THE JOBS OF PRINCES AND PRINCESSES

Last evening, I was watching ABC News.  At the very end, they did a story about what children around the world think princes and princesses do.  Some of the answers were cute, describing where they sit and that they do not work.  Other answers were really moving.  One child said that the princes and princesses help people like the homeless and children in orphanages.  It made me think that children really do count on people in authority for a lot. 

It occurred to me that maybe children count on all adults for a lot.  I wonder how often we disappoint them because we too often decide that our adult needs and interests supercede those of children most of the time.  If that were not true, we would not have so many children living in poverty, even in our country, the most wealthy in the world. 

Maybe we adults need to examine our priorities and start putting our children at the center of what we do.  We don’t have to be royalty to make a difference.  I know this is not profound, but seeing those children so serious and sincere, it made me want to commit even more strongly to the well-being of the youngest generation. 

We need schools more than prisons, good living conditions more than subsidies for corporations, decent healthy food more than a military that polices a world that doesn’t care for our actions, and health care for everyone more than for super rich people.  Let's get our priorities straight, O ye in Congress.  Worry less about abortion and more about the living breathing children who depend on you to act like princes and princesses who help people.

Peace,

Ruth

The American Pandemic

America is in the midst of an epidemic.  I don't know the statistics, but based on the people I've talked to in the last year, I'd say at least 30% are infected, with another 10% highly susceptible.  One peculiar symptom of this disease is that the victims become proud of their affliction and reject treatment.  They infect their children, not by accident, but deliberately.

The epidemic?  Ignorance.

Bad enough a bunch of folks in Texas booed at a respected scientist because he said the moon reflected the sun's light.  No one's played that stupid card since Galileo was excommunicated.

Now take Donald Trump (please).  He calls himself a presidential contender yet, does he talk about the economy?  The budget?  The environment?  America's military involvements?  Anything that could be vaguely regarded as a real issue?  No, his main talking point is Mr. Obama's place of birth.  The certification above--what most of our parents took home from the hospital, in lieu of birth certificates--has been floating around the Internet for 4 years now, along with a copy of the president's passport, which you can't get without a US birth certificate.   That should have been enough for intelligent people.  But Donald Trump?  Nuh-uh.

Yesterday, the President asked the State of Hawaii to release his birth certificate to the public.  Did Trump act embarrassed when his claim was proven wrong?  No, he puffed out his chest and took credit for the birth certificate.

I remember a former president in this century who used to do that sort of thing.  You know, the president responsible for all the US soldiers killed in Iraq because of WMDs that never existed?  That whole "Mission Accomplished" thing?

I won't accuse Trump of being ignorant.  Just the opposite--he's cunning, and likes to manipulate people who are ignorant to get what he wants.  Frankly, he's not doing anything different from half the Republican politicians in federal and state governments.  Their policies call for cuts in education.  Why?  Because educated people can figure out when they're being conned.

Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time.  What it boils down to is, the more people you can keep ignorant, the more you can fool.  And really, you only have to fool 51% to win an election.

Do yourself a favor.  Seek the truth.  Insist that your politicians talk about issues.  Insist that they do their homework.

Don't be stupid.
muon

To NAP or NOT TO NAP

by Ruth Sheets

The media and transportation officials are hot now to do a “gotcha” on Air Traffic Controllers. It is like a rerun of 1981 when the ATCs tried to get a good contract and President Reagan shut them down (in the interest of public safety, of course). ATCs work under conditions most people could not begin to do and they have more lives in their hands every day than any other workers I can think of.

Instead of a acknowledging that the reason Air Traffic Controllers might fall asleep on duty is not related to character flaws or incompetence, they are suspended or fired when it happens. That leaves fewer people to do the job and puts more people at risk. When it is suggested that a brief nap might help relieve fatigue and stress, our Secretary of Transportation blurts out that they are not being paid to nap and that it won’t happen on his watch. 
 
I guess the word “nap” sounds wimp-ish, and if one just “bucks up,” one won’t need that baby rest. Words like “overwork” and "poor scheduling” sound like whining and can easily be dismissed as the complaints of the lazy.

Taking a brief refreshing nap during an already scheduled break could significantly increase alertness, but "if anyone finds out . . . " Maybe we could begin with such a simple, elegant, FREE partial solution to this challenge, but I suspect someone will be receiving a large paycheck to “study” the situation and will give the exact same “nap” a grown-up name like “temporary withdrawal from environmental stimulus,” that is, if anything is done at all.

There is always a rug to shove the problem under, and it will stay there despite the current “concern,” until there is another incident, or worse, an accident, due to overwork and poor scheduling. Of course, it will be the Controller’s fault.

Peace,
Ruth

An Earth Day tribute to Ronald Reagan

You remember President Reagan?  He was the one who deregulated the air traffic controllers and fired the lot of them.  His new hires are now all beginning to retire at once.  Because of the deregulation, the replacements aren't being trained properly, so they're taking naps while on duty.  How ironic that one of the first controllers to be caught sleeping worked at Reagan Airport.

But let's talk about the environment a minute.  Back in the Carter years, OPEC made petroleum scarce and the price of gas shot up to--gasp--over a dollar a gallon.  Everyone started acting sensibly--buying smaller cars, lowering thermostats, etc.  President Carter began to promote alternative energy sources.  One of his projects was to install solar panels on the White House for a hot water system.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan worked his special magic and petroleum prices came down.  In 1986, Reagan had the White House solar panels removed.  The message:  We don't need no stinkin' unprofitable solar energy.

We're now paying for the Middle East political finagling of those years and the administrations to follow with wars, unrest, and gas prices over $4 and still rising.  We're paying for it more with climate change that's nearly out of control.  The leftover Reagan taming-of-the-Wild-West attitude isn't helping matters.  Unlike the 1970s, people now seem to think they're entitled to their big gas-guzzers.  Small cars are barely advertised.  Homes these days are filled with more lights, and with more and bigger electronics that always pull power, even when they're shut off.  Everyone seems to feel that someone else ought to be doing something to fix environmental problems, but buy a more efficient car?  Turn off the lights and power strips when you leave the room?  God forbid.

Last year, a company named Sungevity offered to donate a full solar system for the White House.  They were refused.  I've read weird excuses for this:  that a White House solar system would only emphasize how expensive they are and show the President as being "out of touch," or that somehow this would encourage every nut out there to donate alternative energy to the White House (is that a bad thing?).

No one who has mentioned the Carter/Reagan solar story has hit on the crucial point:  Since 1986, taxpayers have paid for EVERY DROP of hot water in the White House.  Had Reagan left those panels in place, we would have at least saved money on sunny days.  Over the last two decades, that would have been added up to a fairly substantial savings.

A full solar system on the White House now would not only heat the hot water, but probably make enough electricity to sell back to the power company occasionally.  Imagine, a government project MAKING money.  And if Sungevity donated it, this would be at no cost to the taxpayer.

What the President ought to do to show he gets it about cutting government costs is to have that solar system installed on the White House.  Either that or stop taking hot showers at our expense.

He also ought to encourage companies to RENT solar panels to consumers at affordable prices.  The consumer gets solar energy, the company gets the rent payments plus money from any electricity sold back to the grid.  Everyone wins.  Including the earth.

muon

The New Republican Landscape

If you have to read one article today, read this one in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/opinion/18mon1.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

Then decide if this is the kind of America you want your kids living in.  Or maybe barely surviving in.

muon

TAXES (scared yet?)

by muon

Republicans love the word "TAXES."  They can scare people with it.

The other day, President Obama gave a speech putting forth his proposal for budget cuts.  He broke down the current government spending this way:

66.6% -- spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, national security.
20% -- unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, tax credits for working families
12% -- education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, food safety, keeping our air and water clean.
rest -- interest on the debt

The Republican plan for budget cuts includes a 70% cut to clean energy, a 25% cut in education, a 30% cut in transportation, and cuts in college Pell Grants.  These cuts sound big, but as you can see from above, they'll effect less than 12% of the entire budget.

The Republican plan would also do away with Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, so that only the rich would be able to afford to grow old or become disabled.  I took care of elderly parents.  Without Medicare, they would have lost their house and most, if not all, of their savings.  In trying to punish the very people responsible for America surviving every crisis from WWII on, the GOP comes across as bullies picking on the old and infirm.  I'm guessing their own parents and grandparents might like to disown them about now.

The Obama plan calls for cuts in redundant and bloated defense spending.  The Republicans say defense can't be cut.  They puff their chests out and claim they'll protect America with a strong national security.  Yet on April 3rd, the New York Times reported that an audit of Pentagon spending found $70 billion in waste.   The Chiefs of Staff themselves are saying Pentagon spending cuts are necessary.  If President Eisenhower (a Republican) were alive today, he'd be the first to point out that putting money into transportation is more important to the country's security than all the wasteful defense spending in Washington.  National security is the reason we have interstate highways.

However, the biggest Republicans objection to Obama's plan was, as they put it, raising taxes on the American people.  They called this a "non-starter."  What you won't hear any of them mention is what Obama actually said.  Here it is:

"...[itemized deductions in the tax code] provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.  My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years.  But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further.  That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."

The president's plan wouldn't effect 98% of American taxpayers, or in making the tax code simpler, would BENEFIT 98% of American taxpayers.  That's not just Democrats or just Republicans.  It's not even just poor people.  It's 30% more than the number of Americans who voted in the 2008.  98%.   That's almost everyone.

If the GOP balks at that, it can simply mean that they're representing only 2% of Americans.  Perhaps the number of seats they hold in Congress ought to reflect this.  I'm guessing that's what they're afraid of when they loudly imply that all taxes will go up under the Obama plan, and leave out the real details.

muon

What's In It For You?

I saw a Clay Bennett political cartoon yesterday (view it by clicking here).  It was a mouse in a Tea Party T-shirt, holding a sign that read "Support the Fat Cats."

If you get it, you don't have to read this blog.  Go have a nice day.  If you don't get it, let me explain that it's not in the mouse's personal interest to support cats at all, let alone ones who like to eat.  And yet, this mouse is.

I'm not picking on the Tea Party specifically.  I've been seeing this phenomenon elsewhere--people supporting groups and causes that are completely adverse to those people's self-interests.  If you're poor, it doesn't make sense to support the very policies making you poor.  If you're bullied, you don't help the bully. If someone's stepping on your foot, you don't put your head on the ground so they can tromp on that, too.  If you're being attacked, you either run away or fight.  You don't start beating yourself up.

From what I see, though, the Tea Party does seem to have a lion's share of those committing self-interest suicide right now.

I get the cartoon, but I don't get that.

muon