Wellness, Recovery, and Employment Blog

It Would Actually Be Very Simple To End Homelessness Forever

2014-10-09T14:10:00.001-04:00

by Bryce Covert Posted on October 9, 2014 at 10:56 am Updated: October 9, 2014 at 11:48 am

Kirk is doing everything you would expect him to do.

Having lost his job amid the recession and been mostly homeless since September of 2009, he’s applied to literally hundreds of thousands of jobs – he has 12,000 pages with 36 sent applications per page in his email inbox – while also trying to navigate the Seattle-area homelessness system. He’s focused mostly on legal jobs given that he has a Bachelor’s degree in interdisciplinary prelaw and a paralegal certification from a community college. He even managed to secure housing a few times, briefly, but lost one apartment when his unemployment benefits ran out, and was kicked out of housing through homeless programs twice because of errors in his psychiatric assessments. He also secured jobs twice, but they were both seasonal positions, one with the United Postal Service and another with Wal-Mart.

“Trying to find work and being homeless, the biggest problem is that you don’t have anywhere to go home and rest,” he said. “All the other stresses of not having any money, not having anything good happen to you in the last four or five days, these things weigh very heavily when you’re looking for work.” A few nights before he spoke with ThinkProgress, he was nearly jumped. He once woke up to find someone had taken his suitcase, along with all of his clothes.
Someone like Kirk likely wouldn’t have experienced such a long bout of homelessness in the decades leading up to the 1980s. But since then, thanks to a series of events but most notably the gutting of affordable housing, the country has experienced mass homelessness not seen since the Great Depression. More than 600,000 Americans don’t have a home to sleep in on any given night, with over 100,000 chronically dealing with the problem.
Even with the size and scope of today’s homeless population, though, it’s not an unsolvable problem. The United States does actually know how to end homelessness. So why is Kirk still sleeping in a park?

***
The 1980s “was when contemporary homelessness really began,” said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. “It’s really critical to remember that we didn’t always have mass homelessness in this country.”
After the widespread homelessness caused by the Great Depression, it became a limited and short-term problem for decades. Homelessness will always exist among people experiencing unexpected poverty, struggling with mental illness or substance abuse, or coping with other unexpected events. But it used to be that getting back on your feet didn’t take months or years. And homelessness used to mostly impact a narrow slice of society: white, urban, older men, many dealing with alcoholism.
“In the 70s, there was an adequate supply of affordable housing, even a surplus,” said Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. “If people lost their housing, you could get them back into some place right away.”
In 1970, there was a surplus of 300,000 affordable housing units in the U.S. But then, in the 1980s, affordable housing began to evaporate. The Reagan administration slashed funding. Federal spending on housing assistance fell by 50 percent between 1976 and 2002. At the same time, gentrification sped up, with cities getting rid of cheap housing like single room occupancy units and replacing them with more expensive stock, and units being built were more often for co-ops and condos for ownership instead of rent. Federal incentives to build affordable housing dried up. Add to that the AIDs crisis, the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, cutbacks to the social safety net, and the rise in incarceration and subsequent hurdles for reentry, and you have today’s crisis.
By 1985, there were 8.9 million poor renters in need of housing but just 5.6 million units, a 3.2 million shortage. By 2009, there was a 5.5 million shortage. Today, just one in four eligible households gets federal rental assistance while rents keep rising, income stagnates, and a record number of families are paying more than what they can afford.
Other changes since the 1980s have been for the better. When mass homelessness emerged, we weren’t ready for it. “There was a process of learning, because we did a lot of things in the beginning that I think were intuitive, but we’ve learned a lot,” Roman said.
The original focus was on creating a plan to help someone with mental illness or substance abuse before getting her in housing, as well as a reliance on the shelter system, explained Jerry Jones, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless. “If you go back a few years, it was an emphasis on creating a consensus plan on the local level,” he said. “If you went back 10 or probably 15 years, there was more of an emphasis on transitional housing.”
By now, if there’s one thing that nearly everyone working to end homelessness agrees, it’s that we know how to do it. It’s just a matter of making it reality. The focus is singular, as Rachel Myers, executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance explains. “People are homeless for different reasons and have different kinds of needs,” she said. “But one thing that everyone who’s homeless needs is a home.”
There are three ways advocates are going about pursuing this. The first is by changing the mentality around homelessness to focus on housing first. Previously, advocates thought it best to try to address issues dogging the chronically homeless such as mental health and substance abuse before getting someone into housing. Now they’ve flipped that on its head so that the focus is simply getting someone in a stable housing situation before addressing other issues. Laura Zeilinger, executive director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, the federal agency dedicated to homelessness, explained, “The communities really implementing housing first are having the most progress.”
For some people, however, there aren’t necessarily long-term issues – just the inability to afford rent. Rapid rehousing is another new and effective approach that’s replaced an emphasis on putting people in the shelter system. It can be expensive to get back into housing once someone has lost it: first month’s rent, a security deposit, and moving costs all add up. Rapid rehousing covers those costs and puts people in in real housing. “We’re finding that getting people back into housing and linking them with services is more effective than spending the same amount of time in a shelter or transitional housing,” Roman said.
And for those facing the highest hurdles, permanent supportive housing, or a place to live that comes with services like health care and job training, might be the right fit. “For veterans and single individuals who have experienced chronic homelessness, either on the streets or in a shelter system for a long time, permanent supportive housing works best,” said Jones.
“The evidence pretty much indicates that if you provide people with a housing subsidy, their homelessness ends and they don’t become homeless again,” Roman said.
That’s what Kirk thinks would happen for him if he could just get into an apartment. “If I got housing I’m sure I’d keep it. I know I’m mature enough to keep care of an apartment, I did it for years,” he said. “I know I could be successful for any housing program, but I don’t get in.”
It’s a simple, yet still radical idea, that for a person who’s homeless, the solution is a home.
***
The government is putting that idea to the test. In 2010, it launched Opening Doors, what it says is “the nation’s first comprehensive strategy to prevent and end homelessness.” The goal is to end homelessness among veterans by 2015, chronic homelessness by 2016, and to end it for children, youth, and families by 2020. Progress is already visible on the first goal, although it’s not clear if it will be met. Since the beginning of Opening Doors, veteran homelessness has fallen 33 percent and the number of veterans sleeping on the street has fallen by nearly 40 percent.
Some cities that are participating in the program have made even more progress. Last year, Phoenix and Salt Lake City both announced they had ended chronic homelessness among veterans. Both focused on a housing first approach, coupled with resources like job training and health care. Zeilinger said that New Orleans will end veteran homelessness before the federal deadline and is also on track to end chronic homelessness soon after that.
The point is supposed to be to create a “proof positive” by showing that when there’s a will, there’s a way to solve homelessness. End veteran homelessness, the logic goes, and you have concrete proof that you know what works and what it takes to end homelessness for other groups. That should in turn draw the necessary resources to the cause. “There’s a bipartisan acknowledgment that people who have risked their lives for our freedom should not come home to sleep on the streets,” Zeilinger explained. “The work we’ve done with ending veteran homelessness and the progress we’re making is showing we have the right plan and when we invest in the solution and put the appropriations behind it, we can drive change.”
But the danger is that while some groups have bipartisan support and will meet their goals, the progress will end there. “I think some folks actually do feel like if the main goal is to end chronic homelessness or end veteran homelessness, the campaign is over” after those milestones are achieved, Jones said.
That could mean Kirk would continue to slip through the cracks as someone who isn’t a veteran. He meets the definition of someone who is experiencing chronic homelessness because it’s been going on for more than a year, but if he were to once again obtain shelter only to lose it, he no longer would because he doesn’t have a disability. That last point has really been getting in his way. “It’s not just about having a housing problem,” he said. To get into most programs, “You have to have a mental condition as well or they have no help for you.” He also just got a new full-time job, which he says is “ironically” for a nonprofit providing mental health case management to the chronically homeless who struggle with mental illness.
“I’m sleeping on the street right now, but my company doesn’t know it,” he said. “I need to find housing for someone who does work.” But those needs aren’t on the agenda for quick solutions right now.
Zeilinger herself acknowledged this potential problem. Chronic homelessness hasn’t had the same kind of political support as veteran homelessness. In fact, the goal was originally to end it in 2015, but it had to be shifted back a year “because we haven’t been willing to invest $300 million to create the affordable housing that’s needed,” she said. “We’re hoping we can present that data [on ending veteran homelessness] and illuminate it to help folks understand the importance.”
There are other changes that need to be made to make this all work. Right now, the nonprofits that give out homelessness assistance in one way or another all get their own funding to run their own programs without speaking to each other. “If you’re a homeless person you have to wander around and figure out where you fit,” Roman said. There’s a push to bring everything into one system, so that a homeless person could go to one place, get assessed, and be connected with what he needed.
Kirk has experienced this challenge firsthand. “It’s really difficult to navigate this system when you’re homeless,” he said. “The bureaucracy seems too big and everything seems disjointed, none of the organizations seem to work together at all.” For some of them, he doesn’t have a severe enough mental illness to qualify. For another rapid rehousing-style program that helps the employed with the costs of moving into a new apartment, he can’t qualify because of his past, incorrect mental health assessments. “It seems like a 50-year-old black man who’s been homeless for the last year should be able to go to one place, and if they can’t house you they should say, ‘We know this place over here,’” he said. “None of the organizations here do that.”
“I’ve always felt that I fell through the cracks,” he added.
***
So if we have the solutions, why are there about 200,000 people going unsheltered on a typical night?
One reason is that while the solutions are clear, they take resources. “I think we have the potential to end homelessness within a generation,” Myers said. But “if we continue the investments that we’re making now, we won’t.”
For one small example, Zeilinger says the magic number for chronic homelessness is 37,000. “That’s the exact number of units we know it would take to end chronic homelessness in our country,” she said. But the money’s not there. The solution exists; we just haven’t funded it.
A commission formed by the Bipartisan Policy Center put forward one solution for the whole homeless population. It recommended giving rental assistance to everyone whose income is at or below 30 percent of area median income (AMI), or between $13,650 for a single person to $19,500 for a family of four, through a reformed voucher program. At a cost of $22.5 billion, the report notes, “It could, in effect, end homelessness for the vast majority of those experiencing it,” given that nearly all homeless households fall into the category of earning at or below 30 percent of AMI. Roman, who served on the commission, noted, “It would basically solve homelessness.”
Another plan would call upon an existing mechanism: the National Housing Trust Fund. Congress created it in 2008 to build affordable housing across the country. “It was never funded, so the mechanism exits, but we never put any money into it,” Myers explained. But if funded, “it could create upward of 1 million affordable homes over 10 years.”
To fill it up with money, the United for Homes campaign has proposed modifying the mortgage interest deduction, which by and large benefits the wealthy, by cutting off eligible mortgages at $500,000 and converting the deduction to a 15 percent non-refundable tax credit. The group says that would free up $200 billion in revenue over ten years to create affordable housing through the trust fund. “I think there’s a lot of bipartisan recognition of the fact that providing that housing subsidy to people who aren’t struggling to afford housing and people already doing fine may not be the best use,” Myers said.
With either plan, the cost of solving homelessness is in the billions. But that’s just for the raw outlay on building affordable housing and/or giving people subsidies. Those figures don’t take into account the potential savings from ending homelessness. It’s a costly problem: those without shelter end up relying on emergency medical services and getting picked up and put in jail at a much higher rate, both of which are expensive.
For example, a study by the Central Florida Commission on Homelessness recently found that it costs the state $31,065 each year for each chronically homeless person living on the street in medical and incarceration costs. But it also found that it would take just $10,051 to give that person permanent housing with services like job training and health care. That’s just a third of the cost of doing nothing for those without shelter. Other smaller scale examples show the same thing: A newly opened shelter in Fort Lyon, Colorado will cost under $17,000 per person, compared to the estimated $43,240 it costs to leave them outside. An apartment complex intended for homeless people in Charlotte, North Carolina has already saved $1.8 million. Even the Bipartisan Policy Center proposal notes that its own cost estimates “do not take into account any potential savings resulting from fewer families becoming homeless or reduced health care costs.”
Perhaps an even more cost-effective tactic would be trying to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place. That’s the focus of Boston-based HomeStart. The group kept getting calls from people on the verge of eviction but could only help them after they were already in a shelter, Linda Wood-Boyle, the organization’s president and executive director, said. So 11 years ago it got private funding to help keep people in their homes by covering some of what they owe to landlords and negotiating payment agreements for the rest. Today it keeps 550 to 600 people and families in their homes a year. And it saves a lot of money: the average cost to HomeStart for each saved tenancy is just $726, compared to the cost of $30,000 of putting that same tenant in a motel or shelter. Wood-Boyle doesn’t know of any other programs in the country like it. But “it can be replicated,” she said. “It takes coordination and it takes, frankly, cash.”
***
Even with that data in hand, however, there may still be political resistance. Homelessness has traditionally been a bipartisan issue; most of the advocates ThinkProgress spoke with recounted working with politicians on both sides of the aisle. Some conservatives have gotten involved out of religious convictions. Veteran homelessness is important to Republicans concerned about the armed forces. The work to end chronic homelessness first began under President Bush. And at the city and state level, politicians from both parties are working on it.
“There really has been bipartisan support for ending chronic homelessness,” Zeilinger noted. “I think sometimes where we fall down in choices about where to put funds.”
And therein may lie the rub. Even if no one is for homelessness per se, “If you don’t believe that there’s much of a role at all on social issues for the government, then you’re not going to be interested in what the government can do about homelessness,” Roman pointed out. The bipartisan support for the idea of ending homelessness hasn’t led to a bipartisan effort to actually fund the things that work, particularly in the current era of budget cutting.
Just look at sequestration, the automatic, across-the-board cuts Congress let go into effect last year and that may still come back into effect. About 70,000 fewer families got housing vouchers at the end of last year as compared to the year before thanks to the cuts. That pain continues this year, as a budget deal at the end of last year that offered housing agencies partial relief from the cuts will only allow them to restore fewer than half of the vouchers they cut last year. Homeless shelter and assistance programs were also hit hard by sequestration’s cuts, which meant fewer beds and cutbacks in supportive services.
“Even if there’s a desire [to end homelessness] and attention is given, if you’re not willing to put resources behind it, it doesn’t really matter,” Myers said. “That’s where I’m not seeing the bipartisan support.”
There can be an aversion to supporting anti-homeless agendas either because the problem seems overly complex and/or because the homeless are thought to get there due to individual failings like substance abuse or lack of initiative in getting a job. “I think there’s a lack of understanding among the general public about homelessness,” Foscarinis said. “There are many stereotypes about who homeless people are, and that colors public perception.”
Public support, however, may be shifting. Polling is finding that Americans are shifting from an individualized focus on the causes of poverty to embracing a structural explanation. And given that the problem has become so widespread – affecting families, suburban communities, and even those who hold down jobs – more and more people may be coming in contact with what homelessness looks like today. “Even if they’re not struggling themselves, pretty much everyone probably knows someone who has experienced homelessness or come very close,” Myers said.
Kirk’s own experience has politicized him. “One thing this whole experience has done for me is caused me to want to become an activist or advocate for homeless and safety net programs for poor people,” he said. He’s already had a chance at it. He saw a flier for a community meeting featuring local lawmakers. “I thought, ‘You know what, I’m homeless… I’m just going to go…tell them my story and see if they can help,” he said. “They actually sat and listened. I couldn’t believe that.” He’s now testified in hearings for two different bills that address homelessness.
The solutions are there. The public is moving in the right direction. What is lacking is political willingness to spend money. But most are hopeful that homeless will end in their lifetimes. “I’m in my mid-40s, I grew up in a generation that did not have mass homelessness,” Jones noted. “It’s definitely not only a solvable problem, but an aberration from how this country usually works.” The challenge is to put it back on the right track.

9 Things That Motivate Employees More Than Money

2012-01-31T11:44:00.001-05:00

Don't show 'em the money (even if you have it). Here are nine better ways to boost morale.

By Ilya Pozin | @ilyaNeverSleeps | Nov 28, 2011

The ability to motivate employees is one of the greatest skills an entrepreneur can possess. Two years ago, I realized I didn’t have this skill. So I hired a CEO who did.
Josh had 12 years in the corporate world, which included running a major department at Comcast. I knew he was seasoned, but I was still skeptical at first. We were going through some tough growing pains, and I thought that a lack of cash would make it extremely difficult to improve the company morale.
I was wrong.
With his help and the help of the great team leaders he put in place, Josh not only rebuilt the culture, but also created a passionate, hard-working team that is as committed to growing and improving the company as I am.
Here are nine things I learned from him:

Be generous with praise. Everyone wants it and it’s one of the easiest things to give. Plus, praise from the CEO goes a lot farther than you might think. Praise every improvement that you see your team members make. Once you’re comfortable delivering praise one-on-one to an employee, try praising them in front of others.
Get rid of the managers. Projects without project managers? That doesn’t seem right! Try it. Removing the project lead or supervisor and empowering your staff to work together as a team rather then everyone reporting to one individual can do wonders. Think about it. What’s worse than letting your supervisor down? Letting your team down! Allowing people to work together as a team, on an equal level with their co-workers, will often produce better projects faster. People will come in early, stay late, and devote more of their energy to solving problems.
Make your ideas theirs. People hate being told what to do. Instead of telling people what you want done; ask them in a way that will make them feel like they came up with the idea. “I’d like you to do it this way” turns into “Do you think it’s a good idea if we do it this way?”
Never criticize or correct. No one, and I mean no one, wants to hear that they did something wrong. If you’re looking for a de-motivator, this is it. Try an indirect approach to get people to improve, learn from their mistakes, and fix them. Ask, “Was that the best way to approach the problem? Why not? Have any ideas on what you could have done differently?” Then you’re having a conversation and talking through solutions, not pointing a finger.
Make everyone a leader. Highlight your top performers’ strengths and let them know that because of their excellence, you want them to be the example for others. You’ll set the bar high and they’ll be motivated to live up to their reputation as a leader.
Take an employee to lunch once a week. Surprise them. Don’t make an announcement that you’re establishing a new policy. Literally walk up to one of your employees, and invite them to lunch with you. It’s an easy way to remind them that you notice and appreciate their work.
Give recognition and small rewards. These two things come in many forms: Give a shout out to someone in a company meeting for what she has accomplished. Run contests or internal games and keep track of the results on a whiteboard that everyone can see. Tangible awards that don’t break the bank can work too. Try things like dinner, trophies, spa services, and plaques.
Throw company parties. Doing things as a group can go a long way. Have a company picnic. Organize birthday parties. Hold a happy hour. Don’t just wait until the holidays to do a company activity; organize events throughout the year to remind your staff that you’re all in it together.
Share the rewards—and the pain. When your company does well, celebrate. This is the best time to let everyone know that you’re thankful for their hard work. Go out of your way to show how far you will go when people help your company succeed. If there are disappointments, share those too. If you expect high performance, your team deserves to know where the company stands. Be honest and transparent.

Camtica 4.3.4121

2011-12-27T20:23:00.000-05:00

Camtica enables you to create professional screen recordings, presentations, tutorials and more. You can record any desktop activity with voice, webcam and animated mouse clicks. The resulting video can be saved in various formats including AVI and WMV. This software is great for creating videos to upload to Facebook and YouTube.

Click on the link below to download:

http://jiteco.com/screen_recorder_software.html

Navigating Office Politics Posted by Dan Zubrzycki | 07, Dec, 2011

2011-12-26T13:07:00.000-05:00

Well at least I don’t have to deal with any more of that water-cooler gossip” says the newly self employed consultant, or person who has switched to working from home. The office has it’s own complex web of favorites, politics, alpha employees, time wasters and others who just plain bother you. Being out of the office – or only a transient part of it – can feel like liberation. Until it rears it’s ugly head in unlikely places. Consultants and contract workers will still need to keep up on their crisis skills, their politic skills. Here are some tips on staying savvy to the world of office politics. Keep your head above the water. Remain Non-Partisan Excepting very rare cases, to survive in the dangerous world of office politics, it is best to be known as the person who never jumps to conclusions. People who join sides in arguments are swinging wildly, looking to make a point when they should be creating or working. Even if you have an opinion in the matter it is better to keep it to yourself and develop it fully without joining a side. Partisan alignments tend to create a dogma for your opinions without leaving room for personal interpretation. It’s better to develop your own insights which will keep you removed from the battleground. That way, if you do find it necessary to navigate the perilous battleground, you can do so safely. Be Aware of Your Agency We can only do so much. Sometimes we forget this. Here are a few ways to ensure you aren’t worrying about things you cannot change. Have a Clear Goal: You’ll find yourself floundering and wasting time if you aren’t sure what you are trying to achieve. If a conflict arises, be sure to remember your goal. All conflicts are a result of mixed interests. Your interests in some way may impede the interests of another. Jeers and rumors and political undermining therefore is often a result of personal interest, not personal problems. Keep your eye on the goal and ignore the smaller problems around you. Choice: Always take the higher ground. Remember, no office situation will ever really be out of your hands. You always have a choice of how you will respond. You can react poorly or you can keep your head above the water and make a clear decision. You have the power to control your own actions if nothing else. Utilize that power. Personal Sphere You can only do so much. Make sure you don’t allow the stress from things you cannot do anything about affect your ability to effectively work with what you can. Seek Wise Solutions Wisdom in conflict resolution is a skill that men and women spend their entire lives attempting to obtain. We will never be perfect in resolving conflicts but we should always pursue it as an ideal. Firstly, always seek to find a win-win. All parties can benefit from a conflict and, often, all desires can be in some way met. Don’t be foolish and refuse to compromise when you’re asking someone else to. Find a way to look at the problem from a new angle. Perhaps call in a third party to mediate, someone who might show you how to change your line of thinking and guide the resolution. This does require that you swallow your pride and admit there is a chance you might need to back down a bit. However, if you’ve followed our advice up until now, you’ll find that it wont be an issue at all. E-Politics In the computer age, text based communication has become a huge difficulty. Tones and expressions can be read thousands of different ways, none of which are usually intended. Be sure to avoid discussing sensitive matters over email. When you must, try to use language that is not ornate, with specific and sparse qualifiers. Overly elaborate language or noticeable terseness will cause eyebrows to raise. Dealing with office politics is never fun. Even trying to stay aloof of them can feel like a chore. Try to keep these above ideas in your head to weather the storm.

Ways to Bring Wisdom into Your Career Posted by Dan Zubrzycki | 09, Dec, 2011

2011-12-19T12:18:00.000-05:00

Business, your career, your company. They’re all vastly more complex than right and wrong. The ambiguity inherent to the consequences of your decisions can keep you up at night. Often we must look for the wise decisions not the “right” decisions. Or you might say “Hey, this is my career we’re talking about here. Right decisions all the way.”"Whoa,” you might say, “this company is like my child. I want to make nothing but the right decisions. ” I agree with you completely, the right decisions should be made. The problem arises in that we cannot always figure out what the right decisions might be. Often, they don’t exist. Sure, some questions are simple. Shall we run a sale or maintain normal prices? Well, there are plenty of tried and true ways to figure this out. But sometimes we come to a place of greyness between the lines of right and wrong. Here are some ways we can make sure we are prepared to face those times. Seek a Mentor Always. Always. Always. Always have someone you know and trust to help guide you. Hopefully this person is in a line of work similar to your own. They don’t have to be but, as you progress through difficult times, that kind of knowledge from someone you respect can make a huge difference. Sometimes mentors come as easy as the morning, they were there all along and will continue to be there. Other times, though, you need to seek them out. Send emails to people you admire, try to cultivate relationships with those you work under or who are further along the path. They can leave guide-posts to help your development. United You Your personal being is linked to your work being. Old notions of complete work-life separation (note: different from work-life balance) have fallen down face flat. Many people now seek to unify them healthily. This doesn’t mean never detaching from your work, but it does mean recognizing the union of your self and your work. Keep yourself healthy and energized, mentally, physically and emotionally. Make sure you’re constantly expanding your intellect. Pursuing a new language, taking a history course, focusing on meditation, or picking up a new sport might not seem like a way to augment your career but remember: YOU are the asset. Anything that improves you, improves your value to your work. A YOU that is aligned physically, emotionally and mentally will work more efficiently and bring more to any project you are involved in. Pause. In writing, particularly poetry, the full-stop is a powerful thing. I included it in the title there, Heading 2, and I imagine you may have stopped on it. Taking time to stop is important. When you remove yourself from thoughts of work, stress and change, you can find yourself making startling and sudden realizations or breakthroughs in work. Paradoxical, sure, but it’s when we remove the tunnel vision glasses that focus us on our present problems, we can find interesting solutions, creative solutions. Lose It Ego can become, very quickly, an individuals greatest fault. Beyond simply being unappealing to those around you, ego can stop you from pursuing the points I’ve listed above. In many ways if you’re ego is out of line you wont be able to engage any of these ideas. For instance, do you think someone with an oversized ego would seek a mentor? Would take the time to engage meditation or a personal retreat? They might pursue personal perfection, but for all of the wrong reasons. – “Push harder” and “work longer” aren’t enough. Even effective work isn’t always enough. Sometimes it is the course of wisdom that is the only way through. While we’re not always shown it, seeking it provides rewards greater and more holistic than simply helping your job. How do you engage wise decisions over right/wrong decision making?

10 Good Ways to 'Tell Me About Yourself'

2011-12-07T09:28:00.001-05:00

Interviewing 10 Good Ways to 'Tell Me About Yourself' 'If Hollywood made a movie about my life, it would be called...' and nine more memorable answers to this dreaded job interview question. July 26, 2010 By Scott Ginsberg

You know it’s coming. It’s the most feared question during any job interview: Do you think I would look good in a cowboy hat? Just kidding. The real question is: Can you tell me about yourself? Blecch. What a boring, vague, open-ended question. Who likes answering that? I know. I’m with you. But unfortunately, hiring managers and executive recruiters ask the question. Even if you’re not interviewing and you’re out networking in the community — you need to be ready to hear it and answer it. At all times. Now, before I share a list of 10 memorable answers, consider the two essential elements behind the answers: The medium is the message. The interviewer cares less about your answer to this question and more about the confidence, enthusiasm and passion with which you answer it. The speed of the response is the response. The biggest mistake you could make is pausing, stalling or fumbling at the onset of your answer, thus demonstrating a lack of self-awareness and self-esteem. Next time you’re faced with the dreaded, “Tell me about yourself…” question, try these: 1.“I can summarize who I am in three words.” Grabs their attention immediately. Demonstrates your ability to be concise, creative and compelling. 2.“The quotation I live my life by is…” Proves that personal development is an essential part of your growth plan. Also shows your ability to motivate yourself. 3.“My personal philosophy is…” Companies hire athletes – not shortstops. This line indicates your position as a thinker, not just an employee. 4.“People who know me best say that I’m…” This response offers insight into your own level of self-awareness. 5.“Well, I googled myself this morning, and here’s what I found…” Tech-savvy, fun, cool people would say this. Unexpected and memorable. 6.“My passion is…” People don’t care what you do – people care who you are. And what you’re passionate about is who you are. Plus, passion unearths enthusiasm. 7.“When I was seven years old, I always wanted to be…” An answer like this shows that you’ve been preparing for this job your whole life, not just the night before. 8.“If Hollywood made a move about my life, it would be called…” Engaging, interesting and entertaining. 9.“Can I show you, instead of tell you?” Then, pull something out of your pocket that represents who you are. Who could resist this answer? Who could forget this answer? 10.“The compliment people give me most frequently is…” Almost like a testimonial, this response also indicates self-awareness and openness to feedback. Keep in mind that these examples are just the opener. The secret is thinking how you will follow up each answer with relevant, interesting and concise explanations that make the already bored interviewer look up from his stale coffee and think, “Wow! That’s the best answer I’ve heard all day!” Ultimately it’s about answering quickly, it’s about speaking creatively and it’s about breaking people’s patterns. I understand your fear with such answers. Responses like these are risky, unexpected and unorthodox. And that’s exactly why they work. Otherwise you become (yet another) non-entity in the gray mass of blah, blah, blah. You’re hireable because of your answers. When people ask you to tell them about yourself, make them glad they asked. Let me ask you this: How much time did you dedicate this week to becoming more interesting? Let me suggest this: For the list called, “61 Stupid Things to Stop Doing Before It’s Too Late,” send an e-mail to me, and you win it for free! Scott Ginsberg, aka "The Nametag Guy," is the author of nine books, an award-winning blogger and the creator of NametagTV.com. He's the only person in the world who wears a nametag 24-7 and advises companies on how to leverage approachability into profitability. For more info about books, speaking engagements, customized online training programs or to rent Scott's brain for a one-on-one coaching session, call 314-256-1800 or e-mail scott@hellomynameisscott.com

The Family Rights Act - An Update

2011-11-21T19:27:00.000-05:00

Here is an updated version of the Family Rights Act. I'm reposting this in response to receiving my last paycheck of almost 50% of my pay was withheld for a child that I have not seen in almost 8 years.

The Family Rights Act - (Rev g, 8/1/07), changes in red
(see comments submitted, view previous revision)
AN ACT:
Article I. To recognize:
(1b) That the current patchwork of Family Law in the United States has become a tragedy in which both parents and children are victims,
(2b) That one of the most basic Civil Rights of any person is to associate with their children,
(3b) That the vast, vast majority of mothers and fathers are good people and good parents trying to do the best they can,
(4b) That most practitioners in the present "system" mean well but are operating in a difficult environment where there is great administrative power,
(5b) We believe that the "best interests of the child" are served by recognition of these rights and regular and equal contact with both parents.

Article II. To enforce some of our most basic Civil Rights:
(1b) The Constitutional right of both parents to associate equally with their children and participate in their lives free of government interference,
(2b) The Constitutional right of family members to be secure in their homes,
(3b) The Constitutional right of parents to change employment or careers throughout their lives,
(4b) By applying the traditional protection of a jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt when any of the preceding freedoms are challenged,
(5b) The standard of conduct and proof required for a parent to maintain an equal relationship with their children should be no more for a parent who is experiencing a divorce from their spouse -- than for a parent not experiencing a divorce.

Article III. To encourage:
The American people to realize that the birth and raising a child is an important decision that is not to be taken lightly and which will place them (whether they like it or not) in proximity to the other parent for many years,
(1b) We believe that as parents, we are responsible for the financial, emotional, and physical wellbeing of our children. But the financial care for our children should not create an undue burden for a parent or their loved ones,
(2b) The States to institute programs in parenting and marriage and to encourage attendance in pre-marriage classes before a Marriage License is granted.

Article IV. To provide:
(1b) That the provisions of this Act become the "default" agreement between individuals before they form a family,
(2b) That the States and/or individuals are free to institute other agreements to replace this Act, but the acceptance of those provisions must require free will acceptance by the part of any individual to be affected,
(3b) For the involuntary termination of the preceding rights only when the family member is found unfit to parent -- with the same standard of jury protection and speedy trial,
Article V. To confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief,
Article VI. To authorize the State Attorney General to institute law suits to protect such rights
Article VII. And for other purposes
Article VIII. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the "Family Rights Act".
Article IX. Definitions:
(1b) The term "parent" applies to both the biological father and mother of a child. If the biological parent is deceased or has taken action to leave the child for adoption --it then means the adopted parent(s).
(2b) The term "family member" means either a child or parent. The term applies to parents who are unmarried, married, or divorced.
(3b) The term "home" means a living area which is either owned or rented by the individual.
(4b) The term "Unfit to Parent" means to be found guilty of being a demonstrated serious threat to the safety of their child with malicious intent. This is a criminal accusation, and a person accused has the protection of a Jury. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show this person has engaged in conduct of the type, such that if similar conduct were done by any other parent in the community, they would be found guilty of the same crime.
(5b) The term "attempting to escape support" means a willful attempt by a parent to reduce their Child Support obligation by reducing their income primarily for the purpose of reducing the payment. This is a serious accusation, and a person accused has the protection of a Jury.
(6b) The term "speedy trial" means that if a parent is charged with misconduct which results in a "temporary" order either limiting access to their home or to their children -- they have the right to be brought to trial on the charges within 60 days.
Article X. The term "Equal Parenting" means that by default parent’s alternate physical custody of their children on a weekly basis. They are both 'legal' custodians of the children and both need to be kept informed with 'tie breaker' authority alternating on an annual basis.
(1b) This law assumes ‘Equal Contact” to mean that child/children shall have unencumbered access to both parents. In situations where, because of logistics (e.g., they live in different areas), one parent has sole physical custody. Then the ‘standard’ visitation for the non-custodial parent shall apply as the baseline for equal contact. The ‘standard’ visitation is:
(a) Every other weekend, every other holiday, and two weeks during the summer.
(b) In situations where, due to logistics (parents live in different states, regions of the US, or different countries), transportation, and/or financial issues where the ‘standard’ visitation rules are not possible. Then
(i) Day visits, meeting in neutral locations (e.g., shopping malls, restaurants, homes of friends, or relatives), telephone, internet chat, email, or regular mail is considered as an acceptable substitute in terms of complying with the Family Rights Act.
1) Note – Parents concerned with their child’s online safety and security that internet chat programs ( e.g., Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger) have settings to insure the security and safety of minors).
(2b) It is emphasized that face-to-face (e.g., overnight or day visits) contact is considered ideal.
(3b) Both parents shall be required to provide the following:
(a) Their physical address - Post office boxes are not acceptable.
(b) Telephone numbers - home and cell phone (if applicable)
(c) At least one valid email address.
(d) Access to the child’s academic progress at school
(e) Timely (one week – 10 days minimum) written (email or regular mail) notification concerning special events involving the child at school and/or place of worship (if applicable)
(f) Access to the child at athletic events, concerts, or other events at school
(g) Access to the child on birthdays, holidays, and other family events (e.g., vacations, weddings, family reunions, etc.)
(i) This is to be uninterrupted time.
1) The only exceptions are for emergencies like serious illness or injury or a death in the family.
(4b) Failure to provide this information constitutes a violation of “The Family Rights Act.”
Article XI. Communications
(1b) It is impossible to mandate positive communication between divorce couples. One of the major issues with divorced parents is communications. One of the major problems with divorced parents in terms of communications is ‘trashing’ (e.g., one parent making derogatory or threatening remarks about the other parent). Trashing takes on many forms, such as:
(a) Daddy (or mommy) is lazy
(b) Daddy (or mommy) is no good
(c) The divorce was daddy’s or mommy’s fault
(d) Telling the child that they will never see the other parent again
(i) Such remarks are, in some states, considered as a form of child abuse called ‘terrorizing.’
(2b) The Family Rights Act considers this to be a very serious problem involving divorced parents and is considered a major cause of children not having equal access to both parents by making them afraid of one or both parents.
(3b) To deal with this problem, it is recommended that States make as a requirement for a legal divorce that both parties be enrolled in either:
(a) Divorce Recovery Group
(b) The Effects of Divorce on Children
(4b) A part of either class shall be a section on parental communications and parenting styles.
(a) States like Indiana and New York have already had such a requirement for a divorce.
Article XII. BACKGROUND:
(1b) This Act is drawn in the light of the following sections of the U.S. Constitution:

Seventh Amendment - "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . "

Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people … "

While the framers of the Constitution did not include "matrimonial" issues specifically within these amendments, divorces were not then considered matters within the "common" law, but rather church law - we consider the present day frequency and ease of Divorce proceedings (and their devastating effect on families). This "evolution" have would have caused the "founding fathers" some concern. Especially when considered with those words from our:
(2b) Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Americans have always held to the tradition that "Liberty" and "Life" rights deserve our greatest protections. In response to recent government activism over the past 40 years, we must now clearly recognize our right to associate with our children, to be secure in our homes. What greater and purer "Happiness" can there be in life than the relation between parent and child.

Who among us, when faced with a Court proceeding in which we felt a Judge or Government official was about to unjustly limit contact with our children - would not want the safety valve of a jury?

Who among us would not want a presumption we be allowed equal contact with our children?
(3b) The right to the company of one's children/parent is a right preserved to the people,
(4b) Current methods of child support enforcement like suspending of driver’s license, professional licenses, denial of passports, incarceration, and reporting to the credit bureau without due process of law unduly interferes with our right to earn an honest living,
(5b) No person shall be denied employment or forfeit employment because of outstanding child support obligations,
(6b) No person shall be denied a passport because of outstanding child support obligations if international travel is considered part of their employment.
Article XIII. IMPLEMENTATION
(1b) What the Act 'is not' - It is important to clarify what the Act is not intended to be.
(a) It is not meant to force parents to live in the same home, or to require the action of a jury before parents can separate and live apart.
(b) It is not meant to install a jury system in Family Court rooms in those jurisdictions where 'Family' Courts are separate from the Criminal system.
(c) It is not meant to require a jury proceeding or to require Equal Parenting if both parents agree to an alternate arrangement.
Article XIV. What the Act 'is' - A brief summary of provisions follow and then some examples of implementation.
(1b) It does establish basic protections and default arrangements when a parent finds their relationship with their child threatened by other family members or a government agency.
(2b) It does require speedy trial if a temporary order interferes with the parents relationship with their child.
(3b) It does require a Criminal indictment and conviction (with the protection of a unanimous jury verdict) of a parent of being a demonstrated threat to the safety of their children before a 'Family' or other Court can impose any terms other than Equal Parenting (Unfit to Parent).
(4b) It guarantees equal physical and legal custody over children between parents in cases where agreement cannot be reached on other arrangements.
(5b) The following scenarios are examples reflecting adherence to the goals of this Act. Unless a parent is found unfit -- the relationship with the children continues unbroken. (In the Draft these are to be seen as examples of what would really happen. Your input is valuable in making changes/updates as part of the process. Wording is very crucial).
(6b) There is a family living in a home with children. One parent decides to initiate a Divorce Proceeding against the other. Regarding Physical Custody:
(a) Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to leave the home unless they are found "Unfit to Parent". They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought.
(b) If both parents are seeking divorce one may be required by the Court to leave the home.
(c) Voluntarily, either of the parents may leave the home and start residence elsewhere in the same locality (within app. 30 minutes driving). The children will continue at the school of the original residence and will spend app. equal time at the homes of both parents. The standard arrangement will have the child spend alternating weeks with each parent.
(d) The preceding paragraph applies even after a Divorce is granted.
(e) If a parent decides to move farther away the children will not be moved unless the other parent is "Unfit to Parent". Special emphasis will be given for the children having vacation time with that parent.
Article XV. Regarding Legal Custody. Unless a parent is found "Unfit to Parent", there shall be JOINT legal custody of children between the parents. Both parents shall be aware of what is going on in their children's lives. If there is disagreement regarding a decision which must be made:
(1b) One parent will have the "tie breaking" vote for the year. That authority will alternate each year.
(2b) If the other parent wishes to pursue the decision in Court, mediation will be required first.
Article XVI. There is a family living in a home with children. One parent makes an accusation of domestic violence (between parents) against the other:
(1b) Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to leave the home unless they are found guilty of Criminal misconduct. They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought and to speedy trial.
(2b) Any law which provides for "automatic" arrest, without requiring independent corroborating evidence for the responding police officer, violates this Act.
(3b) In and of itself, a charge or conviction of "Domestic Violence" against another parent does not make someone "Unfit to Parent".
Article XVII. There is a family living in a home with children. One parent makes an accusation of domestic violence, sexual abuse by the other parent against the children:
(1b) Any law which provides for "automatic" arrest, without requiring independent corroborating evidence for the responding police officer, violates this Act.
(2b) Other than voluntarily, the other parent cannot be forced to permanently leaves the home unless they are found guilty of such as misconduct. They have the right to Jury protection if such a charge is brought and to speedy trial.
Article XVIII. There is a separated family and one parent was found 'Unfit to Parent". Regarding financial support of the children:
(1b) The amount of support paid may be based on their expenses and both real assets and income as reported in Federal Tax Returns. The use of "imputed" income is not allowed unless the person is found to be guilty (by a Jury) of attempting to escape support.
(2b) A parent is always free to change their job (sometimes changing jobs is necessary) and the Support Payment must be adjusted to reflect actual income and expenses (and may be adjusted retroactively and slowly corrected). (States need to stop using child support enforcement laws, policies, and procedures to punish parents when their only crime is having children, getting divorced and possibly losing or changing jobs.)
(3b) Expenses, besides the usual (e.g., medical, rent, mortgage, utilities, car payments, food, etc.), include expenses involving supporting a 2nd family.
(4b) Withholding for child support shall be limited to 15% of an individual’s net pay or unemployment compensation. (5b) The amount of support should be negotiated between the parents. Parents, who are unable to come up with an agreement, shall be required to seek mediation.
Article XIX. A finding of "Unfit to Parent" is a severe finding and should be infrequent. This is the standard to be used by the Jury before contact between parent/child is limited in any way [we welcome your comments on the DRAFT. This is the crucial item and must be defined well]:
(1b) All parents can be a little better or improve in their skills (this should NOT reduce their time with their children). The standard is not to be applied to just parents going through a divorce, but to all parents in the community. There are wide varieties in parenting styles in our nation.
(2b) We would hope States could offer parents optional "skills" classes in different areas of child-rearing.
(3b) A life threatening injury requiring medical attention delivered with mal intent is included.
(4b) How/should you quantify "mental abuse"?
(5b) It is NOT based on predicted conduct, but actual severe conduct. It also includes the elements of intent to harm. Consider the following:
(a) Parents who smoke - we know second hand smoke is a clear health threat. Imagine parents who both "smoke like chimneys". They are a threat to their children, but there is no intent to harm.
(b) Religious convictions - there are communities of Amish/Mennonites (among others) who do not believe in certain types of medical treatment. Withholding treatment would not be considered intent to harm.
Article XX. Penalties for filing false unfit parenting charges. Persons convicted of knowingly and willing filing false unfit parenting charges shall be subject to criminal perjury or civil charges (e.g., defamation of character). Attorneys who knowingly or willing file false unfit parenting charges shall be subject to penalties imposed by state bar associations.
Article XXI. Penalties for violation of the “Family Rights Act.” Parents accused of violating other portions of the “Family Rights Act” shall:
(1b) Have the right to a jury trial in state civil court.
(2b) Penalties for those persons convicted of violating other provisions of the “Family Rights Act” shall include:
(a) Forfeiture of child support
(b) Nullification of any financial obligations (i.e., college tuition and fees, private school, weddings)
Article XXII. Unsupported Implementations & Rationale
(1b) The following implementation ideas were not supported, brief rationale is given:
(2b) "Having Juries would slow the system down to much!" - This has not been proven at all.
(3b) This same argument would probably be made against our criminal justice system -- but actually it encourages a fair decision and settlement. Any suspected criminal who is presented with a "plea" to avoid trial can make the decision to accept the punishment -- or demand a trial and have his accusers prove their case. In Family Law, once a Judge feels a parent should be separated from children -- there is little hope.
(4b) With a clear standard of "Unfit to Parent" -- most of the petty accusations that really do bog the system down would be dropped.
(5b) "Let the child decide who they want to live with is -- it is their right"
(a) None of us had even the smallest say in deciding who our parents were. Adults have the great responsibility and right in determining who they will share parenting with. While they are children they have a "right" to contact with two parents.
(b) We don't allow children to cast a vote for President (as intelligent, well read, and politically involved as they may be). Do we let them 'cast' an even more important vote?
(c) It is simple human nature for an adult going through divorce to place the primary "blame" on the other spouse. It is also natural for them to seek affirmation from their friends (how many of us have had our "ears talked off" by someone describing a bitter divorce). Unfortunately, it is also natural to expect such an adult to attempt to "convince" their children of the same thing.
(d) With older teenage children -- how many of us would be tempted to play one parent off the other in an attempt to gain extra freedom or privileges?
(6b) "Custody decisions will be based on the Primary Caregiver"
(a) Whatever parent happens to have the ability/desire to stay with a child at home should not have a preference over the one pursuing a career at that time, outside the home.
(b) Both parents have valuable contributions to make to the child. The parent/child relationship is dynamic and changes as both grow in the relationship, and to the benefit of both. This is consistent with appreciating the basic Civil Right of parents/children to associate.
(7b) "Standards of evidence should be relaxed for Family Custody matters. There just aren't enough facts sometimes..."
(a) This is probably the greatest reason for the tragedy of the present system. The overworked staff, lawyers, and Judges try to make critical decisions -- and they don't have enough time or facts -- and sometimes not even the desire. They are tired & overworked. It becomes a "job", and sometimes you make mistakes, get a little callous, and start to form biases. This is why there are rules of evidence. This why the Nation's founders installed the jury system. The jury requires the "system" to prove to people "off the street" that it can justify its claims.
(b) The criminal "rules of evidence" are used to prevent abuse of the system. They recognize that people lie to get what they want. The motivation to lie is certainly present in a Divorce. It is very easy to rationalize pure fabrication or dramatization -- as long as you don't really have to prove anything. When just allegations are rewarded, you get more allegations.
(c) We recognize that sometimes there could be a real problem, but we just don't have the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary to take action. We do much more harm by allowing people to play a "hunch" or "suspicion" and destroy a family.
(8b) "We need more scientific studies on this..." -- It is not uncommon to see various statistics presented as justification for Family Law Reform, e.g. 63% of children raised in single parent homes grow up with this problem, OR, you get comparisons of the effectiveness of men versus women as parents!!!!
(a) This is about your Civil Rights to have a relationship with your children. We are not talking about a technical issue of road construction or fresh water management.
(b) Imagine "modern sociological studies" done before the Civil War on the issue of whether the slaves should be freed? "... We really are concerned about their physical well being and that of their children. To release this great mass of people all at once would be fool hardy. Some of them can't handle freedom, their children would starve, what are they going to do for work? Maybe a phased approach would be best; we'll release some of the more educated ones (after they pass some tests) and take it slow with the rest." (We might still have slavery now!)
(c) Please remember our criminal law system, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if 80% of teenagers picked up by police are eventually found guilty -- would you just want to remove the "formality" of a trial and just find everyone guilty?
(d) Consider the recognition and protection of our most basic right to associate with our children. The slave had a right to immediate freedom, and so do we.

More Random Thoughts and Ideas

2011-11-21T10:03:00.001-05:00

1 This recession has reduced me to working a part time job at Kmart. I am an IT person (a 'puter geek) and darn proud of it! If it weren't for us on January 1 2000 we would not be able to use an ATM, buy gas, buy groceries, or have electricity. I'm referring to Y2K. In essence, we helped save western civilization. 2 Referring to the alleged child abuse scandal at Penn State involving Jerry Sandusky. I live with a school teacher and have been a substitute teacher in Prince Georges and Harford County, MD. Wendy is not allowed to report suspected child abuse directly to police or Social Services. She must report it first to her Principal. There is a good reason for this. What if the allegations turn out to be false? There could be some serious legal ramifications. An angry parent(s) who have been falsely accused of child abuse could sue the School District. People could their jobs and lives could be ruined. Getting back to Jerry Sandusky, he was forced to retire as defensive coordinator with Penn State in 1999 because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a mandatory retirement age of 65 (which was waived in the case of Joe Paterno). According to the grand jury testimony, in 2002 Mike McQueary (at that time a graduate assistant for Joe Paterno) witnesses an alleged incident of Mr. Sandusky was engaged in inappropriate behavior with a 10 year old boy in the shower. He (McQueary) witnessed the incident on a Friday. He called his father asking him what he should do and his father suggested he go tell Coach Paterno. He met with Coach Paterno the next day and McQueary omitted the explicit details of the incident. Paterno stopped him in mid-sentence and told him to report the incident immediately to the Athletic Director. This is what Coach Paterno was legally supposed to do. The problem was the chain of command broke down and the Athletic Director did nothing! 3 I keep waiting for a defense attorney to say 'My client is guilty as sin!' Getting back to the Sandusky matter, if the charges are true than it would seem to be a very clear cut case of child sexual abuse. Most cases of child abuse are not so cut and dry. What were people expecting with the interview of Jerry Sandusky on NBC last week? Was Bob Costas expecting him (or his attorney) to say "Yes, I'm guilty of all the charges. I raped those kids! Please get the angry mob with pitchforks and axes and skip fair trial and hang me!" Mr. Sandusky's alleged activities had nothing to with the Penn State football team. Mr. Sandusky was in charge of a foundation (The Second Mile Foundation) for 'at risk' and low income kids. The University Board of Trustees was responsible for giving Mr. Sandusky access to the University's athletic facilities for his foundation's activities. So why does the media want to punish the Penn State football team for something that they had nothing to do with? Two weeks ago, the attorney for the alleged victims stated that "By firing Coach Paterno, the University had turned these victims into villains!" 4 Changing the subject, to be homeless is depressing but to be homeless during the holidays is especially depressing. Yes, it is depressing to be homeless and I am truly appreciate the fact that I am no longer homeless. But if you go to the Baltimore Rescue Mission, it’s not only depressing it can be demeaning too! The Rescue Mission goes out their way to try to make homelessness as demeaning and degrading as possible. I spent the most terrifying night of my life there back in July 2004. 5 We have a litigious society, an apology is an admission of guilt. The only thing that Joe Paterno is guilty of is NOT following up after he was made aware of the alleged child abuse. His firing would appear to be an attempt to cover up the failure of the Penn State University administration to deal with the alleged abuse by Mr. Sandusky. 6 It's OK to criticize the President of the United States and still support him.I am an Obama supporter but I still criticize him. (NOTE: Given that the Republicans running for President are loopy as loons; if the economy improves that I believe that Mr. Obama will win re-election in a landslide.) I have been critical of President Obama on several issues. (1) Abandoning the public option on health care reform and the debt ceiling debate. I feel that the President has continually compromised on key issues under the illusion of getting Republican votes. (2) His "Interagency Council on Homelessness" and "Fatherhood Initiative" While I appreciate Mr. Obama's attempt to deal with these problems, I disagree with his approach to these serious problems in our country. I feel that the Interagency Council on Homelessness deals with short term homelessness but fails to deal with the root causes of long term homelessness (e.g.,addictions, transportation). His approach to dealing with fatherhood seems to be based on his own experience with his father abandoning him (and his mother) at an early age. While I appreciate the President personal pain, I do have to point out that his situation is one that is a minority case. The majority of cases, fathers have been pushed by the other parent or/and discriminatory State child support and custody laws.

Are You Prepared For Tricky Behavioral Interview Questions Like These?? ... (See the Answers below!)

2011-10-29T10:28:00.000-04:00

•Why did you leave your last job? •Have you ever been fired or forced to resign? •Why have you had so many jobs in such a short period of time? •Can you explain this gap in your employment history? •Exactly why do you want to work here? •Why should we hire YOU? What can you do for us that someone else can not? •Have you ever had problems with a supervisor or a coworker? Describe the situation for me. •Describe some times when you were not very satisfied with your own performance. What did you do about it? •Give me an example of a problem you faced on the job, and tell me how you solved it. •Give me an example of an important goal you had to set and tell me about your progress in reaching that goal. What steps did you take? •What was your role in your department's most recent success? •What do you consider to be your greatest strengths and weaknesses? •What have you learned from your mistakes? •What was the best decision you ever made? •Describe a time when you were faced with problems or stresses at work. What did you do? •How do you deal with competition? Are you a competitive person? •What would you consider an ideal work environment? •What are your long-range career objectives, and what steps have you taken toward obtaining them? •How well do you work with people? Do you prefer working alone or in teams? •Describe a situation when working with a team produced more successful results than if you had completed the project on your own. •What do you do when people disagree with your ideas? •Describe a situation where you found yourself dealing with someone who didn't like you. What did you do? •Tell me about a time when you had to use your presentation skills to influence someone's opinion. •Can you tell me about an important written document you were required to complete? •What motivates you to go the extra mile on a project or job? •Describe a situation where you messed up, or your results were not up to your supervisor's expectations. What action did you take? •Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. Were you discouraged by this? What did you do about it? •What do you really want to do in life? What do you see yourself doing five years from now? •What does it mean to be successful? According to your definition, how successful have you been so far? •What is the best thing that ever happened to you? •What is the most creative thing you have ever done? •You don't have the right kind of experience. •You may be overqualified or too experienced for the position. •What are your expectations regarding promotions and salary increases? •How much $$$ do you expect if we offer this position to you? Each and every one of these questions is answered in this Guide. You'll have the perfect seasoned and intelligent answer to every question! ... SAMPLE ANSWERS: Give me an example of a problem you faced on the job, and tell me how you solved it. DISCUSSION: This is a problem solving question that tests your critical thinking skills. This is a great question for showing that you are a creative and capable problem solver. The problem you select to use as an example should be as similar as possible to a problem that you are likely to face at the job you are interviewing for. 1) LISTEN for their "pain points," 2) give an example of your experience where you solved something similar, then 3) get them to agree with you that such experience would be beneficial to the company. "I try to take a systematic approach to problem solving. I take the time to gather the relevant information and clearly define the problem or goal. I think it is important to get the information and clarify the problem first before you start coming up with possible solutions, or wasting other people's time. FOR EXAMPLE, when I was at Job "X" ... What kinds of challenges are YOU currently facing in your department? How tough a position does that put you in? What could the ideal candidate do to help solve this problem in their first couple months on the job?" "Sure, at my last job we had a problem where the situation was "X" ... the action I took was "Y" ... and the positive outcome was "Z" ... I was commended by Susan in Accounting for solving the problem and getting the project back on track. I think that's the type of experience you are looking to bring to your team ... isn't it? "You would agree that having this type of experience will help me succeeed in this position, wouldn't you?" "... How to best tell your 'experience stories' and then get them to agree with you that such experience would be huge asset for the company ..." What did you like best and least about your previous job? DISCUSSION: This question reveals a lot about you. You want to indicate that what you liked best about your last job are things that will appeal to the Hiring Manager. Show that your last job allowed you to demonstrate many of the positive and desirable Behavioral Competencies that are discussed at the beginning of this Guide. Give specific examples of how your last job allowed you to flex your skills and show your maturity. Never make statements like "I like that my last company gave me a lot of vacation days," or something similar. When answering about what you liked least, keep it short and do not be negative. "What I liked about my last job was the fact that there was good on the job training. I was able to really develop my "X" skills, which I know will help me succeed here if I am fortunate enough to be able to join your team. What are the qualities and skills of the people who have been most successful at this company?" "I've got some of those skills as well. I think that's something that could benefit your department, isn't it?" "One thing I liked about my last job was that it allowed me to develop my leadership skills. FOR EXAMPLE, I was put in charge of a project where I had to earn the "buy-in" of people from multiple different departments — including Marketing, IT, Product Development, and even HR. I held all the responsibility for getting this project completed on time, even though I had no real authority over my teammates since they did not report to me. I was able to create a project vision that the team agreed on, and then day-to-day I made sure that each team member completed their work on time. I did this in most cases by appealing to my teammates' own self-interests. FOR EXAMPLE ... " "Did I answer that question to your satisfaction?" "What I liked least about my last job was that the management style was pretty hands off, and this was fine for me because I am self-motivated and work hard to achieve. But the lack of structure sometimes allowed some of my teammates to slack off from time to time — and I often ended up having to pick up the extra work. I would not mind that SOMETIMES, but it got old after a while. I had to constructively approach my manager and let her know what was going on WITHOUT creating any friction between me and the slacker teammates, who I actually liked as people. In the end, it worked out well, because I was pro-active. Have you ever run into that type of situation as a manager?" "... A Full Explanation Of What You Need To Say To Get Hired ..." What have you learned from your mistakes? DISCUSSION: Show that you are able to learn from your mistakes, but don't offer up any negative examples concerning your past performance. Show that you have been successful, but that you have the maturity it takes to examine your own behavior so that you can learn and grow and be a better employee. Be brief. "Good question. Well, I have been successful at every job I have had, but I have had the normal ups and downs. I'd say that I do actively try to monitor my work habits and the quality of my work so that I can constantly be improving myself. FOR EXAMPLE, I have had one or two hiccups with customers where their satisfaction was not where I thought it was. I learned that I have to really monitor certain difficult customers closely and "take their temperature" so I can keep their satisfaction level as high as possible. Have YOU had any customers like that here?" "... Learn The 'Mind-Set' Of Successful Interviewing ..." Describe a situation when working with a team produced more successful results than if you had completed the project on your own. DISCUSSION: This is a "behavioral interviewing" style of question. The Hiring Manager wants to learn more about your thought process, and how well you can form examples to answer this teamwork related question. You will want to show your ability to solicit ideas from others, listen carefully, and persuade people to your point of view. "Well, I have worked both independently and as a member of team, throughout my career. I enjoy both, and I can do both equally well. I will have to say, though, that working with others has often yielded great results for projects I have worked on — specifically when it comes to brainstorming. I try to get everyone involved in coming up with new solutions by making time for sessions where "there are no wrong ideas or answers." The creativity of a group of people is always going to be greater than that of one person, and thus the results will be more successful. I did that a lot a Job "Y". FOR EXAMPLE ..." "Working with others allows you data-mine other people's skills and experiences, get perspectives and ideas that you would not have on your own , and check the quality of your own work before it goes out the door. FOR EXAMPLE, at Job "X" I worked with many great people. I was able to "pick their brains" — so to speak — about the effectiveness of various techniques, estimates on how long it would take to get various things done, etc. — I would not have been able to do my job as effectively without them ... Will there be the opportunity to work in team situations at this job?" "... Eliminate Any "Fear of Interviewing" Once And for All ..." Describe a time when you were faced with problems or stresses at work that tested your coping skills. What did you do? DISCUSSION: Workplace stress is an issue for everyone. Don't pretend that you never get stressed out. You want to show that you can deal with stress and cope with difficult situations. Show that you are calm under pressure, and know how to avoid stress in the first place through planning and time management. "Well I think it is important to remember that stress effects everyone, and it is inevitable that sometimes people are going to have bad days. That is why I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they seem to have a short fuse. What I do personally is try to control my response to a situation. You can't necessarily control what happens to you, but you CAN control your own response. What I try to do is lengthen the time between the stressful situation and my response — so that I can identify the cause of the stress and decide what I can do about it ... Would you say it is a stressful environment here? ... I see. I'm sure I can handle it. I have been tested like that before ... FOR EXAMPLE ...." "FOR EXAMPLE, on several occasions I have had to deal with very irate customers who actually yelled at me. What I did was stay calm and not let them get under my skin. I really tried to listen and decide exactly what it was that was at the root of their problem. Then I provided solutions that could be completed within a specific time-frame. I always find that it is best to face those types of situations head-on and be objective about them. I do my best to be professional and not get my emotions involved. Also, I try to avoid stress in the first place by tackling difficult tasks or conversations sooner rather than later. Does that make sense? ... I hope I've answered that question to your satisfaction?" "... This Download Will Fill You With Motivation And Confidence ..." What was your role in your department's most recent success? DISCUSSION: You'll want to be very specific here, and frame your answer in terms of how you saved time and money. The Hiring Manager is looking for a pattern of success, and you need to describe recent successes in detail. Use the S.T.A.R. Statement formula for your examples. Be prepared with at least three examples concerning your recent successes, and make sure at least one of them relates to teamwork and something you accomplished as part of a group. Make sure you address how your work made other people FEEL, as well as the time you saved and the revenue or cost-savings you generated. "I guess that would be a recent project for client "X." I handled all of the communication with the client for our last project. It was a three month long project where my team had to build a custom package based on the needs of client. I was instrumental in translating the client's business needs into detailed product features. I had to make sure that my team understood what the client wanted, and then check the quality to make sure that we were delivering a quality product with the features that the client was expecting." "Well, it was an ongoing process that required a lot of communication and teamwork with my team as well as the client. I think my role really was to clarify the scope of the project, and then "manage the client's expectations." We were able to deliver on time, and the client was thrilled! I was able to make sure no time was wasted on adding unnecessary features, and since we were working on a fixed bid price, we saved my company time and money. My manager and everybody on my team felt great because the project went so smoothly ... Is that the kind of experience that would help me be successful here?" "... Don't Let Another Day Go By Before You Take Action ... Give Yourself An Advantage So You Get The Job! ..." If you learn just two new things from this Guide, then you would probably have a better interview and you would be more likely to get the job ... wouldn't you?

The Rise of the Regressive Right and the Reawakening of America By Robert Reich

2011-10-17T10:05:00.002-04:00

A fundamental war has been waged in this nation since its founding, between progressive forces pushing us forward and regressive forces pulling us backward. We are going to battle once again. Progressives believe in openness, equal opportunity, and tolerance. Progressives assume we're all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure. And we all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a truly progressive tax system. Progressives worry when the rich and privileged become powerful enough to undermine democracy. Regressives take the opposite positions. Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and the other tribunes of today's Republican right aren't really conservatives. Their goal isn't to conserve what we have. It's to take us backwards. They'd like to return to the 1920s -- before Social Security, unemployment insurance, labor laws, the minimum wage, Medicare and Medicaid, worker safety laws, the Environmental Protection Act, the Glass-Steagall Act, the Securities and Exchange Act, and the Voting Rights Act. In the 1920s Wall Street was unfettered, the rich grew far richer and everyone else went deep into debt, and the nation closed its doors to immigrants. Rather than conserve the economy, these regressives want to resurrect the classical economics of the 1920s -- the view that economic downturns are best addressed by doing nothing until the "rot" is purged out of the system (as Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's Treasury Secretary, so decorously put it). In truth, if they had their way we'd be back in the late nineteenth century -- before the federal income tax, antitrust laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Federal Reserve. A time when robber barons -- railroad, financial, and oil titans -- ran the country. A time of wrenching squalor for the many and mind-numbing wealth for the few. Listen carefully to today's Republican right and you hear the same Social Darwinism Americans were fed more than a century ago to justify the brazen inequality of the Gilded Age: Survival of the fittest. Don't help the poor or unemployed or anyone who's fallen on bad times, they say, because this only encourages laziness. America will be strong only if we reward the rich and punish the needy. The regressive right has slowly consolidated power over the last three decades as income and wealth have concentrated at the top. In the late 1970s the richest 1 percent of Americans received 9 percent of total income and held 18 percent of the nation's wealth; by 2007, they had more than 23 percent of total income and 35 percent of America's wealth. CEOs of the 1970s were paid 40 times the average worker's wage; now CEOs receive 300 times the typical workers' wage. This concentration of income and wealth has generated the political heft to deregulate Wall Street and halve top tax rates. It has bankrolled the so-called Tea Party movement, and captured the House of Representatives and many state governments. Through a sequence of presidential appointments it has also overtaken the Supreme Court. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts (and, all too often, Kennedy) claim they're conservative jurists. But they're judicial activists bent on overturning 75 years of jurisprudence by resurrecting states' rights, treating the 2nd Amendment as if America still relied on local militias, narrowing the Commerce Clause, and calling money speech and corporations people. Yet the great arc of American history reveals an unmistakable pattern. Whenever privilege and power conspire to pull us backward, the nation eventually rallies and moves forward. Sometimes it takes an economic shock like the bursting of a giant speculative bubble; sometimes we just reach a tipping point where the frustrations of average Americans turn into action. Look at the Progressive reforms between 1900 and 1916; the New Deal of the 1930s; the Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s; the widening opportunities for women, minorities, people with disabilities, and gays; and the environmental reforms of the 1970s. In each of these eras, regressive forces reignited the progressive ideals on which America is built. The result was fundamental reform. Perhaps this is what's beginning to happen again across America.

50 Is NOT The New 40 When Looking For A Job; Face it With A Way To Change It!

2011-10-16T09:43:00.001-04:00

Posted by Linda Hertz on October 15, 2011 at 12:30pm I just responded to a Linkedin post by Tyson Winfrey that asked, "If 50 is the new 40, why is it hard to find a new job after 50?" After I wrote my response on the chain, I thought, "Wait, been there and done that; maybe it is time to share my response and my story as my weekend Blog." So let's start with 50 IS NOT THE NEW 40, but you can decide if 50 is just 50, just like 40 is just 40, or you fill in the blank with the number. You see, the number does make a difference in the workplace and why do we kid ourselves? After all, we certainly know age makes a difference when you go to a nightclub that caters to the under 30 set and we come walking in at age 50 to get some action! Sounds ridiculous right? Well, maybe not to Hugh Hefner; but on a side note, he looks ridiculous doesn't he with those young babes? OK, having a lot of money is a great leveler...well up to a point, even for Hugh lately. Back to making this a career article! Yes, there are leveler's in this business too for the older set, like working for the family business, but how many of us have parents with family businesses? Exactly. So the point is this, if you are handling each decade of age with the SAME MINDSET as you approached your career and job hunt back when you were 20 or 30, you probably will end up empty handed; just like that 50 year old going to that hot youthful nightclub to get some action! You see, you need to find a better place to go that will appreciate that touch of grey at the temples and the wisdom that comes with it! Gotta change your mindset and where you go to get lucky! So back to my response to the original question posed on my Linkedin Group: "If 50 is the new 40, why is it hard to find a new job after 50?" This was my personal response: I was one of those that depended upon a pay check until 2005. I too realized that if I took another "JOB" I was at risk when I became older (like now) of losing it and would have a difficult time getting another job in my former occupation. I was fortunate to have found the book Rich Dad Poor Dad, by Robert Kiyosaki (the first book), with no other income and a family of 5, I turned down a high paying directors job and started to learn how to bring in my own paycheck. I too have taught my 3 children that they must learn how to create their own income vs. receiving income as you so appropriately mentioned. I find that most over age 50 need to learn new skills AND if they lose their job realize that Baby Boomer now means old in the workplace of traditional jobs....get out and use all that wealth of experience to create your own incomes EVEN if you are fortunate enough to pick up another "JOB". I constantly tell my career consults to start doing the skill gathering and income generation planning WHILE they have a JOB. PLAN for IF or When they turn 50 or 55 or 60 etc. and face a job loss. Baby Boomers are healthier and perhaps the popular chant "50 is the new 40" sounds good, but it is just not so when it comes to job seeking. What I encourage my Baby Boomers to do is to get off the chant and start planning for the next 20 to 30 years of their life and career. All that experience we have garnered over the years is a series of dots, as Steve Jobs said in his 2005 Stanford Commencement Address, learn how to CONNECT THE DOTS to your new career and possibly life. Didn't see it? I will share his speech here, I put it on my site last year well before his passing: http://lindahertz.com/video/steven-jobs-on-life-powerful?xg_source=... It certainly has an extra punch now with his recent passing. Now I ask you, "Have you taken the time to review the dots of your life thus far and the possibilities that they have mapped for you and your future?" Note the word, "possibilities", because without the self reflection of your past experience and the possible value it could brings to others, you may never realize the bigger picture of what your life could be. Perhaps the new chant should be, "make 50 be the new 50!" You don't want to lose or discount all those years of experience that a productive life brings, you just need to open yourself up to the new 50, a 50 that is not centered upon getting a Job as the ONLY dot left for you to attain. So to my Blog Followers of ALL ages, embrace your age and the new possibilities that have been created because of where you find yourself NOW. If you find yourself at a place where you have accumulated a lot of life experience, then put yourself in a place to use it! Be brave enough to realize you need to go somewhere else to get your action; make 50 be the NEW 50 so you can experience where life may take you. It just may be the greatest experience of your lifetime and it is still ahead of you! ©Linda Hertz, All Rights Reserved

12 Most Absurd Laws Used to Stifle the Occupy Wall St. Movement Around the Country

2011-10-15T17:03:00.001-04:00

As protests spring up in cities across the country, authorities are thinking up creative ways to contain this peaceful uprising. October 14, 2011 |

As Occupy Wall Street protests spring up in cities across the country, authorities are thinking up creative ways to contain this peaceful and inspiring uprising. Although laws and municipal ordinances vary from city to city, there is a consistency in the tactics being used to stifle the movement. More importantly, as demonstrated by the protesters at Zuccotti Park who kept strong in the face of a looming eviction that never came to fruition, these maneuvers are not working. Still, there is no shortage of justifications and rationales behind the constantly evolving schemes being implemented to destroy the spirit of Occupy Wall Street. Here are 12 desperate and unsuccessful measures the authorities are using to discourage, deter and crack down on peaceful protests. 1) No Snoozing In Public Most cities have an anti-camping ordinance on the books that prohibits camping or sleeping in public spaces, particularly public parks, to minimize the risk of nighttime criminal activity. But the ordinances are frequently used to cleanse cities of the inconvenient and uncomfortable scenery of homeless people; police in San Francisco are known for enforcing the city's camping ordinance primarily against the homeless. But now, all over the country, anti-camping ordinances are being used to arrest and deter protesters from occupying public spaces. Local news stations covering Occupy Dallas report that police plan to begin enforcing the city's ordinance against sleeping in public, first with warnings, then tickets, and eventually arrest. Due to a city ordinance that prohibits sleeping in Los Angeles public parks, Occupy LA activists move their tents to the sidewalk every night, and move them back to the park every morning. Occupy Chicago protesters have resorted to staying awake in shifts, then switching with one another to sleep in cars or someone's home nearby to get around the ban against sleeping on the public sidewalk. 2) No Umbrellas Officials in various cities are citing ordinances that prohibit the erection of permanent or semi-permanent structures, referring to tents, tarps, sleeping bags, and in one city, umbrellas. According to Seattle's newsweekly, The Stranger, the Seattle Police Department warned protesters that, "You can't have an umbrella open unless you're standing and holding it," otherwise they are considered structures and will be confiscated. Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn later clarified the reasoning in a statement, saying, “As for umbrellas, police were concerned that protest participants were using umbrellas and tarps to create makeshift tents to evade the no-camping rule." In a city known for its heavy rains, it’s rather extreme to ban the use of umbrellas. But the absence of tents, tarps and even umbrellas during downpours in New York City and Washington DC has yet to discourage protesters. 3) Curfews Fortunately for the Occupy Wall Street protesters in NYC, the privately owned Zuccotti Park is open 24 hours a day, unlike city-owned parks that are usually closed in the late night to early morning hours. In city and state-owned parks occupied by protesters throughout the country, authorities are using park curfews to their advantage. Just after 3am on the morning of Friday, Oct. 14, Denver police raided the Occupy Denver encampment citing an 11pm to 5am curfew at state parks, making at least 21 arrests. A similar 11pm curfew in Iowa led to 32 arrests on Oct. 9. The same thing happened at Occupy Sacramento. 4) No Open Flames The "burn ban" generally applies to outdoor cooking, like grilling in the park, and is strictly followed by Wall Street protestors who refuse to give NYPD any reason to evict them. In the early days of Occupy San Francisco, SFPD issued protesters a notice of the local laws and ordinances they were allegedly violating, to justify a pending police crackdown. Included in the list was a “fire code prohibiting open flames that applied to outdoor cooking setups.” The lesson here is no barbequing. 5) No Sitting or Lying Down SFPD’s notice also informed protesters that they were in violation of a sit-lie law that prohibits sitting or laying down on San Francisco sidewalks between 7am and 11pm. This criminal offense can result in a fine starting at $50 and possibly lead to jail time. 6) No Obstructing the Pedestrian Walkway Occupy Chicago faced major obstacles early on but has managed to remain intact. The group initially had trouble finding a place to occupy due to the city’s lack of publicly available land. Occupiers ultimately chose to set up camp on the public sidewalk surrounding Chicago’s Federal Reserve building. At first, police warned them not to lean up against the building, but that quickly evolved into a ban on the area 6 feet from the building (almost the entire sidewalk), followed by the enforcement of a Chicago city ordinance preventing people from blocking the public way, aka sleeping or sitting on the sidewalk. (In NYC this is called “impeding pedestrian traffic.”) 7) No Private Belongings in Public Space Chicago’s spur-of-the-moment version of San Francisco’s sit-lie law was made to apply to the private belongings of protesters as well. According to In These Times, this forced them into “packing their gear into backpacks or putting it onto mobile carts for temporary relocation.” An update on the Occupy Chicago Web site alerted activists to “Occupy Chicago, Phase 2 – Mobilization,” a new plan that would “make all things there 100% mobile, all bodies must be constantly moving, and absolutely no sitting/sleeping.” 8) Unaffordable Fees The city of Dallas, Texas, demanded that Occupy Dallas fork up $1 million for liability insurance if they want to keep their permit and continue occupying Pioneer Plaza past 5pm Friday (Oct. 14). That’s quite a hefty price for to pay the working class, jobless and indebted students who make up the majority of protesters. As a result, Occupy Dallas took the city to court for unconstitutionally restricting their “right to peaceably demonstrate in traditional public forums." Ultimately they reached a deal that allows them to stay in Pioneer Plaza until Sunday (Oct. 16), then relocate to a spot behind City Hall until mid-December. 9) No Potties Occupy Dallas protesters have been walking a half-mile to use the nearest toilet since they started camping out in Pioneer Plaza because they could not afford the $1 million permit that would have allowed them to bring in a Porta-Potty. Now, that is commitment! 10) No Masks In NYC at least five protesters were arrested for violating a state statute that dates back 150 years and prohibits masked gatherings of two or more people, with the exception of masquerade balls. With Halloween just weeks away, it will be interesting to see how the NYPD handles masked elementary kids hopped up on Sweet Tarts and Gummy Bears. 11) No Amplification…Mic Check? After hearing that NYC protesters were required to have a permit to amplify sound, I would never in a million years have imagined a way around the bullhorn, microphone or speakers. I’m still mesmerized by the brilliance of the human microphone, in which listeners loudly repeat a speaker's words in unison. I don’t think anyone, especially the NYPD, saw that coming. 12) Mass Arrests, Excessive Force Weeks ago, the nation watched as the NYPD trapped and arrested over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters accused police of deliberately leading them to march onto the bridge only to arrest them hours later, suggesting that the move was coordinated from the top. Prior to the arrests, many Americans watched in disgust as videos surfaced of officers indiscriminately macing protestors in Zuccotti Park. More recently, an officer was caught on tape aggressively attacking protesters, including journalists, with a riot baton. Early this week, almost 150 people at Occupy Boston were arrested following a police raid that left some injured. While the purpose of these tactics is to scare protesters and those who are considering joining the movement from participating, the opposite has occurred, galvanizing protesters' solidarity and resolve. When I spoke to Chris Hedges in Washington DC’s Freedom Plaza last week, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist remarked, "Those white-shirted cops in New York are the best publicity department those protesters have, because the vast majority of Americans sympathize with the movement, and when they see those cops coming in and whacking defenseless people, it just makes them angry.” Rania Khalek is an associate writer for AlterNet. Follow her on Twitter @RaniaKhalek.

5 Conservative Economic Myths Occupy Wall St. Is Helping Bust

2011-10-11T06:07:00.000-04:00

For decades the corporate media has force-fed “conventional wisdom” free-market economic nonsense to the American public. October 10, 2011 |

For decades the corporate media has force-fed “conventional wisdom” free-market economic nonsense to the American public. We have been told that it’s good to give more and more to the wealthy few, that it’s good to send jobs and money out of the country, and especially that that the people who run the big corporations are better and more “efficient” at deciding what’s best for the rest of us. As those decades passed we watched as the wealthy few get wealthier and fewer, while the rest of us – the 99 percent – fall further and further behind. But we have had it explained to us that our lying eyes aren’t seeing what they are seeing, and that the obvious isn’t what it is. We have been seemingly powerless to change this. Asleep While time passed and these economic time-bombs messed up the economy, it seemed as if this fog of propaganda had lulled people to sleep. The uncontested repetition of free-market slogans led many to a bland acceptance that there was no alternative. Many of us even incorporated the concepts into our own thinking. Others seemed to accept the cutbacks, the fees, the scams, the disappointments and the obviously false statements as the way things are. Occupy Wall Street has changed all that. You can take that stuff and stuff it, they said. We’re tired of this. We aren’t going to listen anymore. We won’t passively accept the economic nonsense the corporate media tries to feed is and that we can see just doesn’t work. At least, it doesn’t work for 99 percent of us. The Top Five Here are five “conventional wisdom” doses of economic nonsense that we have been fed: 1. Business does everything better than government. Corporate conservatives argue that businesses and their one-dollar-one-vote system of decision-making is better and more efficient than We, the People's government and its one-person-one-vote system. They argue that constant competition, placing companies under constant fear of going under and people under constant fear of job-loss, focuses the mind like a pending execution. They say it leads them to do only what they should be doing and no more, in the best possible way, always looking for the best and most “efficient” ways, forcing innovation to occur. But as we have seen, what actually happens in this kind of dehumanized “Force You” system (as in “F.U.”) is that businesses are forced to cut every corner, cheapen every product, cut out every service, lay people off, cut people’s wages while adding hours, gut benefits … and probably go under anyway because when every business does the same 99 percent of us can’t afford to buy or do things anymore. The effect on people (human beings – remember them?) is worse. Stress-induced illness is rampant in our fear-based society. People do not get sufficient sleep, skip vacations, work long hours, spend less time with their families, spend very little time in nature, and the rest of the things that make us human. This idea that people are best when operating under constant fear is similar to the conservative mantra that everyone should carry a gun because then you have “a polite society.” Perhaps constant fear and stress keeps people on their toes and makes them “behave” but in the long run it’s just no way to live. Another “feature” of this top-down, one-dollar-one-vote, “market” system that the corporate conservatives advocate is that only those at the top levels of the corporate/financial ladder make the decisions for, and receive the benefits of, society. This is great if – and only if – you are in that 1 percent. But one-person-one-vote, democratic government decision-making means all of us have an equal say with equal access and equal opportunity, and society operates for the benefit of all of us. 2. Rich people are “job creators.” This is the old “trickle-down” idea -- that if you give enough money to the already-rich eventually some of that money will trickle down to the rest of us. This is also called the “getting peed on” theory of economics. The basis of this thinking comes from the theories of Ayn Rand, who argued that society consists of “producers” and “parasites.” Rand’s fundamentally anti-democratic ideology says that democracy is a form of “collectivism” in which people who don’t want to work and produce use their numbers to steal from a gifted few who are the “producers” of goods and services. Rand’s followers claim that wealthy people are rich because they “produce.” The rest of us are “parasites” who “take money” from the productive rich, by taxing them. This revenue is “redistributed” to the parasites to pay for our “entitlements.” They say that if wealthy people have more money they will use that money to start businesses and hire people. But anyone with a real business will tell you that people coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs. In a real economy, people wanting to buy things – demand – is what causes businesses to form and people to be hired. History – and a quick look around us today – shows that when all the money goes to a few at the top demand from the rest of us dries up and everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going. 3. Government and taxes take money out of the economy. Yes, they actually say that government and taxes “take money out of the economy.” They argue that the money government collects is a) pocketed by politicians; or b) stuffed under a giant mattress; or c) is just wasted. In reality the taxes that government collects are invested in the “public structures” that create the prosperity and lifestyle we enjoy – or at least did before taxes were cut. Tax revenue builds the infrastructure of transportation, courts, schools, universities, research facilities and other institutions that enable our businesses to grow and prosper and the consumer protection, safety inspection, water and sewer, health, parks and arts that help us live and enjoy our lives. But there is a powerful reason for people to feel the government does seem to be providing value for the money it costs us: so much of the federal budget goes to military and military-related spending. Spending on wars, the "Defense" department (military), intelligence, nuclear weapons, veterans, and related budget items (including interest on money borrowed for past military spending) is a significant portion of the budget, and people instinctively feel that the country is not getting back services that match what they are putting in. High top tax rates also reduce the incentive to be greedy and destructive, which can overcome many of us and make us do things we shouldn’t. Cutting top tax rates in the '80s forced a change in business models away from long-term planning and building wealth by building sustainable businesses over decades. Instead, since you could take home a fortune overnight, it made more sense to go for the get-rich-quick, sell-the-farm-style schemes so prevalent today. 4. Regulations Kill Jobs Corporate conservatives say that “government just gets in the way” and costs money, which leaves less room for hiring. This is a corollary to the “business knows best” argument and to the idea that society consists of a few “producers” who are inherently superior to the masses of people. The thinking is that We, the People don’t know what we are doing, and businesses with their top-down structure will do the right thing more efficiently. Those engaged in a business do know the business better than outsiders. But regulations that protect the public, employees and the environment govern how the actions of businesses affect the rest of us. A business wants to make a profit, and will only care how regulations affect that goal. It makes sense for government to set up regulations because the rest of us are concerned about the larger world of the rest of us, and therefore understand more clearly how the actions of a business will affect the rest of us. In may cases regulations keep businesses from doing things that kill jobs – and people. 5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy. Corporate conservatives argue that “free trade” is always good under all circumstances. They say we get lower prices and our businesses are able to reach more customers. Of course trade can be a wonderful thing, increasing the standard of living on both sides of the trade border. But the trade deals of recent decades have not been free or fair, and can’t really even be called “trade.” What has happened is countries sell to us but do not buy equally from us, causing huge trade deficits that have drained our economy and our jobs and our wages. Instead of increasing prosperity they have been used to increase exploitation of working people and the environment for the benefit of a wealthy few. Our prosperity is the fruit of our democracy. Conservatives say that it is good that businesses in countries like China are more competitive because they don’t have a lot of regulations to comply with. Countries where the people have little say in things don’t have to spend the money to pay minimum wages, keep the environment clean, keep workers safe and keep products up to standard and they don’t have to worry about lawsuits. They are more “efficient.” So they can charge less. Conservatives who argue that we should have less regulation, lower wages, fewer benefits, fewer consumer, worker and environmental protections are really arguing that we should abandon democracy. By opening our borders to goods made where people do not have a say we made democracy a competitive disadvantage. Fed Up With the Nonsense So as we see all around us today, the economic conventional wisdom nonsense that we were force-fed for decades didn’t work, messed things up, and people finally got fed so much if it that they are fed up. The #occupy crowd got fed up and showed up. They sleep in the park and on sidewalks, marched, and took the batons and pepper spray that seem to always come at us when we protest. They persisted, and awakened the rest of us. Now it has spread to cities across the country. They shook loose from the shadow-fog of propaganda that shrouds us from morning to night, from radio to TV to newspaper. They didn’t prepare a media strategy with a savvy focus-group-tested message targeting key demographics. They didn’t care how they looked or how they would be seen. They didn’t care what the media would say. They certainly didn’t care what Wall Street would do. They saw clearly where the problem is, and decided to just go ahead and do something. They said that what is going on is wrong, it is bad, it is hurting people, and that they were not going to put up with that for one more minute. They said it is time to be citizens not consumers. They are choosing to have some meaning in their lives beyond just being worker bees helping perpetuate a destructive system. So they decided to “occupy Wall Street” in the name of the 99 percent of us who have been losing out in this economy, and the honesty and clarity of that has caught on. “No one is confused about the message. Wall Street got bailed out; Main Street was abandoned. The top 1% rigs the rules and pockets the rewards. And 99% get sent the bill for the party they weren't even invited to.” – Robert Borosage Poets, priests and politicians Have words to thank for their positions Words that scream for your submission And no-one's jamming their transmission And when their eloquence escapes you Their logic ties you up and rapes you -“De Do Do Do De Da Da Da,” The Police Dave Johnson blogs at Seeing the Forest and is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute

How to Handle Illegal Interview Questions

2011-10-09T10:19:00.000-04:00

Posted By: Staff Editor In: Job Seeker - Interview
So you've just been hit with an illegal question. What do you do? How do you respond?

The interview is going along smoothly. You're psyched that "this may be the one." And then it happens. Out of nowhere. "Are you considering having children?" Or, "How long has your family been in this country?" Or, "Your people place a high value on that, don't they?" Or, "You've done amazingly well for someone in a wheelchair."

On the surface they seem innocent enough. And most of the time, they are truly asked in innocence. Yet the structure and format of the question may be entirely illegal. So you've just been hit with an illegal question. What do you do? How do you respond?

First of all, it's important to understand the difference between an illegal question and a criminally-liable question. Even though a question or comment may have been stated in an illegal form, it does not necessarily mean that a crime has been committed. There is a difference between criminal liability and civil liability. For there to be criminal liability, it typically requires establishing a motive or intent. And most illegal questions are asked in ignorance, not intending malice. Yet there can still be civil recourse, even when there was no criminal motive or intent.

In our politically correct society, we are often ready to cry "foul" at the slightest deviation from the accepted norm. But the reality is that most illegal interview questions are asked in true innocence. Or, better stated, in true ignorance. Ignorance of the law, ignorance of what questions are proper, ignorance of how the information could be used by others in a discriminatory way.

Ironically, most illegal questions are asked when the untrained interviewer is trying to be more friendly and asks a seemingly innocent question about your personal life or family background. Therefore, any attempt by the candidate to "assert their constitutional rights" will merely throw up the defense shields and put an end to mutual consideration. Warning lights go on, sirens sound, and the interviewer begins backing down from what may have been an otherwise very encouraging position.

So what is the proper response? The answer is up to you, but my recommendation is to follow one of two courses of action: answer in brief and move on to a new topic area, or ignore the question altogether and redirect the discussion toward a new topic area. The interviewer may even recognize the personal misstep and appreciate your willingness to put it aside and go on.

Unless the question is blatant--and yes, blatant discrimination does still take place--your best option is to move on to other things. But if it is blatant and offensive, you have every right to terminate the interview and walk out.

While laws vary from state to state, there are some definite taboo areas with regard to interview questions that employers should be avoiding. Following are some of the basic subject areas and questions that if asked during the course of the interview, might be viewed as illegal questions being asked with the intention to discriminate:

Questions related to location of birthplace, nationality, ancestry, or descent of applicant, applicant's spouse, or parents.

(Example: Pasquale--Is that a Spanish name?)

Questions related to your sex or marital status.

(Example: Is that your maiden name?)

Questions related to race or color.

(Example: Are you considered to be part of a minority group?)

Questions related to religion or religious days observed.

(Example: Does your religion prevent you from working weekends or holidays?)

Questions related to physical disabilities or handicaps.

(Example: Do you have any use of your legs at all?)

Questions related to health or medical history.

(Example: Do you have any pre-existing health conditions?)

Questions related to pregnancy, birth control, and child care.

(Example: Are you planning on having children?)

It should be noted that just because an illegal question has been asked does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed. Just because the question has been asked does not establish intent. It is up to a court of law to determine whether the question or any resulting information was used in a discriminatory manner.

Article Provided by CollegeGrad.com

Child Support Enforcement and Me

2011-09-12T14:35:00.001-04:00

I got divorced (officially) for the first time on December 26, 1996 and became a part of the child support enforcement system a little over a month later. I started out a month in arrears. The picture above is my daughter taken over 10 years ago while doing a reenactment at the Museum of American Civil War Medicine in Frederick, MD. She turned 20 back in May and she is in her 3rd year at Goucher College in Towson MD. I have not seen her in almost 8 years.

I should have a sign over my head that says "Office of Child Support Enforcement - making my life miserable since 1997." Since then my driver's license has been suspended numerous times. Some of these times were my fault and some were my employment situation. That why when I am working I like to arrange to have the child support paid through withholding by my employer. (I've always believed that we are financially responsible for caring for our children. Where I have a problem is with the enforcement methods of the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).) I had to go to settlement conferences to get my driver's license unsuspended. Periodically, the OCSE would offer amnesty to all non-custodial parents in arrears. (Note : Amnesty - Offer of forgiveness for a crime that we may have committed. Ummmmm..That’s interesting! So I'm being forgiven for the crimes of having a child, getting a divorce, and being unemployed?)

1. What have their punishments done to me? Let's start with suspending my driver's license. After I was evicted from my apartment in Edgewood, MD back in February, 2004 I moved in with my brother and sister-in-law in Worcester, MA. In late April 2004, they kicked me out because I simply unable to find a job. In my mental state at that time being such a mess that even if I had found a job that I doubt that I would've kept it very long. When my car got towed back in June of 2004, I had no transportation, no photo identification and no place to sleep. I was truly homeless and with not much more than the clothes on my back. Because of not having transportation, I had to relay on mass transit. I've lost several contracts over the years because I had to focus my time and mental energy on getting to work on time.

2. Why didn't you get a job at McDonald's?The answer is very simple. Between withholding for taxes and child support, my daughter would've been getting more of my paycheck than I would have. So working a minimum wage job wouldn't have prevented the situation that happened back in February, 2004.

3. How does this system helps children? Well, it doesn't help a kid if a parent is in jail or can't come to visit them because of child support obligations. It doesn't help a kid if a parent can't find a job because they can't drive because their license is suspended. It doesn't help a kid, or the parents or the community-at-large if a parent is made homeless and destitute because of child support obligations.

4. The system is a failure! At one time, the child support enforcement system had about an 18% compliance. I'm guessing that since our economy is in recession that the compliance rate is closer to 10%. States are noting there are billions and billions of uncollected child support. We could argue the constitutionality of the child support enforcement system but the bottom line is that the system fails to serve everyone concerned. I view the methods used by child support enforcement like the war on illegal drugs in that, in both cases, there are way too many innocent casulties and by all standards both are failures. So lets end them both?

5. I thought we had a right to due process? The U.S. Constitution guarantees us the "right to due process under the law." The other glaring problem is that within the current child support enforcement system is that all right to due process disappears. For non-custodial parents owing back child support you ARE guilty and you will go to jail. One of my favorite author is John Mortimer (Rumpole of the Bailey series). In Rumpole's Last Case, Rumpole states that "with the (Judge) Bullingham factor, everyone who comes into Judge Bullingham's Court is assumed guilty or else they would not be there in the first place." A key part of the Family Rights Act is that there would be no suspending of driver's licenses or incarceration unless it is demonstrated in State Circuit Court that the withholding of child support was deliberate.

6. What to do about it? The main problem with the system is that it relies on only punitive methods of enforcement. We change this by first changing the formula for determining the child support level. The current formula only includes income. We should have a formula that not includes income AND expenses. It should include expenses like rent, mortgage, car, utilities, and other necessary living expenses. Currently, child support comes down from the Family Court. Another recommendation is that have the couple determine a level of support that they are comfortable with. If the couple fails to do this then it should go to mediation. Many states use mediation to determine property and child custody. Why shouldn't they expand this to include child support levels? The main advantage to this would be that a child support that was negotiated between the couple would be more likely to be complied with. The couple, when hardships like unemployment or medical situation occur, should have the right to lower child support amount or suspend payments until the other parent gets back on their feet.

7. Why hasn't this system changed? Well, in a nutshell, there are too many people vested in the status quo. In this case, you have divorce lawyers who make money from billing clients. You have States who get subsidies from the Federal Government for uncollected child support. Lastly, you have the Office of Child Support Enforcement if my recommendations would be implemented would see their authority greatly disppear.

More Random Thoughts and Ideas

2011-09-02T20:00:00.002-04:00

10. Don't just talk about problems unless you also propose some solutions. I am on Facebook and I am involved with groups that address Family Court/Child Custody/Child Support issues. Many of my colleagues in this cause just say the whole system is corrupt and needs to be thrown out without suggesting any alternatives. Its obvious that we need Child Protective Services to protect our children from irresponsible parents. We need a Family Court to resolve disputes regarding child custody. I see the problems with these institutions as more of a problem with the law and the lack of resources.

I have not seen my now 20 year old daughter in almost 8 years. I see this problem as a problem with the law and the child support enforcement policies and methods. To deal with these issues, several individuals have proposed The Family Rights Act which attempts to reform the child custody/child support enforcement system by (a) the premise of this proposal is that every child should have equal and unfettered access to BOTH parents whether those parents are married, unmarried, or divorced (b) changing the child support formula by including expenses as part of the formula (c) having couples determine the level of child support that they are comfortable with rather than having an amount determined solely by the Family Court. I believe that the failure of the system is that it relies solely on punitive means of enforcement. To correct this problem, the Act proposes that (a) enforcement methods like suspending drivers or other professional licenses, denying passports, or incarceration can only be done in cases where it is proven in Family Court that it was deliberate (b) any denial of visitation rights by a parent can be punished through forfeiting of child support and other financial oblegations involving the child(ren). As in the case of enforcement methods, this would have to be proven in Family Court. This is The Act in a nutshell.

100 MORE Things You Can Say to Irritate a Republican By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

2011-08-18T14:21:00.000-04:00

If you enjoyed the first list, you’ll enjoy the sequel even more. There are many things you can say to irritate a Republican. Hit just the right button and you can sit back and enjoy the impending fireworks. So, without further introduction, here are 100 MORE things you can say to irritate a Republican.

1. Let’s compromise.
2. We should raise taxes.
3. Every time someone votes for Michele Bachmann, another brain cell dies.
4. Life doesn’t begin at conception.
5. Republican Geography: Asia = Chinese, South America = Mexicans, Europe = “queers”, Africa = Real black people.
6. Dinosaurs walked the Earth before Jesus did.
7. Please stop typing in all caps.
8. By creating the Constitution, the Founding Fathers grew government.
9. The Constitution gives Congress the right to raise taxes.
10. Women can do everything men can do, and then some.
11. The Founding Fathers supported socialized medicine.
12. Democrats began as conservatives, then grew brains. Republicans began as liberals, then lost theirs.
13. Soccer is a great sport.
14. Foreign beers taste better than domestic beers.
15. Reagan was president of a labor union.
16. The sun does NOT orbit the Earth.
17. Conservatives claim to be Christians and then burn crosses.
18. Jesus didn’t choose to ride an elephant, he rode a donkey.
19. Republicans drive Hummers and SUVs to make up for “deficiencies”. (You know what I mean.)
20. Pajamas, to a conservative, consist of white robes and a pointy hood.
21. Michael Moore is the greatest documentary maker of all-time.
22. The official book of the Republican Party is Mein Kampf.
23. Ayn Rand collected Social Security to her dying breath.
24. A favorite conservative activity: dressing as Nazis to re-enact killing Jews.
25. Jesus supported paying taxes.
26. Yay! Glenn Beck is no longer on Fox!
27. Oil is running out.
28. Reaching supreme masculinity, to Republicans, means chopping wood, shooting animals and beating women.
29. Republicans remind me of Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, and Wile E. Coyote. They bring the guns, the stupidity, and of course, the failure.
30. Republicans: Assisting rapists since 2010.
31. Russians are much like Republicans, except Republicans are less friendly to the United States.
32. Republicans prefer to play footsie in men’s restrooms.
33. Austerity measures were demanded by Republicans in 1937. The measures passed and caused a double dip recession.
34. The GOP Christmas mascot is the Grinch.
35. Happy Holidays!
36. The GOP definition of family values includes cheating on their wives, divorcing them while they’re in the hospital, being a dead beat dad, and marrying multiple times.
37. Rush Limbaugh is the only man capable of insulting African-Americans, women, homosexuals, Democrats, and Parkinson’s Disease patients, all in the same sentence.
38. The only jobs that tax hikes destroy are the ones held by Republican politicians, everyone else gets one.
39. Science rocks!
40. Segregation was a bad idea.
41. African-Americans are just as intelligent as white people.
42. It’s “nuclear”, NOT “nucular”.
43. Republicans invented the Income Tax in 1863.
44. Ronald Reagan supported FDR through all four terms.
45. Milton Friedman found a job because of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
46. Milton Friedman was originally a Keynesian, a supporter of the New Deal and an advocate of government intervention in the economy.
47. There ARE atheists in foxholes.
48. Milton Friedman regarded the job-creation programs such as the WPA, the CCC, and the PWA appropriate responses to the Great Depression.
49. Milton Friedman helped invent the payroll tax.
50. Tell conservatives that you’re, “gay and work in the field of behavior modification.”
51. Native Americans were here first.
52. The only President to ever resign, was a Republican.
53. The Republican Party: Spying on political opponents since Watergate.
54. The Republican Party: Spying on the American people since 2001.
55. The Republican Party: Rigging elections since 2000.
56. Infrastructure programs create jobs.
57. Republicans controlled government in the 1920′s, lowered taxes on the wealthy, and caused the Great Depression; now they’re doing it again.
58. Republicans can’t pass the citizenship test.
59. Confederate generals belong in hell, NOT on license plates.
60. Conservatism: A mental illness above all others.
61. No hablo Ingles.
62. George W. Bush took way more vacation days than Obama has.
63. Republicans enjoy wearing diapers in brothels.
64. The only parts of the Constitution Republicans love are the 2nd and 10th Amendments.
65. Republicans: Rewriting textbooks to dumb America down to their level.
66. Republicans loved the death panel idea so much, they’ve created real ones.
67. Republican politicians love their government-run health care.
68. To the GOP, “poor” and “liberal” are dirty words, but “negro”, “coloreds”, “n*****”, “fag”, and “queer” are not.
69. The Republican Party: Subsidiary of Koch Industries.
70. Republicans destroy the economy and blame the American people for it.
71. Republicans are destroying the dollar to get rich investing in gold.
72. Al Gore. ‘Nuff said.
73. Keith Olbermann is the most honest man in news.
74. Real hunters don’t shoot animals from helicopters and planes.
75. Ethics: a system of moral principles that Republicans fail.
76. Republicans: Trolling Facebook since 2004.
77. George Soros is a better human being than both Koch brothers, combined.
78. Republicans are fine with cutting programs that help the sick and poor, but refuse to cut NASCAR funding.
79. A conservative’s favorite scene in Bambi is when the mother got shot. Second favorite? When the forest burned down.
80. Ronald Reagan supported the United Nations.
81. Jesus had brown skin and he didn’t speak English.
82. I just heard that Standard & Poor has downgraded the Tea Party to KK+.
83. Conservatives have succeeded in turning conservatism into a four letter word, which means they need to censor themselves.
84. Republicans can read?
85. Darth Vader: Fighting for conservative values in a galaxy, far, far away.
86. Ronald Reagan saved Social Security.
87. Theodore Roosevelt supported universal health care and believed in taxing the wealthy.
88. Jeopardy categories like ‘Major League Baseball Stadiums’, ‘Pro Football Hall of Fame Members’, ‘Nextel Cup Winners’, and ‘Unsuccessful Reality T.V. Series’ will always be dominated by Republicans. The rest of the categories? Not so much.
89. Conservatives enjoy ‘Wheel of Fortune’ because it tests physical might and exhibits female slavery (Vanna White).
90. Conservatives hate political correctness and refuse to live in a world where sexual advances are not allowed in the workplace, vomiting in the laps of foreign dignitaries is not allowed, the term ‘African-American’ is preferred to ‘darkies’, and the term ‘businessperson’ is preferred to ‘that dyke down the hall’.
91. Republicans are carnivores, with most meals consisting of 80-90% meat-based dishes. Vegetables in any meal will result in vast leftovers that may or may not require a to-go box.
92. Republicans hate Scrabble because it requires knowledge of proper spelling and minor mathematical abilities.
93. Africa is the birthplace of the human race.
94. Republicans insist on having Ranch dressing with their salads since other dressings represent foreign lands and are not trustworthy (French, Italian, Russian, etc.)
95. Conservatives hate the Kindle because it makes the lessons of book-learning easily available to children and liberals.
96. God loves everyone.
97. Sarah Palin and her family once crossed the Canadian border to get free health care.
98. The Rapture is upon us….NOT!
99. Liberals rule!
100. The Constitution is a living document.

I hope you enjoyed the list as much as I enjoyed putting it together. :)

Edited By: Alexis Atherton

Random Thoughts by John Herritt

2011-08-16T16:46:00.048-04:00

1. Stop comparing the Tea Party to Nazis. This is an insult to Nazis. It is an insult to Nazis because the Nazis were much smarter than most of the Tea Party. The Nazis definitely labored under some mistaken ideas especially when it came to race. But when it came to seeking power, there were none better than Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists. The Tea Party is purely a creation of some billionaires and Fox News. With the Tea Party, they don't seem to realize this or they do but don't care?

2. If you aren't achieving your goals in life perhaps you need to make changes on how you do things. We all have goals and things that we want to accomplish in our lives. I've been watching The Next Food Network Star for the past few weeks. There was one contestant named Penny (aka "Middle Eastern Momma") who decided to try to win through exploiting the weaknesses in the other contestants. All the judges thought her food was excellent but her behavior irritated the other contestants (especially the other women). As a result, Penny was eliminated at week 7. My point is she tried to turn The Next Food Network Star into Survivor or Big Brother where her tactics would've worked. I viewed the show as a 10 week job interview where the main goal is to demonstrate what we can do to contribute to help a prospective employer be more successful. Penny's strategy failed but she wasn't honest with herself to realize that and change course. There have been many times when I have frustrated when I haven't been able to find employment or other frustrations. On these occasions, I get some feedback either in person or online and suggest things like reformatting my resume or improving my interview skills.

3. Bad choices forces us into making other bad choices. This is how I ended up homeless back in 2004. I honestly say that I can blame Donna (my first wife and Caroline's mother) for some of my situation. She lied to the FBI while being interviewed for my background reinvestigation for my security clearance. (The lie was that I was fired from a job for stealing a floppy disk) It caused me to lose my job and hence go from making about $4500/month to around $1200/month in unemployment benefits. My rent at the time was $670/month and a $460/month car payment, plus I had utilities and cable to pay for. No wonder I was homeless a few months after I got laid off in August 2003.

4. Tolerance doesn't mean you agree with. This is my attitude concerning homosexuality and "same sex marriage." While I don't endorse homosexuality but I do think we should do all we can as a society to encourage stable and loving relationships. Also, banning same sex marriage has legal implications as far as grandparent rights by not only limiting marriage to one man and one women but limiting the fruits of a marriage (i.e., children) to one man and one women.

5. Abortion is necessary under some circumstances. There are cases when a women cannot carry the baby full term because of some physical problem. If she did that it would KILL her!

6. The problem with our economy is that the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes. There is a serious problem where the wealthy and corporations are paying $0 taxes or getting tax refunds. In 1993, Clinton raised the marginal tax rate to 37% and economy created 22 million jobs and had a budget surplus. CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimated that if we had kept this rate that we not have a debt problem.

7. We don't have debt crisis; we have a jobs crisis. When governments cuts budgets they cut jobs. This creates more debt. Since the private sector isn't creating jobs because no one can afford their products because people are afraid of losing their jobs. This leaves government spending to spur the economy. (Hint: the 2009 stimulus is estimated to have saved 2.5 million job.) The problem was there too many tax breaks and not enough stimulus in the legislation.

8. Since the biggest challenge to getting out poverty is transportation. So why do the Office of the Child Support Enforcement suspend driver's license? I can note several occasions where I lost contract because of a lack of transportation. I thought the goal was to enable people to fulfill our financial responsibilities to our children?

9. Try to maintain a good healthy sense of humor about life. Try not to take life too seriously. I watch Wheel of Fortune and keep waiting for a contestant to describe their spouse as a "no good, lying, cheating, bastard" and their kids as being "dumb as a stump!" I know that this is never going to happen but I enjoy hearing about families who are more messed up than mine! May 10 2011 would've been Donna's (my 1st wife) and mine 25th wedding anniversary. I was seriously tempted to send her (she recently got remarried) an anniversary card with a note that thanked her for all the years of abuse that I had to endure and for leaving destitute, homeless and almost dead! (Note: I said I was tempted; I didn't say that I actually did it!

5 Myths About Forgiveness in the Bible by Maria Mayo M.Div., M.A., Vanderbilt University

2011-08-16T10:53:00.000-04:00

The Bible has plenty to say about forgiveness. Where the Old Testament focuses mainly on God's forgiveness of individuals or groups, the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels also address how human beings can and should forgive each other.

Those teachings, however, are a precarious guide for 21st-century human relations. While Jesus mentions forgiveness several times, he never defines the term, leaving contemporary listeners to fill in the blanks. Is forgiveness something a person does, i.e., does it indicate an action, such as reconciliation or amnesty? Does forgiveness require action on the part of the offender? Is forgiveness something a person feels?

While modern conceptions of forgiveness focus mainly on its emotional dimensions, in Jesus' first-century context, forgiveness had more concrete implications. The Greek word translated as "forgive" in the New Testament, aphiēmi, carried a wide range of meanings, including to remit (a debt), to leave (something or someone) alone, to allow (an action), to leave, to send away, to desert or abandon, and even to divorce.

In fact, the Greek word appears 146 times in the New Testament, but it is translated in most English versions as "forgive" only 38 of those times. Considering the entire range of meanings of this word gives us some indication of what "forgiveness" might have meant to listeners in Jesus' first-century context. Most of all, forgiveness was an action rather than a feeling, and so our contemporary ideas about forgiveness as an emotional state must come from sources other than the biblical text.

Here I submit five prevailing "myths" about forgiveness that have come into Christian belief and practice. I call them myths not because they are not worthwhile guides for moral behavior, but because they do not actually have their roots in the New Testament. Separating what Jesus taught about forgiveness from what we have assumed and inferred puts a fine point on how Christians can define and practice forgiveness today.

1. Jesus teaches unconditional forgiveness.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus teach that forgiveness should be offered unconditionally. In Matthew, Jesus says that church members should forgive each other "seventy times seven times" (18:22), a number that symbolizes boundlessness. However, even though he preaches boundless forgiveness, he does not indicate whether that forgiveness has conditions. "The author of the Gospel of Luke repeats the same story, but adds a condition to forgiveness, stating that church members must forgive boundlessly "if there is repentance" (17:3).

Further, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus warns his disciples that there is a sin that will not be forgiven: "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). Blasphemy (Greek: blasphemēo) means to speak against or slander. The meaning of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is open to interpretation, but it is clear that there is a sin that God will not forgive under any circumstances. If Jesus teaches unconditional forgiveness, then God must be exempt from that teaching.

2. Jesus forgives the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11).

Perhaps one of the best-known stories about Jesus comes from the Gospel of John, when Jesus confronts a crowd about to stone a woman who was caught in the crime of adultery. Jesus interrupts the melee, saying, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). When no one moves to attack the woman, Jesus says to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again" (8:11).

This story is often cited as an example of Christian forgiveness. However, the Greek term most commonly translated as "forgive," aphiēmi, does not appear in this story. Jesus' refusal to condemn the woman is not the same as an offer of forgiveness. Further, Jewish wisdom teaches that only a victim may forgive an offender. Since the woman has not done anything to Jesus, he has nothing to forgive her for. His refusal to condemn her is more a lesson to the crowd about judgment than it is an expression of forgiveness.

3. Jesus forgives his attackers from the cross.

Luke's depiction of Jesus on the cross is often cited as the quintessential example of unconditional forgiveness. As he is being crucified, Jesus cries out, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Readers often take this to mean that Jesus forgives those who are attacking him. However, a closer look at the syntax reveals that Jesus is not, in fact, forgiving his attackers; rather, he is praying that God might do so.

It is possible that the lack of repentance from his attackers prevents Jesus from forgiving the men directly, since he has taught his followers that repentance is a requirement for forgiveness. Also, earlier in the Gospel of Luke Jesus instructs his disciples to "pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:38). While his prayer from the cross is a perfect model of this teaching, it is not an explicit act of forgiveness.

4. "Turn the other cheek" refers to forgiveness.

Just after he gives the instruction to pray for one's enemies, Jesus tells his followers, "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also" (Luke 6:29; the identical teaching appears in Matthew 5:39). Some interpret this instruction -- given by Jesus as antithetical to "an eye for an eye" -- to mean that the proper response to violence or aggression is to ignore it. However, in the time of Jesus the act of turning one's cheek when slapped was not a sign of acquiescence. Turning the cheek would force the aggressor to strike with the left hand, which was seen as unclean, or the open right hand, which would signal equality. Thus, turning the other cheek would have been seen as an act of rebellion.

Further, just as the "eye for an eye" teaching served as a check for vengeance, Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek applies to a person who is slapped and does not apply to more severe acts of violence. Nowhere does Jesus suggest that turning the other cheek is an act of forgiveness.

5. Forgiveness sets you free.

Theologian Lewis Smedes writes, "To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you." Much of Christian self-help literature touts the emotional and physical benefits of forgiveness. And while contemporary understandings of forgiveness may very well have positive psychological outcomes for those suffering in the aftermath of mistreatment and abuse, the idea that forgiveness is good for the forgiver, that it "sets you free," does not come from the Bible.

The closest parallel comes after the parable in which Jesus describes an unforgiving servant being condemned to prison and torture. Then he warns, "So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart" (Matthew 18:35). In this case, forgiving is in the best interest of the one forgiving in order to avoid an afterlife of torture and abuse. However, the concern here is not a psychological one, but rather a concern for salvation.

Again, it may well be true that "Forgiveness sets you free." However, the idea of forgiveness as a psychological or emotional condition traces to 18th-century moral philosophy, not first-century Christian writings. Forgiveness in the time of Jesus was an action verb, and Jesus' instructions served as checks for the health of the community, both on earth and in the world to come. There is nothing in the Bible that says that forgiveness is good for the physical or mental health of the forgiver. It is anachronistic to suggest otherwise.

Which Party’s Presidents Created The Debt? Anyalysis From 1938 – 2004

2011-07-01T14:35:00.001-04:00

By
Guest Writer
– April 25, 2011

Posted in: Historical Information, Information and Resources

The chart below shows the United Stated national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction debt has taken since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question that the steepest upward rises in debt take place when Conservative Republican Presidents are in office (see red below).

CHART: States That Cut The Most Spending Have Lost The Most Jobs

2011-07-01T12:33:00.000-04:00

By Guest Blogger on Jun 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Our guest blogger is Adam Hersh, an economist at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Govs. John Kasich (R-OH), Rick Snyder (R-MI), and Scott Walker (R-WI)

There’s a new cult of economic thought sweeping the nation — or at least many Republican (and even some Democratic) political circles. Its adherents cling to the erroneous belief that sharp government spending cuts will revitalize economic growth and create much needed new jobs

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is an ardent follower of this Cut-Grow cult, as are a number of high profile governors. For instance, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) declared, “We’re going to have to reduce spending…to create a platform for economic growth.” When Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) delivered his budget to the state Legislature he argued, “We must continue to cut government spending” to create jobs and prosperity for New Jersey families. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) vowed his budget “lays [the] foundation to create jobs.”

Now these Republicans want the American public to drink a giant glass of their Cut-Grow Kool-Aid. But the data actually show the opposite of their claims to be true: steep spending cuts are hampering economic recovery in some states, while other states that resisted cuts or increased spending are now seeing declining unemployment rates, faster private-sector job creation, and stronger economic growth.

From the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 24 states have cut government spending by an average of 7.5 percent after adjusting for inflation. Another 25 states have expanded government outlays by an average of 11 percent. (The analysis excludes Alabama due to data problems reported by the National Association of State Budget Offices). And the differences in these states’ economic performance could not be more self-evident. Relative to national economic trends, states that increased spending enjoyed on average:
• 0.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate
•1.4 percent increase in private employment
•0.5 percent real economic growth since the start of the recession

In contrast, states that cut spending saw on average
•1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate
•2.1 percent loss of private employment
•2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend

Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports.

Take private sector jobs, for example. This graph shows that state spending is not just about jobs for public service workers, but also has far reaching consequences for private businesses and their workers. The downward sloping red line shows the relationship between cuts to state spending and changes in private sector employment relative to the national average since the start of the Great Recession. States that cut spending are seeing significantly more job losses in the private sector than states maintaining or increasing spending levels. For every 10 percent cut in state spending, state economies lost 1.6 percent of their private-sector jobs.

Certainly policymakers should seize every opportunity to eliminate waste and improve the efficiency of delivering government functions. But spending cuts achieved or championed by conservatives are aiming much deeper at public services and public investments critical to economic recovery now as well as the future of U.S. economic growth and competitiveness

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages

2011-07-01T12:28:00.002-04:00

By Guest Blogger on Jun 30, 2011 at 3:15 pm

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:

“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”

The New York Times adds, “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available.”

So as average wages fall, and nearly 14 million people remain unemployed, America’s economic recovery has almost entirely benefited corporations. This development adds another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes are shrinking and wages are stagnating. Last year, top executives’ salaries increased 27 percent, while workers’ salaries increased only 2 percent. At the moment, income inequality in America is the worst it’s been since the 1920s, as the richest 1 percent make nearly 25 percent of the country’s income.

–Sean Savett

God Is Not a Christian By Desmond Tutu

2011-06-02T12:30:00.000-04:00

The following is excerpted from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu's new book, 'God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations.'

This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of different faiths during a mission to the city of Birmingham in 1989.

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, "I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?" The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, "That side, of course!" The drunk said, "Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide." Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim, or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don't know what significant fact can be drawn from this -- perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine -- however named, however apprehended or conceived -- is infinite and we are forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely. So we should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a transcendent reference point, a mysterium tremendum, that comes to be known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are creatures of this supreme, supra mundane reality in some way, with a high destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with the divine, either as absorbed without distinction between creature and creator, between the divine and human, or in a wonderful intimacy which still retains the distinctions between these two orders of reality.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

Surely it is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us all (not just Christians) in his image, thus investing us all with infinite worth, and that it was with all humankind that God entered into a covenant relationship, depicted in the covenant with Noah when God promised he would not destroy his creation again with water. Surely we can rejoice that the eternal word, the Logos of God, enlightens everyone -- not just Christians, but everyone who comes into the world; that what we call the Spirit of God is not a Christian preserve, for the Spirit of God existed long before there were Christians, inspiring and nurturing women and men in the ways of holiness, bringing them to fruition, bringing to fruition what was best in all. We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

This mission in Birmingham to which I have been invited is a Christian celebration, and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the Savior of the world, hoping that we will live out our beliefs in such a way that they help to commend our faith effectively. Our conduct far too often contradicts our profession, however. We are supposed to proclaim the God of love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion; we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians we have fought more wars than we care to remember. We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever richer and the poor grow ever poorer, where we seem to sanctify a furious competitiveness, ruthless as can only be appropriate to the jungle.

10 Great Things About America That Drive Conservatives and the Religious Right Insane

2011-05-16T08:58:00.001-04:00

Religious Right groups and their allies in the Tea Party claim to respect American values, but much would change if they had their way.

May 15, 2011 |

Religious Right groups and their frequent allies in the Tea Party talk a good line about respecting American values, but much would change if they had their way. They seek not to restore our country to some Golden Age (that never existed anyway) but to recreate it – in their own fundamentalist image.

An America rebuilt along Religious Right lines would be a very different place. And to get there, the theocrats among us first have to tear down some features of American life – some of which are longstanding. Here are ten things about the United States that drive Religious Right groups crazy:

1. Our history debunks Religious Right mythology: American history stands as a rebuke to the Religious Right. America’s founders established a secular government with freedom of religion and its necessary corollary, separation of church and state, built into the First Amendment. A “Christian nation” was not what the founders sought. How do we know this? They said so. Think about it: If an officially Christian nation had been the intent of the founders, the Constitution would prominently include that concept. It doesn’t.

And those Religious Right claims that separation of church and state is a myth? They’re a crock. As James Madison put it, “Strongly guarded…is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.” Madison ought to know. He’s considered the Father of the Constitution and was one of the primary drafters of the First Amendment.

2. We support science: While polls show some confusion over issues like evolution, most Americans are big fans of science and are quick to rally around the latest medical breakthroughs and cutting-edge technology. Many religious people in America long ago reconciled their faith with modern science. But the Religious Right remains stubbornly insistent that any science that conflicts with its literalist interpretation of the Bible must go.

Religious Right activists hate science because it casts doubt on their narrow worldview – a worldview that teaches that all answers are found in a rigidly fundamentalist interpretation of an ancient religious text. To the Religious Right, evolution and the Bible can’t co-exist. They refuse to read the scriptures in a metaphorical or symbolic context. Since, to the Religious Right, evolution undercuts the Bible, evolution should not be taught in public schools.

3. America has a tradition of tolerance: Yes, we’ve fallen short of complete tolerance from time to time, but at the end of the day, most Americans believe in treating their fellow citizens decently, even if they have different religious or philosophical beliefs. But to the Religious Right, tolerance is entrance ramp on the highway to hell.

The idea that religions should strive to get along is dangerously close to the idea that all religions are on equal footing. This is bad, so says the Religious Right, because it leads people into “error” – that is, an embrace of any religion that’s not fundamentalist Christianity. Tolerance is ridiculed because it dares to suggest that a Unitarian, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Pagan or atheist might have an equal claim on truth alongside a fundamentalist.

4. We have a secular government: To the theocrats of the right, secular government, secularism and secular anything is the bogeyman of the moment. If you doubt it, just listen to some of our leading politicians (assuming you have the stomach for it). To most people, it just makes sense for government to remain neutral on theological disputes – remember the Middle Ages? To the Religious Right, such neutrality equals hostility toward religion and a “war” against Christianity.

Ironically, there is one place where the Religious Right backs secular government: Muslim nations. Those should be secular, of course – but only as a prelude to adopting fundamentalist Christianity.

5. The U.S. Constitution has endured: The Religious Right and the Tea Party claim to revere our basic governing document, the Constitution. So why do they treat it like a first draft? Just consider the list of amendments they’d like to add: pro-school prayer, anti-abortion, “parental rights,” fetal personhood, “traditional marriage,” the list goes on.

Why does the Religious Right distrust our founders? Maybe because the founders weren’t fundamentalists, and they dared to believe that the Bible could speak metaphorically yet still contain wisdom and insight. Consider this quote by Thomas Jefferson (from a letter to Benjamin Rush, May 21, 1803): “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”

6. The nation has a legacy of freedom of religion: To the Religious Right, “religious freedom” means the right to use their religion to run other people’s lives. When it comes to groups they don’t like, ideas like liberty and freedom suddenly evaporate.

Consider the controversy over the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan and efforts to block construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. Normally, once religious groups comply with local zoning laws, get the necessary permits and so on, they can build houses of worship where they please. Yet Brian Fischer, a columnist with the American Family Association, argued recently that the Constitution grants religious freedom rights only to Christians and said we can legally shut down mosques. Where does this appear in the Constitution? It doesn’t. Fischer made it up.

7. Americans support reproductive rights: The ability to control your own body when it comes to reproduction is the ability to control your own destiny. It’s a big no-no to the Religious Right. God is supposed to control your destiny. Who are you to interfere with His plans? Although most people think of this issue in terms of abortion, it’s worthwhile to look a little deeper. Increasingly, access to birth control is on the chopping block as well. (See attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and bills in the state laws granting pharmacists a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for the pill.)

Throughout recorded history, religious prudes have been obsessed with sex lives of others. They clearly have issues. There’s just something kind of icky about it.

8. Gay people live here: Where to begin? Not only will gay people not stay in the closet or become straight, now they want to get married! You can be sure that Bible Belt fundamentalists, who have the highest divorce rate in the nation, aren’t going to stand for that assault on the sacred institution of marriage.

The bile the Religious Right spews toward gays is unfathomable. You have to call it what it is: Hate. And as polls show increasing numbers of Americans backing same-sex marriage, it’s only going to get worse.

9. Most kids go to public schools: These godless hotbeds of secular humanism actually receive tax funding! They’re known to teach evolution, and some even dare to talk about how they human reproductive system works in Biology class. Since not everyone has the time for home-schooling, it’s best to distribute vouchers, says the Religious Right.

Here’s Tim LaHaye, author of the popular series of apocalyptic potboilers “Left Behind” on public education: “I have a pet concern, and I think it is the concern of everyone in this room; and that is we are being destroyed in America by the public school systems of our country. And it was Abraham Lincoln who said, essentially, let me educate the children of this generation and they will be the political leaders of the next generation. And, folks, we have let the enemy come in and take over the greatest school system in the history of the world.” (So, Tim, what do you really think?)

10. We fund NPR and PBS: Sure, the Religious Right and the Tea Party said they wanted to cut off funding to public broadcasting to save a few bucks, but in reality, they just don’t like the elitist, left-wingery of “All Things Considered” and “Masterpiece Theatre.” Snobs listen to and watch that stuff!

Don’t even get them started on the Muppets. Bert and Ernie have a suspiciously close relationship. ‘Nuff said.

Of course, there are many other things the Religious Right dislikes about our country – consider women’s rights, for example. For all of their flag waving, some supporters of the Religious Right just don’t sound too happy to be here. I doubt they plan to leave soon, so we can expect they’ll keep working to change our nation. Be warned – this list is just a start.

Rob Boston is the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which publishes Church and State magazine.

Let's Not Be Civil By Paul Krugman

2011-05-14T18:18:00.001-04:00

Published: April 17, 2011
Last week, President Obama offered a spirited defense of his party’s values — in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Immediately thereafter, as always happens when Democrats take a stand, the civility police came out in force. The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus.

That’s a bad idea. Equally important, it’s an undemocratic idea.

Let’s review the story so far.

Two weeks ago, House Republicans released their big budget proposal, selling it to credulous pundits as a statement of necessity, not ideology — a document telling America What Must Be Done.

But it was, in fact, a deeply partisan document, which you might have guessed from the opening sentence: “Where the president has failed, House Republicans will lead.” It hyped the danger of deficits, yet even on its own (not at all credible) accounting, spending cuts were used mainly to pay for tax cuts rather than deficit reduction. The transparent and obvious goal was to use deficit fears to impose a vision of small government and low taxes, especially on the wealthy.

So the House budget proposal revealed a yawning gap between the two parties’ priorities. And it revealed a deep difference in views about how the world works.

When the proposal was released, it was praised as a “wonk-approved” plan that had been run by the experts. But the “experts” in question, it turned out, were at the Heritage Foundation, and few people outside the hard right found their conclusions credible. In the words of the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers — which makes its living telling businesses what they need to know, not telling politicians what they want to hear — the Heritage analysis was “both flawed and contrived.” Basically, Heritage went all in on the much-refuted claim that cutting taxes on the wealthy produces miraculous economic results, including a surge in revenue that actually reduces the deficit.

By the way, Heritage is always like this. Whenever there’s something the G.O.P. doesn’t like — say, environmental protection — Heritage can be counted on to produce a report, based on no economic model anyone else recognizes, claiming that this policy would cause huge job losses. Correspondingly, whenever there’s something Republicans want, like tax cuts for the wealthy or for corporations, Heritage can be counted on to claim that this policy would yield immense economic benefits.

The point is that the two parties don’t just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes, with Republicans in particular having a stable of supposed experts who reliably endorse whatever they propose.

So when pundits call on the parties to sit down together and talk, the obvious question is, what are they supposed to talk about? Where’s the common ground?

Eventually, of course, America must choose between these differing visions. And we have a way of doing that. It’s called democracy.

Now, Republicans claim that last year’s midterms gave them a mandate for the vision embodied in their budget. But last year the G.O.P. ran against what it called the “massive Medicare cuts” contained in the health reform law. How, then, can the election have provided a mandate for a plan that not only would preserve all of those cuts, but would go on, over time, to dismantle Medicare completely?

For what it’s worth, polls suggest that the public’s priorities are nothing like those embodied in the Republican budget. Large majorities support higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Large majorities — including a majority of Republicans — also oppose major changes to Medicare. Of course, the poll that matters is the one on Election Day. But that’s all the more reason to make the 2012 election a clear choice between visions.

Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.

This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.

Wellness, Recovery, and Employment Blog

It Would Actually Be Very Simple To End Homelessness Forever

Tags:

9 Things That Motivate Employees More Than Money

Camtica 4.3.4121

Navigating Office Politics Posted by Dan Zubrzycki | 07, Dec, 2011

Ways to Bring Wisdom into Your Career Posted by Dan Zubrzycki | 09, Dec, 2011

10 Good Ways to 'Tell Me About Yourself'

The Family Rights Act - An Update

More Random Thoughts and Ideas

Are You Prepared For Tricky Behavioral Interview Questions Like These?? ... (See the Answers below!)

The Rise of the Regressive Right and the Reawakening of America By Robert Reich

50 Is NOT The New 40 When Looking For A Job; Face it With A Way To Change It!

12 Most Absurd Laws Used to Stifle the Occupy Wall St. Movement Around the Country

5 Conservative Economic Myths Occupy Wall St. Is Helping Bust

How to Handle Illegal Interview Questions

Child Support Enforcement and Me

More Random Thoughts and Ideas

100 MORE Things You Can Say to Irritate a Republican By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Random Thoughts by John Herritt

5 Myths About Forgiveness in the Bible by Maria Mayo M.Div., M.A., Vanderbilt University

Which Party’s Presidents Created The Debt? Anyalysis From 1938 – 2004

CHART: States That Cut The Most Spending Have Lost The Most Jobs

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages

God Is Not a Christian By Desmond Tutu

10 Great Things About America That Drive Conservatives and the Religious Right Insane

Let's Not Be Civil By Paul Krugman