This has nothing to do with anything in the news. I just liked this shot I took down by the river Sunday.
Determined to get something up before the day was out, here are some possible topics:
- SC ranks No. 1 for deadly violence against women — Probably the most shameful ranking that our state has. Our rate is more than twice the national average. And of course, most murdered women knew their killer.
- N. Korea says it has restarted its nuclear facilities, threatens U.S. — According to Kim Jong “Psycho” Un, we just made the list, buddy…
- Support of Trump Steady as Clinton’s Slips, Poll Finds — So on the one hand we have bad news for Hillary, on the other, terrible news for the country. In just two months, Hillary’s support has plunged from 71 percent to 42 percent among Democratic women. Yeah, really…
- YouTube ‘dancing baby’ case prompts ruling affirming Fair Use — Sounds to me like good news for bloggers. I think. Not sure…
Related Posts
I’m not surprised that Trump’s number has remained among Republican prospective voters. Isn’t his schick in line with what many of us have become. “They” are the problem. Making money is the measure of a person. We’ll be the toughest kid on the block and nobody will “mess with us.” We seem to care little about facts – we just make claims, and those few in the news media who examine those claims are ignored. He holds a majority (about 25%) of a minority (Republican voters, about 35%.) That’s about 9%, and no surprising figure, just an annoyance that it gets him so much electronic ink. Anybody surprised that there are 9% falling for his spaghetti throwing?
As to Hillary, I think two main things are at work. She has been under constant assault since the Republicans and right wing suspected he might run and win – mostly character attacks. Deny it if you wish, her candidacy is seen as a threat because she could win. No need to attack her positions if you can attack her persona and get the news to follow that. The second thing at play is Sanders starting to get his message out (but not through the media), being seen as a possible alternative by those of us who don’t prefer Hillary. He refuses to play the personal attack game, stresses actual specific policies and even legislation, and often reminds the media that there are more important things than “horse-race” coverage and bumper sticker headlines. He even refuses to caricature other candidates’ positions but will critique proposals. The larger public may be more ready for a serious discussion than the political news media expect.
“No need to attack her positions if you can attack her persona and get the news to follow that.”
Is the investigation by the FBI an investigation of her persona? Is it a persona issue to cavalierly mishandle classified information? Is it a persona issue for her to repeatedly make demonstrably false statements about her mishandling of classified information? Is it a persona issue for the individual who set up the UNCLAS server to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to questioning?
Yeah, and according to a calculation by the WSJ, those specific proposals from Bernie have a price tag of $18 trillion. Now that’s serious…
A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.
Dirksen said that back in the 60s, when a billion WAS real money.
But in this case, we’re talking TRILLIONS…
And if the WSJ said it, it must be true, right? They are the authority on all things economic, right?
And yet, here’s what the Center for Economic and Policy Research has to say about that:
“Much of the fright factor disappears when we realize that $15 trillion of this $18 trillion comes from the WSJ’s estimate of the cost of Sanders’ universal Medicare program. That is a considerable chunk of change, but as Kevin Drum and others have pointed out this will not be new money out of people’s pockets. For the most part this is money what employers are now paying for their workers’ health care insurance. Instead, under a universal Medicare system the government would get this money in tax revenue. Since Canada and the other wealthy countries with universal Medicare-type systems all have much lower per capita health care costs than the United States (the average is less than half the cost), in all probability we would be paying less for our health care under the Sanders’ system than we do now.
This still leaves $3 trillion for us to get frightened over, and this still looks like a really big number. As a point of reference, GDP over the next decade is projected at roughly $240 trillion. This makes the cost of the rest of Sanders’ plans equal to less than 1.3 percent of GDP.
Should we worry about that? The increase in annual military spending from 2000 to the peaks of Iraq/Afghanistan wars was roughly 1.8 percent of GDP. This was also the size of military buildup that took place under President Reagan. Jeb Bush is proposing to cut taxes by roughly this amount if he gets elected.
In short, the additional spending that Senator Sanders has proposed is not trivial, but we have seen comparable increases in the past for other purposes. We can clearly afford the tab, the question is whether free college, rebuilding the infrastructure, early childhood education and the other items on the list are worth the price.”
I agree with M. Prince’s assessment. This would not be $15 trillion in taxes that would have to be raised, although I suspect they’d raise the current Medicare % — and it should be raised on EVERYONE not just the “rich”. If single payer is the answer, everyone should pay into it at the same rate.
I would hope a Sanders presidency would result in a major shift in spending from military to his key programs. I’d vote for him if he committed to major cuts in military spending. At least 25%.
Between needing to spend less on the military or to spend more, it is far likelier that it would be wiser to spend more.
Not at the same rate: the poorer you are, the greater the percentage of your income is spent on necessities like food, shelter and transportation. It’s the marginal propensity to consume. That’s why progressive tax rates are actually fairer.
If you want “free” healthcare, it should not be a problem to allocate 5% of your income to it. The rich will still be paying more than their share.
Actually, it wouldn’t occur to me think, “And if the WSJ said it, it must be true….” Although it IS, along with the NYT, one of the very best papers in this country.
But the reason for giving the source is to put the onus on the source for accuracy. I don’t say a certain thing is true; I say that this or that source says it’s true.
It’s an important point that is crucial to journalists.
The unfortunate thing, of course, is that people on the left will immediately want to discount it if it’s from the Journal, and people on the right will want to dismiss anything that NPR or the NYT report.
And they’re all wrong to do so. All news organizations are fallible, but those are three of the best…
The WSJ piece leaves out a few things. The 18 Trill over 10 years replaces just under 24 Trill that would already be spent under our present scenario (including employer and private paid insurance). It simply shifts a lot of private spending into a single-payer system and actually saves about 4.5 trill by squeezing administrative costs and lowering cost increases. In addition to those savings, out-of-pocket costs for patients are greatly lowered. The WSJ is what it is. Don’t accept its editorial (Rupert Murdoch ownership) statements as reliable.
Also, I don’t think “persona” is the word you’re looking for. It’s “character.”
And the idea that the email issue is manufactured by political enemies just won’t fly. People across the political spectrum have been dismayed by first the fact of her private server, and then by the way she has responded to calls for transparency…
The email issue isn’t a manufactured scandal. It simply isn’t what we should be front-paging in the election. I’m disappointed in the private server use, but I think it’s a convenient weapon being used and blown out of proportion by people who oppose her as a candidate.
How about this for a little conversation?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/index.html
Well, that’s a pretty serious crime. I think the technical legal term is “building a clock while named Ahmed…”
Well, and taking it to school, where, one assumes, he is known already?
More than just “most” women knew their murderer—almost all did. Also note the high number of gun deaths, and that deaths most often follow arguments.
I posit that if guns were not so prevalent in our homes, arguments would be far less likely to result in deaths, and since these are domestic situations, often kids are present….so many lives ruined.
So if one knows of an abusive relationship, what is one to do?
http://www.thehotline.org/
And perhaps now would be a good time to revisit the series on domestic violence in SC that won the Charleston paper the Pulitzer…
I meant what can/should one do when the abused won’t act.
We talk about this problem as if there is a way to solve it; but I’m not sure what one can do in the earlier stages, even when one can see where things are headed for another. The problem with domestic violence is that it is the abuser that we as a society need to find away to address – but instead we wait until later (too late) and then focus on the victim.
If this is a cycle of violence problem than we need to address that. Otherwise we are just tidying up; not problem solving.
SisterCare of Columbia is having a fundraising event on Thursday October 22. Music, food, and drinks provided. $100 a ticket. I’ll be going.
http://sistercare.org/event/13th-annual-song-bird-cafe/
They also accept items for donation to the women who are served by the organization. I frequently drop off a bag full of hotel shampoos/lotions/conditioners from my (and my son’s) travels.
Also, Revente’s Second Chances supports the Women’s Shelter, and accepts donations of gently worn clothing, shoes, etc. for men and women, and tchotchkes, and books and old magazines (!), and I drop off my extra toiletry samples there. They also outfit clients of the shelter and homeless veterans for jobs and job interviews. It’s on Millwood, just up from Dreher.
I love that place on the river, as long as the chicken plant isn’t especially fragrant…dogs like it because it is often fragrant, plus geese.
About a half mile downriver, in a sunnier area, there were a LOT of Canada geese pausing on the water for some respite on their journey south, with Vs of them arriving and leaving while we passed by…
and plenty just hang out here year round…
And maybe they were permanent residents. But the ones landing were coming from the north, and those taking off were headed downstream.
Also, it was such a pleasantly cool day, one in which you can feel the seasons changing. So that put a certain spin on my perception of what the birds were up to…
I think maybe some come from up north and stay and some head south from here. Not up on my migratory birds…
Big birds tend to land and take-off into the wind – just like planes.
I think Canada Geese are often no longer migratory birds and protecting them, in the times of year when they shouldn’t be in a place, only encourages them to hang around making a mess.