Posts tagged "conservative"

Radio Talker Paul McGuire Says, “Conservative Talk Radio Suffers from Fahrenheit 451 Factor & Has Turned Into “Republican Radio”

Radio Talker Paul McGuire Says, “Conservative Talk Radio Suffers from Fahrenheit 451 Factor & Has Turned Into “Republican Radio”

(PRWEB) June 9, 2005

Syndicated radio talk show host Paul McGuire says, “Conservative talk radio suffers from Fahrenheit 451 Factor when it comes to President George W. Bush.”

Paul McGuire, whose conservative talk show host is syndicated and broadcasts from KBRT in Los Angeles believes, “Conservative talk radio show hosts have one standard for the Republican Party and George W. Bush, and another standard for the Democratic Party and someone like Hillary Clinton. Like the firemen in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 they censor anything they don’t believe in.”

Paul McGuire who hosts a live 3-hour talk show from Los Angeles from 3 p.m.-6 p.m. is the author of 14 books. He is a frequent guest on CNN and the Fox News Network. But, McGuire said, “Every time I turn on a conservative talk radio show its like I am hearing apologists for the Republican Party. They act like they are Sportscasters rooting for their favorite team. I think its boring radio and people are tuning out.”

McGuire actively campaigned for President George W. Bush and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, while doing a Fox News Network interview in L.A., Governor Gray Davis walked over to McGuire and thanked him for his show. This surprised McGuire who had actively supported Schwarzenegger.

McGuire said, “Except for some good economic ideas from Arnold, there is no difference between him and Governor Gray Davis. Yet, conservative talk radio show hosts in California protect Schwarzenegger. On the national level President George W. Bush has run up a staggering deficit, created a Patriot Act that has the power to create a police state, failed to protect the borders, and he gets a free pass from most conservative radio shows. If Bill Clinton or a Hillary Clinton had done this, they would have gone berserk. Conservative talk radio is all over Howard Dean, and Dan Rather. But they are living in a glass house.”

Paul McGuire, who is a strong conservative, believes that “conservative talk radio is writing its own death warrant by carrying water for the Republican Party. Unless they develop some integrity they are becoming exactly like the liberal media they criticize. We don’t have truth, we have propaganda.”

Contact:

949-223-3813

###

©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

Why Did Canada Bow it’s Head to The U.S.? (1 of 3)

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA CANNABIS HIGH MARIHUANA MEDICAL WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL PIPE BONG JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS HASH GANJA HEMP legal cops POT PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW ACTIVIST HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE conservative NEW YORK JERSEY CHRONIC NWO freedom GMO LIBERTARIAN ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET toke Sinsemilla HOSSER420 BAKED MSNBC CNN CBS marc emery BARRY COOPER love health cancer prop 19 California fox news ABC bp

Duration : 0:15:0

Read more…

Ron Paul 2012: Instruments of Tyranny

I added captions!

They’re mostly in sync with the video, except for a couple parts.

I’ve gotten requests to put up a version without background music, so if it’s too loud, you can watch that here:

The songs in the video are “Lazy Gun” and “Move On” by Jet, from the album “Get Born”, which you can buy at Amazon (or where music is sold):

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Born-JET/dp/B0000AQVCL

(Making sure the video doesn’t get muted, hahaha).

This video contains footage from C-SPAN, and other networks.

Duration : 0:9:41

Read more…

RON PAUL RIPS INTO THE MARIJUANA BULL!

MARIJUANA CANNABIS MARIHUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZE WEED 420 4/20 OBAMA RON PAUL JACKSON DOPE GRASS BONG RIP JOINT HITS KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NWO NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS HASH GANJA HEMP SEX LIBERTARIAN RAGE LEGALIZATION POT ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET LIBERAL COMPASSIONATE PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW EDUCATION ACTIVISM HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro HIGH ECONOMY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT NJ MARY JANE hosser420 NORML MPP legalize conservative freedom GMO truth

Duration : 0:5:35

Read more…

Churchill’s During World War II and Its Aftermath

The growing rapacity of German gluttony forced Hitler to take over Austria in 1938 and threaten Czechoslovakia. In Britain this produced a national crisis which resulted in Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s meeting Hitler in September 1938 at Berchtesgaden. Chamberlain returned from the meeting announcing ‘peace in our time’ which was abruptly smashed when Hitler invaded Prague in March 1939. Soon after given Western weakness and hesitation to work with the Soviet Union Stalin formed a pact with the Nazi’s guaranteeing Russian security and the partitioning of Eastern Europe between the Bear and the Hun. There was nothing to stop Hitler from destroying Poland and then turning his malevolence towards the West.

Public anger which had exploded after the subjugation of Prague had forced Chamberlain to give the improvident pledge to guarantee Poland’s security. Militarily and rationally this was an impossibility. The British did not possess a large enough standing army to lend help to Poland to stem a German advance and the logistics of transferring military relief to Poland was never calculated. Only the Navy was possessed war making power and there was little the Navy could do to defend Poland. She was invaded on the first of September and the Second World War began. Churchill was immediately recalled into power as First Lord of the Admiralty – the very same post he had assumed control of 25 years previous on the eve of the First World War.

From day one of the war Churchill was the true Leader of Britain. Chamberlain was defeatist and broken hearted remarking bitterly how his life’s work was now tragically sundered. He did not have the capability to rouse a nation and persevere to the bitter end. Winston as Naval War Lord was not only attacking the enemy on the seas but combating defeatist elements at home and trying to prod the blind neutral nations into action. Only Churchill could utter with true conviction and spirit, “Now we have begun; now we are going on; now with the help of God, and with the conviction that we are the defenders of Civilisation and Freedom, we are going on, and we are going on to the end.”

The Royal Navy was the only strong force that Britain possessed and from the opening bell the naval squads were on the offensive. Churchill worked at least an 18 hour day. Plans were drawn for a blockade of the German coast, convoy arrangements were made; mine-sweeping was instituted, enemy raiders harassed and submarines sunk. By the end of 1939 the Royal Navy had sunk half of all German submarines. However the war was only in its infancy. Great battles loomed.

On May 10 1940 the Germans began their vicious assault on the West. The Hun streamed into Holland and Belgium. That night the King of England sent for Churchill and asked him to form a government. Thus began the creation of the Churchill legend and his enshrinement into history. The story of the British war effort under Churchill falls into two distinct categories – the struggle to survive and the establishment of the alliance with the USA and Russia and the ultimate destruction of Germany and Japan.

The battle to survive covers the twelve or so months that Britain fought Germany completely alone in 1940-1. This period covered the dazzlingly quick disappearance of France under the heel of the Gestapo in June of 1940 to the German attack on Russia in June of 1941. This grim year brought horrible highlights; the partition of France, the formation of the pro-Nazi French Vichy government, the battle of Britain, the blitz on London, the beginning of the North African desert war, the defeat of Greece, and the British Commando raids along the Norwegian and French coasts.

It was during this sombre episodic current of ruin that Churchill became the most inspirational Leader of the Western world in the 20th century. He portrayed the towering, implacable fierceness of a proud nation, and of liberty, and expressed every free man’s tenacity to fight in words that no other could have summoned forth. Winston’s knowledge of military matters and his close operational vigilance over all affair animated and excited the British war effort with a boldness that astonished. British prestige in this desperate hour reached its highest ever pitch. The world over prayed for its salvation and success.

The immense energy and illimitable skill that throbbed and turned in his heart and mind was at last released from its bondage and given full scope of use. Churchill no longer knew the frustration of ideas that could not be brought alive, vitality that could not be expended, or ingenious approaches that could not be tested. The supreme challenge was met by a man of supreme stature. The Government was turned upside down. Routine was destroyed. Twenty four activity the rule with Churchill as the master organiser. All knew their place and role. Churchill immediately established a small War Cabinet to make effective and quick decisions. At first the membership was four which grew during the war to seven. This tiny all powerful directing force was supported by sixty or seventy other ministers of all parties who formed the core membership of the Coalition government but responsible only for their own departments. As Churchill pointed out, it was only the members of the War Cabinet, “who had the right to have their heads cut off on Tower Hill if we did not win.”

Never before in modern history did one man have so much power. Churchill was everywhere. He not only controlled the government but the operational side of the conflict as well. He was not only the King’s First Minister but Leader of the House of Commons and, even more important Minister of Defence also. The military Chiefs of Staff instead of reporting to their own ministries reported instead directly to Churchill. The Joint Planning Committee – a body of professional staff officers of all three services – worked under Churchill as part of the Ministry of Defence rather than under the Chiefs of Staff. Thus by permission of the War Cabinet and Parliament Churchill became the penultimate democratic Leader.

No one can study Churchill’s part in the war without being staggered by the colossal output of interests, dictation’s, orders, speeches, broadcasts, plans, promotions and prunings. In military matters he covered an almost incomprehensible range of activity. When Britain stood alone and the nation was bracing itself for the storm of invasion Churchill was racing about the government demanding attack plans, offensive action and targets of British incursions. He demanded the end of the passive war. Thus the commando raids were born. He participated during the war in every operational plan and strategy demanding full technical elaboration’s and missives to be sent to his attention. “During the war,” the American General Eisenhower later testified, “Churchill maintained such close contact with all operations as to make him a virtual member of the British Chiefs of Staff; I cannot remember any major discussion with them in which he did not participate.”

Churchill’s power was dependent upon the War Cabinet. It is a tribute to his skill of persuasion that unlike Roosevelt or Stalin, who were by their constitutions absolute military leaders of their nation, Churchill exercised his authority only by the permission of the War Cabinet who were willing to grant this authority only so long as Winston commanded the confidence of Parliament. Much of Parliament’s confidence was bolstered by Churchill’s impassioned, humanised and soaring orations. No man or women in the British Commonwealth who heard on June 4 1940 that France was being devoured by the German beast, will forget the tingling of emotion and courage when Churchill uttered in a strange, hoarse voice: “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever he cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle until in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Another Leader may have uttered, “We will do what is necessary to win this war and persevere in its struggle until it is won. This government believes in the ultimate ability of our nation to come through to victory.” Or something to that effect. Very few would have evinced the crescendo of emotional “We shall’s” in a peroration. Churchill gave the roar to the British lion and heart to the British public. Romance, history, philosophy and leadership all running in the cloud-burst of Churchill’s speeches and leadership of the war effort. But though he carried his role with pride, prompt execution and relish in no way implies a cold heart or an acceptance of war’s carnage. The suffering that he saw, and he saw a lot with his own eyes as he inspected damage through Britain, on more than one occasion pushed him into tears. When Churchill saw a small shop in ruins and wondered out loud to his private secretary the anguish that the owner must feel to have his whole life exploded and ruptured so completely, he became so visibly upset that he resolved at that moment to compensate all damaged property with state payments. Thus the policy of war damage for private assets came into effect. If Churchill enjoyed the waging of war he certainly suffered from the anguish it induced and endeavoured to share its destruction with the common man and woman.

The second phase of the war lasted from the infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7 1941 until the end of the war. Until 1944 the British and Russian armies bore the brunt of the struggle against the demented German race. From early 1944 onwards the Americans assumed a greater share and responsibility of the war effort and began to relegate the British to a supporting role in the drive to victory. Roosevelt and Churchill met nine times during the war establishing a strong if short lived friendship. The Americans including Roosevelt were incorrectly convinced that Churchill and the British wanted to expand their Empire.

This calamitous suspicion allowed the Russians more freedom in Eastern Europe than the British would ever have tolerated. As early as 1943 with victory a matter of time and logistics Churchill implored the American leadership not to let Soviet ambition run unimpeded in Eastern Europe. The American reply was incredibly purblind and vague. It appears in scouring the documents and American communiqués that they trusted the Soviets to behave themselves more than their close allies the British ! Eisenhower and many of his chiefs remarked in letters and in meetings that they could not understand why the British constantly mixed politics and military affairs.

To the British this represented reality and the best hope to avoid another world war with the Soviets after the defeat of Germany. Churchill and his advisors even preached that upon the war’s closing everything necessary should be attempted to revive Germany as a bulwark against the pending Soviet menace. The Americans felt that such targets as Prague, Berlin and Vienna were unnecessary military ventures that would endanger the lives of their men. If the Soviets wanted to shed more life in attacking these seemingly remote locations than the Americans were content to let them. The British just shook their heads in dismay unable to impress the Americans with their superior logic. Victory was attained but it set the stage for the Cold War.

The fact that the British survived the early years of the war when Germany swept all before it and that the British evaded a complete national disaster at Dunkirk and defeated the Nazi’s in the air during the Battle of Britain, issued during the remainder of the war and for a short period after it, an inflated sense of self destiny and strength and even an isolationist mentality. The collective suffering and emotional agony endured by the entire British nation also gave express an imbued spirit of egalitarianism. The depth of this communal desire was the most profound in British history and exercised a new faith in social planning and cohesion. During Churchill’s premiership in the war the most celebrated social reconstruction document of the period was the report by William Beveridge which outlined a radical scheme of comprehensive social security, financed from central taxation. This new state aided social plan included maternity benefits, child allowances, universal health and unemployment insurance, old age pension and death benefits – an entire cradle to grave policy. From 1940-45 Britain moved more rapidly to the left than at any time in history a move marked by the important positions Labour ministers occupied in the war government.

At the end of World War II in 1945, Britain was still one of the Big 3 powers, indeed it was ranked as a great power, an illusion that held until about 1963. The British still had their empire in 1945 and in the ensuing years they could still produce great artists and Nobel prize winners, but much to the chagrin of Churchill and the leadership class British glory was long past. The rapid decolonisation of most of its empire — India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka — and parts of Africa shedded from British finance much unneeded expense and worry, and solidified Britain’s secondary role in world affairs subordinate to the USA and Russia.

Success in conflict notwithstanding the British electorate in the 1945 general election shockingly kicked Churchill and the Conservatives from office by an overwhelming share. For the third time the Labour party was called forth to govern. Churchill after leading the democracies to attain the supreme glories and garlands of success instantly found himself shorn of privilege and casted into opposition. It was a role he obviously did not appreciate. For Churchill defeat was only explained by the plain fact that people believed his government to be a war council, unprepared for the extended restructuring of society that peace demanded. Labour presented a sharper and more intelligent platform and catalogue of change. The Conservatives were quite content to rest upon Churchill’s name and ignore the organisation and deliverance of a viable alternative to the Labour programme.

Whilst Churchill harried the Labour government and began the rebuilding of the Conservative party to respond to public and peace-time pressure he began the personal memoirs of the great struggle and in the absence of anything else offered by the other leaders – Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman, or Hitler – Churchill was able to dictate on the best terms and in the most convincing language possible, his and Britannia’s exalted position in the struggle against evil. It was an incomparable success, ensuring that in times forward, historians would favourably compare the works of Thucydides and those of Churchill. Both men represented and recorded their times and events on an unparalleled scale.

What Churchill was able to offer the reader was a glimpse into the details of history’s most horrible man-made disaster. The wicked folly of the conflict was evident at the war’s end. Whole nations lay in ruins. Towns, cities, industrial plants and transportation facilities were erased. Food and life essentials were unavailable to great migratory populations. Cynicism and disillusionment in Europe and elsewhere bred the shift to the political left. Marxism replaced Fascism as an acceptable form of social order. Communism erupting from poverty, spread like an open wound across Asia and Europe. With the complete eradication of Nagasaki and Hiroshima the nuclear age dawned. Moral questionings loudly divided those in the West over the usage of weapons of such finality – especially against a prostrate Japan. Dropping two bombs three days apart on a nation that was in the process of trying to negotiate an exit from the war seemed to many morally reprehensible. It was an inauspicious beginning to the scientific era.

The United States and Russia emerged from the rubble of the war as opponents. Russia was mauled and mutilated by the war with over 20 million dead and whole sections of her country raped. The USA stood at war’s end possessing a massive ego and the greatest economic supremacy in history. The big two were joined by the little third – Great Britain – and the three during the war and after drove the discussions regarding the build up of the United Nations. Most vexing to the Allies in the construction of the United Nations Assembly was whether members were obliged to surrender part or all of their own independence to the new body in order to maintain peace. How would it be possible to invest such a supranational body with enough force to enforce decisions ? How would the large powers relate to the smaller in the decision making of such a forum ? At Moscow in 1943 the Big Three resolved many of these issues and in Washington in 1944, joined by China, hammered out the shape of the new international body. At the Yalta conference in 1945, the Big Three came to terms on the matter of securing for each of the major powers the right to veto decisions of the new international body. This allowed the creation of the UNO charter at San Francisco in April 1945 which clearly identified the principles and responsibilities of the new organisation. Fifty one founding nations signed the document and in September 1945 the UNO opened its headquarters in New York.

Comprising the UNO were principally the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Most power resided in the Security Council which was given the task of maintaining the peace. Five permanent members sit in the council; the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, China and France and six other nations are elected for two year terms as non-permanent members. The permanent members retained veto power with all resolutions needing the consent of the five permanent nations before passing.

In contrast to the Security Council the UNO General Assembly was shaped by all the member states each wielding one nation one vote rights. International problems are to be solved in an open forum and mandates need to be passed by majority vote. This effectively gives the smaller nations more voice in international affairs. The Secretariat acting as the permanent secretary of the UNO concerned itself with internal operations with its Secretary General the highest profiled member of the UNO, exerting wide diplomatic powers emanating from the prestige of the office.

Thus the founding of the UNO was an expression of hope by the survivors of the Second World War. Quickly this vision was marred and jaded by political ineptitude and quivering resolve by the UNO in major affairs. There was little effective work during the Cold War that could be resoundingly accomplished. This war which was contested by two sides that viewed the other as monolithic or controlling inimical forces, could never have been settled via diplomatic channels. The mental straitjackets of both sides; with the Soviet Union believing that the capitalist West controlled by a few monied financiers who desired the destruction of communism and especially the Soviet Union and which would never grant the Russians fair credit in defeating Hitler; and the West believing that Russia controlled the communistic movement world-wide and that communism and especially Russia wanted to overthrow the better functioning liberal states, could only end with the breakdown of one of the combatants. The demise of Marxism gave spring to the hope of a liberal-democratic world.

The major events since 1945 can be summarised in a short list;
- The Collapse of Communism
- The Triumph of Capitalism
- The beginning of the High Tech Era
- The Decline of the USA and the re-emergence of Europe, Japan and China
- The Fragmentation of parts of the world into tribes
- Ecological dislocation
- Growing disparity between the have and have-not nations
- Emerging militant Islamism
- Questioning over the role of the UNO

The most momentous and important event however has been the spread of globalism. Economically, morally, and spiritually people are viewing themselves regardless of race, kin, geography or circumstance as belonging to the entire human race and not a limited defined tribe. Though tribalism in some areas of the world is taking hold even within these identified units a greater consciousness is emanating out to the rest of the globe that though distinct there resides a desire and need to be integrated into a global framework. Economics, peace and ecological salvation commonsensically dictate this. So do the various images from space capturing a small blue ball in the surroundings of space. Somehow this humbles even the largest of egos. So even as, in some parts of the world, balkanisation is shattering mature states, the pieces will still be forced to bond not only together but somehow they will need to align themselves to the greater puzzle that resides outside their narrow borders. It is only by collective effort that the solutioning of poverty, ecological rapine, and the stoppage of war can be peacefully effected.

Churchill died just after the Cuban missile crisis during a bitter period of Cold War strife, which almost pushed the world into a nuclear confrontation. Though he felt certain of liberal-democracy’s triumph he did not see the maturity of his concept. And though he sustained an undying faith in the ability of man to overcome his worst problems we can be sure that without using the leadership skills presented through his example we will have a very difficult time indeed.

C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/churchills-during-world-war-ii-and-its-aftermath-700338.html

Should Al Gore go to prison for the Global Warming Hoax?

The science is now in and for the last 5 years, the planet is actually getting cooler. The Al Gore and the groupies that followed with movies, books and yes even legislation have perpetuated a lie that went worldwide. These are the same folks that what you to roll over for gov-health care

No. It is not a hoax. You have been lied to. 5, 10 years does not matter when it comes to Climate Change. You do Not know what you’re talking about.
Obviously you do not know how science works, and prefer listening to rants from conspiracy artists and conservative talk show host who will say anything for ratings. You have been lied to, you have been fooled.

Dixie Chicks: Reluctant Warriors in the Battle for America’s Soul

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man”. – Thomas Jefferson

“I don’t mind saying it’s a sad, sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a complete stranger. How in the world could the words that I said send somebody so over the edge that they’d write me a letter saying that I better shut and sing or my life will be over?” – from “Not Ready to Make Nice”; Dixie Chicks

WACKO in the name of Patriotism is still WACKO!

Whether it’s Donald Rumsfeld likening critics of the Iraq war to the appeasers of the Nazi movement, or Rush Limbaugh declaring that we absolutely should question the patriotism of anyone who is against the war, or Dick Cheney accusing those who oppose the war as hoping that America loses, punishing free-speech in the name of patriotism is simply WACKO. A corrosive mind-set has sprung forth in the national identity, a mind set that openly condemns and ridicules differing thoughts and unashamedly feeds on anyone who dares challenge presidential actions, especially actions related to war. The cloak under which this new bigotry shields itself is “patriotism”. Wacko in the name of patriotism – Wacko-Patriotism.

Theodore Roosevelt hated such behavior. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

George Washington said “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Mark Twain observed that “The government is merely a servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

All of this historic wisdom is falling on deaf ears. Government is indeed determining what is wrong or right, who is and isn’t a patriot. Disagreement with the President has become a crime, though for the time being at least, only in the court of public opinion and rhetoric. The jury prosecuting the commission of the crime wraps itself in the red, white and blue of Wacko-Patriotism. This movement has taken to the streets, the media, the PACs and even the halls of Congress. It has become the accusation d’jour. You can hijack any conversation, deflect any criticism, excuse any behavior and attack any opponent simply by injecting patriotism, or a lack of it, into the mix.

No one is immune to the voracious appetite of the beast, and thus it was that, undeterred by the sage warnings of our founding fathers, the Wacko-Pat movement unleashed its hysterical anti-patriotic obsession on the Dixie Chicks. And for what? Because lead singer Natalie Maines had the audacity to criticize President Bush for invading Iraq. Huh?

Never mind that 70% of the American people agree with Maines’ criticism. Never mind that an army of conservative Bush supporters have leveled much harsher criticism at Bush than the Chicks ever did. Never mind that the ENTIRE COUNTRY spoke loud and clear in November that they are sick and tired of the nasty rhetoric and misguided foreign policy. The Chicks are still paying the price for their outspokenness.

There is so much wrong with this picture that it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, that red white and blue piece of cloth you Wacko-Pats so fondly wave is called An American Flag. It represents the highest standard of freedom and democracy in the entire freaking world. It represents “The land of the free and the home of the brave”. Based on your logic, every revolutionary that stood up to King George in 1776, was a traitor who should just shut up. I guess it’s a darn good thing that the Revolution didn’t start in the country music bread basket of America. Someone might have burned the Declaration of Independence in protest!

Next, as you feverishly sharpen your fangs and your rhetoric on the Dixie Chicks, you should pay attention to this very limited Who’s Who of Bush critics, all of them Conservative, and all of them more critical of the President than the Chicks ever were:

Newt Gingrich – “The US went off a cliff in Iraq”

Kenneth Adelman, former Rumsfeld assistant, called Bush’s Iraq strategy “mind-bending incompetence” and “shameful”; described Bush’s national security team as “…they were deadly, dysfunctional.”

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and a staunch Bush advocate before the Iraq war – “the dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy in Iraq a disaster… you have to hold the President responsible.”

Pat Buchanan – “Iraq was an unnecessary war that may become one of the great blunders in U.S. history… He (Bush) should never have gone in!”

Shameful, dysfunctional, off-the-cliff, deadly, he never should have gone in to Iraq, greatest blunder in U.S. history. Yep, sure sounds like criticism of the President to me. Maybe the Wacko-Pats should write letters to Barnes … Noble threatening to never buy another thing if they don’t rid their shelves of the anti-American propaganda of these traitors? Maybe libraries and coffee houses could set up trash cans outside so the Wacko-Pats can show their unified disgust as they discard this un-American trash. Yeah! That will teach them. Any of you courageous middle-American country music fans want to send a death threat? That will definitely get them to shut up and … whatever, huh?

Now, what was the horrible disrespectful, insulting the troops, hate-America, unpatriotic slander that the Chicks said? Oh yeah. “We’re embarrassed that the President is from Texas.” That was it. Cutting satire, isn’t it? Yeah, easy to see why you’re all so outraged.

The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. While the Wacko-Pats earnestly call the Dixie Chicks sluts for speaking their minds, they tolerate the vulgar behaviors of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan – a trio of chicks that give all chicks a bad name – flashing their panty-less genitals and breasts in public, getting publicly drunk and acting like their value as human beings is limited to their bodies and their level of indecent behavior. Meanwhile, I don’t see any of you self-righteous, family values, macho patriot flag-wavers objecting to their slutty behavior. Is that all it takes to get your vote? Flash a tit or your crotch, show you can shotgun a Budweiser while smoking a cigarette, release a sex video, and BAM! You’re cool. Those bastions of American values seem to have no problem with certain slut-like antics. But, be a good wife and mother, take care of your family and dare to speak out about something you believe in, and they’ll fry your ass in the media, ridicule your lifestyle, try to destroy your livelihood and threaten to kill you. Ooooh. Makes one so proud, doesn’t it?

Come on cowboys, who would you rather have raising your kids? And all you country moms, which role model do you want your daughters following? What kind of woman do you want junior bringing home to Thanksgiving dinner?

Even now, three years after the initial frenzy, the mugging continues. In October 2006, NBC publicly refused to air the TV advertisements for The Dixie Chicks’ indy film “Shut Up And Sing”, stating that they were following a “policy of not broadcasting ads that deal with issues of public controversy… [and] cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush”. Hmm, could NBC be kissing some White House ass to compensate for their decision to refer to Iraq as a Civil War, contrary to the wishes of the President? Hey, can’t have those Wacko-Pats boycotting “ER”, can we? CBS, so far, has been the only major television network which has agreed to air the ads for the film.

Check out this heavily edited excerpt from an Ann Coulter column appearing on pugbus.net on October 30, 2006:

“NBC was right in refusing to air an ad for “Shut Up … Sing or We’ll Kill You, B****-a** Whore”, the fluffumentary “movie” about Blue-State-America’s favorite singing treasonistas, the Dixie Chicks. I have seen this piece of s***, people, and let me tell you, it was enough to make any god-fearing, barbeque-loving, towel-head-pussy-hating, truck-driving, ball-scratching man or woman want to commit road rage on those b****-ass whores, the Dixie Chicks.” Oh my, Ann. You’re so … eloquent. And I thought Annie was just a harmless, vitriolic, conservative humorist. Whew! Can you spell misogynist?

The demonizing of the Chicks isn’t the first time in history that a self-righteous minority sought to silence those who disagreed with its agenda. 2500 years ago, the corrupt Greek senate set out to silence Socrates. Given the opportunity to “shut up and… whatever”, Socrates refused to make nice with his critics and was forced to drink poison. Well, that’s one way.

Christopher Columbus was almost arrested by the powerful Spanish Inquisition because he suggested that (gasp!) the earth wasn’t flat in direct opposition to the established position of the Catholic Church. “Just Shut Up and draw your stupid maps, Chris!”

Alice Paul valiantly protested for Women’s Suffrage in 1920, which angered the male chauvinistic society of the times. During an attempted hunger strike while she was imprisoned in a mental hospital (for refusing to shut up), her “patriotic” captors forced metal tubes into her mouth while she was strapped helpless in an electro-shock chair which resulted in having to swallow her own vomit and endure a fractured jaw. I guess all you patriotic women (especially Coulter) would gladly give up your right to vote and would be much happier today if Alice had just followed the sincere pleas of her husband as he signed the legal papers which had her committed to the mental institution, “Why can’t you just stop this nonsense and be a good mother to our children?” (In other words, “Shut Up and … whatever”)

More recently, Joe Darby refused to shut up. He was with the MP unit guarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and accidentally came across the much publicized pictures showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Responding to his moral sense of right and wrong, Darby blew the whistle on what became an international scandal. He was labeled as “a traitor to his country” and “a coward who knows nothing about loyalty”. When his life was threatened and he had to move his family from his home town, critics continued the public onslaught. “Darby should be scared. What he did was wrong. He should have thought of the ramifications before he decided to open his big trap!!”, “He should have just turned a blind eye”. Oh yeah, Wacko-Pats do not like it when someone speaks out against authority. (Does it all make you proud, Annie? These are your god-fearing, barbeque-loving, ball-scratching men and women at work here.)

I can almost understand some men being angered or intimidated by The Dixie Chicks, especially if your view of women is that they should, well “shut up and… cook your dinner/take care of the kids/clean up the house/etc.”. These aren’t that kind of women which just might seem disrespectful to some macho dudes. But, no matter how testosterone-driven you are, if you admire such “guy “ traits as integrity, guts and persevering in the face of adversity, you ought to admire the Chicks. When faced with the choice between protecting their careers and livelihood , or standing up for what they believed in, they chose honor. How many of you macho patriotic guys out there could pass the test they’ve passed? When I was growing up we were taught to respect and defend that kind courage, not threaten to stomp it out. Of course, I never had the privilege of being a country music fan. Maybe that’s why I just don’t understand.

And I REALLY don’t understand what you women are so pissed about. These are decent, self-respecting ladies here. They’ve done more to demonstrate real dignity and equality than any politician in DC has in the last decade. Why aren’t you outraged at the Spears/Hilton/Lohan slut parade instead, which celebrates the lowest, most exploitable female traits? Maybe you’re pissed off because the Chicks have raised the bar on what it is to be a self-expressed woman and mother. Maybe they represent a level of freedom and independence that you wish you had but don’t because you happen to be living with one of those traditional guys that think you should “shut up and … whatever”. Sucks being you.

The most frightening thing about the Wacko-Pat mentality is that it seems to spring from the most tyrannical thinking of the 20th Century. Herman Goering, Hitler’s 2nd in command, at the Nuremberg trials said:

“Of course, the people don’t want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy … All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Whatdya think, Annie? Is this your kind of guy or what?

In closing, I have two things to say to The Dixie Chicks. First, I apologize for sitting on my ass and not writing this article sooner. I was lazy and you three, who have put your collective asses on the line, deserve better from your supporters. I won’t shut up now, though. You can count on that.

Second, you will get back to that place, Martie. And you’ll get there because you ladies are indeed warriors in the most traditional and honored sense of the word. Your iron will, indomitable spirit and love of truth cannot be squashed forever. It’s in your blood to write poetry and put it to music and that gift is more durable than Wacko-Pat rhetoric or corporate greed. I’m sorry you’ve had to endure all that’s happened, but thank you for doing it.

And oh yeah. F U T K!! (See the documentary if you don’t know what I mean!)

Fred Tutwiler
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/dixie-chicks-reluctant-warriors-in-the-battle-for-americas-soul-81143.html

Anti Poverty

Anti Poverty in USA

                          Even the wealthiest nation in the world like the United States does not escape the problem of poverty. This paper takes a critical look at poverty and anti-poverty policies in the United States. In this paper, I have argued that poverty is caused by several factors. This paper also discusses the liberal and conservative perspectives for reducing poverty in America. The conservatives have focused on individual factors such as wide wage gaps, breakdown of family, racial factors and other reasons while the liberals have focused on the structural transformation of the American economy to explain the persistence of poverty.  Since 1960, both the federal and state governments have been responding with policies that address the problem with mixed results. In this paper, I have analyzed the policies and have also recommended the possible ways to deal with this intractable nature of poverty.

                   According to Sen (1981), ‘the poor are those people whose consumption standards fall short of the norms, or whose income lie below that line’. The word "poverty" suggests destitution, an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. Over thirty-six million Americans live below the official U.S. poverty line (Blank, 2007). This means a family of three earns less than less than $ 16,000 or a single individual earns $10,300 per annum (Blank, 2007, p. 17). Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose jobs or face health emergencies. Job cuts, high rates of unemployment, foreclosures and high food and gas prices continue to stimulate policy formulation designed to improve the condition of the poor.

                     Poverty is integrally associated with misery and suffering. The lost potential of children in poor households and the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults are all intertwined with poor health, increased crime and broken neighborhoods. Childhood poverty typically leads to poor health care and high crime neighborhoods. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost the United States $500 billion each year, or about 4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (Blank, 2007, p.1).

                    One in eight Americans lives in poverty and poverty in the United States is far higher than in many developed nations (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p1). Inequality has reached record high. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19%) since 1929 (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p. 2). At the same time the poorest 20% of Americans held only 3.4% of the nation’s income (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p.2).

                    Colorado in spite of being surrounded by the beautiful Rocky Mountains and experiencing a cool, mountain climate has many homeless people. Scholars have identified that, a growing number of single parent households, a shortage of jobs for lower wage workers and a low rate of high school graduation have contributed to the growth of poverty in Colorado. The Colorado poverty rate has increased from 9.2% in 2000-2001 to 10.6% in 2005-2006 while the poverty rate of United States has increased from 11.5% in 2000-2001 to 12.5 % in 2005-2006 (Center on Law and Policy, 2006, p.1).  Most of these ill-fated poor people suffer from mental and health problems. 

Causes of Poverty

                        Policy analysts are trying to explore numerous perceived direct and indirect causes of poverty in the United States to formulate effective policies to alleviate poverty. The work of scholars such as Corley (2003), Sowell ( 2004), Iceland (2006), Jencks (1992), James Tobin (1993) and others have shown that the intractable nature of poverty is a result of not any one factor but of the interaction of a variety of causes. The breakdown of family and other social causes as well as the structural changes in the economy, have all contributed to society’s failure to eradicate poverty inspite of ardent efforts by policy analysts.

                   Individual Explanation of poverty mainly stresses the attitudinal or motivational factors and human capital factors. Thus lack of motivation among indigents causes poverty. Generous welfare programs sometimes affect the mind-set of recipients and they prefer to stay at home and enjoy the benefits rather than work outside. Murray (1984) argues that individuals prefer to remain on welfare because of insufficient motivation to come out from public welfare programs.

                  Formulation and proliferation of policies to alleviate poverty has been a major concern of the United States Government since 1960. Educational attainment is necessary to get a high paying job. Elementary school education, as well as lack of adequate skills and motivation among indigents to come out of the situation is the major causes of poverty. People well equipped with technical skills get high salaried jobs while people who are school drop outs get low pay on an hourly basis. During the 1960s when the then- President of United States Lyndon Johnson began to implement the United States ‘war on poverty’, he placed great emphasis on education (Jencks, 1992). The Lyndon Johnson administration even invested in programs like Head Start and occupational training to upgrade the skills of the poor and also to prevent future generations from working in low-paying jobs. Scholars like Sowell (2004) and Corley (2003) have emphasized individual level factors as the central causes of poverty. They argue that a person’s compensation is based on his or her educational qualification and marketable skills. Sowell (2004) argues that the lack of appropriate skills has affected the ability of many indigents to climb out of poverty. He also argues that there has been an increase in the poverty rate of unskilled Americans, who have lost jobs to Asian immigrants. Corley (2003) also supports the above argument and regards ‘lack of educational attainment’ as one of the entrenched sources of poverty. Low quality education from poorly funded inner-city schools results in few marketable skills which leads to low-wage jobs and other miseries associated with it such as less ability to pay for housing, food, clothing, medical care, bad neighborhoods, funding problems for schools, and increased risk of serious illness (Corley, 2003). 

                          Many scholars have argued that structural changes are the primary reason for the persistence of poverty in the United States. Structuralists emphasize issues such as joblessness, discrimination in education, institutional racism and economic transformations in explaining the causes of poverty. Scholars argue that the inability to provide decent paying jobs for some American families and the ineffectiveness of American public policy to reduce poverty are basically the result of structural failures and processes. Poverty is rooted in the structure of American society. Rank, 2004 supports the above view and argues that lack of human capital tends to place individuals in a vulnerable state when events and crises occur. The incidence of these events like loss of a job, family break-up and ill-health often result in poverty. These ill-fated people unable to handle these situations often end up in paying more. Scholars also argue that the acquisition of human capital is strongly influenced by the impact of social class on this process (Rank, 2004). Apart from poor family, race and gender also play a role in the acquisition of human capital (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).

                          Globalization, the expansion of credit markets leading to greater indebtness and foreclosures leading to recession in 2008 all point to the growth of poverty.  Iceland (2006) primarily focused on economic factors and has argued that poverty is also the product of deindustrialization. As the U.S. shifts from a manufacturing, industrial society to a service-oriented, high-tech society, many of the blue-collar jobs that required little education but paid well are disappearing or are being outsourced. Rural areas, such as Appalachia, suffer losses of mining jobs, and cities such as Detroit lose many manufacturing jobs to automation or overseas factories. Some people are unable to follow the jobs or commute to work are left in neighborhoods without employment or tax-basis to support needed social functions, such as schools, public transportation, police departments, and so forth. Others simply cannot find jobs because of the shift towards a service-based economy; in economic terms these people are structurally unemployed due to the changing skills needed. Tobin (1993) supports the above viewpoint and emphasizes on the disappearance of jobs in the 1900s as the main reason for the country’s failure to eradicate poverty. Recent employment data shows that the US housing slump and the crisis in America’s credit markets are threatening to increase poverty levels. Isidore (2008) mentions that the job losses  are widespread, with the battered construction sector losing 51,000 jobs and manufacturing employment falling by 48,000 in the year 2008 . Retail employment dropped by 12,000 jobs, and business and professional service employers cut staff by 35,000. The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1% in September from 4.9 % in January (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008).

                         Kelso (1994), argues that over the last forty years, there has been a major shift of American firms first to the west and then to the south. Part of this shift was due to the rise of the Cold War and the decision of the government to enlarge U.S. military power (kelso, 1994). He argues that as America elected to invest more in defense and in the aerospace industry, cities like Seattle and Los Angeles on the West Coast began to boom while the growth of a high technology and information based technology led to the growing affluence of California and the San Francisco Bay area. Later with the expansion of inter-state highway system and growth of jobs, markets were created in the south.

                         Iceland (2006) also argues that although the service sector of the economy has generated millions of jobs, but again polarized earning distribution based on educational attainment separates better paying jobs from poorer paying jobs. He supports a Marxian analysis of class conflict and exploitation and emphasizes on business owners favor hiring inexpensive labor to maximize profit. This also accounts for the inflow of cheap labor to the United States from Mexico and other countries. Greater access to credit has put cars, computers, credit cards, and even homes within reach for many more of the working poor. But this remaking of the marketplace for low-income consumers has a dark side. Roubini notes that, "Having access to credit should be helping low-income individuals, but instead of becoming an opportunity for upward social and economic mobility, it becomes a debt trap for many trying to move up (Grow and Epstein, 2007).

                          Inspite of public assistance and wide initiatives taken by both Federal and State governments, poverty still exists. Meticulous analysis of the situation and effective formulation of policies is needed to solve the problem of poverty in the United States. Scholars like Rank (2004), Blank (2007) and others have shown that the United States Government spends fewer funds addressed towards poverty than any other industrialized country. Thus a major structural failure is found at the political level (Rank, 2004). Most European countries provide a wide range of insurance programs, unemployment assistance, and wide universal health coverage along with considerable support for child care (Rank, 2004). Such social programs are far more generous than those in the United States (Rank, 2004). While, low-income families in the United States work more than those in other countries, they are still not able to make up for lower governmental income support relative to their European counterparts (Blank, 2007, 141-142).

                          The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many scholars to speculate that institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States. Racial discrimination in employment and   education contribute to the growth of poverty. Some scholars like Massey and Denton (1993) interpret the statistics in terms of institutional racism while others like Kelso (1994) interpret the statistics as evidence of deficiencies and suffering of blacks.   In spite of efforts to remove racism, slavery and Jim Crow segregation, Massey and Denton (1993) argue that racial segregation still exists and that the fundamental cause of poverty among African Americans is segregation. They argue that segregation has created and perpetuated a black underclass by limiting educational and employment opportunities. Massey and Denton (1993) have shown that Blacks were shown homes in racially mixed areas or areas adjacent to predominantly black areas.

                           Also, changing patterns of family formation are more pronounced among racial and ethnic groups. Family patterns are also one of the causes of poverty in the United States. There is a wide gender gap in wages. In 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was $40,798, compared to $31,223 for FTYR female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al, 2005) Pearce (1978) argues that ‘poverty is rapidly becoming a female problem’. Iceland (2006) supports this statement and showed that in 2000, the female poverty rate (12.5%) was 26% higher than the male poverty rate (9.9%) (Iceland, 2006). According to Iceland, women have fewer economic resources than men, and they are more likely to be the head of single- parent families. It also leads to the greater likehood that single, divorced or widowed women will be poorer than their male counterparts because of less social security income or other retirement income in addition to higher female life expectancies. Women’s lower wages, lower retirement benefits and the increasing number of single mothers have led some scholars to talk about the “Feminization of Poverty.”

Federal policies

                       After the Second World War, by 1963, creation of jobs by President John F. Kennedy’s tax policies could not remove the problem of poverty. Poverty was still recognized as a major national problem. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty led to a host of programs that included Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and others. These entitlements eventually consumed half the federal budget and could not alleviate poverty. The U.S. economy had been devastated by the recession of 1979-83 when the United Statess manufacturing infrastructure was shattered by the Federal Reserve’s skyrocketing interest rates causing unemployment to shoot up by sixty-five percent in four years (Cook, 2007). By the end of the 1980s the economy was in another recession, leading to the election of Bill Clinton who in 1992 replaced the incumbent George H.W. Bush. The investment boom of the 1990s was fueled by foreign capital lured in by the Treasury’s strong dollar policies. Jobs were created as the dot.com bubble expanded, trade barriers fell, and utility trading giants like Enron took off. NAFTA was enacted to promote free trade, welfare-to-work brought low-income women into the job market, and the Earned Income Tax Credit was extended. The party ended when the stock market crashed in December 2000 and millions of people lost their retirement savings and other investments. Recession was returning even as George W. Bush was being declared president by the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2000. The economic crisis deepened after the September 11, 2001 attacks when $1.4 trillion in wealth vanished during the worst five days of the stock market since the Great Depression (Cook, 2007). Cook (2007) argues that today, poverty is becoming a national catastrophe. Cook (2007) argues that from 2002 through 2006 the economy was floated by the housing bubble, with many lower income people getting into homes of their own through the proliferation of sub prime mortgages. With the financial woes in late 2008, many American citizens are left with inflated home prices and no way to pay for them.

                      The 1960’s policy initiatives and declaration of ‘unconditional war on poverty’ by the then president Lyndon Johnson marked a discrete change in the federal government’s willingness to intervene for the purpose of improving the economic situation of poor Americans. Despite the billions of dollars spent on programs like CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act), The Manpower Development and Training Act, Head Start, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the government efforts to deal with the origins of poverty have met with minimal success. During this period, implementation of the Social Security old-age program insured virtually all retired workers against the risk of outliving their savings. The Social Security Act of 1935 sought to protect the incomes of those who did not work because of age or a poor economy by establishing a federal framework for unemployment insurance, old-age benefits, and assistance to women. In early 1964, the two most pressing priorities of President Johnson’s antipoverty agenda involved passing a massive tax cut designed to stimulate the economy and organizing a task force to shape the ‘War on Poverty’. The Economic opportunity Act (EOA) signed by Johnson created a long list of programs designed to help individuals develop marketable skills, political power, and civic aptitude. But this anti-poverty legislation oversaw other programs like Community Action Program, Job Corps, VISTA, Head Start (1965), Legal Services (1965) which were not included in its framework. While extensive programs like the Food Stamp Program, Medicare for elderly, Medicaid applied to qualified poor residents, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for poor students overshadowed the EOA. The Higher Education Act eased the financial burdens of millions of college students. The Civil Rights Act opened up new spaces in the American marketplace, while the Voting Rights Act did the same for the political marketplace. The Fair Housing Act established an important base of law to combat housing discrimination. As a result the EOA slowly lost importance. Again, Murray (1984) argues that welfare benefits had soared so high so as to make living in poverty a meaningful option for the poor. Even Burton (1992) has supported the above viewpoint and argues that the programs have done more to cause poverty than to alleviate it.

                          When Nixon assumed power, he tried to deal with poverty in a more direct way than emphasizing social programs. . Although President Nixon expressed dislike for much of the War on Poverty, his administration responded to public pressure by maintaining most programs and by expanding the welfare state through the liberalization of the Food Stamp program, the indexing of Social Security to inflation, and the passage of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for disabled Americans (Rank, 2004). The Nixon administration also endorsed a “New Federalism” in which the federal government shifted more authority over social welfare enterprises to state and local governments. His plan to implement the ‘Family Assistance Plan’ (FAP) consisted of various income provisions, work provisions, and training provisions for those below the poverty line (Rank, 2004). It failed to pass the Senate much like the ‘Programs for Better Jobs and Income’ initiated by President Carter in later years.                                       Welfare reform continued as a focus of federal policy debates even after the legislative defeat of FAP. Even though a cash ‘Negative income Tax’ (NIT) for all poor persons never passed, the Food Stamp program provided a national benefit in food coupons that varied by family size, regardless of state of residence or living arrangements or marital status. The number of AFDC recipients increased from about 6 million to 11 million and the number of food stamp recipients, from about 1 million to 19 million during the Nixon administration (Danziger, 1999, p. 8). Danziger (1999) also argues that as higher cash and in-kind benefits became available to a larger percentage of poor people, the work disincentives and high budgetary costs of welfare programs were increasingly challenged. The public and policy makers came to view increased welfare recipients as evidence that the programs were subsidizing dependency and encouraging idleness.

                        Despite the failure to enact a guaranteed income program, both the number of recipients and the amount of money spent on welfare programs increased substantially during the 1970’s (Rank, 2004). Rank (2004) has given an overview of Reagan’s policies and noted that Reagan emphasized individual action unhampered by government interference, rejected the social engineering of the 1960’s and also supported federalism, that is, returning power to the states rather than centralizing them within the federal government. Reagan tried to address the problem and set the tone for welfare reform that occurred in 1990 during his successor’s administration. The Reagan administration thought eligibility for welfare benefits had increased so much, that many persons who were not “truly needy” were receiving benefits. The Reagan Administration opposed simultaneous receipt of wages and welfare benefits. Rather, it proposed that welfare become a safety net, providing cash assistance only for those unable to secure jobs.

                    The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), enacted in 1975, provides families of the working poor with a refundable income tax credit (i.e., the family receives a payment from the Internal Revenue Service if the credit due exceeds the income tax owed). Thus the EITC raises the effective wage of low-income families, is available to both one- and two-parent families, and does not require them to apply for welfare. The maximum EITC for a poor family was $400 in 1975 and rose to $550 by 1986 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the EITC so that by 1990 a low-income working parent received a maximum credit of $953 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The number of families receiving credits increased from between 5 and 7.5 million families a year between 1975 and 1986 to more than 11 million by 1988 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). Danziger, 1999 argues that as the expanded EITC supplements low earnings, it became easier for policy makers to emphasize welfare reform policies that could place recipients into any job, rather than training them for “good jobs.” Thus he argues that if a nonworking recipient took a low-wage job, a substantial EITC could make work pay as much as a higher-wage job would have paid in the absence of an EITC.

                         The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 expanded the scope of the AFDC program for two-parent families, instituted transitional child care and Medicaid for recipients leaving welfare for work, and added funds and required states to establish programs to move greater numbers of welfare recipients into employment. When the welfare rolls jumped in the late-1980s and early-1990s, from about 11 to about 14 million recipients, dissatisfaction with welfare again increased ( Danziger, 1999).    

                        President Nixon identified the two main economic problems, inflation and unemployment, that justify the need for economic recovery to the American worker. Reagan has emphasized despair caused by unemployment combined with high inflation. Reagan’s rhetorical construction of welfare recipients and the welfare system was aimed at reducing anxiety among Americans caused by increasing taxes, inflation and the continuous fear of losing jobs. To end this victimization, Reagan proposed a plan for economic recovery (Rank, 2004). Apart from cutting government spending, specifically spending on social programs, Reagan also proposed to have State governments assume control of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the food stamps program in exchange for the Federal Government control of Medicaid. Although this proposal failed to reach the Congressional floor, his presentation of the proposal to exchange AFDC and food stamp program with Medicaid made poverty a local concern (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).  

                       Liberals and conservatives still disagreed on other goals of welfare-to-work programs. Liberals thought welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work experiences that would help them raise their families’ living standards by working more and at higher wages. Conservatives emphasized work requirements, obligations welfare mothers owed in return for government support whether or not their families’ incomes increased (Mead, 1992). 

                       In later years President Clinton’s approach also emphasized empowerment as a way of helping welfare recipients and to accumulate more savings without being penalized and expanding the earned income tax credit (Blank, 2007). By the mid-1990s, the focus of policy concern shifted from fighting poverty to reducing welfare dependence. President Clinton’s signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the PRWORA) ended the entitlement to cash assistance and dramatically changed the nature of the social safety net. The Act created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF). TANF began on July 1, 1997, provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, 2007).  Danziger, 1999 argues that each state can now decide which families to assist, subject only to a requirement that they receive “fair and equitable treatment.”  In instituting a block grant program, the PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill’s emphasis on ending welfare as an entitlement program, places a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds, and also aims to encourage two-parent families and discourages out-of-wedlock births. In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than 5 years over a lifetime, some states have enacted more stringent limits. All states, however, have allowed exceptions with the intent of not punishing children because their parents have gone over the time limit. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education, others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers. The PRWORA offers no opportunity to work in exchange for welfare benefits when a recipient reaches her lifetime limit of 60 months of federally-supported cash assistance. But the reform has certain limits. States may not use federal block grant funds to provide more than a cumulative lifetime total of 60 months of cash assistance to any welfare recipient, no matter how willing she might be to work for her benefits, and they have the option to set shorter time limits. States can grant exceptions to the lifetime limit and continue to use federal funds for up to 20 percent of the caseload. The extent of work expectations has also been increased. Single-parent recipients with no children under age one will be expected to work at least 30 hours per week by FY 2002 in order to maintain eligibility for cash assistance (Danziger, 1999, p 20). States can require participation in work or work-related activities regardless of the age of the youngest child. Thus PRWORA emerged from research that sought both to reduce poverty and welfare dependency (Danziger, 1999).  In the 1990s, following Clinton’s call to “end welfare as we know it,” policy makers escalated their demands for recipients to work and reduced government obligations toward and funds to serve them (Danziger, 1999).

                     When Bush took office in 2001, the U.S. was experiencing a national surplus, unemployment and poverty had been on the decline for years, and the economy was booming. Now, almost six years later, poverty is on the rise, healthcare coverage is on the decline, and the country is faced with the largest national deficit in history. Lower middle class families are slowly slipping below the poverty line and the poorest are becoming even more destitute. Most of these families are headed by women.

                      President Bush has extended the TANF. There has been a general economic stimulus policy initiative during the Bush administration but nothing targeting low income Americans has been enacted. President Bush signed the economic stimulus package (H.R. 5140) into law with the hope that it will provide a much-needed boost to the lagging economy. The package includes tax rebates for individuals, tax breaks for businesses, and a temporary increase of the Federal Housing Administration loans from $417,000 to $729,750 (White House report, 2008). More than 130 million people are expected to get tax rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 per household for individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples earning up to $150,000 (White House report, 2008). While the stimulus package will provide much needed financial help to millions of people, it fails to target those most in need as it will not include an extension of unemployment benefits, energy assistance, food stamp benefits, or fiscal relief to states for Medicaid.                       

                  From the above analysis, the question arises whether poor are responsible for their own condition. The above analysis implies that recipients become dependent and lethargic due to vast welfare measures. Scholars such as Murray (1984) and Kilty and Segal (2006) have emphasized on individual factors. They argue that welfare measures and lack of spirit and motivation among indigents contribute poverty. Danziger, 1999 argues that during the Nixon era increased welfare measures encouraged idleness. Kilty and Segal, 2006 also argues that poor people can come out into a state of self-sufficiency from dependency by learning proper work attitude and skills. Kilty and Segal, 2006 argue the importance of welfare reform and a ‘tough love’ approach would ultimately help the poor by making them conscious of their condition and forcing them to take their own responsibility. Bill Clinton’s emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ and measures to ‘end welfare as we know it’ in 1992 all supports the above argument.

                     Due to the implementation of TANF, the numbers of people on welfare have decreased. As a result more funds are accumulated. In 1996 the number of ADFC recipients was 12,644,076 while in 2001, the number of TANF recipients was 5,91, 811 and the poverty rate also reduced from 13.7 to 11.3 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006) and while in 2008 it is 1,628,422  ( US Dept of Health and Human Services). The share of single mothers on welfare (based on administrative caseload counts divided by population numbers) rose from 38 percent in 1969 to 48 percent in 1980, but had fallen to 30 percent by 1998 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006). These caseload changes are widespread, with every state in the country experiencing substantial caseload decline. This decline has been widely hailed by politicians as an indication that policies designed to reduce dependence on public assistance and move less-skilled adults into the labor market have been extremely effective ( Blank, 2007). But however Blank argues that declines in welfare do not affect the poverty rate. The poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, increasing slightly from its level of 12.3 percent in 2006. The poverty rate increased for four straight years from 2000 to 2004. In 2007, the poverty rate was 1.2 percentage points higher than it was in 2000 (Blank, 2007).     

States welfare initiatives

                      Most states took a significant decision about reform, and this decision was sensible in light of state goals and experience. A few states did not seriously make reform policy. New York was so deeply divided that it took no serious decisions about AFDC (Mead, 2002). Alabama and Missouri were pushed into reform by federal action and appeared to have little welfare policy of their own (Mead, 2002). In several other Southern states (Florida, North Carolina), policymaking appeared to be casual and personalized, with the governor or legislators offering reform plans with, apparently, little inquiry or evidence behind them( Mead, 2002) . Texas policymaking was incoherent as the state claimed to pursue work first but based its policy on an experimental program and focused far more on education and training (Mead, 2002). States have always emphasized on reform. But sometimes lower contribution towards these plans result in total failure of the program. Mead (2002) argues that in Florida and Georgia, however, officialdom was dragged into reform but showed little commitment to it. In Arizona and California, the agency or major localities had been heavily committed to a skills-oriented approach to welfare and resisted the shift toward work first. In Texas, welfare reform was a lower priority to administrators than rebuilding non-welfare employment programs and other initiatives. In Colorado and New Jersey, local agencies had a history of defiance toward the state government, and this prevented them from fully endorsing reforms decided in the capital. Mead (2002) argues that inspite of establishment of Employment Service (ES), a federally-funded job placement agency, and training programs under the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), poverty rate did not improve. After national welfare work programs were first enacted in 1967, the ES engaged in welfare practices. But because the ES’s routine stressed serving job seekers who came to it voluntarily, it generally performed poorly with welfare clients (Mead, 2002). These jobseekers came to it on a mandatory basis, as a condition of receiving aid. To succeed with them, the agency had to enforce work but also support employment with special services. The ES often found both these roles uncongenial (Mead, 2002). The ES was denoted to the role of contractor to welfare and later in 1988 the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) merged the ES, JTPA, and other non-welfare work programs. But this merging also created confusion. The problems included lack of clear procedures to refer clients to WIA, to serve them there, or to report results back to welfare. The states that lacked coordination and inadequate management information systems (MIS) were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.      

                         Colorado’s public reform has been associated with decline in poverty rate. By the close of 2000, Colorado’s unemployment rate dropped to 2.6 percent, personal income showed steady gains, state welfare cases declined dramatically, and State legislators wrestled with an estimated $833 million revenue surplus (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001). But inspite of all the above facts poverty still persists as expenses like child care, out-of-pocket medical expenses and geo-graphic differences in housing costs increased. The increases occurred even after adjusting for income support such as tax relief, food stamps and school lunch programs, housing subsidies and energy assistance. A report published in 2001 by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute determined that a single parent with two small children living in Denver County would need to earn an annual salary of approximately $39,924 in order to meet their basic needs such as housing, food, health care, childcare and transportation without public or private assistance. Even child poverty rate is high in Colorado. About 180,000 children, 15.7 percent of the state total was living in poverty in Colorado in 2006, a 73 percent increase since 2000 (Frosch, 2008). The state of Colorado purchases childcare for income eligible families through the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). The state allows individual counties to set the purchase price of childcare and make payments to providers from a combination of parental fees and federal, state and county funds. However, the Colorado Office of Resource and Referral Agencies (CORRA) found in a 2001 study that the average county payment fell below 75 percent of market value (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001, pp 9). As a result counties forced providers to subsidize the cost of service to low-income families, which many were simply unwilling to do when limited slots could be filled with families that could afford to pay full rates. Other providers that chose not to simply refuse service to CCCAP families saved money by limiting the number of children on CCCAP that they would accept, cutting programs, or reducing workers’ wages. All of these actions limited availability and sacrificed quality of care to low-income children. Poverty still exists in Colorado despite initiatives to alleviate poverty as too many working families lives with incomes below the poverty line and more families earn wages simply too low to afford their basic needs. The Colorado government started the Common Good Caucus in 2007 to develop a 2009 agenda, emphasizing on K-12 education and determined to bring technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace by investing $4.5 million dollars in bioscience industry, supporting the Clean Energy fund to reduce high family utility costs , creating the Colorado Solar Incentive Program with $2 million to provide rebates for photovoltaic and solar thermal systems to help Coloradans join the new energy economy and cut their utility bills ( State Rep. Kerr Andy, 2008). Poor people cannot pay the full cost of heating and lighting their homes. Governments and social service agencies have long assisted low-income ratepayers in paying their bills through such programs as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), charitable fuel funds, levelized billing, discounts, home weatherization, energy efficiency, energy usage education and debt management. If all Americans live in weatherized and energy efficient homes and have the income to pay their full share of utility bills, all other ratepayers would save nearly $6 billion in poverty costs, including fuel assistance, lifeline and other rate assistance, weatherization and efficiency costs, the costs of late payments and service disconnections (Oppenheim and MacGregor, 2007).      

Recommendations  

              From the above analysis it is clear that poverty remains pervasive due to the economic system, social stratification and welfare measures. According to Iceland (2003) on one hand, economic growth and technological changes contribute to increase in wages and overall standard of living. Economic growth accompanied by rising education levels improves the condition of people. On the other hand, the market economy often exerts a contrary effect on poverty levels (Iceland, 2003). To maximize profits, businesses usually seek to pay low wage to workers which increase inequality and poverty. Again policy may increase or decrease the harmful effects of inequality. Combining the factors emphasized by both liberals and conservatives, poverty is multifaceted. I believe that a strong national effort would alleviate poverty. Employment opportunities for all so that that worker and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs and save for the future. Increasing hourly wages would definitely improve the condition of these people. A smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. I believe that states (with federal help) should reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances. Workers should use this period of unemployment and the money received from the Unemployment Insurance System and upgrade their skills and qualifications. Thus adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, and live in a good neighborhood and move up in the workforce.

                         Child care assistance to low-income families and emphasis on K 12 education would definitely reduce the rate of poverty in the United States.                          Low-income youth hardly attend college than their higher income peers. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. Simplification of the Pell grant application process, and encouragement of institutions to do more to raise student completion rates would definitely improve the condition. Expansion of Pell Grants would make higher education accessible to residents of each state. The states at the same time should also develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents. Expansion of the Saver’s Credit would encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. As a result all Americans would have assets that would allow them to weather periods of volatility and to have the resources that may be essential for upward economic mobility. Apart from Saver’s credit, expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit would raise incomes and helps families build assets. Thus there should be opportunity for all so that children grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success.

References:

Blank Rebecca (2007); Poverty to Prosperity; Center for American task force on Poverty;

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf – Similar pages

Colorado Statewide Homeless Count (2007), School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, denver.www.dola.state.co.us/cdh/Publications/Winter_2007_Statewide_PIT.pdf – Similar pages

Cook Richard (2007), Poverty in America

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5905 – 61k – Cached – Similar pages

Corley Mary Ann (2003); Poverty, Racism and Literacy; ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education

Danziger Sheldon (1999), Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton, Institute for  for Social Research, University of Michigan.

De Navas-Walt, et al., “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005.

Diana Pearce Diana Pearce (1978) "The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare," Urban and Social Change Review.

Iceland John (2006); Poverty in America; University of California Press

Isidore Chris (2008); the Trillion-Dollar Mortgage Bomb,

money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/?postversion=2008042103 – 66k –

James Tobin (1993); Poverty in Relation to macroeconomic Trends, Cycles and Policies; Cowles foundation discussion paper.

Garima Dasgupta
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/anti-poverty-688499.html

Security Careers – a Primer

Private security work makes for a good, stable job with low overhead requirements. You can do this fresh out of high school, and many college students work their way through their higher education. But it’s not for everyone.

You should have some concept of or interest in law enforcement, some degree of a conservative personality, and not be so far gone that you’re going to think wearing a security guard uniform makes you a super-hero. If you like to work night shift (or have to because of school) and like an active job where you’re on your feet a lot, and especially if you have good people skills, you are cut out for security.

The range of private security jobs cover a variety of tastes. Some of the most common posts:

* Industrial security – the most common type. This can range from a night watchman position to manning a gate and checking IDs. If you are a rover, you drive around on patrol, respond to alarms, check access points, and monitor activity. Public contact ranges from little to none, except if you control an access point in the daytime and even then you will only deal with employees of the company and vendors coming and going.

* Retail security – a much more active position. You will almost certainly be in a position of loss prevention. Watching for and detaining shoplifters, possibly preventing vandalism or car theft, and other kinds of patrol will all be in a day’s work.

* Residential security – very low level, you’ll be working apartment complexes and gated communities. Most likely checking passes at a gate and making two rounds or so per night, maybe handing out parking tickets or standing post at the home owner’s meetings. One big part of this work is checking for and preventing residential burglaries.

* Hospitality security – This is really very different from retail security, though the two fit in the same category. A retail hospitality business will be a hotel, casino, amusement park, stadium, or other recreational facility. The most stringent degree of this kind of work, requiring qualifications very close to that of a municipal police officer. Also the most busy; you will have to deal with every scenario you can imagine, and will never have a dull day.

* Civilian security – This actually qualifies as “bodyguard” work. You are hired by a private individual, usually fairly wealthy, to protect that person and their interests specifically. Generally regarded as “cushy” work.

Security work comes in a spectrum ranging from unarmed to light arms to heavy arms. Most work is of the unarmed variety, and you might have just you and your wits to keep you safe. Other positions which allow light arms might include carrying mace, pepper spray, a baton, handcuffs, or possibly a battery-powered stun gun. The fully armed positions will be where you carry a real gun or real shotgun. Whatever the device, you will need to take classes in the safe handling of your armaments and stay certified. The various laws from state to state and the needs of that particular post will determine what you carry.

If you work an unarmed position at night, especially by yourself, it is frequently recommended that you carry a “Mag”-style flashlight. These are the durable heavy metal lights you see in the hands of law enforcement professionals everywhere, and while they aren’t officially a “weapon”, they are hefty enough to come in handy in certain situations.

“Observe and report” is the mantra of most security positions. Under the law, you do not have the same authority as a police officer and you should never forget it. Your job will mainly entail being a professional witness, and secondly to confront people engaged in suspicious activity and telling them to leave, or arresting them and turning them over to the police.

The greatest danger in this line of work is to those who are unsure of their reach of authority. When in doubt, pull back and call the police; you are not the police and you do not have the training nor the authority to be the police. In any situation, seek to de-escalate rather than escalate. Do not turn a conversation into a dispute; do not turn a dispute into a fight. Never take on more than you can handle.

Do by all means behave as a good citizen. The “bad guys” aren’t all you have to worry about; you might also be called on to perform assistance to visitors to the business or to employees of that business. It is important that you maintain a conservative appearance and demeanor; take your job seriously and have a highly professional appearance and you will have an easier time of it. Run around with a pierced nose, a ponytail dyed punker green, and pay more attention to your cell phone or headphones that to your job and you will have no respect and possibly no job.

Training can be anything from a short course supplied by the company to career-school training to occupational programs for training in weapons to police-supplied courses. No matter how small, if you carry any kind of armaments, you will need training in their safe handling and application. The low requirements for entry and the relatively low stress of the job make this an excellent temporary career, and even not that bad of a permanent career.

Josh Stone
http://www.articlesbase.com/careers-articles/security-careers-a-primer-141360.html

Michael Savage – New World Order Attack in Full Gear and Liberties to be Abolished!!! — (1/7/10)

Michael Savage – New World Order Attack in Full Gear and Liberties to be Abolished!!! Sound Clip Aired on January 7, 2010.

Duration : 0:5:53

Read more…