2012 | 0.5728 | 0.8968 | 0.4509 |
| Years | Temp. anomaly (°C anomaly (°F anomaly) from 1951–1980 mean) |
|---|---|
| 1880–1889 | −0.274 °C (−0.493 °F) |
| 1890–1899 | −0.254 °C (−0.457 °F) |
| 1900–1909 | −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F) |
| 1910–1919 | −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F) |
| 1920–1929 | −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F) |
| 1930–1939 | −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F) |
| 1940–1949 | 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F) |
| 1950–1959 | −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F) |
| 1960–1969 | −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F) |
| 1970–1979 | −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F) |
| 1980–1989 | 0.176 °C (0.317 °F) |
| 1990–1999 | 0.313 °C (0.563 °F) |
| 2000–2009 | 0.513 °C (0.923 °F) |
The global human population is still increasing and as I write this, the estimated global population is 7.2 billion. (1) Nearly all this population is contributing to atmospheric pollution in some manner through burning wood or peat if not coal, natural gas, and petroleum or the making of cement, of course with some parts of the global population much more than others. The two countries that contribute the most carbon dioxide to the atmosphere now are China 21.5% and the U.S. 20.2% of the total. (1)
The figure below shows the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1956 as measured at Mona Loa, Hawaii and is known as the Keeling Curve largely due to the emission of fossil fuels. (2) This reference contains an extensive discussion of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Fossil fuel may be separated from modern vegetation carbon through analysis of carbon isotopes.
See an extensive discussion of this figure in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve Click on the figure for more clarity.
The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can not only lead to anthropogenic global warming, but there are indications that the surface ocean water is becoming more acidic.(3)
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide(CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Available Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean pH exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services. (Superscript references are given in the article cited)
This article summarizes only the carbon dioxide contributes to global warming; however, there are other greenhouse gases, the major one being water vapor (because of its abundance), followed by carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In addition chlorofluorocarbons (Freon) could have a large effect, but their use is curtailed, though their lifetime in the atmosphere is long. One major atmospheric pollutant, sulfur dioxide aerosols, actually cool the atmosphere and is attributed to flattening out global warming.
The biggest effect from anthropogenic global warming will probably be from sea level rise due to thermal expansion of seawater and melting of glaciers and ice caps. Loss of ice cover in the Arctic will not affect sea level, however, it can well disturb many other things, such as ocean circulation and ecosystems. The country most affected by sea-level rise is Bangladesh that has the highest population density in the world though it has contributed little to global warming. Even now they experience floods that cover as much as half the country(4):
The construction of big, modern dykes is problematic as well. If sea levels rise up to 1 metre, "normal” flood waves can be expected to increase from presently 7.4 metres to 9.1 metres.7 This shows clearly that coastal dykes must be very high to really protect the inhabitants.
But the U.S. is not immune to the effects of sea-level rise with the largest effects being where the coastal landmass is also sinking. Storm surges will also have a greater effect because of the higher water level. Even in recent decades, 47% of sandy beaches have seen "critical erosion" and beach replenishments in places like Miami Beach (1976-1981) have been needed owing to coastal erosion due to longshore currents (5). Estimates are (6):
Click on the picture to enlarge.
Twenty-five years later, global housekeeping is more important than ever.
Note added Friday, 02-14-2014: Now it turns out that because methane has 30 times the greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide, losses to the atmosphere in drilling and other leakages may make natural gas worse than diesel fuel (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/study-finds-methane-leaks-negate-climate-benefits of-natural-gas.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&wpisrc=nl_wonk)
References:
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/01/global-housekeeping-challenge-is-issued.html; Geotimes, 1990, p. 6.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
(1) http://www.worldometers.info/world-population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere; http://www.google.com/search?q=Carbon+Dioxide+in+the+atmosphere&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BF_pUvqACOnJsQS3uYCQDg&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=902
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
(4) http://germanwatch.org/download/klak/fb-ms-e.pdf
(5) http://coastvserosion.wikispaces.com/Miami+Beach+Replenishment+Plan
(6) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/coasts.html
Friday, February 7, 2014
NOT ALL EMPLOYERS ARE OUT TO SCREW THEIR EMPLOYEES
(The following is reproduced from the Motley Fool Investment Clubs Analysis/Macro Economic Trends And Risks Board post #443937 on February 5, 2014)
There is a great article in Motley Fool today about companies that give their employees significant profit sharing bonuses. This last year one company even gave bonuses averaging 33%of their salary. These companies believe that doing so gives them a better workforce wit incentives to worker harder and better to help the company make profits(http://www.fool.com/free-report/stock-advisor/the-motley-fools-top-stock-for-2014/page1?iid=58990303&vsaid=6915&email=rocky24%40juno.com&dest_url=%2Ffree-report%2Fstock-advisor%2Fthe-motley-fools-top-stock-for-2014%2Fpage1&src=isaeditxt0900096)
In spite of all the negative news on ACA coming out lately, it is all to a company's advantage to provide heath care to their employees as that too leads to a more stable and healthy work force that helps productivity. Of course ACA provides some ability for the employee to quit poor working conditions and wages to find a better job. It is about time.
It used to be that companies wanted a level playing field which ACA provides. Now many just don't want change. I suspect that with time we will see adjustments. And for all the emphasis on small business, 98% of small businesses hire fewer than 50 employees and are not affected by ACA. (I do not imply that ACA couldn't be improved and hope it will be.)
Though I like Olive Garden's menu, I do not go there anymore because I found I would have to wait in line with 30 people when I could see a whole dining room vacant because in their mania to drop waiters and waitress working hours below 30 hrs/wk so they don't have to provide health care. They not only screw their employees but their customers as well.
In contrast, Cracker Barrel gives their employees benefits and even paid vacations and fills the place daily with customers. I know one waitress who was let go when a Breakfast Anytime closed where she worked and thought she had gone to Heaven when she got a job a Cracker Barrel.
Note added March 2, 2014: There are companies that provide some sort of assistance to helping employees buy or rent homes, especially closer to where they work: (https://www.metroplanning.org/uploads/cms/documents/hwfeahfinal.pdf)
There is a great article in Motley Fool today about companies that give their employees significant profit sharing bonuses. This last year one company even gave bonuses averaging 33%of their salary. These companies believe that doing so gives them a better workforce wit incentives to worker harder and better to help the company make profits(http://www.fool.com/free-report/stock-advisor/the-motley-fools-top-stock-for-2014/page1?iid=58990303&vsaid=6915&email=rocky24%40juno.com&dest_url=%2Ffree-report%2Fstock-advisor%2Fthe-motley-fools-top-stock-for-2014%2Fpage1&src=isaeditxt0900096)
In spite of all the negative news on ACA coming out lately, it is all to a company's advantage to provide heath care to their employees as that too leads to a more stable and healthy work force that helps productivity. Of course ACA provides some ability for the employee to quit poor working conditions and wages to find a better job. It is about time.
It used to be that companies wanted a level playing field which ACA provides. Now many just don't want change. I suspect that with time we will see adjustments. And for all the emphasis on small business, 98% of small businesses hire fewer than 50 employees and are not affected by ACA. (I do not imply that ACA couldn't be improved and hope it will be.)
Though I like Olive Garden's menu, I do not go there anymore because I found I would have to wait in line with 30 people when I could see a whole dining room vacant because in their mania to drop waiters and waitress working hours below 30 hrs/wk so they don't have to provide health care. They not only screw their employees but their customers as well.
In contrast, Cracker Barrel gives their employees benefits and even paid vacations and fills the place daily with customers. I know one waitress who was let go when a Breakfast Anytime closed where she worked and thought she had gone to Heaven when she got a job a Cracker Barrel.
Note added March 2, 2014: There are companies that provide some sort of assistance to helping employees buy or rent homes, especially closer to where they work: (https://www.metroplanning.org/uploads/cms/documents/hwfeahfinal.pdf)
Thursday, February 6, 2014
ACTUALLY GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE
Following are excerpts from two articles in the New YorkTtimes of Tuesday, February 4, 2014:
It has been a year since my assistant, Jennifer Mascia, and I started publishing The Gun Report, an effort to use my blog to aggregate daily gun violence in America.* Our methodology is pretty simple: We do a Google News search each weekday morning for the previous day’s shootings and then list them. Most days, we have been finding between 20 and 30 shootings; on Mondays, when we also add the weekend’s violence, the number is usually well over 100.
...............................................
First, the biggest surprise, especially early on, was how frequently either a child accidentally shot another child — using a loaded gun that happened to be lying around — or an adult accidentally shot a child while handling a loaded gun.
.................................................
After The Gun Report had been up and running for a while, several Second Amendment advocates complained that we rarely published items that showed how guns were used to prevent a crime. The reason was not that we were biased against crime prevention; it was that it didn’t happen very often. (When we found such examples, we put them in The Gun Report.) More to the point, there are an increasing number of gun deaths that are the result of an argument — often fueled by alcohol — among friends, neighbors and family members.
..................................................
But to read The Gun Report is to be struck anew at the reality that most of the people who die from guns would still be alive if we just had fewer of them. The guys in the movie theater would have had a fistfight instead of a shooting. The momentary flush of anger would pass. The suicidal person might have taken a pause if taking one’s life were more difficult. And on, and on. The idea that guns, on balance, save lives — which is one of the most common sentiments expressed in the pro-gun comments posted to The Gun Report — is ludicrous.
On the contrary: The clearest message The Gun Report sends is the most obvious. Guns make killing way too easy.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/nocera-the-gun-report-1-year-later.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20140204
Far less noticed but no less horrific is the unending toll from the more routine bursts of gunfire that each day send an average of 20 American children and adolescents to hospitals, many of them for long-term treatment.**
This grim statistic is found in a new study that focuses on the lasting damage suffered by young victims who survive. Of 7,391 hospitalizations of youths ages 19 and under shot in 2009, 6 percent ended in death; the rest joined the growing casualty list of gun victims, many needing lengthy and costly treatment, according to the study published in Pediatrics magazine. An estimated 3,000 additional youngsters died before reaching emergency rooms.
** http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/firearms-toll-among-the-young.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20140204
It has been a year since my assistant, Jennifer Mascia, and I started publishing The Gun Report, an effort to use my blog to aggregate daily gun violence in America.* Our methodology is pretty simple: We do a Google News search each weekday morning for the previous day’s shootings and then list them. Most days, we have been finding between 20 and 30 shootings; on Mondays, when we also add the weekend’s violence, the number is usually well over 100.
...............................................
First, the biggest surprise, especially early on, was how frequently either a child accidentally shot another child — using a loaded gun that happened to be lying around — or an adult accidentally shot a child while handling a loaded gun.
.................................................
After The Gun Report had been up and running for a while, several Second Amendment advocates complained that we rarely published items that showed how guns were used to prevent a crime. The reason was not that we were biased against crime prevention; it was that it didn’t happen very often. (When we found such examples, we put them in The Gun Report.) More to the point, there are an increasing number of gun deaths that are the result of an argument — often fueled by alcohol — among friends, neighbors and family members.
..................................................
But to read The Gun Report is to be struck anew at the reality that most of the people who die from guns would still be alive if we just had fewer of them. The guys in the movie theater would have had a fistfight instead of a shooting. The momentary flush of anger would pass. The suicidal person might have taken a pause if taking one’s life were more difficult. And on, and on. The idea that guns, on balance, save lives — which is one of the most common sentiments expressed in the pro-gun comments posted to The Gun Report — is ludicrous.
On the contrary: The clearest message The Gun Report sends is the most obvious. Guns make killing way too easy.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/nocera-the-gun-report-1-year-later.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20140204
Far less noticed but no less horrific is the unending toll from the more routine bursts of gunfire that each day send an average of 20 American children and adolescents to hospitals, many of them for long-term treatment.**
This grim statistic is found in a new study that focuses on the lasting damage suffered by young victims who survive. Of 7,391 hospitalizations of youths ages 19 and under shot in 2009, 6 percent ended in death; the rest joined the growing casualty list of gun victims, many needing lengthy and costly treatment, according to the study published in Pediatrics magazine. An estimated 3,000 additional youngsters died before reaching emergency rooms.
** http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/firearms-toll-among-the-young.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20140204
Monday, February 3, 2014
THEY JUST CAN'T LET WOMEN'S BODIES ALONE
I'm late to the party on this, but Mike Huckabee really said the following on January 23, 2013:
I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war onthem, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, Enough of that nonsense.*
No one says that women HAVE to use contraceptives. Perhaps the Religious Right can generate a
sympathetic attitude on abortion, especially last trimester abortion, but contraceptives? But the goal actually is to get rid of contraceptives. This is why they have pushed for life to begin at conception when there are a few cells involved. One morning after pill (ella) is said to be a very effective contraceptive with Plan B being less so.** As for me, life begins when the baby is out of the womb and has taken a breath. This is the conventional definition of birth. When in doubt, I favor the born over the unborn.
* Quote taken from:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140123
But it will also lead you to a video clip with Huckabee saying it.
** http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp
I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war onthem, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, Enough of that nonsense.*
No one says that women HAVE to use contraceptives. Perhaps the Religious Right can generate a
sympathetic attitude on abortion, especially last trimester abortion, but contraceptives? But the goal actually is to get rid of contraceptives. This is why they have pushed for life to begin at conception when there are a few cells involved. One morning after pill (ella) is said to be a very effective contraceptive with Plan B being less so.** As for me, life begins when the baby is out of the womb and has taken a breath. This is the conventional definition of birth. When in doubt, I favor the born over the unborn.
* Quote taken from:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140123
But it will also lead you to a video clip with Huckabee saying it.
** http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
