PotPourri Of Global Interest

How Sitting All Day Is Damaging Your Body and How You Can Counteract It!!

2012-01-26T17:58:00.001-06:00

By Thorin Klosowski

Do you sit in an office chair or on your couch for more than six hours a day? Then here are some disturbing facts: Your risk of heart disease has increased by up to 64 percent. You're shaving off seven years of quality life. You're also more at risk for certain types of cancer. Simply put, sitting is killing you. That's the bad news. The good news: It's easy to counteract no matter how lazy you are.

Photo remixed from Lack-O'Keen/Shutterstock and Nip/Shutterstock.

Let's start with the basics. Since childhood you've known being a couch potato is bad. But why? Simply put, our bodies weren't made to sit all day. Sitting for long periods of time, even with exercise, has a negative effect on our health. What's worse, many of us sit up to 15 hours a day. That means some of us spend the bulk of our waking moments on the couch, in an office chair, or in a car.

Sitting all day long isn't hard to counteract, but you have to keep your eye on two details: your daily activity and the amount of time you sit. Let's start by taking a look at what sitting all day does to your body.

An Estimated Timeline of the Effects of Sitting

It's difficult to get an accurate assessment of what sitting all day will do to you because the effects work in tandem with diet and other risk factors. So we're going to start with a relatively healthy person who does not drink in excess, smoke, and who isn't overweight. Then we'll estimate the effects of sitting for over six hours a day based on what starts happening immediately after you sit down. For a general overview of the effects, take a look at this chart from Medical Billing and Coding to see a breakdown of what that happens in your body when you sit down. (If the majority of your sitting time takes place at a desk, keep in mind that a standing desk has its own problems, too.)

Immediately After Sitting

Right after you sit down, the electrical activity in your musclesslows down and your calorie-burning rate drops to one calorie per minute. This is about a third of what it does if you're walking. If you sit for a full 24-hour period, you experience a 40 percent reduction in glucose uptake in insulin, which can eventually cause type 2 diabetes.

After Two Weeks of Sitting for More Than Six Hours a Day

Within five days of changing to a sedentary lifestyle, your body increases plasma triglycerides (fatty molecules), LDL cholesterol (aka bad cholesterol), and insulin resistance. This means your muscles aren't taking in fat and your blood sugar levels go up, putting you at risk for weight gain. After just two weeks your muscles start to atrophy and your maximum oxygen consumption drops. This makes stairs harder to climb and walks harder to take. Even if you were working out every day the deterioration starts the second you stop moving.

After One Year of Sitting More Than Six Hours a Day

After a year, the longer term effects of sitting can start to manifest subtly. According tothis study by Nature, you might start to experience weight gain and high cholesterol. Studies in woman suggest you can lose up to 1 percent of bone mass a year by sitting for over six hours a day.

After 10-20 Years of Sitting More Than Six Hours a Day

Sitting for over six hours a day for a decade or two can cut away about seven quality adjusted life years (the kind you want). It increases your risk of dying of heart disease by 64 percent and your overall risk of prostate or breast cancer increases 30 percent.

If this looks bad, don't worry. We're going to show you how to counteract the negative effects of sitting without totally altering your lifestyle. Photo by John O'Nolan.

Counteract the Consequences of Sitting and Still Maintain Your Current Lifestyle

Happlily, you only need to do two things to counter the effects of sitting all day:

Remember to stand once an hour.
Get about 30 minutes of activity per day.

Whether you're a couch potato watching marathons of Firefly or an office worker sitting in front of a computer, an Australian study suggests short breaks from sitting once an hour can alleviate most of the problems described above. This isn't about working out (which is positive in its own right but doesn't counteract the effects of long periods of sitting). It's about creating pockets of moderate activity throughout the day and giving your body a respite from sitting.

What exactly is moderate activity? I talked with Dr. Brian Parr, associate professor in the Department of Exercise and Health Sciences at the University of South Carolina Aiken to find out. He points out the distinction between moderate activity and exercise:

We usually tell people moderate activity is equivalent to a brisk walk. This would include yard work or cleaning your house — anything that gets you moving counts. You don't have to do what people think of as exercise.

Of course, couch potatoes and office workers don't always have thirty minutes to spare. After all, a Firefly bender might take up an entire evening. Here's the good news: you can break up that thirty minutes throughout the day. Dr. Parr continues:

This is the best part. We usually tell people to break it up into ten minute segments, but that's because it's the most practical. If I tell you that you can spread it out throughout the day, you're going to say, "Well, I stood up and walked across the room to my soda." What was that, about ten seconds? You'll start to micromanage. From my perspective, that's not how people should do it. But you could do it that way.

The main reason you want to shoot for the ten minute chunks is because you're creating a mini-stress in your body that helps increase your endurance. In the real world, this means you won't get tired halfway up the stairs. Think of it this way: you don't train for a marathon by sprinting for ten minutes every day. Instead, you increase your endurance with longer jogs. The same goes for daily activity, you want to sustain activity for long enough to make it useful in your daily life.

Let's look at how you can estimate your daily activity and make sure you get out of the office chair throughout the day. Photo by cell105.

Start by Finding Your Daily Baseline with a Pedometer

The first thing to do is track how much activity you get in a regular day. For me, the easiest way to do this is a pedometer that tracks the number of footsteps I take. You can purchase a cheap $3 pedometer like this one from Amazon, or use an app on your iPhone or Android.

The first step is to take a 30-minute walk and see how many steps you take. My total was a little short of 4,000. Yours will vary based on how quickly you walk and how large your steps are.

Next, you want to find a baseline of your daily activity. Start using the pedometer when you wake up in the morning and keep it in your pocket (or running on your phone) until you go to bed. This will give you an estimate of your regular daily activity.

For me, this was frighteningly low on the days I didn't purposely exercise. My total number of steps? Under 2,000. This is downright horrible and equates to less than a mile a day. Clearly, I need to get up and move around more often. Photo by Adam Engelhart.

Meet Your Daily Activity Target by Slightly Altering Your Behavior

If you're like me, you're well under your target exercise range. A few simple changes to your daily behavior will help you reach your goal. Here are a few ideas for how to do it without really trying:

Park near the back of the parking lot.
Stand up to visit the file cabinet instead of rolling your chair.
Walk over and talk to a coworker instead of emailing them.
Take the scenic route to the bathroom instead of the most direct.

Since I work from home, I have to make a more concentrated effort to meet these goals. I've started walking to a nearby coffee shop in the afternoon and I hop on an indoor bicycle for at least 10-20 minutes a day. If all else fails, I'll do laundry because I have to walk down two sets of stairs.

Meeting your target activity level is just the first step. The second part is much simpler and only requires you stand up now and again. Here's how I remind myself to do it. Photo by o5com.

Set an Hourly Standing Alarm to Remind You to Stand

We know that if you stand up for just one or two minutes every hour, it can reduce the negative effect of sitting all day. Technically, you don't even have to move, the act of standing alone helps. When you're in the moment and working hard, it's difficult to remember. I found enabling the hourly announcement in OS X the best reminder. To set this, click Settings > Date & Time > Announce the time. Windows users can set up a similar hourly reminder as a task by clicking Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Task Scheduler.

If the alarm isn't enough, you can download dedicated software to remind you. Windows users can use free programs like, Workrave or Breaker to set up automated alerts. For Macs, Time Out seems the best free option. These programs will remind you to stand and dim the desktop to force you out of your chair.

It's up to you how you use these micro-breaks. You don't even have to move if you don't want to, but if you want to get a little activity in that minute, here's a quick way to do it without leaving your desk area:

Stand up.
March in place for twenty seconds.
Reach down and try to touch your toes for twenty seconds.
Wander around and pick up or reorganize for the last twenty seconds (eventually your desk area may even be clean).

I also set up an iCade at a standing level so I have something to occupy me when I stand up. Personally, I need objectives and I'm not good at just idling for a few minutes. The iCade adds a sense of purpose if I don't want to stretch.

Turn those Crappy Commercials into an Excuse to Get Up

TV commercials suck. Instead of wasting time watching the same car commercial you've seen for the last 20 years, consider the commercial break a chance to stand and stretch.

To help me find constructive things to do during commercials (or the credits when I'm in the midst Netflix marathon), I keep a to-do list on the coffee table as opposed to at my desk. This works as a gentle reminder to take out the trash, do the dishes, clean the litter box, or whatever else needs to get done. The best part? I don't have to watch commercials.

On a similar note, when playing video games online, I use the end of a match as a notification to stand up. If I'm playing a single player game, I stand during loading screens.

The point is that most of the activities we sit down to enjoy have these types of natural breaks in them. If you're reading you can stand up after a chapter or two. If you're playing board games you can stand up after each match. Instead of sitting and turning your mind off, stand and do it. It's really that simple. Photo by annethelibrarian.

The moral here is two-fold: stand up once an hour and get at least 30 minutes of activity in a day. That's it. Unless you're overweight, you don't have to start exercising or going to the gym to counteract the negative effects of sitting. You just have to make sure you're moving throughout the day. You don't even have to give up your TV marathons—you just need to accent them with a little hourly effort.

Posted via email from WellCare

Basic Sauerkraut

2012-01-26T17:53:00.001-06:00

Making sauerkraut requires as little as three ingredients: cabbage, salt and water. On top of that, you’ll need a few tools: a food grade container (a five gallon bucket works well), a weight (a full one gallon water jug will do) and a cheese cloth or plate to create a barrier between cabbage and weight.

The process that turns cabbage into kraut is called lactic acid fermentation. As the shredded cabbage leaves break down, the carbohydrates and proteins in the vegetable disintegrate. Lactic acid emerges. While lactic acid acts as a preservative, it seeps out too slow to prevent the vegetable from putrefying. This is why you need salt. Without salt, yeasts would form and the fermentation process would lead to alcohol rather than pickles. However, between .8 and 1.5% of the vegetable’s weight in salt holds off the rotting process until the lactic acid can take over.

The temperature range for optimal fermentation is sixty-four to seventy-one, which is an easily achieved environment in most of the world. Hence the widespread popularity of pickling in many cultures. Although sauerkraut is popular throughout most of Europe and North America, Germans have long loved it the most. This might be partially due to the fact that Germans also have long loved and perfected sauerkraut’s best friends – sausage and beer….

Ingredients:

Cabbage
Pickling salt or kosher salt
Brine (water and salt)

Shred your cabbage as thinly as you can. Use 3 TBSP of salt for each 5 lb of cabbage. Put the cabbage and salt into your bucket and mix thoroughly with your hands. Put your weight on top.

Within 24 hours, the cabbage should be submerged in its own brine. If it isn’t, dissolve 1 1/2 TBSP of salt in 1 quart of water and pour enough of this brine over the cabbage to fully cover it. Check the sauerkraut every day or two to see if scum has formed. If it has, it’s not a big deal, just remove it and wash your plate and weight before putting them back on.

Start tasting your sauerkraut latest after 2 weeks. It will be fully fermented in 2 to 4 weeks at 70 to 75 ? F or 5 to 6 weeks at 60 ? F. The kraut produces more vitamin C if it is fermented at a lower temperature. When it’s done, it will be pale gold with a tart, full flavor. But really, there is no hard rule about when your kraut will be done. It’s done whenever you like its flavor.

Store the finished kraut in the fridge or properly can it in a hot water canner for 20 to 25 min, depending on your jar size.

Posted via email from WellCare

My Computer Tip!!

2012-01-25T13:27:00.003-06:00

This week, while on my computer, I clicked on a FB email that apparently had a virus or malware attached to it. As soon as I clicked on the link from my email, my computer shut down and started rebooting...but, as it was going into Windows, I got the BSOD and it started rebooting. I went through all the fixes and none worked. My last resort was to format my hard drive and re-install Windows, which would mean all my important files would be lost.

But, some time ago I bought 2 smaller hard drives and installed my Operating System on each of them. This would enable me to pull the defective hard drive and at least get back on line. I do keep these spare drives updated as well with all Windows updates...doesn't take long.

So what I did was take one of these working hard drives, made it my primary and changed the pin settings on the defective hard drive to slave or cable select. The bottom line, after I booted into Windows, I immediately got a screed that showed my working Wins was checking the bad drive for missing and corrupt files....and boy were there a ton of them. After about 10 mins. of replacing or deleting all these files, my computer went back to the working hard drive. Once in it, I clicked on My Computer. Then, the defective drive came up with all my files still there. I immediately transferred them to my boot drive and shut down my computer.

Then, I made the defective drive my boot drive and left the other drive off. Low and behold the once defective drive booted back into my Windows Operating System and has been running with NO problems for a couple of days...knock, knock on wood.

Summary: Having an extra drive with your operating system on it can be a life saver for getting back on line, quickly. And using that drive as your primary and hooking up your defective drive as a slave drive may be a fix that many don't know about. It sure beats formatting your defective drive and re-installing your Operating Systems and loosing all your data. This should work with both a desktop and a laptop.

Of course the best way to protect your data is to either back it up or use Carbonite off line services.

My Computer Tip!!

2012-01-25T13:27:00.001-06:00

Of course the best way to protect your data is to either back it up or use Carbonite off line services.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

A State of Denial

2012-01-25T11:20:00.001-06:00

By Yuval Levin

January 25, 2012

Toward the end of his State of the Union address, President Obama delivered a paragraph that was so blatantly absurd and self contradictory as to actually become clarifying—so incoherent that it shed a bright light on his thinking and his grave dilemma. It’s hard to believe he actually said this, but he did:

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

The examples he chose of course jump out as ludicrous: K-12 education in America is thoroughly dominated by the government, and the president has not proposed to make it less so. (And state governments, by the way, are also governments.) “Getting rid of regulations that don’t work” is certainly an unusual way to describe the regulatory agenda of this administration, which has involved a series of unprecedented delegations of authority to regulators (especially in health care and financial regulation) and which continues every day to spew forth an interminable array of costly, complex, and highly assertive rules that will give the federal government (and the executive agencies in particular) previously unimagined discretion over vast swaths of our economy. And “relies on a reformed private market, not a government program” is surely the most unabashedly dishonest and Orwellian way yet devised to describe Obamacare—a law that begins from the premise that the solution to our health care financing problems is to make the government an even greater provider and purchaser of health insurance, would spend well over a trillion dollars in the coming decade on yet another health care entitlement program and on the expansion of an unreformed Medicaid system, would micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely to make it even less efficient, would employ even heavier price controls in an otherwise unreformed Medicare system, and would raise half a trillion dollars in taxes on employment, investment, and medical research.

But even more galling than the examples was the very use of the Lincoln quote itself, which makes precisely the opposite point to the one made by the rest of the president’s speech. This speech offered a vision of a profoundly technocratic and activist government, with its hands in every nook and cranny of the nation’s economic life—a government guiding particular business decisions and nudging individual choices through just the right mix of incentives and rules to reach just the right balance between fairness and growth while designing the perfect website for job retraining programs and producing exactly the proper number of “high-tech batteries.” The president described the government’s bailout of the Detroit automakers as a roaring success and then said “What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh.” If he thinks that all the tasks he laid out for government are things that people “cannot do better by themselves” then he must have a very high opinion of how well government can do things, or a very low opinion of how well people can do things by themselves, or (most plausibly) both.

The intensely activist tone of the speech also meant, of course, that no real attention could be paid to what was the dominant theme of our political debates over the past year: Our out-of-control deficits and debt. Indeed, this was probably the foremost purpose of the speech. As he prepares for his reelection campaign, the president is clearly trying to move voters away from a focus on our coming fiscal disaster and toward a renewed focus on public spending and public programs—the outlook that defined the beginning of his administration, before his specific public spending and public programs soured the public on such spending and programs and (having resulted in unprecedented deficits) alarmed the Tea Party movement into being and yielded the2010 election. But of course, those deficits and debt have only gotten worse, not better. And if we do not bring them under control—above all by reforming our health entitlement programs—we face fiscal prospects that would make an utter joke of the kind of approach to public policy and government embodied by this speech, with its explosion of spending, its barriers to economic growth, and its laughably misguided little millionaire’s surtax. Those prospects, according to the Congressional BudgetOffice, would involve debilitating levels of debt unlike anything we have experienced in America. This is the future from which the president needs to distract us:

These projections, especially compared to our fiscal circumstances in past years, also make a mockery of the now familiar nostalgia with which the president opened his speech—harkening back to the meteoric growth of the immediate postwar era in America. Even if his wistful reminiscences of that bright yesterday were better grounded in reality, the fact is that we simply cannot recreate the economic circumstances of those years, when America’s global competitors had just burned each other’s economies to the ground while ours stood ready gallop ahead. It is true that the unique explosive growth of those years also allowed for major expansions of government spending, and persisted despite fairly heavy tax and regulatory burdens. But that does not mean that it was caused by that spending or those burdens. It obviously wasn’t. And under very different circumstances, in which we must effectively compete and innovate in order to grow, we cannot afford such spending or such burdens. We must find other paths to broadly shared prosperity.

But the president does not seem interested in finding those paths. Instead, he prefers to shadowbox the familiar bogeymen held up by progressives for a century and more. Indeed, his striking appeals to replace our raucous republican politics with the model of military discipline at the beginning and the end of the speech offered conspicuous echoes of the progressive longing to overcome politics.

It all adds up to an attempt to shift the political conversation away from reality, as Mitch Daniels’s response so ably showed. But I don’t think it adds up to a very effective political strategy for the president. If tonight’s speech was indeed a preview of his election-year pitch, he’s going to have some problems.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Google Requires All Users To Agree To New Privacy Policy

2012-01-24T16:01:00.001-06:00

Google announced Tuesday that it will require all of its users to agree to a new privacy policy that will integrate user data across 60 Google products including Gmail, YouTube and search. The policy will also encompass information, including location data, collected on mobile devices.

Users will not be allowed to opt-out.

In a company blog post, Google privacy director Alma Whitten said that “if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience."

The new policy will take effect March 1.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Joe Arpaio Needs our Help!!!

2012-01-24T08:20:00.001-06:00

https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=HKRFSLXPLG53" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17,85,204);">

Dear Friends:

I'm writing today with an urgent message about my re-election campaign.

Just last month the Obama Justice Department issued a scathing, but unsubstantiated report about my office and our efforts to combat illegal immigration. They accuse me of using "racial profiling" tactics during our course of investigating those who are in this country illegally. Yet, they offer no evidence to support their claims.

This is nothing but a political stunt aimed at intimidating me from doing the job I was elected to do. I have unapologetically enforced the laws of the state of Arizona and our country. But, this doesn't fit into their overall political agenda.

The timing of this "report" is very suspect. Consider:

The report was issued on the one year anniversary of the shooting death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry;
The report was issued the same week that Arizona's tough new illegal immigration law would be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court;
And the report was issued the same week that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was under immense pressure from Congress to reveal what he knew about the disastrous "Fast and Furious" scheme which put thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

This report is an attempt to keep me from doing my job to protect our citizens. I'm sure the Obama Administration figures they can use me as their whipping boy in an effort to keep other law enforcement agencies from aggressively enforcing illegal immigration laws.

It won't work. I will not be intimidated by an Administration that has failed to secure our border. I will not back down one inch.

https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=HKRFSLXPLG53" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17,85,204);">

I just formally announced my campaign for a sixth term as Sheriff of Maricopa County. I will continue to enforce the laws.

But winning another term as Sheriff will not be easy. And now, with the Justice Department's report and left-wing groups working feverishly to have me removed from office, getting reelected to another term just got that much more difficult.

https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=HKRFSLXPLG53" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17,85,204);">Will you stand with me and support the Rule of Law? I hate asking for political contributions, but I know that if I do not, then my political opponents will be even further emboldened in their efforts to remove me.

What they want is a Sheriff who will look the other way when it comes to illegal immigration. I am not that kind of Sheriff. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I must have the support of good people around this country if I'm going to be successful. https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=HKRFSLXPLG53" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17,85,204);">Will you join me today with a contribution to "Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012"?

Please send your most generous contribution today by clicking here. I cannot thank you enough.

Sincerely,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Maricopa County, Arizona

P.S. Even if you do not live in Maricopa County, Arizona please know that we have become the gateway for illegal immigration in this country which affects your community as well. Please https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=HKRFSLXPLG53" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17,85,204);">click here to support my campaign.

And, one final question: Will you forward this email to four or five of your closest friends? I need to get my message out to those who stand with us in enforcing the laws of this country. Thank you!

Posted via email from Global Politics

The Triumph of Conservatism

2012-01-23T12:58:00.001-06:00

The transforming power of modern American conservatism over the last 50 years has been unmistakable. In the late 1940s, we seemed to be headed for a socialist world in which Marxism/Leninism could only be contained, not defeated. In the 1990s, we celebrated the collapse of Soviet communism and the adoption of liberal democracy and free markets around the world because of the leadership of charismatic conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The impacts of modern conservatism in America have been equally profound. There is renewed public skepticism about Big Government, a "leave us alone" attitude that stretches back as far as the Founding of the Republic. Because of Conservative initiatives like welfare reform, several of the nation's leading cultural indicators, such as violent crime, teenage births, and the child poverty rate, have declined. And in the wake of 9/11, a prudential internationalism has evolved, based on this principle: Act multilaterally when possible and unilaterally when necessary.

The liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in 1947 that "there seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." Fiveandahalf decades later, the Conservative columnist George Will wrote that we had experienced "the intellectual collapse of socialism" in America and around the world.

The one political constant throughout those 50 years has been the rise of the Right, whose Long March to national power and prominence was often interrupted by the death of its leaders, calamitous defeats at the polls, frequent feuding within its ranks over means and ends, and the perennial hostility of the prevailing liberal establishment. But through the power of its ideas ever linked by the priceless principle of ordered liberty and the unceasing dissemination and application of those ideas, the Conservative movement has become a major, and often the dominant, player in the political and economic realms of America.

Posted via email from Global Politics

1953: A Critical Year

2012-01-23T12:49:00.001-06:00

1953 the year of The Conservative Mind was a critical year in American politics and conservatism. Dwight Eisenhower was inaugurated as President, signaling an end to the New Deal era. Conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver, Clinton Rossiter, and Leo Strauss published works that could not be ignored. It was the year that conservatives began to coalesce, arguing and disputing all the while, into a political movement.

Over the next 50 years, a succession of Conservative philosophers, popularizers, philanthropists, and politicians marched across the American political stage. First came the philosophers, who presented their ideas usually in an academic forum. Next came the popularizers, journalists and the like, who translated the often obscure language of the philosophers into a common idiom. Finally came the politicians, whose attention was caught and whose imaginations were fired by the popularizers and who introduced public policies and campaign platforms based on Conservative ideas. Throughout this period, prescient philanthropists underwrote the thinking of the philosophers, the journals of the popularizers, and the campaigns of the politicians.

The history of American politics suggests that a political movement must experience these successive waves of ideas, interpretation, and action along with sufficient financial resources to be successful.

The rise of conservatism was also helped significantly by the decline and fall of American liberalism, which lost its way between the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, between the anticommunist Korean War, which it supported, and the Sandinistas' Marxist takeover of Nicaragua, which it also supported, and between the earthy populism of Harry Truman and the cerebral elitism of Al Gore.

In large measure, the success of the American conservative movement rests on its role in two epic events one foreign, one domestic that have shaped much of modern American history. The first was the waging and the winning of the Cold War. The second was the American public's rejection of the idea that the federal government should be the primary solver of major economic and social problems.

Conservatives declared that communism was evil and had to be defeated, not just contained. And they said that the federal government had grown dangerously large and had to be rolled back, not just managed more efficiently.

Because conservatives played a decisive part in ending the Cold War and alerting the nation to the perils of a leviathan state, they reaped enormous political rewards, such as Ronald Reagan's sweeping presidential victories in 1980 and 1984, the Republicans' historic capture of Congress in 1994, and George Bush's capture of the White House in 2000.

But the Conservative revolution that remade American politics was a long time in the making. In the mid1950s, Conservative ideas did not seem to be taking hold in many Americans' minds. Similarly, Conservative politicians found themselves far from the center of the public square.

Senator Robert Taft of Ohio died in the summer of 1953, and Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, after his Senate censure in December 1954, was as good as dead. President Eisenhower was offering a "dime-store" New Deal at home while Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was accused by some conservatives of failing to pursue an aggressive enough anticommunist foreign policy.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Tribute to Rick Perry's 2012 Presidential Campaign

2012-01-19T16:37:00.001-06:00

Many people were excited when Rick Perry, conservative governor of Texas, entered the race. Here is a video of the the biggest moments of his campaign, when he went from rocketing to first place as the Republican frontrunner to exiting the race today in South Carolina.

From his early remarks, to his awkward moments on the debate stage, Rick Perry soldiered on with his campaign to make Washington inconsequential and promote his record of job growth in the state of Texas. Perry improved on the debate stage and on the stump, but his early gaffes caused many voters to write him off as the Republican nominee.

"As a Texan, I have never shied away from a good fight, especially when the cause was right." Perry said today, "But as someone who has always admired a great Texas forefather — Sam Houston — I know when it is time for a “strategic retreat.”

Posted via email from Global Politics

Stop The Homosexual Classrooms Act Now in Congress

2012-01-17T09:02:00.001-06:00

The Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will:

*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so "homosexual students" don’t feel "singled out" during already explicit sex-ed classes;

*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to "experiment" with the homosexual "lifestyle;"

*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to "freedom of self-expression;"

*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a "hostile learning environment" for homosexual students.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Newt's Super Pac Video on Bain Capital

2012-01-13T10:52:00.001-06:00

WHEN MITT ROMNEY CAME TO TOWN!!

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

The 30 min. video by Newt's Super Pac....If all this is true, what Perry called Vulture Capitalism is exactly right and for me, distinguishes the difference between 'good' capitalism and 'evil' capitalism, which Bain capital did engage in with several companies, yielding Bain profits beyond anything imaginable. Watching the entire video is a must.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Roles of Venture Capitalist Versus Being President.....Do They Compliment Each Other???

2012-01-13T08:39:00.001-06:00

While I’m happy to defend the layoff business as a legitimate and even useful element of a dynamic modern economy, I’m sure glad it’s not my job. Normal people, if put in a position where layoffs are necessary, find them to be emotionally arduous in the extreme. I wouldn’t want to be the guy who takes over companies and shuts down operations for a living, and I don’t think I’d want to be friends with that guy. It seems like a job only an emotionally unbalanced jerk would want, hence Up in the Air.* A major innovator such as Apple does end up causing layoffs at rival firms. But no one at Apple ever has to feel responsible for those layoffs. To walk into a dying factory or doomed corporate office and actually fire people, you need to be pretty callous.

That’s perhaps the most sensible lesson to draw from Romney’s Bain tenure. To spin that callousness in the most positive way, making big calls in the White House requires a certain level of moral courage verging on callousness. In a nation of more than 300 million people, it’s difficult to advance the national interest without making some people suffer. America is beset by parasitical rent-seekers of various kinds, and President Obama’s deal-cutting instincts arguably exacerbate the problem. Maybe there are some boils that need lancing, some people who need to feel the pain. If it takes a village to raise a child, maybe it takes an asshole to govern a country.

On the other hand, politics isn't business. Helping retired people or badly maimed veterans with their health care needs isn’t “efficient.” If you were a businessperson, you’d do anything to keep those veterans out of your hospital. It’s not the job of a businessman to feel sad about the consequences of cutbacks for your marriage, your employees, your grandma, or your community. But it should be the president’s job. The inherently destructive nature of a dynamic market economy means that lots of people are suffering on any given day thanks to forces beyond their control. Romney’s strength is that he understands those forces better than anyone in the race, but his weakness is that he doesn’t understand the suffering.

*Up in the Air is now a major motion picture starring George Clooney, Jason Bateman, and Anna Kendrick, and directed by Jason Reitman. Enjoy these images from the film, and click the thumbnails to see larger images.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs

2012-01-02T07:46:00.001-06:00

October 2011

by Tanya Broder and Jonathan Blazer

The major public benefits programs have always prevented some noncitizens from securing assistance. Since the inception of programs such as food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its precursor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), undocumented immigrants and persons in the United States on temporary visas have been ineligible for assistance. However, the 1996 federal welfare and immigration laws¹introduced an unprecedented new era of restrictionism. Prior to the enactment of these laws, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. generally were eligible for assistance in a similar manner as U.S. citizens. Thereafter, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under one of the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer. Even where eligibility for immigrants was preserved by the 1996 laws or restored by subsequent legislation, many immigrant families hesitate to enroll in critical health care, job-training, nutrition, and cash assistance programs due to fear and confusion caused by the laws’ chilling effects. As a result, the participation of immigrants in public benefit programs decreased sharply after passage of the 1996 laws, causing severe hardship for many low-income families who lacked the support available to other low-income families.²

This article focuses on eligibility and other rules governing immigrants’ access to federal public benefits programs. Many states have attempted to fill some of the gaps in noncitizen coverage resulting from the 1996 laws. In fact, about half the states have spent their own money to cover at least some of the immigrants who are ineligible for federally funded services. Several states or counties provide health coverage to children and/or pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status. Many state-funded programs, however, have been reduced or eliminated in state budget battles. Some of these proposed cuts have been challenged in court.³ In determining an immigrants' eligibility for benefits, it is necessary to understand the federal rules as well as the rules of the state in which an immigrant resides. Updates on federal and state rules are available on NILC’s website.⁴

Immigrant Eligibility Restrictions

Categories of Immigrants: “Qualified” and “Not Qualified”

The 1996 welfare law created two categories of immigrants for benefits eligibility purposes: “qualified” and “not qualified.” Contrary to what these names suggest, the law excluded most people in both groups from eligibility for many benefits, with a few exceptions. The qualified immigrant category includes:

Lawful permanent residents, or LPRs (persons with green cards).
Refugees, persons granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, and conditional entrants.
Persons granted parole by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a period of at least one year.
Cuban and Haitian entrants.
Certain abused immigrants, their children, and/or their parents.⁵
Certain victims of trafficking.⁶

All other immigrants, including undocumented immigrants as well as many persons lawfully present in the U.S., are considered “not qualified.”⁷

In 2000, Congress established a new category of noncitizens, victims of trafficking, who are eligible for federal public benefits to the same extent as refugees, regardless of whether they have a “qualified” immigrant status.⁸ In 2003, Congress clarified that “derivative beneficiaries” listed on trafficking victims’ visa applications (spouses and children of adult trafficking victims; spouses, children, parents, and minor siblings of child victims) also may secure federal benefits.⁹

Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied to “Not Qualified” Immigrants

With some important exceptions detailed below, the law prohibits “not qualified” immigrants from enrolling in most federal public benefit programs.¹⁰Federal public benefits include a variety of safety-net services paid for by federal funds.¹¹ But the welfare law’s definition does not specify which particular programs are covered by the term, leaving that clarification to each federal benefit granting agency. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notice clarifying which of its programs fall under the definition.¹² The list of 31 HHS programs includes Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Exceptions to the Restrictions

The law includes important exceptions for certain types of services. Regardless of their status, “not qualified” immigrants remained eligible for emergency Medicaid¹³ if they are otherwise eligible for their state’s Medicaid program.¹⁴ The law does not restrict access to public health programs providing immunizations and/or treatment of communicable disease symptoms (whether or not those symptoms are caused by such a disease). School breakfast and lunch programs remain open to all children regardless of immigration status, and every state has opted to provide access to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).¹⁵ Short-term noncash emergency disaster assistance remains available without regard to immigration status. Also exempted from the restrictions are other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety, as long as no individual or household income qualification is required. In January 2001, the U.S. attorney general published a final order specifying the types of benefits that meet these criteria. The attorney general’s list includes child and adult protective services; programs addressing weather emergencies and homelessness; shelters, soup kitchens, and meals-on-wheels; medical, public health, and mental health services necessary to protect life or safety; disability or substance abuse services necessary to protect life or safety; and programs to protect the life or safety of workers, children and youths, or community residents.¹⁶

Verification Rules

When a federal agency designates a program as a federal public benefit foreclosed to “not qualified” immigrants, the law requires the state or local agency to verify the immigration and citizenship status of all applicants. However, many federal agencies have not specified which of their programs provide federal public benefits. Until they do so, state and local agencies are not obligated to verify immigration status. Also, under an important exception contained in the 1996 immigration law, nonprofit charitable organizations are not required to “determine, verify, or otherwise require proof of eligibility of any applicant for such benefits.” This exception relates specifically to the immigrant benefits restrictions in the 1996 laws.¹⁷

Eligibility for Major Federal Benefit Programs

Congress restricted eligibility even for many qualified immigrants by arbitrarily distinguishing between those who entered the U.S. before or “on or after” the date the law was enacted, August 22, 1996. The law barred most immigrants who entered the U.S. on or after that date from “federal means-tested public benefits” during the five years after they secure qualified immigrant status.¹⁸ Federal agencies clarified that “federal means-tested public benefits” are Medicaid (except for emergency care), CHIP, TANF, food stamps, and SSI.¹⁹

TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP

States can receive federal funding for TANF, Medi-caid, and CHIP to serve qualified immigrants who have completed the federal five-year bar.²⁰“Humanitarian immigrants” — refugees, persons granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, Cuban/Haitian entrants, certain Amerasian immigrants,²¹ Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants,²² and victims of trafficking — are exempt from the five-year bar, as are “qualified” immigrant veterans, active duty military, and their spouses and children.

Approximately half of the states have been using state funds to provide TANF, Medicaid, and/or CHIP to some or all of the immigrants who are subject to the five-year bar on federally funded services, or to a broader group of immigrants.²³

In February 2009, when Congress reauthorized the CHIP program, states were granted an option to provide federally funded Medicaid and CHIP to “lawfully residing” children and pregnant women, regardless of their date of entry into the United States.²⁴ Almost half of the states have opted to take advantage of this federal funding for immigrant health coverage, which became available on April 1, 2009.

Over a dozen states provide prenatal care to women regardless of status with federal funds, under the CHIP program’s “fetus” option.²⁵ A few other states provide prenatal care to women regardless of status, with state funds.

Although the federal health care reform law, known as the Affordable Care Act, did not alter immigrant eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP, it will provide new pathways for lawfully present immigrants to purchase affordable coverage through health insur-ance exchanges or, in states that elect this option, “Basic Health” programs.²⁶

Food Stamps

Although the 1996 law severely restricted immigrant eligibility for food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, subsequent legislation restored access for many of these immigrants. Qualified immigrant children, the humanitarian immigrants and veterans groups described above, lawful permanent residents with credit for 40 quarters of work history, certain Native Americans, lawfully residing Hmong and Laotian tribe members (described below), and immigrants receiving disability-related assistance²⁷ are now eligible regardless of their date of entry into the U.S. Qualified immigrant seniors who were born before August 22, 1931, may be eligible if they were lawfully residing in the U.S. on August 22, 1996. Other qualified immigrant adults, however, must wait until they have been in qualified status for five years before they may become eligible for food stamps.

A few states continue to provide state-funded food stamps to some or all of the immigrants who were rendered ineligible for the federal program.²⁸

Supplemental Security Income

Congress imposed its most harsh restrictions on immigrant seniors and immigrants with disabilities who seek assistance under the SSI program.²⁹Although advocacy efforts in the two years following the welfare law’s passage achieved a partial restoration of these benefits, significant gaps in eligibility remained. SSI, for example, continues to exclude “not qualified” immigrants who were not already receiving the benefits, as well as most qualified immigrants who entered the country after the welfare law passed³⁰and seniors without disabilities who were in the United States before that date.

Refugees and individuals granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, Amerasian immigrants, Cuban and Haitian entrants, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants, and victims of trafficking can receive SSI, but only during the first seven years after having obtained the relevant status. The main rationale for the seven-year time limit was that it was intended to provide a sufficient opportunity for humanitarian immigrant seniors, and those with disabilites to naturalize and retain their eligibility for SSI as U.S. citizens. However, a combination of factors, including immigration backlogs, processing delays, former statutory caps on the number of asylees who can adjust their status, language barriers, and other obstacles made it impossible for many of these individuals to naturalize within seven years.

Recognizing these barriers, in 2008 Congress enacted an extension of eligibility for refugees who faced a loss of benefits due to the seven-year time limit. However, that extension expired on September 30, 2011.³¹

A few states provide cash assistance to immigrant seniors and persons with disabilities who were rendered ineligible for SSI; some others provide much smaller general assistance grants to these immigrants. Although the Senate passed a law reauthorizing the extension, the House has yet to take up the measure, resulting in the termination from SSI of thousands of seniors and persons with disabilities.

Sponsor Deeming

Under the 1996 welfare and immigration laws, family members and some employers eligible to file a petition to help a person immigrate must become financial sponsors of the immigrant by signing a contract with the government (an affidavit of support). Under the enforceable affidavit (Form I 864), the sponsor promises to support the immigrant and to repay certain benefits that the immigrant may use.

Congress imposed additional eligibility restrictions on immigrants whose sponsors sign an enforceable affidavit of support. When an agency is determining a lawful permanent resident’s financial eligibility for TANF, food stamps, SSI, nonemergency Medicaid, or CHIP,³³ in some cases the law requires the agency to deem the income of the immigrant’s sponsor or the sponsor’s spouse as available to the immigrant. The sponsor’s income and resources are added to the immigrant’s, which often disqualifies the immigrant as over-income for the program. The 1996 laws imposed deeming rules until the immigrant becomes a citizen or secures credit for 40 quarters (approximately 10 years) of work history in the U.S.³⁴

Domestic violence survivors and immigrants who would go hungry or homeless without assistance (“indigent” immigrants) are exempt from sponsor deeming for at least 12 months.³⁵ Some programs apply additional exemptions from the sponsor deeming rules.³⁶

Beyond Eligibility: Overview of Barriers That Impede Access to Benefits for Immigrants

Confusion about Eligibility

Confusion about eligibility rules pervades benefit agencies and immigrant communities. The confusion stems from the complex interaction of the immigration and welfare laws, differences in eligibility criteria for various state and federal programs, and a lack of adequate training on the rules as clarified by federal agencies. Consequently, many eligible immigrants have assumed that they should not seek services, and eligibility workers mistakenly have turned away eligible immigrants.

Public Charge

The immigration laws allow officials to deny applications for lawful permanent residence or to deny entry into the U.S. if the authorities determine that the immigrant is “likely to become a public charge.” In deciding whether an immigrant is likely to become a public charge, immigration or consular officials review the “totality of the circumstances,” including an immigrant’s health, age, income, education and skills, employment, family circumstances, and, most importantly, the affidavits of support. In May 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued helpful guidance and a proposed regulation on the public charge doctrine.³⁷ The guidance clarifies that receipt of health care and other noncash benefits will not jeopardize the immigration status of recipients or their family members by putting them at risk of being considered a public charge.³⁸ Nevertheless, nearly a decade after the issuance of this guidance, widespread confusion and concern about the public charge rules remain, deterring many eligible immigrants from seeking critical services.

Affidavit of Support

The 1996 laws enacted rules that make it more difficult to immigrate to the U.S. to reunite with family members. Effective December 19, 1997, relatives (and some employers) have been required to meet strict income requirements and to sign a long-term contract, or affidavit of support (USCIS Form I 864), promising to maintain the immigrant at 125 percent of the federal poverty level and to repay any means-tested public benefits the immigrant may receive.³⁹ The specific federal benefits for which sponsors may be liable have been defined to be TANF, SSI, food stamps, nonemergency Medicaid, and SCHIP. Federal agencies have issued little guidance on these provisions, however. Regulations on the affidavits of support issued in 2006 make clear that states are not obligated to pursue sponsors and that states cannot collect reimbursement for services used prior to public notification that they are considered meanstested public benefits for which sponsors will be liable.⁴⁰

Most states have not designated the programs that would give rise to sponsor liability, and NILC is aware of only one state that has attempted to pursue reimbursement. However, the specter of sponsor liability has deterred some eligible immigrants from applying for benefits, based on concerns about exposing their sponsors to government collection efforts.

Language Policies

Many immigrants face significant linguistic and cultural barriers to obtaining benefits. Almost 20 percent of the U.S. population speaks a language other than English at home.⁴¹ Although 97 percent of long-term immigrants to the U.S. eventually learn to speak English well,⁴² many are in the process of learning the language. Almost 8 percent of people living in the U.S. speak English less than very well.⁴³ These limited English proficient (LEP) residents cannot effectively apply for benefits or meaningfully communicate with a health care provider without language assistance.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of national origin, and such discrimination can include failure to address language barriers that prevent LEP persons from securing assistance. Benefit agencies, health care providers, and other entities that receive federal financial assistance are required to take “reasonable steps” to assure that LEP individuals have “meaningful access” to federally funded programs.⁴⁴ Compliance with this mandate varies significantly.

Verification

In 1997, DOJ issued an interim guidance for federal benefit providers to use in verifying immigration status until DOJ issues final regulations governing verification.⁴⁵ The guidance, which remains in effect, directs benefit agencies already using DOJ’s computerized Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to continue to do so. It recommends that agencies make financial and other eligibility decisions before asking the applicant for information about his or her immigration status. The guidance also directs agencies to seek information only about the person applying for benefits and not about his or her family members.

Questions on Application Forms

In September 2000, HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued guidance recommending that states delete from benefits application forms questions that are unnecessary and may chill participation by immigrant families.⁴⁶ The guidance confirms that only the immigration status of the applicant for benefits is relevant. It encourages states to allow family or household members who are not seeking benefits to be designated as nonapplicants early in the application process. Similarly, under Medicaid, TANF, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), only the applicant must provide a Social Security number (SSN). SSNs are not required for persons seeking only emergency Medicaid. In June 2001, HHS indicated that states providing CHIP through separate programs (rather than through Medicaid expansions) are authorized, but not obligated, to require SSNs on their CHIP applications.⁴⁷

In February 2011, the USDA issued a memo instructing states to apply these principles in their online application procedures.⁴⁸

Reporting to the Dept. of Homeland Security

Another source of fear in immigrant communities is the occasional misapplication of a 1996 reporting provision that is in fact quite narrow in scope.⁴⁹ The reporting requirement applies only to three programs — SSI, public housing, and TANF — and requires the administering agency to report to the INS (now the DHS) only persons whom the agency knows are not lawfully present in the U.S.⁵⁰

In September 2000, federal agencies issued a joint guidance outlining the limited circumstances under which the reporting requirement may be triggered.⁵¹ The guidance clarifies that only persons who are actually seeking benefits (not relatives or household members applying on their behalf) are subject to the reporting requirement. Agencies are not required to report such applicants unless there has been a formal determination, subject to administrative review, on a claim for SSI, public housing, or TANF. The conclusion that the person is unlawfully present also must be supported by a determination by the immigration authorities, “such as a Final Order of Deportation.”⁵² Findings that do not meet these criteria (e.g., a DHS response to a SAVE computer inquiry indicating an immigrant’s status,⁵³ an oral or written admission by applicants, or suspicions of agency workers) are insufficient to trigger the reporting requirement. Finally, the guidance stresses that agencies are not required to make immigration status determinations that are not necessary to confirm eligibility for benefits.

Looking Ahead

The 1996 welfare law produced sharp decreases in public benefits participation by immigrants. Proponents of welfare “reform” see that fact as evidence of the bill’s success, noting that a reduction of welfare use, particularly among immigrants, was precisely what the legislation intended. Critics of the restrictions question, among other things, the fairness of excluding immigrants from programs that are sup-ported by the taxes they pay. These debates rage on at the federal, state, and local levels.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Happy New Year-2012

2011-12-31T09:27:00.001-06:00

If it didn't Bring you Joy,

Just Leave it Behind.

Let’s Ring in the New Year

With Good Things in Mind.

Let Every Bad Memory Go

That Brought Heartache and Pain.

And let’s Turn a New Leaf

With the Smell of New Rain.

Let’s Forget Past Mistakes

Making Amends for This Year.

Sending You These Greetings

To Bring you Hope and Cheer

Happy New Year!

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

The Basis of Rick Perry's Middle East Policy: It's Not Oil, It's Water

2011-12-30T10:27:00.001-06:00

The Texas governor's ties to the Jewish state stretch back to his time as agriculture commissioner

Ever since it became apparent that Texas Gov. Rick Perry was a staunch defender of Israel, and all the more so when a video emerged showing him joining rabbis in a spirited Hanukkah dance in the governor's office last year, the roots of his long-standing affection for the nation state have been a subject of speculation in some quarters. Was it oil? The religious affinities of a conservative Christian? Or was it a shared fighting spirit? Perry, after all, once drew a connection between Masada, the site of a siege during the First Jewish-Roman War, and the Alamo.

After Perry gave a speech on Israel at the W Hotel in New York City late last month, Maggie Haberman of Politico picked up on a detail that points to yet another explanation. In 2009, Perry told the Jerusalem Post that part of the Texas-Israel "connection that goes back many years" included the reality that "Israel has a lot we can learn from, especially in the areas of water conservation and semi-arid land." It raised the possibility that at the root of Perry's deep commitment and professed connection to Israel doesn't lie in what Texas has in abundance -- oil, faith, orneriness -- but what it lacks: water.

For eight years in the '90s, while Texas agriculture commissioner, Perry helped to lead the Texas-Israel Exchange, a program that aims to transfer knowledge between the two lands, where farming is a way of life but the water to do it with is often difficult to come by.

"Get a globe and draw a line from Texas to Israel," observes Prof. David Eaton, a water expert at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. "They're basically the same neck of the woods." Indeed, as far as latitudes go, they are: Austin and much of Israel both sit at 31º North of the Equator. "Texas isn't England," says Eaton, continuing to lay out the similarities. "We've got wet years, dry years, geographic variability. They've got South Israel and North Israel, and we've got East Texas and West Texas." Homeowners in El Paso, says Eaton, are being encouraged to practice xeriscaping, the art of having a lawn that requires little hydration by virtue of it being filled with low-water plants, rocks, and pebbles. It's a method of landscape beautification that is traced back to Israel -- and its often strict residential water restrictions. Texas' mountain aquifers have their equivalent in Israel's karst aquifers. "You can't be theoretical with farming," says Eaton. "You want to have it done in the field with real farmers. So many of the conditions of uncertainty are consistent between the two that it makes for a really useful parallel. Israel doesn't have enough water, but they've figured out how to succeed."

Begun back in the mid-'80s, the Texas-Israel Exchange has experimented with a variety of technologies to try to squeeze the maximum possible water from dry land, and to make the most out of what does exist at the surface. One early $50,000 grant under TIE, as it's known, studied whether some plants could be watered with salt water. (It worked for Blackfoot daises; on velvet sage, not so much.) Drought-resistant Israeli grains were cultivated for their genetic material so that they might be tried in Texas. One major effort involved using drip irrigation to grow rice, rather than the water-hogging flood irrigation method in more general use. The Lower Colorado River Authority and the Tel Aviv-based firm Netafim partnered on the project; proponents say it can grow the same amount of rice with half the water. Then there are projects focused on water reclamation -- that it, using treated waste water, including sewage, to irrigate, cool, or in manufacturing processes. For both sea-adjacent lands, desalination through either evaporation or forcing the salt water through a permeable membrane is seen to have potential. Texas has its eyes on its 350 miles of coast along the Gulf of Mexico, and what it says is 2.7 billion acre-feet of brackish groundwater. In 2002, Perry, then governor ordered the Texas Water Development Board to explore whether the state might build a large-scale desalination plant that might produce for Texans a supply of fresh drinking water.

The partnership between Texas and Israel officially began under Perry's predecessor as agriculture commissioner, Democrat Jim Hightower, who held the post for two terms in the '80s before becoming a liberal radio personality. And in something of a strange political twist, some observers say that one person that Perry might have to thank for his early and frequent exposure to the needs of Israel is...the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Steven A. Moore, director of the sustainable design program at the University of Texas, wrote a 2001 book on Laredo's Blueprint Farm, one of the earliest fruits of the Texas-Israel partnership. Hightower became a prominent national supporter of Jackson's presidential bid, writes Moore. That created problems for Hightower when, shortly after Jackson made a high-profile visit to Texas, he was quoted in the Washington Post referring to Jewish Americans as "hymies." The incumbent commissioner soon planned a trip to Israel, saying that Texas "should take its cue from Israel's water conservation pioneers." Analyzes Moore, "Hightower's dramatic and timely construction of common cause with Israel was born a brilliant solution to political (and agricultural) problems."

It was while touring Israeli kibbutzim that Hightower met Avraham Katz-Oz, Israel's deputy minister of agriculture. The next year, Katz-Oz visited Texas, and the Texas-Israel exchange program was born soon thereafter. As Hightower tells it in his own book, the partnership's origin was as a new kind of "global trade deal" that brought together "plain old dirt farmers" and others on the lower rungs of Texas farming society with their counterparts in Israel. In 1991, the relationship was further formalized with the creation of a Texas-Israel Fund Board, focused on paying for applied research between the two places. That same year, Perry -- who beat Hightower in the race for agriculture commissioner in part by playing up the Hightower-Jackson connection -- took his first trip to Israel.

Perry made himself a champion of the Texas-Israel knowledge exchange. But, says Moore today, "what Rick Perry wouldn't say is that it originated under Jim Hightower."

It's origins notwithstanding, Perry became a staunch advocate for the Israel research partnership. In a 1996 op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman, Perry bragged about teaming up with Israel, "a country known for using technology to turn a desert into an agricultural oasis of productivity." For Perry, the emotional impact of the Texas drought ran deep: "If you asked an old-timer what two events in this century left their imprints the deepest in the minds of rural Texans, I'll bet the answer would be the Great Depression and the drought of the 1950s." Even if, for him, the pain was somewhat removed: "They both spawned more hardship for grown folks than most of us can imagine today. I lived through the big drought but l had my pony and my dog, so I didn't pay much attention to my dad sitting at the kitchen table scratching out figures on a Big Chief tablet."

About ten years after authoring the newspaper piece, Perry, now governor, solidified his intellectual debt to Israel, with the creation of the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce, "a private, not-for-profit business organization whose aim is to boost the economies of Texas and Israel by helping member companies develop important business relationships with each other and explore new market opportunities," with a focus on high-tech collaborations. Today, the Chamber claims as its two main champions Perry and Israel's Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor.

Contacts between U.S. states and Israel aren't, of course, exclusive to Texas. Among the states whose governors have made recent trade missions to Israel are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Oregon; Virginia maintains a tech alliance focused on encouraging Israeli companies to do business in the commonwealth. But, going back as it does more than quarter century, the exchange between the state of Texas and the state of Israel is generally considered the oldest such relationship, and it is certainly one of the most robust.

The Texas-Israel Exchange program has had its critics. The Sunset Advisory Commission is a body of the Texas legislature that evaluates the state's government agencies with an eye towards identifying and eliminating "waste, duplication, and inefficiency." In its once-every-12-years review of the Texas Department of Agriculture, conducted in 2008, the commission, citing the $500,000 in grants paid out through TIE in 2008 and 2009, found that the program was too much of a black box. "The Texas-Israel Exchange Fund Board provides funding for agricultural research projects intended to be of mutual beneﬁt to Texas and Israel," wrote the commission in its report. "While the program is able to leverage state dollars to fund useful research for Texas agriculture, the funding for and results of these projects are not transparent to the Legislature, the agriculture industry, or the public. The same functions could be provided by an advisory committee, rather than a semi-independent board." The board was indeed abolished, and its functions rolled back into the department as a whole. Eaton also points to the obstacles inherent in trying to move farmers into new and, in their eyes, potentially, untested ways of farming. "You're changing how people farm," he says. "You're changing how you go to market. It's a challenge."

The reality, of course, is that both Israel and Texas continue to struggle with water. Israel, mindful of the mid-60s "Water Over Water" concerning rights to the Sea of Galilee -- thought to have contributed to the tensions sparking the Six Day War -- has worked to bring online major new desalination plants. This summer, the country said that with the completion of a plant in Ashdod, "desal" water -- expensive, energy-intensive desalinated water -- would now make up 75 percent of the water consumed by its people. And Texas, of course, is in the midst of a drought of historic proportions, one that the state's existing water system can't cope with. The lack of water is reported to have caused some $5.2 billion of economic pain to the state's agricultural sector, and the state has been ravaged by fires. On the latest U.S. Drought Monitor color-coded map of drought conditions, Texas is nothing but a big angry red ball. Some three-quarters of the state is suffering through "exceptional" drought conditions, and the state climatologist is warning that this situationcould continue through 2020.

Perry, who said during a September presidential debate that climate change science is "not settled" and seemingly compared global warming doubters to Galileo, has coupled his belief in the benefits of knowledge transfer with a faith of the more spiritual variety. In April, Perry declared a long weekend of prayer. "It seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer," reads the proclamation from his office, "to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires." Texans might be forgiven for getting down on their knees. A scary 2012 draft state water plan from the Texas Water Development Board recently found that unless the skies open up, the state "does not and will not have enough water to meet the needs of its people, its businesses, and its agricultural enterprises."

It's a major challenge. For the Israelis' part, the Consulate General for the southwestern U.S. has stated that "with water set to become the oil of the 21^st century," research jointly funded by Texas and entities in Israel "will be essential in helping stretch this precious natural resource as far as possible in two arid agricultural producing areas: Texas and Israel." The severity of Texas and Israel's shared challenge is something that Perry seems to have been attuned to for at least two decades now, and understanding his approach to Israel would seem to require paying a good deal of attention not just to oil, but to water.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Background On Iowa Caucuses

2011-12-29T07:37:00.001-06:00

The Iowa caucuses are an electoral event in which residents of theU.S. state of Iowa meet in precinct caucuses in all of Iowa's 1,784 precincts and elect delegates to the corresponding county conventions. There are 99 counties in Iowa and thus 99 conventions. These county conventions then select delegates for both Iowa'sCongressional District Convention and the State Convention, which eventually choose the delegates for the presidential nominating conventions (the national conventions). The 2012 Iowa Caucuses are scheduled to take place on January 3, 2012.^[1]

The Iowa caucuses are noteworthy for the amount of media attention they receive during U.S. presidential election years. Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Although only about one percent of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa State Convention, the Iowa caucuses have served as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention.

History

The Iowa caucuses are commonly recognized as the first step in the U.S. presidential nomination process for both the Democratic and the Republican Parties. They came to national attention in 1972 with a series of articles in The New York Times on how non-primary states choose their delegates for the national conventions. Democratic operative, Norma S. Matthews, state co-chair of the George McGovern campaign, helped engineer the early January start for Iowa. McGovern finished second to Edmund Muskie in the first early Iowa caucuses, but the momentum was sufficient for an ultimate Democratic nomination in 1972 for McGovern in Miami. Four years later, the Iowa Republican Party scheduled its party caucuses on the same date as the Democrats'.

In 1976, an uncommitted slate received the most support, followed by former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, who came in a distant second, but won the most votes of any actual candidate. With no dominant front runner at the time, Carter was able to use the publicity of his "win" to achieve victory in the New Hampshire primary, and then to win his party's nomination and eventually the Presidency. Since then, Presidential candidates have increased their focus on winning the Iowa caucus.

In 1980, Republicans began the tradition of holding a straw poll at their caucuses, giving the appearance of a primary election. George H. W. Bush campaigned extensively in Iowa, defeating Ronald Reagan, but ultimately failed to win the nomination.

While they have been a financial boon to the state, the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in third in Iowa. In elections without a sitting president or vice president, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time (see below).

When Iowa senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992, none of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process. President George H. W. Bush was unopposed on the Republican side.

While the Democrats have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules, the Republicans have not. Alaska and Hawaii generally have their Republican caucuses before Iowa, and in 1988 the Hawaii victory of Pat Robertson and the 1996 Louisiana victory of Pat Buchanan over Senator Phil Gramm had a significant impact on the results in Iowa.

The caucuses are closely followed by the media and can be an important factor in determining who remains in the race and who drops out. However, the only non-incumbent candidates to win their party's caucus and go on to win the general election were George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008. Neither Reagan nor Bill Clinton won prior to their first terms. No incumbent President has run opposed in his own party's caucus since Jimmy Carter in 1980.

In the months leading up to the 2004 caucus, predictions showed candidates Dick Gephardt and Howard Deanneck-and-neck for first place, with John Kerry and John Edwards far behind them. Negative campaign ads attacking each other by the two front runners soured the voters on them, and a last minute decision by Kerry to put all his remaining money in Iowa swung voters towards him. Gephardt's presidential hopes were dashed and Dean's badly battered, as Kerry went on to become the third non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since Edmund Muskie in 1972 and Al Gore in 2000.

Process

The Iowa caucuses operate very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states (seeU.S. presidential primary). The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbors." Rather than going topolls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting and the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions.^[2]

Unlike the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions where Iowa's national convention delegates are selected. Ironically, the state conventions do not take place until the end of the primary and caucus season: Iowa is in fact one of the very last states to choose its delegates.^[3]^[4]

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process. For example, members of the media and campaign staff and volunteers attend many of the precinct caucuses. Youth who will not be eligible to vote by the date of the general election may also attend as observers and may volunteer to attend the county convention as youth delegates.^[5]

Republican Party process

For the Republicans, the Iowa caucuses follow (and should not be confused with) the Ames Straw Poll in August of the preceding year. Out of the five Ames Straw Poll iterations, the winner of the Ames Straw Poll failed to win the Iowa caucuses twice, in 1987 and 2007.

In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them.^[6] After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.^[7] In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands ^[8] or preprinted ballots.^[9]The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.

Democratic Party process

The process used by the Democrats is more complex than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes. Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a preference group). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are viable. Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the viability threshold is 15% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to realign: the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This realignment is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's second candidate of choice can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses.

2004 Democratic process

Main article: Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2004

In 2004, the meetings ran from 6:30 p.m. until approximately 8:00 p.m. on January 19, 2004, with a turnout of about 124,000 caucus-goers.^[10] The county convention occurred on March 13, the district convention on April 24, and the state convention on June 26. Delegates could and did change their votes based on further developments in the race; for instance, in 2004 the delegates pledged to Dick Gephardt, who left the race after the precinct caucuses, chose a different candidate to support at the county, district, and state level.

The number of delegates each candidate receives eventually determines how many state delegates from Iowa that candidate will have at the Democratic National Convention. Iowa sends 56 delegates to the DNC out of a total 4,366.

Of the 45 delegates that were chosen through the caucus system, 29 were chosen at the district level. Ten delegates were at-large delegates, and six were "party leader and elected official" (PLEO) delegates; these were assigned at the state convention. There were also 11 other delegates, eight of whom were appointed from local Democratic National Committee members - two were PLEO delegates and one was elected at the state Democratic convention.

2008 process

Main articles: Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008 and Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008

The 2008 Iowa caucuses took place January 3 at 7 p.m. CT.^[11] Candidates spent tens of millions of dollars on local television advertisements^[12] and hundreds of paid staff^[13] in dozens of field offices.^[14] Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee were the eventual winners.

Past winners

Candidates in bold eventually won their party's nomination. Candidates in italics subsequently won the general election.

Democrats

January 3, 2008 – Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%)^[15]
January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), andDennis Kucinich (1%)
January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey(2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
February 8, 1988 – Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), aaaa

Posted via email from Global Politics

Get Ready for the New Year!

2011-12-27T05:52:00.001-06:00

Ruler of new beginnings, gates and doors, the first hour of the day, the first day of the month, and the first month of the year, the Roman god Janus gave January its name.

He was pictured as two-headed and situated so that one head looked forward into the new year while the other took a retrospective view.

Janus also presided over the temple of peace, where the doors were opened only during wartime.

It was a place of safety, where new beginnings and renewed commitments could be forged, just as the new year is a time for us to reflect.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

The Birth of Jesus Christ, The Son of God ..... Luke 1:26-80

2011-12-25T08:02:00.001-06:00

[ad#float-right](26) In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, (27) to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. (28) And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” (29) But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. (30) And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. (31) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. (32) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, (33) and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (34) And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (35) And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy–the Son of God. (36) And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. (37) For nothing will be impossible with God.” (38) And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (39) In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, (40) and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. (41) And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, (42) and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (43) And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (44) For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (45) And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” (46) And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, (47) and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, (48) for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; (49) for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. (50) And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. (51) He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; (52) he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; (53) he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. (54) He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, (55) as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.” (56) And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home. (57) Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. (58) And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. (59) And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, (60) but his mother answered, “No; he shall be called John.” (61) And they said to her, “None of your relatives is called by this name.” (62) And they made signs to his father, inquiring what he wanted him to be called. (63) And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, “His name is John.” And they all wondered. (64) And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, blessing God. (65) And fear came on all their neighbors. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea, (66) and all who heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, “What then will this child be?” For the hand of the Lord was with him. (67) And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying, (68) “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people (69) and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, (70) as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, (71) that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; (72) to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, (73) the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us (74) that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, (75) in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. (76) And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, (77) to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, (78) because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high (79) to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” (80) And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

Posted via email from Religion

Taking Risk

2011-12-22T22:19:00.001-06:00

What Is Risk Taking?

To laugh is to risk appearing the fool;
To weep is to risk appearing sentimental;
To reach out for another is to risk involvement;
To expose feelings is to risk exposing true self;
To place your ideas, your dreams before the crowd is to risk their loss;
To love is to risk not being loved in return;
To live is to risk dying;
To hope is to risk despair;
To try is to risk failure;
But risk must be taken, because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing;
The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing and is nothing;
He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn, feel, change, grow, love and live;
Chained by his certitudes, he is a slave and has forfeited freedom’
Only a person who risks is free.
-William Arthur Ward

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

One of Our Greatest Presidents

2011-12-20T16:25:00.001-06:00

Lincoln was not a typical good orator. He was awkward because of his height, shifted from foot to foot, spoke with a high grating Kentucky drawl that would crack, wore a hat unfashionable even for his time, and was widely considered to have fallen off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

But as his law partner William Herndon described: “If he was defending the right, if he was defending liberty ...then he extended out his arms, palms of his hands upward ... as if ... he might embrace the spirt of that which he so dearly loved. It was at such moments that he seemed inspired, fresh from the hands of his Creator.”

Because of this, paradoxically, Lincoln's statesmanship was predominately rhetorical – his written and oral arguments carried this failed businessmen and failed politician to the White House and kept the Union states unified, because his words and wisdom did not fail. This evidence weighs most heavily in today's considerations of this man. Actions matter as well, as my friend Virginia of Virginia will tell you, and I don't want to diminish that. I simply would urge that you judge Lincoln by both his words and his actions – do not exclude the former.

First, Lincoln believed in and always appealed to the enduring moral order. He said, “If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no more moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”

When he argued, he clearly argued in terms the absolute definitions of good and evil, justice and injustice.

Second, Lincoln supported custom and convention and continuity in the institutions of society: He said with words so moving because of the Truth they convey, “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate ... the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges;—let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.”

Note the continuity from generation to generation in his understanding of law. Father, man, child. Past, present, future. The blessings of liberty from our founders for ourselves and our posterity. His support of legal authority echoes the truth of Romans 13.

Third, Lincoln knew man's imperfectability. He saw human nature as fixed, and thus wrote, “Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed.” Lincoln knew men were not angels.

He struggled his entire life with what his friends called melancholy and what we would know as clinical depression. Once, while he was riding with two companions he encountered a family of traveling singers, and they travelled together for 8 days. After singing and drinking around the hearth at an inn one night, the singers asked the somber lawyer for a song or poem.

Historian Joshua Wolf Shenk writes the story, “Lincoln was embarrassed and demurred, but he finally said, "I'll tell you what I'll do for you. You girls have been so kind singing for us. I'll repeat to you my favorite poem." Leaning against the doorjamb, which looked small behind his lanky frame, and with his eyes half closed, Lincoln recited from memory:

“O[h] why should the spirit of mortal be proud!

Like a swift, fleeting meteor—a fast-flying cloud—

A flash of the lightning—a break of the wave—

He passeth from life to his rest in the grave.

“'Tis the wink of an eye, 'tis the draught of a breath,

From the blossoms of health, to the paleness of death.

From the gilded saloon, to the bier and the shroud

Oh, why should the spirit of mortal be proud!

Lincoln intimately knew human frailty. His mother died when he was 11, his sister shortly afterward. In 1835 the women he loved, Anne Rutledge, also died.

This president knew the constrained, conservative vision of man even as the armies of the south besieged federal forts and threatened to cut him off in Maryland and marched north into Pennsylvania against union generals who would not fight. He was always the first to acknowledge his many mistakes, abuses, and imperfections as president. And that's what makes him a conservative.

Fourth, Lincoln supported constitutional restraints on power, even when they bound him against demonstrably good ends.

Joseph Knippenberg, professor of politics and a fellow for the Ashbrook center for public affairs, said, “There’s also another concern that Lincoln calls to our attention ... He begins his letter to Albert Hodges by affirming that "... If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong..." But he goes on to say he was bound by his oath of office not "to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery." He could not pursue great moral goods against the strictures of the Constitution.”

As civil war scholar Allen Guelzo has said, “Lincoln understood emancipation not as the satisfaction of a "spirit" overriding the law, nor as the moment of fusion between the Constitution and absolute moral theory, but as a goal to be achieved through prudential means so that worthwhile consequences might result.”

This is why his 1863 emancipation proclamation aimed only at states at war with the Union, and was justified as a means to winning a war under the authority of the President over the common defense. This is why he treated southern prisoners as prisoners of war, and not traitors to be hung. This is why he refused recommendations to suspended the national election of 1864 even though he faced robust electoral challengers. Restraint, caution, acting only on institutional, legal and moral authority.

To quote Russell Kirk, “The reckless Fire–eater and the uncompromising Abolitionist were abhorrent to him; yet he took the middle path between them not out of any misapplication of the doctrine of the Golden mean, but because he held that the unity and security of the United States transcended any fanatics scheme of uniformity.… his wisdom came from close observation of human nature, and from the Bible and Shakespeare. The Radical Republicans detested him ... as did the Southern zealots. In his conservative object, the preservation of the Union, he succeeded through the ancient virtue of prudential.”

Fifth, Lincoln recognized permanent principles in the midst of change.

He described the declaration of independence as “a standard maxim for free society that would be constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”

He saw permanence that must endure in institutions through change, but also change the world so even ancient evil institutions like racial slavery would fall. The world shall spin on at a tilt, imperfect, with all the uncertainty and tragedy and darkness of 600,000 men slain, yet the principles of nature which God established will endure on this globe, and it is our task to work in accordance with these principles, as Lincoln did, “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.”

Posted via email from Global Politics

Is the Idea of Satan a Myth?

2011-12-15T10:18:00.001-06:00

by Billy Graham

Q: I think the idea of Satan is a myth, dreamed up by people who couldn't think of any other way to explain why evil exists. We alone are responsible when we do bad things, and we can't blame some imaginary devil. -- C.M.

A: Let me ask you a question: How do you explain the existence of evil, if there is no evil spiritual force working behind the scenes of this world?

After all, evil isn't just an absence of good; evil is real, and evil is aggressive and destructive. Can you come up with a better explanation than the existence of Satan, as he is portrayed in the Bible? I doubt it. The Bible calls him "The great dragon... who leads the whole world astray" (Revelation 12:9). Jesus called him "a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.... he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

It has been said that one of the devil's greatest tricks is to make people believe he doesn't exist -- and that's true. When we deny his existence, we become blinded to the reality of evil, and we fall for his lies about God and about ourselves. But Satan is real; our headlines scream it every day.

The most important truth, however, about the devil is this: He is a defeated foe! By His death Jesus overcame Satan's charges against us, and by His resurrection Jesus conquered Satan's rule of death. And some day Christ's victory over Satan will be complete, and Satan and his demons will be banished forever. Don't be deceived, but turn to Jesus Christ and build your life on His truth. He alone can give us hope, both now and forever.

Posted via email from Religion

Newt = A Sure Win For Obama....Why??

2011-12-11T10:43:00.001-06:00

Who is Obama's dream competitor? Newt.....by the time Obama gets through with Newt, he will look like the Thin/Tin Man. Obama's Team will find stuff on Newt, besides his dismal record in Congress, no one has heard of. Remember they are not after any of the GOP votes....Obama is smart and will use his cash to sway/convince a majority of that 20% and Mexicans to vote for him.
If Newt is the GOP choice, Obama will carry the Mexican vote as well. The GOP should not be asking which candidate can get the majority of GOP votes...any of them will get 100% of the GOP votes....the important questions, now, is to ask which GOP candidate can get 50.1 % of the 20% and carry the Mexican vote? Those are the 2 voting groups that will determine our next president, not the staunch Republicans or the staunch Democrats.

History will bear what I am saying as the bottom line truth.....So, GOPERS, make sure we elect a candidate that can carry a majority of those 2 voting groups....it's really where the 2012 presidential election will be decided!!

It time for a CCC (Consistent Constitutional Conservative) and Governor Perry has year in and year out, for 25 years, demonstrated his unwavering ability and passion to govern according not only to the Texas Constitution but, according to the Constitution of the United States of America!

Let's Roll!!.........Support and Vote Perry...the real CCC!!

Posted via email from Global Politics

Defining Crony Capitalism

2011-12-10T07:47:00.001-06:00

Crony capitalism is a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

Crony capitalism in practice

Transparency International's overview of the index of perception of corruption, 2007

In its lightest form, crony capitalism consists of collusion among market players. While perhaps lightly competing against each other, they will present a unified front to the government in requesting subsidies or aid (sometimes called a trade association or industry trade group). Newcomers to a market may find it difficult to find loans or acquire shelf space to sell their product; in technological fields, they may be accused of infringing on patents that the established competitors never invoke against each other. Distribution networks will refuse to aid the entrant. That said, there will still be competitors who "crack" the system when the legal barriers are light, especially where the old guard has become inefficient and is failing to meet the needs of the market. Of course, some of these upstarts may then join with the established networks to help deter any other new competitors. Examples of this have been argued to include the keiretsu of post-war Japan, the print media in India, the chaebol of South Korea, and the powerful families who control much of the investment in Latin America.

Crony capitalism is generally associated with more virulent government intervention, however. Intentionally ambiguous laws and regulations are common in such systems. Taken strictly, such laws would greatly impede practically all business; in practice, they are only erratically enforced. The specter of having such laws suddenly brought down upon a business provides incentive to stay in the good graces of political officials. Troublesome rivals who have overstepped their bounds can have the laws suddenly enforced against them, leading to fines or even jail time.

States often said to exhibit crony capitalism include the People's Republic of China; India, especially up to the early 1990s when manufacturing was strictly controlled by the government (the "Licence Raj"); Indonesia; Argentina;^[2] Brazil; Malaysia; Russia;^[3] and most other ex-Eastern Bloc states. Critics claim that government connections are almost indispensable to business success in these countries. Wu Jinglian, one of China's leading economists^[4] and a longtime champion of its transition to free markets, says that it faces two starkly contrasting futures: a market economy under the rule of law or crony capitalism.^[5]

[edit]Cronyism in sections of an economy

More direct government involvement can lead to specific areas of crony capitalism, even if the economy as a whole may be healthy. Governments will, often in good faith, establish government agencies to regulate an industry. However, the members of an industry have a very strong interest in the actions of a regulatory body, while the rest of the citizenry are only lightly affected. As a result, it is not uncommon for current industry players to gain control of the "watchdog" and use it against competitors. This phenomenon is known as regulatory capture.

A famous early example in the United States would be the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was established in 1887 to regulate the railroad "robber barons"; instead, it quickly became controlled by the railroads, which set up a permit system that was used to deny access to new entrants and functionally legalized price fixing.^[6]

An example from 2004 would be the case of Creekstone Farms. After the mad cow scare, Creekstone decided to test all its cows for mad cow disease. This would enable them to sell again to Japan, which had blocked import of all American beef that had not been completely tested. After the proper facilities had been built and the personnel hired to make such a change, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an injunction and refused to allow Creekstone to buy the kits necessary to test.^[7] This allowed the larger beef producers to keep costs low and not be out-competed by a smaller rival. Creekstone sued the USDA in response for abrogating free competition in the market. Economist Paul Krugman commented that the incident showed that "the imperatives of crony capitalism trump[ed] professed faith in free markets," at least for the Department of Agriculture at the time.^[8]

The military-industrial complex in the United States is often described as an example of crony capitalism in an industry. Connections with The Pentagon and lobbyists in Washington are described by critics as more important than actual competition, due to the political and secretive nature of defense contracts. In the Airbus-Boeing WTO dispute, Airbus (which receives outright subsidies from European governments) has stated Boeing receives similar subsidies, which are hidden as inefficient defense contracts.^[9] In another example, Bechtel, claiming that it should have had a chance to bid for certain contracts, said Halliburton had received no-bid contracts due to having cronies in the Bush administration.

Gerald P. O'Driscoll, former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became examples of crony capitalism. Government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate mortgage underwriting. "The politicians created the mortgage giants, which then returned some of the profits to the pols - sometimes directly, as campaign funds; sometimes as "contributions" to favored constituents."^[10]

In an article titled "The Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Coming Demise of Crony Capitalism", author and economics professor Ravi Batra argues that "all official economic measures adopted since 1981...have devastated the middle class" and that the Occupy Wall Street movement should push for their repeal and thus end the influence of the super wealthy in the political process.^[11]

[edit]Creation of crony capitalism in developing economies

In its worst form, crony capitalism can devolve into simple corruption, where any pretense of a free market is dispensed with. Bribes to government officials are considered de rigueur andtax evasion is common; this is seen in many parts of Africa, for instance. This is sometimes called plutocracy (rule by wealth) or kleptocracy (rule by theft).

Corrupt governments may favor one set of business owners who have close ties to the government over others. This may also be done with racial, religious, or ethnic favoritsm; for instance, Alawites in Syria have a disproportionate share of power in the government and business there. (President Assad is an Alawite.)^[12] This can be explained by considering personal relationships as a social network. As government and business leaders try to accomplish various things, they naturally turn to other powerful people for support in their endeavors. These people form hubs in the network. In a developing country those hubs may be very few, thus concentrating economic and political power in a small interlocking group.

Normally, this will be untenable to maintain in business; new entrants will affect the market. However, if business and government are entwined, then the government can maintain the small-hub network.

[edit]Political viewpoints

Critics of capitalism including socialists and other anti-capitalists often assert that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of any capitalist system. Jane Jacobs described it as a natural consequence of collusion between those managing power and trade, while Noam Chomsky has argued that the word "crony" is superfluous when describing capitalism.^[13] Since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments. Much of the impetus behind campaign finance reform in the United States and in other countries is an attempt to prevent economic power being used to take political power.

Socialist economists, such as Robin Hahnel, have criticized the term as an ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problems of capitalism as avoidable irregularities^[14]. Socialist economists dismiss the term as an apologetic for failures of neoliberal policy and, more fundamentally, their perception of the weaknesses of market allocation.

Laissez-faire economists oppose crony capitalism as well^[15] disparaging governmental favors^[16] as incompatible with a true free market^[17]. Laissez-faire advocates criticize the term as an ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problem of government intervention or “investments” as an avoidable aberration; free-market advocates refer to governmental favoritism as "crony socialism"^[18], "venture socialism"^[19] or "corporatism, a modern form of mercantilism"^[20] to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such systems is to have help from corrupt government officials^[21] . In this view, high levels of interaction between corporations and governments are considered socialist, which is taken to its maximum in the form of nationalization of industries^[22]. Even if the initial regulation was well-intentioned (to curb actual abuses), and even if the initial lobbying by corporations was well-intentioned (to reduce illogical regulations), the mixture of business and government stifle competition^[23], a collusive result called regulatory capture. In his bookThe Myth of the Robber Barons, Burton W. Folsom, Jr. distinguished those that engage in crony capitalism—designated by him "political entrepreneurs"—from those who compete in the marketplace without special aid from government, whom he calls "market entrepreneurs" who succeed "by producing a quality product at a competitive price"^[24]

Posted via email from Global Politics

GOP Primaries

2011-12-07T05:24:00.001-06:00

The Republican primary process is once again about ensuring that the party never runs a conservative, especially a Constitutional Conservative.

Even if it means the GOP doesn't take the White House.

The key thing for us as conservatives to do is to keep funding and supporting conservative candidates and encourage them to hang in there until the voice of the people can be heard. This means sticking it out through Super Tuesday at least. Although some consolidation on the conservative side would be welcome, we need a Bachmann, a Santorum, or a Perry in the mix to counter the statists currently at the front of the pack.

What is essential is that this does not become a Gingrich/Romney race before the honest-to-God conservatives get to pick their candidate.

That is what's behind the "inevitability" nonsense the RINOs and NROniks spew. They want the primary to be a coronation, not a contest, and doing so means discouraging conservative candidates before a ballot can be cast for them.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Newt's 3 Marriages

2011-12-06T18:26:00.001-06:00

Newt Gingrich graduated from Emory University with a B.A. in 1965, then got an M.A. (1968) and a PhD (1971) from Tulane University...

Newt Gingrich has been married three times.

He married the former Jackie Battley in 1962; they met while he was a high school student and she was his geometry teacher. They had two daughters, Kathy and Jackie. The couple were divorced in 1980, the same year that Battley had surgery for a uterine tumor.

Newt Gingrich married Marianne Ginther in 1981, six months after his divorce from Battley; they, too, were divorced in 1999.

Gingrich then married Callista Bisek, a Congressional aide, in 2000; Gingrich later admitted that he carried on an affair with Bisek for several years in the 1990s while he was married to Ginther.

Posted via email from Global Politics

St. Nicholas Day—December 6

2011-12-06T05:49:00.001-06:00

In Holland, everyone celebrates the Feast of Sinterklaas, or St. Nicholas, on the eve of December 6. After dinner, Dutch families hunt for presents, following clues in funny, anonymous poems. They also eat cookies and candies, especially spicy Speculaas, crispy ginger-cookie figures formed in traditional wooden molds.

The life of St. Nicholas is, like the lives of many saints, shrouded in mystery. We know that he was the bishop of Myra in Lycia, part of Asia Minor, during the 4th century. He is credited with saving three sisters from lives of ill repute by throwing bags of gold into their house (some say down the chimney; others say through the window) to provide for their dowries.

In many places in the United States and abroad, children still hang their stockings by the chimney or place their shoes by the window for St. Nicholas to fill them with presents and sweets on the night before his feast day.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

4 Reasons Why Conservatives Should Think Twice About Gingrich

2011-12-03T10:31:00.001-06:00

With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a good thing?

However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speaker-ship career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:

1) Big Spending and Earmarks:

While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.

As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.

Gingrich’s speakership was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budgetwhich was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”

One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.

2) Dysfunctional Leadership and Failed Communicator:

If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive politically and communicate to the public well. During the government shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to formulate an effective response to the Democratic message. Gingrich’s inexplicable statement that President Clinton failed to give him proper seating on Air Force One to a state funeral for Yitzhak Rabin only made the problems worse. Gingrich’s approval rating shrunk to a toxic 20% in the polls as a result of this failure.

Gingrich’s speakership led to a historic lack of confidence from Republican leaders and the rank and file. In 1997, nine Republican members of the House refused to support Gingrich’s re-election to the speakership and the GOP leadership rallied barely enough votes to keep Gingrich in office. In July of that year, Gingrich faced a coup from his top lieutenants that collapsed due to incompetence. After the 1998 elections, Gingrich was forced to step aside.

3) Washington Insider:

Gingrich does not shy away from being a Washington insider. He responded to criticism of his work for Freddie Mac and the Washington insider label by stating that we need to elect someone who knows how Washington works in order to change Washington.

Conservatives have reason to be wary of this idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Gingrich’s flawed record as speaker, suggesting that his success at changing Washington has been slipshod at best, and that his career tendency has been to go along rather than address tough issues when called for.

In an October debate, while Gingrich lauded Herman Cain for proposing his 9-9-9 tax plan, Gingrich cautioned, “Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.” It’s worth noting that sixteen years ago, Gingrich appointed Cain to Jack Kemp’s tax commission and since then several other tax reform commissions have been appointed. How many more years do we need to “think through” tax reform until we actually do something significant? It is standard Washington tactics to kick big issues down the road for others to deal with, and Gingrich is too big a part of that system to change it.

4) Betraying Conservatives on Key Issues:

Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich scolded conservative activists for backing Hoffman. Hoffman, for his part, is forgiving of the whole thing and urges Republicans not to hold Gingrich’s action against him. While this is kind of Mr. Hoffman, conservatives would do well to ignore the advice because Gingrich’s belligerent defense of Scozzafava is part of a larger pattern of key betrayals of conservative interests.

While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997, Gingrich recruited liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and company’s attempts to play kingmaker.

In addition to endorsements for liberal Republicans, Gingrich has been more than willing to endorse liberal causes. Among examples of this are the famous ad of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi calling for government action to address climate change and his letter in support of Bush’s immigration reform, which many conservatives labeled amnesty. When Gingrich opposes conservatives, he tends to do it in a very dramatic way that’s very belligerent to conservatives who disagree with him.

Conservatives betting on Gingrich have to hope that something has changed Gingrich over the past thirteen years that will transform him into someone who can not only talk about conservative ideas, but can implement conservative solutions. Given the totality of the Gingrich record, this is a bad bet.

Posted via email from Global Politics

The National Debt Since 1969

2011-12-02T11:03:00.001-06:00

Since 1969, however, the national debt has grown dramatically each decade, as shown below:

In the 1970’s, the national debt more than doubled, from $366 billion to $829 billion.
In the 1980’s, the national debt more than tripled, from $829 billion to $2.9 trillion.
In the 1990’s, the national debt almost doubled again, from $2.9 trillion to $5.6 trillion.
In the 2000’s, the national debt is projected to more than doubleagain, from $5.6 trillion to $12.9 trillion (projected national debt at the end of fiscal year 2009).

Some will argue that it’s unfair to look at the history of the national debt in terms of raw dollars, because that doesn’t account for inflation or the growth of the economy. However, even if you look at the national debt as a percentage of our nation’s GDP (gross domestic product), the debt is increasing at a staggering rate. In 1969, the national debt was just 38% of GDP, but it was over 90% of GDP by the end of 2009, and is projected to grow to over 100% of GDP by 2011.

This uncontrolled growth of the national debt is simply unsustainable, and if the trend continues, the U.S. Government will be unable to meet its future obligations. It’s imperative that we let our elected officials know how we feel about the federal government’s reckless borrowing and spending that is destroying the very foundation of our economy and our nation. Please contact your Congressman and Senators and tell them you oppose the uncontrolled growth in our national debt.

Posted via email from Global Politics

The Myths of Balance Budgets

2011-12-02T10:54:00.001-06:00

it's worthwhile to look at the real deficits that each recent president has had. So let's do that.

The chart below indicates the president responsible for the budget a given year, the fiscal year in question, the size of the national debt at the beginning of that fiscal year, the size of the national debt at the end of that fiscal year, the real deficit (the amount the national debt increased during the year), and the claimed deficit. The claimed deficits come from historical table 1.1 of the 2009 Federal Budget (page 25 of the PDF), except for the claimed deficit of 2008 which was obtained from table 1 of the September 2008 Monthly Treasury Statement . The figures for the national debt come from the U.S. Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt . The numbers in parenthesis in the "claimed deficit" column indicate claimed surpluses.

President	Budget Year	Starting National Debt	Ending National Debt	Real Deficit	Claimed Deficit
CARTER	FY1978	$698.840 B	$771.544 B	$72.704 B	$59.185 B
	FY1979	$771.544 B	$826.519 B	$54.975 B	$40.726 B
	FY1980	$826.519 B	$907.701 B	$81.182 B	$73.830 B
	FY1981	$907.701 B	$997.855 B	$90.154 B	$78.968 B
				$299.015 B	$252.709 B
REAGAN	FY1982	$997.855 B	$1,142.034 B	$144.179 B	$127.977 B
	FY1983	$1,142.034 B	$1,377.210 B	$235.176 B	$207.802 B
	FY1984	$1,377.210 B	$1,572.266 B	$195.056 B	$185.367 B
	FY1985	$1,572.266 B	$1,823.103 B	$250.837 B	$212.308 B
	FY1986	$1,823.103 B	$2,125.303 B	$302.200 B	$221.227 B
	FY1987	$2,125.303 B	$2,350.277 B	$224.974 B	$149.730 B
	FY1988	$2,350.277 B	$2,602.338 B	$252.061 B	$155.178 B
	FY1989	$2,602.338 B	$2,857.431 B	$255.093 B	$152.639 B
				$1,859.576 B	$1,412.228 B
BUSH SR.	FY1990	$2,857.431 B	$3,233.313 B	$375.882 B	$221.036 B
	FY1991	$3,233.313 B	$3,665.303 B	$431.990 B	$269.238 B
	FY1992	$3,665.303 B	$4,064.621 B	$399.317 B	$290.321 B
	FY1993	$4,064.621 B	$4,411.489 B	$346.868 B	$255.051 B
				$1,554.057 B	$1,035.646 B
CLINTON	FY1994	$4,411.489 B	$4,692.750 B	$281.261 B	$203.186 B
	FY1995	$4,692.750 B	$4,973.983 B	$281.233 B	$163.952 B
	FY1996	$4,973.983 B	$5,224.811 B	$250.828 B	$107.431 B
	FY1997	$5,224.811 B	$5,413.146 B	$188.335 B	$21.884 B
	FY1998	$5,413.146 B	$5,526.193 B	$113.047 B	($69.270 B)
	FY1999	$5,526.193 B	$5,656.271 B	$130.078 B	($125.610 B)
	FY2000	$5,656.271 B	$5,674.178 B	$17.907 B	($236.241 B)
	FY2001	$5,674.178 B	$5,807.463 B	$133.285 B	($128.236 B)
				$1,395.974 B	($62.904 B)
BUSH	FY2002	$5,807.463 B	$6,228.236 B	$420.773 B	$157.758 B
	FY2003	$6,228.236 B	$6,783.231 B	$554.995 B	$377.585 B
	FY2004	$6,783.231 B	$7,379.053 B	$595.822 B	$412.727 B
	FY2005	$7,379.053 B	$7,932.710 B	$553.657 B	$318.346 B
	FY2006	$7,932.710 B	$8,506.974 B	$574.264 B	$248.181 B
	FY2007	$8,506.974 B	$9,007.653 B	$500.679 B	$162.002 B
	FY2008	$9,007.653 B	$10,024.725 B	$1,017.072 B	$454.806 B
				$4,217.262 B	$2,131.405 B
President	Budget Year	Starting National Debt	Ending National Debt	Real Deficit	Claimed Deficit

Comparing Claimed and Real Deficits

As can be seen very clearly in the table, every year the "official" claimed deficit is smaller than the amount by which the national debt went up. This is true under both Republican and Democrat presidents. Sometimes the differences between the two are smaller and sometimes they are larger, but the real deficit (calculated by the amount the national debt increased) is always larger than the deficit the government claimed.

Consider the following:

The sum of all Carter's claimed deficits was $252.709 billion but the national debt went up by $299.015 billion.
The sum of all Reagan's claimed deficits was $1.412228 trillion but the national debt went up by $1.859576 trillion.
The sum of Bush Sr.'s claimed deficits was $1.035646 trillion but the national debt went up by $1.554057 trillion.
The sum of Clinton's claimed deficits and surpluses actually resulted in a net surplus of $62.904 billion but the national debt went up by $1.395974 trillion--only 30% less than the increase during the Reagan administration.
The sum of George W. Bush's claimed deficits (through fiscal year 2008) was $2.131405 trillion but the national debt went up $4.217262 trillion
The sum of all the reported deficits of these five presidents is $4.769084 trillion but the national debt has gone up $9.325885 trillion!

Clinton and George W. Bush's figures warrant special attention.

To those who cling to the belief that Clinton had a surplus, please review the official surpluses for the Clinton years (FY1994-FY2001). The sum of the claimed surpluses in the last four years actually exceeds the sum of the claimed deficits in the first four years. The result is that if we believe the official CBO deficit/surplus reports, the overall balance of Clinton's presidency was a net surplus of $62.904 billion. Yet during Clinton's presidency the national debt actually increased by 1 trillion 395 billion 974 million dollars. Those that defend the validity of the government surplus/deficit figures need to explain how an alleged 8-year net surplus of $62.904 billion during the Clinton administration caused the government to increase its debt by $1.395974 trillion. If Clinton's administration took in $62.904 billion more than it spent (the definition of a surplus), then why did it have to borrow another $1.39574 trillion?

George W. Bush's presidency also highlights the same problem. If we add up the official deficits of Bush's seven fiscal years so far, the total is $2.131405 trillion. But detractors correctly point out that Bush has increased the national debt by $4.217262 trillion--almost twice the stated deficits.

Posted via email from Global Politics

10 More Things That Don't Speak Well for Newt

2011-12-02T02:12:00.001-06:00

In no particular order, here are ten items in Gingrich’s record that should make Constitutional Conservatives run like hell from this mad man:

Medicare Part D. Gingrich supported Medicare Part D in 2003 — and the ensuing years haven’t made him any less supportive of the legislation. Asked in March if he regretted supporting the plan, Gingrich responded not with an apology, but with a ringing defense: “I feel strongly that the No. 1 purpose of health care is health, and Medicare was designed in the 1960s when pharmaceutical drugs were not a significant part of how you took care of people. And for us to have a government-run health plan that said we’re not going to help you with insulin but we’ll be glad to pay for kidney dialysis is an utterly anti-human provision. And so all I was in favor of was modernizing the system to recognize modern medicine.”

Ethanol subsidies. Here’s a distinction Gingrich probably won’t want to trumpet outside of the Hawkeye State: At a National Association of Manufacturers forum earlier this month, Gingrich was the only Republican present who supported ethanol subsidies (Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul also took part in the forum). Gingrich’s support for ethanol subsidies got him into a tussle with the Wall Street Journal earlier this year. “Even Al Gore now admits that the only reason he supported ethanol in 2000 was to goose his presidential prospects, and the only difference now between Al and Newt is that Al admits he was wrong,” wrote the Journal in an editorial lambasting Gingrich’s position on the issue.

The individual health-care mandate. During an October debate, Mitt Romney zinged Gingrich on this, saying, “Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you,” after Gingrich had attacked Romney’s Massachusetts health-care law as a big-government program. Gingrich initially demurred, but was ultimately forced to concede that he had supported individual health-care mandates in the past. “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy [health-care] coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond),” Gingrich wrote in his 2008 book, Real Change — just one of several quotes a May Huffington Postarticle unearthed that showed Gingrich over the years supporting an individual mandate or something very similar (such as the bond solution).

The Dede Scozzafava endorsement. In the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district in 2009, Gingrich endorsed the pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage Scozzafava (who also was viewed as friendly to big labor) over Doug Hoffman, who was running on the Conservative ticket. He also criticized conservatives who backed Hoffman, saying, “I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea. If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.” When Scozzafava dropped out, Gingrich endorsed Hoffman via tweet: “Scozzafava dropping out leaves hoffman as only anti-tax anti-pelosi vote in ny 23 Every voter opposed to tax increases support doug hoffman.” Democrat Bill Owens won the seat.

Partial amnesty. In May, Gingrich suggested that he would be open to a partial amnesty of illegal immigrants. “I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States, and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens,” he said while campaigning in Iowa. Gingrich reiterated that viewpoint in September, saying in Orlando, “You have someone who came here at three years of age and now they’re 19. . . . I suspect we’re going to want to find some way to enable them to move toward legality, if not citizenship.”

TARP. Gingrich did not initially support TARP, but before the legislation’s passage he came around to supporting it, “sadly and reluctantly,” concerned about the financial impact if no bailout was approved. He did still blast Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, saying in a statement that “Having a former chairman of Goldman Sachs preside over disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of — if not the actual existence of — corruption.”

The Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 Gingrich co-sponsored legislation that would have re-implemented the Fairness Doctrine. (Ultimately, Ronald Reagan vetoed the legislation, which would have mandated that U.S. broadcasters always feature both sides of an issue.) However, 20 years later, Gingrich opposed the Fairness Doctrine. “Let’s be clear here,” he said on Fox News when John Kerry proposed re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. “There is no Fairness Doctrine. That was the government-censorship doctrine, and they want to re-impose government censorship.”

Tax credits. Gingrich has favored plenty of tax credits over the years, ranging from tax credits to car companies for making clean-energy vehicles to a tax credit for buying home computers to be used for certain purposes. “In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” wrote the Club for Growth in its analysis of Gingrich’s record over the years, “Gingrich proposed a six-month, $1,000-per-person tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of personal travel more than 100 miles from one’s home. The idea sounds nice, but just as Cash for Clunkers only expedited the purchase of cars people were going to buy anyway (at non-car-buying taxpayers’ expense), Gingrich’s Cash for Getaways would only have subsidized trips people were going to make anyway, enabling a transfer payment to frequent travelers from families without the time or inclination to travel.” Gingrich’s idea, the Club concluded, was “not a fiscally conservative policy” and was “indicative of an approach Gingrich has frequently advocated.”

Climate change. On Fox News last week, Gingrich called the commercial he shot with Nancy Pelosi “the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years.” In the 2008 commercial, which featured Gingrich and Pelosi chummily sitting on a sofa in front of the Capitol, Gingrich said, “We do agree our country must take action to address climate change. If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation that we need.” In a 2007 interview on PBS’s Frontline, Gingrich indicated support for cap-and-trade, saying, “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” Fast forward to 2009, when Gingrich strongly opposed Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade program.

Rejecting the Ryan plan. In a May appearance on Meet the Press, Gingrich nearly kamikazed his fledging campaign by saying, “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” in reference to a question about a key component of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. Gingrich told Rush Limbaugh in an interview a few days later that “It was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer.” Gingrich also apologized to Ryan and stressed that he would have voted for the budget that included Ryan’s Medicareplan.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Texas Holiday Light Festivals (Just A Few, Not All)

2011-11-28T17:56:00.001-06:00

There are several holiday light festivals and trails across the Lone Star State during the month of December.

Whistle Stop Christmas

In Cleburne, the Whistle Stop Christmas Lights wow visitors on an annual basis. The main draw for this county-wide event is the 11 acres of Christmas lights covering Hulen Park which stay lit for the whole month of December.

Hill Country Regional Lighting Trail

The Texas Hill Country communities of Boerne, Burnet, Dripping Springs, Fredericksburg, Goldwaite, Johnson City, Llano, Marble Falls, New Braunfels, Round Mountain and Wimberley are all part of the Hill Country Regional Lighting Trail. Each of these towns offer visitors dazzling light displays among the rolling hills of Central Texas.

Santa's Wonderland

College Station's Santa's Wonderland features 2.5 million lights spread across 40 acres and is one of the largest holiday theme parks in the nation.

Holiday Trail of Lights

Probably the most famous Texas light trail, Jefferson's Holiday Trail of Lights features an enchanted forest, life-size gingerbread house, candlelight tour of homes and more - not to mention plenty of lights.

The Wonders of Olive Oil

2011-11-28T14:05:00.001-06:00

Olive Oil Health Benefits, Types, Selection, Storage, Cooking Tips

By Laura Dolson, About.com Guide

Updated November 28, 2011

Italian Epicure SpecialsFinest Cyber Groceria & Salumeria Prosciutto Parma & Formaggio GiftsItalianFoodImports.com

Top 10 Cooking OilsLearn which cooking oils are best for your health and why.www.dLife.com

Signs Of High CholesterolLearn The Signs Of High Cholesterol & Get Tips On Lowering Cholesterol.Pebble.com/Cholesterol

Low Carb Diets Ads

Lower Your LDL LevelGet Tips on How to Manage and Reduce Your High Cholesterol Here.merckengage.com

Food To Lower CholesterolWhich Foods Help Lower Your LDL? Find 3 Easy Recipes To Get Healthy!StayingFit.com

Olive oil is an ancient food which has been used by humans for thousands of years (olive oil residue has been found in jugs which are over 4000 years old). It has been called "liquid gold", and prized for its flavors in addition to being a valuable cooking and salad oil. Olive oil is one of the primary foods associated with the heart-healthy Mediterranean Diet. Most of the world's olive oil is produced and consumed in Mediterranean countries, especially Spain, Italy, and Greece.

It has been only recently that scientists have begun to understand the many factors in olive oil responsible for a mounting list of health benefits. Many books have been written about olive oil, and so much new information is coming out now that a new book could probably be written each year! First we will talk about a few of the health benefits, and then how to select and store olive oil, and some of the many ways you can begin to add more of this healthful food to your diet.

Health Benefits of Olive Oil

Plugging "olive oil" into the PubMed search engine (the database of medical and health-oriented research) yields over 6000 studies. Not many specific foods get this much attention in the medical literature, and there are good reasons that olive oil is being so well-studied. It is loaded with polyphenols and other phytonutrients (many of which are antioxidants), and is high inmonounsaturated fats. Here are some of the probable health benefits of olive oil:

1. Anti-Inflammatory Effects - There is a lot of talk about anti-inflammatory diets these days (since so many chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis have been linked to chronic inflammation in our bodies), but few foods have actually been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects in the body. There is mounting evidence that extra virgin olive oil may be one of those foods, with quite a number of studies documenting lower levels of chemicals associated with inflammation (C-reactive protein and others) when olive oil is added to the diet. One to two tablespoons of virgin or extra-virgin olive oil per day has been shown to produce these anti-inflammatory effects in the body.

2) Antioxidant Effects - It turns out that some of the compounds in olive oil (e.g. hydroxytyrosol and one with an even longer name abbreviated DHPEA-EDA), are among the strongest antioxidant chemicals discovered in food so far. It is thought that antioxidant compounds can protect our cells from damage in a number of ways. Primarily it is to combat a type of damage called "oxidative stress", which occurs in the normal course of cell functioning and as a result of other types of wear and tear on the body (e.g. radiation of various types). There is a wide variety of antioxidants in our bodies to control this damage, some of which comes from the foods we eat, and olive oil has been shown to be helpful in this way.

3) Cardiovascular Protection - Olive oil probably helps protect our hearts and arteries in a wide variety of ways. At least one of the polyphenols (hydroxytyrosol) may even help protect our arteries on a genetic level. Oxidative stress damages our cardiovascular systems, so the polyphenols and other antioxidants can help in that way, and the anti-inflammatory effects also help our hearts and arteries. Some of the polyphenols can prevent blood platelets from clumping together, which is one of the causes of heart attacks. The monounsaturated fats in olive oil may have a positive effect on cholesterol profiles, and may even help lower blood pressure. Additionally, substances in olive oil can also protect some of the components of blood itself, including the red blood cells and LDL cholesterol, which is mostly a problem when it becomes oxidized. check on allowed FDA claim.

4) Cancer Protection - Since we so often associated olive oil with lowering our risk for heart disease, it may surprise you to learn that there is a fair amount of research showing a lowering of the risk of some cancers as well, particularly those of the digestive tract and breast (although there is preliminary evidence for many others, even leukemia). The mechanism is thought to be at least partly from the antioxidants' protecting the DNA in the cells.

Other preliminary research suggests that consuming olive oil could protect us from cognitive decline, osteoporosis, and even the balance of bacteria in our guts.

One important note: Many of the health-giving phytonutrients are present in high amounts only in virgin and extra-virgin olive oil.

What is Extra-Virgin Olive Oil and Why is it Better for Us?

Virgin olive oil is extracted from the olives purely by mechanical means (either by pressing or spinning the olives after they are mashed into a paste). No chemical processing is allowed in producing virgin olive oil. The best of the virgin oil is classified as "extra-virgin", which has very superior characteristics including very low rancidity, and has the best flavor. It also has the highest level of polyphenols and other phytonutrients. Plain virgin olive oil also has high levels of these compounds, and a rancidity of less than two percent. Other olive oil classifications include refined olive oil, which is chemically processed to remove "impurities", which unfortunately include some of the phytonutrients. The good things about refined oil are that it has a more neutral flavor (valuable when cooking some things) and a higher smoke point. The "impurities" in virgin olive oil begin to burn at 300 degrees F, producing smoke and bitter flavors, as well as lessening the health benefits. A product labeled simply "olive oil" is a blend of refined and virgin olive oils. "Olive pomace oil" is obtained by a chemical process to get the last drops of oil out of the olive paste.

U.S. and Australian studies have previously shown that much of the imported olive oil sold in the U.S. and Australia as "extra-virgin" did not meet those standards. However, more recently the USDA has issued voluntary standards similar to those in Europe partially in the attempts to standardize both domestic and imported oil in the United States.

Selection and Storage

Olive oil goes rancid more slowly than some other oils (presumably due to the high antioxidant content), but it does degrade over time. The oil itself will go rancid and the polyphenols and other compounds will also break down. (Extra-virgin olive oil will turn to virgin olive oil in a glass bottle exposed to light at room temperature.) The main ways to avoid this are to protect the oil from light and heat. Some tips:

- Buy olive oil in dark glass bottles (or harder to find metal containers)

- Try to buy from a store that has a rapid turnover - no dusty bottles sitting on the shelves for months.

- The annual olive harvest is in autumn for most varieties. Look to see if there is date on the label, and try to get the freshest oil you can.

- Store in a dark cool cupboard, or (better yet) the refrigerator until ready to use, then transfer the amount you will use in a week or two to a dark glass bottle. Olive oil in the refrigerator will solidify, but will "melt" again at room temperature.

How to Get More Olive Oil into Your Diet

Want to try to get that recommended 1-2 tablespoons of olive oil into your diet? The first thing we think of when using olive oil is salad dressing, which is a great start. Too often people cover their salads with dressings made with soy oil or other oils high in omega-6 fats. But it's so much better to use an oil with such wonderful health benefits as virgin or extra-virgin olive oil. (See Healthy Salad Dressings for purchasing and recipes).

For other ideas, Greece is a great place to turn to, as a Greek person typically consumes 26 liters of olive oil in a year! (Think what this means: those calories are NOT other things which would be less healthful such as processed foods and less healthful fats. Plus, olive oil is usually eaten with healthy foods such as vegetables and seafood.) Greeks drizzle olive oil over almost everything -- almost all vegetable, meat, and seafood dishes. They also cook vegetables in it, marinate meats, and preserve vegetables such as red peppers and dried tomatoes in it. The foods of other Mediterranean countries, from Spain and Italy to Morrocco and the countries of the Middle East, also use a lot of olive oil in their foods. The rest of the world would do well to emulate them.

Posted via email from WellCare

How Can I Tell if God is Really Telling Me Something?

2011-11-28T12:27:00.001-06:00

---by Billy Graham

Q: How can I tell if God is telling me to do something, or if I'm just imagining it must be OK with God, but it isn't? I want to do what's right, but sometimes I think God told me to do something, but later I realize He probably didn't. -- Z.J.

A: The most important thing God wants you to know is that He loves you and knows what is best for you -- because He does, He wants to show you His will. He doesn't want us to stumble around making bad decisions all the time. When we do, we not only miss His perfect plan for our lives but we also end up suffering the consequences of our foolish ways.

What is God's will for you? God's will first of all is that you would commit your life to Jesus Christ, repenting of your sins and by faith asking Him to come into your life as your Savior and Lord. Don't miss this step! Jesus said, "My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life" (John 6:40). If you have never done so, ask Christ to come into your life today.

Then God's will is for you to become more like Jesus, by turning from sin and seeking (with His help) to be pure and loving -- even as He is. When our goal in life is to follow Him, our selfish and sinful desires begin to fade.

Finally, God wants you to follow Him every day. Pray about the decisions you make; ask if what you're seeking is honoring to Christ; avoid anything that might make others doubt the reality of your faith. If you aren't certain something is God's will, then avoid it. Remember: God's will is always best.

Posted via email from Religion

The Simple Blessings of Christmas

2011-11-27T09:10:00.001-06:00

by Mark Gilroy

Norman Vincent Peale, noted minister and author from the previous century, tells the story of a young girl from Sweden spending Christmas in big, bustling New York City. She was living with an American family and helping them around the house, and she didn't have much money. So she knew she couldn't get them a very nice Christmas present - besides, they already had so much, with new gifts arriving every day.

With just a little money in her pocket, she went out and bought an outfit for a small baby, and then she set out on a journey to find the poorest part of town and the poorest baby she could find. At first, she received only strange looks from passersby when she asked them for help. But then a kind stranger, a Salvation Army bell-ringer, guided her to a poor part of town and helped her deliver her gift. On Christmas morning, instead of giving them a wrapped present, she told the family she served what she had done in their name. Everyone was speechless, and everyone was blessed - the girl for giving, the wealthy family for seeing others with new eyes, and the poor family for receiving an unexpected gift.

All of us have opportunities both large and small to show kindness, especially at Christmastime. We can help strangers by delivering gifts to needy kids or serving homeless families at a soup kitchen. Or we can simply look for everyday ways to be kind, like allowing someone to go ahead of us in a lengthy line at the department store, or giving that bell-ringer a little change and a few encouraging words.

Maybe it's because we're in gift-giving mode anyway that giving to others becomes so important at Christmas. Or because we're more aware of our families and friends and communities. Or maybe it's because two thousand years ago, the earth received the most perfect, most loving gift of all, helping us to understand true kindness.

Whatever the reason, don't let Christmas pass you by without showing kindness to someone. Because it is truly more blessed to give than to receive.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Doing a Double Take on Double-Talk

2011-11-26T06:20:00.001-06:00

Rob Kyff

Word pairs are the bread and butter of English. We love, for instance, to say that price gougers are charging us an "arm and a leg," even though losing just one of these appendages would be bad enough. During a downpour, it rains not only "cats" but also "dogs," and describing a tingling sensation summons both "pins" and "needles."

But sometimes our use of these phrases seems to be, well, "touch and go." Consider the widespread mis-rendering "a-carrot-and-a-stick approach" as "a carrot-on-a-stick approach," a mistake that entirely destroys the allusion to motivating a stubborn donkey with both reward andpunishment.

In some cases, people have simply forgotten what these doublets originally described. In previous columns, I've traced "touch-and-go" to sailing ships that scraped their keels on reefs or sandbars but sailed on without much loss of speed, and "cut and run" to cutting loose the ship's anchor (or cutting the ropes that unfurl the sails) to make a quick getaway.

Even the origin of "cut-and-dry" isn't cut and dried. Some say this phrase originally referred to processing timber or firewood, while others swear it began with meat, fish or tobacco. Who knows?

And what of the "rack" in "rack and ruin," the "cranny" in "nook and cranny" and the "beck" in "beck and call"?

"Rack" is a variation of "wrack," an old word for wreckage or destruction in general. The original meaning of "rack" was something driven by the sea, so "rack" came to refer to anything washed up on shore, from dried seaweed to a wrecked ship. The phrase "rack and ruin" appeared in written English as early as the 1500s.

Though we rarely use "cranny" without the accompanying "nook," a "cranny" is a small break or slit or an obscure corner. It comes from the Middle French "cren, cran," meaning a notch, as in "crenellation." Though both "nook" and "cranny" are relatively old words, they didn't team up in print until the 1830s.

The "beck" in "beck and call" is an old term for a wordless gesture of command, such as a hand or forefinger motioning you to come here or go there. "Beck" is a clipped form of "beckon" and is related to the German word for "signal," which also gives us "beacon." The phrase "beck and call," meaning being subject to both physical and verbal instructions, first appeared in print during the 1870s.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

THE VISION THING

2011-11-25T09:53:00.001-06:00

Photo by Art Streiber

BY RICK TETZELI

How Marty Scorsese risked it all and lived to risk again in Hollywood.

AT 69, AN AGE WHEN MOST HOLLYWOOD DIRECTORS have been packed off after a hollow cavalcade of plaudits, roasts, and nostalgic fetes, Martin Scorsese is once again panicked about hitting a deadline. His new movie is Hugo, a 3-D children's movie being released by Paramount Pictures this Thanksgiving weekend, and Scorsese has never before directed in 3-D, nor, God knows, made anything resembling a kid flick. But this is what life is like for Marty, as everyone calls him. The director has achieved the trifecta of a fulfilling, creative life: enough money to do only what truly interests him, enough freedom to attack those projects in a way that is satisfying, and enough appreciation from his peers to tame--just slightly, just ever so slightly--the neurotic beast of self-doubt. After 22 movies, five commercials, 13 documentaries, a handful of music videos, three children, five wives, and 25 studios; after insolvency and misery, after box-office failures and years of going unappreciated; after the one Oscar and all the others he should have won, Marty Scorsese has earned the right that every creative person dreams of: the right never to be bored. And what all this adds up to in his case, what this really means to this particular man, is that he has earned the right to continue to fret every little detail in the world well into the next decade and for as long as he cares to make movies.

So as he sits down for the filmed part of a fastcompany.com interview in his office screening room, a comfortable unostentatious cave surrounded outside by posters of classic films likeThe Third Man, Citizen Kane, and Ladri di Biciclette (The Bicycle Thief), Hollywood's eminence grise starts off by wanting to get something straight: "Let me ask you: Do I look like Quasimodo? Am I sitting too far down in the chair? The shoulders on this jacket, against these chairs, they can scrunch up so I look like Quasimodo. Okay, is this good?" Yes, Mr. Scorsese. And how are you feeling today?

"I'm good. I'm tired. I'm tired, but in a good way. There's just so much to do. What I'm worried about is, is there confusion in the film? Because there's so many things going on, especially in a movie like this, in 3-D. There's the color timing; Bob Richardson has done the film but he's in Budapest right now shooting another film, and he's got to get the timing right, but he's doing it through Greg Fisher who's living here now, but originally Greg did it with Bob in England, so there's that problem. Rob Legato is living here now for the special effects--he doesn't live here, but he's here in New York till the picture's finished. These special effects are hard! Some take 89 days to render--89 days to render! And what if you don't like it when it comes back? I tell them at a certain point, you've gotta tell me, you've got to say: This is the point of no return, Marty; you've got to make up your mind right now about this facet of the shot! So, you know, that's when you've got to make up your mind."

Scorsese, to pick a side in an endless argument, is America's greatest living director. And yet he still can't make up his damn mind, still gets obsessed, still gets crazed by the same kinds of things that make any creative type nuts. Is he going to get the resources he needs? Will his bosses like what he's doing? Will they give him another chance on another project? How much of his creative vision will get into this project? How much will the powers that be screw with his vision? When does he say "no" to them? When does he say "yes"? Whom does he trust? And how in the world is he going to get away with doing the work he loves for his whole life?

In an era when careers are measured in months rather than decades, Scorsese has reliably delivered for 45 years--but it still isn't easy. "There's always been pressure," he says. "People say you should do it this way, someone else suggests that, yes, there's financing, but maybe you should use this actor. And there are the threats, at the end--if you don't do it this way, you'll lose your box office; if you don't do it that way, you'll never get financed again. . . . 35, 40 years of this, you get beat up." Hollywood has always been a battlefield, as rough as any more-traditional corporate setting.

And yet unlike so many creative geniuses, Scorsese hasn't burned out, he hasn't alienated the people he's worked with, and he's generally not considered a creep. Despite the fact that he's never had a massive box-office hit (Shutter Island is his biggest grosser to date, with $300 million earned worldwide), Paramount decided to give him a reported $85 million to make a 3-D children's movie about a broody child named Hugo Cabret. And while Hugo's success is uncertain (for God's sake, screams conventional wisdom, it's two hours long, it's dark, it takes place in France, and aren't people over live-action 3-D?), Scorsese is well on his way toward funding his next project, Silence--an adaptation of a book about 17th-century missionaries. In Japan! (Which is yet another foreign country, people!)

Of course the spectacles audiences will wear to see Hugo will be a cross between Scorsese's own and the flimsy 3-D glasses of yore. | Photo by Art Streiber

Any man who can get this stuff financed--never mind make great art from the material--has clearly learned a trick or two. Scorsese has sweated the details of his career as thoroughly as the details of his movies. As he explains here, in his own rat-a-tat style, the man knows a few things about constructing a life of meaningful work--things that apply to anyone in the business of trying to craft a creative life.

RESPECT THE PAST

Nobody talks about the movies the way Marty Scorsese can talk about the movies. His conversation bounds from John Cassavetes (a mentor) to Steven Spielberg (a friend) to Akira Kurosawa (an acquired taste) to George Melies, the silent-film director and innovator whose story forms the basis of Hugo. "When we begin a film," says Dante Ferretti, the Oscar-winning production designer of Kundun, Gangs of New York, The Age of Innocence, and now Hugo, "I read the script and then Marty shows me films. Many, many films, with many different references he wants me to think of for the look of our movie. He carries all these films in his head. He shows me whole films for just one shot, telling me, 'Remember this image, that's the feel I want.'"

Scorsese revels in such details. He likes to speak of directors on three levels: their films, their careers, and their lives within and without Hollywood. He is fascinated by how these men (and the occasional woman) made it--or didn't make it--through the gauntlet. In 1995, he narrated and codirected a documentary about their careers called A Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Movies. It's a career how-to video disguised as the greatest lesson in U.S. film history. Going back to D.W. Griffith, through Howard Hawks and Billy Wilder, and up to modern-day filmmakers, he looks at how these "smugglers, iconoclasts, and illusionists" managed to get some version of their creative visions on-screen. "I was mainly interested in the ones who circumvented the system to get their movies done," he explains in the video. "To survive, to master the creative process, each had to develop his own strategy."

For someone whose own innovations are numerous--the introduction of a certain New York street vernacular in Mean Streets and Who's That Knocking at My Door, the intimacy of the boxing scenes in Raging Bull, the rush and flow of Goodfellas, and now, with Hugo, a reinterpretation or rediscovery of how 3-D can bolster a film's beauty without intruding on the story--Scorsese understands himself as a product of, and a battler against, the Hollywood system. He draws clear lines from classics past to his own work: Nicolas Cage's EMT inBringing Out the Dead is "a modern-day saint, like what Rossellini did in Europa '51"; the fight sequences in Raging Bull draw from, yes, the ballet in The Red Shoes. His comfort with the past is so deep that he romanticizes the old-Hollywood-studio system, where directors worked for one studio churning out at least a movie a year, if not three or four. "There was always a part of me that wanted to be an old-time director," he says, laughing. "But I couldn't do that. I'm not a pro."

A Man For All Genres

Think Scorsese is just a director of gangster flicks? Think again.

A Man For All Genres

TRUST YOUR CONFIDANTS...

Ferretti is one of Scorsese's trusted advisers at this point, along with director of photography Bob Richardson, costume designer Sandy Powell, casting director Ellen Lewis, and, above all, editor Thelma Schoonmaker. As much as possible, he enjoys working with the same crew. He enjoys working with the same actors, as well. First came Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, and Joe Pesci; more recently it's been Ben Kingsley and, of course, Leonardo DiCaprio; in Silence, he'll turn once again to Daniel Day-Lewis.

"Any great artist needs a lot of support," says Schoonmaker. "We're a group that is totally committed to his high standards, and we understand what he's after." The creative process of a director, unlike that of an actor, is essentially collaborative. And some of Scorsese's greatest creative moments have come about because of suggestions by those closest to him. Watching some early takes on Raging Bull, British director Michael Powell remarked to Scorsese that "there's something wrong about the color of those red gloves." That, says Scorsese, was when he knew the film had to be shot in black and white. When Scorsese was scouting a location for his great Five Points battle in Gangs of New York, Ferretti pushed him toward the CineCitta production facilities in Rome. "We were in Venice talking about this," says Ferretti." We had considered New York, but there's nothing in the city that looks the way it did back in the 1860s. We thought about Canada, but it's too cold. So we decided to go to Rome to check out CineCitta . I loved this idea, since I live here [in Italy]. Before we went, I called up a restaurant, a good one just outside CineCitta, and I said, 'Listen, I'm bringing Mr. Martin Scorsese, and it's important that we eat well. Do you understand me? It's very important that we eat well!' So we went to CineCitta--Marty, Thelma, all of us--and after, we went to the restaurant. And that is why we shot Gangs at CineCitta! I mean, of course there were other reasons . . . "

...BUT NOT TOO MUCH

"There are two kinds of power you have to fight," Scorsese says. "The first is the money, and that's just our system. The other is the people close around you, knowing when to accept their criticism, knowing when to say no." All directors face pressure to make their films shorter, and Scorsese simply cannot deliver a short film. He hasn't made a sub-two-hour movie in 25 years, since the 119-minute-long The Color of Money. For children's movies, the industry standard is to keep it under 90 minutes. Hugo is a two-hour visual feast, with stretches that even some adults at its New York Film Festival premiere screening found taxing. "Some may suggest--how can I put this?--that there's an indulgence on my part," says Scorsese. "But sometimes something needs time to work on a viewer. People talk about length, but it's not just length. It's pacing and rhythm. I've done some of the fastest pictures--the sequences in Goodfellas, and particularly those in Casino, which is a three-hour film that moves very fast."

It's not just a question of ignoring what may seem like completely sensible suggestions. You've also got to know when a collaboration has run its course. "Over the years, people change and they want other things. You've got to understand when a collaborator isn't satisfied anymore," says Scorsese. "Michael Ballhaus--he was a lifesaver for me, an extraordinary cameraman who helped me relearn how to make a motion picture on After Hours. The last picture he did with me was The Departed. It was a very tough picture to make. We had lots of problems with actors' schedules, and I was constantly reworking the script. For The Aviator, the dialogue was very straightforward. But in The Departed, it was not, and with those actors! I mean, that's why you want them, but that doesn't make it easy. So Michael decided he wanted to do other things. That was very sad."

PLAY THE CORPORATE GAME

Sometimes you just have to give in to the system. Scorsese comfortably admits that he made at least two movies for calculated business reasons: The Color of Money, in 1986, and Cape Fear in 1991. The early '80s were difficult for Scorsese. "For a long time," says Schoonmaker, "our films were not recognized and did not make money--which was a serious problem." As much as critics now admire Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and even The King of Comedy, none of those movies ignited the box office. The Last Temptation of Christ had been ginned up in 1983, but six weeks before production was to begin, the studio pulled the plug. Scorsese's follow-up to The King of Comedy was After Hours, a quirky comedy starring Griffin Dunne. The film was shot on budget and on time over 40 nights in SoHo and did fairly well as a low-budget film. But none of that mattered. "They saw me as outside Hollywood," Scorsese remembers. "'You're gone, you're in independent cinema now, on the outside from now on.'"

"There was always a part of me that wanted to be an old-time director," says Scorsese, laughing. "But I couldn't do that. I'm not a pro."MARTIN SCORSESE

Enter The Color of Money. Paul Newman was interested in doing a sequel to The Hustler, the 1961 movie he had starred in with Jackie Gleason. Scorsese abhorred the idea of doing a sequel to anything but says he was intrigued by the character of Eddie Felson: "Again, it was a guy who took too many risks, overstepped the line, didn't understand his own self-destruction, and didn't catch on until it was too late." So he took the job, as a way of proving to Hollywood that he could make a box-office winner. "It was a calculated business move. I needed the new studio heads to think they could give me another chance, finance me again."

Color hit at the box office, and Paul Newman took home the Oscar for best actor. As a result, at least the way Scorsese tells the story, he won the right to finally make his passion project, The Last Temptation. But the tortured production drained Scorsese financially. "I was never interested in the accumulation of money, you know. And I never had a mind for business," he explains. "There have been serious issues with money over the years. I have a nice house now, in New York. But there have been major, major issues. In the mid-'80s it was pathetic, I mean, my father would help me out. I couldn't go out, I couldn't buy anything. But it's all my own doing."

Three confidants pushed him into Cape Fear: his agent, then-CAA chief Michael Ovitz, the best career counselor Scorsese ever had; De Niro, enthralled by the role of Max Cady, the psychotic criminal bent on revenge; and Spielberg. "We were down in Tribeca at dinner," Scorsese remembers, "and I said, 'Steven, I can't do this, I hate the script.' He said, 'Marty, if you did the picture, would the family live at the end?' I nodded yes. So he said, "If that's the case, do whatever you want up until that! And, oh, by the way, this guy over here? He's the scriptwriter. Wesley [Strick], meet Marty.'" He took the movie, with Strick as a willing participant. "We tried to push the genre as far as we could," Scorsese remembers. "We pushed it as good as we could. And I'll never forget the call I got from Ovitz after we'd done it. I pick up the phone and he says, 'Congratulations, Marty, you're solvent! Now don't go screw it up again.'"

DEFY THEM WHEN YOU MUST

In the editing room, in the waning weeks of a production, everything is on the line. The studio pushes harder than ever for the film to satisfy its box-office needs. Actors, through their agents, plead for more screen time. Colleagues have their own ideas, and then there's the despair of the director realizing all the mistakes he made during those precious, long-gone days of shooting. "This is when you see I ain't got certain scenes and I wish I had them," says Scorsese. "Maybe we didn't have the money. Maybe I didn't have time, but if I had chosen to shoot other things other ways, I would have had the time. Whatever--now it's too late. Let's say you make 25 or 30 decisions on a particular scene. If one or two big ones were off, they can ruin everything about that scene. And you only discover this in the editing room."

Photo by Art Streiber

At this point, he says, everything is focused on one thing: "What does the film need, what does the scene need?" In every movie, whether a commercial play like The Color of Money or a passion project like The Age of Innocence, "there is an essence to the project that you must protect. You cannot make concessions on that, the story cannot be tampered with past that point; you have to fight off every power or force around you."

This is when Scorsese retreats to a long dialogue with his one constant collaborator, Schoonmaker, who has edited every film of his since Raging Bull. Unlike his other collaborators, Schoonmaker is not a child of the movies. Whereas Ferretti and Scorsese can go on and on about films they watched during their isolated childhoods, Schoonmaker grew up intending to be a diplomat and fell into editing after being chided in the early 1960s by State Department interviewers for her anti-apartheid views. Starting with their time together at New York University, she learned everything she knows about films from Scorsese, who also introduced her to her husband (Powell, the British director). "Thelma stays loyal to me, and to what I'm trying to do with the story, through everything. We'll say anything to each other in the editing room--anything," he says, smiling as he raises those famous eyebrows. "What can be done? What shouldn't be done? If the studio is saying this, maybe what they really mean is this. There are so many issues, it can get very tricky, very political. She'll see me getting tired and giving in, let's say, to someone who has my ear and is very influential, to someone who uses threats. There are a lot of those more and more now, and she will say, 'Be careful, because this is going to harm the whole thing, the whole project.' She gets me back on track if I'm going off."

"Marty knows Hollywood very well," says Schoonmaker, "and he handles them brilliantly. I could never do it. I've heard them say things in meetings--once someone said, 'Why don't you take Gone With the Wind and apply it to this movie?' I swear to God! I would walk out, but he just takes it in stride. His neighborhood prepared him for dealing with Hollywood. And he will fight to the death for a film not to be ruined."

"Thelma and I," says Scorsese, "we think alike in terms of culture and politics. The resistance is always there, that '60s thing we grew up with. Not hippies or anything! I'm not a hippie, not that I had anything against them. We have a way, we can tell when something smells too much of being a part of the process, and we don't want to get too close to that. Sometimes you wake up and you've gone there. But then you move on, watch that the next time you're more careful."

FIND ANOTHER OUTLET--OR EIGHT

Here's a little list of the side jobs that Martin Scorsese, who turned 69 this November 17, has been involved in over the past two years.

1) A Letter to Elia, a doc he directed about film director Elia Kazan.
2) Public Speaking, a doc he directed about writer Fran Lebowitz.
3) Boardwalk Empire, HBO's epic gangster series set in Atlantic City. He directed the first episode and now executive-produces.
4) Living in the Material World, the George Harrison doc he directed.
5) Surviving Progress, a doc he produced, based on the book A Short History of Progress.
6) La Tercera Orilla, a 2012 film directed by Argentine director Celina Murga, who was paired with Scorsese in the Rolex Mentor and Protege Arts Initiative. He will executive-produce her movie.
7) A new Terence Winter project for HBO about a drug-fueled movie exec in 1970s New York; Scorsese will direct the first episode and executive-produce the series (with Mick Jagger).
8) The Film Foundation, which has restored more than 550 old movies and basically salvaged the silent-film era. Scorsese is the founder and chairman--and is personally involved in the restoration of 10 films this fall, including four silents directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

There are two reasonable responses to this kind of list:

1) You should be doing more with whatever creative gift you have.
2) As Tim Van Patten, an executive producer and director of Boardwalk Empire, says: "I don't know how he does it. He's always juggling. I have enough trouble doing this one job and having a life."

This work on the side, especially the music documentaries, has become increasingly vital for Scorsese. "There was a point with The Departed where I was ready to throw in the towel. I wanted to make the movie I thought the script was about, and I thought the studio wanted something else. I figured, Jeez, at this point in my career, I just want to make films where, granted I'll stay within budget, but I just wanna make the movie I wanna make. You're gonna come to me, especially on a project like this, my home turf sort of, and then you're asking for these actors and this kind of movie? I thought this might be the end, just let me out of here and I'm going to shoot the Rolling Stones on stage, that's it."

He did wind up making The Departed, as you may have heard. But since then, besides shooting the Rolling Stones in their most visceral stage performance in decades (Shine a Light), he also directed a great Bob Dylan doc (No Direction Home) and the George Harrison feature. These films are made on a much smaller budget than, say, Shutter Islandor Hugo. But with less money comes more freedom. "When I get frustrated with the commercial playing field of feature films, I go to these movies. I have had the need, more and more, to explore the spiritual or religious. Elements of that find their way into my music films. Music is for me the purest art form. There's a transcendent power to it, to all kinds, to rock 'n' roll. It takes you to another world, you feel it in your body, you feel a change come over you and a desire to live," he says, laughing at his enthusiasm. "That's transcendence." And a far cry from the mundane battles with Hollywood. "The Stones," he says, "working the stage like that at their age, strong and visceral, pure movement and sound and images. That's strong and powerful and defiant."

GIVE BACK AND LEARN

For a filmmaker so conscious of the history of his art, it's hardly surprising that Scorsese is a generous mentor. As Van Patten and Winter were setting up Boardwalk Empire, Scorsese regularly invited them to his offices for screenings. "He's this legend and all that," says Van Patten, "but you get past that instantly because Marty's such a regular guy. Whenever you're with him it's an education. He started us out by meeting once a week, for a double feature or a single movie. He never puts down a film. He'll find something positive about everything. We were watching this one movie called Pete Kelly's Blues [directed by Jack Webb, star of the '60s cop series Dragnet]. After, Marty says, 'Well, this is not Jack Webb's best work,' and I'm thinking, Jack Webb? Really? Does Jack Webb even have best work?' But that's the way he is."

"At this point," says Scorsese, "I find that the excitement of a young student or filmmaker can get me excited again. I like showing them things and seeing how their minds open up, seeing the way their response then gets expressed in their own work." Hugo itself is something of a lesson in film history for kids, with its plot centered around Melies, whose work, which Scorsese has helped restore, is featured in the movie in a run of strange and wild clips.

His biggest teaching project these days is his 12-year-old daughter, Francesca. He's trying to give her a cultural foundation that seems less readily available these days. "I'm concerned about a culture where everything is immediate and then discarded," he says. "I'm exposing her to stuff like musicals and Ray Harryhausen spectaculars, Frank Capra films. I just read her a children's version of The Iliad. I wanted her to know where it all comes from. Every story, I told her, every story is in here, The Iliad."

"Three months ago," he remembers, gesturing to the room around us, "I had a screening here for the family. Francesca had responded to Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, so I decided to try It Happened One Night. I had kind of dismissed the film, which some critics love, of course, but then I realized I had only seen it on a small screen, on television. So I got a 35-millimeter print in here, and we screened it. And I discovered it was a masterpiece. The way Colbert and Gable move, their body language. It's really quite remarkable!"

Posted via email from Music Business Information

What Can I Be Thankful For?

2011-11-24T13:34:00.001-06:00

by Billy Graham

Q: I've always enjoyed getting together with family for Thanksgiving , but to be honest, I'm dreading it this year. It's been a tough year for me and I don't have any reason to be thankful. I'll put on a happy face and act like I'm glad we're together, but down inside I'll hate myself for being a hypocrite. Have you ever felt this way? -- J.McF.

A: I'm sure we've all gotten involved in things we didn't want to do, but sometimes it's better to do them anyway -- not for our sake so much as for the sake of others. This isn't necessarily hypocrisy; it may simply be thoughtfulness.

At the same time, I hope you'll take time this Thanksgiving to think of at least five things for which you should be thankful. For example, many people don't have any family to share Thanksgiving with -- but you do. Others struggle with bad health and can't join in their family's celebration -- but you can. Still others are homeless or destitute this Thanksgiving -- but you aren't.

You see, when things go wrong in our lives we always tend to focus on what we've lost, instead of being grateful for what we still have. But even in hard times God blesses us far beyond what we deserve, and our hearts should be full of thanksgiving for every blessing He gives us. The Bible reminds us that "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father" (James 1:17). A thankful heart is a joyful heart.

Most of all, thank God today (and every day) for Jesus Christ, who gave His life for our salvation. Is He part of your life? If not, let this become the greatest Thanksgiving you've ever had, by asking Him to come into your life as your Savior and Lord.

Posted via email from Religion