Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Porn for Kids in Louisville Libraries
A while back I posted a video from American Life League which spoke about a sexually graphic book that is marketed to kids. This is a book that is banned from prisons for being too explicit. Well, one of my intrepid blog readers, who was referred to as "Torch" in a short-lived TV program, brought to my attention the presence of this book in the Louisville Free Public Library. Here's the url for the online catalogue listing.
http://pac.lfpl.org/polaris/search/searchresults.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.4&type=Keyword&term="It's%20perfectly%20normal"&by=TI&sort=RELEVANCE&limit=TOM=*&query=&page=0
(You will probably have to cut and paste the address.)
And yes it is in the "children" section.
If anyone has an opportunity, please stop by your local branch and complain about this book. If there is enough of a ruckus, it could get pulled.
And they wonder why we voted down the library tax . . .
http://pac.lfpl.org/polaris/search/searchresults.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.4&type=Keyword&term="It's%20perfectly%20normal"&by=TI&sort=RELEVANCE&limit=TOM=*&query=&page=0
(You will probably have to cut and paste the address.)
And yes it is in the "children" section.
If anyone has an opportunity, please stop by your local branch and complain about this book. If there is enough of a ruckus, it could get pulled.
And they wonder why we voted down the library tax . . .
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Newspaper headline: "Teen birthrates rose, therefore abstinence only education is a failure!"
Our local newspaper, The Courier Journal (Dad calls it The Curious Urinal, but that's a little too vulgar for my blog), published an editorial which cited the rise in teen births as evidence that abstinence only education isn't working. Let's play spot the fallacy, shall we? the following is the text of the editorial, with my comments in bold.
Some responded with shock to the news that U.S. teen births rose 3 percent in 2006, the biggest increase since 1991. Notice that he(?) is talking about births here, not pregnancies.
The majority of the 440,000 such births in 2006 were to girls between 15 and 19 years old. Black teens saw the largest increase, but these statistics were up among all ethnic groups except Asians.
We can hope that this is a statistical fluke, not the start of a trend.
However, we believe the case has been made anew for a balanced approach to sex education. Abstinence-only programs have been showered with federal dollars during the Bush years, but they're not realistic.Huh? Got any evidence for this claim?
And that's notwithstanding one conservative scholar's ridiculous claim that teens who became pregnant were "highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies." His line of reasoning is easily discredited by scientific findings that teenage brains are works in progress. Development is slow in the region of the brain that allows one to fully consider the consequences of actions, for oneself or for others.Stating that teenagers brains are not fully developed and/or unable to understand consequences is an argument for parental supervision and perhaps a "no dating until your brain is fully developed and you are ready to put someone else's needs before your own" rule, of course this would prevent some people from dating until they are 40, but that's another topic . . .
What's needed for people in that age group is comprehensive sex education. Abstinence is an important option, of course, and should be included in any well-thought-out program. So this editor thinks that someone who has no concept of consequences should be given condoms and that will just solve everything? Is this supposed to be peruasive? Sorry, Charlie. Teenaged promiscuity is the problem. To solve the problem, you must address the problem.
However, really effective sex education also should involve frank discussions about sexuality, including the use of condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancies and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Again, you've stated that teenagers can't use their brains. Taking the taboo off of promiscuity isn't the answer. Teens coming from non-actively religious households may enjoy the sex without consequences message, but no one has bothered to show that this type of behavior, i.e. sterilized, extramarital sexual activity has no negative effect. Putting aside the fact that such behavior is offensive to God, isn't there evidence that teenaged sexual avtivity leads to depression, eating disorders, and inability to form emotional attachments, among a host of other problems, not to mention BABIES?
Yes, it's crucial that we talk to teenagers about the moral and physical risks of having sex, especially before they're mature enough to understand the potential consequences. However, our great challenge is to arm young people with the best possible information, so that they are more likely to make the best possible decisions, if, which is likely, they sometimes find themselves feeling overwhelmed by an urge that's as normal as breathing. Isn't the best decision staying abstinent until marriage? Furthermore, didn't this editor already state that teens don't have well-developed brains? Is he now going to tell us that teens will, with cold, calculating logic, reach for the Trojan in the heat of the moment?
The truly insulting part of this editorial (yes, it is insulting to our intelligence) is the slight of hand as far as pregnancy vs. birth. There is simply insufficient evidence to conclude anything about the role of abstinence only education in this 3% rise in teen birthrates. what this editor has performed is the infamous, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but then wasn't even honest about that, by conflating pregnancy with birth, and not addressing whether the abortion rate had risen, fallen, or remained the same. For example, pregancy rates could have been constant but this is a portion of young women who chose life for their babies, where in prior years they may have aborted. It is even possible that pregnancy rates went DOWN, with a higher birthrate. Furthermore, were the "conservative critics" right in that the majority of teens getting pregnant were well aware of the availability of condoms? It's a hard sell to say that they weren't, since you would basically have to live in The Shire to be unaware of condoms.
Just for the record, I am personally opposed to any kind of "sex ed." in public schools, outside of a biological explanation of how babies come to be, whatsoever. Partly because I don't trust public educrats to teach abstinence properly (whatever happened to chastity?), and partly becuase I think parents bear the responsibility of teaching their children morals. When this type of responsibility gets farmed out to the government, parents end up having little to no control over how their children are going to be introduced to sexuality, which will form the basis of their "worldview" on male-female (or considering today's educrats, any other imaginable combo) relationships. It's hard to counteract such a "feel good morality," and once a parent gets wind of it, it may already be too late.
Some responded with shock to the news that U.S. teen births rose 3 percent in 2006, the biggest increase since 1991. Notice that he(?) is talking about births here, not pregnancies.
The majority of the 440,000 such births in 2006 were to girls between 15 and 19 years old. Black teens saw the largest increase, but these statistics were up among all ethnic groups except Asians.
We can hope that this is a statistical fluke, not the start of a trend.
However, we believe the case has been made anew for a balanced approach to sex education. Abstinence-only programs have been showered with federal dollars during the Bush years, but they're not realistic.Huh? Got any evidence for this claim?
And that's notwithstanding one conservative scholar's ridiculous claim that teens who became pregnant were "highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies." His line of reasoning is easily discredited by scientific findings that teenage brains are works in progress. Development is slow in the region of the brain that allows one to fully consider the consequences of actions, for oneself or for others.Stating that teenagers brains are not fully developed and/or unable to understand consequences is an argument for parental supervision and perhaps a "no dating until your brain is fully developed and you are ready to put someone else's needs before your own" rule, of course this would prevent some people from dating until they are 40, but that's another topic . . .
What's needed for people in that age group is comprehensive sex education. Abstinence is an important option, of course, and should be included in any well-thought-out program. So this editor thinks that someone who has no concept of consequences should be given condoms and that will just solve everything? Is this supposed to be peruasive? Sorry, Charlie. Teenaged promiscuity is the problem. To solve the problem, you must address the problem.
However, really effective sex education also should involve frank discussions about sexuality, including the use of condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancies and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Again, you've stated that teenagers can't use their brains. Taking the taboo off of promiscuity isn't the answer. Teens coming from non-actively religious households may enjoy the sex without consequences message, but no one has bothered to show that this type of behavior, i.e. sterilized, extramarital sexual activity has no negative effect. Putting aside the fact that such behavior is offensive to God, isn't there evidence that teenaged sexual avtivity leads to depression, eating disorders, and inability to form emotional attachments, among a host of other problems, not to mention BABIES?
Yes, it's crucial that we talk to teenagers about the moral and physical risks of having sex, especially before they're mature enough to understand the potential consequences. However, our great challenge is to arm young people with the best possible information, so that they are more likely to make the best possible decisions, if, which is likely, they sometimes find themselves feeling overwhelmed by an urge that's as normal as breathing. Isn't the best decision staying abstinent until marriage? Furthermore, didn't this editor already state that teens don't have well-developed brains? Is he now going to tell us that teens will, with cold, calculating logic, reach for the Trojan in the heat of the moment?
The truly insulting part of this editorial (yes, it is insulting to our intelligence) is the slight of hand as far as pregnancy vs. birth. There is simply insufficient evidence to conclude anything about the role of abstinence only education in this 3% rise in teen birthrates. what this editor has performed is the infamous, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but then wasn't even honest about that, by conflating pregnancy with birth, and not addressing whether the abortion rate had risen, fallen, or remained the same. For example, pregancy rates could have been constant but this is a portion of young women who chose life for their babies, where in prior years they may have aborted. It is even possible that pregnancy rates went DOWN, with a higher birthrate. Furthermore, were the "conservative critics" right in that the majority of teens getting pregnant were well aware of the availability of condoms? It's a hard sell to say that they weren't, since you would basically have to live in The Shire to be unaware of condoms.
Just for the record, I am personally opposed to any kind of "sex ed." in public schools, outside of a biological explanation of how babies come to be, whatsoever. Partly because I don't trust public educrats to teach abstinence properly (whatever happened to chastity?), and partly becuase I think parents bear the responsibility of teaching their children morals. When this type of responsibility gets farmed out to the government, parents end up having little to no control over how their children are going to be introduced to sexuality, which will form the basis of their "worldview" on male-female (or considering today's educrats, any other imaginable combo) relationships. It's hard to counteract such a "feel good morality," and once a parent gets wind of it, it may already be too late.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Rudy in Kentucky
Rudy Guiliani came into Kentucky yesterday, and I was disappointed to discover that our former Congresswoman Anne Northup is sponsoring a fundraiser for him. She was a reliable pro-life vote, but now her sponsorship of Ghouliani makes me nervous about her commitment to ending abortion, since I'm sure she'll run again.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
"Planned Parenthood" Sexualizing Children
There is a common social mythos that "preparing" a child (as young as 8!) for sexual activity will prevent them from engaging in risky behaviors. This is a scam perpetrated by Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. The actions of PP remind me of the tobacco companies. Recruit them young, get them hooked, and watch the money roll in. All the while denying that there are harmful effects. At least with the tobacco companies it was only physical side effects. With PP and the promotion of promiscuity, sterilization, and abortion, the side effects run the gamut from physical, emotional, and psychological harm all the way to spiritual harm.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Getting Ready for Marriage . . .
My fiance and I sometimes amuse ourselves by singing church music. Neither one of us can sing but it's fun and not annoying, like it can be when you sing with someone who just KNOWS they sound good. For awhile, our repetoire was a little limited, since my honey was strictly new Mass until we started dating. But last night we branched out into a little "Kyrie" and "Agnus Dei." Quite a change from "On Eagle's Wings!"
Well, while we were on the topic, I suggested that he listen to the Mass music I had picked out for our wedding. It's "Mass of the Sheperds" by Karl Kempter. You can listen to it online here (just scroll down to the bottom of the page).
The only problem was that my sweet, wonderful honey loves the TLM in large portion because of the solemnity of it all. He thought "Mass of the Sheperds" was a little too "joyful." So I beat the crap out of him and told him that he could be depressed on our wedding day if he wants to, but we're having "Mass of the Sheperds."
Isn't it beautiful? We're really learning to compromise . . . ;)
Well, while we were on the topic, I suggested that he listen to the Mass music I had picked out for our wedding. It's "Mass of the Sheperds" by Karl Kempter. You can listen to it online here (just scroll down to the bottom of the page).
The only problem was that my sweet, wonderful honey loves the TLM in large portion because of the solemnity of it all. He thought "Mass of the Sheperds" was a little too "joyful." So I beat the crap out of him and told him that he could be depressed on our wedding day if he wants to, but we're having "Mass of the Sheperds."
Isn't it beautiful? We're really learning to compromise . . . ;)
Update . . .
My letter might produce some results . . . we'll see. Apparently the sight of my professor's name in the cc list ruffled some feathers, and the Vice President of Student Affairs invited me to have a meeting with him. So I did.
When I walked into his office he immediately started protesting that the University has not discriminated against the Cardinals for Life, and has even given them travel money (for the March for Life in D.C.).
I told him that wasn't my allegation, but, as I stated in my letter, that it would be greatly appreciated if the University would take steps to properly inform campus security that student groups don't need a license. He responded that if someone calls and complains, then campus security has to "check out the situation." I responded that that isn't the problem. Security hasn't simply asked if it's a student groups and then moved on, security has demanded that the students leave. I also mentioned that student groups should be reminded that they are not to call security simply because they dislike the message of other groups.
We'll see if it helps.
When I walked into his office he immediately started protesting that the University has not discriminated against the Cardinals for Life, and has even given them travel money (for the March for Life in D.C.).
I told him that wasn't my allegation, but, as I stated in my letter, that it would be greatly appreciated if the University would take steps to properly inform campus security that student groups don't need a license. He responded that if someone calls and complains, then campus security has to "check out the situation." I responded that that isn't the problem. Security hasn't simply asked if it's a student groups and then moved on, security has demanded that the students leave. I also mentioned that student groups should be reminded that they are not to call security simply because they dislike the message of other groups.
We'll see if it helps.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Pro-Abortion Groups Can't Take The Heat!
When Planned Parenthood came to my oh-so-liberal-law-school, the Cardinals for Life (an undergraduate group) valiantly appeared, passing out flyers and standing up for innocent pre-born babies. Of course, all the strong independant womyn sponsoring the event couldn't be expected to win with logic and rhetoric in the marketplace of ideas. Oh, no. They called Campus Security to protect them from the two(2) young women and two(2) young men who were handing out information outside of the forum causing absolutely no disruption to the event itself. This is the second time that Planned Parenthood and their student group lackeys have pulled this kind of stunt.
Well, I'm a law student, so I sent a friendly letter to the VP of Student Affairs, President Ramsey, Dean Chen, and several other key individuals in our university.
Here is my letter:
To Whom It May Concern:
On several occasions members of the student organization,“Cardinals for Life,” have been approached by Campus Security at the request of other student organizations. The members of “Cardinals for Life” have been told that they need a license to hand out literature, and since they do not have a license they must leave the area.
According to the Code of Student Right’s, Section 7, part C, “students may distribute written material on campus without prior approval, providing such distribution does not disrupt the operations of the University or violate University rules.”
I respectfully request the University to inform all student organizations that it is impermissible to use Campus Security as a means of denying the free speech rights of other student organizations.
I further request that Campus Security be informed that student organizations do not need a “license” to distribute literature on campus. This instruction will prevent Campus Security from wasting time harassing student organizations exercising free speech rights, and prevent an impermissible chilling of free speech due to intimidation.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
My Signature
We'll see if this letter produces any results, even though the faculty advisor for the Federalist Society (yes, I cc'd him) suggested resending the letter through counsel, since he does not expect the University to take action when a mere student points out that there are violations of their own student handbook, (not to mention the Constitution) going on!
Well, I'm a law student, so I sent a friendly letter to the VP of Student Affairs, President Ramsey, Dean Chen, and several other key individuals in our university.
Here is my letter:
To Whom It May Concern:
On several occasions members of the student organization,“Cardinals for Life,” have been approached by Campus Security at the request of other student organizations. The members of “Cardinals for Life” have been told that they need a license to hand out literature, and since they do not have a license they must leave the area.
According to the Code of Student Right’s, Section 7, part C, “students may distribute written material on campus without prior approval, providing such distribution does not disrupt the operations of the University or violate University rules.”
I respectfully request the University to inform all student organizations that it is impermissible to use Campus Security as a means of denying the free speech rights of other student organizations.
I further request that Campus Security be informed that student organizations do not need a “license” to distribute literature on campus. This instruction will prevent Campus Security from wasting time harassing student organizations exercising free speech rights, and prevent an impermissible chilling of free speech due to intimidation.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
My Signature
We'll see if this letter produces any results, even though the faculty advisor for the Federalist Society (yes, I cc'd him) suggested resending the letter through counsel, since he does not expect the University to take action when a mere student points out that there are violations of their own student handbook, (not to mention the Constitution) going on!
Saturday, November 10, 2007
This morning at the Abortion Mill . . .
our new Archbishop Kurtz was in attendance! It is so wonderful to have support like that coming from the hierarchy, especially considering that Archbishop Kelly didn't even come to the annual Walk for Life.
There were about 350 people there, so I'm guessing people knew that the Archbishop was coming. Hopefully this exposure to what's going on downtown will inspire people to devote maybe one Saturday a month to praying outside the mill.
I caught a little exchange between some of the escorts that was startling in its stupidity. Apparently they think the Archbishop was violating the "separation of church and state." What? Do they just want him to keep his religion inside the four walls of the Church? Haven't they heard about that pesky "free exercise" clause? You know, the one that is actually in the Constitution?
Sigh. I hope they don't go to law school. They'd probably get straight A's and end up on the Kentucky Supreme Court . . .
There were about 350 people there, so I'm guessing people knew that the Archbishop was coming. Hopefully this exposure to what's going on downtown will inspire people to devote maybe one Saturday a month to praying outside the mill.
I caught a little exchange between some of the escorts that was startling in its stupidity. Apparently they think the Archbishop was violating the "separation of church and state." What? Do they just want him to keep his religion inside the four walls of the Church? Haven't they heard about that pesky "free exercise" clause? You know, the one that is actually in the Constitution?
Sigh. I hope they don't go to law school. They'd probably get straight A's and end up on the Kentucky Supreme Court . . .
Friday, November 9, 2007
Diversity for me, but not for thee . . .
At my oh-so-politically-correct-law-school they don't even TRY to hide the agenda. Our "Diversity Committe" for example, has hosted such diverse forums as:
"Why Affirmative Action is a Relevent Necessity." Everyone on the panel was lock-step in agreement that of course we need affirmative action! How else are wealthy white liberals going to feel good about themselves?
We also had a forum about homosexual marriage, with a panel of THREE homosexuals. The highlight of the event was when the lesbian started railing against the "religious right" for their intolerance.
Now, dear friends, we are going to have a forum on "Reproductive Freedom" with Planned Parenthood, and some reporter who, I have a sneaky suspicion, is also pro-abortion. Here's a link to the announcement of the forum which is open to the public. If anyone reads this and happens to be in Louisville on Nov. 13th, please come, get free lunch, and help me give 'em hell.
"Why Affirmative Action is a Relevent Necessity." Everyone on the panel was lock-step in agreement that of course we need affirmative action! How else are wealthy white liberals going to feel good about themselves?
We also had a forum about homosexual marriage, with a panel of THREE homosexuals. The highlight of the event was when the lesbian started railing against the "religious right" for their intolerance.
Now, dear friends, we are going to have a forum on "Reproductive Freedom" with Planned Parenthood, and some reporter who, I have a sneaky suspicion, is also pro-abortion. Here's a link to the announcement of the forum which is open to the public. If anyone reads this and happens to be in Louisville on Nov. 13th, please come, get free lunch, and help me give 'em hell.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Kentucky's Gubernatorial Race
Well, it looks like somebody finally put a fire to Governor Fletcher's backside, and reminded him that there are lots of issues that socially conservative Democrats in Ky care about. While his campaign until now has focused on, "The other guy has ethics problems too!" in the 11th hour Fletcher is pointing out some of the issues that may cause Kentuckians, especially those from Western KY, to think twice before voting for Beshear.
For example, Beshear has been endorsed by a radical homosexual lobby. Here is a link to their endorsement, and if you can manage to parse the doublespeak, it quickly becomes apparent that Beshear has promised same-sex unions and the promotion of homosexual adoptions among other things. Kentuckians overwhelmingly voted to affirm marriage as marriage, and I'm sure most do not want special protections and privileges for a small group of deviants.
For example, Beshear has been endorsed by a radical homosexual lobby. Here is a link to their endorsement, and if you can manage to parse the doublespeak, it quickly becomes apparent that Beshear has promised same-sex unions and the promotion of homosexual adoptions among other things. Kentuckians overwhelmingly voted to affirm marriage as marriage, and I'm sure most do not want special protections and privileges for a small group of deviants.
I haven't been blogging . . .
because I got engaged! And I've been very busy with planning the wedding, not to mention the regular duties of a full time law student.
I'll probably end up turning this into a wedding blog because it's the foremost topic on my brain. Paying attention in Products Liability has been challenging to say the least!
I'll probably end up turning this into a wedding blog because it's the foremost topic on my brain. Paying attention in Products Liability has been challenging to say the least!
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism . . . or "Don't taze me, bro!!"
If only J. Kerry had been elected president. Then we could all dance around in the streets with gumdrop smiles. The so-called "terrorists" would be at peace with us because they are only upset at George Bush and his war-for-oil. No one would have to hold a job because all our needs would be taken care of by the government. Students would thus have a greater ability to engage in the free exchange of ideas . . . Ahh . . .If only . . .
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Sen. Craig and Hypocrisy
The recent scandal involving the homosexual activities of Idaho's Sen. Craig(R) has solidified a position I've been tempted to take for awhile. Homosexuals are hypocrites. Because Sen. Craig was in a fairly conservative state, it behooved him to be publicly conservative for political purposes, while tripping the light fantastic, so to speak, in private. I wonder when the MSM will make the connection?
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Thriller Wedding
Too bad this is ABD (Already Been Done), or I would want to do this at my wedding . . .
The Rich Get Richer . . .
I am so sick of hearing people (liberals actually, but I guess they're people too...) denying that allowing a tax cut to expire is the same as raising taxes. Come on people, when something that is done or not done causes taxes to go up, then that is a raise in taxes. It's math.
I also have a distaste for people (again, liberals) complaining about the majority of tax breaks going to the more wealthy among us. Doesn't this just make sense since the wealthy shoulder a higher tax burden in the first place?
Anyway, here is a little analogy to help the economically illiterate undestand what is going on when when we're talking about tax breaks.
H/T No Pasaran!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
2. The fifth would pay $1.
3. The sixth would pay $3.
4. The seventh would pay $7.
5. The eighth would pay $12.
6. The ninth would pay $18.
7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, thats what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, Im going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each mans bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10! Yeah, that’s right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got TEN times more than I! Thats true!! shouted the seventh man.
Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!
Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn”t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
I also have a distaste for people (again, liberals) complaining about the majority of tax breaks going to the more wealthy among us. Doesn't this just make sense since the wealthy shoulder a higher tax burden in the first place?
Anyway, here is a little analogy to help the economically illiterate undestand what is going on when when we're talking about tax breaks.
H/T No Pasaran!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
2. The fifth would pay $1.
3. The sixth would pay $3.
4. The seventh would pay $7.
5. The eighth would pay $12.
6. The ninth would pay $18.
7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, thats what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, Im going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each mans bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10! Yeah, that’s right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got TEN times more than I! Thats true!! shouted the seventh man.
Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!
Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn”t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Ahhh . . .Cheap Labor!
For my summer employment, I worked at a legal aid clinic in NoVa. I worked for free, as an investment in my future career as a struggling-to-pay-off-my-student-loans attorney. Hopefully, this investment will pay off. That's one example of cheap labor.
A second example of cheap labor is the crowd of day workers I passed every morning on my way to work. Actually, I pretty much passed them morning, noon, and night. In fact, one night I passed one who was passed OUT under a tree by the local library, being oh so gently shaken awake by a policeman. I am somewhat uncharitably but realistically under the assumption that the gentleman in question was passed out due to excessive drinking at the run down watering hole that is catty-corner to the library.
I was really disappointed that I didn't have a camera to capture that incident, so I borrowed one to take a few pics for posterity. These aren't the best, when I took these pictures it was a little late in the day for prime day worker gathering, but they do give a feel for what it's like in NoVa re: illegal(?) immigrants hangin' around, waiting for the white vans to come pick them up for a job.
A second example of cheap labor is the crowd of day workers I passed every morning on my way to work. Actually, I pretty much passed them morning, noon, and night. In fact, one night I passed one who was passed OUT under a tree by the local library, being oh so gently shaken awake by a policeman. I am somewhat uncharitably but realistically under the assumption that the gentleman in question was passed out due to excessive drinking at the run down watering hole that is catty-corner to the library.
I was really disappointed that I didn't have a camera to capture that incident, so I borrowed one to take a few pics for posterity. These aren't the best, when I took these pictures it was a little late in the day for prime day worker gathering, but they do give a feel for what it's like in NoVa re: illegal(?) immigrants hangin' around, waiting for the white vans to come pick them up for a job.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
SMOKERS UNITE!!
Great article from Townhall.com.
Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a great idea: Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you get beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase in the federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor person's spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her income than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes highly regressive.
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for a $35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no other federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The foundation's Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette tax hike on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier than it would be if the government raised the money with the federal income tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should bear a disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a disproportionate share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as Harvard economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves taxpayers money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not consume as much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as nonsmokers do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go up, not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994 report from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes in all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably could be attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state and federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an increase of more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price hike needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people paying for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from it. The current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP, currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent. Some legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600 for a family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of providing health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing changes that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal health care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax hike that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes continues to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly funded health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private coverage, encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop coverage of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the number of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number of publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on SCHIP expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That does not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers are an unpopular minority.
Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a great idea: Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you get beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase in the federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor person's spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her income than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes highly regressive.
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for a $35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no other federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The foundation's Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette tax hike on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier than it would be if the government raised the money with the federal income tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should bear a disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a disproportionate share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as Harvard economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves taxpayers money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not consume as much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as nonsmokers do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go up, not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994 report from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes in all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably could be attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state and federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an increase of more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price hike needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people paying for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from it. The current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP, currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent. Some legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600 for a family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of providing health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing changes that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal health care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax hike that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes continues to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly funded health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private coverage, encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop coverage of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the number of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number of publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on SCHIP expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That does not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers are an unpopular minority.
Harry Potter
*****SPOILER ALERT*****SPOILER ALERT*****
So, I finished reading Harry Potter this weekend and I really enjoyed it. However, there is one quibble that I have that goes to the "Is this book acceptable or not for Catholics?" debate. Did Dumbledore seriously ask Snape to kill him? And was it seriously looked at as this major heroic thing for Snape to have done it? J.K. tried to make it "seem" all hunky-dory cause, ya' know, Dumbledore was gonna die anyway. An argument, I might remind you, often employed to justify starving people to death in the real world.
So to any parents, please make sure to tell your muggle children reading this book that IT IS NEVER OKAY TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, EVEN IF THAT PERSON (as humans tend to) IS GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!!!!
So, I finished reading Harry Potter this weekend and I really enjoyed it. However, there is one quibble that I have that goes to the "Is this book acceptable or not for Catholics?" debate. Did Dumbledore seriously ask Snape to kill him? And was it seriously looked at as this major heroic thing for Snape to have done it? J.K. tried to make it "seem" all hunky-dory cause, ya' know, Dumbledore was gonna die anyway. An argument, I might remind you, often employed to justify starving people to death in the real world.
So to any parents, please make sure to tell your muggle children reading this book that IT IS NEVER OKAY TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, EVEN IF THAT PERSON (as humans tend to) IS GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!!!!
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)