Notes from the Charcoal Moon

What Romney Revealed in Last Night's Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:01:00 +0000

Here's what I found revealing about Mitt Romney's performance last night:

Romney is supposedly a financial genius, but based on a few things I have observed the past couple of months -- and he sealed the deal last night -- I think he's been taking credit for someone else's hard work and brain power. Here is what has me scratching my head:

When Romney's infamous 47% video became available, I was incredulous. He stated that 47% of Americans don't pay (income) taxes and expected a handout. But of that 47%, 80% of them are either working or retired. Romney couldn't grasp the basic concept that many of the working poor and retired people don't make enough money to qualify for paying income taxes. But Romney seemed to think that 47% of Americans were on the doll. Yet, the 47% pay payroll taxes, state & local taxes, personal property taxes, and sales taxes. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the American economy. How could a financial whiz be that clueless about the economy (and about low-income Americans)?
"We haven't run the numbers," said Paul Ryan when being interviewed by Fox News on August 14, 2012. That's right -- the Romney/Ryan financial genius team has not run the numbers in its own budget. They have no idea if the budget will even work, let alone raise or lower the deficit. Is that major fault due to fear or laziness? Why don't they run the numbers? I guess if you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question. Any time Romney or Ryan claim that their budget is going to do x or y, they are lying. Because they have no idea. This is not only deceitful, but financially irresponsible.
Romney is trying to make up for his shame at receiving four deferments from Viet Nam, while he was enjoying himself in France trying to convert Christians to Mormonism. That is why he wants to give the DoD $2 Trillion that it does not want or need. Again, the "financial genius" is failing to grasp a fundamental aspect of our economy. Of the discretionary budget (the one the President and Congress can change from year to year), the DoD currently comprises more than 50% of it. You cannot reduce the debt without reducing the DoD budget. Yet, Romney wants to increase it. He thinks it will give him some credibility as a commander in chief. But Romney has zero military or defense experience. In fact, he ran from it. So he is blindly ignoring another fundamental budget fact -- the DoD is the elephant in the budget room and by inflating the DoD budget, the debt can only increase.
Romney continues to repeat the lie that 23 million Americans are out of work. The actual number is 12.5 million and is backed up by data. Romney needs to understand the problem before he can propose solutions. That is Consulting 101.
And last night, he sealed the deal when arguing about and describing his tax plan. President Obama described the plan: 20% cuts to tax rates, but closing loopholes and ending some deductions. Romney says that will make his plan "revenue neutral" -- the same amount of taxes will be collected as now, just somehow skewed more toward wealthy. Yet, Romney was emphatic that it would work and that it would benefit small businesses.

It can't work. Closing loopholes and ending deductions cannot make up for the 20% tax rate cut. It is basic arithmetic. It is a fundamental problem with his plan.
The claim about benefits to small business were undercut by Romney's admitting that most small business owners file as individuals. So, if you take away their deductions, they will end up paying more taxes.

It's sad, but most Romney supporters will never hear the above evidence showing that Romney is being financially lazy and deceitful. They just assume that because he is super rich and ran a leverage buyout company that he must be a financial god. Romney was at the top of Bain Capital, but I bet he did not understand the financial details. He had smart people working for him and he could smell his way through a deal. He knew when to shut down some companies and invest in others because others ran the numbers and presented recommendations to him. He did not always make the right decision -- possibly because he did not understand the fundamentals. But he was widely successful.

However, the Bain Capital skills are not the skills needed by a president. Barack Obama has a much better handle on the how our economy works. Obama reversed a recession/depression and has turned the economy around. GDP, the Dow Jones, Housing, and other indicators are way up from four years ago. We have had over 30 months of positive job growth and that will continue. It's not fast enough for a lot of people, but it is improving and we are not continuing to lose jobs as we did under George W. Bush.

Choosing Romney and his "plan" would be financially devastating to America. We will return to the economy of the Bush years, but only faster and more devastatingly. I hope some people under Romney's spell wake up and realize that this is not a game about winning and losing. This is reality and it affects the lives of other Americans.

The Washington Post's Unfair/Unbalanced Letter Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:39:00 +0000

To the Editor:

Of the five letters to the editor in today’s Washington Post (Saturday, July 23^rd), I found that three of them were wildly misinformed. I wonder why The Post sees fit to publish letters that are obviously inaccurate. Is it to show “balance”? What balance is that – between the informed and the ignorant? Cases in point:

Bruce Kirschenbaum wrote about Dulles Rail. He stated: “Frankly, the Dulles rail project will benefit no one but regional residents and businesses.” Maybe so -- if it was called “Reston Rail.” However, as Mr. Kirschenbaum called it, the system is termed "Dulles Rail." By definition, it is rail to Dulles International Airport. Do I need to spell out why service to Dulles actually has national and international benefits – not just regional? Really?

Jadine S. Jett wrote “Raising the debt ceiling is passing on this debt to our children and grandchildren…” and she also wrote “The current fight is not against a looming debt limit but against the status quo…” Thanks to the publication of letters like this and the corporate media’s love affair with spreading GOP misinformation, I can see why many people are confused. The simple fact is the debt ceiling needs to be raised so that the United States does not default on current obligations that are the result of programs and budgets already passed by Congress. If Ms. Jett would like to see higher interest rates and world markets react negatively, while shaking the faith in the solvency of the U.S. treasury, then by all means let’s not raise the debt ceiling. We started to come out of the Great Depression because of government spending. However, in 1937 we saw progress regress because FDR implemented spending cuts. Only the massive spending of WWII saved our economy. However, these facts do not reach the public’s ears because the corporate media publishes gibberish such as the garbage that Ms. Jett put on paper.

Finally, Jack Webb wrote letting the Bush tax cuts expire is another word for tax hike. However, as Mr. Webb pointed out, Bush’s tax cuts were tied to a sunset clause. By that very fact, the tax cuts were designed to be temporary. Letting them expire is not a tax increase. Since Mr. Webb likes analogies, let me offer one: this week the grocery store is having a sale on apples – 10% off. Next week, when the sale ends, some would say that apples will sell at the regular price. Mr. Webb would claim that the grocer is increasing the price of apples. But trying to reason with Grove Norquist minions is like trying to compare apples and oranges.

I am disappointed that The Post promulgates such nonsense and is only adding to the misinformation and confusion. Just because someone does not agree with a piece in The Post does not mean you have to publish their letter to appear as if you listen to dissenting views. Rather, you should challenge them to speak the truth and not toe party lines despite the evidence against them.

Public vs. Private Compensation

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:52:00 +0000

We keep hearing from the "right" how the Wisconsin public employees are over compensated. (I am not posting links to such claims because I don't want to increase their search engine rankings. Feel free to Google it.)

However, such claims -- even when backed by data -- are faulty. Public employees overall -- and especially teachers -- have higher levels of education than the average private sector employee. If you compare people of similar education levels from the public and private sectors, public employees come up short.

Here are two recent studies that make these comparisons more accurately (both are PDFs):

Out of Balance - Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years. In summary, this study shows that state employees typically earn 11 percent less in salary than their private sector counterparts; in terms of total compensation, state employees receive 6.8% less than those in the private sector.
Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee. This study calculates that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation than their private sector counterparts.

If the right-wing wins the battle and destroys the unions, teachers will make even less money. That will attract fewer people to the profession and the U.S. can continue its downward spiral in the race to the bottom compared to education in the rest of the developed world.

Believe what you want, but if you think that state workers are compensated so well, why isn't everyone rushing out to be a teacher? It's because after earning a masters degree, most people want to make more money than a teacher earns (and not work as hard).

The Real Message of GOP Obstructionism

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:15:00 +0000

Today in The Washington Post there is an article titled "'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal efforts stalled by GOP plan." However, it seems like the "liberal" media is giving the GOP another pass and is not covering the real story.

The article stated that "...Senate Republicans vowed to block any legislation unrelated to government spending or tax cuts..." To me, the most important result of that statement is that the GOP will not approve legislation to stimulate jobs. One of the most significant factors affecting the November elections was the unemployment situation. We want jobs, stupid!

Tax cuts do not create jobs, no matter how often Republicans repeat that lie. How well did the Bush tax cuts affect the economy? It is a fallacy to think that the 3% of small business owners who earn more than $250,000 annually will be able to substantially reduce the unemployment rate if their taxes are cut.

Let the GOP obstruct jobs and we will see another version of "throw the bums out" in two years.Only this time it will be the GOP bums out on the street.

No Defense for the TSA's Groping of the Previous Threat

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:22:00 +0000

Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus wrote in defense of the TSA's fear-based approach to reactionary security theater. Here is my letter to her:

Dear Ms. Marcus,

I generally enjoy your columns, but I was very disappointed with you attitude and logic in today’s column (“Don’t touch my junk? Grow up, America”).

I am not a Constitutional strict constructionist nor a prude. I am many things, socially liberal, and a figure artist, so I am very comfortable with the beauty that is the human body.

Let me put it bluntly: The TSA is fighting the previous battle – and consistently does so. One failed shoe bomber caused us to remove our shoes – indefinitely. One failed underwear bomber – while the response should have logically been for us to be required to fly commando – has now required us to be digitally stripped of our clothing and/or have our genitals felt by a non-medical professional. (Your comparison to a mammogram was silly – you chose to have a medical professional examine you for your own personal health reasons. To get on an airplane, I do not choose to be stripped or groped.) This is not about being prudish or modest. This is a violation.

The terrorists have moved on. Now that they sit back and laugh as they watch us walk shoeless and virtually naked through airports, they are attacking cargo holds. Their most recent failed attempts now have the TSA blocking printer cartridges from Yemen. I imagine the terrorists are now done messing with printer cartridges and are trying something else that the TSA is not thinking about – yet. And yes, body cavities could be part of that equation. Ask any prisoner or drug smuggler how easy that is to implement.

So, a series of one-off failures have caused reactionary responses and continual losses of liberty.

Life is a risk. You and I are much more likely to be killed or maimed in automobiles. In the U.S., more than 35,000 people die each year in their cars. Even more are injured and maimed. Even if terrorists brought down one airplane per year, the death toll would be in the hundreds. So, if you are so afraid of flying, you should be terrified of driving. The sound of car engines starting should be causing widespread panic in your world.

The only “system” that will reliably prevent aviation terrorism consists of the passengers themselves. Passengers stopped the shoe bomber, the underwear bombing, and they stopped Flight 93 from becoming another missile. I would feel completely comfortable going back to the metal detectors, with the understanding that passengers will take responsibility for watching out for terrorist-like activities on flights. Being a passenger – indeed a citizen – requires awareness and responsibility. We already have people sitting in exit aisles pledging to take on additional responsibility. To me, a logical extension is to have passengers affirm they will be aware and vigilant. Imagine a terrorist on a plane knowing that many of those sitting near him are willing to take him on.

The body scanners and pat-downs operate under the assumption that we are all guilty – we are all terrorists. To me, the TSA’s actions are clear violations of the 4^th Amendment. Where is the probable cause? The warrant?

Your column encourages us to cower in fear. Let's not take responsibility for our own safety – instead, we'll give up some liberty and dignity while delegating our personal safety to the TSA. You are playing on fear – even if unknowingly. Grow a spine, for goodness sake.

As Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Based on your column, Ms. Marcus, I propose that you deserve neither. Maybe you should do a little growing up yourself.

working fast

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:12:00 +0000

Ooops - wrong blog! the post you are looking for is here: http://greenmoonart.blogspot.com/2010/11/working-fast.html

Frank Wolf, Partisan Right-Winger

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:27:00 +0000

A lousy little free local paper that hits my home town, the Sun Gazette, recently ran a glowing article on Rep. Frank Wolf's "bipartisanship." I had to double-check that the article really wasn't a propaganda piece paid for by the Wolf reelection campaign. It wasn't.

I live in Virginia's 10th congressional district and Wolf is my "representative." I was insulted by the article because I have been here about 20 years (Wolf has been in his Washington-insider post for 30 years) and I watched in disgust as Wolf voted in lock step with Republicans during the dark W. Bush years.

The Sun Gazette does not have a letters to the editor page, but I wrote anyway. I just wanted them to know that their piece assumes their readers are idiots. It was insulting.

Wolf is very partisan. If you look at the ratings that Wolf received from various organizations on all sides of the spectrum, you’ll see that he gets very low marks from moderate and liberal groups, and very high marks from conservative groups:
http://thehill.com/resources/lawmaker-ratings/83697-rep-frank-wolf-r-va
(Note that Wolf claims that human rights is one of his signature concerns, yet he rated a 0 from the Human Rights Campaign.)

Frank Wolf consistently votes against veterans: http://www.progressivepunch.org/record.jsp?member=VA10&district=10&issue=A7
Yet, on the 64 roll call votes on Iraq funding and escalation during the Bush administration, Wolf voted in lock-step with Bush and Republicans on each one: http://www.progressivepunch.org/record.jsp?member=VA10&district=10&issue=W4

Wolf wants to reclaim stimulus funding, yet he sponsored a job fair this summer. Companies at that job fair had received $400 million in stimulus funding: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/30/frank-wolf-on-stimulus/

Wolf has vigorously railed against the one case of liberal voter intimidation (the “New Black Panther” party issue that the “liberal” media has blown out of proportion - http://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=372&itemid=1622), yet Wolf has said nothing about the thousands of voter suppression and intimidation cases instigated by conservatives in 2008: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/votes, http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_suppression_incidents/
Yet, the media has seemed to forget about all of those cases and is focused on the two losers outside of a Philadelphia polling place -- they just stood there in costume and didn't talk to anyone. Compare that to police in Ohio and Michigan who pulled "darker" people out of line and asked for documentation. Yeah, I wish we had a liberal media.

You'd think a crappy little local paper like the Gazette would know its audience better. Yet, they unabashedly show their bias with a puff piece on a partisan. Shame on you Gazette. But, I must say, you are good for lining the bird cage and wrapping fish guts.

Republicans Screwing Up a Basic Math Problem in Virginia

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:52:00 +0000

Virginia's Republican governor Robert McDonnell made a campaign promise to privatize the state-controlled liquor stores. In turn, he would use the one-time gain from sales of liquor licenses to fund transportation projects.

However, the one-time gain of $458 million in revenue is enough to cover one year of VDOT's budget for state-maintained road construction, or interstate construction - but not both. That's right, the windfall is enough to cover about 40% of 2010 construction costs. The result is that in 2011 there would be 0% coverage, in 2012 there would be 0% coverage... How does a one-time windfall help with recurring costs? Also, although $458 million sounds like a large number, it falls far short of many of VDOT's projects, which cost in the billions. The I-95/I-395 "mixing bowl" interchange ended up costing $1.5 billion.

McDonnell has proposed collecting taxes from restaurants and other establishments that will sell the new privatized alcohol, but that has gotten him into trouble with his tea and crackers right-wing that whines, "no taxes on nuthin'" ad naseum. So now McDonnell has had to back off his taxes idea, causing a loss of $47 million in annual revenues.

Not to be outdone in the logic department, disgraced racist ex-Governor George "Macaca" Allen came running to McDonnell's defense, spouting: "Worrying about how much revenue the government can keep from liquor sales is a distraction from the larger cost savings of privatization."

It's so scary when Republicans try to do math. You see, George, there is no cost savings of this privatization. The state-run liquor stores generate a huge profit for the state treasury. Whether you agree that the state should be in the liquor business or not, you can't defend McDonnell's plan based on the numbers. McDonnell's plan is a huge revenue killer for Virginia.

The GOP's "War on Arithmetic"

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:32:00 +0000

The Republican party is against so many things these days. They are against the Obama administration's efforts to save our economy from falling into a depression. They are against clean air and water. They are against gay marriage and gays in the military. They are against a woman's right to choose. They are against Muslims.

As far as I can tell, they are only for two things: 1) the Troops (even though the Republicans vote against funding for the wounded and veterans); and, 2) smaller government (which really means they are against the current government, of which they are a part, but hey - let's give them the benefit of the doubt).

You'd think that by being for smaller government, they'd at least get their new "pledge" right. However, the platitude-rich propaganda document is long on wind and short on substance. Also, a quick aside, note that a "pledge" is not binding the way a "contract" is - and we all know how Newt's contract with America turned out.

As Paul Krugman wrote today in the NY Times:

Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” [source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html]

That's right, the GOP "pledge" does not add up. And this is basic math we are talking about. Maybe if the GOP was not so hell-bent on destroying the Department of Education, they'd have some members who could add and subtract correctly.

To further demonstrate the GOP's disdain for math, at Tax.com, David Cay Johnston wrote about the results of the Bush 2000 tax cuts. He says that once the Bush tax cuts went into place, "Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels... Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts." So, tinkle-down economics doesn't work? Johnston goes on to say:

The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000.

But wait, aren't those the people (those making more than $200-$250K) who the GOP says need tax cuts so that they can create new jobs? Why didn't they create new jobs?

Johnston is no political hack. He's an economist and he's crunched the numbers. And you can see that he harbors no animosity toward the GOP. Here's how he sees the problem with their economic theories:

Ignore the cynics who say the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, in Wasilla, and on the airwaves care only about the rich. I don't believe that. I think they are captive to economic theories few of them understand and that are simplistic in the extreme.

Here's what Johnston calls the "hard empirical facts":

The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.

This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals.

Johnston produces many tables of the number he has crunched. They are all located here:
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9

Take a look for yourself and see you think the GOP has any clue about economic policy. I shudder to think how deep a hole our economy would be in now if McCain had won the presidency in 2008. After all, that fall he claimed that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Glenn Beck's Chalkboard - A Secret Message

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:29:00 +0000

There is a secret message hidden on Glenn Beck's chalkboard:

(Hint: it has something to do with Rupert Murdoch's -- primary News Corp shareholder -- business relationship with Saudi billionaire Prince Al Waleed bin Talal -- secondary News Corp shareholder. Ironically, Fox News is lambasting the NYC "mosque" as being funded by a terrorist - the very same prince!)

A downloadable PDF flyer is here (containing more information) - feel free to distribute!

Fox News Is Terrorism

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:36:00 +0000

OMG, is Fox News evil or stupid? It may be impossible to determine.

The head of The Kingdom Foundation - excoriated by Fox as a terrorist funder - is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp!!!

Watch here: Fox Is Terrorism.

Thanks to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show for exposing the stupid/evil lie that the main stream media is too conservative and lazy to report.

The Lies of Glenn Beck

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:54:00 +0000

I keep thinking Beck has stepped off the edge with each succeeding lunatic theory he espouses. But he keeps outdoing himself. Yesterday he attempted to link President Obama to the New Black Panther Party. You have to see it. And after seeing it, if you think Beck is an honest journalist, then you ought to get back on your meds.

Here is a good, up-to-date listing of Glenn Beck's lies. What a loon.

Immigrants Lower Crime - Another Right-wing Mythbuster

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 13 May 2010 23:30:00 +0000

Wingnuts in Arizona and other places claim that illegal immigration increases crime rates. That never passed the sniff test for me, because anyone with any street sense knows that illegal immigrants lay low and try to not make any waves so that they don't call attention to themselves.

This study shows that immigrants have a lowering effect on crime. In fact, it states that "first-generation immigrants were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than third-generation Americans."

In the bizzarro world of Arizona, "statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the FBI indicate that both the number of illegal crossers and violent crime in general have actually decreased in the past several years."

According to the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Institute, proponents of the bill "overlook two salient points: Crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century's worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born."

Check out the basic raw data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website:

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

Spill Baby, Spill

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:08:00 +0000

An Open Letter to President Obama
----------------------------------

Dear President Obama,

I live in Virginia and am strongly opposed to your plan to expand offshore oil drilling. "High tech" oil operations are not safe or clean. The current disaster in the Gulf shows us what the latest in offshore drilling technology can do for us: death, environmental havoc, and negative impacts to local businesses.

If you want to implement Sarah Palin's "drill baby drill" mantra, then all I have to say is "spill baby spill".

I am exasperated with your dismal environmental protection record. BP's offshore spill is the last straw.

I need a commitment from you to end ALL new proposals for offshore oil drilling. Instead of risking our lives, our jobs, our coasts, our clean air, and our security by perpetuating our addiction to oil, it's time to build a clean energy economy that means more jobs, less pollution, and real energy independence.

Obama's Health Plan has Many Republican Ideas in It

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:07:00 +0000

"Socialized medicine" is just fear-mongering, but makes for good headlines. The current broken health care system allows insurance bureaucrats to deny care, to ration coverage, and to select doctors. The plan on the table is not perfect, but it will help ~30 million people get coverage. If you like your current plan you can keep it.

A lot of Republican ideas are in Obama's plan - including breaking down state barriers - but it seems to be more fun to say no than to accept the commonalities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022403657.html

"It will allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines, a favorite idea of Republican House members including Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.)."

"It embraces the pooled purchasing options for small businesses championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)."

"...letting people save on their premiums if they participate in proven employer wellness programs, a proposal supported by Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.). "

"...it would eliminate caps on benefits, a step that has been supported by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)."

"Republicans including Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) have backed one of the proposal's key elements: state-based, health insurance marketplaces..."

etc.

Health Care Satisfaction - Should I Stay or Should I Go?

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:15:00 +0000

Why are "compassionate conservatives" so intent on thwarting Obama's health care overhaul? Because "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. Common questions I see raised in the blogosphere and by my conservative Facebook friends are "why should the government run it?" and "illegal immigrants will benefit too much from it" and recently, "if our health care system is so bad, why is a Canadian Prime Minister coming to the U.S. for a heart operation?"

The answer to the first question, why should the government run it, is twofold. First, the government won't run it. That is a common fear-mongering talking point. Second, if the government does not step in to change the system, then who will? My oxymoron friend say "Americans will donate to causes and help the poor". Well, some are doing that now, but not enough to help tens of millions of people. And nothing is stopping anyone from doing this - they can do it right now. That is the broken system we currently have.

Illegal immigrant fears are, in my opinion, veiled racism and more fear mongering. First, there is language in the current bills to prevent illegals from gaining access. There is less likelihood that illegals would benefit from the proposed system than they now benefit from the current system.

And for those who think our current system is so great, please realize that lots of americans go to mexico for health care:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-31-mexico-health-care_N.htm

Also, many americans are outsourcing their health care to india (for major surgeries):
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/090724/medical-outsourcing-india

Why outsource? Cost. Health care is too expensive in the U.S. And as an added benefit, tens of millions of American citizens are not covered.

Here's a handy "medical tourism" cost comparison chart:
http://www.medicaltourismassociation.com/procedures.html

Note my previous posting that included the National Geographic chart showing cost vs. life expectancy. The following chart compares cost to satisfaction - the U.S. scores poorly on all measured parameters:

"The disparity between how much the United States spends on healthcare and how satisfied people are with their personal health makes the country a unique case. While the United States has the highest per-capita total health expenditures of any country in the OECD, Americans report relatively average levels of perceived health, according to Gallup's Personal Health Index."

The above chart and quote come from the following report:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117205/Americans-Not-Feeling-Health-Benefits-High-Spending.aspx

Health Care Costs vs. Life Expectancy

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:34:00 +0000

"The U.S. spends more on medical care per person than any country, yet life expectancy is shorter than in most other developed nations and many developing ones. Lack of health insurance is a factor in life span and contributes to an estimated 45,000 deaths a year." - National Geographic Magazine, January 2010.

The following chart from National Geographic is just data. Unbiased, cold, hard data. The thin red line starting at the upper left part of the chart and slanting downwards represents U.S. data; the thin red line lower on the chart represents Mexico data -- two countries that do not have universal health care.

It looks like Mexico (and many other countries) get more bang for their bucks/dinero/euros/yen.

Maya Lin - Unchopping a Tree

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:50:00 +0000

Maya Lin - Unchopping a Tree from What is Missing? Foundation on Vimeo.

Try balancing the budget

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:28:00 +0000

Do you think balancing the budget is easy? Try your hand at it with this tool:

(and compare your results to mine!)

Palin likes... science? Give me a break.

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:09:00 +0000

Of all people, Sarah Palin (someone who reads "all" newspapers and magazines) was granted an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. I checked to see if today was April Fools Day, but apparently it isn't.

Palin has flip-flopped! She was actually against science before she was for it.

Let's look at a few of her statements (quoted italics are Sarah's words from the op-ed):

"I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science." I am going to quote a source because it sums it up much better than I could: "Sarah Palin has supported aerial hunting since taking office despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, the American Society of Mammalogists, and more than 120 other scientists have called for a halt to the program, citing its lack of scientific justification and despite opposition from many hunters who see it as violating the sportsmen's ethic of fair chase." (http://www.defendersactionfund.org/releases/090308.html). Also, about a year ago Palin denigrated "fruit fly research" as a waste of tax dollars, yet fruit fly research has led to advances in autism research (http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/biotech/story/1809660/).

"...I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species..." Funny, it was under the Bush administration in 2007 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to list the polar bear as threatened – based on scientific analysis from the U.S. Geological Service (PDF: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf).

"We can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes." Palin has flip-flopped on this, initially stating that climate change is not man-made (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html), then later changing her position to it being very likely as she adapted to her running mate John McCain's views (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/palins-change-on-climate-change/). Now, who is playing politics with the climate?

"We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs." No, actually, we can't say that. Emissions reductions are projected to reduce health care costs for people with respiratory ailments (http://www.kelowna.com/2009/11/26/carbon-reduction-strategies-have-health-benefits-study-millions-of-deaths-could-be-avoided-by-getting-out-of-cars-breathing-cleaner-air/). Efficiency and energy savings will occur over the life-cycle of factories, institutions, and residences, providing long-term benefits that conservatives are quick to dismiss (PDF: http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/download/jci798s.pdf). Additionally, emission reduction and energy efficiency programs are projected to create jobs (http://www.nce.co.uk/most-popular/sustainability-news/carbon-emissions-working-from-the-top-down/5208935.article and check out just a few of the sites posting carbon emission jobs: http://www.sustainlane.com/green-jobs, http://www.job-search-engine.com/keyword/carbon-emissions), but instead, Palin chooses to use typical fear-mongering about job loss in her uneducated arguments.

I also find it funny that Palin cites what other governments are doing (in Europe and Australia), as she is someone who has such little understanding of foreign policy (http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/palin-4/).

I also find it revealing that Palin wants creationism taught in science classes (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want/).

I am disappointed in The Washington Post for giving a "personality" like Palin a soapbox -- especially in an area (science) in which they have no knowledge and zero credibility. I now expect to see op-eds from Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, Stephen Colbert, Joe the Plumber, and The Family Guy on such topics are brain surgery and high fashion.

Obama - The Honeymoon is Over

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:35:00 +0000

Obama is not a liberal.

From continuing with the Bush bailouts, to keeping the Bush/Cheney secrecy policies, to his inaction on gay marriage, to shooting more missiles into Pakistan, if anyone thinks Obama is a Liberal, they are mistaken. Now he is selling clearcutting rights to a roadless rain forest -- and the government will probably build the roads. The honeymoon is now officially over for me.

Obama Approves Logging Contract For Largest US Rain Forest

Purple America -- or, Take those Red States and Shove Them

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:49:00 +0000

The typical depiction of the 2008 red vs. blue electoral map looks like this:

It's a big improvement over the 2004 map, but it sure does seem top have a lot of red on it. The reason for that is that many red states take up a lot of real estate, but have very few people in them. Wyoming, for example, has about as many people in it as the city of Washington, DC. Yet Wyoming is huge and gets painted red, compared to the blue dot of DC.

Thanks to a professor of physics at the University of Michigan, there are now maps that represent the population of a state instead of its geographic size. These maps are called cartograms. Here is the one for 2008:

Now you can see why Obama was elected. Most of the country is "blue".

You can read more about it here, where he also colors the states red, blue, and purple based on the percentage of people who voted each way. For example, if a county voted 51% for Obama and 49% for McCain, is it really blue, or is it almost a perfect mix of red and blue (purple)? This is a purple map of America:

And here is the purple cartogram:

Pretty cool, eh? OK you purple Americans -- let's work together to make this country a better place and let's not give in to the Bush/Cheney/Rove/McCain process of trying to divide us. We have more in common with each other than Bush-McCain have with us. Time to get to work.

Obama is Pro-Life

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:21:00 +0000

I am quite pleased that U.S. voters denounced the policies of George W. Bush and the damage he has inflicted upon our nation and upon the world. This so-called pro-life president has presided over hundreds of executions, both at governor of Texas and as president. He has waged war on the poor by his unfair tax policies that favor wealthy CEOs. He tried to wage war on the elderly by attempted to privatize Social Security. He has waged war on the health of every American by reducing our air and water quality. Bush conducted a preemptive war in Iraq based upon lies. According to Jesus -- Bush's favorite "philosopher" -- we should love our enemies, turn the other cheek, heal the sick, and feed the poor. Bush has been an anti-Jesus in many ways. John McCain would have continued Bush's war, his tax policies, and would have reduced the availability of health care.

Thank you America for electing Barack Obama!

According to Catholics for Obama:

Is Barack Obama Really Pro-Life?
The answer is "yes." Looking through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching, Senator Obama has spent his entire career striving for the common good. He supports health care programs that will cover all Americans, a living wage for working families, and solutions that allow distressed families to stay in their homes. And rather than trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, an ineffective strategy for 40 years, Senator Obama will reduce abortions. How? By promoting health care for pregnant women and better infant care, day care and job training. In fact, data has shown that social and education programs actually reduce abortions.

Additionally, Obama worked with the poor in the slums of Chicago. Here is more from the Catholics for Obama website:

Before he was a devoted husband and father, or a U.S. Senator, or a presidential candidate of historic accomplishments, Barack Obama took a job working as a community organizer for a group of 8 Catholic parishes in one of the nation’s largest cities. With funding from the U.S. Bishops and working for three years out of an office in a Catholic church rectory, he embarked on a campaign to empower the lives of thousands of people who were suffering through economic circumstances not unlike what has befallen our country today. This booklet tells the story of his early exposure to Catholicism, compares the contours of his public life with the Catholic Social Tradition, and explores the reasons why many Catholics will be enthusiastically voting in 2008 to elect Barack Obama as the next president.

George W. Bush and John McCain are Pro-Death and Pro-Rich.

George W. Bush has been the anti-Jesus. In the past eight years, John McCain has turned into W's cheerleader. Let's not forget that Bush was handed jobs by his dad -- jobs he did not work hard at and did not deserve. He was an alcoholic who nearly abandoned his family. John McCain would have flunked out of the Naval Academy (assuming he could have ever gotten in) and should have flunked out of flight school but for his admiral father and the legacy of his admiral grandfather. John McCain committed adultery -- cheating on his first wife with his current wife (and Cindy McCain was a drug addict and stole drugs from a charity she ran -- which she could only do because of the wealth her father amassed selling alcohol). John McCain has cheated on taxes, has been involved in financial scandal (Keating 5) and lied about his several plane crashes in his biography. And there is so much more that is immoral about these men. Bush and McCain are not honorable men and they are no friends of the poor, the sick, the destitute. Yet, because they say they are "pro-life", the Church endorses them and coerces its followers toward them.

Pro-life Christians who support either Bush or McCain represent the kind of illogical and hypocritical militancy that caused me to run from the Catholic church.

Following the Election Results

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:50:00 +0000

Get out and Vote for Obama!

Here is a cool widget that you can use to track the election results today:

May the force be with us.

Report Voting Problems

noreply@blogger.com (Charcoal Moon) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:01:00 +0000

There are several resources that you can use to report problems at polling places. Here are a few ways to do it:

To report a problem or for general elections/voting questions:

Call: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
Email: help@866ourvote.org
Twitter the problem: http://www.866ourvote.org/page?id=0057

ACLU Voting Rights Project: 877-523-2792

A few basics to help you out:

1. Bring ID. A driver's license or voting card are best. A passport or military ID are also good. Some places will also take a phone or utility bill with your name and address on it (you need to check your local laws). Some states (like Virginia) will allow you to vote without ID if you are not a first-time voter and if you sign an "Affirmation of Identity".

2. If you are not on the voting list, ask the poll worker to call the general registrar to double-check if you are on the official list.

3. If all else fails, state that you want to cast a provisional ballot.