KateThoughts

Getting this up...commenting on it later...

There seems to be a glitch in the video at 16:38. Haven't resolved it; I read the remainder in the Transcript...

So sad...

I am saddened by the amount of energy we Americans spend to detract and tear down each other - in whatever 'cause' - whether it be performance-enhancing drugs or matters of where a man was born...even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

I am saddened that a post about a young man who is now facing the consequences for his violent behavior should engender such violent comments even to the point of wishing violence upon him.

IMHO, cosmetic surgery is 'performance-enhancing'. (among gazillions of other things)
IMHO, violent comments fuel violence in exactly the same way that violent upbringing teaches violence.

And I am saddened by the fact that we can no longer have conversations with people of differing beliefs and/or political opinions. It seems to me that we have become a '..stick with your own kind..' culture. A huge step backward, again IMHO...

Happily, I am in charge of how I feel and upon what I focus my attention.
And I am confident that hatred and bigotry will run its course in time. The costs of that course are likely to be astronomical, and will be paid, in part, by our children and grandchildren and other innocents - assuming there are any of us left at the end of the battle.

A Cogent Article from Michael Myerson

In the Beginning: Religious Freedom in the Country's Founding Moments

Mostly, I want to save this article and the related comments. I like it. Hope you'll read it...

Our collective understanding of the framers' view of the appropriate relationship between religion and government has been clouded by the divisive nature of contemporary politics. On one side are those who say history counsels against any governmental acknowledgement of religion. Challenging them are those arguing that the same history endorses governmental assistance and support for a wide range of religious activities.

Fortunately, we are not restricted to such simplistic choices. The framers were capable of sophisticated thinking, and they approached this issue with far more nuance and subtlety than is generally appreciated.

The framers saw religion as both a force for magnificent good and unspeakable evil. John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson after both had left the White House, "Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there was no religion in it!!!'" But, Adams quickly added, he feared that, "Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company -- I mean hell."

Those who founded our nation feared divisiveness, sectarian violence and intolerance, yet they also believed that religion could help unify a diverse nation. The general understanding they developed can be traced to three distinct strands.

The first can be considered a philosophical justification, that government must not invade sanctity of human intellect. For Jefferson, the fight to prevent religious establishments was based on his "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

The second strand might be called a political rationale. George Washington, as head of the Continental Army, realized that great sensitivity to religious differences was essential to avoid, "the smallest uneasiness & jealousy among the Troops." As president, he wrote: "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause."

Lastly, many supporters of religious freedom were motivated by religious concerns. A leading exemplar is John Leland, a Baptist minister who was instrumental in James Madison's election to the Virginia Ratifying Convention and one of the most important advocates for amending the Constitution to protect religious freedom. Leland would preach that the biblical admonition "My kingdom is not of this world" meant that "religion, in all its parts, is distinct from civil government." He argued that the "Government should be so fixed, that Pagans, Turks, Jews and Christians, should be equally protected in their rights."

These approaches combined to produce a national consensus. It was widely accepted that American citizens were to have absolute "freedom of conscience." As George Washington wrote during the Revolutionary War, "While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable."

Next, the federal government was prohibited from regulating or funding religious activities. In 1811, Madison vetoed a bill granting land to a church which had accidently erected a building on federal property. Madison declared that this grant would violate the Constitution by setting a "precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies."

The framing generation also disapproved of governmental speech that favored a particular denomination. John Adams, the only one of the first four presidents to use explicitly Christian language in his speeches, was also the only one who was not reelected. His 1799 thanksgiving proclamation had implored, "through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions." In a letter written after his retirement, Adams belatedly recognized, "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."

Yet, this distinction between religion and government was not understood to cleanse all religious references from political speech. As presidents, Madison, Jefferson and Washington all employed sincere religious language in their inaugurals. Madison, for example, gave his pious supplication to "the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations."

To the framers, phrases like "Almighty being," "Creator," "holy author of our religion," and even "Almighty God," were expansive enough to permit each individual to join in the experience of a conscientious communion with the rest of their nation. As Jefferson wrote, such language demonstrates an intent to include, "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." One is free to disagree, of course, but the framers' goal was to communicate to all, including the Deistic, agnostic, and atheistic, that they were fully valued members of the political community.

The Framers Top Ten: Essential Writings on Religious Freedom

The story of the development of religious freedom in America is not the simple narrative conveyed by contemporary political partisans. There is prejudice as well as acceptance, clarity followed by frustrating ambiguity and moments of courage mixed with political expediency. The following, in chronological order, are 10 of the most important statements from the founding generation concerning religious freedom. They begin with the anti-Catholic prejudice of the Continental Congress and continue through the attempts of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to create a society that can truly foster true liberty of conscience.

 

Makes Sense to Me ~ Newsletter from USBIG: U.S. Basic Income Guarantee

Basic fundamental things are wrong with the economics of the world, in my opinion, and the usual approaches are not working. Drastic changes are needed, I think, if we want things to be different.

The first short paragraph of the newsletter explains what USBIG is, and offers you a chance to sign-up for updates. While not being very politically active, I do support the ideas of this group, and similar ones around the world.This newsletter also supplies active links to all the reports and commentary that are quoted or reproted within.

It may also be true that it is time to reap what we've sown, so to speak, in that We the People have elected ALL of our leaders... if so, then no action and no personal thought is required, and you can skip this whole thing.

 

 

USBIG NEWSLETTER Vol. 12, No. 62 Fall 2011

This is the Newsletter of the USBIG Network (www.usbig.net), which promotes the discussion of the basic income guarantee (BIG) in the United States. BIG is a policy that would unconditionally guarantee at least a subsistence-level income for everyone. If you would like to be added to or removed from this list please email: Karl@Widerquist.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. CALL FOR PAPERS: Eleventh North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress
2. EDITORIAL: No Time for Austerity
3. ALASKA makes thirtieth annual dividend payment
4. OCCUPY WALL STREET sparks interest in policies like BIG
5. BIEN recognizes its 25th anniversary
6. KUCINICH’S NEED ACT calls for a Citizens Dividend plan
7. INDIANA GOVERNOR endorses BIG
8. SURVEY asks Americans about BIG
9. BIG NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD
10. BASIC INCOME STUDIES releases new issue
11. RECENT PUBLICATIONS
12. UPCOMING EVENTS
13. RECENT EVENTS
14. BASIC INCOME NEWS needs writers and volunteers
15. NEW LINKS
16. LINKS AND OTHER INFO

1. CALL FOR PAPERS: Eleventh North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress

Toronto, Canada, May 3-5, 2012

The Eleventh Annual North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress will take place May 3-5, 2012 at the University of Toronto on the theme of “Putting Equality Back on the Agenda: Basic Income and Other Approaches to Economic Security for All”. Featured Speakers include Richard Wilkinson (Co-Author of The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better) and Armine Yalnizyan (Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).

Over the past 30 years, Canada, the United States, and many other OECD countries have grown increasingly unequal.  While the rich pull farther and farther ahead, the poor and the middle class are struggling just to maintain their income level.  Evidence regarding economic disparity suggests that income inequality is accompanied by a range of significant negative consequences, and that these consequences are present in greater numbers at every income level of a less equal society when compared with a more equal society.  In January, the World Economic Forum named economic disparity one of the most significant global risks.
Putting Equality Back on the Agenda will consider three central questions:

1.     To what degree is there a common public good in reducing economic disparity among all citizens?

2.     Is a basic income the best way to provide this public good?

3.     How could a basic income best be structured and funded to meet these goals?

The Eleventh North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress is organized by Basic Income Canada Network in cooperation with the USBIG Network. These North American affiliates of the Basic Income Earth Network promote the option of a basic income, an unconditional government transfer that would provide a basic but decent standard of living to all. The congress brings together academics, students, activists, policy analysts, government officials, low-income people, and others interested in exploring the merits of this proposal.

Plenary Speakers Include:

• Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham Medical School and co-author of The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better;
• Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives;
• John Rook, Chair of the National Council of Welfare, Senior Associate with Housing Strategies, Inc;
• Evelyn Forget, Professor, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine; and
• Trish Hennessey, Director of Strategic Issues for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Scholars, activists, and others are invited to propose papers or presentations, organize panel discussions, or submit posters. Proposals are welcome on the following topics:

• What are the costs of economic disparity (economic, social and political)?
• What are the implications for pursuing (or not pursuing) basic income options?
• What are possible models for generating revenue to sustain a basic income and what are their implications for economic disparity?
• What are the practical issues for implementing a basic income policy and what are their implications for economic disparity?
• What communication and engagement strategies are necessary to raise awareness about economic disparity and basic income in the public sphere?

All points of view are welcome. Anyone interested in presenting, organizing a panel, or displaying a poster should submit an abstract of their proposal to the chair of the organizing committee at basicincome2012@gmail.com.

Please include the following information with your proposal:

1. Name(s)
2. Affiliation(s)
3. Address
4. City, Province/State, Postal/Zip Code, and Country
5. Telephone
6. Email Address(es)
7. Paper/Presentation/Panel/Poster Title
8. Abstract of 50-150 words

DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: January 13^th, 2012

Proposals for panel discussions should include a title, topic, and description of the panel and the information above for each participant. If the participants are not presenting formal papers, the title of the paper and abstract may be omitted. Panels should be limited to four presentations.
More info email: basicincome2012@gmail.com.

2. EDITORIAL: No Time for Austerity

            I can’t believe the news. We are in the midst of the worst global depression in 70 years, and the governments of almost every major industrialized country are talking about austerity. They’re cutting government services; laying off public sector workers; cutting pay, pensions, and benefits for public employees—all in the name of austerity and balanced budgets.
            This astounds me because we’ve been through it before. We’ve seen what works; and we know that austerity is not the way out of a major depression. Austerity makes depressions worse. To get out of a depression, the government needs to spend money and lots of it. The lessons of history are clear, and the reading of history I’m going to discuss to make my point is not terribly controversial among economists. Let me explain.
            In a depression (or a deep recession or whatever you want to call it), we get stuck at the bottom. People can’t spend as much because they’re not making as much, but people aren’t making as much, because people aren’t spending as much. Debt is a related problem, and so, I believe, is the real estate market, but there’s no room in this editorial for a full explanation. If you understand the idea of getting stuck at the bottom because of the feedback between spending and income, you get the essence of it. This kind of unemployment is pure waste. Human resources (not to mention idle shops and factories) are simply going to waste unused. We can wait for all that to work itself out on its own—as Japan has been waiting since 1989—or the government can take action.
            We learned how to take action in a big way at the outset of World War II. I wrote a few years ago about “the economic lesson of 1938.” Today’s editorial could as well be called the economic lesson of 1941. The following graph shows U.S. per capita GDP for the years 1929 to 1947—from the stock market crash at the beginning of the Great Depression to the bottom of the post-war recession. Per capita GDP is the income of the average American. The figures are in “inflation-adjusted” 2008 dollars, meaning they’re adjusted to show the purchasing power that the incomes of the time would have at today’s prices. No inflation adjustment is perfect, but it gives you a rough idea. In general the graph shows we were much poorer then than we are now, but it shows much more about the times.

U.S. per capita GDP in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars, 1929-1947

 

SOURCE: author’s plot of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

            The austerity years were 1929 to 1933. In addition to many other mistakes, the government responded to reduced tax revenue caused by declining economic activity by reducing its own activity to match. Average income went down from over $11,000 to less than $8,000—a loss of more than 25 percent. You can think of everybody getting a 25 percent pay cut at the same time or of 75 percent of people keeping their entire income while 25 percent of people lose their entire incomes. What actually happened was somewhere in between, a little bit of both. Unemployment went up to 20 percent, so the depression was roughly twice as bad as what we’re going through now.
            In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt was elected and we started spending money to stimulate the economy. He called it “priming the pump.” He took what, at the time, looked like a big action, spending money trying to help people, to get the economy moving again. And he had several years of success until he returned to austerity measures in 1937 and 1938, suddenly trying to balance the budget. I wrote about that problem in my earlier editorial. Except for that year progress was slow but steady. Yet, by 1941 unemployment was still at 9.67%. After 12 years of waiting for an end to the depression more Americans were unemployed then than they are now in the third year of our depression.
            But in 1941 the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The United States entered World War II. And the depression ended virtually over night. We went from a 10-percent labor surplus to a labor shortage in a matter of months. The demand for labor was so great that women entered the labor force in unprecedented numbers. They found good high-pay jobs waiting for them. Income shot up to $20,000 per year, double what it was in the austerity year of 1938.
            The depression disappeared because the government spent money and massive amounts of it. The government hired the idle labor (and more) mostly as soldiers. The government hired the idle shipyards to build boats, the automobile plants to build jeeps and tanks, and so on. It was good for people, and it was good for business. The entire New Deal—it turned out—was far too small.
            There are dangers to stimulating the economy in the wrong way, at the wrong time, or in the wrong amounts. You can end up with unacceptable debt, inflation, or a delayed depression. But none of these dangers manifest themselves in this case. Except for the obvious losses to war, the spending was good for people. After the war people got married and used the money they saved during the war to make down payments on houses, start families, and build better lives than they had in the 1930s.
            The depression never came back. This is why I end the graph in the recession year of 1947. That year was as bad as the economy got after the war, but yet, per capita income was still nearly $15,000, not quite twice what it was after four years of austerity in 1933 and still 25 percent higher than it was in the boom year of 1929. After 1947 we got good healthy growth punctuated by short, forgettable, recessions. It was one of the best periods of economic growth in American history. Government spending worked, and there was no post-stimulus hangover. The most massive government stimulus we’ve ever had—perhaps the largest in world history—did not cause any significant problems with debt, inflation, or delayed depression.

            You can look at the income and unemployment figures for almost every industrialized, capitalist nation at the time, and you will see the same pattern: as soon as they began massive war spending, the depression ended in their country. But we don’t need a war to stimulate the economy. We just need to break the political obsession with austerity and start spending some money.
            Without the need to spend a stimulus on war, we can spend on schools, road, infrastructure, or on services to help the needy through a basic income guarantee or something else. What we spend it on is less important right now than the need to stimulate. The basic income guarantee movement now needs to be part of broader movement around the world against the austerity craze. This is why I am fully behind movements such as Occupy Wall Street in the United States and the anti-austerity protests in Europe. We must focus the world’s attention on the need for government to spend money to help people. Once we open that door the possibilities are great. But until then, we practice austerity against the lessons of our history.
-Karl Widerquist (karl@widerquist.com), the Second Cup Café, Doha, Qatar, December 2011

 

3. ALASKA makes thirtieth annual dividend payment

USBIG
Alaska paid its 30th annual Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) this October. The PFD is Alaska’s small and irregularly sized Basic Income. It has been paid to all citizens who meet the residency requirement since 1982. This year’s payment of $1174 went out to 647,549 eligible residents on October 6, 2011. A few PFD applications are still pending, and so the final number of recipients might increase.

The dividend is a bit smaller than usual thanks to the weak stock market over the last few years. The size of the dividend depends on the average returns to the Alaska Permanent Fund over the previous five years. The dividend of $1174 translates into $4,896 for a family of four. The poor performance of the fund has continued this year. After recovering to over $40 billion, it now stands at $38.2 billion, according to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. The weakness of the fund’s investments over the past few years will necessarily affect the dividend for years to come. Some editorials have applauded the fund’s performance for being able to deliver a dividend of $1174 during such difficult economic times.

The dividend has been credited with helping the state maintain one of the lowest poverty rates in the United States, with helping Alaska become the most economically equal of all U.S. states, and even with lowering the foreclosure rate on homes. Yet, as a recent Alaska Public Radio report discusses, little good data exists about how Alaskans spend their dividends. They often buy big things when they get the dividend, but in many cases they buy things they would have bought at some time during the year anyway. It is very hard to tell just how their spending differs from what it would be if there were no dividend.

The Alaska Public Radio report (by Annie Feidt, October 6, 2011) is online at:
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2011/10/06/few-studies-track-pfd-impact/

For articles on this year’s dividend see:
http://www.ktva.com/home/top-stories/Alaska-Permanent-Fund-Dividend-130214183.html?m=y
http://www.alaska-native-news.com/article/State_News/State_News/Alaska_Permanent_Fund_Takes_a_31_Billion_Hit/23580
http://juneauempire.com/local/2011-11-03/permanent-fund-takes-early-beating#.Trl4QnKApck
http://www.ktoonews.org/2011/10/05/alaskans-pfd-checks-will-be-in-the-bank-tomorrow/
http://www.adn.com/2011/10/06/2107280/permanent-fund-deposits-1174-in.html

For an article on Alaska’s relative low poverty rate, go to:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/despite-expense-alaskas-poverty-rate-among-lowest-us

An editorial (Scott Woodham, the Alaska Dispatch) on how individuals ought to spend their dividends is online at:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/concerned-whats-so-permanent-about-alaska-permanent-fund

An editorial (by the Fairbanks News-Minter) against the dividend is online at:
http://newsminer.com/bookmark/15669221-Dividend-debates-Alaskans-should-recall-permanent-fund%E2%80%99s-origin-

4. OCCUPY WALL STREET sparks interest in policies like BIG

USBIG
The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread around the country and around the world in the last few months. It is made up of a diverse group of people with diverse goals, united by one simple idea: to reverse the last 30 years of increasing inequality. The increase in inequality has not only been relative but also absolute. The top 1 percent of the U.S. income distribution has seen enormous growth in income and wealth over the last 30 years, while the bottom 80 to 90 percent have seen almost no real growth in income, wealth, or standard of living.

Within that general focus Occupy Wall Street protestors are talking about many different specific policies, and among them is the Basic Income Guarantee. One blog, which managed to get quoted in Forbes Magazine listed BIG as one of the key demands of protestors. This appears to be an exaggeration, but a lively discussion of BIG is underway on the Occupy Wall Street website.

For the BIG discussion on the OWS Website, go to:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/basic-income-guarantee-for-the-us/
The blog post mentioned above is, "Parsing the Data and Ideology of the We Are 99% Tumblr:"
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/parsing-the-data-and-ideology-of-the-we-are-99-tumblr/
The Forbes article about the protestors’ demands is, "Understanding What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/11/understanding-what-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-want/

5. BIEN recognizes its 25th anniversary

USBIG
The Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) was founded on September 6, 1986 under its original name, the Basic Income European Network. Therefore, it marked its 25th Anniversary last September. Guy Standing, one of the honorary Presidents and someone who has been involved in the organization since it was founded, wrote an editorial for Basic Income News reflecting on BIEN’s first 25 years.

Standing writes, “Anniversaries are poignant human moments, points on a journey, never an end in themselves. Twenty-five years ago, on September 4-6, 1986, a small group of us held a workshop on basic income, and on September 6 decided to set up a network, BIEN. The memory is blurred; the documentation is scattered. However, this 25th anniversary is a testament to several aspects of BIEN, and it is perhaps acceptable to reflect on the journey so far. …”

Read the full editorial at:
http://binews.org/2011/09/anniversary-note-biens-25th/

6. KUCINICH’S NEED ACT Calls for a Citizens Dividend Plan

USBIG
Representative Dennis  Kucinich introduced the NEED Act into the U.S. House of Representatives several months ago. The act is mostly aimed at reforming the U.S. banking system, but it includes a provision for outlining a plan to create a Citizens Dividend (another name for Basic Income). The exact wording of the relevant section of the bill is, “. . .  the Secretary [of the Treasury], in cooperation with the Monetary Authority, shall make recommendations to the Congress for payment of a Citizens Dividend as a tax-free grant to all United States citizens residing in the United States in order to provide liquidity to the banking system at the commencement of this Act, before governmental infrastructure expenditures have had a chance to work into circulation. . . . The Secretary shall maintain a thorough study of the effects of the Citizens Dividend observing its effects on production and consumption, prices, morale, and other economic and fiscal factors.”
An article about the act is online at:
http://www.progress.org/2011/hueylong.htm
The text of the bill is online at:
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NEED_ACT.pdf

7. INDIANA GOVERNOR Endorses BIG

USBIG
Mitch Daniels, the Conservative Republican governor of Indiana, has endorsed BIG. An entire chapter of his new book, Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans, is dedicated to the negative income tax. The governor defended the idea to skeptical conservatives saying, "If you believe as I do that Americans — whether poor, or minority, or young — are capable of making their own decisions and that society will work better if we treat them that way, then the negative income tax, it seemed to me, is a real good example of that,"
An article about Daniels book is online at:
http://www.nwitimes.com/business/jobs-and-employment/article_73fac313-af44-5bd3-a2b3-638a4da92405.html#ixzz1fOEX8T6k
The book’s website is:
http://keeping-the-republic.com/

8. SURVEY Asks Americans About BIG

USBIG
A telephone survey finds 11 percent of U.S. voters favor a Basic Income Grant. The survey was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and published on Thursday, September 1, 2011. Rasmussen found that 82 percent of respondents opposed the idea. Rasmussen surveyed 1000 people and claims a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent with 95 percent confidence.

The exact question was, “Another proposal has been made for the federal government to provide every single American with a basic income grant. The idea would be to provide enough money for everyone to enjoy a modest living regardless of whether or not they choose to work. Do you favor or oppose having the federal government provide every single American with a basic income grant?”

Although the percentage is very small, 11 percent of Americans is 33 million people, who answered yes to question asked out of the blue about a policy that has been no part of the public discussion in U.S. politics for 30 years. One surprising fact is that someone is actually surveying Americans about this issue.

The same survey found that 49% of American adults think government programs increase the level of poverty in the United States. Adding to that 19 percent who believe government programs do nothing to help poverty shows that nearly as many Americans (68 percent) oppose nearly anything the government is doing to fight poverty as oppose BIG (80 percent). Only 20 percent of respondents said that current government programs decrease the poverty.
-USBIG

For the Rasmusson report on the survey go to:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/11_think_government_should_provide_basic_income_grant_for_all

9. BIG NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

GERMANY: Party with Basic Income Platform wins 15 Seats in Berlin State Parliament

Wolfgang Muller - BI News
On September 18th, 2011, the German Pirate Party gained 8.9 percent in their first participation in the Berlin state election and far surpassed the required five percent to receive representation in the state parliament. They finished in fifth place and received 15 seats. In their election manifesto they promoted an unconditional basic income as part of their economic and social policy. According to the Pirate Party, basic income should secure the existence of any citizen with permanent residence or unrestricted right of residence in Germany without any further requirements. Post-election polls have attributed much of the Pirate Party’s success to its social policy agenda.

The Pirate Party was founded in 2006 on the basis of a claim for internet freedom. Direct democracy and transparency have developed as further parts of its themes. Since its foundation the Pirate Party has been growing and participated in several German state elections as well as in the German federal election and European Parliament election in 2009. This achievement marks the first time the Pirate Party will participate in a state parliament.

Another party that participated in Berlin state election and stands for an unconditional basic income is the Socialist Equality Party (Partei für Soziale Gleichheit, PSG). Its candidate Christopher Vandreier underpinned the party's claim for an unconditional basic income of €1.500 as a requirement for equal participation in society in an election broadcast shown during the election according to the World Socialist Web Site. The PSG got only 0.1 percent in the election and therefore clearly missed the required five percent.

For more information about Berlin state election, Pirate Party and Socialist Equality Party see:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pira-s10.shtml
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,787044,00.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/berl-s06.shtml
http://berlin.piratenpartei.de/ (German only)
http://www.gleichheit.de/ (German only)
http://www.wahlen-berlin.de/wahlen/BE2011/ergebnis/karten/zweitstimmen/ErgebnisUeberblick.asp?sel1=1052&sel2=0651 (German only)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pira-s10.shtml
http://falkvinge.net/2011/03/18/should-pirate-parties-include-the-swarm-economy/

GERMANY: Pirate Party endorses Basic Income in its national campaign

Joerg Drescher - BI News
According to the press release of the Pirate Party from the December 3, 2011, the party argued about and adopted a resolution in support of Basic Income and minimum wages at its party convention in Offenbach.

After a debate, which took about two hours, the motion “Unconditional Basic Income and Minimum Wages” was carried by 66.9 percent and reached the necessary supermajority. The result shows the long, engaged and controversial discussion. Now the motion is part of the election manifesto for the next federal elections in 2013 in Germany.

The party understands the Unconditional Basic Income as: Insurance for the existence and social participation, as well as a guaranteed individual legal title without means test, compulsion to work or any other reward. Because its implementation will be a change of the paradigm in welfare policy, the launch of a public discussion beforehand is necessary. For that reason, the Pirate Party wants to fund an enquiry commission within the German Bundestag to workout new and evaluate existing models. One of the models should be elected by a national referendum. Until the implementation of an Unconditional Basic Income, the Pirate Party endorses a federal legal minimum wage.

According to GoogleNews more than 600 articles were published on this topic, including by leading nationwide newspapers. One of them, the Süddeutsche, spoke with Sebastian Nerz, the party leader, about Basic Income. He said, he was not convinced, even if he know, that it might be possible. But he wished, that the Party would have dealt with a more concrete model beforehand.

This article says further that Nerz is not alone with his opinion, because a few other members were concerned that the motion was too universal. On the one hand, it says nothing about the amount of the Basic Income (could be 500 or 2.000 Euro). On the other hand, it is not clear how to fund the scheme and which influence it would have on the political economy.

In another interview with Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party, from the 15th November 2011 with EurActiv.com he was asked, which issues are especially important to be addressed on a supranational level and which issues are more relevant for the national level. He answered, that topics as a Basic Income, possession of soft drugs and free public transport, are more national and even regional issues of the German Pirates.

For articles on this topic go to:
Press release of the Pirate Party: http://www.piratenpartei.de/Pressemitteilung/piraten-sprechen-sich-f%C3%BCr-bedingungsloses-grundeinkommen-und-mindestlohn-aus
Article in the Süddeutsche: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/piraten-votieren-fuer-grundeinkommen-vage-statt-gewagt-1.1225882
Interview with Christian Engström: http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/pirate-mep-expect-party-grow-interview-508952

GERMANY: Movement toward a basic pension?

BIEN
Old age poverty increasingly becomes a political issue in Germany. All scientific forecasts predict rising old age poverty in Germany. The Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs Ursula von der Leyen just presented a proposal for a minimum pension. However the access to the proposed minimum pension shall be limited to people who have been insured in the pay-as-you-go pension insurance for 45 years and have paid additionally for 35 years into a funded pension scheme. While the socialist party “Die Linke” proposes a means-tested minimum pension, the BIEN life member and member of parliament for the Greens, Dr. Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, followed the Swedish example and proposes a guaranteed basic pension for all who have been insured for 30 years in the pay-as-you-go pension insurance. Years dedicated to child-rearing or care of relatives count just as well as attendance of school.
Proposal of the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs:
http://www.bmas.de/DE/Service/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/regierungsdialog-rente-2011.html
Proposal of the Greens: http://www.strengmann-kuhn.de/2011/09/15/die-grune-garantierente/

ITALY: Demonstration in Bologna turns into riot

BIEN
On October 12, 2011, hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Bologna within the framework of the “Indignados” movement, against the effects of the financial crisis. Among the claims was the idea of a guaranteed income (“Reddito per tutti”). Most participants were precarious workers. The demonstration turned violent with the intervention of police forces, as several protesters were beaten and even injured.
Further information: http://www.bin-italia.org/

ITALY: BIN-Italia open letter to Italy’s President and Welfare Minister

USBIG
The Basic Income Network of Italy (BIN-Italia), has released an open letter to the President of Italy Mario Monti and the Minister for Welfare. The letter is entitled, "Hurry!" It calls for the introduction of an unconditional guaranteed income. In the letter, BIN-Italia appeals for haste in implementing effective measures to fight the social emergency in Italy. BIN-Italia argues, to avoid the risk of “default of citizenship rights” and to allow Italy to adapt to European standard protection of human dignity it is essential to realize an individual basic income.
The full text of the letter (in English and in Italian) is on the BIN-Italia website:
http://www.bin-italia.org/UP/pubb/Pamphlet%20Labour2_low%20res.pdf

FRANCE: “Young leaders” in favour of basic income

BIEN
Founded in 1938, the “Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants” (“Centre for young leaders”) is France’s oldest representative organization for employers. With its 4000 active members, it remains an influential group. It recently published a document entitled “Oïkos”, which contains several reform proposals to be submitted to the candidates at France’s next Presidential election (2012). Among the proposals is the idea of an unconditional universal grant (“allocation universelle”).

For further information:
http://www.comitebastille.org/2011/10/objectif-oikos-le-livre-blanc-2012-du.html

BELGIUM: Philippe Van Parijs Recives Belgian Ark Award

BIEN
The Belgian Ark Award for Free Speech was created in 1951 by Flemish intellectuals who were opposing restrictions to freedom of expression. In the past decades, it was awarded to several prominent intellectuals, mainly Flemish writers and artists. On May 25, the 2011 Prize was awarded to Philippe Van Parijs (UCLouvain), one of the most prominent advocates of basic income, and a founder of BIEN. In his "Laudatio", Professor Rik Coolsaet (Ghent University) mentioned Van Parijs's defence of basic income as one of the best examples of his lifelong commitment to social justice.
Coolsaet's "Laudatio" was published in the Flemish daily 'De Standaard':
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=GP3AI60C
Van Parijs's speech (in Dutch) is available at: http://www.uclouvain.be/8611.html
The list of past laureates is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Prize_of_the_Free_Word

BRAZIL: Suplicy campaigns for basic income.

USBIG
Senator Eduardo Suplicy spent three months campaigning as a “pre-candidate” for the Workers Party nomination for Mayor of Sao Paulo. He based his campaign almost entirely on the idea of creating a Basic Income at the municipal level. On November 6, 2011 he secured a promise from another pre-candidate Fernando Haddad, the current Minister of Education, that he would incorporate some of Suplicy’s proposal into his own plan. Although Haddad did not offer any specifics, Suplicy, who has three years left to go in his Senate term, agreed to drop out of the race and endorse Haddad.

FRANCE: Three Presidential Candidates to propose Basic Income

Stanislas Jourdan - BI News
The idea of basic income seeps slowly into the French political scene. Following former prime minister Dominique De Villepin’s announcement that he will propose a citizen income to the next presidential elections, two others candidates are preparing their own proposals.

Christine Boutin still favors basic income
Last week, Christine Boutin, president of the Christian Democratic Party, renewed her support for a basic income, in the move of her campaign towards the next presidential elections in 2012. She said at a meeting that she supported a “basic income” for all the French from birth to replace “the hundreds of benefits to which no one understands anything”. She claims a basic income at 400 Euros for every adult while 200 Euros would be given to children. “This is not a sacrament for idleness or a poverty trap, but an asset to escape poverty,” she added. Back in 2006, Christine Boutin was the first major political figure to propose a “universal dividend.” Very inspired by Yolland Bresson’s work, she even filed a bill at the French National Assembly (which was never debated in the end).

“Key measure” of the Green Party
More encouraging news is coming to us that Europe Ecologie – Les Verts (Former Green Party) is currently working on its own proposal for a basic income. According to internal sources from the Party, this will be a “key measure” of their election campaign. Eva Joly, the leader of the party who will be running the election, yet made allusions that she favors a “subsistence income”, and the basic income was already in their political platform in the last elections back in 2007 and 2009. But some doubts remained among observers, still waiting for a concrete proposal in view of the next election.

Villepin under fire
Meanwhile, Villepin’s proposal has been highly criticized by his opponent, arguing that the measure was “demagogic” or “unrealistic”. Even some of his own supporters were destabilized by the idea and left his movement. Other French basic income supporters heavily criticized the nature of the proposal. Indeed, while he suggests a high-valued citizen income of 850 Euros a month, this grant could not be drawn concurrently with other income. But Villepin keeps the line. On his blog he answers critics from President Sarkozy, arguing that “This so called ‘thing’ is no magic nor demagogy, this is simply citizenship.”

For more info about BIG in France go to:
Yolland Bresson's envision of the basic income: http://owni.fr/2011/03/18/yolland-bresson-revenu-existence/
Christine Boutin's statements: http://www.lepoint.fr/fil-info-reuters/christine-boutin-pour-un-revenu-de-base-11-09-2011-1372084_240.php
One critic of Villepin's proposal: http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2011/04/revenu-citoyen-attention-danger.html

LIBYA: CNN editorial suggests “Alaska Solution” to the resource curse

USBIG
Libya has been a classic case of the resource curse: enormous resource wealth (even on a per-person basis), but instead of prosperity, the windfall has coincided with poverty and political oppression. The new government now has the job of finding a way to lift the curse on Libya. A recent editorial by Kevin Voigt of CNN suggests that one of the best ways to do so would be to embrace, what he calls, the “Alaska solution:” distribute some of the oil revenue directly to the people. The article examines other cases such as Norway, Mongolia, and Bolivia to find lessons for how to avoid the resource curse and to bolster the case for the Alaska solution.

The editorial, “The 'resource curse': An Alaskan solution for Libya?” by Kevin Voigt of CNN
September 6, 2011, is online at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/09/05/libya.oil.resource.curse/index.html

SENEGAL: Presidential candidate in favour of basic income

BIEN
Presidential elections will take place in Senegal in February 2012. One of the candidates, Abdoulaye Taye, has announced that his electoral platform would include a strong plea in favour of the implementation of an unconditional basic income in Senegal.

For further information:
Dedicated website (in French): http://www.rbg-amo.com/
Email address of the candidate: layetaye@yahoo.fr
The 44 proposals of Taye’s platform summarized at http://www.nettali.net/Les-44-propositions-du-Docteur.html (in French)

CANADA: Prince Edward Island Green Party Endorses BIG

Wolfgang Muller - BI News
Sharon Labchuck, the leader of the Green Party of Prince Edward Island, finds interest on the idea of a "guaranteed liveable income". According to the Canadian Guardian, she described it as "a bold idea but one worth pursuing". The Green Party and their tax suggestions became subject of discussion in an all-candidates debate for the election in the beginning of October 2011. In particular Robert Ghiz, leader of the winning Liberals, found some of the suggested tax policies interesting and considerable.  The Green Party, however, could not gain any of the seats in October.

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Decision-11/Decision-11/2011-09-19/article-2753391/Ghiz-endorses-Green-Party-tax-suggestions-/1
http://results.electionspei.ca/

CANADA: Manitoba Green Party Leader endorses BIG

USBIG
The leader of the provincial Green Party of Canada has endorsed BIG. According to CARP online, the leader writes, “If elected we would work towards the creation of a universal basic income for all Manitobans.” An article about the statement is online at:
http://www.carp.ca/2011/09/29/green-party-of-manitoba-leader-james-beddomes-statment/

EUROPEAN UNION: EU-Wide Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income

USBIG
At the world action day, an international initiative group announced plans to prepare and launch a European Citizens’ Initiative on the implementation of an unconditional basic income in Europe. Hosted by the Internationaler Runder Tisch Grundeinkommen (international German-speaking round table on basic income), the symposium was held in Vienna on 14/15th October 2011. In the end, 60 scientists, activists and representatives from NGOs adopted a declaration in favor of this initiative. For more information on the initiative, please contact:
Klaus Sambor <klaus.sambor@aon.at> and
Ronald Blaschke <blaschke@grundeinkommen.de>

UNITED NATIONS: UN Report Calls for Social Protection Floor

USBIG
On October 27, 2011, a high-level United Nations panel released a report calling for guaranteeing basic “income and services” for all. The report, entitled Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization, did not specifically call for basic income but the “ floor would guarantee basic income in the form of social transfers in cash or kind, such as pensions, child benefits, employment guarantees and services for the unemployed and working poor, while providing universal access to essential affordable social services in health, water and sanitation, education, food, housing, and other services defined according to national priorities.”
UN Story on the report with a link to the full text of the report is online at:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40218&Cr=social+protection&Cr1

GERMANY (CORRECTION): Basic Income Facebook in German obtains 50,000 followers

USBIG
Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen, a Facebook page in German, obtained its 50,000^th follower in the summer of 2012. The page was created by Daniel Häni and Benjamin Hohlmann in Basel, Switzerland. The popularity of this site is just a small sign of the extent to which the BIG movement is taking off in German-speaking countries from the grass roots to the highest levels. Five of the six major parties in Germany have Basic Income factions. Dozens of members of the German Parliament have endorsed Basic Income. The national German BIG network is a large and growing organization, which has regular events often in cooperation with Swiss and Austrian groups. The German BIG Network will host the 2012 BIEN Congress in Munich. German-speaking countries have something that few other countries have: local Basic Income groups with regular activities in many German cities. Daniel Häni and Enno Schmidt founded a Swiss group in 2006 in Basel. They produced the documentary "Basic Income. A Cultural Impulse" (released in 2008), which is the most popular movie about BI in Germany and Switzerland

The Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen Facebook is online at: http://www.facebook.com/bedingungsloses.grundeinkommen.
For information (in German) about the German BIG network, go to their website:
http://www.grundeinkommen.de/
An English (dubbed) version of "Basic Income. A Cultural Impulse" is online at: http://dotsub.com/view/26520150-1acc-4fd0-9acd-169d95c9abe1

CORRECTION: The original version of this article misidentified the page as being created by the German BIG Network

10. BASIC INCOME STUDIES Releases New Issue

USBIG
Basic Income Studies (BIS), the only academic journal focused entirely on Basic Income, has released volume 6, issue 1, 2011. BIS issues are available for free sampling at http://www.bepress.com/bis.

Research Articles

The Basic Income Road to Reforming Iran's Price Subsidies
Hamid Tabatabai
ABSTRACT: Iran has become the first country in the world to provide a de facto basic income to all its citizens. This article reviews the development of the main component of Iran’s economic reform plan – the replacement of fuel and food subsidies with direct cash transfers to the population – and shows how a system of universal, regular and unconditional cash transfers emerged almost by default as a by-product of an attempt to transform an inefficient and unfair system of price subsidies. The main features of the cash subsidy system are compared with those of a basic income; then some lessons from this experience are drawn that may enhance the prospects of basic income as a realistic proposition.

Overcoming Dividend Skepticism: Why the World's Sovereign Wealth Funds Are Not Paying Basic Income Dividends
Angela L. Cummine
ABSTRACT: More than 50 states around the world now possess a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF), yet only the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) directly distributes profits to national citizens. SWFs are government-owned investment vehicles, more than two-thirds of which have been established since the year 2000. This article seeks to discover why this recent proliferation of SWFs has not been matched with a similar increase in their use as a financing source for Basic Income schemes.

Pathways to a Universal Basic Pension in Greece
Manos Matsaganis and Chrysa Leventi
ABSTRACT: Although basic pension had failed for years to catch the imagination of policy makers in Greece, the severe crisis raging since November 2009 has caused it to be quickly put on the agenda. In May 2010 the government committed to a harsh austerity programme, aimed at fiscal consolidation, in return for a rescue package easing the sovereign debt crisis. The July 2010 pension reform, a key provision of the austerity programme, provided for the introduction of a near-universal basic pension starting in 2015. This paper explains why, paradoxically, the crisis made a universal basic pension in Greece more realistic. We argue, first, that social insurance pensions may be ripe for path-breaking reform if heavily subsidised in a non-transparent way, and, second, that any progress towards basic income is likely to be gradual, uneven and specific to the national policy context.

Basic Income From the Bottom Up? Allocating Jobs and Incomes With the Job Sharing Doodle
Manfred Fullsack
ABSTRACT: The paper presents a proposal for allocating jobs and incomes through using an internet auction that is based on the idea of tradable job quotas. Auction participants are enabled to self-organize for a BI. A smart phone application for conducting the auction is presented, and some results of experiments with multi-agent simulations are discussed.

Research Note

The Case for a Global Pension and Youth Grant
Robin Blackburn
ABSTRACT: This research note argues that, in the age of globalisation, the old age pension should be installed at a global level, by means of a pension paid at a modest rate to all older persons on the planet, to be financed by a light tax on global financial transactions and corporate wealth.

Book Reviews

Review of Peter Baldwin, The Narcissism of Minor Differences: How America and Europe Are Alike
Tord Skogedal Lindén

Review of Joseph Hanlon, David Hulme and Armando Barrientos, Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution From the Global South
Cecilia T. Lanata Briones

11. RECENT PUBLICATIONS

 

Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice: Essays for Philippe Van Parijs

Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
Publisher’s description: A collective volume, entitled Arguing About Justice, has just been published on the occasion of Philippe Van Parijs’s 60th birthday. The book was launched on October 28th, 2011, during the celebrations of the Hoover Chair (Louvain University) 20th anniversary, and remained a complete surprise for Van Parijs himself. The editors Axel Gosseries and Yannick Vanderborght had managed to convince almost 50 authors from all over the world, who all respect Philippe’s ideas and like him as a person, to join this secret project. The authors were asked to write pieces trying out new ideas, taking risks if possible, without knowing anything about who the other authors were, their number, the publisher’s name, the venue for the gift-giving, etc.
            The diversity of Van Parijs’s research interests is reflected in the volume, with contributors from various disciplines covering a wide array of issues. Papers on basic income are of course well represented. They consider how and to what extent such a basic income can be justified (Christian Arnsperger & Warren A. Johnson, Samuel Bowles, Paul-Marie Boulanger, Ian Carter, Robert van der Veen, and Karl Widerquist) as well as the prospects of its implementation, based on experiences from France (Denis Clerc), the United Kingdom (Bill Jordan), Brazil (Eduardo Suplicy), or at a more general level (Almaz Zelleke). Among the other authors are Anne Alstott, Bruce Ackerman, John Baker, Joshua Cohen, Jon Elster, Robert Goodin, Claus Offe, John Roemer, Erik Olin Wright, and many others.
            The endorsement by Amartya Sen reads as follows: “A book of quick and sharp thoughts on a grand theme is a novel way of paying tribute to a leading philosopher. But it has worked beautifully here, both as a stimulating book of ideas on justice, and as a fitting recognition of the intellectual contributions of Philippe Van Parijs, who is one of the most original and most creative thinkers of our time”.
Further details about the book (including all abstracts) and how to order it online are available at: http://www.uclouvain.be/394650.html

Alstott, Anne, “Marriages as assets? Real freedom and relational freedom”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
Abstract: In Real Freedom for All, Ph. Van Parijs characterizes jobs as scarce, external resources that may justifiably be taxed in order to fund a basic income.  Surprisingly, Van Parijs notes, in passing, that a tax on scarce marriage partners might possibly be justified on similar grounds. This essay revisits the analogy between jobs and marriages and concludes that marriage partners are not in principle scarce, although in practice they are. It follows that the first-best course of action is for the state to take measures (including basic income, national service, online dating regulation, and liberalization of marriage laws) to ensure fair access to marriage partners for those who wish to marry. In the absence of such reforms, a tax on marriage partners might be a defensible second-best measure.

Carter, Ian, “Distributing freedom over whole lives”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: Many egalitarians, among whom "real libertarians" like Ph. Van Parijs, wish to assess distributions of freedom in a way that takes into account each person's whole life. Is the policy outcome of such a normative stance basic income (an income allocated at regular intervals during each person's life), or basic capital (a lump sum allocated only once to each person, at the beginning of her life)? The former answer depends on an "end state" interpretation of the concept of "freedom over whole lives"; the latter depends on a "starting gate" interpretation of that concept. On the basis of a reductionist conception of the person (due to D. Parfit), together with a particular idea of respect for persons (called "opacity respect"), it is possible to justify a combination of these two interpretations, and with this, the libertarian prescription of a combination of basic capital and basic income.

Clerc, Denis “Why big ideas never change society”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: Ph. Van Parijs has shown that basic income allows to combine social justice and individual freedom, two goals that are often considered to be incompatible. Why, then, does it remain so low on the political agenda? Probably because its implementation would generate such a big bang in our complex societies, a risk that no government is ready to take. This is why we should rather try to approach this goal gradually, be it through very small steps.

Jordan, Bill “Prospects for basic income: a British Perspective”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: As the idea of Basic Income becomes more of a practical possibility, the political basis for its implementation grows in importance. Among the available rationales for its introduction are to combat the polarisation of incomes through globalisation and to curb the perverse effects of tax-benefit interactions. This paper argues that the proposal should be linked with a global social movement to address the precarious future of the young generation.

Suplicy, Eduardo Matarazzo, “Towards an unconditional basic income in Brazil?”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: In this chapter, I reflect on the history of basic income in Brazil, based on first hand political experience. First, I detail how basic income came to inspire concrete policies in my home country. Second, I focus on the main social assistance program in Brazil today, the Bolsa Família, which is widely regarded as one of the examples to be followed by other developing countries. Third, I explain why I think that a Citizen’s Basic Income (CBI) remains superior, in many ways, to such a conditional scheme. Finally, I try to show how we can move towards a true CBI in Brazil.

van der Veen, Robert, “Why auntie's boring tea parties matter for the fair distribution of gifts”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: Van Parijs’s case for the highest unconditional basic income asserts that the benefits of unequally held gifts - such as inheritances and scarce jobs - should be redistributed by means of taxation, to serve the goal of maximizing the real freedom of the least advantaged. Invoking Dworkin’s egalitarian auction model, Van Parijs argues that the fairest way of sharing the tax yield is to give all an equal share, regardless of willingness to work. In this chapter, however, I show that some gifts command auction prices which reflect a reward for the work required to obtain their benefits. If this outcome of the auction is properly taken aboard, then a fair redistribution of the tax yield must - at least in part - be conditional on people’s willingness to work.

Widerquist Karl, “Why we demand an unconditional basic income: the ECSO freedom case”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: This essay argues that Van Parijs’s notion of “real freedom” does not capture the most important reasons why an adequate social protection system must include an unconditional income. “Real freedom,” the freedom to do whatever one might want to do, is neither the most important freedom for people to have nor a freedom that necessarily explains why benefits must be unconditional and large enough to meet a person’s basic needs. It might not be possible to determine what kind of redistribution plan gives people the most “real freedom.” Instead society must focus on protecting the most important freedoms, especially the freedom of voluntary interaction and the freedom to refuse involuntary interaction: the power to say 'no'. This understanding of freedom provides a compelling reason why basic income must be unconditional.

Zelleke, Almaz, “The capitalist road to communism: are we there yet?”

In Gosseries, Axel & Vanderborght, Yannick (editors), Arguing About Justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain (2011).

USBIG
ABSTRACT: Twenty-five years after the publication of Van Parijs and van der Veen’s provocative “Capitalist Road to Communism,” the global economy has achieved the abundance necessary for communism. The means and relations of production have evolved in a way that makes the elimination of the division of labor, private property, and class divisions—conditions critical to Marx’s vision of communism—possible. A basic income in the context of a global, networked economy, championed by a new and unexpected vanguard class, could fulfill Van Parijs and van der Veen’s original and ambitious claim.

Robert Auerbach: “The U. S. Government's Largest Means-Tested Anti-Poverty Program Has Severe Problems”

In The Huffington Post Politics, September 12, 2011

USBIG
This opinion piece discusses the relevance for today’s politics of the Negative Income Tax proposal, as discussed in the 1970s by Milton Friedman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The author is Professor of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-auerbach/the-u-s-governments-large_b_958329.html

Gareth Morgan, “Tax revamp not about pulling rich down” and “Battle lines drawn over NZ economy”

In The New Zealand Herald, September 13 and November 8, 2011

USBIG
In two editorials, economist Gareth Morgan defends his proposal for what he calls “the Big Kahuna,” a proposal for comprehensive reform of New Zealand’s tax and welfare system, including a basic income.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10751357
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10764433

West, Johnny, “Iraq’s Last Window: Diffusing the Risks of a Petro-State”

Center for Global Development Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development.
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1425433/

USBIG
ABSTRACT: Although Iraq’s oil industry is 80 years old, it has an opportunity to introduce an oil dividend based on the expansion of production currently being undertaken. Even assuming a conservative price for crude, the resulting predicted rise in revenues will allow the government to allocate a significant dividend which halves poverty, helps diversify the economy by creating demand at all income levels for goods and services, and stimulates capital formation—all without cutting into the government’s capital spending plans. A dividend, starting at $220 per capita in October 2012 and rising with expanded production, could also cement the affiliation of all citizens to Iraqi territorial integrity, act as a powerful disincentive to secession in oil-producing regions, and create popular pressure among all sections of the population to discourage acts by the ongoing insurgency which disrupt economic reconstruction. Logistically, dividends could be mapped onto the nationwide and universal rationing system, as the electoral roll has been, and combined with Iraq’s ubiquitous mobile phone networks and new biometric ID cards. A partial dividend would create a strong domestic political constituency for transparency to reinforce international technical efforts to help the government manage oil revenues and create efficient management structures. It would also help Iraq develop an alternative economic model to a future, which the country’s present trajectory now threatens, of a bloated state as the country’s only significant employer, with all the attendant problems of patronage networks, politicization of the civil service, and outright corruption. Support for an oil dividend policy is growing among some politicians, notably those seeking votes among the Iraqi poor such as the Sadrists and Fadhila party. International support could help the government structure a dividend which functions well and in the public interest.

Johnny West is a former journalist for Reuters in the Middle East and the founder of OpenOil, a consultancy which advises the UN on the public policy implications of the oil industry in the Middle East, and which seeks market solutions to resource-curse issues.

MacDonald, Lawrence, “Oil 2 Cash in Iraq: Johnny West”

Global Prosperity Wonkcast, September 12, 2011

USBIG
This website has a written introduction and an half-hour interview with Johnny West who discusses the possibility of an Alaska-style oil dividend for Iraq. According to West, if one takes into account the potential oil revenue of Iraq, the country is capable of generating a much larger dividend than most observers have realized. The reason is that Iraqi oil fields are underexplored and under exploited. It has far more potential to drill than has currently been realized. A livable dividend might well be possible.

Daniels, Mitch, Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans

New York: Sentinel HC, September 20, 2011.

USBIG
This book, by the Conservative Republican governor of Indiana, includes an entire chapter on the negative income tax. The publisher’s website for the book is online at:
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101552148,00.html?Keeping_the_Republic_Mitch_Daniels

Kundig, Bernard, “The Basic Income in a Crisis”

In Economics NewsPaper,

USBIG
In this article, Bernard Kundig, makes a diagnosis of the Greek crisis and shows how Basic Income can be used to help rationalize and clean up public finance in Greece without stifling economic activity.
http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics/the-basic-income-in-a-crisis-67068.html

 

Tarifi, Mohamad, “A Better System of Economics”

In Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies, September 8, 2011

USBIG
In this article, Mohamad Tarifi argues for a Basic Income Guarantee as part of a wider social reform meant to deal with the emergence of new technologies.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/tarifi20110908

Belik, Vivian, “A Town Without Poverty?”

In The Dominion: news from the grassroots. September 5, 2011

USBIG
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
This newspaper editorial reports and comments on Evelyn Forget’s reexamination of Canada's Negative Income Tax Experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 1970s.

Smith, Jeff, “It’s August. Do You Know Where Your Vacation Is?” and  “The Jobs Mirage: How Much More Work Do Humans Really Need?”

In TruthOut, Op-Ed page, August 26 and September 5, 2011

USBIG
In these two successive articles, Jeff Smith argues that Americans need to learn from Europeans to work to live rather than to live to work. He argues that U.S. leisure time is squeezed and that BIG in the form of a Citizens Dividend would help. Jeffery J. Smith in the editor of The Progress Report and The Geonomist.
http://www.truth-out.org/its-august-do-you-know-where-your-vacation/1314291256

`Khariseb Petrus, “BIG still the best option”

Informante (Namibia), September 28, 2011

USBIG
This opinion piece discusses the state of poverty in Namibia and argues that “Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition is still convinced that the BIG remains the best option and the best tool to lighten the burden of the increasing rate of unemployment and to change the ugly face of poverty in Namibia.”
It’s online at:
http://www.informante.web.na/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8781&Itemid=102

12. UPCOMING EVENTS

BELFAST, Northern Ireland, 2012: “Justice through unconditional basic income?”

USBIG
The 2012 European Foundation Centre conference will hold a session entitled, “Justice through unconditional basic income? A debate on European Social Policy” The conference website describes the session as follows:

The social question and the issue of solidarity are among the core issues of the European agenda. The European Commission has focused its Europe 2020 strategy almost exclusively on them and a whole civil society movement on equality and social justice has emerged during the last couple of years throughout the continent. The session will deal with the issue of an unconditional basic income as a possible perspective on European social policy. Should every citizen get the amount of 700 Euro a month with few or no conditions attached? Is that simply utopia? Or is it a real European idea that could lead to the abolishment of other official political welfare systems? And if the unconditional basic income is not the solution for inequality and injustice that exists throughout Europe, what other strategies do we have to improve the economic perspectives of European citizens and explicitly the young generation? Which answers and solutions can we provide in order to achieve social justice, taking into account the historical youth unemployment and the sovereign debt that the young generation will inherit? And what is the role of foundations, i.e. the third sector, in all this?

More information about the conference is online at:
http://www.efc.be/AgaConference/Pages/2012SessionDescriptions.aspx

MUNICH, Germany, September 14-16, 2012. Fourteenth BIEN Congress

USBIG
The Fourteenth BIEN Congress will take place in Munich Germany in September 2012. The call for papers and more information will appear on BIEN’s website soon.
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/

13. RECENT EVENTS

ROME, Italy November 24th 2011 “Precarity and guaranteed income”

USBIG
A public meeting about “Precarity and guaranteed income” was held in Rome on 24th of November 2011. It was organized by Confederazione Generale Italia Lavoro (the Italian general confederation of work) of the Lazio region. Participants included Tina Bali (Secretary of CGIL Roma and Lazio), Sandro Gobetti (Bin Italy) and Michele Raitano (La Sapienza University, Rome) took part at the meeting. Meeting Coordinator was Martha Bonafoni (Director of Radio Popolare Roma). The meeting started at 5 pm and took place at the Detour Urban Oasis, Via Urbana 107 Rome.

The discussion focused on Precarity condition and the need for a guaranteed income in Italy within a broader context such as the European social model. The connection between precarity and guaranteed income has become a focal point in the debate especially for Italy, a country where more than 2.5 million young people are out of work and without any kind of income support.

More information (in Italian) about the meeting is online at: http://www.bin-italia.org/informa.php?ID_NEWS=313

PISA, Italy, November 26^th, 2011 “Welfare and guaranteed income”.

BIN-Italia
An organization called Tilt Camp held a public meeting, entitled "Welfare and guaranteed income for tomorrow's Italy," in Pisa from 3 to 6pm on Saturday 26th of November. Speakers included: Giulio Marcon (Sbilanciamoci), Luca Santini (BIN Italy), Arturo di Corinto (journalist), Claudia Pratelli (Il nostro tempo è adesso. La vita non aspetta), Roberto Ciccarelli (Manifesto), Maria La Porta (Sportello Donna), Vincenzo Bavaro (labor law, University of Bari), Ylenia Daniello (Million Marijuana March), Michele DePalma (FIOM CGIL), Lorenzo Misuraca (Ass. DaSud), Jacopo Pisacreta (Experience-Lab), Valentina Meconi (Fabbrica di Nichi - Fermo). This event is part of a three-day meeting called "Money makes you happy.”

More info in Italian and a link to the “Tilt camp” meeting is online at: http://www.bin-italia.org/informa.php?ID_NEWS=314

BRUSSELS (Belgium), 30 November 2011: European Congress for Change

BIEN
This Congress is organized by “European Alternatives” at the European Parliament. It will bring together activists, citizens and organisations active throughout the continent and sharing a common vision for rebuilding Europe. The Congress aims to clearly spell out that real alternatives to Europe’s social, economic, and political status quo exist, and to work towards the construction of a platform of transnational coordination to better bring those alternatives to fruition over the course of 2012 through a series of transnational campaigns, forums, and assemblies. Basic Income will be among the alternatives to be discussed by the participants.
Further information: http://www.euroalter.com/ppp/events/424/
Important note: It is necessary to register by November 27th for this event to receive a pass to access the European Parliament.

DUBLIN, Ireland, September 14, 2011: Social Justice Ireland’s annual Social Policy Conference

BIEN
This one-day conference addressed the issue of “Sharing responsibility in Shaping the Future”. The full text of the book containing the papers underpinning the presentations at this conference may be accessed free of charge at:
http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/sharing-responsibility-shaping-future-full-text
Each individual paper may also be downloaded separately. Basic Income is named in a number of these papers as being an essential component of a viable, sustainable future.

VIENNA, Austria October 14-15, 2011: International Symposium “From a compensatory to an emancipatory social policy in Europe”

BIEN
This conference was organized by Internationaler Runder Tisch Grundeinkommen (basic income networks in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Italy), and Attac (BI-groups in Austria and Germany). It was held at the Haus der Europaischen Union. For further information please contact: grundeinkommen@ksoe.at

COLOGNE, Germany: Conference: "Basic Income at the Elections for the German Parliament on 2013"

BIEN
Organized by the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Cologne University of Applied Sciences and the local Basic Income Association in Cologne on Saturday November 12, 2012. Participants discussed whether the success of the Pirate Party will make Basic Income a central topic. According to polls, 45% of those who voted for the Pirate Party did that because of the social fairness. The Pirate Party is the first party in a German parliament, that has a "Right to a safe existence and participation" in their party manifesto.

Additional information (in German) is available online at:
http://bgekoeln.ning.com/profiles/blogs/fachtagung

RIVIERA MAYA, Mexico, September 20, 2011 "Seeing Through the Illusion of Money: From Barter to the Gaia Plan"

USBIG
This session at the International Reciprocal Trade Association at the Aventura Spa Resort in Riviera Maya, Mexico featured Richard Cook discussing, in part, a proposal for a worldwide BIG to be administered by the UN and IMF. Cook argued that a Basic Income Guarantee is necessary not only for humanitarian, social, and political reasons, but it is also needed to inject consumer purchasing power into a world economy where it has collapsed due to a fatally flawed monetary system. For more information see:
www.richardccook.com.

14. BASIC INCOME NEWS needs writers and volunteers

The USBIG Newsletter is now a part of BI News. Most of our stories are posted on the BI News website, and many of stories that begin on BI News are reposted here. BI News was founded only a few months ago. It has a growing body of news reports on Basic Income—reports originating all around the world. We are in great need of volunteers to write for BI News and to do other work to keep it growing. If you are interested, contact BInews at: desk@binews.org, or simply contact me: Karl@widerquist.com
-Karl Widerquist, USBIG

15. NEW LINKS

WEB DISCUSSION OF BIG

The TED website, which includes web discussions on various topics, has begun a discussion of BIG. It’s online at:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/6479/basic_income_guarantee_1.html

“WORD MOB” VIDEO FOR BIG

During the international week for BIG in September 2011 the local Basic Income Network in Hamburg Germany (www.grundeinkommen-hamburg.de) created a special performance they call "WortMob" (Word mob). The group spelling the words "BIG" and "human dignity". It ends by asking "what kind of work would you choose if you'd get BIG?"
It can be found online at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i53m63yplRs

BIG KAHUNA Basic Income Plan for New Zealand

The Big Kahuna website outlines a detailed proposal for reform of New Zealand’s tax and welfare system. The proposal includes a basic income.
http://www.gmi.co.nz/bigkahuna/

OCCUPY WALL STREET discussion forum on BIG

A discussion of BIG on the Occupy Wall Street Website, go is online at:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/basic-income-guarantee-for-the-us/

INDIAN BIG PILOT PROJECTS introductory slideshow

Gwang-eun Choi has created a slide show introducing the Basic Income pilot projects that have been taking place in India since January 2011:
http://prezi.com/-n3ms0jriljj/two-basic-income-pilot-projects-in-india/

NEW VIDEO: Large demonstration for BIG in Rome, 2003

The BIN-Italia website has a short video of a demonstration on November 22, 2003 when more than 50.000 people in Rome demonstrated for a guaranteed income. According to BIN-Italian, “Usually in all the demonstration the guaranteed income are one of the request from the people, social movement, precarious worker etc. But this short movie shows the largest demonstration in Italy just for a guaranteed income.”
http://www.livestream.com/binitalia/video?clipId=flv_1ce0092c-3f5d-434b-840b

-6a1d44ec7387

16. LINKS AND OTHER INFO

For links to dozens of BIG websites around the world, go to http://www.usbig.net/links.html. These links are to any website with information about BIG, but USBIG does not necessarily endorse their content or their agendas.

The USBIG Network Newsletter
Editor: Karl Widerquist
Copyeditor: Mike Murray and the USBIG Committee
Research: Paul Nollen
Special help on this issue was provided by: Michael W. Howard, Jeff Smith, Felix Coeln, Grundeinkommen-Hamburg, and Jim Mulvale

The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network publishes this newsletter. The Network is a discussion group on basic income guarantee (BIG) in the United States. BIG is a generic name for any proposal to create a minimum income level, below which no citizen's income can fall. Information on BIG and USBIG can be found on the web at: http://www.usbig.net. More news about BIG is online at BInews.org.

You may copy and circulate articles from this newsletter, but please mention the source and include a link to http://www.usbig.net. If you know any BIG news; if you know anyone who would like to be added to this list; or if you would like to be removed from this list; please send me an email: Karl@Widerquist.com.

As always, your comments on this newsletter and the USBIG website are gladly welcomed.

Thank you,
-Karl Widerquist, editor
Karl@Widerquist.com

===========================================================

KARL WIDERQUIST

Visiting Associate Professor in Philosophy

Room 1D42, Georgetown University-Qatar

Mailing address:

3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.

Suite 2100, Harris Building

Washington, D.C. 20007-2401

US cell phone: +1 504-261-0891

Qatar cell phone: +974 5508-9323

Qatar office phone: +974 4457-8384

Qatar fax: +974 4457-8231

EMAIL: Karl@widerquist.com

PERSONAL WEBSITE: http://www.widerquist.com/

===========================================================

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802 about banks:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Guess who controls the issuance of our currency.

This thought is also embodied in the philosophy and economics of the Social Credit System that has been proposed many times over many decades.

I think it is time to rethink... again.

Wonderful Inaugeration Photos from The Boston Globe

These are GREAT!

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.html

Happy Inauguration Day

I thought I'd get to this sooner, but I just couldn't tear myself away from the events of the day. We even watched thru the entire parade; something many in the official viewing room did not do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CNN has put together this amazing collection of photos, and created a 3-D image you can explore by clicking. They've called it The Moment; the images come from thousands of photos taken by individuals at the ceremony. You won't believe it if you haven't seen it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Someone (a team, surely) in India created this other amazing thing. Check this out.
Sand sculpture in Puri, India and here is the link typed out, just in case...

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Photo-Highlight-Indian-artist-Bhubaneswar2C-India/ss/441/im:/090120/481/de38abda9d7744ceb6d820694dcc74aa/#photoViewer=/090120/481/de38abda9d7744ceb6d820694dcc74aa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News of Kennedy is everywhere, so I won't repeat that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Were you able to watch? working? playing? I'm sure they will run great excerpts from key moments. Hooray.
and our blessings on you, Mr. President, and your family, and your administration.

44 Presidents in 4 minutes...a great morphing job

Happy New Year!

Ok, New Year's Eve came; and ran over me! We had two great parties that day. Danced my socks off! Whoopee!
On New Year's Day I had enough energy to put all the furniture back, deal with the leftovers, and finish the last of the dishes. Did not have enough energy for a post...

Here's a good one, and it came from several directions, so I'll save it for posterity here:

And here's Martin Gross with a wonderful rendition of Auld Lang Syne:

Single-Payer Health Care - More Resources

Places to go for more info & ways to take action on this very important subject:

• Physicians for a National Health Plan
  Scroll down on this page for a list of informative articles, overviews, and resources.

• CNHPNow

 
I'll post more as I find them.

...thanks to commenter, Little Red Hen...

Health care: Wouldn't it be great to have some for EVERYBODY?

Ronni Bennett, about whom you already know from this blog, just keeps getting better and more on point, IMHO.
I hope you'll read her article, "Elders Lobbying for Healthcare for Others".  Here's the opening excerpt:

"As I’m sure you remember, during a speech in Cleveland on 20 July 2007,
President Bush had this to say about health care:

"I mean, people have access to health care in America.
After all, you just go to an emergency room."

For the president of the country with the worst record on health care in the
developed world to make such a statement is awful enough,
but I think the greater giveaway is that it tells us a lot about
what rich people think the rest of us are worth."

Saul Friedman, Newsday writer and long-time journalist, wrote this post recently, from which I take this opening excerpt:

"I’m old enough to remember how it was before Medicare. My mother-in-law was in declining health and my wife and I were seeing to her care. On one visit to her family doctor, a golfer whom we called Buzzie, he told us, “Boy, if she only had the money we could give her the treatment she should have.” We left him for a nice, non-Jewish doctor I had met on the police beat."
[emphasis added]

Both of these articles contain links to other reports and articles related to this issue. Here is one from the New England Journal of Medicine, penned by David Blumenthal, an unpaid advisor to Obama.

Ronni calls us to action! So go do it! Here is a link to Obama's Change.gov site where you can tell him what & why. 

Then go to these websites and tell your Congress people.
[Note, some of your Congressional leaders will be new in January; mark your calendar and write to them them. ]

The US House of Representatives
The US Senate

Ronni, thanks for the story, the links, and your encouragement to step up and say my piece. 

So, what's on MY mind? Well...

I'm 61, and in pretty good health, though I have some high blood pressure and I don't even want to know my cholesterol numbers. The most chronic problem is pain in my lower back (from a VERY old injury), and some stuff that may be the beginning of some arthritis. I have a very high threshold for pain, and don't need anything except periodic generics like aspirin or ibuprofen.

Which is a good thing, because my insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has already disallowed everything that could possibly be associated with my skeletal structure and/or that old injury. In order to comfortably afford the payments, I had to choose a pretty big deductible, and because the treatments I would most like to use and from which I could benefit (chiropractic, massage, Rolfing, etc) are disallowed, I rarely meet the deductible, and so I don't use the services.

Also, there is a $400 annual allowance for 'preventative' care. I tried that out last year. My doc decided that I should have a colonoscopy. No real symptoms, just age related. So, I didn't ask a lot of questions, I just made the appointment and went. Well, part of it all was covered: the $400, of course, but then 50% of this charge and 20% of that charge and yada yada yada, until I was out of pocket almost $2500, AND HAD NOT MET MY DEDUCTIBLE for that year. Better not get the flu!

So, I have health insurance. I can use it for broken legs or heart attacks. In four years I can dump it...and will have enriched BCBS by about $15,000 for basically nothing. What a joy it is.

And the very worst thing, to my way of thinking, is that I'm actually betting with the insurance company that something WILL happen. I'm betting AGAINST myself. Wow! How's that for confidence in the laws of attraction? Crimenentlies!

So, yeah, you bet; I sent my letter to Obama. And I've plugged my calendar to remind me to send similar letters to my 'leaders' in January. Now, you go do it, too.

Prop 8, The Musical ~ (this is too too perfect!)

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Don't ya just love it?!

A Great Article "On the Election of Barack Obama"

An article on Barack Obama has just been published in the major national Native American newspaper, News from Indian Country.

an excerpt:

"And finally, a great leader, a chief or a President, inspires the people to greatness. He makes them feel not less than they are but more than they imagined. “You cannot see clearly,” said Mark Twain, “when your imagination is out of focus.” He would have the American people rise to his expectations, emphasizing the positive over the negative, a strategy much appreciated by Native American traditional healers."

Read the full article here.

If the link is no longer active, please go to the website indiancountrynews.com and do a search for 'Kenneth Cohen'. His article pops up as the first entry.

author bio info from the article:

"Kenneth Cohen is a health educator and scholar/practitioner of indigenous healing traditions. Of Russian Jewish ancestry, he has worked with American Indian traditional healers and elders for more than thirty years. Ken is the winner of the leading international award in complementary and alternative medicine, The Alyce and Elmer Green Award for Innovation. He is the author of Honoring the Medicine (Ballantine Books), national health book award winner, and more than 200 journal articles on spirituality and health."

Additionally, I've done a two-day Qigong workshop with Mr. Cohen; read from his book, The Way of Qigong; my most excellent Tai Chi teacher, Jim Blackburn, is a friend and former student of Ken's, and I feel very comfortable in recommending his work to you.

In this article, besides learning about why Cohen believes that Obama represents 'a new source of strength', you will learn some very interesting facts about the history of our presidents and the Native American nations that you probably don't know...

NOTE: The link behind the book title goes through HMHC's affiliate page and will help support the Center. The link behind the word 'book' goes to the 'books' page on Cohen's website.

A Very Interesting Time Ahead

I'm very happy that Obama won this election. I like the fact that he is telling us that we all have a part to play in the way things go in this country. I like that he can refer to himself as "...a mutt like me." I like that he seems to be calling for more personal integrity from everyone. In fact, there is much I like about him and the potential for our country that I think can come out of his administration.

I have a couple of reservations.

They're related, actually.

President elect Obama does not support gay marriage. I read that as bigotry, no different from the bigotry of race or religion.
And President elect Obama does support faith-based initiatives. I read that as an mixing of church & state that was specifically prohibited by our constitution.
(if you need to read more sources, there are many; just do a search.)

Now, in the same interview I cited on gay marriage (above) Obama does say that he would like to guarantee the same legal rights to the LGBT community by way of civil unions. Hmmm... sounds like "separate but equal", to me. It feels like it, too. It would give me legal rights that I do not have now. AND it does allow a separation of church & state on the federal level, while allowing states to keep it all mixed up.

One of the (several) problems I see with government embracing faith-based initiatives is that the it may be very difficult for faith-based groups other than the Christian Right to receive equal treatment. It seems to me that religion (read Christian Right) is involving itself more & more in affairs of government now, and I fear that it will only get worse. We are a nation of many religions and a very large group of those who choose none. We stand to loose balance & perspective if we allow 'faith-based' groups access to government and our tax dollars, especially if those same groups remain non-taxable.

There is currently a great deal of discussion already, and at least one petition circulating about the tremendous amount of church money that was spent to influence elections in this country. In a cause dear to my heart is the controversy around the LDS churches as they relate to Prop 8 in California.
Here are a few excerpts from the linked articles:

"The LDS Church's campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment."

"What is different is the Alliance Defense Fund's direct challenge to the rules that govern tax-exempt organizations. Rather than wait for the IRS to investigate an alleged violation, the organization intends to create dozens of violations and take the U.S. government to court on First Amendment grounds."

"Church-state watchdogs say that both parties are aggressively reaching out to religious voters and that many not-for-profit groups across the political spectrum continue to engage in questionably partisan practices"

Here is a link to a blogger I read fairly regularly who is also concerned about this issue. She has posted an article from the Council on Secular Humanism.
I hope you'll read it, and other articles linked herein, and just think about it. This issue is a bit scary to me, even while I practice my own personal belief that all is as it should be.  Thanks for listening.   :)

Truth is hard to find; too few of us are looking for it.

As this campaign winds down, one of the things I've noticed is the horrendous amount of money that has been raised to support the two major candidates.
The total is a whopping $684,096,144. Holy Cow!
The site of the FEC has more interesting data.

What I have not found - and won't be spending more time looking for - is just how much was spent on all the political commercials & telephone campaigns with which we've been bombarded. And since I live in one of the 'swing states' those things are STILL RUNNING!!! We all know that the amount of money spent on these things must be staggering.

Interestingly, when I searched the phrase 'political advertising regulations', the FEC site is not what came up first. The FCC came up first, but I found only regs about who can/can't, record keeping, etc. In regard to content, there is only Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315], which is why we here that phrase, "I'm ___  ___ and I approved this message.", and the (often tiny print) phrase that says who paid for that ad.

There were several .orgs, .edus, and a couple of .coms. I don't link those here because you can find them yourself, and because I'm not interested in opinion right now; I'm looking for facts.

Here is an article on FactCheck.Org that discusses the subject of political advertising regulations.This is the first sentence:

Here's a fact that may surprise you: Candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want.

That certainly caught my eye. The article is very interesting and says, basically, what we already know: "candidates have the (constitutional) right to lie to you as much as they want".

So, What's up with that??!!

Here's the FTC's regulations regarding truth in advertising.

This is an interesting, and timely, article from Time Magazine about truth and the 2008 campaign.

One thing that seems clear to me is that political candidates do not hold the 'truth' in high regard. Winning is the end goal, ads are (one of) the means; and many more people will see the ads than will read the fact checkers on any given subject.
And even when we read the facts, we don't necessarily change our minds.

I found several several links to forums, blogs, etc. that discuss this issue. I'm not going to link them here; I'm just worn out and discouraged and if you want to hear another opinion, you'll easily find many.

I remain concerned with the collective ethics of the American citizen, in general. I remain concerned with what seems to me an INCREASE in the us vs them attitude.

Rich people want to stay rich. I get that. I'd like to get rich - and frankly, by most standards I already am rich. (My income just dropped by a bunch and my IRAs are down by 25%.) I think I'd make a very good rich person. I like to think I'd do a lot of good things for my neighbors, my community, my state, etc. should the lottery gods decide to put me in charge of a ton of money.
Would that really be true? I don't know. The statistics on lottery winners doesn't really support that guess.

But, I don't get why we rich folks ride to our posh resorts on the backs of really poor people. Or why a populace who can spend nearly $700 millions dollars to elect one individual over another can't figure out a reasonable way to take care of ALL of our citizens. I don't get it. I don't WANT to get it.

So, I have this idea.

Remember that little box on your income tax form that asks if you want to give $3 to the presidential campaign? The candidates made a big deal of not taking that money this year.
What if we change that?
Let's don't give them ANY public money. Let's change the box. Let's give everyone the opportunity to give $3 to, say, the national debt. You're going to be paying it anyway.  Think how much more quickly we could eliminate that gigantic (and embarassing) number.

Here's another (radical) idea.
Since no one can regulate the content of political advertising, don't sell/allow any more of it.
What if media outlets had to give exactly the same amount of time to each candidate and it was limited to something like 30 minutes a week? There would be no time for mudslinging and lies, would there?
And let's do something about the two-party system. We don't have an effective way of getting those 'others' into the national line of vision.

Then we give a president 4 years in office. What can he accomplish if he spends 2 on campaigning?

I promise my next post will be much more fun than this one.
I don't think it will  be necessarily more important.

Well thought-out; well delivered; great choice.

Thanks, General Powell

A great site and a(nother) great Palin video...

Why has she not already hung herself (I'm speaking figuratively, of course!)?

I found this video on Mudflats, a great political blog I found today... Check out the whole thing:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/  It's really great, imho

Politics and the Art of Conversation ~ Oxymoronic these days

There are SO many things to read about the various candidates, platforms, pundits, and the technical aspects of getting someone elected...

I AM going to put some links at the end of this... but I've noticed something that is, to me at least, a very disheartening phenomena: I have been unable to find, anywhere, a civil conversation about ANY aspect of this year's election.

The best that I know of are two friends, one a Dem and one a Rep, who exchange emails constantly - each one sending their party's content to the other. One has said that she does not read the stuff the other sends (I suspect that is true for both). They just exchange the propaganda, delete or forward, and move on...

Except for this case, the responses seem to be one of these:

• We're sharing (the same) information with those who believe like we do. So we just 'forward' like mad...
• We say (or are told), "don't send any more of that $*#%% to me".
• We shunt a lot of stuff into our 'delete' folders without reading or comment.
• We hear, "Let's don't go there".

And that's probably a good thing, because there seems to be no civility left in conversation around this subject. I think of one of Joel's favorite quotes, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts".  

I haven't been able to find a McCain supporter, for example, who will talk to me about the beliefs they hold that compel them to vote for him, even in an attempt to persuade me to their side. And I haven't found anyone who wants to listen to me talk about why I just voted for Obama. 

No civil conversation: just diatribes, invectives, smears, closed minds, and assorted petty hatefulnesses.

New Mexico is one of the 'pivotal' states, one to still be "won", so we are still being inundated by the political commercial ads of both parties. It is almost embarrassing.

I can't (if I wanted to) keep my opinions totally masked. I do want to share some of the stuff I've been reading. But, even in articles that are otherwise fact-filled, there is so much spite & spin that it is difficult to recommend them to you without qualms.

So, maybe...don't go read these; I'll just post them for the sake of my own journal, my personal history....

My current favorite, written by Frank Schaeffer for The Huffington Post: (not hateful, btw)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-will-be-one-of-the_b_132843.html

Another good one, this on S. Palin, from Garrison Keillor posted in The Seattle Post Intelligencer:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/382133_keilloronline08.html

Here's a very funny (and slanted) view from Betty Bowers who claims to be "America's Best Christian".
Her homepage: http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/
The Keith Olberman video I like:  http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=138
And my Favorite from Betty, Palin attack ad bloopers: http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?cat=44  

Here's one by Tim Dickinson from Rolling Stone magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain 

I just filled out my ballot and will mail it this afternoon. I wish I were more confident that it will be counted.

BTW:
Some links to the opinions of Europeans and other non-Americans:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/european_press_and_the_preside.html

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=bebf8e61-fdd2-41ee-93a6-a0724ff304c9&k=73709

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html 

Here's an interesting page from the BBC on our election - lots of links...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2008/vote_usa_2008/ 

There's lots more; just google it...

Partisanism, Platitudes, Pundits and Principles: which one doesn't fit?

"The measure of the journey is not in the lifespan but in the wingspan."
~Laura Young

What are my principles, and how do they impact my life?
I'm not seeing much of principled behavior in the world these days.
Does it matter to anyone?

There are so many ways to go as I sit to write this post. I don't want to try to 'sell' you my candidate. (Well, I'd LIKE to, but I prefer to hold on to the thought that you are thoughtful, relatively intelligent and self-informed, and therefore capable of making a thoughtful choice of your own.)

But I'm not sure anymore.

It seems to me that we have traded our basic values for the ability to create revenue at the expense of others.
I believe that most of us don't even know what values we hold, or even how to think about the subject. We've created all the laws AND all the loopholes that have led us to where we are right now. And I believe that the level to which you believe you are NOT responsible, is just a measure of your denial.

So what the hell does THAT mean? I'm not sure about that, either.
I'm sure it has to do with making decisions about my values. Here's a very basic one I learned from my former coach, Laura (quoted above):

Will I add to the love in the world; or will I add to the hate in the world?

And, yes; I DO think that is an either/or question. Other questions include:

• Must I seek to blame? When? Why?
• What do I understand about Love - all kinds - and what am I willing to do, say, be to support my conclusions?
• What does honesty mean to me, and what goes into the decision to be honest or not honest? When I choose dishonesty, what are the costs and to whom?
• What are my responsibilities for the behavior of others, and when/how do I act upon them?
• What things are private (if any) and therefore irrelevant to others?
• When (if ever) is what you think of me important?
• How often do I revisit these questions, adding others or subtracting some?

When I've asked myself these questions (and others) and come to some conclusions, then I write my own code of conduct. And these days, I'm really torn in several directions.

There is much to be said for the argument that we 'get what we deserve in this world'. The theory that 'what we focus our attention on gets bigger' is working especially well for those who want to persuade us through fear. There are simply TONS of things on television, radio, and other media outlets, that are perfect illustrations of WHO WE HAVE COME TO BE as human animals on this planet.

I don't want to look like that model.
All I know to do is the best that I can. And for me, that means knowing what I value, learning that I can choose to be involved in many different ways, and behaving with courage now that I know what my principles are. What is most scary to me these days is what I see as a closed-minded, rigid adherence to a set of 'guidelines' that have bypassed the individual consideration  

...oops; gotta go...

http://www.newser.com/story/38842/parker-gets-the-dixie-chick-treatment-after-dissing-palin.html 

This article illustrates some of the fanaticism I see all over this campaign. But more importantly, I see this everywhere these days: in the (extreme) need to blame someone (for ANYthing), in road rage, in the behaviors of some friends & neighbors & family.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-will-be-one-of-the_b_132843.html

This link goes to an excellent piece of writing that expresses something of what I feel about Obama & this election, and these times.

"The measure of the journey is not in the lifespan but in the wingspan."
~Laura Young

What are my principles, and how do they impact my life?
I'm not seeing much of principled behavior in the world these days.
Does it matter to anyone?

There are so many ways to go as I sit to write this post. I don't want to try to 'sell' you my candidate. (Well, I'd LIKE to, but I prefer to hold on to the thought that you are thoughtful, relatively intelligent and self-informed, and therefore capable of making a thoughtful choice of your own.)

But I'm not sure anymore.

It seems to me that we have traded our basic values for the ability to create revenue at the expense of others.
I believe that most of us don't even know what values we hold, or even how to think about the subject. We've created all the laws AND all the loopholes that have led us to where we are right now. And I believe that the level to which you believe you are NOT responsible, is just a measure of your denial.

So what the hell does THAT mean? I'm not sure about that, either.
I'm sure it has to do with making decisions about my values. Here's a very basic one I learned from my former coach, Laura (quoted above):

Will I add to the love in the world; or will I add to the hate in the world?

And, yes; I DO think that is an either/or question. Other questions include:

• Must I seek to blame? When? Why?
• What do I understand about Love - all kinds - and what am I willing to do, say, be to support my conclusions?
• What does honesty mean to me, and what goes into the decision to be honest or not honest? When I choose dishonesty, what are the costs and to whom?
• What are my responsibilities for the behavior of others, and when/how do I act upon them?
• What things are private (if any) and therefore irrelevant to others?
• When (if ever) is what you think of me important?
• How often do I revisit these questions, adding others or subtracting some?

When I've asked myself these questions (and others) and come to some conclusions, then I write my own code of conduct. And these days, I'm really torn in several directions.

There is much to be said for the argument that we 'get what we deserve in this world'. The theory that 'what we focus our attention on gets bigger' is working especially well for those who want to persuade us through fear. There are simply TONS of things on television, radio, and other media outlets, that are perfect illustrations of WHO WE HAVE COME TO BE as human animals on this planet.

I don't want to look like that model.
All I know to do is the best that I can. And for me, that means knowing what I value, learning that I can choose to be involved in many different ways, and behaving with courage now that I know what my principles are. What is most scary to me these days is what I see as a closed-minded, rigid adherence to a set of 'guidelines' that have bypassed the individual consideration  

...oops; gotta go...

http://www.newser.com/story/38842/parker-gets-the-dixie-chick-treatment-after-dissing-palin.html 

This article illustrates some of the fanaticism I see all over this campaign. But more importantly, I see this everywhere these days: in the (extreme) need to blame someone (for ANYthing), in road rage, in the behaviors of some friends & neighbors & family.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-will-be-one-of-the_b_132843.html

This link goes to an excellent piece of writing that expresses something of what I feel about Obama & this election, and these times.

Anne Kilkenny email about Palin and other stuff...

I received the Kilkenny email as did tons of you. I didn't find it mentioned on Snopes.com so I wrote to them. They replied, and have now posted this article about Anne's letter:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

I found the letter very interesting; it certainly raised a lot of questions for me & others. I am not going to reprint the contents here; it is very easy to find - just Google Kilkenny-Palin-Alaska or any combination of this.

I ask that you remember that this letter is opinion: probably informed to some unknown degree, and there definitely IS an Anne Kilkenny who lives in Wasilla. I think it is a good letter and thoughtful, but Anne has not provided documentation or links to documentation.

Re: "the jet plane sold on EBay" it didn't happen - Not True. See this link fron the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In my personal opinion, the Republican team is dealing in smoke & mirrors and their smears & innuendos are to be expected from such as they. I'm appalled that so many Americans are buying their 'line' instead of being embarrassed by such behavior. I don't want my president to present that image in the world and I am certain that it will hurt us & this country a great deal. Again, my opinion: the only way to get change from the Republicans is to vote them out!

To those who get their news from the networks, both public & cable:
If you think there is no slant to the news you hear, think again. Check online, read bloggers - widely, check out opposing viewpoints. When you listen to a politician speak, what do you hear? Policies, Vision, Plans, Platform - or cheerleading, pandering, nostalgic rhetoric, sarcasm, ridicule...?

just me, asking...

Ronni B. & her tribe comment on McCain and aging...

Here are some links from my FAVORITE blogger, Ronni Bennett (a former producer for 20/20, etc.)

She is a Democrat, as am I for the sake of this election, and generally writes about aging and issues related to that such as Social Security & Medicare. Her blog, Time Goes By, has a geriatrician and a lesbian, both writing bi-monthly columns.

 

These links are about McCain, mostly, and include thoughtful commentary & discussion on his choice for Veep, and on his health & age. If you decide to read them, be sure to read the comments also. Ronni’s audience is remarkable for many reasons.

http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2008/09/age-and-john-mc.html  Age & John McCain, part 1

http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2008/09/age-and-john--1.html   Age & John McCain, part 2

http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2008/09/age-and-john--2.html   John McCain, Judgment
http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2008/09/senator-mccains.html    Sen. McCain's Catastrophic Choice

I hope you’ll take the time to read these. I’d love to hear your thoughts, either by email or on this blog.

Politics: What a _____ business!

Politics has always been a tricky subject to discuss reasonably. I'm not totally sure that the words 'politics' and 'reason' aren't oxymoronic when used in the same sentence.

I find it very difficult, also, to paint myself with only one political brush: I don't claim to be a Republican; I'd rather not proclaim myself a Democrat. But I find that being an Independent in the nation who's forefathers penned a Declaration on the subject, actually decreases some of my options in an electoral process - such as voting in primaries.

I find that interesting, and disconcerting.
And, given the nature of political campaigns as they have come to be operated - I refer to the mudslinging, muckraking, 'spinning' - I feel that anyone with an interest in holding a political office, may be, by temperament and character, unqualified to hold that office.

There is also considerable evidence to support the belief that NM poll results may not be a true reflection of how her citizens voted - as is true in about 42 other states.
Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject throughout the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
This one is from Alternet on the Feb. Democratic caucus in NM:
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/76399/
You know you can find tons more on this subject if you want to do so...

Just so you know, up front, I support Obama now. Mostly, I think of myself as pretty liberal. AND I hold some opinions that agree on some issues with Republicans. I believe that most of us could find some places where we could agree with different parties on different issues - or pieces of issues.

The thing is, the campaign is only marginally about issues anymore.

I started this post with the idea of posting a video that came to me by email. Like I do, I sought to find out all that I could about the "who" of the author(s) of the video. Turns out I like 'em, believe that they mean to be honest in their presentation, etc.

They can be found at Brave New Films. http://bravenewfilms.org/about Click on "http://bravenewfilms.org/about/meet" to see photos and read bios.

The film I meant to embed here is at http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html  and was produced by the Brave New Films group. I hope you'll go watch it, but I'm not going to embed it here.

My favorite fact checker, FactCheck.org, does not mention this one. They deal primarily in critiquing political campaign ads from both parties, not individual online stuff.

I go back to my beliefs that this country needs a major, complete overhaul of our electoral system:

• Down with the Electoral College; the need does not exist and has not for decades.
• Down with campaign commercials entirely. Allow coverage of debates, town meetings, etc. for all candidates equally.
• Down with lobbyists, period. 
• Find a way to eliminate this huge need for a candidate to raise money to fund her/his political campaign; control what each party can spend in an effort to keep all candidates in a race that can then be decided on the issues.

What I really fear is that there are not enough critical thinkers left in this country to see past the 'spin', the misdirection, the outright lies that infest the campaigns we see every day. Whatever your political opinions may be, I truly hope they are informed, and not just knee jerk responses to the political commercials we see on television today. And I hope that in forming these opinions, you rely on much more than the  network news of regular television.

Today's Time Goes By, in an article about elder poverty and the outlook for the future posted a great video by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). Note: Independent! I found the sound-track distracting, so I tracked down this version:  (This is a video I think YOU SHOULD WATCH. And be shocked and embarrassed. I believe that the worst part of nasty politics has made this so.)

 

Heaven Help Us...

I swear, if we gave as much energy to fixing the electoral system or Social Security as we do to keeping the "Others" out of our way, we'd have a whole new country and a lot more global respect.

This particular rant was inspired by yet another group trying to stomp on the rights of some of us - this one about gay marriage. Usually, I link articles I comment on here, but if you want to read any of that kind of stuff, go find it yourself.

But 'others' can be anyone - in certain circles, even you: Gays (that broad category that covers SO many), illegal aliens (in Roswell, they're green), Jews, Hispanics, Little People,...basically anyone different from you.

So, I ask: who do you want to be when you grow up?
Wise?
Christ-like?
Loving?
Open-minded?

Or are you one of those who say, "my mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."?

Good grief!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to T''ai Chi class in hopes of lowering my blood pressure and enjoying a few deep breaths, and in letting go of my own prejudices for my "others", the ones who want to believe I'm different from themselves.

Politics, the Isms, and The Big Boys

A must-read, in my humble opinion: go here to Time Goes By for opinion by guest contributor, Linda Burnham, on the two big Isms in the current political race - or try this one by Crabby Old Lady.

I took off from these into a little diatribe of my own, but the cosmic powers that enable (or disable) that sort of thing decided that Firefox had 'encountered an error and must shut down'.  When I got it back, Firefox had saved everything for me, except the text of that post.

Hmmmmm... I'll take that as a sign ; )

Go outside; enjoy the sunshine; and remember the words to Julie Gold's song, From a Distance:

'From a distance you look like my friend,
even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend
what all this fighting is for.'

Here's a link to all the lyrics - just one of many.

The 'best' polititian...? not taking sides here...

In reading & listening to politicians in the coming months, please remember (and bookmark) this site: FactCheck.org. It could help, really.

So, who IS the best politician for you? You are the only one who can answer that.

I suggest that, as you consider their platforms, you might also consider the political system we - yes, WE, the people - have put in place.

Our present system offers a lot of extra coverage to the candidate who has the most money.
Is that a good criteria for measuring competency for leadership?         Maybe.
Does it matter where the money comes from?         Yes, certainly. Drug lobby? Oil lobby? ____  lobby?

And what's up with lobbies, for heaven's sake?!
And what's up with the totally outdated Electoral College?!    Are you so out of touch (or off the grid) that you actually need to give your voting power to a representative? And did you know that it is LEGAL for your Electors to vote any old way they want to?

When & how do we consider a candidate's ethics?
To whose ethical standards do we/should we hold our candidates accountable?
Do ANY of them meet your own standards?

What's with all the MUD? And is the thrower any cleaner than the target?     Not to me.

I wonder what it might be like if a candidate could/would ONLY speak about her/his platforms, ideas, visions and could NOT speak about his/her opponents except to quote from the Congressional Record.
I wonder what a political season might be like if a candidate were not allowed to purchase advertising on TV & radio & in newspapers. What if such news disseminaters had to provide exactly the same number of minutes in the same time frames to all candidates.
Hmmm...

I find it hard to keep paying attention when I hear 'spin' more than substance, and unsubstantiated rumor & mere rhetoric more than reliable platform, and mud slinging & mud dodging.
Makes me a bit crazy, doesn't it you?

My candidate's already gone - lost to financial pressures and unable to purchase the mega-million $$ commercial spots.  (probably a bit simplistic, but he's gone never the less).
And now most of what I hear is race/gender wars which have NO bearing on the actual issues.

AAARRRrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhh!!


exhale... sigh...

"Splitting Hairs"

 

"One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week." The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week." The cop is happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week." The professor is very happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen different books, such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful"

Then, a Congressman comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week." The Congressman is very happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the members of our Congress.

Vote carefully this year."

with Thanks to Pat for sharing

Stepping around a Value

As a matter of principle, I decided some time ago to stand FOR things, not to struggle AGAINST things; to compliment rather than criticize; to support rather than to fight; to love rather than hate.

I'm compelled, however, to provide a link to you from one of my favorite bloggers, Ronni Bennett. This post is all about a new Senate Bill, S.1959, dubbed The Thought Crime Bill.  I encourage you to read it and, perhaps, read several of the posts (both hers and others') at this category link. If you're fond of the freedoms you were granted by our Constitution, you may want to become involved before it is too late. If you believe in national karma...well...hmmm...
Here is a link to the text of the bill.

When this bill went thru the House, only 6 representatives voted against it.
What did your presidential hopeful do?
Find out.

Read, be aware, search your heart, take action when/where you can/will.
Look at your values, decide for yourself.

And since we're on the subject, remember this site: FactCheck.org. It's a prize-winning site of great value. Another link to it resides in the sidebar here under Sites to See.

An interesting quiz - nothing more

This is a little quiz put up online by

WQAD - TV
3003 Park 16th Street
Moline, IL. 61265

 http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

It's fast, and you get to weight the questions as to importance to you. I tend to think that whoever is ranking the answers may not have a clear grasp on the candidates' platforms. I was surprised by the candidate they rated as my #1, but not really too surprised by the others.

Can't hurt you, though... enjoy

Debt - What a bore

Have you ever been up to your eyeballs in debt?
Credit cards, a medical emergency, school loans you keep postponing, mortgages... ?
Do you make $50 thousand a year and owe $150 thousand????!!!

OMG, what in the world are you going to do? What happens if your income decreases, or - heaven forbid - you lose your job?!

Well, guess what, folks. That's exactly where we are - right now - as a nation. And the bill is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And NONE of us want to take a look.

However boring you may feel this issue is  -  or however hopeless, or answer-less, or whatever...
I challenge you to read a few articles on the subject. I'm not making this up.

GAO Chief Warns...    (that's Government Accounting Office)
Here's a quote from this article that might just curl your hair...

"We all agree on what the choices are and what the numbers are," Fraser says.

Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America _ Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.

A hole that big could paralyze the U.S. economy; according to some projections, just the interest payments on a debt that big would be as much as all the taxes the government collects today.

And every year that nothing is done about it, Walker says, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

Just 'google' a search for 'fiscal wakeup tour' or 'GAO Chief' and see what's out there. I think it's very important....

Boomers and Other Radicals

They've sold us paranoia
so we choose silence
and the noise of the few washes over us.

I heard a commentator wondering about where he might find the activists of the past. The most amazing junk is going on in the political world, and here we sit...silent. Certainly silent as compared to the outcry of dissent that was heard in the Vietnam era.

I've heard myself say that I won't travel outside of this country while 'that man' is in the White House. Even while I'm speaking those words, I know that I've taken a cowardly stand. And yet...

Have we bought the paranoia? Has the current stripping of our freedoms made us 'afraid' that we'll appear on some 'list'? The lists didn't bother us in our youth; why do they silence us now? Is that what's happening?
And where are the voices of today's younger people?

Where is the outcry?!

He made me think, that commentator. He made me wonder about the balance between my spiritual path and the realities (?) of the world situation. I'll be using my vote. Things have to change. Will a change be better? or only different?

Ok, I'm Back...and with a Bang!

I received an email this morning from my nephew in Wales. (for background: he grew up in a fairly  fundamental Christian home and has broadened some of his opinions as a result of travel, life experience, education, etc.) Here is what he had to say:

"A documentary prompted me to go online and find out more information about the validity of the belief in Revelation and the Rapture/Apocalypse/Tribulation, etc...
This documentary was so well researched and convincingly backed that I really bought into it. I then looked into it today on the internet to make sure it was not all just a big bias, and now more than ever I feel that those End-Timers who buy into this doomsday theory are not only incredibly misled, but very very dangerous.
Their influence on the White House and its foreign policy is why there is so much unrest in the Middle East and why AIDS in Africa may never be subdued. As long as their influence carries on in the running of America the enormous problems across the globe from civil injustice to global warming will never be cured.
Furthermore, they are not only refusing to aid in furthering peace and protecting our environment, they are hastening the negative outcome of both as they think that the quicker global warming takes effect and the sooner all-out war breaks out, the sooner they will be magically zapped to heaven and the rest of the world who do not buy into the closed, literal interpretation of a specific translation of the book of Revelation, will be left on the earth to endure the worst tribulation the world has ever known.
I'm hoping that the current attitude we are experiencing is directly linked to the ignorant, mildly insane man we have running the country and that it is not too much more deep-seated than his administration. If that is the case, our next president may bring some hope.
I am a Christian, though I feel my personal faith is entirely irrelevant to this global problem we are facing with Christian Extremists with their concentrated voice in America. Please go to http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/doomsday.html for more information on this."

So, naturally, I went there. There is some extremely interesting reading in several places on that site. This is their home page. They are a station for Public Broadcast - a not-for-profit; I like that.
Here's a good article on The Fundamentalists (seems every religion has them, and they may have begun with American Christians). This article mentions that there are also militant & violent Bhuddists - not something that delights me, but not unexpected either. There is a very concise religion TimeLine here.

This should be great material for discussion.

This is fundamentalism as defined by The Free Dictionary: "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." Meaning #2 attributes its origination to American Evangelicals at the turn of the 19th century.

Words like 'organized', 'militant', 'rigid', 'intolerance', & the phrase, 'insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture' are aspects of this point of view that I find very scary. They speak to me of closed minds, and worse yet - closed hearts. Instead of saying something like, "this is the truth FOR ME and it brings me hope and peace - would you like to hear about it?", they say things like 'This is THE TRUTH and you will believe it or you will die, and if I have to, I'll kill you with my own hands."

I think it is this that Alan was speaking about in his email (above). Many fundamentalists in our country are indeed organized and militant and they have the ear of our President. This is scary to me. Lots of things about religion and politics in today's world are scary to me. The MOST scary is that place where religion and politics become mixed, as they are now.

Now - more than ever, perhaps - it's time to open our eyes and pay attention. Or maybe I should say 'now or never' because one of these days we may not have a choice.

I SO Admire Jimmy Carter

Thanks for Paris Parfait for pointing to this story. She has reprinted excerpts.
I can not possibly speak more clearly than Jimmy Carter did in this interview with Larry King.

Note: if the link above is broken, go to cnn.com and find the transcript. A link to 'Larry King Live' at the top of the page will take you to 'highlights'. The 'transcripts' link is in black and is almost to the bottom.

We must all be thoughtful, responsible citizens these days...
...well, even I know that 'all' and 'must' and 'thoughtful' and 'responsible' don't really reflect any truth about the people of this world in any general sense.
But, individually, many of us can & do model these things for the folks around us.
Here's to US. Let's keep it up, ok?

Political Races & the Mud Factor

There is a House of Rep. seat in NM for which two women are running. Their ads have been running for weeks, now. So far, there has been NOT ONE SINGLE AD that addressed issues only. EVERY AD has thrown mud. That's all. Just mud. Two Women! Ok, maybe that's extreme - the mud in each ad is flavored by some issue...but that still does not make them palatable. And to have this sort of campaining coming from two WOMEN makes me doubly mad.  AARRRRRGH!

A sister blogger, Janet, reminded me of this site that may be useful to you in the upcoming election season; please check it out. FactCheck.org  When I first found them I did some Internet research and found them to be who they claim to be: fact-checkers. Believe me, you're going to need them. And they report on both sides.

Additionally, I strongly encourage you to get your news from more than one source (and I do NOT mean 2 different TV networks)!