$300 million for Senator Landrieu, $100 million for Senator Dodd, unknown hundreds of millions for Senator Nelson. I am sure it will be at least $500 million to get them to sign the deal. Amazing.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, responded Tuesday to widespread criticism that Democrats only garnered the 60 votes needed to defeat Republican stalling tactics on the health reform bill by catering to self-interest, saying Democrats are focusing on the big picture; "trying to cross a demarcation line."
Harkin dismissed deals dubbed vote-buying by GOP senators as "small stuff" that distracted Americans from the primary focus of the overhaul bill.
"We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line," Harkin told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez. "On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."
December 22, 2009, CBS News.
Just the usual business with an administration that promised change - to not do things like the previous administration, to be open, and up front. Except when they don't want to be.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
In Poland it is quite cold.
Winter freeze kills 79 in Poland
AFP
December 22, 2009
WARSAW - Ten people have died of cold in Poland over the past day, taking the toll since winter set in earlier this month to 79, police said Tuesday.
A national police spokeswoman told AFP that 10 people had been found dead since Monday.
The majority of the victims were homeless men who died while drunk, police said.
Fifty-two of the 79 deaths recorded since December 1 occurred since Friday, as temperatures plunged to minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus four Fahrenheit).
By Tuesday, temperatures had risen to around zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit).
Police and municipal employees have boosted patrols in areas where the homeless gather, notably public parks and allotments, to try to persuade them to head to special hostels.
The death toll is far from unusual in Poland, which regularly faces harsh winter conditions.
In the 2008 to 2009 winter season, for example, police recorded 82 deaths from hypothermia.
Poland's highest winter toll in recent years was in 2005 to 2006, when 233 died.
Poland
AFP
December 22, 2009
WARSAW - Ten people have died of cold in Poland over the past day, taking the toll since winter set in earlier this month to 79, police said Tuesday.
A national police spokeswoman told AFP that 10 people had been found dead since Monday.
The majority of the victims were homeless men who died while drunk, police said.
Fifty-two of the 79 deaths recorded since December 1 occurred since Friday, as temperatures plunged to minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus four Fahrenheit).
By Tuesday, temperatures had risen to around zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit).
Police and municipal employees have boosted patrols in areas where the homeless gather, notably public parks and allotments, to try to persuade them to head to special hostels.
The death toll is far from unusual in Poland, which regularly faces harsh winter conditions.
In the 2008 to 2009 winter season, for example, police recorded 82 deaths from hypothermia.
Poland's highest winter toll in recent years was in 2005 to 2006, when 233 died.
Poland
Monday, December 21, 2009
CHANGE - There sure has been change, all bad. Health care and Obama - Worse.
We were all warned.
Long before the election we were warned.
While he was putting together his ideal health plan, we were warned.
Yet, it seems that the Congress, like many people, can be fooled, and or bought off, a la Chicago politicis (also known as Louisiana politics) -
When our medical costs go up - Obama.
When we still have exclusions - Obama.
When you have to wait to see your doctor - Obama.
When your insurance premiums go up - Obama.
Not Bush any more. It's all Obama ... and the Democratic Congress.
December 21, 2009
Wall Street Journal
Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve
And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.
Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new "manager's amendment" that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.
Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.
The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.
• Health costs. From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. "Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills," Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.
The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.
These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like "community rating" because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.
As for the White House's line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed "waste," even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. "The oft-heard promise 'we will find out what works and what does not' scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice," the Stanford professor wrote.
• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.
This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they'll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.
Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so "substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance" that companies like WellPoint might need to "be considered part of the federal budget."
With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington's hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, "our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all," as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.
"The Senate isn't hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day," Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they're allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will "destroy over 200 of America's best and safest hospitals."
• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare's unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost "only" $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.
Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid's final machinations. Job creation, here we come.
Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn't start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won't happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association's priority was eliminating this "sustainable growth rate" but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.
The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run "exchanges" that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses.
As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.
For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also "a new welfare and tax system" that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into "contractors" or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into "free" health care, taxpayer costs will explode.
• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as "ideologues" by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn't be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration's own Medicare actuaries.
Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that "will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees," as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator.
So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare?
***
"After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America," Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He's forced to claim the mandate of "history" because he can't claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal's composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.
The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.
So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.
These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.
health care
Long before the election we were warned.
While he was putting together his ideal health plan, we were warned.
Yet, it seems that the Congress, like many people, can be fooled, and or bought off, a la Chicago politicis (also known as Louisiana politics) -
When our medical costs go up - Obama.
When we still have exclusions - Obama.
When you have to wait to see your doctor - Obama.
When your insurance premiums go up - Obama.
Not Bush any more. It's all Obama ... and the Democratic Congress.
December 21, 2009
Wall Street Journal
Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve
And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.
Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new "manager's amendment" that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.
Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.
The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.
• Health costs. From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. "Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills," Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.
The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.
These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like "community rating" because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.
As for the White House's line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed "waste," even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. "The oft-heard promise 'we will find out what works and what does not' scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice," the Stanford professor wrote.
• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.
This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they'll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.
Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so "substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance" that companies like WellPoint might need to "be considered part of the federal budget."
With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington's hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, "our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all," as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.
"The Senate isn't hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day," Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they're allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will "destroy over 200 of America's best and safest hospitals."
• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare's unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost "only" $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.
Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid's final machinations. Job creation, here we come.
Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn't start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won't happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association's priority was eliminating this "sustainable growth rate" but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.
The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run "exchanges" that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses.
As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.
For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also "a new welfare and tax system" that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into "contractors" or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into "free" health care, taxpayer costs will explode.
• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as "ideologues" by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn't be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration's own Medicare actuaries.
Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that "will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees," as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator.
So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare?
***
"After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America," Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He's forced to claim the mandate of "history" because he can't claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal's composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.
The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.
So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.
These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.
health care
New World Order
There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government
'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley
By Janet Daley
19 Dec 2009
The Telegraph
There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.
G8 summit must recognise that green taxes won't help the environmentThe dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.
Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational "legally binding agreements", what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous "democratic deficit" of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.
But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.
Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.
That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people.
This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.
The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.
If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.
The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.
globalization
'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley
By Janet Daley
19 Dec 2009
The Telegraph
There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.
G8 summit must recognise that green taxes won't help the environmentThe dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.
Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational "legally binding agreements", what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous "democratic deficit" of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.
But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.
Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.
That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people.
This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.
The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.
If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.
The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.
globalization
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Obama: The Man and the Myth.
The list grows too long, and repetitious, yet we need to be repetitious lest the single-brain celled ones among us forget. After all, they spent so many brain cells for eight years with all the aneurisms they created for themselves we need to repeat everything a few dozen times until they at least think about what it was they thought they knew, about why they were doing what they ultimately all did, to cause us to be where we are today - with The One.
Democrats, liberals, and independents wanted change. The change Obama stated OVER and over and over and over and over and over and over was, paraphrased:
1) no more lobbyists in the White House. This was contrasted to the Bush White House where, according to Obama, lobbyists were sneaking in the back doors to sway policy.
2) an open government. This was contrasted to the 'closed' government under Bush. He was never very clear on what was so closed but apparently everything was secret. In large part this centered around one issue - meetings Cheney had with energy company executives ... period.
3) to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home within a year.
4) to close Guantanamo Bay the first day in office.
5) to end all torture by US personnel everywhere and anywhere.
6) health care for everyone, including illegal aliens because they are people too.
7) to catch bin Laden and expand the war where it needed to be - in Afghanistan as opposed to our being distracted in Iraq.
8) to send emissaries around the world to let the world know we were back in business, to rebuild relations destroyed under Bush.
9) Global Warming - he would sign a Kyoto protocol if one was put before him, unlike Bush - because he cares about the environment.
There was also the general attitude of his being different from Bush, but the above 9 points were central to his receiving votes from a significant number of people. During the primary he was supported due to his commitment to the above versus Hillary waffling on several. In the general election, he received support from independents due almost entirely to the assurances he gave to the American people.
So how many of those 9 has he accomplished as of December 16? Easy. NONE.
Liberals say, well, you have to give him time. A year isn't enough. In fact, Michael Moore on his webpage in a letter he wrote Obama just before Obama announced the increase of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, indicated that he (liberals) knew he (Obama) wouldn't keep every promise and they understood that, they accepted he would not follow the letter of his assurances to the people who voted for him.
Interesting.
Copenhagen was a joke. 3rd world countries lining up for their global warming debt repayment. The same characters who lined up in the 60s and 70s for payments for various reasons - from colonialism to any a sundry other reasons. They were all very disturbed that the world only promised about $1 trillion over the next four or five years. They wanted more. China rebuked Obama - especially sad given all the prostrating he did in China a few weeks ago. Apparently he didn't suck up enough. China ignored Obama's pleas, and has in fact indicated that the world cannot afford to buy US debt any longer. This is especially galling given what Obama went to China to accomplish, and left believing he did.
Germany - Angela Merkle was interviewed by the Frankfurt Times 3-4 weeks ago and indicated she did not trust Obama on his assurances on any subject (after the US government 'back-pedalling' on GM and Opel, and Obama's agreement to allow Opel to be purchased by a Canadian-Russian consortium in order to save a majority of its jobs in Germany). Obama rushed to make a campaign speech in Germany - the Kennedy equivalent, but he couldn't find the time to stop in Germany to commemorate the end of the most evil empire we have ever known - the end of Soviet communism. The Germans will not forget this.
Sarkozy would rather get hit with a trophy like Silvio Berlusconi, than deal with Obama on anything.
And Silvio Berlusconi may be the Italian Prime Minister for the moment, and who cares - other than to stress he does not like Obama at all.
England is not pleased. The Queen will not, highly unlikely, have Michelle or Barrack over to dinner any time soon. Brown needs Obama, but does not in the slightest like the man. England was not pleased by anything Obama has done and feels not only slighted by his behavior but embarrassed by his behavior toward them.
Russia - Putin does not like Obama, and Russia has only used him - they made public overtures toward him if he removed the missile shield they would be amenable to actions on Iran. The shield was cancelled and Russia decided it would not support any actions against Iran. This was a kick to Obama's pants by Putin.
The Ukraine and Poland - while neither of these two countries represent world powers - Obama will never be welcome in either country for his actions concerning the missile shield.
The Japanese are anxious - worried Obama may sacrifice Japan to the Chinese in an effort to secure funding for his debt load. He is weak on defense and has shown his willingness to capitulate - the Japanese are worried.
Australia - not as pleased as they were with the guy. The global warming scam developed in the UK press, spread through Europe and has found a home in Australia - Obama and his global warming fears have lost him some goodwill among the people, and goodwill among the government ended when his attorney general told Australia they would have to take several terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, whether they wanted to or not. Australia did not feel very good after Obama twisted their arm to accept the terrorists.
Canada - the Prime Minister of Canada has never been very taken with Obama and while the Canadian people still hold him in relatively high esteem, he has lost a great deal of support within the government due to his global warming attachments, his comments about NAFTA, Canada, and the weakness he has shown on world issues while fixated on issues that would weaken the economy of Canada and infringe upon their sovereignty. Not Obama's number 1 fan.
Chavez in Venezuela - not impressed, told the world that he (after Obama had finished speaking, Chavez spoke) still smelled sulfur (he had said this about Bush at the UN in reference to sulfur and Satan).
Cuba - Even Fidel has mocked Obama.
Colombia - NOT Obama fans. Not at all.
Honduras - we can be sure of one thing. The day Obama leaves office, Honduras will celebrate.
Iran - so not impressed nor interested in talking to Obama. So far everything has been a distraction and Obama has still not caught a clue.
Israel - In a poll taken in Israel, over 94% of Israelis believe Obama is bad for Israel, not a friend of Israel. Nuff said.
Afghanistan - Hamid Karzai - is the leader of the country for better or worse and I can say with almost near certainty - he loathes Obama and Hillary.
Iraq - it is very doubtful that the government of Iraq cares much for the man. Any positive attention would be entirely due to the fact they are afraid he would cancel some deal they have and they would lose even more than they have currently under his administration.
I am perplexed as to which countries Obama has rebuilt relations with? He has bowed to the Kings of a few countries, but that hasn't done much except embarrass us and shred relations with a dozen countries.
Our debt has been increased by nearly 2.25 trillion dollars in his first year contrasted with 5 trillion under eight years for Bush. Obama is making Bush look like a miser with his spending. And the stimulus has created so few jobs, the cost for each job is nearly a half million dollars, and our unemployment is still rising.
But I suppose, give him a chance, see what he can do, he has only had a year.
AND THAT IS THE BLOODY PROBLEM - IN ONE YEAR HE HAS TRASHED US relations around the world, sent our debt up more than 2 trillion dollars, and the economy is still wrecked while he pretends it is recovering, and ... he is oblivious to the reality when he gives himself a B+. Amazing. The temerity of the man. Was he born arrogant or did he learn it?
Obama the mortal
Democrats, liberals, and independents wanted change. The change Obama stated OVER and over and over and over and over and over and over was, paraphrased:
1) no more lobbyists in the White House. This was contrasted to the Bush White House where, according to Obama, lobbyists were sneaking in the back doors to sway policy.
2) an open government. This was contrasted to the 'closed' government under Bush. He was never very clear on what was so closed but apparently everything was secret. In large part this centered around one issue - meetings Cheney had with energy company executives ... period.
3) to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home within a year.
4) to close Guantanamo Bay the first day in office.
5) to end all torture by US personnel everywhere and anywhere.
6) health care for everyone, including illegal aliens because they are people too.
7) to catch bin Laden and expand the war where it needed to be - in Afghanistan as opposed to our being distracted in Iraq.
8) to send emissaries around the world to let the world know we were back in business, to rebuild relations destroyed under Bush.
9) Global Warming - he would sign a Kyoto protocol if one was put before him, unlike Bush - because he cares about the environment.
There was also the general attitude of his being different from Bush, but the above 9 points were central to his receiving votes from a significant number of people. During the primary he was supported due to his commitment to the above versus Hillary waffling on several. In the general election, he received support from independents due almost entirely to the assurances he gave to the American people.
So how many of those 9 has he accomplished as of December 16? Easy. NONE.
Liberals say, well, you have to give him time. A year isn't enough. In fact, Michael Moore on his webpage in a letter he wrote Obama just before Obama announced the increase of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, indicated that he (liberals) knew he (Obama) wouldn't keep every promise and they understood that, they accepted he would not follow the letter of his assurances to the people who voted for him.
Interesting.
Copenhagen was a joke. 3rd world countries lining up for their global warming debt repayment. The same characters who lined up in the 60s and 70s for payments for various reasons - from colonialism to any a sundry other reasons. They were all very disturbed that the world only promised about $1 trillion over the next four or five years. They wanted more. China rebuked Obama - especially sad given all the prostrating he did in China a few weeks ago. Apparently he didn't suck up enough. China ignored Obama's pleas, and has in fact indicated that the world cannot afford to buy US debt any longer. This is especially galling given what Obama went to China to accomplish, and left believing he did.
Germany - Angela Merkle was interviewed by the Frankfurt Times 3-4 weeks ago and indicated she did not trust Obama on his assurances on any subject (after the US government 'back-pedalling' on GM and Opel, and Obama's agreement to allow Opel to be purchased by a Canadian-Russian consortium in order to save a majority of its jobs in Germany). Obama rushed to make a campaign speech in Germany - the Kennedy equivalent, but he couldn't find the time to stop in Germany to commemorate the end of the most evil empire we have ever known - the end of Soviet communism. The Germans will not forget this.
Sarkozy would rather get hit with a trophy like Silvio Berlusconi, than deal with Obama on anything.
And Silvio Berlusconi may be the Italian Prime Minister for the moment, and who cares - other than to stress he does not like Obama at all.
England is not pleased. The Queen will not, highly unlikely, have Michelle or Barrack over to dinner any time soon. Brown needs Obama, but does not in the slightest like the man. England was not pleased by anything Obama has done and feels not only slighted by his behavior but embarrassed by his behavior toward them.
Russia - Putin does not like Obama, and Russia has only used him - they made public overtures toward him if he removed the missile shield they would be amenable to actions on Iran. The shield was cancelled and Russia decided it would not support any actions against Iran. This was a kick to Obama's pants by Putin.
The Ukraine and Poland - while neither of these two countries represent world powers - Obama will never be welcome in either country for his actions concerning the missile shield.
The Japanese are anxious - worried Obama may sacrifice Japan to the Chinese in an effort to secure funding for his debt load. He is weak on defense and has shown his willingness to capitulate - the Japanese are worried.
Australia - not as pleased as they were with the guy. The global warming scam developed in the UK press, spread through Europe and has found a home in Australia - Obama and his global warming fears have lost him some goodwill among the people, and goodwill among the government ended when his attorney general told Australia they would have to take several terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, whether they wanted to or not. Australia did not feel very good after Obama twisted their arm to accept the terrorists.
Canada - the Prime Minister of Canada has never been very taken with Obama and while the Canadian people still hold him in relatively high esteem, he has lost a great deal of support within the government due to his global warming attachments, his comments about NAFTA, Canada, and the weakness he has shown on world issues while fixated on issues that would weaken the economy of Canada and infringe upon their sovereignty. Not Obama's number 1 fan.
Chavez in Venezuela - not impressed, told the world that he (after Obama had finished speaking, Chavez spoke) still smelled sulfur (he had said this about Bush at the UN in reference to sulfur and Satan).
Cuba - Even Fidel has mocked Obama.
Colombia - NOT Obama fans. Not at all.
Honduras - we can be sure of one thing. The day Obama leaves office, Honduras will celebrate.
Iran - so not impressed nor interested in talking to Obama. So far everything has been a distraction and Obama has still not caught a clue.
Israel - In a poll taken in Israel, over 94% of Israelis believe Obama is bad for Israel, not a friend of Israel. Nuff said.
Afghanistan - Hamid Karzai - is the leader of the country for better or worse and I can say with almost near certainty - he loathes Obama and Hillary.
Iraq - it is very doubtful that the government of Iraq cares much for the man. Any positive attention would be entirely due to the fact they are afraid he would cancel some deal they have and they would lose even more than they have currently under his administration.
I am perplexed as to which countries Obama has rebuilt relations with? He has bowed to the Kings of a few countries, but that hasn't done much except embarrass us and shred relations with a dozen countries.
Our debt has been increased by nearly 2.25 trillion dollars in his first year contrasted with 5 trillion under eight years for Bush. Obama is making Bush look like a miser with his spending. And the stimulus has created so few jobs, the cost for each job is nearly a half million dollars, and our unemployment is still rising.
But I suppose, give him a chance, see what he can do, he has only had a year.
AND THAT IS THE BLOODY PROBLEM - IN ONE YEAR HE HAS TRASHED US relations around the world, sent our debt up more than 2 trillion dollars, and the economy is still wrecked while he pretends it is recovering, and ... he is oblivious to the reality when he gives himself a B+. Amazing. The temerity of the man. Was he born arrogant or did he learn it?
Obama the mortal
Global Warming
Global Warming.
Even if we follow the very loose application of global warming - that places previously warm would cool and cooler places would warm ... we find Afghanistan, a place normally cool (in the mountains) freezing beyond their normal temperatures (from the last eight years). Denmark - snow and cold - average, in a place that gets snow and cold. Britain - more snow than average and more cold than average, for a place that gets snow and cold. Australia - colder summer than they have experienced in the last decade, in a place that is normally warm / hot. Chile - where summer is in bloom, cool weather has made living easier in the cities. Canada - coldest winter in decades - in a place that is normally cold. California, a place of moderate temperatures - greater cooling period with more rain than last year to date. Most of the US - colder. In fact November will be one of the coldest months on average for the US states. Egypt - a place normally hot, has had cooler temperatures between October and December. We simply do not find sustained warmer temperatures anywhere. We do find colder temperatures everywhere and have for a few years.
These facts are not in debate, they are universally accepted and there is consensus on the data.
So if this is so, a reasonable person would ask - why were over 130 countries represented in Copenhagen - are all of these people dense / clueless / brain dead / gullible?
The answer - no. They have an agenda that is separate from any global warming issue, and for the moment global warming fulfills the role they need it to - the vehicle they have embraced to achieve their desired outcome.
In France - warm beaches now find snow:
global warming
Even if we follow the very loose application of global warming - that places previously warm would cool and cooler places would warm ... we find Afghanistan, a place normally cool (in the mountains) freezing beyond their normal temperatures (from the last eight years). Denmark - snow and cold - average, in a place that gets snow and cold. Britain - more snow than average and more cold than average, for a place that gets snow and cold. Australia - colder summer than they have experienced in the last decade, in a place that is normally warm / hot. Chile - where summer is in bloom, cool weather has made living easier in the cities. Canada - coldest winter in decades - in a place that is normally cold. California, a place of moderate temperatures - greater cooling period with more rain than last year to date. Most of the US - colder. In fact November will be one of the coldest months on average for the US states. Egypt - a place normally hot, has had cooler temperatures between October and December. We simply do not find sustained warmer temperatures anywhere. We do find colder temperatures everywhere and have for a few years.
These facts are not in debate, they are universally accepted and there is consensus on the data.
So if this is so, a reasonable person would ask - why were over 130 countries represented in Copenhagen - are all of these people dense / clueless / brain dead / gullible?
The answer - no. They have an agenda that is separate from any global warming issue, and for the moment global warming fulfills the role they need it to - the vehicle they have embraced to achieve their desired outcome.
In France - warm beaches now find snow:
global warming
Italy: Stands up to the EU
Who'd ha thunk it? Italian Constitutional Court tells ECHR to take a hike, asserts national sovereignty
By Gerald Warner
December 19th, 2009
The Telegraph
The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)
The Constitutional Court ruled baldly that, where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such decrees “lack legitimacy”. In other words, they will not be enforced in Italy. Although this judgement related to issues concerning the civil service, the universal interpretation is that the ECHR’s aggressive ruling in Lautsi v Italy, seeking to ban crucifixes from Italian classrooms, shortly before, was what concentrated the minds of the judges in the Italian Supreme Court.
In fact, sources close to the Italian judiciary have informally briefed that the decision was a warning that activist rulings by the ECHR “will not be given deference”. The juridical principle at issue here is nothing less than national sovereignty. Where an alien court has the right to overrule a national constitution, sovereignty has de facto ceased to exist. Citizens may go to the polls at a general election to elect an administration, but the “government” they choose will be no more than a municipal council. This, of course, was always the intention of the Lisbon Treaty and its supporters.
Europhile politicians and commentators in Britain, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the ratting by the Vichy Tories on their promise of a referendum, were masochistically resigned to the United Kingdom becoming a province of Brussels. Now the Italians have overthrown the fatalistic notion of the irresistible march of Eurofederalism. They have simply said: if it encroaches upon our national sovereignty, it won’t fly here. This is excellent.
Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords.
But such considerations should not blind us to the fact that the sovereignty of European states has been given a crucial boost by the Italian ruling. It is also likely to bolster resistance in Ireland, where a similar activist case from the ECHR is expected to attempt to impose abortion on a state that has rejected it. Not everyone would have expected the first roll-back of Lisbon to come from Italy; but it has, so we should be heartened. Eurofederalism – just say no!
Italy
By Gerald Warner
December 19th, 2009
The Telegraph
The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)
The Constitutional Court ruled baldly that, where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such decrees “lack legitimacy”. In other words, they will not be enforced in Italy. Although this judgement related to issues concerning the civil service, the universal interpretation is that the ECHR’s aggressive ruling in Lautsi v Italy, seeking to ban crucifixes from Italian classrooms, shortly before, was what concentrated the minds of the judges in the Italian Supreme Court.
In fact, sources close to the Italian judiciary have informally briefed that the decision was a warning that activist rulings by the ECHR “will not be given deference”. The juridical principle at issue here is nothing less than national sovereignty. Where an alien court has the right to overrule a national constitution, sovereignty has de facto ceased to exist. Citizens may go to the polls at a general election to elect an administration, but the “government” they choose will be no more than a municipal council. This, of course, was always the intention of the Lisbon Treaty and its supporters.
Europhile politicians and commentators in Britain, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the ratting by the Vichy Tories on their promise of a referendum, were masochistically resigned to the United Kingdom becoming a province of Brussels. Now the Italians have overthrown the fatalistic notion of the irresistible march of Eurofederalism. They have simply said: if it encroaches upon our national sovereignty, it won’t fly here. This is excellent.
Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords.
But such considerations should not blind us to the fact that the sovereignty of European states has been given a crucial boost by the Italian ruling. It is also likely to bolster resistance in Ireland, where a similar activist case from the ECHR is expected to attempt to impose abortion on a state that has rejected it. Not everyone would have expected the first roll-back of Lisbon to come from Italy; but it has, so we should be heartened. Eurofederalism – just say no!
Italy
Copenhagen: The Farce that was, and is no more
December 19, 2009
Copenhagen deadlock wrapped up as emissions deal
Ben Webster, Sam Coates and Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen
The Times
December 19, 2009
The United Nations climate change summit ended last night without setting any emission reduction targets.
President Obama forged a non-binding agreement with his counterparts in China, India, Brazil and South Africa but it was unclear whether all 192 countries would accept the compromise text.
Mr Obama said that a “fundamental deadlock in perspectives” had overshadowed the negotiations. He described the deal as “meaningful” but admitted that it would not be enough to prevent global warming. “We have much further to go,” he said.
Despite two years of negotiations, the key sticking points — emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal — all re-emerged in the final hours
The agreement merely repeated an aspiration to keep the global temperature increase to 2C without explaining how that would be achieved. The final text also failed to mention any deadline for turning it into a binding treaty.
It was a humiliation for Gordon Brown, who has spent longer working on it than any other world leader. He admitted the conference had only taken the first step towards tackling climate change and said that he hoped that progress would be made at a conference in Germany next summer or one in Mexico at the end of the year.
The one positive outcome for developing countries was a commitment by rich countries to provide $30 billion of climate aid over the next three years and $100 billion a year from 2020.
The US announced by far the lowest pledge. It will contribute $3.6 billion between 2010 and 2012, while Japan will give $11 billion and the European Union $10.6 billion.
A deadline of February 1 is expected to be set for all countries to publish emissions targets, although there was no sign last night that any country would move beyond existing offers.
In a statement, released at 10.30pm, the White House described the agreement as meaningful.
“No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress,” it said.
It had been a day of tension, elation and snubs. US negotiators were taken aback that the Chinese leader sent his deputy to the main negotiations. Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister, was said to have taken offence at President Obama’s speech to delegates not to agree on “empty words on a page”. World leaders began leaving the summit before anything was signed.
The Kenyan delegation expressed horror that President Chávez of Venezuela had been given the opportunity to grandstand from the podium denouncing “the Yankee empire”.
Drafts of the “Copenhagen accord” were leaked every couple of hours, each one sacrificing another commitment in the desperate scramble to achieve a compromise. And despite two years of negotiations, the key sticking points — emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal — all re-emerged in the final hours.
Commenting on the draft Copenhagen Accord, the Greenpeace climate campaigner Joss Garman said tonight: "This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communiqué than the legally binding agreement we need.
"It doesn’t even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face."
global warming
Copenhagen deadlock wrapped up as emissions deal
Ben Webster, Sam Coates and Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen
The Times
December 19, 2009
The United Nations climate change summit ended last night without setting any emission reduction targets.
President Obama forged a non-binding agreement with his counterparts in China, India, Brazil and South Africa but it was unclear whether all 192 countries would accept the compromise text.
Mr Obama said that a “fundamental deadlock in perspectives” had overshadowed the negotiations. He described the deal as “meaningful” but admitted that it would not be enough to prevent global warming. “We have much further to go,” he said.
Despite two years of negotiations, the key sticking points — emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal — all re-emerged in the final hours
The agreement merely repeated an aspiration to keep the global temperature increase to 2C without explaining how that would be achieved. The final text also failed to mention any deadline for turning it into a binding treaty.
It was a humiliation for Gordon Brown, who has spent longer working on it than any other world leader. He admitted the conference had only taken the first step towards tackling climate change and said that he hoped that progress would be made at a conference in Germany next summer or one in Mexico at the end of the year.
The one positive outcome for developing countries was a commitment by rich countries to provide $30 billion of climate aid over the next three years and $100 billion a year from 2020.
The US announced by far the lowest pledge. It will contribute $3.6 billion between 2010 and 2012, while Japan will give $11 billion and the European Union $10.6 billion.
A deadline of February 1 is expected to be set for all countries to publish emissions targets, although there was no sign last night that any country would move beyond existing offers.
In a statement, released at 10.30pm, the White House described the agreement as meaningful.
“No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress,” it said.
It had been a day of tension, elation and snubs. US negotiators were taken aback that the Chinese leader sent his deputy to the main negotiations. Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister, was said to have taken offence at President Obama’s speech to delegates not to agree on “empty words on a page”. World leaders began leaving the summit before anything was signed.
The Kenyan delegation expressed horror that President Chávez of Venezuela had been given the opportunity to grandstand from the podium denouncing “the Yankee empire”.
Drafts of the “Copenhagen accord” were leaked every couple of hours, each one sacrificing another commitment in the desperate scramble to achieve a compromise. And despite two years of negotiations, the key sticking points — emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal — all re-emerged in the final hours.
Commenting on the draft Copenhagen Accord, the Greenpeace climate campaigner Joss Garman said tonight: "This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communiqué than the legally binding agreement we need.
"It doesn’t even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face."
global warming
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Greatest Hoax of the 21st Century
50 days to save the world? I might listen to the doomsayers if they weren't such ludicrous hypocrites
By Stephen Glover
16th December 2009
Daily Mail
Not many people understand climate change. But they can recognise hypocrisy when they see it, and are also likely to count their spoons whenever wild-eyed politicians invoke the impending end of the world.
On Tuesday, Prince Charles flew to Copenhagen to attend the climate change summit, where he delivered a keynote speech.
He informed his audience that 'the world has only seven years before we lose the levers of control'. Not at all long, then.
For the Prince this was an important speech with an important message.
If we have so little time, and man-made climate change is such a terrifyingly imminent threat, he might have taken a boat or train to Copenhagen, or even, as a symbolic gesture, decided to walk.
But he commandeered a jet belonging to the Queen's Flight, generating an estimated 6.4tons of carbon dioxide, 5.2tons more than if he had used a commercial flight.
Meanwhile his fellow prophet of doom, Gordon Brown, was making his own way to Copenhagen the same day.
This is the man who proclaimed in October that we had '50 days to save the world'. Before leaving he conjured up on a television programme the certainty of 'floods and droughts' with 'climate change evacuees and refugees' if agreement is not reached in Copenhagen.
Mr Brown chartered a 185-seat Airbus to take him and 20 aides to Denmark. Was a smaller plane producing less carbon dioxide not available?
Could he perhaps have shared an aircraft with Prince Charles? Might he have considered taking a scheduled flight to the Danish capital, of which there were 16 on Tuesday?
Evidently not. It is odd, isn't it, how climate change doomsayers such as Prince Charles and Mr Brown are so often unprepared to make the smallest sacrifice in their own daily lives to address a threat which they assert is literally deadly.
Presumably any contribution would be helpful. And it is not easy in life to persuade people to give up things if you are almost ostentatiously unwilling to do so yourself.
The Copenhagen summit, supposed to produce an agreement limiting greenhouse gases, has, according to experts, the same carbon footprint as a medium-sized African country such as Malawi.
There are an amazing 34,000 delegates attending the event, and the grander among them are forced, says my colleague Robert Hardman in Copenhagen, to park their private jets in Norway because Denmark has run out of Tarmac, and to procure their gas-guzzling limousines from Germany.
Show me a climate control zealot and I can often show you a hypocrite, and a hypocrite, moreover, who speaks in apocalyptic terms about the world coming to an end - at a time not long hence and usually implausibly specific - if the rest of us do not immediately curb our lifestyles so as to produce fewer greenhouse gases.
The double standards and the grotesque exaggeration go hand in hand.
Some, at least, of the zealots do not really, honestly believe that things are as bad as they say. If they did, they might not go on serenely generating carbon emissions on such a scale.
They are trying to shock us into action by employing emotive language and invoking terrible dangers. In other words, they are treating us as fools.
Politicians shamelessly twist the facts to scare us witless. There has been an appalling case in Copenhagen this week.
Former U.S. Vice-President and climate change zealot Al Gore attributed to Dr Wieslaw Maslowski, an eminent climate change scientist, the belief 'that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years'.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has previously stated we have '50 days to change the world'
Dr Maslowski promptly denied that he would ever 'try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as that'.
Seven years left in which we can tackle the problem. Fifty days to save the world. The North Pole melted within a few years.
Such outrageous claims, repeated by hundreds of politicians, and amplified by uncritical journalists whose brains have been captured by the climate change lobby, not a few of whom are to be found at the BBC, are bound to foster growing doubts in the public mind.
When he stated there were '50 days to save the world', Mr Brown spoke of a looming 'catastrophe' which, if not dealt with, 'would be greater than the impact of both World Wars and the Great Depression combined'.
Such talk is a debasement of language. The world does not stand, as it did in 1940, at the very edge of an abyss, and to suggest that it does (as has the prominent scientist James Lovelock) would be an offence against history if it were not so ludicrously overblown.
Mr Brown embraces the extremism of climate change zealots partly by way of displacement.
There are the pressing political problems such as the state of the public finances that are extremely difficult to solve, and there is climate change, where the most hair-raising predictions are eagerly endorsed by most in the media and political class, and can scarcely be countered now.
What will the public think of politicians and climate scientists if in ten or 20 years' time their wildest forecasts should prove unfounded?
We should listen to more measured voices - not those who rule out the possibility of man having any role in climate change, or pretend that global warming is not happening, but those who think the hysterical political response is disproportionate to the severity of the threat.
One such voice is the world-renowned British-born physicist Freeman Dyson, who has written that 'the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated' and decried 'the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models'.
We may not understand climate change, but we do know when we are victims of fraudNor should we forget that little more than 30 years ago the scientific and political consensus was exactly the opposite of what it is today, as the BBC2 programme Earth: The Climate Wars reminded us on Tuesday in what was an unusual spasm of climate change objectivity on the part of the Corporation.
In 1972 a group of distinguished scientists wrote a letter to the U.S. President, Richard Nixon, expressing their fear that the world was entering a new Ice Age.
If those scientists were so completely wrong then, it is not an affront to reason to question whether the more outlandish climate scientists and their supporters might not be overstating their case now.
Does this make me a 'flat earther' - a term of abuse recently employed by Gordon Brown to describe those who, unlike him, do not claim that Armageddon is around the corner?
If the avoidance of lunatic historical parallels or apocalyptic forecasts makes one a flat earther, I accept the charge gladly.
But I can't help wondering whether the real flat earthers may not turn out to be those like Prince Charles and Gordon Brown who count the months to disaster while merrily generating more carbon dioxide than a small African town does in a year.
Should we be surprised that the British public, confronted by this ugly combination of myopic hypocrisy and doommongering, is becoming increasingly sceptical?
As I say, we may not understand climate change, but we do know when we are victims of a fraud.
global warming
By Stephen Glover
16th December 2009
Daily Mail
Not many people understand climate change. But they can recognise hypocrisy when they see it, and are also likely to count their spoons whenever wild-eyed politicians invoke the impending end of the world.
On Tuesday, Prince Charles flew to Copenhagen to attend the climate change summit, where he delivered a keynote speech.
He informed his audience that 'the world has only seven years before we lose the levers of control'. Not at all long, then.
For the Prince this was an important speech with an important message.
If we have so little time, and man-made climate change is such a terrifyingly imminent threat, he might have taken a boat or train to Copenhagen, or even, as a symbolic gesture, decided to walk.
But he commandeered a jet belonging to the Queen's Flight, generating an estimated 6.4tons of carbon dioxide, 5.2tons more than if he had used a commercial flight.
Meanwhile his fellow prophet of doom, Gordon Brown, was making his own way to Copenhagen the same day.
This is the man who proclaimed in October that we had '50 days to save the world'. Before leaving he conjured up on a television programme the certainty of 'floods and droughts' with 'climate change evacuees and refugees' if agreement is not reached in Copenhagen.
Mr Brown chartered a 185-seat Airbus to take him and 20 aides to Denmark. Was a smaller plane producing less carbon dioxide not available?
Could he perhaps have shared an aircraft with Prince Charles? Might he have considered taking a scheduled flight to the Danish capital, of which there were 16 on Tuesday?
Evidently not. It is odd, isn't it, how climate change doomsayers such as Prince Charles and Mr Brown are so often unprepared to make the smallest sacrifice in their own daily lives to address a threat which they assert is literally deadly.
Presumably any contribution would be helpful. And it is not easy in life to persuade people to give up things if you are almost ostentatiously unwilling to do so yourself.
The Copenhagen summit, supposed to produce an agreement limiting greenhouse gases, has, according to experts, the same carbon footprint as a medium-sized African country such as Malawi.
There are an amazing 34,000 delegates attending the event, and the grander among them are forced, says my colleague Robert Hardman in Copenhagen, to park their private jets in Norway because Denmark has run out of Tarmac, and to procure their gas-guzzling limousines from Germany.
Show me a climate control zealot and I can often show you a hypocrite, and a hypocrite, moreover, who speaks in apocalyptic terms about the world coming to an end - at a time not long hence and usually implausibly specific - if the rest of us do not immediately curb our lifestyles so as to produce fewer greenhouse gases.
The double standards and the grotesque exaggeration go hand in hand.
Some, at least, of the zealots do not really, honestly believe that things are as bad as they say. If they did, they might not go on serenely generating carbon emissions on such a scale.
They are trying to shock us into action by employing emotive language and invoking terrible dangers. In other words, they are treating us as fools.
Politicians shamelessly twist the facts to scare us witless. There has been an appalling case in Copenhagen this week.
Former U.S. Vice-President and climate change zealot Al Gore attributed to Dr Wieslaw Maslowski, an eminent climate change scientist, the belief 'that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years'.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has previously stated we have '50 days to change the world'
Dr Maslowski promptly denied that he would ever 'try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as that'.
Seven years left in which we can tackle the problem. Fifty days to save the world. The North Pole melted within a few years.
Such outrageous claims, repeated by hundreds of politicians, and amplified by uncritical journalists whose brains have been captured by the climate change lobby, not a few of whom are to be found at the BBC, are bound to foster growing doubts in the public mind.
When he stated there were '50 days to save the world', Mr Brown spoke of a looming 'catastrophe' which, if not dealt with, 'would be greater than the impact of both World Wars and the Great Depression combined'.
Such talk is a debasement of language. The world does not stand, as it did in 1940, at the very edge of an abyss, and to suggest that it does (as has the prominent scientist James Lovelock) would be an offence against history if it were not so ludicrously overblown.
Mr Brown embraces the extremism of climate change zealots partly by way of displacement.
There are the pressing political problems such as the state of the public finances that are extremely difficult to solve, and there is climate change, where the most hair-raising predictions are eagerly endorsed by most in the media and political class, and can scarcely be countered now.
What will the public think of politicians and climate scientists if in ten or 20 years' time their wildest forecasts should prove unfounded?
We should listen to more measured voices - not those who rule out the possibility of man having any role in climate change, or pretend that global warming is not happening, but those who think the hysterical political response is disproportionate to the severity of the threat.
One such voice is the world-renowned British-born physicist Freeman Dyson, who has written that 'the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated' and decried 'the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models'.
We may not understand climate change, but we do know when we are victims of fraudNor should we forget that little more than 30 years ago the scientific and political consensus was exactly the opposite of what it is today, as the BBC2 programme Earth: The Climate Wars reminded us on Tuesday in what was an unusual spasm of climate change objectivity on the part of the Corporation.
In 1972 a group of distinguished scientists wrote a letter to the U.S. President, Richard Nixon, expressing their fear that the world was entering a new Ice Age.
If those scientists were so completely wrong then, it is not an affront to reason to question whether the more outlandish climate scientists and their supporters might not be overstating their case now.
Does this make me a 'flat earther' - a term of abuse recently employed by Gordon Brown to describe those who, unlike him, do not claim that Armageddon is around the corner?
If the avoidance of lunatic historical parallels or apocalyptic forecasts makes one a flat earther, I accept the charge gladly.
But I can't help wondering whether the real flat earthers may not turn out to be those like Prince Charles and Gordon Brown who count the months to disaster while merrily generating more carbon dioxide than a small African town does in a year.
Should we be surprised that the British public, confronted by this ugly combination of myopic hypocrisy and doommongering, is becoming increasingly sceptical?
As I say, we may not understand climate change, but we do know when we are victims of a fraud.
global warming
Copenhagen - A Comedy of Errors and Jokes.
The 'summit' has turned into a joke - well, in fact it was a joke before it even began, but now with 100 + countries all assembled, all demanding billions from the West (READ: US) for all the effects of global warming and the threats they have had to endure - they stood with their hands out and when they were not given the trillions they had expected, they grew angry and resentful, hurt, and saddened that no one cared about their plight. The ministers all had to call back to their respective despots and inform them that their new palaces and kingdoms would have to wait - the West was reconsidering.
Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release
By Gerald Warner
The Telegraph.co.uk
December 18th, 2009
When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?
No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute” and “leak” a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.
After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.” Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.
But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say “If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions – better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas.”
This “single most important piece of paper in the world” comes, presumably, from an authoritative and totally neutral source? Yes, of course. It’s from the – er – UN Framework Committee on Climate Change that is – er – running the Danegeld Summit. Some people might be small-minded enough to suggest this paper has as much authority as a “leaked” document from Number 10 revealing that life would be hell under the Tories.
This week has been truly historic. It has marked the beginning of the landslide that is collapsing the whole AGW imposture. The pseudo-science of global warming is a global laughing stock and Copenhagen is a farce. In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry. That says it all. The world’s boiler being heroically damped down by the Fat Controller. Al Gore, occupant of the only private house that can be seen from space, so huge is its energy consumption, wanted to charge punters $1,200 to be photographed with him at Copenhagen. There is a man who is really worried about the planet’s future.
If there were not $45trillion of Western citizens’ money at stake, this would be the funniest moment in world history. What a bunch of buffoons. Not since Neville Chamberlain tugged a Claridge’s luncheon bill from his pocket and flourished it on the steps of the aircraft that brought him back from Munich has a worthless scrap of paper been so audaciously hyped. There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though: some seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies. Otherwise, this event is strictly for Hans Christian Andersen.
globalwarming
Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release
By Gerald Warner
The Telegraph.co.uk
December 18th, 2009
When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?
No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute” and “leak” a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.
After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.” Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.
But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say “If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions – better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas.”
This “single most important piece of paper in the world” comes, presumably, from an authoritative and totally neutral source? Yes, of course. It’s from the – er – UN Framework Committee on Climate Change that is – er – running the Danegeld Summit. Some people might be small-minded enough to suggest this paper has as much authority as a “leaked” document from Number 10 revealing that life would be hell under the Tories.
This week has been truly historic. It has marked the beginning of the landslide that is collapsing the whole AGW imposture. The pseudo-science of global warming is a global laughing stock and Copenhagen is a farce. In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry. That says it all. The world’s boiler being heroically damped down by the Fat Controller. Al Gore, occupant of the only private house that can be seen from space, so huge is its energy consumption, wanted to charge punters $1,200 to be photographed with him at Copenhagen. There is a man who is really worried about the planet’s future.
If there were not $45trillion of Western citizens’ money at stake, this would be the funniest moment in world history. What a bunch of buffoons. Not since Neville Chamberlain tugged a Claridge’s luncheon bill from his pocket and flourished it on the steps of the aircraft that brought him back from Munich has a worthless scrap of paper been so audaciously hyped. There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though: some seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies. Otherwise, this event is strictly for Hans Christian Andersen.
globalwarming
Happiness and Donations
Just a simple question.
Based upon the preceding 4-5 posts concerning giving and a couple concerning happiness, is there any correlation between giving and those states which give, and happiness?
I would assume we could look at each state and as long as you get several more in one category or the other, it would be enough to at least make a general statement as to the condition of happiness and giving.
happiness
Based upon the preceding 4-5 posts concerning giving and a couple concerning happiness, is there any correlation between giving and those states which give, and happiness?
I would assume we could look at each state and as long as you get several more in one category or the other, it would be enough to at least make a general statement as to the condition of happiness and giving.
happiness
Which States Give More? Donations -
Private Source
Cost of Living Makes Big Difference in State Giving Rankings, Study Finds
By Harvy Lipman
2001
Taxpayers in rural southern and western states give the highest percentage of their earnings to charity, but a Chronicle analysis of newly released federal data shows that when the higher cost of living in urban states like New York and Illinois is taken into account, residents of those states donate a much larger share of their estimated disposable income than has previously been reported.
In California, for instance, taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year on average donated 2.6 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity. But when those taxpayers' incomes are adjusted to account for the state's cost of living, the share of their remaining disposable income given to charity rises to 7.1 percent.
Over all, Americans who itemized deductions on their federal income-tax returns gave a little more than 3 percent of their earnings to charity in 1999, a percentage that has remained unchanged for the past three years. Those taxpayers claimed a total of $122.2-billion in deductions for charitable donations in 1999, up from $107.4-billion the previous year. Taxpayers' charitable deductions varied widely across income levels and geographic regions. Among returns of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of less than $20,000, those who itemized deductions gave an average of about 11 percent to charity. Only a small number of taxpayers in that income bracket -- fewer than 6 percent -- itemize their deductions, however.
Those with the highest incomes -- more than $1-million a year -- claimed deductions for charitable giving equal to 4.6 percent of their total earnings. More than 90 percent of those taxpayers itemized their deductions.
State Comparisons
Comparing actual giving across income brackets and different states is difficult, because the percentage of taxpayers who itemize deductions varies considerably. That is important because tax and philanthropy experts believe that people who don't itemize give less -- both in terms of total dollars and as a percentage of income -- than those who do.
For the first time in its annual analyses of the tax data, The Chronicle took into account the varying costs of living in different parts of the country, subtracted living expenses from the total income within income categories for each state, and then computed what percentage of taxpayers' remaining -- or disposable -- income was claimed for charitable donations.
That new calculation did not make much difference in the state rankings for taxpayers earning more than $200,000. That result would be expected, given the limited effect that living costs like housing and food have on the wealthy. However, for taxpayers with incomes of $75,000 to $200,000, the new measurement drastically changes the rankings of states where most residents live in urban areas.
Utah Tops Rankings
In every income bracket, Utah taxpayers were the most generous. Researchers have generally ascribed the high giving rates in Utah to its high population of Mormons, whose religion requires that church members tithe 10 percent of their income to the church. Wyoming taxpayers with incomes above $1-million gave a slightly higher percentage of their income to charity than did those in Utah, but Wyoming's numbers are skewed significantly because only 78 percent of its highest-earning residents itemized deductions, versus 94 percent of Utah taxpayers.
However, when the cost of living is taken into account, several states move up significantly from where they would be ranked if those costs were not used to analyze giving. In the $75,000-to-$100,000 annual income category, for example, Maryland's taxpayers were the third most generous in the nation once their giving was adjusted for living costs -- up from No. 18 when the dollar figures were not adjusted.
Among the states whose rankings drop when living costs are factored in for the $75,000-to-$100,000 income category: Montana, which moved from 34 to 48, and West Virginia, which dropped from 29 to 46.
New Tax Break
The vast majority of taxpayers, however, do not itemize their deductions and therefore cannot receive any tax benefit from making charitable donations. The House of Representatives last month passed legislation that would allow taxpayers who do not itemize to claim charitable deductions of up to $25 in 2002; the amount would be double for couples filing jointly.
The Chronicle analyzed giving by lower-income taxpayers who do itemize their deductions, and found that those with incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average of about $850. Those with incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 donated an average of $1,280, and those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 gave an average of $1,525.
Patricia Read, a vice president at Independent Sector, said her group's research shows that low-income taxpayers who itemize deductions donate about $300 annually to charity, while those who do not itemize give only about $30. That, she said, is because taxpayers in lower income-tax brackets who itemize deductions tend to be wealthier, retired people whose taxable income is low.
*****************************************
From 2003, same source - The Chronicle of Philanthropy
80 Percent of Donations
The Chronicle's studies of giving by city, county, and state are based on Internal Revenue Service records of Americans who earned $50,000 or more and itemized their deductions, representing 18 percent of all U.S. taxpayers and accounting for nearly 54 percent of all money earned in the nation. Those taxpayers donated $97-billion to charity, about 80 percent of the total $122-billion donated by all individuals in 1997, according to estimates compiled by Giving USA, the study of charitable giving published by the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. Since people who don't itemize don't report their donations, little reliable data are available on people who make less than $50,000.
donations
Cost of Living Makes Big Difference in State Giving Rankings, Study Finds
By Harvy Lipman
2001
Taxpayers in rural southern and western states give the highest percentage of their earnings to charity, but a Chronicle analysis of newly released federal data shows that when the higher cost of living in urban states like New York and Illinois is taken into account, residents of those states donate a much larger share of their estimated disposable income than has previously been reported.
In California, for instance, taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year on average donated 2.6 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity. But when those taxpayers' incomes are adjusted to account for the state's cost of living, the share of their remaining disposable income given to charity rises to 7.1 percent.
Over all, Americans who itemized deductions on their federal income-tax returns gave a little more than 3 percent of their earnings to charity in 1999, a percentage that has remained unchanged for the past three years. Those taxpayers claimed a total of $122.2-billion in deductions for charitable donations in 1999, up from $107.4-billion the previous year. Taxpayers' charitable deductions varied widely across income levels and geographic regions. Among returns of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of less than $20,000, those who itemized deductions gave an average of about 11 percent to charity. Only a small number of taxpayers in that income bracket -- fewer than 6 percent -- itemize their deductions, however.
Those with the highest incomes -- more than $1-million a year -- claimed deductions for charitable giving equal to 4.6 percent of their total earnings. More than 90 percent of those taxpayers itemized their deductions.
State Comparisons
Comparing actual giving across income brackets and different states is difficult, because the percentage of taxpayers who itemize deductions varies considerably. That is important because tax and philanthropy experts believe that people who don't itemize give less -- both in terms of total dollars and as a percentage of income -- than those who do.
For the first time in its annual analyses of the tax data, The Chronicle took into account the varying costs of living in different parts of the country, subtracted living expenses from the total income within income categories for each state, and then computed what percentage of taxpayers' remaining -- or disposable -- income was claimed for charitable donations.
That new calculation did not make much difference in the state rankings for taxpayers earning more than $200,000. That result would be expected, given the limited effect that living costs like housing and food have on the wealthy. However, for taxpayers with incomes of $75,000 to $200,000, the new measurement drastically changes the rankings of states where most residents live in urban areas.
Utah Tops Rankings
In every income bracket, Utah taxpayers were the most generous. Researchers have generally ascribed the high giving rates in Utah to its high population of Mormons, whose religion requires that church members tithe 10 percent of their income to the church. Wyoming taxpayers with incomes above $1-million gave a slightly higher percentage of their income to charity than did those in Utah, but Wyoming's numbers are skewed significantly because only 78 percent of its highest-earning residents itemized deductions, versus 94 percent of Utah taxpayers.
However, when the cost of living is taken into account, several states move up significantly from where they would be ranked if those costs were not used to analyze giving. In the $75,000-to-$100,000 annual income category, for example, Maryland's taxpayers were the third most generous in the nation once their giving was adjusted for living costs -- up from No. 18 when the dollar figures were not adjusted.
Among the states whose rankings drop when living costs are factored in for the $75,000-to-$100,000 income category: Montana, which moved from 34 to 48, and West Virginia, which dropped from 29 to 46.
New Tax Break
The vast majority of taxpayers, however, do not itemize their deductions and therefore cannot receive any tax benefit from making charitable donations. The House of Representatives last month passed legislation that would allow taxpayers who do not itemize to claim charitable deductions of up to $25 in 2002; the amount would be double for couples filing jointly.
The Chronicle analyzed giving by lower-income taxpayers who do itemize their deductions, and found that those with incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average of about $850. Those with incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 donated an average of $1,280, and those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 gave an average of $1,525.
Patricia Read, a vice president at Independent Sector, said her group's research shows that low-income taxpayers who itemize deductions donate about $300 annually to charity, while those who do not itemize give only about $30. That, she said, is because taxpayers in lower income-tax brackets who itemize deductions tend to be wealthier, retired people whose taxable income is low.
*****************************************
From 2003, same source - The Chronicle of Philanthropy
80 Percent of Donations
The Chronicle's studies of giving by city, county, and state are based on Internal Revenue Service records of Americans who earned $50,000 or more and itemized their deductions, representing 18 percent of all U.S. taxpayers and accounting for nearly 54 percent of all money earned in the nation. Those taxpayers donated $97-billion to charity, about 80 percent of the total $122-billion donated by all individuals in 1997, according to estimates compiled by Giving USA, the study of charitable giving published by the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. Since people who don't itemize don't report their donations, little reliable data are available on people who make less than $50,000.
donations
Conservatives give more than Liberals
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
donations
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
donations
The Happiest People in these United (for now) States
Happy
The Happiest States:
In addition to rating the smile factor of U.S. states, the research also proved for the first time that a person's self-reported happiness matches up with objective measures of well-being.
Essentially, if an individual says they're happy, they are.
"When human beings give you an answer on a numerical scale about how satisfied they are with their lives, it is best to pay attention. Their answers are reliable," said Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England. "This suggests that life-satisfaction survey data might be very useful for governments to use in the design of economic and social policies," Oswald said.
1. Louisiana
2. Hawaii
3. Florida
4. Tennessee
5. Arizona
6. Mississippi
7. Montana
8. South Carolina
9. Alabama
10. Maine
**********************************************************************
The Well-Being of 50 U.S. States
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
10 November 2009 08:08 am ET
A survey called the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index reveals which states are happiest. The index includes questions about six types of well-being, including overall evaluation of their lives, emotional health, physical health, healthy behaviors (such as whether a person smokes or exercises), and job satisfaction.
Click here to learn more about the survey and what it means. Also see Top 5 Keys to Happiness.
Here are the 50 U.S. states in order of their well-being scores, which are out of 100 points.
1. Utah: 69.2
2. Hawaii: 68.2
3. Wyoming: 68
4. Colorado: 67.3
5. Minnesota: 67.3
6. Maryland: 67.1
7. Washington: 67.1
8. Massachusetts: 67
9. California: 67
10. Arizona: 66.8
11. Idaho: 66.8
12. Montana: 66.7
13. New Hampshire: 66.7
14. Vermont: 66.6
15. Virginia: 66.5
16. Nebraska: 66.4
17. New Mexico: 66.3
18. Oregon: 66.3
19. Connecticut: 66.3
20. Alaska : 66.2
21. Texas: 66.1
22. Kansas: 66.1
23. Georgia: 66.0
24. Wisconsin: 65.9
25. New Jersey: 65.8
26. South Carolina: 65.7
27. Iowa: 65.6 - 27/50
28. North Dakota: 65.5
29. Maine: 65.5 - 29/50
30. Florida: 65.3 - 30/50
31. Illinois: 65.2 - 31/50
32. Pennsylvania: 64.9
33. Alabama: 64.9
34. North Carolina: 64.8
35. New York: 64.7
36. Delaware: 64.7
37. Rhode Island: 64.6
38. Nevada: 64.5
39. South Dakota: 64.3
40. Louisiana: 64.2
41. Michigan: 64.0
42. Tennessee: 64.0
43. Oklahoma: 64.0
44. Missouri: 63.8
45. Indiana: 63.3
46. Arkansas: 62.9
47. Ohio: 62.8
48. Mississippi: 61.9
49. Kentucky: 61.4
50. West Virginia: 61.2
happy
The Happiest States:
In addition to rating the smile factor of U.S. states, the research also proved for the first time that a person's self-reported happiness matches up with objective measures of well-being.
Essentially, if an individual says they're happy, they are.
"When human beings give you an answer on a numerical scale about how satisfied they are with their lives, it is best to pay attention. Their answers are reliable," said Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England. "This suggests that life-satisfaction survey data might be very useful for governments to use in the design of economic and social policies," Oswald said.
1. Louisiana
2. Hawaii
3. Florida
4. Tennessee
5. Arizona
6. Mississippi
7. Montana
8. South Carolina
9. Alabama
10. Maine
**********************************************************************
The Well-Being of 50 U.S. States
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
10 November 2009 08:08 am ET
A survey called the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index reveals which states are happiest. The index includes questions about six types of well-being, including overall evaluation of their lives, emotional health, physical health, healthy behaviors (such as whether a person smokes or exercises), and job satisfaction.
Click here to learn more about the survey and what it means. Also see Top 5 Keys to Happiness.
Here are the 50 U.S. states in order of their well-being scores, which are out of 100 points.
1. Utah: 69.2
2. Hawaii: 68.2
3. Wyoming: 68
4. Colorado: 67.3
5. Minnesota: 67.3
6. Maryland: 67.1
7. Washington: 67.1
8. Massachusetts: 67
9. California: 67
10. Arizona: 66.8
11. Idaho: 66.8
12. Montana: 66.7
13. New Hampshire: 66.7
14. Vermont: 66.6
15. Virginia: 66.5
16. Nebraska: 66.4
17. New Mexico: 66.3
18. Oregon: 66.3
19. Connecticut: 66.3
20. Alaska : 66.2
21. Texas: 66.1
22. Kansas: 66.1
23. Georgia: 66.0
24. Wisconsin: 65.9
25. New Jersey: 65.8
26. South Carolina: 65.7
27. Iowa: 65.6 - 27/50
28. North Dakota: 65.5
29. Maine: 65.5 - 29/50
30. Florida: 65.3 - 30/50
31. Illinois: 65.2 - 31/50
32. Pennsylvania: 64.9
33. Alabama: 64.9
34. North Carolina: 64.8
35. New York: 64.7
36. Delaware: 64.7
37. Rhode Island: 64.6
38. Nevada: 64.5
39. South Dakota: 64.3
40. Louisiana: 64.2
41. Michigan: 64.0
42. Tennessee: 64.0
43. Oklahoma: 64.0
44. Missouri: 63.8
45. Indiana: 63.3
46. Arkansas: 62.9
47. Ohio: 62.8
48. Mississippi: 61.9
49. Kentucky: 61.4
50. West Virginia: 61.2
happy
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
LOVE, Marriage and DC
Very odd - this action by the city council. Very odd. More than 55% of the district is comprised of African-Americans. And guess what? Overwhelmingly, that group opposes same-sex marriage. Odd isn't it. The district has 13 city workers - council members if you will, all elected members of a population that hovers around 590,000, plus a mayor -Adrian Fenty. 6 members of the 13 are African American - including Marion Barry, former Mayor. He and Yvette Alexander, also African American voted against the bill.
Interesting and odd.
There is a point to all this and I will get to it - the argument that persuaded several members was the financial benefit of allowing gay-marriages. Thousands would flock to DC to get married, and all that revenue would come pouring in. Millions, by the accounts mentioned in the column below - they must have been listening to a soothsayer - and the millions will role in. I can imagine what they saw before their wondering eyes - dollar signs. In this time of economic uncertainty and cut-backs, the council had to cut-back and they want to ... expand, not cut, to save their own jobs, and their constituents. Millions and millions and millions. I am certain the council members in favor of this argued that it would bring in at least $20 million in revenue, while the opponents mentioned the revenue would be closer to a couple million.
Then we have the Catholic Church pulling out, and with it, all the resources it provided .. for free. Now the Council will have to PAY for those resources previously FREE. Yet, with $22 million in revenues, a few million for previously free resources would not reduce the economic benefit by very much ... except for the African-American community nearly and overwhelmingly opposed to same sex marriages.
Every council member has to get re-elected. Over 55% of the city is black.
Now the benefits may seem less important when your job is on the line, except several members have very nicely carved out wards where they will feel little impact in an election year. A few will. Is it enough? One reasonable question would be, how do I know, and based upon what evidence, that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same sex marriages. Admittedly, the only support I have immediately at hand is a couple years old, and was done by Donald Haider-Markel and Mark Joslyn in 2005 -
Who votes more often - men or women - in local elections?
The very real threat to their jobs, the cost of the Church pulling out of DC social services leaving the city to pay the costs - suddenly it is not as attractive as it once was.
I would proffer the following: THEY know it will fail, either when brought before 55% of the population who will oppose it, or with Congress becoming involved, it will fail, BUT they will have raked in some cash, and gays who wish to get married will have yet another opportunity to create yet another bulwark in their battle - even when it is rescinded, they will continue the argument. We were married and now we mare discriminated against, due to the fact our marriage is no longer recognized (regardless of the silliness of their position). All these attempts are aimed at the Constitution - that is the ultimate aim with all such efforts across the country. When millions have been married - it will become an issue the Court will have to address as to legality and transferability from place to place/state/city.
A battle is under way, quietly being waged, according to the supporters, a battle for equality and fairness versus hate and discrimination.
16 Dec 2009
The Washington Post
by Tim Craig
D.C. Council approves same-sex marriage
Economic impact could reach $22 million in 3 years; foes try to sway Congress, courts
The District was on the verge Tuesday of becoming the sixth place in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after the council gave final approval to its bill allowing the unions.
The legislation would allow couples from anywhere in the country to marry in the city. Those couples who live in the District would be entitled to all rights afforded to heterosexual married couples under District laws.
Although a final signature on the bill by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) could come by the end of the week, same-sex marriage opponents vowed to step up their effort to get Congress or a court to block the initiative during the 30-day congressional review period.
The 11 to 2 council decision, which caps a nearly year-long debate, set off a wave of excitement across the gay community, both locally and nationally. “In many ways, this is the final prize,” said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two people on the council who are openly gay.
According to an analysis by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, more than 10,000 same-sex couples from across the country could get married in the District over the next three years if the measure becomes law.
The analysis, created in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s historic council vote, estimates that 2,000 gay couples who live in the District will marry shortly after the law takes effect. But the bulk of the weddings, which could pump millions of dollars into the regional economy, would probably be out-of-state couples unable to marry in their own states, according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. It concludes that at least $5 million, and perhaps as much as $22 million, would be generated by same-sex weddings in the District over the next three years.
Local and national gay rights leaders note that opponents face a difficult fight: Both the DemocraticHouse and Senate and President Obama would all have to block the legislation, which is unlikely.
But council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the bill’s sponsor and the other openly gay member on the council, cautioned that Congress also could unravel the measure through budget maneuvers in future years.
“ There is no question: We are going to have to be defending it and defending it and defending it until the other side realizes they are losing more votes by being tethered to the past,” Catania said.
Several opponents of same-sex marriage warned that the celebrations were premature. They are seeking a public vote on the issue, and some are meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday.
“God’s war has just started,” Bob King, a community activist who lives in Northeast, said a few
Columnist Robert McCartney will discuss the D.C. Council’s vote on same-sex marriage during an 11 a.m. chat. Go to minutes after the vote. “Shame on them. We’re going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don’t let the marriage licenses start flowing.”
Still, same-sex marriage supporters heralded the council’s action, saying it helps the movement rebound from the stinging defeat suffered two weeks ago when the New York Senate rejected same-sex marriage.
“ This is a place people come to see the Constitution and understand what it means to be equal, so symbolically this means a great deal,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group that co-sponsored a party with the council Tuesday night.
Same-sex marriages are legal in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts, and next month, New Hampshire joins the list.
In the weeks leading to the council’s vote, the Archdiocese of Washington was engaged in a campaign to try to amend the bill because it feared that it would force its charities to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the committee that oversaw the legislation, said he was unable to reach an agreement with the church that would not lead to discrimination against same-sex couples, but church and city officials said they will continue their talks.
Deacon Maccubbin, the owner of the Lambda Rising bookstore in Dupont Circle, held a commitment ceremony with his partner 28 years ago but plans to rush off to get officially married as soon as it is allowed here. — Bob King, community activist.
“We have done the church wedding, but we want to have the license, right here in the District of Columbia,” Maccubbin said.
But Kathryn Hamm, president of GayWeddings.com in Arlington County, said many in the region’s gay community are cautious, knowing that it could be months before gay marriage is legal in the District. Hamm, whose company helps engaged couples find gayfriendly wedding vendors, among other services, said she expects a surge in interest in the new year.
During Tuesday’s council debate, members said their decision will tell the world that the District values equal and civil rights.
“ Today, I am very proud of our city,” said council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). “I hope today we serve as beacon for those who have not been given full rights across our country.”
Council members Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who represent neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, voted against the bill.
Barry said he could not support the legislation because he thinks that a majority of his constituents oppose it but acknowledged that the council was making history.
“This must be a proud day for you, David, Mr. Graham,” said Barry. “Just as it was a proud day for me when the voting rights bill was passed in 1965. But this is a democracy, and I reserve the right to disagree.” Staff writer Sandhya Somashekhar contributed to this report.
same sex marriage
“Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38, No. 2 (April), 233-239. They found that a majority of African Americans were opposed to same sex marriages and it was especially high among females (opposition to same sex marriages).
Interesting and odd.
There is a point to all this and I will get to it - the argument that persuaded several members was the financial benefit of allowing gay-marriages. Thousands would flock to DC to get married, and all that revenue would come pouring in. Millions, by the accounts mentioned in the column below - they must have been listening to a soothsayer - and the millions will role in. I can imagine what they saw before their wondering eyes - dollar signs. In this time of economic uncertainty and cut-backs, the council had to cut-back and they want to ... expand, not cut, to save their own jobs, and their constituents. Millions and millions and millions. I am certain the council members in favor of this argued that it would bring in at least $20 million in revenue, while the opponents mentioned the revenue would be closer to a couple million.
Then we have the Catholic Church pulling out, and with it, all the resources it provided .. for free. Now the Council will have to PAY for those resources previously FREE. Yet, with $22 million in revenues, a few million for previously free resources would not reduce the economic benefit by very much ... except for the African-American community nearly and overwhelmingly opposed to same sex marriages.
Every council member has to get re-elected. Over 55% of the city is black.
Now the benefits may seem less important when your job is on the line, except several members have very nicely carved out wards where they will feel little impact in an election year. A few will. Is it enough? One reasonable question would be, how do I know, and based upon what evidence, that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same sex marriages. Admittedly, the only support I have immediately at hand is a couple years old, and was done by Donald Haider-Markel and Mark Joslyn in 2005 -
Who votes more often - men or women - in local elections?
The very real threat to their jobs, the cost of the Church pulling out of DC social services leaving the city to pay the costs - suddenly it is not as attractive as it once was.
I would proffer the following: THEY know it will fail, either when brought before 55% of the population who will oppose it, or with Congress becoming involved, it will fail, BUT they will have raked in some cash, and gays who wish to get married will have yet another opportunity to create yet another bulwark in their battle - even when it is rescinded, they will continue the argument. We were married and now we mare discriminated against, due to the fact our marriage is no longer recognized (regardless of the silliness of their position). All these attempts are aimed at the Constitution - that is the ultimate aim with all such efforts across the country. When millions have been married - it will become an issue the Court will have to address as to legality and transferability from place to place/state/city.
A battle is under way, quietly being waged, according to the supporters, a battle for equality and fairness versus hate and discrimination.
16 Dec 2009
The Washington Post
by Tim Craig
D.C. Council approves same-sex marriage
Economic impact could reach $22 million in 3 years; foes try to sway Congress, courts
The District was on the verge Tuesday of becoming the sixth place in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after the council gave final approval to its bill allowing the unions.
The legislation would allow couples from anywhere in the country to marry in the city. Those couples who live in the District would be entitled to all rights afforded to heterosexual married couples under District laws.
Although a final signature on the bill by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) could come by the end of the week, same-sex marriage opponents vowed to step up their effort to get Congress or a court to block the initiative during the 30-day congressional review period.
The 11 to 2 council decision, which caps a nearly year-long debate, set off a wave of excitement across the gay community, both locally and nationally. “In many ways, this is the final prize,” said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two people on the council who are openly gay.
According to an analysis by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, more than 10,000 same-sex couples from across the country could get married in the District over the next three years if the measure becomes law.
The analysis, created in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s historic council vote, estimates that 2,000 gay couples who live in the District will marry shortly after the law takes effect. But the bulk of the weddings, which could pump millions of dollars into the regional economy, would probably be out-of-state couples unable to marry in their own states, according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. It concludes that at least $5 million, and perhaps as much as $22 million, would be generated by same-sex weddings in the District over the next three years.
Local and national gay rights leaders note that opponents face a difficult fight: Both the DemocraticHouse and Senate and President Obama would all have to block the legislation, which is unlikely.
But council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the bill’s sponsor and the other openly gay member on the council, cautioned that Congress also could unravel the measure through budget maneuvers in future years.
“ There is no question: We are going to have to be defending it and defending it and defending it until the other side realizes they are losing more votes by being tethered to the past,” Catania said.
Several opponents of same-sex marriage warned that the celebrations were premature. They are seeking a public vote on the issue, and some are meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday.
“God’s war has just started,” Bob King, a community activist who lives in Northeast, said a few
Columnist Robert McCartney will discuss the D.C. Council’s vote on same-sex marriage during an 11 a.m. chat. Go to minutes after the vote. “Shame on them. We’re going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don’t let the marriage licenses start flowing.”
Still, same-sex marriage supporters heralded the council’s action, saying it helps the movement rebound from the stinging defeat suffered two weeks ago when the New York Senate rejected same-sex marriage.
“ This is a place people come to see the Constitution and understand what it means to be equal, so symbolically this means a great deal,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group that co-sponsored a party with the council Tuesday night.
Same-sex marriages are legal in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts, and next month, New Hampshire joins the list.
In the weeks leading to the council’s vote, the Archdiocese of Washington was engaged in a campaign to try to amend the bill because it feared that it would force its charities to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the committee that oversaw the legislation, said he was unable to reach an agreement with the church that would not lead to discrimination against same-sex couples, but church and city officials said they will continue their talks.
Deacon Maccubbin, the owner of the Lambda Rising bookstore in Dupont Circle, held a commitment ceremony with his partner 28 years ago but plans to rush off to get officially married as soon as it is allowed here. — Bob King, community activist.
“We have done the church wedding, but we want to have the license, right here in the District of Columbia,” Maccubbin said.
But Kathryn Hamm, president of GayWeddings.com in Arlington County, said many in the region’s gay community are cautious, knowing that it could be months before gay marriage is legal in the District. Hamm, whose company helps engaged couples find gayfriendly wedding vendors, among other services, said she expects a surge in interest in the new year.
During Tuesday’s council debate, members said their decision will tell the world that the District values equal and civil rights.
“ Today, I am very proud of our city,” said council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). “I hope today we serve as beacon for those who have not been given full rights across our country.”
Council members Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who represent neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, voted against the bill.
Barry said he could not support the legislation because he thinks that a majority of his constituents oppose it but acknowledged that the council was making history.
“This must be a proud day for you, David, Mr. Graham,” said Barry. “Just as it was a proud day for me when the voting rights bill was passed in 1965. But this is a democracy, and I reserve the right to disagree.” Staff writer Sandhya Somashekhar contributed to this report.
same sex marriage
“Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38, No. 2 (April), 233-239. They found that a majority of African Americans were opposed to same sex marriages and it was especially high among females (opposition to same sex marriages).
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sex Noises - Things that Make you go hmmmm - In the UK.
You can't help but wonder. And as silly as this is, and appealing to prurient interests - a broader issue involves laws. While the article mentions times from midnight until two or three in the morning, it also mentions a postman - I do not believe postmen deliver mail at 2 am. Additionally, it mentions a woman taking her child to school - and that is not a 2 am activity either. You can't help but wonder.
In defense of the neighbors - they do live next to each other and by that I mean, think apartments in the US with less between the walls.
They mention 30-47 decibels.
So we all understand what that means:
A whisper in a library is about 30 dB. Normal conversations with the two parties standing between 3-5 feet apart is about 60-70dB. Our telephone dial tones are about 80dB.
Noisy sex woman admits breaking Asbo ban within hours
15/12/2009
Mirror.co.uk
A woman who was given an anti-social behaviour order banning her from making loud noises during sex today pleaded guilty to breaking the Asbo three times.
Caroline Cartwright, 48, and her husband Steve landed a noise abatement notice after neighbours, the local postman, and a woman taking her child to school complained about their noisy lovemaking.
However, when Cartwright was convicted of breaching the notice, magistrates made her the subject of an anti-social behaviour order as well.
Cartwright pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court today to breaching the Asbo three times in April 2009.
Earlier this year Cartwright appealed against her conviction for breaching the noise abatement notice and the issuing of the Asbo, which bans the couple from "shouting, screaming or vocalisation at such a level as to be a statutory nuisance".
She used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to argue she had a right to "respect for her private and family life".
The UK has invoked the UN Human Rights Charter within their legal system, and so this woman invoked a UN declaration of rights - which thankfully we have not followed.
Jobless Cartwright, who lost her appeal against the order, also claimed that she could not help making the loud noise during sex with her husband.
The hearing heard that the Cartwrights nightly sex sessions at their home in Hall Road, Concord, Washington, Tyne and Wear, were making their neighbours lives' hell.
Their lovemaking was described as "murder" and "unnatural" and drowned out their neighbours' televisions.
Neighbours said the Cartwrights sex sessions would usually start around midnight and last for two or three hours, every night of the week.
Specialist equipment installed in a neighbour's flat by Sunderland City Council recorded noise levels of between 30 to 40 decibels, with the highest being 47 decibels.
Giving evidence Cartwright said she was unable to control the noise she made during sex.
"I did not understand why people asked me to be quiet because to me it is normal. I didn't understand where they were coming from," she said.
"I have tried to minimise the situation by having sex in the morning - not at night - so the noise was not waking anybody.
"I maybe sympathetic to it but it is not something I am doing on purpose."
Breaching an Asbo carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment but Judge Beatrice Bolton said Cartwright, who now lives in a bail hostel, would not face jail.
She adjourned the case until next year for sentencing and released Cartwright on bail.
laws
In defense of the neighbors - they do live next to each other and by that I mean, think apartments in the US with less between the walls.
They mention 30-47 decibels.
So we all understand what that means:
A whisper in a library is about 30 dB. Normal conversations with the two parties standing between 3-5 feet apart is about 60-70dB. Our telephone dial tones are about 80dB.
Noisy sex woman admits breaking Asbo ban within hours
15/12/2009
Mirror.co.uk
A woman who was given an anti-social behaviour order banning her from making loud noises during sex today pleaded guilty to breaking the Asbo three times.
Caroline Cartwright, 48, and her husband Steve landed a noise abatement notice after neighbours, the local postman, and a woman taking her child to school complained about their noisy lovemaking.
However, when Cartwright was convicted of breaching the notice, magistrates made her the subject of an anti-social behaviour order as well.
Cartwright pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court today to breaching the Asbo three times in April 2009.
Earlier this year Cartwright appealed against her conviction for breaching the noise abatement notice and the issuing of the Asbo, which bans the couple from "shouting, screaming or vocalisation at such a level as to be a statutory nuisance".
She used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to argue she had a right to "respect for her private and family life".
The UK has invoked the UN Human Rights Charter within their legal system, and so this woman invoked a UN declaration of rights - which thankfully we have not followed.
Jobless Cartwright, who lost her appeal against the order, also claimed that she could not help making the loud noise during sex with her husband.
The hearing heard that the Cartwrights nightly sex sessions at their home in Hall Road, Concord, Washington, Tyne and Wear, were making their neighbours lives' hell.
Their lovemaking was described as "murder" and "unnatural" and drowned out their neighbours' televisions.
Neighbours said the Cartwrights sex sessions would usually start around midnight and last for two or three hours, every night of the week.
Specialist equipment installed in a neighbour's flat by Sunderland City Council recorded noise levels of between 30 to 40 decibels, with the highest being 47 decibels.
Giving evidence Cartwright said she was unable to control the noise she made during sex.
"I did not understand why people asked me to be quiet because to me it is normal. I didn't understand where they were coming from," she said.
"I have tried to minimise the situation by having sex in the morning - not at night - so the noise was not waking anybody.
"I maybe sympathetic to it but it is not something I am doing on purpose."
Breaching an Asbo carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment but Judge Beatrice Bolton said Cartwright, who now lives in a bail hostel, would not face jail.
She adjourned the case until next year for sentencing and released Cartwright on bail.
laws
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments