Saturday, August 25, 2007

Googlefighting with Ron Paul

Have you ever heard of the game Googlefight? If you are an adult you probably have not. I was introduced to it by my 14-year-old nephew, Joey. Go to Googlefight and put in any two key words and the number of hits on Google for each word are compared. It is a lot of fun, if you have nothing productive to do.

I just did a “Ron Paul” vs. “Hillary Clinton” fight and got 48.8 million hits for Ron Paul and only 8.4 million for Hillary Clinton. Do a “Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani Googlefight and it is Ron 48,800,000 and Rudy 2,050,000. Compare Ron Paul to the Democrat fringe candidate Dennis Kucinich and it is still Ron 48.8 million to Dennis Kucinich’s 1.9 million.

I spend a lot time on the Internet. I read a large amount of mainstream news and opinion but also visit a fair number of blogs and advocacy websites. I am amazed at the amount of support on the Internet for Ron Paul. I have joined about a dozen yahoo groups with names like, Conservative Majority, Libertarian Republicans, Republicans of America Unite, and Republican Party. I sought groups where I thought I might find intelligent conversation of interest to a Republican. What I find is that fans of Ron Paul dominate most of these groups. You quickly bore of them. They are too fanatical. They remind you of pushy religious fanatics.

I guess it should not be surprising that positions that are less represented in the mainstream press are over represented on the Internet. The Internet is fertile ground for the fringe, the underrepresented, conspiracy theorist and the weird. If the evening TV news and daily newspaper is fairly representing your position or your cause, then you probably feel less need to promote your cause on the net.

Nevertheless, the amount of support on the net for Ron Paul is amazing. Numerous You tube videos, radio interviews, and newspaper article on Ron Paul are reproduced and people are constantly promoting his candidacy. Many of his supporters think there is a conspiracy to keep his position form being heard and many think the polls are under representing his popular support.

If intensity of support counted, Ron Paul would be the next President. If the election where held today, and only people who play on the Internet got to vote, I think Ron Paul would be the next President. In the most recent polls (Fox, Gallop, CNN, USA Today, etc.) Ron Paul only scores 1 to 3%. If people only interact with other people who agree with them, gravitate toward those Internet sites that they agree with, and do not remain skeptical they can get a very distorted view of reality. Your Internet experience may not be the real world.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Friday, August 24, 2007

Will Obama's Stance on Cuba Hurt?

By Tim Padgett/Miami
(This is a good analysis and insight on Obama's bold Cuban policy initiative. Rod)
Conventional political wisdom in the bellwether state of Florida has always focused on Cuban-Americans, especially those influential exiles who take a hard line against any U.S. engagement with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Cross them, says the presidential candidate handbook, and say adios to the Sunshine State's 27 electoral votes.

So why would Barack Obama — who is scraping to keep up with Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — ignore that seemingly golden rule? Why, in a Tuesday op-ed piece in the Miami Herald, would he challenge the Cuban-American elders and call for dismantling President Bush's hefty restrictions on Cuban-Americans making visits and sending money to relatives in Cuba?

Maybe it's because Obama knows a new conventional wisdom may well be taking shape in the state — one that could actually make his declarations this week an asset when Florida holds its primary election next January. (Continue reading: Will Obama's Stance..)

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba

Miami Herald, Tue. Aug 21, 2007
By BARACK OBAMA

When my father was a young man living in Kenya, the freedom and opportunity of the United States exerted such a powerful draw that he moved halfway around the world to pursue his dreams here. My father's story is not unique. The same has been true for tens of millions of people, from every continent -- including for the many Cubans who have come and made their lives here since the start of Fidel Castro's dictatorship almost 50 years ago.

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We need a clear strategy to achieve it -- one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. (To continue reading: Our Main Goal....)

My Commentary
I agree with Mr. Obama and applaud him for having he courage to call for a change in our policy toward Cuba. The only other presidential candidates breaking with the status quo is Democrat Chris Dodd and Republican Ron Paul. (For a summary of the position of all presidential candidates visit: The Candidates on Cuba Policy)

It is a past time for a change in US policy toward Cuba. At one time, when Cuba was sending its army around the world and fomenting revolution in Africa and Latin America our policy made sense. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of Cuba’s benefactor the Soviet Union, there has been little logic to our policy. Our current policy is a relic of the cold war and remains due to the political might of the Cuban-American Community. The restriction on tourism lacks all logic when Americans are not prohibited from visiting countries such as Iran or North Korea.

The thing that makes totalitarian governments “totalitarian” is that there are no other meaningful spheres of influence. When total power and influence flows from the government and there is no private business sector, no non-governmental educational establishment, weak religious institutions, no trade unions, no sources of information other than the government press, then that society is totalitarian. The government can exert absolute authority and exercise thought control and make people totally dependent on the government for their survival.

Political democracy may not immediately flow from the growth of the non-governmental sectors, but there is a degree of freedom one can have without political freedom when there are other influences in society than government only. With the growth of the non-governmental sectors a demand for democratization is bound to follow. In Poland we saw the fall of the Communist regime due to the power of Solidarity and the Catholic Church. Trade has changed China. China is still an authoritarian government but is Communist in name only. It is doubtful that we could again see a return to a Maoist China.

What will hasten the democratization of Cuba is contact with people from democratic countries and increase in trade. With trade and investment can come a demand that the Cuban government make concessions. Foreign investors will not make massive investments in countries without a predictable legal system and some guarantee to the ownership rights of their investment.

As Cubans increase their income from tourism and foreign trade opportunities, they will want a better standard of living and consumer goods to purchase with their new income. Creeping capitalism will weaken the state. The people will also learn more of the outside world and increasing want an end to the status of permanent revolution and the policies that keep them in poverty. Simply allowing Cuban Americans to increase the amount of money they are allowed to send home and allowing increased visitation, will hasten a lessening of dependence on the government and a desire for change on the part of the Cuban people. It is high time we end our illogical policy toward Cuba.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Four Presidential Candidates Worse Than Bush and One Leader

Watching the ABC News Iowa Democratic debate this morning and the Republican debate last week, I was most interested in what the candidates had to say about Iraq and foreign policy. While I am deeply concerned about the other issues of the day, to me, all other issues are a distant second in comparison. For the first time in my life, I could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat if I thought that person had the wisdom to disentangle our country from the mess that is Iraq and leave the world a saver place. While I am sure I would disagree with a Democratic candidate on tax policy, health care policy, Supreme Court nominees and most other domestic issue, if someone can show the wisdom to get us out of Iraq, then they could win my support.

I was not impressed by what I saw this morning or last week. Most of the candidates played it safe and where short on specifics. I guess that is the way to stay in the game. Bearers of bad news don’t inspire a lot of enthusiasm. So candidates sell their “experience”, or “leadership” or they position themselves as the “candidate of change”, but they avoid letting the people have specifics by which to critique them.

Of all the candidates, there were four that convinced me they would screw up getting us out of Iraq worse than Bush did in getting us into Iraq. These four candidates, who by comparison, would make Bush look like a genius, are Democrats Make Gavel, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul. The solution of these four candidates appears to be to pull out as quickly as possible and to hell with the consequences. They would race each other to the border.

Things are bad now, but they could get much worse. Events could spin rapidly out of control: A proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraq, massive genocide, an Al Qaeda stronghold, a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan are not only realistic possibilities, but appear likely to occur unless a solution that brings stability is found. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues to need a solution. How to deal with an Iran that may be close to joining the ranks of the nuclear-armed states is an enormous challenge.

With a resurgent Al Qaeda in Pakistan and with Pakistan facing elections, which very well may be suspended, the Al Qaeda allies in Pakistan could come to power in a military coup. A nuclear-armed Jihadist Pakistan could become a reality. If that occurs, what will be the future of the shaky peace between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan?

"Stay the course" is not acceptable to the American people, and it should not be, but “cut and run” could be worse. I wish we had a pragmatic realist such as Ronald Reagan running for president, but I don’t see one. At this point anyone who had a plan for getting us out of Iraq without worsening the situation is worthy of consideration, but few of the candidates seem to want to even admit that the situation is dire.

Of all the candidates, the only one who even seems willing to discuss the consequences of a mismanaged withdrawal is Joseph Biden. In my estimation, he is the only candidate willing to reveal that he has even given serious thought to the problems of the Middle East. It is unfortunate that his campaign is not gaining traction and that he is not in the top tier of contenders.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Friday, August 17, 2007

Torture? For God's Sake, Shout "al-Libi" from the Rooftops and End the Debate

by Don Williams, truth-to-power
Thursday, 09 August 2007
(I am reprinting in its entirety this recent blog entry from my brother Don Williams. I agree and can not say it better. Torture is not only morally reprehensible;it does not work. rod)

Is there no lesson to be learned from how we based the war in Iraq on lies told by a tortured man....If you're undecided about the use of torture, research the name Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.If you already oppose torture, then shout this name from the rooftop until everyone knows it:Al-Libi. Al-Libi. Al-Libi.

It isn't hard to say, so we all should speak it and write it--to our representatives, our media, our neighbors. This name should be the end of the debate on torture, for al-Libi is living proof that torture and other degrading practices backfire so badly they've led to maybe the worst foreign policy blunder ever made by this country. George W. Bush and company bombed and invaded Iraq based in large part on lies told under extreme duress by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Why are opponents of torture and kidnapping so slow to make this point?

Sometimes I think I must be crazy, because even people who question, criticize and publicly oppose torture are slow to bring al-Libi into the debate. Can someone tell me why?For instance, a new article by Jane Mayer in last week's New Yorker offers lots of insight into "The Black Sites," places where suspected terrorists are routinely held, questioned and tortured.I heard Mayer earlier this week on PBS's "Fresh Air" program discussing how 90 percent of the information from tortured prisoners has proven unreliable. Nary a word was mentioned, however, about how just how badly torture backfired in the case of al-Libi.

Why are Congressmen and others so slow to invoke al-Libi's name? Is it because they were taken in by his lies and would rather gloss over that sad fact of history than to make it part of their argument against the President's torture policies? Is it because they've become fearful of being called disloyal or soft on terrorism? Whatever fig leaf they're hiding behind, the record is clear that al-Libi was under custody of U.S. secret forces in 2001 when the CIA blindfolded him, duct-taped him, loaded him onto an airplane, told him they planned to rape his mother while he was away, then flew him off to Egypt. Interrogators in a secret hell-hole prison there asked al-Libi none too gently to “admit” that Saddam Hussein was teaching al-Qaeda to make chemical and biological weapons.

According to articles in The New Yorker , The New York Times, Newsweek and others, Al-Libi gave them what they wanted. Later he recanted, and said he told the lies to end the pain of torture. A Republican dominated Senate Intelligence committee long ago confirmed that no formal ties existed between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and further reported that, far from working together to attack U.S. interests, Saddam and bin Laden regarded each other as enemies. Still, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and others in “the Iraq group”--a team set up inside the White House in 2002 to sell America on the idea of invading Iraq--made al-Libi's lies a centerpiece of their case.

Just how aware Bush was that he based his war on a pack of lies should long ago have been exposed. In February, 2003, Colin Powell repeated al-Libi's torture-induced lies to the United Nations. Maybe that's why a repentant Powell later said we risk losing the moral high ground in our so-called war on terror. Hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq at least in part as a result of lies our government forced al-Libi to tell. Now we're stuck In Iraq like a wasp in a spider web. We've blown hundreds of billions of dollars that might've done much good. Yes, many loudly parrot unproven claims based on “classified information” that we've disrupted terrorist plots through use of “aggressive interrogation techniques.” Some even point to the Battle of Algiers, in the late 1950s, which France was loosing badly until it employed torture, mass bombing and other counter-terrorism techniques. What proponents of such a model often leave out is how a disgusted and angry populace rose up across Algeria and turned their French leash-holders out of the country by 1962.

In simple human terms, what the French failed to do, and what Bush long ago forgot, is to honor the logic and moral force behind the Golden Rule. When you think about it, that simple rule, “Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you,” is at the heart of the Geneva Accords. They honor standards of prisoner treatment that take into account how we'd want our own troops to be treated if captured by the enemy. So, unless you want torture to become and remain the law of the land, you'd best plan on spending lots of time telling anyone who'll listen—maybe your congressmen, senators, media and more—that there's a price to pay for Congress's public support for Bush's plans for continued torture and unlawful imprisonment. It could be your neighbor's son or daughter who gets captured in the next war. For God's sake, remind them of "al-Libi."

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Pentagon Paid $999,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers to Texas

Tony Capaccio
Thu Aug 16, 11:59 AM ET
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S. officials said.
The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.
To continue: $999,798 to Ship Two..

It is an absolute outrage that things like this can occur. Where is the over site? Is no one in charge? These people got caught, but is this just the tip of the iceberg of corruption? Regardless of how one may feel about the war in Iraq, or the policies that let to the war, there needs to be an investigation of the fraud, corruption, and inefficiency associated with the expenditure of funds for the military. Of the $452 Billion the Iraq war has cost, so far, how much of that was stolen and mismanaged?

Inefficiency in government is nothing new. Reagan appointed a special commission to look at government waste, waste was exposed but not much changed. Al Gore, in the first Clinton term, headed a commission on government waste, waste was exposed but not much changed. Remember the $600 toilet seat, the $400 ashtray and the $6500 hammer? Those pale in comparison to this example of waste. Congress should put differences about the war aside, and investigate military procurement, fraud, and waste. Heads should roll. Careers should be ruined. And, those committing fraud should go to jail. Congress should be screaming for change. Democrat or Republican however, it seems that politicians just accept massive government waste and corruption.

Nancy: Call for Congressional hearings! Vigorously investigate! Don't stop until real change occurs so that things like this do not continue to happen. Watching the purse strings in Congress's primary responsibility and they are doing a lousy job.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Friday, August 10, 2007

Powerful Democrat Endorses Carbon Tax

John D. Dingell the Democratic representative from Michigan, who is Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week, came out in favor of a carbon tax as the most effective way to fight global warming.


In an editorial, The Power in the Carbon Tax, published in the Washington Post, he observes, “Successful laws to protect the environment are built on simple concepts. They discourage harmful behavior -- the dumping of sewage or industrial waste into bodies of water, the destruction of habitat, the emission of toxic chemicals -- by a variety of measures, all of which raise the cost of engaging in certain behavior. You can't develop land, and profit, if you're endangering a threatened animal. You have to dispose of chemical substances responsibly. And so on.”


He ask the questions, “How do we raise the cost of emitting carbon, promoting conservation and efficiencies, and make alternatives more economically viable, thus addressing the problem of climate change?”

While he list and critiques the various alternative fuels and says congress is correct to promote alternative fuel developments, he says that to get the emissions reductions to the level we need we must do much more. He observes that, "History shows that we respond to market forces." His conclusion is that a carbon tax is by far the best method of achieving the desired results.

A few years ago I underwent a conversion from Global Warming skeptic to Global Warming believer. I did not have a change in ideology; I was simply persuaded by the preponderance of the evidence. Following my conversion, I became critical of those on the right who disregarded the growing body of evidence and who stubbornly stuck to their denial.

I then noticed however, that those who had for a long time been believers in the theory of Global Warming were for some reason resistant to policies that would actually do anything about it. It seems they accepted the science of global warming but not the science of economics. They rivaled the Rush Limbaugh’s in blocking solutions to the problem.

Just as many on the right, let their ideology blind them to seeing the problem, it seem many on the left let their ideology blind them to seeing the solution.

They seem married to policies that consist of Command, Control and Cajole. They tout bio-fuel, ethanol, wind farms, and geothermal, but never examine what would make these alternatives affordable and competitive. They seem to love mandates such as higher CAFÉ standards. And, they want everyone to wear sweaters in the winter, turn down the thermostats, and properly inflate their tires. And, it seems that they think that if we will just love Mother Nature enough somehow the problem will be solved. There is nothing wrong with any of these things and I also love “Mother Nature”.

What is wrong with this approach is that it is the equivalent of going elephant hunting with a pea shooter. The other thing wrong with these solutions is that they lull people into a belief that they really are addressing the issue, while all the while, we continue to increase our carbon emissions.

The real solution to global warming was coming not from the tree-hugging environmentalist but from those who understand how markets work. Now the tide seems to be shifting toward a real solution as more and more Democrats and environmentalist embrace a carbon tax as the most effective method of combating the problem of global warming. The list of those who advocate a carbon tax continues to grow.

When a leading Democrat embraces the carbon tax, then perhaps we are getting closer to the day when we can seriously began to solve the issue. I just hope that the obstructionist of the left and the right do not delay the solution until we pass the tipping point.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Who is at Risk of Losing Their Home

As a housing counselor for a HUD-approved Housing Counseling Agency, I see first-hand the growing problem of home foreclosures. Unfortunately we can expect more increases in mortgage defaults for sometime to come. It is estimated as many as one out of five subprime loans issued during 2005-2006 will fail and borrowers will lose $164 billion in wealth due to foreclosures.

I counsel about eight people a week who are on the verge of losing their home. While my experience is not a scientific sampling, I observe three categories of people who are at risk of losing their home and see the categories about evenly split between the three.

(1). Bad things happen to Good people: Illness, lost of job, divorce, and loss of income or unplanned increase in expenses.

(2) Irresponsible homebuyers. Customer took out loans they could not afford. People in this category often could have qualified for a $90,000 house with a good loan, but instead got an adjustable rate mortgage or some other "creative financing" so they could buy a $150,000 house. Many people fail to build any saving, live payday to payday, living beyond their means and little bump in the road puts their home at risk. They feel entitled to a nice home and a new car. While working with one couple on their budget, I asked them why they had taken on such a large care note. The new mother explained to me, “Well, I got pregnant, and we had to have an SUV”.

(3) Predatory lending and poor lending practices are the third cause of people losing their home. I have witnessed inflated appraisals, phony "gift letters", falsified income, and people having their loan product switched the day of closing and then being pressured into closing. I recently had a client who had been "flipped" (refinanced) five times, each time losing equity in her home. After the fifth time she could not be refinanced anymore and her gross annual income was actually less than the total of her annual house payments.

Part of this problem will self-correct, as the market of available sub-prime loans dries up and few new borrowers will find the same easy credit available. However, there is a need for reform. We need new laws against predatory practices. We need vigorous enforcement of existing lending laws and prosecution of offenders. We also need basic financial literacy taught in schools and we need policies that encourage savings. But, more than anything, we need a change in societal attitudes so that people don’t feel ‘entitled’. No one owes you a new SUV and if you can only afford a $90,000 home, you are not entitled to a $150,000 home.
To seek advice on avoiding foreclosure, contact me. Rodwilliams47@yahoo.com

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, August 09, 2007

No Ribbon-Cutting Ceremonies for Pothole Repair

When the bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed on August 3, killing seven and wounding a hundred others, the commentators lamented the poor state of our infrastructure and reported the need for millions and millions of dollars to be allocated for repair of crumbling infrastructure. No doubt we do have worn out infrastructure and money does need to be spent on upkeep. But, the problem may not be insufficient taxation.

Apparently we are still to the right of the apex of the Laffer curve and more taxation may actually bring in less revenue. Democrats and a lot of the public have a hard time grasping the concept that higher tax rates may actually bring in less revenue, but it has been proven true time after time. The problem with infrastructure upkeep is not a problem of lack of taxation, but of allocation. The truth is government does a poor job of managing it’s investments.

Mr. Thomas Sowell makes the simple but wise observations that, “The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers' money on things that will enhance politicians' chances of getting re-elected.” “There are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies when bridges are being repaired or pot-holes are being filled in. These latter activities may be more valuable than a community center or a golf course, but they are not nearly as photogenic.” In A Bridge too Far Gone, Mr. Sowell goes on to explain why private industry is better at maintenance of their investments than government.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

ACLU Wants Illinois Town to Remove Jesus Signs

From Focus on the Family
As you enter the small town of Alorton, Ill., you'll see two green-and-white billboards that read: "Welcome to The Village of Alorton. Where Jesus is Lord. Randy McCallum Mayor."

As if on cue, the American Civil Liberties Union is objecting. The group says the signs may be unconstitutional, but hasn't determined what action, if any, to take.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: "If the Supreme Court hadn't erroneously decided at one point that the First Amendment phrase 'Congress shall make no law...' should now include states, municipalities, even schools, we would not be in the position where an organization like the ACLU could roam to and fro across the land, seeking those acknowledgements of God they could devour with their well-oiled machine of intimidation and litigation.
(To read the full story, click here. Does not open in new window; hit back button to return: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005186.cfm)

Thank God for the ACLU

In cases like this, I say “Thank God, for the ACLU”. I often don’t say that about the ACLU. I think they often go overboard in protecting us from Christmas nativity decorations in the city park or from kids voluntarily gathering to pray at the flagpole before class. But in this case, they are right. How would you feel if you were a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, mainline-protestant-liberal-agnostic, or plain ole backslidden Baptist sinner, having your tax money spent to proclaim you live in a town where “Jesus is Lord”.

I assume Mr. Hausknecht, the “judicial analyst” for Focus on the Family has never heard of the 14th Amendment. That pesky little amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That means that all of those prohibitions that say “Congress shall make no”, also apply to the states and all of their creations.
Unfortunately, FoF is not just some isolated minister complaining about the ACLU. They are a large organizations and an important part of the Religious Right. I am disgruntled that the Religious Right has gained such a stronghold in the Republican Party. I do not think I would want to live in the kind of America people like that they would want for us. I don’t doubt for a minute that we would see the banning of alcohol, R-rated movies, and anything else they consider sinful.

Focus on the Family was started in 1987 by Dr. James Dotson. It focused on things like potty training kids and how to have a happy marriage. The tone of the program was only mildly religious, was non-political, and not at all strident and they produced some good children’s programming. Alone the way however, with the rise of the religious right, Focus became more and more political and now devotes a lot of their “ministry” to promoting “family values”. They have become a powerhouse in the Republican Party and rival Pat Robinson's organization and rivaled the late Jerry Falwell for influence.

I think there was a need for the rise of the religious right. Popular culture’s contempt for mid-American values needed to be countered. Hollywood and the mainstream media acted as though there was only one point of view on the moral issues of the day. The millions of Church-going people in this country had no political voice. We needed organizations that would tell people you do not have to be intimidated by those who would try to prohibit kids from gathering at the flagpole to pray. And, you do not need to be embarrassed that your religious values influence your political values.

Having grown up around fundamentalist Christians, however, in a county that was populated mostly by church-going Baptist and where not even beer could be sold, I have always been concerned that if “real” Christians got too much influence I would not like the kind of America they would want for us. Freedom is often a balancing act between competing forces and from time to time we need to restore the balance. In the case of Alorton, Ill., thank God for the ACLU.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Monday, August 06, 2007

Sens. Clinton (D-NY) & Smith (R-OR) Introduce New Saver's Act

Bill Proposes Innovative, Low-cost Measures to Boost Savings and Asset Ownership
The New Savers Act, drawn heavily from the work of New America's Asset Building Program, aims to increase savings by all Americans, especially lower-income Americans, through targeted incentives and better access to wealth-building financial services. Specifically, the legislation promote savings at tax-time; expands electronic banking; allows contributions to college savings accounts to qualify for the Savers Credit; revives and promotes U.S. Savings Bonds; makes 529 college savings plans more transparent and progressive; promotes innovations in financial products and services; and establishes a children’s Roth IRA called “Young Savers Accounts” so children can start saving early in life.
(To learn more, click this link, does not open in new window, click “back” button to return: http://www.newamerica.net/programs/asset_building# )

Much of my life, I have worked in jobs working with poor people. (I know “poor people” is not the term that social workers or politicians or journals use. The generally used terms are “economically disadvantaged” or “low income”, but there is nothing wrong with the term “poor”; it is not pejorative, it is a good, honest, descriptive word.) Anyway. While the causes of poverty are varied, it is my observation that most poverty is not a result of lack of opportunity or racism or discrimination. The leading cause of poverty is the “culture of poverty”. It is those habits and ways of thinking and values that keep poor people, poor. It is frustrating to see people make foolish decisions that ruin their life, but we can not give up on them. We need programs that will change values and behaviors. Any program such as the one described above should be supported. There is a difference between programs that simply subsidized ones poverty and programs that work to get people out of poverty. Unfortunately in the past, many of the anti-poverty programs actually created a culture of poverty and destroyed those incentives that help people overcome their poverty. Programs that instill a habit and desire to save among poor people are worthy of support.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Introducing a New Blog from Don Williams

I would like to invite you to visit a new blog by Don Williams. Don who for many years was a columnist for The Knoxville News-Sentinel, is a freelance journalist, short story writer and founding editor of New Millennium Writings, an annual anthology of fiction, nonfiction and poetry. His awards include a National Endowment for the Humanities Michigan Journalism Fellowship, and Golden Presscard Award, the Malcolm Law Journalism Prize and assorted awards from Scripps Howard Newspapers.

Helen Thomas, syndicated columnist and dean of the Capitol Hill press core, said of Don Williams, "You write a great column. I wish you were at the White House to ask the tough questions that are not being asked”.

Don is an unapologetic liberal and he and I seldom agree, but he is a great writer who writes with clarity and conviction. Also, he is a good person and my younger brother. Despite our political differences we remain close. His link is permanently listed in the “Good Links..” list to the left. Read his most recent contribution by clinking here: truth-to-power.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories