text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23800705512503702202018-03-07T15:33:34.545-08:00THE BLUE BOYA blog by and old Liberal who grew up Conservative in a very, very Red State.John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-31458404230255175792016-05-05T08:47:00.002-07:002016-05-05T08:47:32.177-07:00WHY TRUMP?
WHY TRUMP?

Obviously, Donald Trump fills a vacuum. His phenomenal rise to heights that even he didn't think he'd reach is an indication of just how deep the vacuum is in the GOP. Rarely have we seen someone with no experience cut through established Republican candidates like a hot knife through butter than we've seen this year with the advent of "The Donald." Some are still shaking their heads and saying, "What the heck happened?" In fact, if you asked a passing stranger what the GOP stands for today, the stranger would say, "I really don't know," and that about sums it up. The party of Lincoln is so disenfranchised it is almost impossible to tell when and why it happened.

Of course, I have a theory. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Liberal, but I still have a brain and I can still think clearly regarding the Trump phenomena. I'm also a patriotic person who believes the only way for the U.S.A. to be strong, it must have two [even three] strong parties who are able to work together to get things done through compromise and clear reasoning. That simply has not happened in the last 10 years. You cannot blame it on Obama [although the Right tries its best to do so], he wasn't president when this all started. However, you could call Obama a catalyst. It took a 'different' person in the White House to speed up the process. It could have even been a woman in office that got the ball of dissension rolling. The truth is that the ball was already moving when Barack Obama took office. It even began before George W took office. If I was to pin down the beginning of dissatisfaction with politics, I think Bill Clinton would be a good place to begin. Bill did some good things for the country, but his presidency was marred by bad behavior personally. The country, especially Mid-America, was incensed by his behavior and began sending more and more Republicans to the Senate and Congress until they became the majority and/or the Party of No. They didn't care whether Obama sent a good bill to the floor, or a bad bill to the floor, the answer was always NO. Thus began the decline of the Republican Party.

A survey was done. The U.S. Congress had a lower favorable rating than hemorrhoids. That, besides being funny, is a terrible statement of civic pride in our democratic process. Shame on us.

However, all is not lost. We still have the power of the vote. IF... if we choose to use it, that is. In order to change a system, the people within that system must decide that change is preferable to the status quo. Do we, the voting public, feel that way? The polls say yes. So our choice is The Donald or Hillary. Unless someone like Bernie decides to start a 3rd party – not likely.
John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-80937193293586507352016-03-20T09:36:00.000-07:002016-03-20T09:36:47.302-07:00Trimming The BudgetFinally, I'm back! And, as you know, I am prone to ponderings. So here is my latest ponder.

I've decided to create a pure capitalistic democracy. Oh yes ladies and gentlemen, that is my goal today. It shouldn't be too hard. All I need to do is trim down that pesky Big Government to a workable size. Get rid of all the 'socialism' programs that are bogging down this fine nation. I know you are with me, because we all revel in abstract conservatism. We want what The Donald, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and the rest of the Republican intelligentsia wants, small government run on capitalistic ideals. First let's do the trimming...

All these just gotta go:

A DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AMBER ALERTS

AMTRAK

PUBLIC BEACHES

PUBLIC BUSING SERVICES

BUSINESS SUBSIDIES

A CENSUS BUREAU

A CIA

FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS

A PUBLIC COURT SYSTEM

DAMS

PUBLIC DEFENDERS

DISABILITY INSURANCE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

AN EPA

FARM SUBSIDIES

AN FBI

AN FCC

AN FDA

A FEMA

FIRE DEPARTMENTS

FOOD STAMPS

GARBAGE COLLECTION

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC HOUSING

AN IRS

PUBLIC LANDFILLS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

MEDICARE

MEDICAID

A MILITARY

STATE & NATIONAL MONUMENTS

PUBLIC MUSEUMS.

NASA

A NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE

NPR

PUBLIC PARKS

PBS

THE PEACE CORPS

POLICE DEPARTMENTS

PRISONS & JAILS

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

A SECRET SERVICE

A SEWER SYSTEM

SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES

SOCIAL SECURITY

PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING

A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [HIGHWAYS, ROADS & BRIDGES]

A UPS

VACCINES

VETERAN HEALTH CARE

A PUBLIC WELFARE SYSTEM

THE WHITE HOUSE

WIC PROGRAMS

STATE ZOOS

To name just a few. I guess we can live without these things, cause we wanna go back to the good ol' days of horse and buggy government...Right?

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-62597113267448121942016-01-26T09:32:00.000-08:002016-01-26T09:32:21.356-08:00BABY BOOMERS REJOICE
Baby Boomers [Born between 1946 and 1964] Are Destroying the American Economy.

Not so. While it is true our economy is in trouble, it wasn't or isn't caused by Baby Boomers. Tankersley censures boomers because, he says, "they opened up global trade and watched millions of manufacturing jobs vanish." Yes, many U.S. workers — boomers, Gen X'ers and Millennials — live with heightened personal economic insecurity thanks to intense global competition. The problem isn't with boomers, however.

Let's look at this another way: Instead, recognize that conservative legislators and their economist allies have often worked together to block a number of policy initiatives aimed at substantially boosting job training and job creation programs for people laid off and displaced as a result of increased global trade and job losses here. There are many so-called Boomers who would like to work, are able to work, have tried to get jobs, but are turned down for many reasons, but the prime reason is their age. Employers are not supposed to age discriminate, but let's face, they do.

And here's a question for Tankersley: If aging boomers have it so good, why do Social Security benefits comprise more than half of family budgets for 44 percent of leading-edge boomers, ages 65 to 69, who've filed for benefits?
 Many of the younger boomers he rails against are among the 44 million+ Americans who care for their parents and relatives. As Sally Abrahms just wrote in her Washington Post piece about boomer myths, a 2013 AARP study found that about 1 in 5 workers age 45 to 74 had either taken a leave or quit a job to care for an adult family member in the previous five years.
 The Rand Corporation estimated the value of unpaid caregiving at $522 billion annually, including the opportunity cost of not working, or working only part-time, which makes it that much harder to save for retirement. The value of all this care exceeds the $502 billion in net federal outlays on Medicare in 2014. So much for the selfishness of The Me Generation.
 I could go on, but I want to shift to the truly troublesome core of the blame-the-boomer commentary: The solutions that typically accompany this perspective threaten one of the great economic and social opportunities in history created by increased longevity.
 The basic fear in this argument is that the economy will falter with too few young workers supporting too many retired boomers. Truth is, aging boomers are reimagining and rethinking the second half of life to include work and engagement well into the traditional retirement years (what I call unretirement).
 Boomers aren't a deadweight loss on the economy. Quite the opposite. What Tankersley and his ilk miss in their blanket condemnation of the boomer generation is that, today, aging has become an opportunity for the economy to seize.
 "The possibility of productive work lasting an additional decade will do more than supplement the workforce and can lead us to rethink the values and meaning of work," writes Mary Catherine Bateson, the well-known anthropologist and author of Composing a Further Life. "Freud famously said that what gives meaning to life is to love and to work — lieben und arbeiten —and these are the keys to understanding the restless searches of today's older adults."
 The gloom about aging boomers fails to take into account economic productivity, which trumps demographics every time. What counts is innovation, technology, the organization of business, investments in human capital and the animal spirits of capitalism.

A half-century ago, America had five workers for every retiree. This figure has since declined to fewer than three workers to one retiree. Sounds ominous, right? Well, the truth is that the U.S. is a vastly wealthier nation than it was in 1965.
 Look at it this way: Between 2012 and 2035, aging alone could reduce American living standards by 8.5 percent, calculates Dean Baker, co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank. That would be due to the projected drop in the ratio of workers to retirees from about three workers for every retiree in 2012 to approximately two for every retiree in 2035. Yet if productivity growth runs at a 2.5 percent average annual rate — the pace of the first three decades following the Second World War and a realistic expectation going forward — the cumulative gainto American living standards is almost 58 percent, Baker figures.
 Even if productivity only matches the anemic pace of 1 percent from 1973 to 1995, living standards will still rise by 26 percent.
 In other words, according to Baker, even with the gloomiest productivity growth outlook, the gains dwarf the projected decline in living standards from demographics.
 Here's the kicker: Baker says his impact-of-productivity projections are too pessimistic because he isn't factoring in the likely prospect of workers staying on the job longer than in the past.
 So, please stop the fear and loathing of boomers. The critical economic and social story of our era is really generational interdependence.
 Instead of indulgent attacks on Americans in their 50s, 60s and early 70s, how about grappling with policies that encourage more women into the labor market, create robust job opportunities for inner-city residents and rural poor and keep aging workers employed?
 While we're at it, let's devote more energy toward reforming Social Security and pensions in ways that reward earning an income and starting a business in the un-retirement years.
 I want to end my rebuttal with another quote from Bateson:
 "Each of the liberation movements of the 20th century has had to struggle against internalized prejudices and negative images of the self or of other members of the same group, which had to be overcome in order to embrace a different vision and believe it could be achieved."
 Un-retirement is a social movement that's breaking down stereotypes and economic barriers, with boomers in the vanguard. The underlying vision is worth fighting for.
 Paraphrased and sometimes copied from a piece by Chris Farrell is senior economics contributor for American Public Media's Marketplace. An award-winning journalist, he is author of the new book, Unretirement: How Baby Boomers Are Changing the Way We Think About Work, Community, and The Good Life.

John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-46867076029340976152016-01-26T09:29:00.000-08:002016-01-26T09:29:37.494-08:00THE KORANA while back, I had an argument on Facebook with a fella named Gary. He was dissing Muslims and their dangerous and radical book of fear called The Koran. Here was my reply. You don't have to agree. That's not necessary. The point I was making with Gary is that don't dis something you haven't read or seen or researched yourself. I was shooting for 'Critical Thinking'. I don't know if I achieved my aim. After this response, Gary did not reply.

Really Gary? Have you read it? I've skimmed it. I took a "Religions of the World" course in college and we studied the highlights in the Koran or Qu'ran and I found it to be another biblical tail of Islam and a darn good belief system. Basically it encourages belief in good deeds, prayer and good deeds and prayer only. Then it goes on to encourage 'mutual contracts on conducts and behaviors':

Here's the Cliff Notes:

4:86) When a (courteous) greetings is offered to you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy.
(24:61) Do it even if you enter your own houses.
(24:27) Or you enter other houses.
(25:63) Or even if an ignorant man addresses you.
(4:94) Say not to anyone who offers you a salutation, "You are not a believer".
(49:9) If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel, make peace between them; but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then you should fight against the party that transgresses until the other party complies with commands of Allah. But if the other party complies, make peace between them with justice, and be fair.
(49:10) All believers are brothers to each other.
(33:70) Always say what is directed to the Right (in a straightforward manner).
(22:30) Shun the word that is false.
(17:53) Say those things that are best.
(31:19) Speak fair to the people.
(31:19) Lower your voice and be moderate in your bearing.
(6:152) Whenever you give words, do justice even though it be against a kinsman.
(24:27) Enter not anyone's house without permission.
(2:42) Cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when you know what it is.
(31:18) Turn not thy cheek away from men in scorn, and walk not in the earth exultantly; Allah loves not any man proud and boastful.
(6:151) Come not near shameful deeds, whether open or secret.
(7:33) Avoid shameful deeds.
(23:3) Avoid vain talk and (28:55) Do not listen to vain talk.
(25:72) Witness no falsehood. If you have to pass by futility, pass by it with honorable avoidance.
(24:19) Do not spread scandal.
(17:37) Walk not on earth with insolence, for you cannot rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height. (25:63) Walk on earth in humility.
Back-biting, false accusation, jealousy, etc.
(4:148) Evil must not be noised abroad in public speech except where injustice has been done.
(49:11) Let not a folk deride a folk who may be better than they are. (9:79) No slandering and ridiculing.
(49:12) Avoid suspicion as far as possible and spy not on each other, nor speak ill of each other behind their backs.
(49:11) Do not defame or be sarcastic to each other. Call not each other by offensive nicknames.
(24:4,23) Slander not chaste women.
(4:54) Envy not mankind for what Allah has given them of His bounty.
(24:12,15,16) Think of everybody as innocent till guilt is proved against him.
(49:6) If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth.
(4:112) If anyone earns a sin or a fault and throws it on to one who is innocent, he carries on himself both falsehood and a flagrant sin.
Health, cleanliness, eating and drinking
(2:247) Wisdom and health are better than abundant riches.
(16:69 & 26:80) If you fall ill, seek cure in Allah's laws
(9:108) Purity in body, mind and heart. (4:43 & 5:6) Cleanliness.
(2:173; 5:3; 6:145; 16:115) Certain things such as pork and dead meat prohibited.
(5:90, 91) Strong drinks and wine prohibited.
(2:168) Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good. (7:31) Eat and drink but waste not by excess.
Husband-wife, children, parents, relatives, friends and neighbors
(30:31) "He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts)".
(25:74) "Wives and offspring be the comfort of our eyes". (2:187) Husband and wife should be like garments of each other.
(6:151) Be good to your parents.
(2:83) Treat with kindness your parents and kindred. (17: 23, 24) Do not rebuke your parents in their old age.
(17:26) Give the kinsman his due, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and squander not (thy wealth) in wantonness.
(4:36) Do good to neighbors whether relatives or not.
(4:36) Do good to the companions by your side.
Orphan and needy
(93:9) Treat not the orphan with harshness.
(6:152) Come not nigh to the property of the orphan except to improve it until he attains the age of full strength.
(2:83) Treat with kindness those in need.
(2:273) (Charity) is for those in need, who in Allah's cause, are restricted and cannot move about in the land, seeking. The ignorant men think because of their modesty, that they are free from want. You shall know them by their mark: they do not beg of men with importunity.
(2:263-264) Kind words and the covering of faults are better than charity followed by injury. Cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury.

Loans
(2:275) Usury is forbidden.
(2:282) Put in writing transactions involving future obligations.
(2:280) If a debtor is in difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is the best for you.
(5:1; 62:5) Keep your promises and fulfill obligations.

Miscellaneous

(6:141; 17:26,27,29 & 25:67) Tie not your hand (like a niggard's) to your neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach.
(42:38) Dispose of your affairs by mutual consultation.
(5:2) Help one another in acts of righteousness and piety, but not in sin and rancor.
(6:70) Leave alone those who take their Deen to be mere play and amusement and are deceived by the life of this world.
(4:140) When you hear the Signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, you are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme.
(2:136,285; 3:84; 4:150,152) Make no distinctions between the prophets.
(18:29 & 2:256) No compulsion in your Deen (code of life).
(16:125) Invite all to the way of your Sustainer with wisdom and beautiful preaching: and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.
(2:44) Do not enjoin right conduct on the people and forget to practice it yourself.
(3:167) Never be hypocritical, saying with lips what is not in the heart.
(5:100) Not equal are things that are bad and things that are good, even though the abundance of the bad may dazzle you.
(31:20, 45:12,13) Conquests of the universe for the welfare of mankind.
6.2 Human rights2
(33:35) Equality of sexes. (Also many other verses where men and women are both mentioned)
(46: 13, 19) Honor and respect is due only to that individual whose "deeds" qualify him for the distinction.
(3:79) No one can enslave another human being in any form of slavery.
(39:70) No one's fruits of labor will be denied or usurped or misappropriated. To every soul will be paid, in full, the earning of his "deeds"
(16:90) Justice must be done to everyone. (4:58, 5:8) Judge between mankind justly.
(6:152) And if ye give your word, do justice thereunto, even though it be (against) a kinsman.
(6:152) Each individual (rather every living being) has a right to claim essential necessities of life from the social order. (16:90) Equity is not enough. It must be supplemented by charitable kindness also.
(7:85; 17:35 & 6:152) Give full measure and weight, in justice.
(2:286) The burden of one cannot be placed upon the shoulders of another. Also, no burden can be placed upon a soul greater than it can bear.
(6:152 & 17:31) Each individual (rather, every living being) has a right to claim essential necessities of life from the social order.
(2:188; 5:32; 6:152) Protection of life and property. (2:85) No one can be banished from his home.
(24:2,4 & 33:59) Protection of chastity.
(7:32) Appreciation of beauty. Aesthetic taste.
(2: 256; 9:6; 10:99; 16:106, 125 & 18:29) Religious Freedom.
(4:148) The right of complaint for the oppressed to seek redress of his grievances.
(4:148) Protection against malevolent scandal and libel.
(24:12) The accused to be considered innocent unless proved guilty.
(6:165) Personal responsibility. (17:34) Fulfillment of all promises, engagement and obligations.
(2: 205) Protection of crops and progeny.
(2:217, 3:99) No one can be obstructed from the path of Allah.
(17:20) Allah's free bounties must not be withheld or closed to anyone.
(30:22) Differences in colors and languages are signs of Allah. They must not be exploited for the disunity of mankind.
John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-79390849578893962972016-01-26T09:21:00.001-08:002016-01-26T09:24:00.794-08:00DISCRIMINATION VIEWS FROM INSIDE THE U.S.
HOW WE AMERICANS

VIEW DISCRIMINATION

Brookings Institute wondered too...

First of all, who is this Brookings Institute and why should anyone pay attention to what they have to say?

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars.

The key definitions are: 1. Non-profit and 2. independent research. Brookings has no ties to any political party or institution. Their work is fact finding and exploration of social issues.

If you are not a professional graph reader, let me try to show you the breakdown of the

different social entity's views regarding discrimination.

But perceptions of discrimination vary strikingly by party identification. Democrats (80 percent), for example, are significantly more likely than Republicans (46 percent) and Tea Party members (44 percent) to say blacks face a lot of discrimination in the United States today. Democrats (68 percent) are also much more likely than Republicans (42 percent) and Tea Party members (41 percent) to say Hispanics currently face a great deal of discrimination. But when it comes to discrimination against whites, the pattern is completely reversed—Republicans (36 percent) and Tea Party members (45 percent) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (16 percent) to say there is a lot of discrimination against whites in the America today.
Attitudes on the amount of discrimination faced by another prominent minority group in America—gay and lesbian people—are also, unsurprisingly, divided along party lines. More than eight in ten (82 percent) Democrats believe that there is a great deal of discrimination against gay and lesbian people in America today. Only about half of Republicans (55 percent) and Tea Party members (49 percent) say the same.

All Americans: 12% believe there is no discrimination. 20% believe there's some. 26% believe a few groups face discrimination. 41% believe most groups face discrimination.

Democrats: 5% no discrimination. 12% some. 26% a few. 55% most.

Independent: 14% no. 24% some. 25% a few. 37% most.

Republican: 20% no. 27% some. 28% a few. 25% most.

Tea Party: 21% no. 29% some. 24% a few. 25% most.

The partisan contrast on this scale is significant: only five percent of Democrats believe that none of these groups face a lot of discrimination in the United States today. In contrast, Republicans (20 percent) and Tea Party members (21 percent) are four times as likely to express the same view. At the other end of the scale, a majority (55 percent) of Democrats perceive that most of these groups face a considerable amount of discrimination. In contrast, only one-quarter of Republicans (25 percent) and Tea Party members (25 percent) agree that this many underrepresented groups are facing a lot of discrimination.

In the final equation, Democrats see much more discrimination than do Republicans or Tea Party folks.
John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-87652491395896146792016-01-26T09:19:00.003-08:002016-01-26T09:19:33.702-08:00Charts & Stuff: understandable statistics

For those of us who hated statistics in high school. Remember that icky stuff in those geometry and algebra books and especially in that dreaded American History book? Remember how we used to skip over the little statistics on the footnotes of A.H. Book? How boring they were. Well here are some more of those boring graphs that you and I skipped over, but this time they are used to point out some cogent facts regarding today's history lessons.

President Barack Hussein Obama [yes I used his middle name to satisfy any latent Birthers out there] has gotten a bad rap. Facts don't prove out what the Right has been saying about the present president.

Spending has been way lower under Obama than it was under Bush and the Budget Deficit has actually decreased under Obama when shown next to Bush.

The Stimulus actually worked, however, it was just not enough.

Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme," and is going broke is also blatantly false no matter what the Right has been saying. S.S. is NOT going broke. In fact experts believe even if nothing was done to tweak the system, S.S. would still be up and running 30 years from now paying out exactly what it's paying out now. And, no Ponzi Scheme would still be in existence after 80 years. Ponzi schemes collapse usually within 1-5 years. [Longest ever: Deepal Wannakuwatte's scheme lasted for a decade.]

TAX CUTS GROW THE ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Actually, the opposite is true. Tax cuts stifle the economy and government spending helps to grow the economy. It's relatively easy to prove that point. If you cut taxes, certain government entities have to cut spending and that means laying off personnel which sends them to the unemployment line, etc., etc., you get the point. Government spending on the other hand, means more jobs and more spending and an enhanced economy. You can never stimulate an economy by cutting taxes.

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-10039356784872604022016-01-26T09:17:00.001-08:002016-01-26T09:17:08.458-08:00WHAT DO 'THEY' THINK OF U.S.?
TRUMPS POPULARITY?

What do 'they' think of America?

Donald Trump's bewildering popularity in the presidential race has been exceedingly hard to bear for many Americans, particularly those who belong to one or more of the communities that he openly disparages, like African-Americans and Muslim Americans.
Yet if even some citizens wrestle to make sense of Trump's rise to power, how do non-Americans view the strange state of politics in the world's most powerful nation?
 While on a recent visit to Dubai, United Arab Emirates—where I was born and raised and where my parents still live—Trump's name cropped up as a topic of conversation within the first few minutes of nearly every interaction I had, so I decided to gather a group of my friends together to answer that question.
 Dubai is home to myriad immigrant communities, and while the city of more than 2.4 million struggles with its own unique social problems, the United States remains hugely influential there when it comes to both pop culture and politics.
 Carlo, an Italian friend, told me that he finds Trump's popularity troubling. "It doesn't look good," he said, shaking his head as he uttered the vague words, perhaps worried that he might insult the American in me if he said more.
 To my Dubai friends, the Trump phenomenon is tremendously fascinating, but they are not surprised by his meteoric ascension to the status of a viable presidential candidate. After all, the White House was occupied in recent memory by another bumbling, bigoted fool who loved to pander to religious extremists and wax bombastic. His name was George W. Bush, and he gave us the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and birthed the Department of Homeland Security while also becoming an unending source of macabre hilarity. Trump promises all of the above and much more.
 Bush was sandwiched between two presidents of a far more civilized ilk—Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But even under both of them, state violence—both domestic and international—have continued to thrive. Big banks have benefited at the expense of ordinary Americans; immigrants have faced a massive deportation campaign; African-Americans have seen lip service but no justice; and so on. The list is long.
 However, Carlo said he liked Obama immensely. The United States' first African-American president, he said, is relatable and even amid incessant attacks from right-wing opponents appears to rise above their petty politics.
 I was surprised to learn that my international friends watch Fox News and that they clearly understand its ability to foment ignorance and hatred among Americans. But they also watch a wide variety of other media, including the BBC, Sky News, Al-Jazeera and RT, and they are well aware of how widespread racist discourse and violence remain.
 Fatima, an Indian Muslim friend, said she wants to visit the U.S. but that her husband, Tarek, a Syrian, refuses. Why? "Islamophobia,"Tarek said simply. The single word said it all.
 Middle-class liberal-minded immigrants in the UAE like my friends are not the only non-Americans who are disgusted by Trump. The Emirati billionaire Khalaf Al Habtoor, who had initially supported the American businessman, now says he regrets having done so. Al Habtoor has accused Trump of "creating a hatred between Muslims and the United States of America."
 In addition, billboards featuring Trump's image advertising a golf-course development in Dubai were recently removed, leading some to conclude that "the Trump brand has become toxic."
 Preeti, also an Indian, confessed that she and Carlo, her husband, had planned a family vacation in the United States. The couple, who have two lovely olive-skinned sons, canceled their vacation because they were worried about racism. "I feared they would see her as 'black' and attack her," Carlo said, pointing to his wife.
 The couple and their sons speak English with accents and have skin tones of various shades, and they simply did not want to risk traveling to a nation that they now feel would not welcome them. Preeti even quoted another friend in Dubai who refers to the U.S. as "the devil's own country."
 Obviously racism in the United States is an age-old phenomenon, but because there is increased awareness via social media, non-Americans may be getting a more accurate picture of contemporary U.S. society. And they don't like what they see.
 The group I gathered saw police brutality in the U.S. as equally appalling. As The Guardian newspaper has pointed out, "US police kill more in days than other countries do in years."
 A 2015 list compiled by a private consulting firm ranked the U.S. 22nd among the world's most reputable countries. Canada occupied the top spot, and nations like Sweden, Australia, Finland and Thailand all ranked higher than the U.S., which came in just ahead of Poland and the Czech Republic.
 In addition to the rampant racism, the widespread gun violence that plagues nearly every corner of the nation confounds my non-American associates. "There's simply no gun control," Preeti remarked. "It makes no sense!"
 My friends spoke of the freedom with which Americans wield deadly weapons. They see it as bizarre and are unable to fathom how it can be acceptable in a modern society that is supposed to be civilized.
 The remarks reminded me of an interaction that I had recently with an old high school friend who now lives and works in Paris with her family. She described feeling so shaken by the Nov. 13, 2015, attacks in her city—which claimed 130 lives—that she remained unable to visit her usual haunts. I responded by saying that living in the U.S. has inured me to random violence, that gun violence is so rampant across the nation that we now have to simply accept that there is a nonnegotiable risk of being shot every time we step outside our homes.
 Fatima's oldest daughter started university in the United Kingdom a few months ago. She told me that there was absolutely no way that she would have sent her daughter to the U.S. for higher education.
 Decades ago, several of us at the gathering—including me—first entered the U.S. on student visas, eager to earn a degree from an American educational institution. But today, Fatima said she would send her daughter "anywhere but the U.S."
 There was a time when the United States enjoyed a reputation (however undeserved) for being the keeper of the world's conscience, the standard-bearer of human rights and democracy. But now, it appears that that veneer is fading fast and that reality is seeping through to the outside world.

FROM CANADA

"You Americans have no Idea."

You Americans Have No Idea Just How Good You Have It With ObamaMany of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia.

It's like pouring salt into a wound. There is a bright side to Brunt's letter. We, at least, know other countries are paying attention to President Obama's accomplishments, even if the majority of Americans don't feel they're worth defending at the polls. It's a shame. The Conservative bullhorn was so loud, it drove out the desire for many people to vote. And Democrats didn't help. While pointing our fingers at the GOP (predominately our middle fingers) we forgot to blow our own horns. We forgot to build up our own President. We forgot to remind each other about what our own country looked like before Obama. I have to believe the public really didn't understand the GOP gerrymandering that took place the last four years. They didn't see the many important and beneficial bills shot down by Republicans, one after another, out of spite. People wanted to see results, and the results were there. But half of America was blinded by the half-truths FOX 'News' and Conservative talking heads fed them, because you know, if you tell just enough truth mixed in with a bucket of lies, it causes confusion. And that can lead to a bad case of the FuckIts. Netflix marathons are way more fun. Blunt's letter reminds me of one of my favorite Robin Williams quotes/memes:

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-1324651536602688692016-01-26T09:15:00.002-08:002016-01-26T09:15:16.179-08:00THE HEALTH CARE ARGUMENT
Here are the facts:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mainly aims to secure universal health insurance coverage – but lack of coverage is only a part of the issue. Spiraling costs are the bigger issue. Aside from creating an Independent Payment Advisory Board for Medicare (which is only empowered to make recommendations to Congress) and a

cms.gov

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation which has a mandate to conduct certain demonstrations for new payment and service delivery models (but would require Congress to act on the results), the act does very little to address the rising costs of doctors, nurses, and hospitals.

It adds additional layers to an already highly dysfunctional market. We already have insurance companies AND in most cases employers standing between the relationship patients and doctors. The rising cost of health care costs has increasingly forced insurance companies to become more like health subscription providers. I am a big fan of the exchange concept, but that's not the only thing that the law does; Obamacare sets coverage requirements on plans – which adds yet another layer to a business relationship that should ideally be direct pay as much as possible.

Throwing subsidies and payment middlemen into the mix is a really foolish way to address cost increases. Those things historically tend to lead to MORE cost increases – which is the opposite of what we want. We want greater insurance coverage and participation – but less need for people to actually have to use their insurance coverage to pay for services.

A lot of supporters like to point to the "success" of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care Reform. While it has been successful at expanding insurance coverage, what it has NOT done is reduce the cost of care. From NPR: Health Care In Massachusetts: 'Abject Failure' Or Work In Progress?; From ABC News: Evaluating Romney care In Massachusetts; From the Boston Globe: 'Romney Care' — a revolution that basically worked

Up until now, the basic reality of employer-sponsored healthcare in the U.S. has been driven by a massive carrot in the form of the employer healthcare tax deduction. Under the PPACA, employer-sponsored healthcare becomes mandatory at the Federal level (once you have more than 50 employees, and assuming that you don't qualify for any one of countless exceptions). Despite Municipalities and States already having their own local mandates, this is a pretty significant imposition on businesses at the highest level. On that note, the number of exceptions and waivers is aggravating since that alone indicates that the law is not equitably designed. (Everyone must do this! Except.... you...and you...and you and you and you...)

The Medicaid expansion is a significant expectation placed on States with tight budgets as it is. Medicare is entirely Federal; Medicaid is State-run with Federal support. States and their citizens tend not to like it when the Federal Government orders them to spend money.

That brings us to the question of the individual mandate. Those of us who live in population-dense urban environments are much more accustomed to having to deal with Government regulations and requirements in our daily lives; the underlying concept of the Individual mandate may not feel like a big deal. Government is frequently a good thing since it provides formal mechanisms for all of these people living on top of one another to not trample on one another. For those who live in more population-sparse rural settings, there is a lot less need for Government activity and intervention since there's simply less people – and more space for people to do their own thing. For them the individual mandate, requiring people to engage in a private commercial activity, is a pretty big change in the relationship between the individual and the government – and conservatives are wary of such changes. To be conservative on a given issue, you're generally invested in conserving the status quo. (Realistically, the individual mandate + penalty was a contrived series of rhetorical backflips in order to not have a "Federal Health Insurance Tax" and then allow people with insurance to waive the tax. The Democrats didn't want the word tax being hurled at them in the 2010 U.S. Elections. The gymnastics didn't help them much.)

I'd personally rather step forward into something new rather than stick with an approach to providing care that is definitely broken and has been for nearly fifty years – but I can understand why some would strenuously object to changing from something broken to something else that's still broken.

With regard to other ways forward.
I'll borrow from a comment on Health Care Policy: What does the private health insurance industry contribute to the health care of Americans? and add a few more. What I offer here is directional – not comprehensive.

Many more Retail Health Clinics/Convenient Care Clinics. Convenient care clinic,Will CVS, Walgreen's retail clinics replace physicians?, Popularity of 'Walk-In' Retail Health Clinics Growing: Poll, Analysis: Obama Care will bring flood of retail health clinics - The Hill's Healthwatch This also requires continued expansion of who can serve as primary care providers. We need to make sure that state-level licensure for Nurse practitioners and Physician assistants allows for them to do work that they are perfectly qualified to do. Pharmacies ought to be hiring Registered Nurses to take vitals, conduct a basic check-up, and draw blood for send out to labs Unfortunately, the AMVVA and other groups that advocate for doctors are rather protective of their turf and reserved authorities. Anyhow, let's get Walmart (company), Target, Costco, Walgreen's, CVS, Publix, Safeway, Albertsons, Kroger, Sears/Kmart, whomever wants to deal with Westfield, and so forth all competing in this area. People should be able to walk in, get a routine check-up, pay $25 - $75, and that's it. Not a $25 - $75 co-pay; $25 - $75 total. A lot of these chains are already providing vision exams, so it's not a huge stretch.

An end to our system of employer-sponsored insurance coverage. The "system" is an outgrowth of the wage controls that were imposed during World War II as corporations competed for labor, but weren't allowed to raise wages. Health insurance in the United States, Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance and Health Reform As a consequence, the individual market is inflated and non-functional. As I've said elsewhere, I have solid hopes for the health care exchanges on this. The chance to unwind employer sponsored care is probably the biggest reason that I ultimately support the PPACA. (That is correct; I support the Act not just for what it seeks to fix, but because of what it might break and provide a better path forward on.)

Public disclosure of negotiated rates between hospitals and insurers. There's now disclosure of the "charge-master" rates, which is a step, but it's not an accurate reflection of the market. Procedure pricing should be as transparent as publicly traded stock prices. See One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000. Also, here's a timely column from our very own Dan Munro: Healthcare Pricing Transparency Gains Momentum

Standardized & portable electronic medical records that can either be self-maintained or used with a secure (and certified as such) data management service. These could be modeled after stock brokerage houses, who maintain sensitive information – but can transfer that information between one another when a client wants to change. I could also potentially see private insurance companies offering this service.

Medicare reform. There are a lot of critiques out there, but ending the fee-for-service reimbursement model is the big one and everyone already knows it. However, there's a lot of entrenched resistance to actually doing anything about this. (See #1 on my first list.)

We need a mechanism to directly account for the requirements of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, rather than forcing hospitals who take Medicare patients to absorb and distribute those costs. There is a really whacked out economic incentive here that is leading some hospitals to close their Emergency Rooms as they try to trim costs. States who that are looking to trim budgets – most notably Texas (state) – are also limiting Medicaid reimbursements for "non-Emergency" Emergency Room visits. (Emergency Room Closures Hit Minorities, Poor Hardest; Factors Associated With Closures of Emergency Departments in the United States.) This is one where getting universal insurance coverage for actual emergency/catastrophic situations is important – but, to echo my point about retail health care & convenience care – we need way better, more actually affordable options for primary care.

Finally, there is a big hairy social/economic issue that we need to deal with: Death and Dying. We've gotten stunningly good as a society at prolonging people's lives over the past 50 years. As a social imperative, it is moral and correct to try to preserve and prolong life...right??? (Imperative enough that the PPACA bans lifetime caps on insurance payouts.) Unfortunately, the moral imperative is very very very expensive. The most expensive care that people typically receive is in the final three months of their lives. Perhaps only people who can afford it should have every possible measure taken to extend their life... which is unlikely to strike any sane person as remotely just or the kind of society we collectively want to be. Science and medicine have gotten ahead of our ability to tackle this question as a society; we need to collectively catch up and reset our expectations. Maybe it's something like requiring certified EMR providers (see #4 in this list) to collect Advance Health Care Directives??? That at least gets people to have the conversation. This is tough Gordian Knot, and I'm currently short on brilliant ideas on how we go about slicing it. (I will note that when Republican politicians and pundits worked people into a foolish frenzy over "Death panels," it was a sad setback for this public conversation.) Humanity has had a philosophically tough relationship with mortality since the beginning; now we're at a point where it's economically tough.

Bottom line: universal insurance coverage is a noble goal, but we ought to focus a lot more on the core care costs so that insurance pools can be called on less frequently to pay out for things. In principle and design, people should be buying insurance to mainly deal with serious risks – not to handle everything that ought to be routine.

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-91158359737565282862016-01-26T09:13:00.002-08:002016-01-26T09:13:50.720-08:00OBAMA LIES vs TRUMP LIES
Okay, okay, I finally get it, i.e., THE Donald. I get why he's leading in the polls. I get why he's saying outrageous things and getting away with saying them. And finally, I get why some people like him.

First off, he says things others wish they could say and he gets away with it. He says things racists and bigots like to hear and homophobes simply climax when he says horrible things about Mexicans and immigrants of all kinds and stripes. There are a noisy bunch of folks out there who are terrified of anyone who is not a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Anyone who is Muslim is a terrorist, including the President of the United States [who, by the way, should be impeached].

Donald Trump finally has found that special segment of our society who have quietly been fuming about Political Correctness for decades. If Donald says something ugly and demeaning, they raise a glass and salute him in the local peanut-shell-strewn beer pub. Crazed pulpit pounders who have been preaching doom and destruction for years can point to Donald and say, "See, here's a man who knows the truth and ain't afraid to stand up and say so. And if he tells a few tall tales, so what?"

It doesn't matter if, in fact, The Donald is telling the truth. ".... "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey were "cheering," Said Donald, at the time of the 9/11 disaster. [Blatantly false] Trump boasted that he "predicted Osama bin Laden." [Nope] Trump "heard" that Obama is "thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away." [Huh Uh] Trump said he "heard" the Obama administration plans to accept 200,000 Syrian refugees — even upping that wildly inaccurate number to 250,000 in another speech. [Absolutely wrong both times] Trump said he got to know Putin "very well" while the two were on CBS' "60 Minutes." [Interviews thousands of miles apart] Trump told the story of a 2-year old who got autism a week after the child got a vaccine. [Dangerously wrong] Trump said Mexico doesn't have a birthright citizenship policy. [Oh, yes it does] Trump claimed credit for getting Ford Motor Co. to move a plant from Mexico to Ohio. [Ford says The D. doesn't know what he's talking about] Trump denied that he ever called female adversaries some of these things: "fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals." [Yep, he said 'em all] Trump said in June "there are no jobs" to be had, when official statistics were showing 5.4 million job openings — the most in 15 years. [Oops] Trump claimed economic growth in the U.S. has "never" been below zero — until the third quarter of 2015. "Who ever heard of this?" he asked. [Except it's not unheard of. Economic growth has been below zero 42 times since 1946.]

But...still...I get it. There's a segment of society who thinks Barack Obama lies all the time too. And, ol' Barack has told a few in his day. If you would like to check it out, go to http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.aspand you'll find 50 lies he's told over his 8 years in office.

1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - L IAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. According to the New York Times: "I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith," Ms. Obama, 85, said in a recent interview in Kenya.' Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and not in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even spea k the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies. You seek to disarm America while our avowed enemy, Iran, will not subject itself to a nuclear ban. Top Hamas politica l adviser Ahmed Yousef said the Hamas terrorist group 'supports Obama's foreign policy vision'.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn't write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote

 <colgroup><col width="6"></col> </colgroup>

A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel. You state you will open friendly communication with the Leader of Iran who is attempting to develop nuclear weapons to destroy us, but refuse to speak to FOX news. You are against provisions of the Patriot act which would all wiretapping of the phones of suspected terrorists in the USA.
30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.
31.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.
32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn't.
33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.
34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.
35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.
38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
39.) I Don't Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.
40.) I don't Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.
43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people's words.
44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.
46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.
48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won't wear a flag pin and you don't put your hand over your heart during the Anthem. There is a Cuban Flag with Che Guevara Displayed at Barack Obama Campaign Office which you allow to be displayed. You voted against making english the official language of the United States. You voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits, which would bankrupt the social security system for Americans legally paying into it.
49.) My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife's words follow lock-step in the vain of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.
50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn't Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart. John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-58162590432004757022016-01-26T09:11:00.002-08:002016-01-26T09:11:59.680-08:00GUN MYTHS
GUN VIOLENCE DEBUNKED:

MYTHS:

They're coming for your guns. Fact-check: With as many as 310 million privately owned guns in America, it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 70 to 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with access to more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates—as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.
• A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
• Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.

An armed society is a polite society. Fact-check: Various studies suggest that being armed increases your chances of getting into a confrontation.
• Nine percent of Americans report signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)—and say they own a gun.

• Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.

More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys. Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting in a hospital emergency department involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer. Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Guns make women safer. Fact-check: In 2013, more than 5 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

"Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns. Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after the Newtown massacre. So what's up with Japan? They spend more on violent video games than American kids do and the figures tell the story: America = 11,000 homicides last year related to guns; Japan = 6.

More and more Americans are becoming gun owners. Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About half of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 37 percent say they do. Overall, about a third of Americans own a gun.
• Around 75 percent of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have. Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby have made it easier for people to get guns illegally. And existing gun laws aren't preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands: More than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally.
• As much as 40 percent of all gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. In a survey, 40 percent of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes said they'd gotten them this way. More than 80 percent of gun owners support closing this loophole.
• An investigation found that 62 percent of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• When researchers posed as illegal "straw" buyers, 20 percent of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to them.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for seven years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

So there you have it. Myths debunked by facts again.
John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-60357470923426750262016-01-26T09:08:00.002-08:002016-01-26T09:08:52.105-08:00HAPPY PEOPLELET'S TALK ABOUT 'HAPPY' PEOPLE:

11 Habits of Happy People

They Smile. Happy people smile, even when they don't have much to smile about. It's part of a state of mind, but more so, habitual behavior. The important part about smiling is that the change in physiology actually triggers a change in psychology.

They build and nurture relationships. Happy people believe in relationships, and not just the kind that are one-sided and only benefit them. They believe in mutually-beneficial relationships, and work hard to ensure that they build and nurture not only existing relationships, but also new ones as well.

The create value. Happy people are focused on the long term. They work to create value in whatever it is that they're doing in life. Instead of cutting corners, they go above and beyond the call of duty, so to speak. They always strive to provide more value in their work than what others have paid for it.

They eat healthy. We've all heard the saying, "You are what you eat." No words could be truer. When we put things into our bodies that help make us feel sluggish and tired, there's absolutely no way we can approach the day with zeal and absolute energy.

They live in the moment. It's hard to be happy when you spend most of your day worrying about the past or living in fear of the future. Happy people live in the moment. They're present in the here and now. It doesn't mean that they've entirely forgotten about the past or don't care for the future, they just know that being present is far more important to their well-being.

They set goals. While happy people tend to live in the moment, they also set goals for the future. The goals give them an intended direction of travel. They're steeped in their hopes and aspirations of whatever they're trying to achieve in life. It pushes them forward and keeps them focused on whatever it is that they're trying to accomplish.

They're accountable. Happy people are accountable. They own up to their actions. For that reason, they work to do the right thing. They're not looking to get the upper-hand in a transaction or to sneak a win in some unscrupulous way; they're willing to put in the work and let people know if they screwed up or not and what the reason was behind it.

They Laugh. Laughter is food for the soul. While happy people might be accountable for their actions, they also don't take themselves too seriously all the time. They know that good things eventually happen, even if they're going through a difficult time in life.

They're adventurous. Happy people seek adventure. They know that life's best experiences happen when they take themselves out of their comfort zone. This isn't just about traveling, but also about meeting new people, experiencing life through the eyes of different cultures, and exploring and discovering new things.

They think positive. The mind gets whatever it is that it focuses on. It's very much like a camera's lens in that aspect. So, when we focus on problems, we tend to see more problems. They become bigger and brighter, and take more a forefront in our minds.

They embrace change. While some people shy away from change, unable or unwilling to alter something they've become accustomed to in life, happy people embrace it for all its worth. Not only are they okay with certainty, but they're also okay with uncertainty as well. And, a potential for major change in their lives won't scare them off.

John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-71204541696677248242015-04-25T06:38:00.000-07:002015-04-25T06:39:02.297-07:00WHAT DOES THE GOP NEED TO DO!A lot of this post is paraphrased from a blog post by Barry Hampe and those items have been italicized.

What's wrong with the Republican Party. Here's my opinion. In my father's day, the GOP was much more interested in politics and did not have so much religion calling the shots. This is a big deal. If the GOP wants to win elections, they need to take religion out of the party's platform. It, religion, alienates people...many people...and is a major cause for concern for them in regard to future elections. The religious right, for instance, is constantly shoving religion AND politics down our throats and it's not healthy since most folks believe there should be a clear separation between religions and the state.

The GOP needs to stop ranting and raving about religious issues: abortion, same sex marriage, posting of the Ten Commandments, etc. The party may be getting big money from these radicals, but they are losing votes by honoring them.

Stop the 'just say no-ers' from damming up the legislative process. It's childish and it turns voters off. Government works best if it is WORKING.

Compromise, for godsake. That's what politics is all about. That's why there are two parties in the first place; so both sides can be debated and a compromise can be reached. Pay the country's bills and never ever shut down the government.

Get behind the infrastructure issue. Make it your own. Everybody in the United States knows about this issue and everybody in the country knows it's a problem.

Understand that climate change is here! It is time for the GOP to get its head out of the sand and notice that the planet is warming. Too many scientists agree on this issue and the only holdouts don't warrant the GOP to make believe this issue is not happening.

Stop running your race against Democrats. It ain't working. Start looking at what Democrats are doing and saying that's good and agree but add your own stuff to it. By trying to defame Democrats just makes you look small and mean and nobody likes a bully. You people are supposed to be grownups instead of schoolyard bullies. It's okay to disagree but to denigrate is unwarranted and unnecessary and the people don't appreciate it. Oh, you may get some folks to go along but the majority, the people who actually vote, don't like it.

Finally, pick people to run who know what the hell they are talking about and get big money out of politics. Politics today is looked at through a public microscope. The people see all and hear all. Remember Mitt? Just one speech during one dinner sunk him and lost the election for the GOP. And don't get me started on Sarah Palin.John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-17557220659789888352015-02-09T15:10:00.000-08:002015-02-09T15:10:42.238-08:00I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND SO DOES PAUL.
Nobody Understands Debt

Paul Krugman

I know most folks won't get this reasoning because most folks really do not understand debt and how it actually helps the national budget. If everybody saved their money, there would be no debt...true, but there would be no economy either. Without spending there can be no buying and no buying equals a depression. Every time I hear the Right blow hard against the national debt and how we have to curb spending, I cringe. If you want to ruin an economy, stop spending...and that's a fact.

I can prove this in a simple example:

Paul and Enid usually spend $100 per week on groceries, but Paul was fired from his job and he's on unemployment so they only spend $70 on groceries. What does that do to the economy? Well, the grocery store is out $30 and they have to cut back on their spending, so they fire a cashier. The cashier now can't pay the baby sitter, so she has to stop going to the movies and they, the movie house, has to lay off one of their employees because of the lack of incoming cash.

Many economists, including Janet Yellen, view global economic troubles since 2008 largely as a story about "deleveraging" — a simultaneous attempt by debtors almost everywhere to reduce their liabilities. Why is deleveraging a problem? Because my spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if everyone slashes spending at the same time, incomes go down around the world.

Or as Ms. Yellen put it in 2009, "Precautions that may be smart for individuals and firms — and indeed essential to return the economy to a normal state — nevertheless magnify the distress of the economy as a whole."

So how much progress have we made in returning the economy to that "normal state"? None at all. You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.

First, the facts: Last week, the McKinsey Global Institute issued a report titled "Debt and (Not Much) Deleveraging," which found, basically, that no nation has reduced its ratio of total debt to G.D.P. Household debt is down in some countries, especially in the United States. But it's up in others, and even where there has been significant private deleveraging, government debt has risen by more than private debt has fallen.

You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren't trying hard enough — that families and governments haven't been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.

All this austerity has, however, only made things worse — and predictably so, because demands that everyone tighten their belts were based on a misunderstanding of the role debt plays in the economy.

You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like "Stop stealing from our kids." It sounds right, if you don't think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn't that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn't. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it's true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn't make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

Which brings us to current events, for there is a direct connection between the overall failure to deleverage and the emerging political crisis in Europe.

European leaders completely bought into the notion that the economic crisis was brought on by too much spending, by nations living beyond their means. The way forward, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany insisted, was a return to frugality. Europe, she declared, should emulate the famously thrifty Swabian housewife.

This was a prescription for slow-motion disaster. European debtors did, in fact, need to tighten their belts — but the austerity they were actually forced to impose was incredibly savage. Meanwhile, Germany and other core economies — which needed to spend more, to offset belt-tightening in the periphery — also tried to spend less. The result was to create an environment in which reducing debt ratios was impossible: Real growth slowed to a crawl, inflation fell to almost nothing and outright deflation has taken hold in the worst-hit nations.

Suffering voters put up with this policy disaster for a remarkably long time, believing in the promises of the elite that they would soon see their sacrifices rewarded. But as the pain went on and on, with no visible progress, radicalization was inevitable. Anyone surprised by the left's victory in Greece, or the surge of anti-establishment forces in Spain, hasn't been paying attention.

Nobody knows what happens next, although bookmakers are now giving better than even odds that Greece will exit the euro. Maybe the damage would stop there, but I don't believe it — a Greek exit is all too likely to threaten the whole currency project. And if the euro does fail, here's what should be written on its tombstone: "Died of a bad analogy."

John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-35142669260657988932015-02-01T10:29:00.000-08:002015-02-01T10:29:59.891-08:00OH THOSE BIT OL' LIARS
TRUTH TELLING

OR NOT

FROM PUNDIT FACT

Each of the news networks that we routinely follow -- ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC/MSNBC and CNN -- now has a scorecard that breaks down that network's performance on the Truth-O-Meter. The scorecard tallies each statement we fact-check on that network and groups the rulings by percentage.

Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network's pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent.

At CNN, it's 18 percent.

The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we're going to check, so we certainly don't fact-check everything. And we don't fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn't have a cable network equivalent, so we haven't fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much.

The ABC scorecard, meanwhile, includes fact-checks that were part of a 2010 partnership between PolitiFact and ABC's Sunday news show This Week.

Our scorecards only include statements made on that network by a pundit or a host or paid staffer. That means they do not include statements made by elected leaders, candidates or party officials. We feel it's difficult to hold a network accountable for the comments of a politician.

Also, if a Fox News host appears on NBC and makes a claim that we fact-check, that rating would appear on the NBC page. In this case, it's about the network that aired the content, not the person who said it.

NOW FOR A FEW PERSONALITIES:

RACHAEL MADDOW:

True3 (13%)(3), Mostly True6 (25%)(6), Half True3 (13%)(3), Mostly False6 (25%)(6), False5 (21%)(5), Pants on Fire1 (4%)(1)

RUSH LIMBAUGH:

True0(0), Mostly True2 (7%)(2), Half True3 (11%)(3), Mostly False7 (25%)(7), False9 (32%)(9), Pants on Fire7 (25%)(7)

GLENN BECK:

True2 (7%)(2), Mostly True2 (7%)(2), Half True7 (26%)(7), Mostly False4 (15%)(4), False6 (22%)(6), Pants on Fire6 (22%)(6)

SEAN HANNITY:

True3 (25%)(3) Mostly True2 (17%)(2) Half True3 (25%)(3) Mostly False1 (8%)(1) False3 (25%)(3) Pants on Fire0(0)

BILL O'REILLY:

True2 (12%)(2) Mostly True4 (24%)(4) Half True2 (12%)(2) Mostly False3 (18%)(3) False5 (29%)(5) Pants on Fire1 (6%)(1)

TUCKER CARLSON:

True0(0) Mostly True0(0) Half True1 (50%)(1) Mostly False0(0) False0(0) Pants on Fire1 (50%)(1)

ANN COULTER:

True1 (10%)(1) Mostly True0(0) Half True3 (30%)(3) Mostly False2 (20%)(2) False2(20%)(2) Pants on Fire2 (20%)(2)

LOU DOBBS:

True0(0) Mostly True1 (25%)(1) Half True0(0) Mostly False1 (25%)(1) False2 (50%)2) Pants on Fire0(0)

CHRIS HAYES:

True0(0) Mostly True0(0) Half True1 (100%)(1) Mostly False0(0) False0(0) Pants on Fire0(0)

MIKE HUCKABEE:

True7 (23%)(7) Mostly True2 (6%)(2) Half True7 (23%)(7) Mostly False7 (23%)(7) False4 (13%)(4) Pants on Fire4 (13%)(4)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

True1 (33%)(1) Mostly True0(0) Half True1 (33%)(1) Mostly False1 (33%)(1) False0(0) Pants on Fire0(0)

PAUL KRUGMAN

True7 (44%)(7) Mostly True4 (25%)(4) Half True3 (19%)(3) Mostly False0(0) False2(13%)(2) Pants on Fire0(0)

CHRIS MATTHEWS

True1 (14%)(1) Mostly True1 (14%)(1) Half True2 (29%)(2) Mostly False1 (14%)(1) False2 (29%)(2) Pants on Fire0(0)

ANDREA MITCHELL

True0(0) Mostly True1 (50%)(1) Half True1 (50%)(1) Mostly False0(0) False0(0) Pants on Fire0(0)

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL

True1 (14%)(1) Mostly True3 (43%)(3) Half True0(0) Mostly False2 (29%)(2) False1(14%)(1) Pants on Fire0(0)

SARAH PALIN

True14 (23%)(14) Mostly True6 (10%)(6) Half True8 (13%)(8) Mostly False9 (15%)9) False18 (30%)(18) Pants on Fire6 (10%)(6)

ED SCHULTZ

True0(0) Mostly True1 (10%)(1) Half True3 (30%)(3) Mostly False3 (30%)(3) False1(10%)(1) Pants on Fire2 (20%)(2)

AL SHARPTON

True0(0) Mostly True1 (25%)(1) Half True1 (25%)(1) Mostly False1 (25%)(1) False1(25%)(1) Pants on Fire0(0)

JON STEWART

True2 (33%)(2) Mostly True1 (17%)(1) Half True0(0) Mostly False0(0) False2 (33%)2) Pants on Fire1 (17%)(1)

JOHN STOSSEL

True0(0) Mostly True0(0) Half True0(0) Mostly False0(0) False1 (100%)(1) Pants Fire0(0)

CHUCK TODD

True3 (75%)(3) Mostly True0(0) Half True1 (25%)(1) Mostly False0(0) False0(0) Pants on Fire0(0)

DONALD TRUMP

True0(0) Mostly True2 (15%)(2) Half True2 (15%)(2) Mostly False0(0) False5 (38%)5) Pants on Fire4 (31%)

Greta Van Susteren

True0(0) Mostly True1 (50%)(1) Half True0(0) Mostly False0(0) False1 (50%)(1) Pants on Fire0(0)

CHRIS WALLACE

.True0(0) Mostly True0(0) Half True2 (100%)(2) Mostly False0(0) False0(0) Pants Fire0(0)

FOX NEWS AND OTHER CABLE NEWS OUTLETS

Fox News is between mostly false to pants on fire 75% of the time. Making this news outlet the worst outlet of all the major networks for spewing out misstatements and just plain lies.

Next is MSNBC with 45%

CNN is the best with 18%

Which makes a person wanna go hmmmm?!?

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-90799012080805660032014-12-13T09:19:00.001-08:002014-12-13T09:19:58.477-08:00A FUNNY FOR YOU
FOLLOWED BY

AND THEN...
 John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-61953822177423459302014-11-18T09:08:00.003-08:002014-11-18T09:08:47.253-08:00FROM THE BILLIONAIRE PROSPECTIVEJohn Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-57125920176715739772014-11-15T09:28:00.002-08:002014-11-15T09:28:24.917-08:00We, the people, have spoken
John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-73973261002629574552014-11-11T08:21:00.001-08:002014-11-11T08:21:10.577-08:00MID TERM ELECTIONS

Ain't it the truth...John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-30479013861257026842014-10-23T10:12:00.001-07:002014-10-23T10:12:34.374-07:00FAUX NEWS AGAIN
HERE I GO OFF ON FAUX NEWS AGAIN: Chris Mooney's book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.
The author explores the findings of seven surveys. These are public opinion surveys that ask citizens about their beliefs on factual but contested issues, and also about their media habits. Inevitably, some significant percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the facts, and in a politicized way—but not only that. The surveys also find that those who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.
 The issues were the Iraq War, Global Warming, Health Care, Ground Zero Mosque, 2010 Elections. The author goes on to explore the evidence that supports his key tenet: Fox viewers are misinformed. Of note, this means, in his study, that Fox viewers are both misinformed in term of what they know, and that they have been misinformed by Fox as a source of what they know.
 Looking at a variety of studies, the author comes to the conclusion that
Fox is imparting misinformation even as politically conservative viewers are also seeking the station out—highly open to it and already convinced about many falsehoods that dovetail with their beliefs, certainty is driven by a kind of feedback loop. Those seeking to have their beliefs reinforced only look to those who will reinforce it. This is referred to as selective exposure and it is the clearest way to look at how people create their own realities, based upon their views of the world.

In summary, then, the "science" of Fox News clearly shows that its viewers are more misinformed than the viewers of other stations, and are indeed this way for ideological reasons. But these are not necessarily the reasons that liberals may assume. Instead, the Fox "effect" probably occurs both because the station churns out falsehoods that conservatives readily accept—falsehoods that may even seem convincing to some liberals on occasion—but also because conservatives are overwhelmingly inclined to choose to watch Fox to begin with.
 At the same time, it's important to note that they're also disinclined to watch anything else. Fox keeps constantly in their minds the idea that the rest of the media are "biased" against them, and conservatives duly respond by saying other media aren't worth watching—it's just a pack of lies. According to Public Policy Polling's annual TV News Trust Poll (the 2011 run), 72 percent of conservatives say they trust Fox News, but they also say they strongly distrust NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN. Liberals and moderates, in contrast, trust all of these outlets more than they distrust them (though they distrust Fox). This, too, suggests conservative selective exposure.
 And there is an even more telling study of "Fox-only" behavior among conservatives, from Stanford's Shanto Iyengar and Kyu Hahn of Yonsei University, in Seoul, South Korea. They conducted a classic left-right selective exposure study, giving members of different ideological groups the chance to choose stories from a news stream that provided them with a headline and a news source logo—Fox, CNN, NPR, and the BBC—but nothing else. The experiment was manipulated so that the same headline and story was randomly attributed to different news sources. The result was that Democrats and liberals were definitely less inclined to choose Fox than other sources, but spread their interest across the other outlets
 when it came to news. But Republicans and conservatives overwhelmingly chose Fox for hard news and even for soft news, and ignored other sources. "The probability that a Republican would select a CNN or NPR report was around 10%," wrote the authors.
 In other words Fox News is both deceiver and enabler simultaneously. First, its existence creates the opportunity for conservatives to exercise their biases, by selecting into the Fox information stream, and also by imbibing Fox-style arguments and claims that can then fuel biased reasoning about politics, science, and whatever else comes up.
 But at the same time, it's also likely that conservatives, tending to be more closed-minded and more authoritarian, have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape from the belief challenges constantly presented by the "liberal media." Their psychological need for something affirmative is probably stronger than what's encountered on the opposite side of the aisle—as is their revulsion towards allegedly liberal (but really centrist) media outlets.
 And thus we find, at the root of our political dysfunction, a classic nurture-nature melange. The penchant for selective exposure is rooted in our psychology and our brains. Closed-mindedness and authoritarianism—running stronger in some of us than in others—likely are as well.
 But nevertheless, it took the emergence of a station like Fox News before these tendencies could be fully activated—polarizing America not only over politics, but over reality itself.

I have often said Fox News should be labeled Faux [false] News. Because that's what it is, a fake news outlet. They actually create the news rather than report it. They rely on the basest of human emotions [fear,hate, anger] to fuel their audience numbers; and it works. People flock to Faux News to be titillated and bullied at the same time. Why? I have no idea. I turn it on and watch about ½ hour of their nonsense and have to turn it off and head for a a quick cold shower. There is something smarmy in their approach to the news that is unhealthy. As a retired therapist, I understand the draw that Faux News has. People like to be shocked and titillated and angered and be scared. It's the same reason people go to horror films. The problem lies in when the individual takes what's going on in the horror film as factual; the monsters are eating people in New York and they live in the sewers and can transport themselves anywhere they want simply by snapping their fingers...or flippers, or whatever.

Read the children's story clear to the end...jb

Faux News was in the woods.

A seed fell on his tail.

Faux News said,

"The sky is falling.

I will run."

Faux News met Henny Penny.

He said,

"The sky is falling, Henny Penny."

Henny Penny said,

"How do you know, Faux News?"

Faux News said,

"Some of it fell on my tail."

"We will run," said Henny Penny.

"We will run and tell the king."

They met Turkey Lurkey.

Henny Penny said,

"The sky is falling, Turkey Lurkey."

"How do you know, Henny Penny?"

"Faux News told me."

"How do you know, Faux News?"

"I saw it with my eyes.

I heard it with my ears.

Some of it fell on my tail."

Turkey Lurkey said,

"We will run.

We will run and tell the king."

They met Ducky Lucky.

Turkey Lurkey said,

"The sky is falling, Ducky Lucky."

"How do you know, Turkey Lurkey?"

"Henny Penny told me."

"How do you know, Henny Penny?"

"Faux News told me."

"How do you know, Faux News?"

"I saw it with my eyes.

I heard it with my ears.

Some of it fell on my tail."

Ducky Lucky said,

"We will run.

We will run and tell the king."

They met Goosey Loosey.

Ducky Lucky said,

"The sky is falling, Goosey Loosey."

"How do you know, Ducky Lucky?"

"Turkey Lurkey told me."

"How do you know, Turkey Lurkey?"

"Henny Penny told me."

"How do you know, Henny Penny?"

"Faux News told me."

"How do you know, Faux News?"

"I saw it with my eyes.

I heard it with my ears.

Some of it fell on my tail."

Goosey Loosey said,

"We will run.

We will run and tell the king."

They met Foxy Loxy.

Goosey Loosey said,

"The sky is falling, Foxy Loxy.

"How do you know, Goosey Loosey?"

"Ducky Lucky told me."

"How do you know, Ducky Lucky?"

 "Turkey Lurkey told me."

"How do you know Turkey Lurkey?"

"Henny Penny told me."

"How do you know, Henny Penny?"

"Faux News told me."

"How do you know, Faux News?"

"I saw it with my eyes.

I heard it with my ears.

Some of it fell on my tail."

Foxy Loxy said,

"We will run.

We will run into my den,

and I will tell the king."

They ran into Foxy Loxy's den,

but they did not come out again.

[What this story teaches us about people who scare monger.]

The moral here is to approach the conclusions that you make logically, and not to panic. Have courage, even when the time is tough, you do not need to panic or worry. Believe in yourself, even when other people don't believe in you. you can do it! believe in yourself!

Well depending on the version of the story Chicken Little focuses on a little chicken who overreacts and causes a big commotion over nothing. The moral of the basic story is to not overreact and don't believe everything you're told. The story revolves around mass hysteria as the chicken little continuously says, "The sky is falling!".

The moral of the story of Chicken Little is to not jump to conclusions and spread them like they are facts until you have all the information.

The moral is to not panic. Chicken Little thought the sky was falling when an acorn fell on her head, and was terrified for no reason. If she'd been calmer and more rational she would not have been afraid.

The moral of chicken little is to always keep your head and don't panic and have courage. The world is full of people who become alarmed at every provocation but it doesn't mean anything bad will happen.

Finally, if you continue to believe falsehoods, it will, in the end, be your undoing.

And there you have it, the complete Faux News identity explained in a children's story.
 John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-21354381183327797652014-10-21T08:46:00.000-07:002014-10-21T08:46:38.952-07:00Not a Scientist, just a dummy.
How to get Republicans to stop using the "I'm not a scientist" dodge

By Ben Adler

 17 Oct 2014 1:35 PM 208 comments

0 shares

In 2012, when Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was asked by GQ how old the Earth is, he demurred, "I'm not a scientist, man." This was not a smooth move. It made him sound like a dumb frat boy. You don't need to be a scientist to know the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old, any more than you need to be a scientist to know the Earth is round or it revolves around the sun. All you need to know is what scientists have determined, which Rubio, who sits on the Commerce,

 Science and Transportation Committee, should know.

What Rubio feared, of course, was alienating the religious extremists in his party, who believe the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old because the Bible, if taken literally, says it is. As Juliet Lapidos of The New York Times observed, "Mr. Rubio surely knows that, according to Gallup, … 58 percent of Republicans believe in creationism … Mr. Rubio probably figured that these same Republicans have no truck with geologists … But if his response was more proof of cunning than idiocy, it was still ludicrous." Luckily for Rubio, GQ did not also ask whether he thinks the Earth is round.

But in May of this year, when Rubio was asked about climate change by ABC's Jonathan Karl, he expressed no such reluctance to weigh in on matters beyond his area of expertise. "I don't agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate," Rubio said. Why the difference? Rubio is positioning himself to appeal to the right-wing fanatics who determine Republican presidential primaries. On the Earth's age, he must merely avoid admitting the scientific consensus. But on climate change he must deny it, lest he incur the wrath of Rush Limbaugh.

Even though the "I'm not a scientist" dodge that Rubio pioneered went over poorly at the time, other Republicans have been recently imitating it when asked about climate change. The ones who have done so — Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (Wis.) — are currently running in general elections. The more moderate general electorate requires them to simultaneously feign deference to science for the benefit of independents, while not admitting climate change is happening, so as not to alienate their base.

Writing in The Atlantic, David Graham does a good job of explaining why it is ridiculous for politicians to take the "not a scientist" dodge. Graham observes: "McConnell isn't an economist, either, but he has strong views about the economy; nor is he a health-provider, but he has ideas about health-care provision."

So how can journalists avoid letting Republicans give this asinine answer? By asking the right questions. If you ask a non-scientist whether human activity is causing climate change, "I'm not a scientist" has a surface validity as a response. But climate change isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of scientific consensus, just like evolution or gravity. One should not ask whether politicians believe in climate science or evolutionary biology, just as one wouldn't ask whether a politician believes that gravity causes apples to fall from trees. Instead, the question should be whether they accept climate science. The phrasing could be, "97 percent of papers published by climate scientists in peer-reviewed academic journals have found that human activity is causing climate change. Do you accept those findings?"

One reason Rubio may have actually taken a position against climate science in his interview with Karl is that Karl asked the question as follows: "Miami, Tampa are two of the cities that are most threatened by climate change. So putting aside your disagreement with what to do about it, do you agree with the science on this?"

Sometimes the "I'm not a scientist" dodge can create what we might call "teachable moments." For example, a number of Florida scientists offered to educate Scott on climate change in response to his evasions. In August, Scott met with some of them, but he did not make any comments or ask any questions after their presentation. This has all been pretty politically embarrassing to him.

But, ultimately, the media should not treat climate science as an open question. Rather, journalists should send a clear message that they are people who deal in matters of fact, and they expect politicians to do the same. Climate science is well established; the question is whether leading Republicans accept it.
 ================================================================
This guy nails it for me. I've often gritted my teeth when someone says, "I'm not a scientist," then ups and tells you some idiotic third-hand crap that his party or neighbor has said is "true."

I'm not a scientist, is a cop-out. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that global warming is a fact -- a scientific fact. All you have to do is read a few journals or even read the damned newspaper to understand that we have polluted our planet to the point that it has tipped over in favor of global warming and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do to stop it. Even if we cleaned up the entire planet, at this point warming would in all likelihood continue. So when Rubio or one of the other Repugnicans say they aren't scientists so they don't anger the religious right, they are just using a cop-out response and they sound like idiots.

Someday, everyone will agree on this warming issue, not just the scientific community. Everyday man will see it in his backyard, in the streams and rivers and lakes. He will even see it in himself, how he dresses, how he fits into the NEW world atmosphere. We humans will adapt, but we first have to get our heads out of the sand and admit there is a problem before we can work on solving the problem. John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-2922692727003271942014-10-20T16:08:00.003-07:002014-10-20T16:08:27.733-07:00Rollin rollin rollin, keep that Ebola rollin along
Here I go once more into the breach. "Why do we let people into our country who are from countries with deadly diseases like Ebola?"

Sounds like a good question until you take a closer look at it. My answer would be, "how do you keep 'em out?" If you can answer that one, you should be president, vice president, secretary of state and head of both houses. For every argument you can give for keeping people out of the U.S., there are two more showing you how it's impossible to do it – or any other country for that matter [even so-called closed Communist Countries]. Besides, we are not what you would call excellent protectors of our borders...and there's a good reason we aren't, i.e., nearly 20 thousand miles of border to protect is a lot of miles.

People enter the U.S.A. every day with various illnesses, maybe not Ebola, but other deadly ones. The reason you don't hear about them is they are usually hospitalized quietly and cured, or they die. Or they sniffle, snuffle, cough and wheeze, then climb on a bus, train or plane and depart to some other country, state, county or town never to be heard of at all...PERIOD.

Ebola is a media disease. It's captured the hearts and minds of all the shock-jocks and conspiracy nuts who've got air-wave voices. What's better to stir up the masses than a good ol' plague with no cure? EBOLA. The killer of EVERYBODY. Hide. Dig a hole and climb in it. Run away. Get some of those surgery masks and walk around town showing people you ARE PREPARED.

Or. We could just treat whomever enters our country who shows signs of a disease and let it go at that and stop thinking that the sky is falling cause there are a couple of sick people in a population of 300 million citizens.
John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-79125007703900369842014-10-15T07:27:00.001-07:002014-10-15T07:27:55.742-07:00IDAHO WEIRDNESS
Idaho's race for governor just got really, really weird

by Jeff Singer Follow

Republican Gov. Butch Otter has never been particularly popular even in this dark red state, but it was still a surprise when the Republican Governor's Association[RGA] committed six figures to this race at the beginning of October. It was hard to believe that the RGA would spend so much so late in the cycle unless the group didn't think Otter was safe, and a new Public Policy Polling [PPP] survey confirms that this contest is a lot more interesting that previously thought.

PPP finds Otter leading wealthy conservative Democrat A.J. Balukoff only 39-36, with four independent candidates taking a combined 12 percent (this includes 3 percent for a perennial candidate who legally changed his name to "Pro-Life"). Otter appears to have worn out his welcome with his constituents, and he sports an underwater 36-49 job approval rating. By contrast Balukoff, who has been freely spending his own money, sports a 38-32 favorability rating.

There have been very few other polls out of Idaho, but there's another good reason to believe that PPP and the RGA are seeing similar numbers. The RGA just went on the air with another spot, this one tying Balukoff to Obama as closely as possible. Balukoff was a Romney supporter in 2012, but of course that's not stopping the RGA from linking him to the president, who PPP finds is very unpopular here.

Democrats haven't won a gubernatorial election in the Gem State since Cecil Andrus' landslide 1990 re-election victory, and Balukoff still has an uphill climb. Some late polls in 2006 found Democrat Jerry Brady looking very competitive against Otter, but the Republican still won 53-44. Otter may also have some room to grow here. When supporters of the third-party candidates are asked to pick between Otter and Balukoff, the governor's overall lead becomes 47-38. Independent candidates tend to lose support as the campaign concludes, and Otter stands to benefit. Still, it's clear that Otter does not have this race locked up yet. As a result, Daily Kos Elections is changing our race rating from Safe Republican to Likely Republican.

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-2654146989892974742014-10-15T07:04:00.000-07:002014-10-15T07:04:01.874-07:00OH THAT HORRID OBAMACAREOur friend Charles Gaba is keeping an eye on premium rates in Obamacare plans for 2015. He features this post from PricewaterhouseCoopers on the latest six states to report.

Among the six states and DC with final rate announcements, the average premium (across metal tiers and ages) is about $328, and the average premium increase from 2014 is 2.6 percent. By contrast, the average premium increase across all reporting states is 5.9 percent and the average premium is $382.
Note that's the pre-subsidy premium cost. There are a few outliers—Colorado being an example, with a crazy range from -22 percent to +35 percent—that have double-digit increases. But those are the minority. And, as Gaba notes, these rates are far from what was predicted throughout the year. They're also far from the double-digit increases that have been the norm for employer-based insurance for the past several years, at least.What this means is not only that Obamacare is a good deal for its customers, it's a good deal for taxpayers. Healthcare spending is slowing down, tremendously. Covering millions through Obamacare is costing far less than predicted. Medicare is saving so much money it's beating every deficit reduction plan that's been proposed in the last several years. Repeal all that, Republicans. John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-65806192746058929762014-10-14T08:28:00.000-07:002014-10-14T08:28:18.547-07:00OBAMA SUCCESSFUL
OBAMA COULD BE ONE OF THE MOST

SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME

In the beginning, there was skepticism. That's right, I was pretty skeptical when it came to Barack Obama. I thought he was naive. I thought he was out of step with what needed to be done in America to bring it back to its previous glory. Finally, I thought he would never be successful because he was African-American. So, In 2008 I voted for Hilary to become the Democratic candidate for president.

I was wrong.

[From Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winning Princeton Economist] :

Obama was indeed naive: He faced scorched-earth Republican opposition from Day One, and it took him years to start dealing with that opposition realistically. Furthermore, he came perilously close to doing terrible things to the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain; we were saved from significant cuts to Social Security and a rise in the Medicare age only by Republican greed, the GOP's unwillingness to make even token concessions.

But now the shoe is on the other foot: Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

I'll go through those achievements shortly. First, however, let's take a moment to talk about the current wave of Obama-bashing. All Obama-bashing can be divided into three types. One, a constant of his time in office, is the onslaught from the right, which has never stopped portraying him as an Islamic atheist Marxist Kenyan. Nothing has changed on that front, and nothing will.

There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have con- strained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously.

Finally, there's the constant belittling of Obama from mainstream pundits and talking heads. Turn on cable news (although I wouldn't advise it) and you'll hear endless talk about a rudderless, stalled administration, maybe even about a failed presidency. Such talk is often buttressed by polls showing that Obama does, indeed, have an approval rating that is very low by historical standards.

But this bashing is misguided even in its own terms – and in any case, it's focused on the wrong thing.

Yes, Obama has a low approval rating compared with earlier presidents. But there are a number of reasons to believe that presidential approval doesn't mean the same thing that it used to: There is much more party-sorting (in which Republicans never, ever have a good word for a Democratic president, and vice versa), the public is negative on politicians in general, and so on. Obviously the midterm election hasn't happened yet, but in a year when Republicans have a huge structural advantage – Democrats are defending a disproportionate number of Senate seats in deep-red states – most analyses suggest that control of the Senate is in doubt, with Democrats doing considerably better than they were supposed to. This isn't what you'd expect to see if a failing president were dragging his party down.

More important, however, polls – or even elections – are not the measure of a president. High office shouldn't be about putting points on the electoral scoreboard, it should be about changing the country for the better. Has Obama done that? Do his achievements look likely to endure? The answer to both questions is yes.

In my opinion, Barack Obama has been very successful given the uphill battle with the do-nothing congress. I also believe history will prove me right.

John Belvillehttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2380070551250370220.post-29977245139695351802014-10-09T07:59:00.000-07:002014-10-09T07:59:00.093-07:00CARTOONI have found that cartoons can and are used to satirize situations, people and places. They are often very effective. Take for instance THE DAILY SHOW featuring Jon Stewart. The Daily Show is a prime example of how comedy can be used to stimulate conversation and/or change the direction of policy simply by poking fun at the status quo. Below is a cartoon depicting how out of touch the media and the government is out of touch with reality. See if you don't agree.

John Belvillehttps://email@example.com