ANS -- Transforming Oklahoma

Here is a positive article for a change.  It's about a Democrat running for Oklahoma state representative against a homophobic Republican. 
Find it here:  http://www.advocate.com//Politics/Election/Transforming_Oklahoma/   
--Kim


|| Politics ||
Posted on Advocate.com March 26, 2010 12:23:33 PM

Transforming Oklahoma

Brittany Novotny is hoping to become Oklahoma's first transgender state representative ­ by giving the boot to Sally Kern.
By Michelle Garcia
 

Brittany Novotny sent a letter to Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern this week ­ she of the quotable statements "Gays are a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism or even Islam" and "We're trying to teach 2-year-olds that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."

The letter was Novotny's way of introducing herself, letting Kern know she plans to run against her in the upcoming election after several of Kern's constituents encouraged Novotny to take on the challenge.

"In your nearly six years in the legislature, statements you've made and positions you've taken on issues have encouraged division instead of unity and pushed new business away from Oklahoma," she wrote. "People are ready for a change."

But Novotny is not just another outraged citizen. The 30-year-old practicing attorney is an alumna of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, a member of the national Democratic Party, and the first transgender person to chair the Young Democrats' LGBT Caucus. After running her own law practice for four years, Novotny took a position with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, where she handles cases for union members.

And she even handles her own Twitter account.

The Advocate: Did you anticipate that you would be running for office when you were younger?
Brittany Novotny: It was certainly something on my horizon ­ something that hoped I could do. I was involved with student government in college, and I decided it was a career that I at least hoped I could obtain.

Months before Kern was reelected in 2008 was the event that made her famous to a lot of people, when a video in which she called gays, among other things, more dangerous than terrorists was posted on the Internet. Why do you think she was reelected?
There's a lot of factors as to why she won reelection in 2008. Most Oklahomans are good people, and they really didn't agree with a lot of her comments. They may not be pro-gay rights, but they're certainly not antigay homophobes by any sense of the imagination. But that being said, it requires a lot of time, effort, and money to run a campaign, and we haven't had anyone with that kind of time or the kind of money that was needed to do the job here in house district 84. I don't think people with vote against somebody just because of something they said. They need somebody that they will vote for.

When did you first decide you were going to run against Kern?
As I stated in that letter, there's been a lot of talk about her obviously, and one of our most respected business newspapers, TheJournal Record, really called her out this past July because she had signed this citizens' proclamation for morality, which blamed the economic situation on gays and abortions and had quotes from the Founding Fathers that were taken out of context, and it became fodder for national media to make fun of Oklahoma again and make us look like we're not moving forward. It really hurt our image because Oklahoma City is really becoming a great place to live. It's an amazing city with a lot of diversity and a great culture. Our downtown has really been thriving, there's a lot of urban renewal going on, metropolitan area projects that have renovated our downtown like our new arena, we have an NBA team, a new skyscraper going up. We've put a lot of effort in renewing the business environment here, and we're trying to attract more young professionals who would hopefully make this their home. Her pushing this agenda that blames economic problems on certain parts of our population and creating a divisive climate just pushes people and business away. It hinders our ability to draw young people here. 

In your open letter to Kern, you said you would run a fair campaign with no personal attacks. What if the political landscape starts to get personal or below-the-belt?
There's nothing I can do to stop whatever might happen. I hope that Representative Kern will hold true to her word. She gave some interviews around the time that I announced my candidacy and indicated that the way she saw it was that I'm a Democrat, she's a Republican, and we would run on that. So I hope she'll maintain that. Certainly there are third parties out there who may not listen to me and may go ahead and personally attack her, just like she may have supporters that don't take the lead from her and personally attack me. It happens. I hope that those voices are kept to a minimum and they don't overshadow the campaign, because I really do think there are some serious differences in how we see the future of Oklahoma and what we think will be best for our economic development. I think the voters deserve the chance to discuss those differences.

When I told our staff that we would be interviewing you today, someone said, "Those are going to be some interesting debates." What are the issues concerning your district, and how will you two shape the debate among those issues?
Right now I've been particularly concerned with legislation that she's been pushing that would basically have Oklahoma opt out of Environmental Protection Agency regulation and take that on ourselves. We're not at a time in the state budget where we can take on that kind of responsibility by ourselves. Environmental regulation is going to take a lot of time and money, and nowhere in her bill does she account for budgeting and responsibilities that our department of environmental quality would have to take on. I believe in fiscal responsibility. You can't just push legislation because it plays into the fears of our federal government. You have to look at how this actually impacts our budget. You have to ask yourself, "What is this actually going to do for the lives of everyday Oklahomans?" 

Oklahomans deserve to hear that debate. She's continued to push a lot of these states' rights legislations. They're going to cost us a lot of money in lawsuits. It will cost us money if we actually did have to start carrying this stuff on our own, and people need to know that and not just fall for rhetoric of "the federal government is taking away Oklahoma's rights. "

Do you feel that Oklahomans are ready to elect a transgender person to represent them?
You know, I do get that feeling. In fact, I've even received e-mails and messages from folks who identify as conservative Republicans who support me. They say, "I may not agree with you on everything, but I agree with your approach to this. This is the kind of approach we expect from our leaders, so we support you." I've been open about my past as a trans woman. There was a two-part segment about me on our local Fox affiliate, and an article ran in our main alternative weekly newspaper. The only negative feedback I've really received was based on a policy issue.

Fwd: the real plans - not the green party hype

This is a comparison between the two plans the Congress is looking at.  Both seem vague to me. 
--Kim

Here's a look at how the plans compare:
How much does it raise the debt ceiling?
House Republican plan: Less than $1 trillion immediately -- enough to last at least through the end of the year
Boehner's plan would allow President Obama to make a separate request for a $1.6 trillion increase later, if Congress passes a special plan, created by 12-member "Joint Committee of Congress," for additional spending cuts. In essence, this plan could re-create the entire debt ceiling debate.
Senate Democratic plan: Reid says his plan would allow Congress to raise the debt limit "through 2012." Mr. Obama has said the debt ceiling must be raised by $2.4 trillion to last through 2012.
How much does each plan cut?
Both the GOP plan and the Democratic plan call for $1.2 trillion in immediate cuts, but they don't specify where those cuts would come from -- they simply say the cuts would come from discretionary spending. The Democratic plan specifies that those cuts include both defense and non-defense spending.
House Republican plan: $1.2 trillion in savings over a decade -- in both cuts and caps on discretionary spending. The spending caps would trigger automatic, across-the-board spending cuts if not met.
Senate Democratic plan: $2.7 trillion in savings over a decade.
In addition to the $1.2 trillion in unspecified discretionary spending cuts, Reid's plan counts $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is seen as something of an accounting gimmick, although House Republicans included the savings in the budget they passed earlier this year.
That leaves $500 billion in savings to account for. As much as $400 billion comes from interest savings. Democrats point out that interest savings were included in the House-passed GOP budget as well.
The final $100 billion comes from "mandatory" savings. Democrats have loosely outlined where that money would come from, but the specifics are still unclear. For instance, that figure includes $30 billion in savings from "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reforms," and $40 billion in savings from "integrity savings"-- in other words, reducing fraud and abuse in mandatory programs. That figure also includes $15 billion in spectrum sales and $10 to $15 billion in agricultural subsidies.
Plans for deficit commissions
Both plans call for the creation of a bipartisan, 12-member deficit reduction committee. Both plans say that the committee's deficit reduction proposal should get an up-or-down vote, without any amendments, by the end of 2011.
House Republican plan: Boehner's plan for a deficit commission is more specific. It calls for the commission to identify $1.6 to $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade. Additionally, Republicans insist the committee will not recommend tax increases.
Under Boehner's plan, the commission would have until November 23 to report its recommendations to Congress. Both chambers would have to vote on it by December 23. As noted above, its passage is a condition of raising the debt ceiling again.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security?
Neither plan has a specific proposal for modifying Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.
The difference: Democrats are boasting their plan does not affect the entitlement programs, while the GOP plan suggests the deficit commission will recommend modifications to the programs.
Other conditions?
House Republican plan: Unlike the GOP's earlier plan, "cut, cap and balance," Boehner's plan does not make raising the debt ceiling contingent upon passing a balanced budget amendment. It does, however, require that both the Senate and the House at least vote on a balanced budget amendment by the end of the year.
Why they oppose each other's plans
Boehner: The speaker said today that the Democratic plan is "full of gimmicks."
Under Reid's plan, Boehner said, "We're not making any real changes in the spending structure of our government." He added the plan "doesn't deal with the biggest drivers of our deficit and debt" -- entitlement programs.
Reid: Democrats plan say Boehner's plan is unacceptable since Congress would have to fight over raising the debt ceiling again in six months.
Reid said today, "Speaker Boehner's plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is, therefore, a non-starter in the Senate and with the president."
 

ANS -- The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling

This is a pretty clear chart.  It shows where the debts come from.  That should show where we should cut.  If we were logical.  but we aren't: that's the cost of destroying education in this country -- you have to learn to be logical, it's not innate.
Find it here:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/    
--Kim

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling

By James Fallows

Jul 25 2011, 10:58 AM ET
It's this one, from yesterday's New York Times. Click for a more detailed view, though it's pretty clear as is.



It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years that during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock. 

The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why we call them "shocks." Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it ("deficits don't matter" etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position.

After the jump, from a previous "The Chart That Should..." positing, an illustration of the respective roles of external shock and deliberate policy change in creating the deficit.

UPDATE: Many people have written to ask how the impact of the "Bush-era tax cuts," enacted under George W. Bush and extended under Barack Obama (with the help, as you will recall, of huge pressure from Senate Republicans), is divided between the two presidents. I don't know and have written the creators of the chart to ask. (They have responded to say: it indicates the legacy effects of the changes made by each Administration. For instance, neither Bush nor Obama is credited with the entire cost of Pentagon spending or entitlements, but only the changes his Administration made, up or down. By this logic the long-run effect of cuts initiated by Bush is assigned to him, as any long-run effect of savings he initiated would be too.)

But to me it doesn't matter. As I said above, the point of the chart really isn't partisan responsibility. It is the central role of those tax cuts in creating the deficit that is now the focus of such political attention. Call them the "Obama-Extended Tax Cuts" if you'd like: either way, a deficit plan that ignores them fails a basic logic, math, and coherence test.
___


From this item three months ago:



More: For how the Democrats are mishandling both the politics and the substance of this argument, see Joshua Green on " The Democrats Cave."

For how President Obama could use his inherent powers, in a " This is bullshit" way, see Robert Kuttner.

ANS -- Republicans, Zealots and Our Security

This is a very articulate article about domestic financial terrorism, perpetrated by the GOP and the Tea Party, though he doesn't dare name them here.  It's from the NY Times. 
Find it here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=2   
--Kim

Op-Ed Columnist

Republicans, Zealots and Our Security

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Published: July 23, 2011

 

IF China or Iran threatened our national credit rating and tried to drive up our interest rates, or if they sought to damage our education system, we would erupt in outrage.
 

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof

On the Ground

Share Your Comments About This Column

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.

Go to Columnist Page »

Related

• Times Topic: Federal Debt Limit (Debt Ceiling) & Deficit Talks

  
  
  

Well, wake up to the national security threat. Only it's not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists.

We tend to think of national security narrowly as the risk of a military or terrorist attack. But national security is about protecting our people and our national strength ­ and the blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America's national security this summer doesn't come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.

House Republicans start from a legitimate concern about rising long-term debt. Politicians are usually focused only on short-term issues, so it would be commendable to see the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party seriously focused on containing long-term debt. But on this issue, many House Republicans aren't serious, they're just obsessive in a destructive way. The upshot is that in their effort to protect the American economy from debt, some of them are willing to drag it over the cliff of default.

It is not exactly true that this would be our first default. We defaulted in 1790. By some definitions, we defaulted on certain gold obligations in 1933. And in 1979, the United States had trouble managing payouts to some individual investors on time (partly because of a failure of word processing equipment) and thus was in technical default.

Yet even that brief lapse in 1979 raised interest payments in the United States. Terry L. Zivney, a finance professor at Ball State University and co-author of a scholarly paper about the episode, says the 1979 default increased American government borrowing costs by 0.6 of a percentage point indefinitely.

Any deliberate and sustained interruption this year could have a greater impact. We would see higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, business loans and credit cards.

American government borrowing would also become more expensive. In February, the Congressional Budget Office noted that a 1 percentage point rise in interest rates could add more than $1 trillion to borrowing costs over a decade.

In other words, Republican zeal to lower debts could result in increased interest expenses and higher debts. Their mania to save taxpayers could cost taxpayers. That suggests not governance so much as fanaticism.

More broadly, a default would leave America a global laughingstock. Our "soft power," our promotion of democracy around the world, and our influence would all take a hit. The spectacle of paralysis in the world's largest economy is already bewildering to many countries. If there is awe for our military prowess and delight in our movies and music, there is scorn for our political/economic management.

While one danger to national security comes from the risk of default, another comes from overzealous budget cuts ­ especially in education, at the local, state and national levels. When we cut to the education bone, we're not preserving our future but undermining it.

It should be a national disgrace that the United States government has eliminated spending for major literacy programs in the last few months, with scarcely a murmur of dissent.

Consider Reading Is Fundamental, a 45-year-old nonprofit program that has cost the federal government only $25 million annually. It's a public-private partnership with 400,000 volunteers, and it puts books in the hands of low-income children. The program helped four million American children improve their reading skills last year. Now it has lost all federal support.

"They have made a real difference for millions of kids," Kyle Zimmer, founder of First Book, another literacy program that I've admired, said of Reading Is Fundamental. "It is a tremendous loss that their federal support has been cut. We are going to pay for these cuts in education for generations."

Education programs like these aren't quick fixes, and the relation between spending and outcomes is uncertain and complex. Nurturing reading skills is a slog rather than a sprint ­ but without universal literacy we have no hope of spreading opportunity, fighting crime or chipping away at poverty.

"The attack on literacy programs reflects a broader assault on education programs," said Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut. She notes that Republicans want to cut everything from early childhood programs to Pell grants for college students. Republican proposals have singled out some 43 education programs for elimination, but it's not seen as equally essential to end tax loopholes on hedge fund managers.

So let's remember not only the national security risks posed by Iran and Al Qaeda. Let's also focus on the risks, however unintentional, from domestic zealots.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook and Google+, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 24, 2011, on page SR5 of the New York edition with the headline: Republicans, Zealots and Our Security.

ANS -- New Evidence of Vote Hacking Emerges In Ohio 2004 General Election Lawsuit

This is a provocative article.  It seems it doesn't prove election fraud, but proves it was designed to perpetrate election fraud.  However, in the comments readers have offered links to other articles on this topic.  I will add them. 
Find it here:  http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-evidence-vote-hacking-emerges-ohio-2004  
--Kim


July 24, 2011 01:00 PM

New Evidence of Vote Hacking Emerges In Ohio 2004 General Election Lawsuit

56 comments
By karoli

enlarge

The outcome of the 2004 Ohio General Election has always been a thorn in my side. I was tracking it on election night and it never made sense to me. Never.

Over time, evidence has emerged that supports the allegation that Ohio's vote data made an unscheduled detour through Chatanooga, TN and during that stop, was doctored to make sure George W. Bush won Ohio and the election.

FreePress.org:

Until now, the architectural maps and contracts from the Ohio 2004 election were never made public, which may indicate that the entire system was designed for fraud. In a previous sworn affidavit to the court, Spoonamore declared: "The SmarTech system was set up precisely as a King Pin computer used in criminal acts against banking or credit card processes and had the needed level of access to both county tabulators and Secretary of State computers to allow whoever was running SmarTech computers to decide the output of the county tabulators under its control."

Spoonamore also swore that "...the architecture further confirms how this election was stolen. The computer system and SmarTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmarTech computers."

Project Censored named the outsourcing of Ohio's 2004 election votes to SmarTech in Chattanooga, Tennessee to a company owned by Republican partisans as one of the most censored stories in the world.

This is one story where a picture really is worth a thousand words. Click the thumbnail at the top of the page to see the larger view of the chart. The part you need to pay attention to are the red arrows. They illustrate how the data flow could have been leveraged to tweak results in Bush's direction under the careful oversight of Ken Blackwell, Ohio's corrupt Secretary of State.

SmarTech has an interesting genealogy. It was run by the late Michael Connell, IT guy for Karl Rove and the Bush family. He also ran GovTech, the company contracted by the state of Ohio (Blackwell) to handle the IT aspects of return processing. Connell was closely associated with the Donatelli clan and other notorious Republican bad guys. From Plaintiffs' brief (PDF):

A group of academic researchers functioning under the rubric of ePluribus Media discovered and reported, shortly after the 2006 election, that a partisan Republican company, SmarTech, was hosting the Ohio Secretary of State's vote count for both the 2004/2006 elections. Collaborative research with a member of this network, holding a PhD in a scientific field, and establishment of a fact/expert relationship with Stephen Spoonamore led to plaintiffs' counsel Arnebeck and Fitrakis meeting with U.S. House Representatives Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, and U.S. House Representatives Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations Oversight, Kucinich, to discuss the possibility of bringing witnesses Stephen Spoonamore and Michael Connell before their respective committees. This was in fulfillment of plaintiffs' commitment to help gain federal involvement in the inquiry into the election theft of 2004 as part of the settlement concept for this case.

This collaboration was also the basis upon which plaintiffs were able to establish relationship between Michael Connell's work on behalf of Karl Rove in elections, and Connell's work on behalf of the tobacco industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups, including the front group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that operated as a purportedly independent expenditure group in the 2004 presidential election. Plaintiffs' trial counsel had previously been involved in successful litigation against the Ohio and United States Chamber of Commerce in connection with their illegal expenditures of secret corporate money to influence the outcome of Ohio Supreme Court elections over the 2000 through 2004 election cycles.

Here's another disturbing quote from the brief:

In 2009, a CIA expert on the rigging of elections in foreign countries described at a meeting of the Election Assistance Commission just such a man-in-the-middle attack in the notorious 2004 Ukraine presidential election. The unraveling of the Ukrainian presidential election fraud had the help of overheard cell phone conversations directing the cover-up of the rigging operation.

On March 3, 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared that the electronic voting machines used in the 2005 Bundestag elections for the German national parliament were outside of the bounds of the German Constitution.

I've been following this since 2004 and I don't intend to stop now. Having evidence of a built-in architecture for vote fraud is, I believe, just the tip of an iceberg that should begin to thaw any time now. In the meantime, let this argument from the brief resonate with each and every one of us who know in our gut that Republicans steal elections they can't win, whether by fraud or by disenfranchisement.

The practice of permitting the use of touchscreen electronic voting machines in partisan elections, when such machines are, according to every scientific test and measure are insecure against hacking, and in the face of abundant evidence that Jim Crow, that is the misuse of law and practice to curtail and obliterate the votes and the voting power of African-Americans, is sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden of proof in the civil rights case.

Tags: 2004, Ohio, vote hacking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of comments with further links:
lex ­ 7/24/11 4:52pm

The election was stolen (as was the 2000 election), I heard this evidence before.
Here's some more info...

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lex ­ 7/24/11 7:05pm

Brad Blog and VR has done a great job covering election fraud.

"Ohio Attorney Files to Lift Stay on '04 Election Case, Cites Allegations, Evidence of Massive Fraud by a Number of GOP Operatives"
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6189

"In fact, in 2004, the Ohio Secretary of State election servers were suddenly re-routed to the GOP controlled servers at Smartech in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the results flipped from John Kerry to George Bush. Bush's IT guru Mike Connell was responsible for setting up that manipulation with the assistance of Ken Blackwell, and Connell was later killed in a mysterious plane crash after he indicated he was ready to talk about the matter."
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/

ANS -- Still Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated

This is the latest word on what makes us gain or lose weight.  I need more sleep. 
Find it here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all  
--Kim


July 18, 2011

Still Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated

By JANE E. BRODY

It's no secret that Americans are fatter today than ever before, and not just those unlucky people who are genetically inclined to gain weight or have been overweight all their lives. Many who were lean as young adults have put on lots of unhealthy pounds as they pass into middle age and beyond.

It's also no secret that the long-recommended advice to eat less and exercise more has done little to curb the inexorable rise in weight. No one likes to feel deprived or leave the table hungry, and the notion that one generally must eat less to control body weight really doesn't cut it for the typical American.

So the newest findings on what specific foods people should eat less often ­ and more importantly, more often ­ to keep from gaining pounds as they age should be of great interest to tens of millions of Americans.

The new research, by five nutrition and public health experts at Harvard University, is by far the most detailed long-term analysis of the factors that influence weight gain, involving 120,877 well-educated men and women who were healthy and not obese at the start of the study. In addition to diet, it has important things to say about exercise, sleep, television watching, smoking and alcohol intake.

The study participants ­ nurses, doctors, dentists and veterinarians in the Nurses' Health Study, Nurses' Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study ­ were followed for 12 to 20 years. Every two years, they completed very detailed questionnaires about their eating and other habits and current weight. The fascinating results were published in June in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The analysis examined how an array of factors influenced weight gain or loss during each four-year period of the study. The average participant gained 3.35 pounds every four years, for a total weight gain of 16.8 pounds in 20 years.

"This study shows that conventional wisdom ­ to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods ­ isn't the best approach," Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. "What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won't matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you're eating."

Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: "In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn't solved the problem of obesity."

Also untrue, Dr. Mozaffarian said, is the food industry's claim that there's no such thing as a bad food.

"There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less," he said. "The notion that it's O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want."

The study showed that physical activity had the expected benefits for weight control. Those who exercised less over the course of the study tended to gain weight, while those who increased their activity didn't. Those with the greatest increase in physical activity gained 1.76 fewer pounds than the rest of the participants within each four-year period.

But the researchers found that the kinds of foods people ate had a larger effect over all than changes in physical activity.

"Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight," said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.

As Dr. Mozaffarian observed, "Physical activity in the United States is poor, but diet is even worse."

Little Things Mean a Lot

People don't become overweight overnight.

Rather, the pounds creep up slowly, often unnoticed, until one day nothing in the closet fits the way it used to.

Even more important than its effect on looks and wardrobe, this gradual weight gain harms health. At least six prior studies have found that rising weight increases the risk in women of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and breast cancer, and the risk in men of heart disease, diabetes and colon cancer.

The beauty of the new study is its ability to show, based on real-life experience, how small changes in eating, exercise and other habits can result in large changes in body weight over the years.

On average, study participants gained a pound a year, which added up to 20 pounds in 20 years. Some gained much more, about four pounds a year, while a few managed to stay the same or even lose weight.

Participants who were overweight at the study's start tended to gain the most weight, which seriously raised their risk of obesity-related diseases, Dr. Hu said. "People who are already overweight have to be particularly careful about what they eat," he said.

The foods that contributed to the greatest weight gain were not surprising. French fries led the list: Increased consumption of this food alone was linked to an average weight gain of 3.4 pounds in each four-year period. Other important contributors were potato chips (1.7 pounds), sugar-sweetened drinks (1 pound), red meats and processed meats (0.95 and 0.93 pound, respectively), other forms of potatoes (0.57 pound), sweets and desserts (0.41 pound), refined grains (0.39 pound), other fried foods (0.32 pound), 100-percent fruit juice (0.31 pound) and butter (0.3 pound).

Also not too surprising were most of the foods that resulted in weight loss or no gain when consumed in greater amounts during the study: fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Compared with those who gained the most weight, participants in the Nurses' Health Study who lost weight consumed 3.1 more servings of vegetables each day.

But contrary to what many people believe, an increased intake of dairy products, whether low-fat (milk) or full-fat (milk and cheese), had a neutral effect on weight.

And despite conventional advice to eat less fat, weight loss was greatest among people who ate more yogurt and nuts, including peanut butter, over each four-year period.

Nuts are high in vegetable fat, and previous small studies have shown that eating peanut butter can help people lose weight and keep it off, probably because it slows the return of hunger.

That yogurt, among all foods, was most strongly linked to weight loss was the study's most surprising dietary finding, the researchers said. Participants who ate more yogurt lost an average of 0.82 pound every four years.

Yogurt contains healthful bacteria that in animal studies increase production of intestinal hormones that enhance satiety and decrease hunger, Dr. Hu said. The bacteria may also raise the body's metabolic rate, making weight control easier.

But, consistent with the new study's findings, metabolism takes a hit from refined carbohydrates ­ sugars and starches stripped of their fiber, like white flour. When Dr. David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston compared the effects of refined carbohydrates with the effects of whole grains in both animals and people, he found that metabolism, which determines how many calories are used at rest, slowed with the consumption of refined grains but stayed the same after consumption of whole grains.

Other Influences

As has been suggested by previous smaller studies, how long people slept each night influenced their weight changes. In general, people who slept less than six hours or more than eight hours a night tended to gain the most. Among possible explanations are effects of short nights on satiety hormones, as well as an opportunity to eat more while awake, Dr. Hu said.

He was not surprised by the finding that the more television people watched, the more weight they gained, most likely because they are influenced by a barrage of food ads and snack in front of the TV.

Alcohol intake had an interesting relationship to weight changes. No significant effect was found among those who increased their intake to one glass of wine a day, but increases in other forms of alcohol were likely to bring added pounds.

As expected, changes in smoking habits also influenced weight changes. Compared with people who never smoked, those who had quit smoking within the previous four years gained an average of 5.17 pounds. Subsequent weight gain was minimal ­ 0.14 pound for each four-year period.

Those who continued smoking lost 0.7 pound in each four-year period, which the researchers surmised may have resulted from undiagnosed underlying disease, especially since those who took up smoking experienced no change in weight.

ANS -- Ron Paul’s Surprisingly Lucid Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impasse

Here's a creative idea of how to reduce the debt (then raising the ceiling becomes a moot point for a couple of years).  It's an interesting thought.  Is it unlikely to happen?
Find it here:  http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/91224/ron-paul-debt-ceiling-federal-reserve  
--Kim

Ron Paul's Surprisingly Lucid Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impasse

• Dean Baker
• July 2, 2011 | 12:00 am

Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget.

The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn't have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed's destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

In addition, there's a second reason why Representative Paul's plan is such a good idea. As it stands now, the Fed plans to sell off its bond holdings over the next few years. This means that the interest paid on these bonds would go to banks, corporations, pension funds, and individual investors who purchase them from the Fed. In this case, the interest payments would be a burden to the Treasury since the Fed would no longer be collecting (and refunding) the interest.

To be sure, there would be consequences to the Fed destroying these bonds. The Fed had planned to sell off the bonds to absorb reserves that it had pumped into the banking system when it originally purchased the bonds. These reserves can be created by the Fed when it has need to do so, as was the case with the quantitative easing policy. Creating reserves is in effect a way of "printing money." During a period of high unemployment, this can boost the economy with little fear of inflation, since there are many unemployed workers and excess capacity to keep downward pressure on wages and prices. However, at some point the economy will presumably recover and inflation will be a risk. This is why the Fed intends to sell off its bonds in future years. Doing so would reduce the reserves of the banking system, thereby limiting lending and preventing inflation. If the Fed doesn't have the bonds, however, then it can't sell them off to soak up reserves.

But as it turns out, there are other mechanisms for restricting lending, most obviously raising the reserve requirements for banks. If banks are forced to keep a larger share of their deposits on reserve (rather than lend them out), it has the same effect as reducing the amount of reserves. To take a simple arithmetic example, if the reserve requirement is 10 percent and banks have $1 trillion in reserves, the system will support the same amount of lending as when the reserve requirement is 20 percent and the banks have $2 trillion in reserves. In principle, the Fed can reach any target for lending limits by raising reserve requirements rather than reducing reserves.

As a practical matter, the Fed has rarely used changes in the reserve requirement as an instrument for adjusting the amount of lending in the system. Its main tool has been changing the amount of reserves in the system. However, these are not ordinary times. The Fed does not typically buy mortgage backed securities or long-term government bonds either. It has been doing both over the last two years precisely because this downturn is so extraordinary. And in extraordinary times, it is appropriate to take extraordinary measures­like the Fed destroying its $1.6 trillion in government bonds and using increases in reserve requirements to limit lending and prevent inflation.

In short, Representative Paul has produced a very creative plan that has two enormously helpful outcomes. The first one is that the destruction of the Fed's $1.6 trillion in bond holdings immediately gives us plenty of borrowing capacity under the current debt ceiling. The second benefit is that it will substantially reduce the government's interest burden over the coming decades. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration, even from people who may not like its source.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His most recent book is False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy.

Fwd: July 1 to August 1

Hi -- this is a bit late, but I just got it....

A little late but still a good idea

 

Well over 50 yrs ago I knew a lady who would not buy Christmas gifts if they were made in  China. Her daughter will recognize her in the following.

Did y'all see that Diane Sawyer has a special report coming up this week.    They removed ALL items from a typical, middle class family's home that were

not made in the  USA .

There was hardly anything left besides the kitchen sink. Literally. During  the special they are going to show truckloads of items -  USA made - being brought in to replace everything and will be talking about how to find these  items and the difference in price etc..

It was interesting that Diane said that if every American spent just $64  more than normal on USA made items this year, it would create something like

200,000 new jobs!

I WAS BUYING FOOD THE OTHER DAY AT WALMART and ON THE LABEL OF SOME PRODUCTS IT SAID 'FROM CHINA '

FOR EXAMPLE THE "OUR FAMILY" BRAND OF THE MANDARIN ORANGES SAYS RIGHT ON THE

CAN 'FROM  CHINA '

I WAS SHOCKED SO FOR A FEW MORE CENTS I BOUGHT THE  LIBERTY GOLD BRAND OR THE

DOLE SINCE IT'S FROM CALIF.

Are we Americans as dumb as we appear --- or --- is it that we just do not  think while the Chinese, knowingly and intentionally, export inferior and  even toxic products and dangerous toys and goods to be sold in American

markets?

70% of Americans believe that the trading privileges afforded to the Chinese  should be suspended.

Why do you need the government to suspend trading privileges? DO IT  YOURSELF,  AMERICA !!

Simply look on the bottom of every product you buy, and if it says 'Made in  China ' or 'PRC' (and that now includes Hong Kong ), simply choose another product, or none at all. You will be amazed at how dependent you are on Chinese

products, and you will be equally amazed at what you can do without.

Who needs plastic eggs to celebrate Easter? If you must have eggs, use real

  ones and benefit some American farmer. Easter is just an example. The point  is do not wait for the government to act. Just go ahead and assume control on your own.

THINK ABOUT THIS: If 200 million Americans refuse to buy just $20 each of  Chinese goods, that's a billion dollar trade imbalance resolved in our favor...fast!!

Most of the people who have been reading about this matter are planning on  implementing this on JULY 1st and continue it until AUGUST 1st. That is only  one month of trading losses, but it will hit the Chinese for 1/12th of the  total, or 8%, of their American exports. Then they might have to ask themselves if the benefits of their arrogance and lawlessness were worth it.

Remember, July 1 to August 1st !!!!!!  START NOW.

Send this to everybody you know. Let's show them that we are Americans and  NOBODY can take us for granted.

If we can't live without cheap Chinese goods for one month out of our lives,  WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET!

Pass it on,  America .

Well instead of doing it for just 1 month why not try to do it all the time.

 

____________________________________________________________

57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!

Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!

ConsumerLifestyles.org

=

ANS -- the way to save the economy

I just posted this on Norman Goldman's Facebook page.  If you don't know him, he's on the radio (Green 960) in the afternoons, and he's a lawyer. 
Find it here: http://www.facebook.com/normangoldman 
this is what I said: 

The Republicon Party has said that they intend to crash the economy in order to get Obama voted out of office. The way they are intending to crash the economy is to limit government spending severely. This amounts to an admission on their part that the way to save the economy is to increase government spending. Even they know it's true. As it says in the Bible: save during the fat years and spend during the lean years.

Fwd: ANS - Fwd: theRSAorg just uploaded a video

This is a repeat for some of you, but it bounced back as undeliverable for a lot of you, so I am trying again. 
--Kim

 The RSA films are great, and this is a new one.  It's called the economics of good and evil.  And he makes it pretty easy to understand, though the sound is only so-so.  It's not typical of RSA because the illustrations aren't as elaborate. 
Then there's another one that pops up, that's about Motivation.  It shows some surprising results from scientific studies about what motivates people to work hard or not, to succeed or not at the work they are trying to do.  This one is really well illustrated.
Find the link to the first one below, and to the Motivation one here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&NR=1
--Kim 

  Help Center | Email Options

theRSAorg just uploaded a video:
 
The Economics of Good and Evil
Former economic advisor to President Vaclav Havel, and one of the '5 Hot Minds in Economics', Tomáš Sedláček visits the RSA to investigate the ethics of economics.Listen to the full audio:http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/the-economics-of-good-and-evil More

ANS - Fwd: theRSAorg just uploaded a video

 The RSA films are great, and this is a new one.  It's called the economics of good and evil.  And he makes it pretty easy to understand, though the sound is only so-so.  It's not typical of RSA because the illustrations aren't as elaborate. 
Then there's another one that pops up, that's about Motivation.  It shows some surprising results from scientific studies about what motivates people to work hard or not, to succeed or not at the work they are trying to do.  This one is really well illustrated.
Find the link to the first one below, and to the Motivation one here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&NR=1 
--Kim 

  Help Center | Email Options

theRSAorg just uploaded a video:
 
The Economics of Good and Evil
Former economic advisor to President Vaclav Havel, and one of the '5 Hot Minds in Economics', Tomáš Sedláček visits the RSA to investigate the ethics of economics.Listen to the full audio:http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/the-economics-of-good-and-evil More

ANS -- Fwd: Can you believe this????????????!!!!!!!!

Hi --- One of our readers sent this to me.  I am sending it on just in case you hadn't been following what's happening in Wisconsin. 
--Kim

 

Fake Democrats lose in Wis. primary recalls

•  
  
• A voter in Glendale, Wis., casts a ballot in a Democratic primary on Thursday, July …

Related Content

• Article: Election Roundup: Wins for Democrats in Wisconsin and California
  
• Wed, Jul 13, 2011
• Article: Arizona governor orders recall vote for immigration law author
  
• Tue, Jul 12, 2011

MADISON, Wis. (AP) â€" All six fake Democrats lost to Democrats supported by the party in primaries Tuesday that are the first in a series of recall elections targeting nine Wisconsin state senators for their positions on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's divisive union rights restrictions.

The winners advance to take on incumbent Republicans targeted for recall on Aug. 9.

The state Republican Party orchestrated the placement of the fake Democrats on Tuesday's ballot, thereby delaying the general election for a month. That gave the Republican incumbents more time to campaign and distance themselves from the turmoil over the union law that they voted to support in March, spurring the recall efforts.

Five of the six winners had at least 65 percent of the vote, based on unofficial results. The sixth, Shelly Moore, had 54 percent.

Moore defeated Issac Weix, a Republican on the ballot as a Democrat who had previously run twice before and lost as a GOP candidate for the state Assembly. The St. Croix County Republican Party sent emails and paid for phone calls on behalf of Weix, urging Republicans to support him in the Democratic primary.

But Moore, a 37-year-old Ellsworth public school teacher from River Falls in western Wisconsin, prevailed. She will advance to face Republican Sen. Sheila Harsdorf and independent BJ Cook, both of River Falls.

In the 2nd District, former De Pere mayor and Brown County Executive Nancy Nusbaum, 64, easily defeated fake Democratic candidate Otto Junkermann, an 82-year-old who served as a Brown County supervisor in the 1980s and one year as a Republican in the state Assembly.

Nusbaum, who had 65 percent of the vote with 99 percent of precincts reporting, will face Republican Sen. Rob Cowles in the general election.

In the 32nd District, state Rep. Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse handily defeated fake Democrat James D. Smith, a former county Republican executive committee member also from La Crosse. Shilling, who had 71 percent of the vote, takes on Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke.

State Rep. Fred Clark defeated fake Democrat Rol Church of Wautoma in the 14th District to advance to take on Republican Sen. Luther Olsen. Clark got 67 percent of the vote.

And in the 18th District, attorney Jessica King, 35, defeated John Buckstaff, 81, a retired furniture business owner. King, who had 69 percent of the vote, will face Republican Sen. Randy Hopper.

Tuesday's primaries marked the first of four recall elections during the next five weeks. The six targeted Republicans voted for Walker's bill and the three Democrats fled to Illinois for three weeks to delay a vote on the measure that takes away collective bargaining rights from most public employees.

The stakes are huge. If the Democrats gain three seats, they will take majority control away from the Republicans and be in a position to stop Walker and the GOP's agenda.

Republicans can vote in the Democratic races because Wisconsin has an open primary, raising the possibility of further mischief in the elections. State Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said he was concerned Republicans would attempt to vote for the fake Democrats on Tuesday, but he was confident the real ones would prevail.

In Republican Sen. Alberta Darling's district in suburban Milwaukee, several dozen voters waited in line at Glendale City Hall about noon to choose between Democratic state Rep. Sandy Pasch and fake Democratic candidate Gladys Huber.

Pasch won with 67 percent of the vote.

Jim Krivitz, a 66-year-old retired museum executive, called the primary "phony." He said he was voting for Pasch in part to register his disapproval of Darling and her GOP colleagues.

"I don't like the way the current Republican administration is moving precipitously to the right on everything," he said.

Self-described conservative Walter Schoenfeld, 69, said he was voting for Huber to protest the actions of 14 Democratic state senators who fled the state.

"Democrats played like little children," said Schoenfeld, a retired health care administrator. "What's the saying? Elections have consequences. Live with it."

There is a Republican primary in two other races on July 19 and a general election in the Green Bay area with Democratic Sen. Dave Hansen versus GOP challenger Dave VanderLeest. The general election for the other two races targeting Democratic incumbents is Aug. 16.

Also Tuesday, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin public policy director Chris Taylor emerged from a field of six Democrats to win a primary for a seat in the Assembly representing a portion of Dane County that was vacated by Joe Parisi when he left in April to serve as Dane County executive. Taylor has no opposition in the Aug. 9 general election.

ANS -- American dream is about equality, not wealth

Here's a lovely sentiment for Independence Day.  It's about The American Dream, and what it meant before the Consumer Hedonists took over the hearts and minds of America. 
Find it here:  http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/08/mills.debt.dream/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9  
--Kim

American dream is about equality, not wealth

By Nicolaus Mills, Special to CNN
July 8, 2011 2:45 p.m. EDT
 
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The battle over the debt ceiling is a battle over the American dream, Nicolaus Mills says
• History provides a view of the American dream that should encourage liberals, Mills says
• He says the term "American dream," coined in 1931, had nothing to do with getting rich
• Mills: For four centuries, the American dream has been about sharing and sacrifice

RELATED TOPICS

• U.S. History
• Barack Obama
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• Abraham Lincoln
• Thomas Jefferson

Editor's note: Nicolaus Mills is a professor of American studies at Sarah Lawrence College. He is at work on a new book, "Season of Fear: 9/11 and the Road to Iraq."

(CNN) -- The battle between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans over raising the debt ceiling has escalated into more than a fight over the budget and taxes. It has become a battle over who speaks for the American dream -- those who want the wealthy to pay a greater share of the nation's taxes or those who want to cut entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

A look back in time provides a view of the American dream that ought to encourage liberals.

The famed historian James Truslow Adams, in his 1931 study "The Epic of America," is credited with popularizing the term "American dream." But Adams' dream had little to do with the now-popular idea of "striking it rich" and achieving fabulous wealth. Adams' version of the American dream was a modest one. It was a shared dream in which men and women attain "the fullest stature of which they are capable" without trampling one another.

Adams was opposed to a system that, as he put it, "steadily increases the gulf between the ordinary man and the super-rich," and in this view Adams was not just speaking for himself. He was describing the egalitarian core at the center of the historic American dream.

In the 17th century, we see this modest version of the American dream most clearly in the "city upon a hill" sermon (a favorite of Ronald Reagan) that John Winthrop, one of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's early governors, gave as the Puritans were on the way to the New World. For Winthrop, it was crucial for the Puritans to remember that theirs was a collective enterprise in which they would succeed or fail by virtue of being "knit together" as one people. Sharing and sacrifice were prerequisites, in Winthrop's mind, for becoming a city on a hill that would serve as an example for others.

"We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities for the supply of others' necessities," Winthrop insisted.

More than a century later Thomas Jefferson found himself reaching a similar conclusion while serving as minister to France. In a 1785 letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson expressed his horror at the inequality of life in pre-revolutionary France and then went on to discuss how America could avoid Europe's fate.

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on," Jefferson wrote Madison, and then with the vastness of America in mind, he observed, "It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land."

Almost a century later, with passage of the Homestead Act looming, President-elect Abraham Lincoln expressed similar thoughts. "I have to say that in so far as the government lands can be disposed of, I am in favor of cutting up the wild lands into parcels, so that every poor man may have a home," Lincoln told a cheering Ohio audience.

On July 4, 1861, in a special message to Congress, Lincoln went even further in describing the government's obligation to its most vulnerable citizens. In an address devoted to justifying the Union cause, Lincoln defended the idea of "government whose leading object is, to elevate the conditions of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start." It was this view of government that in Lincoln's mind made the Civil War a "people's contest."

Nearly 75 years later, with unemployment at 25 percent, President Franklin Roosevelt advanced a similar description of government. In his 1933 inaugural address, Roosevelt spoke of the need for the country to move as an army "willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline," and over the next 12 years, Roosevelt never backed away from that idea.

Campaigning for the presidency in 1936, he assured voters, "Your government is still on the same side of the street with the good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side," and in his triumphant second inaugural, Roosevelt made it clear what being a good Samaritan meant in the middle of the Great Depression. "The test of our progress," he proclaimed, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

World War II only heightened Roosevelt's egalitarian beliefs. In his first fireside chat after Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt told the nation "ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us," and in his 1942 State of the Union address, he spelled out what sacrifice now meant. "War costs money," Roosevelt reminded Congress and the nation. "That means taxes and bonds and bonds and taxes. It means cutting luxuries and other nonessentials."

For Roosevelt, the notion of carrying on a war while simultaneously cutting taxes was unthinkable and unpatriotic.

Whose vision of the American dream will prevail in the budget battle between Obama and congressional Republicans is far from clear. Both sides, who are still "far apart," as the president put it, may end up compromising their beliefs to get an agreement.

But in the meantime we should have no doubt about the American dream. For four centuries, it has rested on the idea that government should do all it can to narrow the divide between those at the top and those at the bottom of society.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nicolaus Mills.

ANS -- What Kind of Patriots Are These Republicans?

Here are two related bits from Andy Schmookler.  I think his analogy in the first one is very apt.  May it go viral. 
find them here:  http://www.facebook.com/notes/andy-schmookler/debt-talks-congress-heads-home-for-holiday-after-posturing-little-progress/223859334320395   and
http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Kind-of-Patriots-Are-by-Andrew-Schmookler-110703-294.html  
--Kim

Debt talks: Congress heads home for holiday after posturing, little progress

by Andy Schmookler on Sunday, July 3, 2011 at 11:50am

Response to Washington Post article:

 

What would you think of a parent who held a gun to his own child's head and declared to onlookers, "Do what I say or I'll blow the kid's head off!"?

 

Would you believe his claim that he was a loving parent?

 

What would you think of an American political party that would hold a gun, figuratively speaking, to the nation's public good and declare, "Meet our demands or we'll hurt America!"?

 

Would you believe their claims that they're American patriots?

 

No. In both cases we would be appalled.

 

Even if the demands themselves were reasonable, no loving parent would take his own child hostage, and no true American patriots would hold hostage the well-being of the United States.

 

But that's what the Republicans have done three times in the last six months­most immediately with their refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless everyone else does exactly what they say.

 

Even major parts of the Republicans' own constituency –like the national Chamber of Commerce and major financial institutions­are warning of the grave damage to the American economy the Republicans are threatening to do.

 

But the Republicans demands are themselves scarcely more worthy than their threats. With taxes on multi-millionaires and billionaires at their lowest level in decades, with all the economic gains of the past decade having gone to the very top and millions of American families in severe economic distress, the Republicans demands are a travesty.

 

They are insisting that ALL the deficit reductions come from cuts to programs that help average Americans, and NONE of it come from additional revenues from the most privileged among us.

 

Could anything show more clearly what today's Republican Party has become?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/debt-talks-congress-heads-home-for-holiday-after-posturing-little-progress/2011/06/30/AGMG4OuH_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Share
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Kind of Patriots Are These Republicans?

By Andrew Schmookler (about the author)



By Andy Schmookler for Congress

 

Is there good evidence, other than that they claim it, that these Republicans are patriots?

How does a patriot act?   What are the hallmarks of the patriot?

Well, being a person who loves his country, a patriot is someone who is willing, when necessary, to sacrifice some of his own personal (perhaps selfish) good for the good of the country.   Love is like that, including for country.

We show that we understand that when we honor our war dead: we make it a patriotic holiday to celebrate those who made the supreme sacrifice for their nation.

When have these Republicans shown a willingness to sacrifice anything, besides other people?  

How much weight have they given the nation's good over their individual advantage?   Well, there are clues.

As soon as a president from the opposition party took over, the Republicans made a priority of making him fail.   Trying to make the President fail may be politically advantageous, but especially at a time of multiple national crises, the president's failure inevitably means serious injury to the country.

No patriot would injure the country to get political advantage.

And now we've got these Republicans threatening to push the U.S. economy off a dangerous cliff if their demands aren't met.   So much for love of country.   And what are they are demanding?   They insist that the sacrifices in this country are to be made by average Americans and not by the rich and powerful, whom these Republicans serve.

No patriot would threaten to send a nation already in considerable distress (the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression) into a still deeper collapse--a scenario that many serious economists think quite possible if the Republicans make good their threat.

And what about those forces of plutocracy, for whose interests the Republicans are so fiercely fighting, and who have made out so well while the rest of America has been losing ground?   How ready are they to make a sacrifice when the nation requires it of them?  

With the nation's financial condition in a worrisome state, with the national debt having grown in relation to the economy as a whole, one would expect a patriot possessing great wealth to be willing to give up at least SOME of his enormous wealth to help his country out, even to offer it .   But these plutocratic interests, far from being willing to sacrifice, are demanding, through their Republican collaborators, that their taxes already at historic lows--be reduced.

So, other than waving the flag, just what have these Republicans and those whom they serve done that demonstrates genuine patriotism?

 
Andy Schmookler is running for Congress in Virginia's 6th District.

ANS -- Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning

Everyone: Read this article!!! I read the over five hundred comments, and many lifeguards and other rescuers agree that drowning can be silent and look like nothing. 
find it here:  http://mariovittone.com/2010/05/154/   or   http://gcaptain.com/drowning/?10981 
--Kim

Drowning Doesn't Look Like Drowning

 

by Mario on May 3, 2010

in Boating Safety,Water Safety

Translations: – - ti ng Vi t – Español – Français – Português – român – Deutsch – Suomi – Svenska -  eština – -Íslenska – Audio Version

The new captain jumped from the deck, fully dressed, and sprinted through the water. A former lifeguard, he kept his eyes on his victim as he headed straight for the couple swimming between their anchored sportfisher and the beach. "I think he thinks you're drowning," the husband said to his wife. They had been splashing each other and she had screamed but now they were just standing, neck-deep on the sand bar. "We're fine, what is he doing?" she asked, a little annoyed. "We're fine!" the husband yelled, waving him off, but his captain kept swimming hard. "Move!" he barked as he sprinted between the stunned owners. Directly behind them, not ten feet away, their nine-year-old daughter was drowning. Safely above the surface in the arms of the captain, she burst into tears, "Daddy!"

How did this captain know – from fifty feet away – what the father couldn't recognize from just ten? Drowning is not the violent, splashing, call for help that most people expect. The captain was trained to recognize drowning by experts and years of experience. The father, on the other hand, had learned what drowning looks like by watching television. If you spend time on or near the water (hint: that's all of us) then you should make sure that you and your crew knows what to look for whenever people enter the water. Until she cried a tearful, "Daddy," she hadn't made a sound. As a former Coast Guard rescue swimmer, I wasn't surprised at all by this story. Drowning is almost always a deceptively quiet event. The waving, splashing, and yelling that dramatic conditioning (television) prepares us to look for, is rarely seen in real life.

The Instinctive Drowning Response – so named by Francesco A. Pia, Ph.D., is what people do to avoid actual or perceived suffocation in the water. And it does not look like most people expect. There is very little splashing, no waving, and no yelling or calls for help of any kind. To get an idea of just how quiet and undramatic from the surface drowning can be, consider this: It is the number two cause of accidental death in children, age 15 and under (just behind vehicle accidents) – of the approximately 750 children who will drown next year, about 375 of them will do so within 25 yards of a parent or other adult. In ten percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch them do it, having no idea it is happening (source: CDC). Drowning does not look like drowning – Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard's On Scene Magazine, described the instinctive drowning response like this:

1. Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled, before speech occurs.
2. Drowning people's mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people's mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.
3. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water's surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water, permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.
4. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.
5. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people's bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.
   (Source: On Scene Magazine: Fall 2006 (page 14))
   
   This doesn't mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn't in real trouble – they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the instinctive drowning response, aquatic distress doesn't last long – but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc.
   
   Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water:
   • Head low in the water, mouth at water level
   • Head tilted back with mouth open
   • Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus
   • Eyes closed
   • Hair over forehead or eyes
   • Not using legs – Vertical
   • Hyperventilating or gasping
   • Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway
   • Trying to roll over on the back
   • Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder.
   
   So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK – don't be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don't look like they're drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, "Are you alright?" If they can answer at all – they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents – children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.
   
   Join me on Facebook
   
   ___________
   
   Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Coast Guard.
   

ANS -- Fwd: IKEA’s dangerous little secret

Hi everyone -- I don't usually send on this kind of notice, but I thought this information was interesting, in that Sweden is now viewing America as a Third World country.  What do we think of that?  What do the Republicans, who have been working since 1964 to make us into a Third World country, think?  Are they pleased?  Are they enjoying it?  Gloating about it?  You bet they are, in private.... at least the rich ones are.  The poor ones are wondering what happened -- where did their America go, and who can they blame? The only ones answering that question to the Tea Party-ers is the Republicons and the right wing radio guys, and they blame liberals.  Why aren't liberals out there presenting the other side of the story to them? rather than just talking amongst ourselves....
--Kim

 

Tell IKEA to let its workers organize for fair wages and a safer workplace.





Dear Kim,

In Sweden, IKEA's factory workers are paid $19 per hour and get five weeks of paid vacation every year. In America? Not so much.

IKEA's Swedwood plant in Danville, Virginia is the most dangerous plant in the wood furniture industry -- workers there have suffered more than 1,536 days of lost work due to accidents on the job in a 30-month period. According to the LA Times, IKEA's Danville workers are paid as little as $8 an hour and face racial discrimination from their managers. Workers often find out on Friday night that they'll be forced to work for the entire weekend -- and if they can't make it, they face disciplinary action.

In Sweden, IKEA's factory workers are unionized, which is one reason they receive better wages and have a safer workplace -- but the company is going all out to prevent American workers from receiving those same rights and protections. Please sign the petition to tell IKEA to give its American workers the freedom to organize.

The workers in Danville have filed for an election to start a union of their own -- the election could come as soon as six weeks from now. But rather than pay its workers fair wages, Swedwood pays the notorious union-busting firm Jackson Lewis thousands of dollars a day to hold mandatory "captive audience meetings" with the Danville workers. At these meetings, the Jackson Lewis associates inundate the workers with anti-union propaganda and veiled threats that are backed up with random firings.

Here's the good news: The publicity surrounding this organizing drive has already made a difference -- last month, Swedwood announced that Danville workers would no longer be forced to work mandatory overtime. But Liz Cattaneo of American Rights at Work stresses that continued public pressure is extremely important: "If IKEA thinks the public isn't paying attention, they're going to play hardball … throughout the election process - which could mean more firings and more union busting."

Now that the workers have filed for a union election, you can bet IKEA will redouble its efforts to squash their rights. They need our support now more than ever.

Please sign the petition to tell IKEA's head of Corporate PR that we are paying attention, and we expect IKEA to treat its American workers just as well as its Swedish workers:

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-ikea-to-respect-its-workers

Thanks for taking action,

- Jess and the Change.org team

 

This email was sent by Change.org to kimc@astound.net.
Start a petition. Unsubscribe from future weekly updates. Edit your email notification settings.