AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > May > 30 > Entry
Should the government be in the business of promoting marriage?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
“Healthy marriages are not the result of government programs. Healthy marriages are the result of individual conviction and personal responsibility, neither of which can be mandated by government.” Thank you, Ron Paul. We don’t always agree, but I couldn’t have said this one better myself.
For years, we’ve watched as disastrous marriage incentive programs—get married and keep your welfare benefits!—morphed into the Healthy Marriage Initiative, with few quantifiable results. Remember the administration’s first marriage whisperer, Wade “the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church” Horn? As assistant secretary for the Administration of Children, Youth and Families, Horn gave a significant share of his $47 billion budget to religious right organizations, pushed for abstinence-only programs to target adults up to age 29, and hired conservative columnists to promote marriage.
Hoping things are a little more balanced now that Wade has departed for a cushy consulting job, I spoke with one of the new heads at his old organization, directly asking if there’s an evaluation process for the Healthy Marriage Initiative. I was stunned by the response. “There will eventually be an evaluation, but the criteria aren’t specific,” this high-level spokesperson (who asked to remain unnamed) casually told me.
Amazing. I worked in the non-profit field for years, and in my experience, programs never received a dime of public or private funding without submitting a detailed evaluation process from the beginning.
Proponents of marriage promotion frequently cite powerful arguments for matrimony—economic gains and evidence that two-parent households benefit children. No argument there. Yet where is the proof that any form of government intervention builds better relationships? Moreover, the Healthy Marriage Initiative is funded by robbing Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) funds. Who is to say that marriage classes do more for strengthening a beleaguered family than established TANF programs, like subsidized childcare?
I look forward to a new administration that views accountability as more than a programmatic afterthought. These faith-based partnerships may answer to a higher power, but the U.S. Government, last time I checked, still answers to the citizenry it serves.
Rebuttal
Who’s to say whether marriage-supporting programs might work better than welfare? Well, dozens of extremely thorough studies, actually. Taxpayers spend billions annually to fight poverty, crime, drug use, and so on - all of which stem from the breakdown of marriage. And I don’t mean the broad concept of marriage as an institution. Literally, research shows that nearly all our costly social problems start with individual situations in which marriages fail or children are born to unmarried mothers. As just two examples among hundreds, 97 percent of all Atlanta housing welfare recipients are single parents, and 72 percent of incarcerated juveniles come from broken homes. Those stats come from a variety of sources, including AJC articles and Georgia Family Council (GFC) research.
For years, we’ve been spending immense amounts of money to treat symptoms - and that is still needed. But we should also be trying to “cure the disease,” so to speak.
A new, ground-breaking report sponsored in part by the GFC found that divorce and unwed childbearing costs taxpayers an astonishing $112 billion each year - at a minimum. While liberal leaders rage at $500 billion spent on the Iraq war in the last five years, principal researcher Dr. Ben Scafidi estimates that taxpayers spent at least $560 billion due to family fragmentation in that same period.
In a phone interview, GFC President Randy Hicks said policymakers and citizens must recognize the massive public cost to family breakdown - as well as the very real human cost. He pointed out, “We don’t hesitate to invest in education because we view it as a gateway to success. Why should we hesitate to acknowledge and promote other conditions that prevent suffering and help people thrive? If lack of education leads to suffering, and lack of family formation leads to suffering, we must invest in both.” Such an investment would more than pay for itself — even a 1 percent decrease in unwed childbearing would save taxpayers $1.1 billion a year.
Yes, it will take some time to evaluate and model the best of the brand-new marriage-promoting initiatives, but that doesn’t mean evaluation isn’t taking place. (It is, according to the unnamed Administration for Children and Families source that Andrea cites). And it certainly doesn’t mean that we should stop the long-overdue shift of a small percentage of resources from treating the symptoms, to curing the disease.
Comments
By JokesOn
May 30, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel,
(in case you did not get to see my reply from yesterday)
JokesOn: would you date someone who had a boob reduction? Or is that also the same catering to vanity aspect—or what if you met someone and never knew she had it done until feeling her up—is that like gum under the sheets?
Remember, these are my opinions and preferences…
I covered the “functionality” aspect of a boob job and that would fall under the same umbrella. It can be quite bad on your back to have overly large breast.
If it was just to make them perky and there was no real issue to begin with, it would fall under the umbrella of vanity; and would be seen as a red flag.
As for not knowing until “in the sheets,” that would not happen. Boob jobs are quite obvious if you know what a boob is supposed to look like.
I tend to like women with a little granola in them which (generally) means very little make-up, non-materialistic, and no (non-critical) plastic surgery.
(never heard the term “gum under sheets” and am guessing you mean nasty)
By Mara
May 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Shaunti wrote “97 percent of all Atlanta housing welfare recipients are single parents, and 72 percent of incarcerated juveniles come from broken homes.”
okay. So? That 97% of welfare recipients is equal to what percentage of “broken marriages”? And the same question about the juveniles. Statistics ae useless unless put in context. For example, I could say that 97% of terrorists are dark haired, but unless I know how many dark haired people aren’t terrorists, it means nothing in the context of society as a whole.
another point you seem to have missed is that all the issues you cite as “results” of broken marriages could just as easily be the cause of said broken marriages. Are there studies to compare drug use before divorce with use afterward? Any numbers on child deliquency BEFORE the marriage ended? Hmmm?
as for the subject - sheesh. I don’t know what it is with conservatives and peoples private lives, but come on…this is freakin’ rediculous. They’re fighting tooth and nail to make sure that one segment of the population is never afforded the benefits and priveliges of marriage whilst at the same time declaring the marriage is the panacea for all that ails society.
The government has no business shoving their noses into people’s personal lives.
By lovelyliz
May 30, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
If anything, the government should be supporting smart, stable parents.
There is nothing magical about marriage these days. It’s no longer the stable institution it once was and even in the good old days married too many couples stuck it out because there was no other option even when abuse was involved.
By USinUK
May 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Man … what’s with the changing of the topic before the end of the week???
Archie, you know I think the world of you. You are a very even-keeled guy who always tries to see both sides of things, which is something I respect. HOWEVER … when you say USinUk you can’t read Jeff’s posts and think he means all women but understand he is reacting to something. I don’t know Jeff but sometimes crass,blunt talk gets your attention, it just makes me wonder if you would be quite so sanguine if he said something racist. Would you be so eager to laugh about his disgusting comments??? Somehow, I think not. And, if someone said to you, “well, you never know if he was reacting to being mugged by a black guy”, I don’t think you’d let him off quite so easily with “yeah, but what he says gets your attention” would you?
Sorry, but misogyny is just as evil as racism and shouldn’t be tolerated.
By lovelyliz
May 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Besides, if the government pours money into defending marriage it might be as successful as the abstinence only programs they’ve been funding. CHances are the tax $$$ will be going to the same peopl with the same track recored or lack thereof.
By JokesOn
May 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Taxpayers spend billions annually to fight poverty, crime, drug use, and so on - all of which stem from the breakdown of marriage.
Stem from the breakdown of marriage?!??!? For gods sake!
By Mara
May 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
JokesOn - didn’t you know that before divorce was so easy to get there was no poverty, no alchoholics, no drug users and everybody obeyed the law? LOL!
USinUK - yeah, I found that guys’ “ladies, oh excuse me, women…” comment pretty insulting. And the other comment was simply nasty and crude.
hi liz :^)
By USinUK
May 30, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
jokes -
Stem from the breakdown of marriage?!??!?
yeppers … before there was divorce and single parenthood, there was NO poverty. Everyone was happy, well-fed and well-adjusted. There was no crime. Every man was tall. Every woman was good looking. And all the children were above-average …
By USinUK
May 30, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Hi Mara :-)
By Mara
May 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
Hey USinUK - maybe the “New Topic on Friday” format is part and parcel with their spam alleviation updates. I keep hitting my “end” button on the mainpage and remembering that I have to click into the comments LOL!! urg :^)
By delilah
May 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Just want to comment on the former topic … Shaunti and friends: give it up. Paris Hilton can turn an embarrasssing sex video into fame, her face on the “star” magazines, and once a week coverage on Xtra! Jenna Jameson, porn star, has been on the New York Times best seller list. The caught madam becomes a star automatically. Porn is here to stay! And it’s just a symtom and not a cause of exploitation of women. The Bible, the Koran, advertising, fashion, and B. Spears harm women more than porn. Porn, most of it anyway, is a symptom of male dominance; it’s not the cause. If porn was removed from every hotel room in the world, women would still not be respected. Women would still be the under dog. Women would still be underpaid. Women would still be expected to do the sh-t work. Women would still be raped, battered, tortured, murdered by men. Women would still be blamed, by women and men, for the violence men inflict on them. We live in a world where “power over” in all our relationships is ‘normal’. In every area of our lives there are the top dogs and the underdogs. Those power relationships get twisted into our ideas about sexuality too, of course. And most don’t even see it because our everyday life normalizes sick desire for and ruthless use of power.
By Newzwyre
May 30, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Turns out that even Republicans don’t like the GOP platform.
From “The Next Right” - a conservative blog forum
[snip]
The poll was conducted with Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg for NPR, and Glen Bolger emailed it out to POS’s client list this week. —snip—- For those who don’t know POS is probably the most prominent GOP polling firm.
Let’s start with the economy. When voters know what party each message comes from, we (Republicans) lose 37% to 58% and trail among independents by 18%. Ouch.
However, when you read both messages without telling voters who they come from, the story gets worse.
Republican voters like the Democrat’s message more than their own party’s message by a large 14% margin when they don’t know which party it comes from. Just as disturbing, numbers among independents drop by another 10%… giving the Democrats a massive 28% advantage.
Even our horrifically damaged image is better than our message on the economy. Independents and even Republicans simply like the Democrats’ plan more than ours.
Iraq and trade both follow the exact same pattern. We’re getting smashed on both issues on the partisan test, but when you look at the nonpartisan test where our damaged image isn’t a factor, the numbers get even worse among Independents and Republicans.
[snip]
On taxes, the picture gets more complex. On the partisan text, Independents like the Democrats’ message by significant 14% margin, but Republicans still like our message and give us a resounding 39% advantage. That changes drastically on the nonpartisan test.
When the party’s names are removed, Independents are almost evenly split, giving the Democrats’ message a small 5% advantage. However, Republican voters stampede away from the GOP message. Among Republicans, support for the GOP message on taxes drops by a gargantuan 53% when the party’s names are removed, leaving the Democrats with a 14% advantage.
You read that right, on the nonpartisan test, Independents like the GOP message on taxes more than Republicans do and even Independents slightly favor the Democrats.
more at link - http://www.thenextright.com/josh-kahn/poll-is-our-message-more-effective-without-gop-label
By Truth
May 30, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this
USinUK, Mara
In the two days I have been gone, I have done a bit of research into the porn industry. I visited over 150 porn sites and have called people I know that work in the industry and have talked to people who work in the Georgia legal system. I will post what I found out, but I am certain that Joke will immediately start foaming at the mouth and calling me a liar, but that is to be expected. As far as Mara and USinUK, if you still want to believe:
That advertisers seek out internet porn sites to advertise on and
That the porn industry does not exploit women and children,
knock yourself out. I understand my limitations.
thanks to Mara and Jokes for explaining to Truth how Internet Content Revenue streams work
I’m glad you guys got all that straightened out and agreed on while I was gone. Unfortunately, it appears that you are wrong. In order for Internet Content Review to work, there needs to be outside advertisers that support the site. That applies to sights like Google and Yahoo and even the AJC, but there is no external advertising on porn sites, at least I sure couldn’t find any.
Mara, raise all the hell you want, but go find a single outside advertiser on any porn sight and post the link. I turned off my Popup blocker and visited 150 (yes, I counted them) different sites and not one ad ever came up. Occasionally, another site would be linked, but after taking a look at who owns or runs what sight, they were only linking to other sights that they owned and outside advertisers were NEVER in the mix. So no, they are not going to pay their own company when they advertise on their own web sights.
I couldn’t find a single ad agency that promotes advertising on porn sights and I couldn’t find a single link to any outside ads on any porn sight.
The internet is huge and somewhere, someone might post an ad on a porn sight, but apparently, it is an extreme exception, so no, I have not been contributing to the porn industry by looking at sample videos.
If you can point me to a single site that has outside advertisers, I will gladly admit that I am not 100% right, but I couldn’t find a single one.
As far as legal porn vs. illegal porn, no one had made that distinction before Joke made his infamous claim that Saying the porn industry exploits children is total bs. You can call it what you want, but it is still a lie.
The reason why no one made that distinction is because there is no difference between the two industries (legal and illegal porn). It is the same industry.
Each state has different laws as to whether porn can be produced in that state. In Georgia, it is illegal to videotape penetration or sodomy. It is illegal to edit penetration or sodomy and it is illegal to duplicate tapes or DVDs containing penetration or sodomy. And it is only legal to distribute it in certain counties.
Now I know for a fact that a great deal of videos that are legally distributed in Georgia are ILLEGALLY shot and many are illegally shot here in our own state.
But does that really make a difference? Yes it does:
Producers come to Georgia because in states where porn is legally produced, there are state regulators on set that make sure all the participants are legal age. (Some shoots in legal states are illegally done, not having the right regulators on set, but legal shoots have state regulators) There are no such regulators if the production is illegal in the first place. So, a great deal of porn is produced in states where there are no state regulators. That porn is legally distributed through legal outlets, but there is no distinction as to where the porn was produced (shot).
A huge problem in law enforcement in those states is the fact that the shoots are NOT regulated and does IN FACT EXPLIOT CHILDREN because there is no state official there to make sure the participants are legal age. And that is a problem right here in our own state.
When you buy LEGAL porn, you can’t tell whether or not it was legally shot so there is no way to know if the participants were of legal age.
I stay away from working in the industry because it is slimy and there is almost no distinction between legal videos and illegal videos and it doesn’t have to be child porn before it exploits children, unless of course you believe mature looking 15 year olds should be public fornicators.
DO NOT think that just because you can walk into an Insurrection and purchase a legal porn video, that the participants in that video are not in fact, children (under the age of 18).
You can believe it or you can join Joke in believing that Saying the porn industry exploits children is total bs
To be honest, just the fact that I need to convince two “progressive” women that the porn industry exploits women and children is very strange, so believe what you want.
By Truth
May 30, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
I don’t think that there have ever been any study that did not find that marriage is good for children and actually is good for the adult participants. But of course that will still not meet the requirements for marriage to be promoted by the very active left. The statistics mean nothing and anything that is in any way supportive of families or traditional life styles is completely wrong and should be stopped immediately.
All people should be divorced and we should all turn our children over to the state where they can not only be loved, but also indoctrinated.
BTW, that little bit of over reacting nonsense is in direct response to this little bit of over reacting nonsense: yeppers … before there was divorce and single parenthood, there was NO poverty. Everyone was happy, well-fed and well-adjusted. There was no crime. Every man was tall. Every woman was good looking. And all the children were above-average
By Huh?
May 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
sites? where there quite the sights at porn sites?
By JokesOn
June 1, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Truth,
First: You kind of proved that you were lying. You originally stated that you knew the porn industry exploited women and children first hand because of your professional background, yet had to search for 2 days to come up with simple prose and no links or numbers.
Second: It floors me that after two days of searching, you looked at everything BUT what I said porn sites do to make money.
I’ll break it down for you one more time: You visit a thumbnail site. This site either has text or picture links describing the activity/etc you can expect to find at that particular link. When you click on that link you go to a “preview” page hosted by a pay site (look at the url - it will be a pay site). This pay site gives a fraction of a penny to that original thumbnail site for every person that clicks on their link. Look also at the bottom of any of the thumbnail sites and you will see a link for pay site “administrators” that wish to add their pages to the lists. As i stated, pop-ups are passe since browsers do block them 99% of the time now.
As for your assertion that porn companies have a legal side and illegal one that relies on loop holes in georgia (and other) states laws on porn regulation, show me any significant number of busts that porn companies (like vivid or such, not bob and jan’s garage productions) have incurred due to the shooting of underage kids or women held against their will …etc.
I do not believe you looked into this at all to discover how well the porn industry has actually taken on self regulation.
I will say that, like with any other industry, you have to know what type of company you are giving your money to; but to think you are taking yourself out of the loop by pandering only to online porn is absolutely incorrect. It, as I stated to being with, is more likely that your behavior panders to those mom/pop shops that you state the porn industry is filled with.
So, in one fell swoop, you made an incorrect statements of how porn is rife with woman/children atrocities and how thumbnail site get paid. Hey, everyone makes mistakes, but you then further it by only looking for info that backs your original (incorrect) statements and not “truth.” Not to mention you did two days of looking and can produce no viable links? Geeze.
You need to change your name to DenialsBest or such until you actually have the ability to look at the world without your gross bias and ego.
By Truth
June 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Joke
There was a reason why you were not addressed in the original post. You embarrass yourself whenever you appear here. I was trying to save you from yourself, but apparently, you are just too dumb to realize it.
I own a web site. I pay search engines NOT A SINGLE DIME for links to my site. So you are again proven to be a liar.
As far as the porn industry exploiting women and children, I will not take the time to show you anything. I have taken all the time I am going to take. If you were a reasonable, intelligent poster, I would spend the time, but you are not.
So the ball is in your court, Prove me wrong, big mouth. For once, get off your lazy a*s and do some research, yourself.
PROVE to me that each and every woman that appears in any porn is of legal age. Are you at least smart enough to understand that the stance you are taking is that no underage person has ever been used in a legally distributed video? Are you really so stupid as to take that stance?
You are one creepy dude.
By Truth
June 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Newzwyre
Turns out that even Republicans don’t like the GOP platform.
We like the GOP platform just fine. However, anyone would be crazy not to like the promises made by democrats.
In 2006, Nancy Pelosi sent out a press release that said to vote for a democratically controlled Congress would mean a reduction in the cost of gasoline. Of course we know that the price of gasoline has increased at a higher rate than anytime in history since the democrats have taken control. The promise was very popular. The problem is that the democrats lied. (Say it ain’t so!!)
I pay for my own health insurance. When the Clintons promised to give us all Universal Health care in 1992, it was an idea that I loved, but I knew that they weren’t going to do what they said they would. And sure enough, with control of Congress and the White House in the hands of the party that made the promise, instead of Universal Health Care, we now have HMO pencil pushers deciding the length of hospital stays: the exact opposite of what was promised.
So, yea, we love the promises. We just won’t vote for people who will promise anything to get elected.
By JokesOn
June 1, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
So the ball is in your court, Prove me wrong, big mouth. For once, get off your lazy as and do some research, yourself.*
I guess you forgot how debates work. You have to prove your statement is correct. Besides, I already proven you wrong on both counts. You had to incorporate anyone with a camera as the “industry” to even have a side and including 17yos as “children.”
Tell me this, why in heck would a business make porn of someone 16-17yo when there are tons of people in their 20s that look that age and they cannot even advertise the movie as underage? All that risk and no way to market it!
No way in heck you have any technical association with your websites given your total lack of understanding of what I said (never mentioned a search engine buddy - you had to change the rules again to save face); including that they were bots that advertised on this very blog. You thought they were paid people!
There was a reason why you were not addressed in the original post. You embarrass yourself whenever you appear here. I was trying to save you from yourself, but apparently, you are just too dumb to realize it.
You brought my name and my side of the discussion into your post. You must be the stupid one if you think that is not an invitation to a reply.
You should not have such a freak out session when you are wrong man; especially given the frequency in which it occurs. And you should not lie to begin with about your credentials - I was a web programmer for e-commerce for 7+ years and know how this works.
Don’t like being called out; don’t open your big mouth and spout lies. The porn industry does not employ children, visiting your sites does not sidestep the industry getting $ and that activity is more apt to fund the exact sickos you are stating you avoid my browsing porn.
By JokesOn
June 1, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Are you at least smart enough to understand that the stance you are taking is that no underage person has ever been used in a legally distributed video? Are you really so stupid as to take that stance?
That is what you have to turn my position into in order for you to avoid looking like a total imbecile.
Your position was that the “porn industry” exploits children and women. If I state that the automotive industry promotes theft of cars, then include “chop shops” as part of the industry it would be kind of off base and disingenuous (polite form of lying).
By JokesOn
June 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
So, yea, we love the promises. We just won’t vote for people who will promise anything to get elected.
So you vote for the people that do exactly what they say, even when they promise they will bomb the heck out of those guys in Iraq who hit our trade centers.
I would rather vote for the people trying to make change in spite of the resistance you and your ilk provide. Just because progress is slow coming is no reason to not back it - except for the imperialist and impatient.
I want it now! I want a bean feast…
By Truth
June 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Joke
So what is your stance, Joke? Didn’t you write this:
Saying the porn industry exploits children is total bs
So how is anyone to interpret that as anything but you claiming that the porn industry doesn’t exploit children. For once, instead of vomiting more and more judgment about issues that you are completely ignorant of, tell us all what you were actually saying. I was under the false premise that you write what you mean, but apparently, you have no idea of what you mean. So tell us all, Joke:
Does the porn industry exploit women and children or not? Have a backbone,. Stop preaching and state a fact. i.e. grow a spine.
If I state that the automotive industry promotes theft of cars, then include “chop shops” as part of the industry it would be kind of off base and disingenuous (polite form of lying).
Brilliant. So chop shops and illegally produced porn are alike. LOL!!
I would rather vote for the people trying to make change
Oh democrats are all for change.
In 2005, we had a record number of home sales. Now, after two years of democrats controlling Washington, Homes sales are lower than they have been since the last time democrats controlled Congress. (1992)
In 2005, gas was selling for less than 2 bucks a gallon.
Now it’s almost double that, the largest increase in history.
In 2005, inflation was at 4,1%. Now it is 8%.
Change is what you are getting, alright.
Of course you left out “hope”. I hope you get all the change you can stand.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this
So how is anyone to interpret that as anything but you claiming that the porn industry doesn’t exploit children.
Seeing as it was your statement that I was rebutting, that statement should (in a sane world which you are not obviously) be the focus, but you run away yet again.
The industry does not exploit children anymore than the teaching industry does or any other. To take the stance that the industry exploits children, as you did, needs to be proven that said industry is significantly worse than another. And to couple that with your ignorance that browsing porn is a way to sidestep funding porn makes you look like a total fool.
You have no ability to recognize when you have been beat. Just like the click-through payments you have been supplying the industry with. You were totally wrong and proven so, yet you refuse to grow a spine and admit it. Such a grown up man you are that you cannot even acknowledge your faults. Hope you are not anyones role model - poor kids.
By USinUK
June 2, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
As far as legal porn vs. illegal porn, no one had made that distinction before Joke made his infamous claim that Saying the porn industry exploits children is total bs
well, I’m gonna pick a little nit on that one - I was the first poster and made the statement Shaunti, you may not like porn, but it is legal. So, while that may not have explicitly said that we were limiting the discussion to legal pornography, that comment and the subject matter (porn in hotels) should pretty much tell most commenters that we’re not talking about child pornography or beastiality.
There are no such regulators if the production is illegal in the first place. So, a great deal of porn is produced in states where there are no state regulators.
Well, thanks for making our point for us - that the people who do exploit children and women are doing so illegally. So, it isn’t the Capital-I Industry that’s doing it, it’s illegal porn producers.
—- thanks to Mara for explaining content provider revenue streams : you did a far more succint job than I could have —- (just don’t expect Truth to acknowledge the facts).
As far as this piece of assininity: In 2005, gas was selling for less than 2 bucks a gallon. Now it’s almost double that, the largest increase in history. In 2005, inflation was at 4,1%. Now it is 8%. … Truth, stick to what you know … and that ain’t economics.
First of all, Congress has precious little to do with the price of gas at the pumps. That’s primarily determined by OPEC’s decisions on production and what’s going on in the markets. Right now, OPEC is keeping production low - low supply = higher prices. Additionally, speculators are keeping those prices high. So, no, prices aren’t high because of anything Nancy Pelosi is or isn’t doing.
As a little FYI for you - when the GOP took over congress in Jan of 1995, the price/gal was $1.13. When the Dems took over, the price was $2.38 - an increase of 110.6%. Now, the price is $3.98%, an increase of 67%.
Secondly, CPI is NOT 8% (don’t know what you’re smoking, but CPI isn’t 8% anywhere in the G8). The latest figures have US CPI at 3.9% and core at 2.3%.
Finally, the housing bubble. Are you seriously blaming a Democratic majority in Congress for the current housing crisis? Are you honestly saying that:
1) before Jan 2007, banks weren’t making loans to people who should never have qualified?
2) it ISN’T the fact that so many adjustable rate mortgages are resetting that is causing people to go into foreclosure?
3) the glut of houses on the market due to foreclosures added to the
4) tighter regulations for mortgage qualification, thus limiting the number of house buyers is not what’s driving down the avg house price???
Truth … get back to editing and leave the economics to people who know what the he!! they’re talking about.
By RF
June 2, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Lizzie Borden came from a two-parent family, right? We see how that wonderful, supportive family ended up. The two boys I’m raising were the product of a two-parent family. Of course, both parents became crack addicts, but hey they were married, right? I could go on and on about how many children from so-called perfect families have grown up to be criminals, derelicts, and drug addicts. Geez, Shaunti, take off the rose-colored Victorian glasses and face the facts, hon.
When the government subsidizes marriage, you’ll have people getting married just for the benefits. How is that going to help cure society? It’ll be just like the current mess of staying single and popping out more babies to up the welfare check each month.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
When the government subsidizes marriage, you’ll have people getting married just for the benefits. How is that going to help cure society? It’ll be just like the current mess of staying single and popping out more babies to up the welfare check each month.
Kind of craps on the sanctity of marriage thing too, no?
By USinUK
June 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
CPI isn’t 8% anywhere in the G8
d-oh! I spoke in haste - Russia’s CPI is 14.3%, but the rest of the G8 falls out as follows: UK = 3.0%, Germany = 3.0%, France = 3.4%, Canada = 1.7%, Italy = 3.7%, Japan = 0.8% and, as mentioned, the US is 3.9%.
And, since you’re probably dying to know, China’s CPI is a fairly reasonable 4.8%, considering their GDP of nearly 11%.
By Truth
June 2, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
As a little FYI for you - when the GOP took over congress in Jan of 1995, the price/gal was $1.13. When the Dems took over, the price was $2.38 - an increase of 110.6%.
And that increase happened over a period if 12 years, making the increase average 8.1% a year.
The price is now $3.95 a gal. That is an increase of $1.57 in a year and a half. 66% in a year and a half.
And if you think the dims passing bills that restrict domestic drilling has no effect on speculators you just don’t understand.
This is what is so entertaining about you guys. Go to either the Obama or the DNC website and they will go on and on about the sharp increase in gas prices and want to blame it on Bush. But we both know that Bush has done nothing in the last two years that could have any effect on gas prices.
And of course, we have the wonderful Nancy Pelosi’s Press release from 2005 where she claimed that to vote for democratically controlled Congress was a vote for lower gas prices, so apparently you and she have a disagreement. She obviously believes that the Congress has everything to do with the price of oil.
Personally, I would just as soon Obama wins and the Congress remain Democratic. Let them turn Iraq over to Iran and we will watch the Middle East completely turn on us. Then let them restrict even more domestic drilling and watch what happens to the price of gas.
If gas went up to $10 a gallon, I wouldn’t care. I fill up about once a month. And the inflation that would result? I do pretty well, so I’ll be fine. Of course all those people wanting change and full of hope? They will be screwed, but then again, they would have voted knowing the dim’s record on economic issues.
I just think it would be hysterical watching you guys try to blame all the problems on the Republicans when not a single Republican is in charge of anything. You know: like now.
By Mara
June 2, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Lizzie Borden came from a two-parent family, right?
LOL!! As did those nice Mendendez boys, and the always shy Paris Hilton.
Hey RF…
USinUK - thanks to Mara for explaining content provider revenue streams : you did a far more succint job than I could have
:^) - and props to JokesOn who expanded on methods.
By Truth
June 2, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Joke
The industry does not exploit children anymore than the teaching industry does or any other.
Ah. LOL!! So now the porn industry exploits children no more than our educational system. And you claim that I look like a fool. LOL!!
You are quite the Republican Ally. Let’s see if Mara or USinUK stands beside you on that one. LOL!!
Have I given you enough rope yet? How long are you going to continue to hang yourself?
By Truth
June 2, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Mara
Great logic. Of course Hitler and Charles Manson came from broken homes. So did Jeffery Dahmer.
So do you agree with Joke that our educational system exploits children as much as the porn industry? LOL!!
You guys are a blast!!
By USinUK
June 2, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Truth -
And if you think the dims passing bills that restrict domestic drilling has no effect on speculators you just don’t understand.
and if YOU think that giving Exxon the right to drill willy-nilly in Alaska will result in gas prices of $1.00 (or even $2.00) within 10 years - if ever - then you’re kidding yourself. First of all, they need to figure out where the oil IS, then they need to set up the infrastructure to drill. Then, they need to extract. All of that takes time and a whooooooooooole heckuva lotta $$$. Then, of course, there’s no guarantee how much oil is actually down there, so there’s the possibility that they might not drill because there wouldn’t be the return on their investment.
But, yeah, you’re right. To he!! with the environment - Let ‘em all drill - THAT will solve ALL our oil problems.
As for Bush - he’s the one walking hand-in-hand with the Saudis through the fields of Texas blue-bells … if anyone has the “clout” to get OPEC to increase production, it should be the President, no??? but, then, why should he help lower gas prices when he’s not running for reelection AND all his buddies are getting rich off high oil prices … hrmmmm …
blame all the problems on the Republicans when not a single Republican is in charge of anything
not a single GOP is in charge of anything??? oh, REEELLY??? I know W is a huge drag on your party right now, but have you completely forgotten the guy who is in the WH?? have you also forgotten Henry Paulsen? What about Condi? she ring any bells? Then, there’s the fine folks who brought us their fabulous efforts in the Katrina aftermath (how about a little cancer from formaldehyde-laden trailers to go with your homelessness??) Don’t even get me started on the new spineless AG who knows that the WH endorsed torture but refuses to do anything about it.
GOP isn’t in charge of anything anymore, indeed.
although, I do find it highly amusing that you have ignored all the economic fallacies I corrected - especially inflation and the housing crisis. While you made the point that the rise in gas prices was the largest ever - you didn’t specify a period of time (18 mos vs. 18 years).
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Ah. LOL!! So now the porn industry exploits children no more than our educational system. And you claim that I look like a fool. LOL!!
I guess you have not kept up with the news of how many kids are molested by our teachers.
Seeing as you have not had anything to add since your first ranting, I am moving on to join the rational people in debate.
Go browse some more porn on your non-click through sites;)
By JustAnother
June 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
just another Ann Coulterish day at W-2-W.
By Mara
June 2, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Of course Hitler and Charles Manson came from broken homes. So did Jeffery Dahmer.
and your point was….?
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Of course Hitler and Charles Manson came from broken homes. So did Jeffery Dahmer.
and your point was….?
By truths logic, he would have to prove that no two parent family ever created a screwed up kid in order to say that two parent families are better than single parent ones.
By USinUK
June 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
jokes - Go browse some more porn on your non-click through sites
(ahem) FREE non-click sites … which makes me wonder, does that make it charity porn?
By Truth
June 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Joke
Show me where the school system pays children to have sex with adults. That’s all I ask.
Here. Have some more rope. I have plenty.
By Mara
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Great logic. Of course Hitler and Charles Manson came from broken homes. So did Jeffery Dahmer.
Okay, I’m official puzzled – I did some checking and Adolf Hitler was raised in an intact family, as was Jeffrey Dahmer. Charles Manson was not.
So, other than “Truth” using them in the same post to illustrate…something…how do they relate to the issue and why am I humming “one of these things is not like the other. One of things does not belong…”?
By Truth
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Mara
There was no point. I was answering your post that had no point.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
(ahem) FREE non-click sites … which makes me wonder, does that make it charity porn?
Frankly, if any of the sites he frequents is non-advertised porn, I wonder how many underage sites he is visiting. (regulated) sites exist to make money; and there is only one reason not to be regulated and get money as truth pointed out.
By Truth
June 2, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
and if YOU think that giving Exxon the right to drill willy-nilly in Alaska will result in gas prices of $1.00 (or even $2.00) within 10 years – bla, bla, bla
You need to start keeping up with current events. The dims struck down a bill that would allow shale research in Colorado just two weeks ago.
But here’s a clue. When we don’t drill domestically, under the most restrictive environmental controls in the world, the oil is drilled somewhere else, under much less restrictive controls. So instead of drilling where no one lives, the oil is drilled and refined in third world countries where there is NO environmental restrictions. So by not drilling in ANWAR, populated areas are polluted like crazy.
So don’t tell me it is a matter of saving the environment. Your party’s policies not only pollute more than ANWAR would ever be polluted, but it pollutes where people actually live.
But, yeah, you’re right. To he!! with the environment - Let ‘em all drill - THAT will solve ALL our oil problems.
Not all of them. But my party wants to solve problems. Your party says no drilling AND abandon our middle eastern allies. So where do we go now, girl?
As for Bush - he’s the one walking hand-in-hand with the Saudis through the fields of Texas blue-bells … if anyone has the “clout” to get OPEC to increase production, it should be the President, no???
And while the Dims were striking down yet another Republican proposal that would cut back our reliance on foreign oil, the President was able to convince the Saudis to increase production. Certainly not enough, but he was ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING!!
not a single GOP is in charge of anything??? oh, REEELLY??? I know W is a huge drag on your party right now, but have you completely forgotten the guy who is in the WH?? have you also forgotten Henry Paulsen? What about Condi? she ring any bells?
And what are they doing that is making the price of gas go through the roof? Name a single thing they are able to do to decrease the price that they aren’t already doing?
Then, there’s the fine folks who brought us their fabulous efforts in the Katrina aftermath
LOL!! Yes. That had nothing to do with the democratically controlled City of New Orleans government.
Did you know that the Superdome was the worlds largest disaster shelter? The City was charged with maintaining it’s status and keeping it stocked with disaster relief. How did they do? They are Democrats. they had to really care about their populas. So how was that shelter maintained, girl? Did you see the pictures, hear about the roaming gangs of thugs?
If you want to actually discuss facts about Katrina and the reasons for the problems, lets go. If you want to blather yet another DNC talking point, I’ll just accept that you have no interest in understanding the truth.
(how about a little cancer from formaldehyde-laden trailers to go with your homelessness??) Don’t even get me started on the new spineless AG who knows that the WH endorsed torture but refuses to do anything about it.
Endorsed Torture? Yet another talking point. Clinton sent them to countries where their eyes would be torn out, but you have a problem with making them think they are drowning. Is there really that little logic in the way you think?
GOP isn’t in charge of anything anymore, indeed.
although, I do find it highly amusing that you have ignored all the economic fallacies I corrected - especially inflation and the housing crisis.
Inflation is caused by the price of gas, something that according to Nancy Pelosi is all about the Congress. The housing Market is almost as bad as it was in 1992. Now who was in charge of Congress in 1992? Hmmm.
While you made the point that the rise in gas prices was the largest ever - you didn’t specify a period of time (18 mos vs. 18 years).
Huh? Read it again.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Two parent families do a better job of raising children and not being poor. How hard is that to figure out? Are they all perfect? Heck no! Are they better than most single mother trying raise a kid on her own home? Heck yes. Do some single mothers do a good job? Of course, but it’s much harder. You people are way off the mark here this morning. Marriage is good for children, and good for the economy.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Show me where the school system pays children to have sex with adults. That’s all I ask.
Teachers that act in that manner buy the kids gifts all the time. Currency is in the eye of the beholder.
The kids in (illegal) porn do not get paid either, their parents/keepers/abductors do.
You never noticed the federal (federal law btw, not state) info stating that all people are above 18 and for entertainment purposes only at the beginning of a movie?
Here. Have some more rope. I have plenty.
Auto-erotic asphyxiation ain’t my thing. Keep your rope.
By Archie
June 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Archie, you know I think the world of you. You are a very even-keeled guy who always tries to see both sides of things, which is something I respect. Thanks UsinUK.
Would you be so eager to laugh about his disgusting comments??? Somehow, I think not. And, if someone said to you, “well, you never know if he was reacting to being mugged by a black guy”, I don’t think you’d let him off quite so easily with “yeah, but what he says gets your attention” would you? I don’t know Jeff and he only made two posts so I don’t think I can say he hates women but he maybe had a major issue with a few and I understand that because I was single, once and women can be jerks at times which leads one to say something like Jeff said. As for the black thing sometimes people are just reacting to one person and after that initial anger they are okay. You’re right I might not have been easy on Jeff but then if he had explained what was going on I might understand his anger. I see too much crazy behavior from women at bars and that’s why I related to Jeff so well. The women in my office are good people and if they were the only ones I ever saw I would think all women are like that but visiting bars I see all kinds of behavior and I just understand Jeff.
Sorry, but misogyny is just as evil as racism and shouldn’t be tolerated. I do have three levels of female relationships so I do want things to go well for my mom,wife, and daughter as well as other women. That being said not every harsh comment means one doesn’t like women. Heck, a white guy might call me a stupid mf and he may mean that just for me and I just have to take it that way. Also I have heard women make some harsh,harsh comments about women along the same lines as Jeff so are they venting or are they misogynous???
By Truth
June 2, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Joke
As I said, I rarely visit any of them. But I do understand link fees and had always made a point t going directly from a search engine to a site. If there were no free samples, I returned to the search engine.
No thumbnail site. No advertisers.
So, Einstein. Tell me who got paid because of my actions?
I predict you start slobbering and calling names again. YOu just aren’t very smart, and apparently you are in good company with the brainless one agreeing with you.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
So, other than “Truth” using them in the same post to illustrate…something…how do they relate to the issue and why am I humming “one of these things is not like the other. One of things does not belong…”?
Because backing up a point is not something he cares to do. He wants everyone to simply conform to his beliefs (like chuck) without ever checking himself for validity.
Hight of ego-centrist behavior.
By Truth
June 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Joke
Gosh, you have convinced me. School is JUST LIKE CHILD PORN.
By Truth
June 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Gandalf
Good luck. I have been sufficiently creeped out for the day reading Joke’s and Mara’s comments. Looks like you are it, Pal. The only voice of reason left.
By Mara
June 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
There was no point. I was answering your post that had no point.
point 1 - Shaunti asserts “all…social problems start with…situations in which marriages fail or children are born to unmarried mothers.”
point 2 - RF posts “Lizzie Borden came from a two-parent family, right?…I could go on and on about how many children from so-called perfect families have grown up to be criminals, derelicts, and drug addicts. Geez, Shaunti, take off the rose-colored Victorian glasses and face the facts, hon.”
point 2 (expanded) - Mara posts “As did those nice Mendendez boys, and the always shy Paris Hilton.”
the obvious “point” of both my and RF’s posts was that family cohesion is a precurser to neither success nor deviancy, per Shaunti’s assertion that it is the reason for such.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
No thumbnail site. No advertisers.
So, Einstein. Tell me who got paid because of my actions?
It does not work that way. But explaining to you that pay sites specifically remove their free galleries from search engines would do no good; you are unable to learn or admit err.
I predict you start slobbering and calling names again. Like you did in this topic? You were the first to use derogatory names.
YOu just aren’t very smart, and apparently you are in good company with the brainless one agreeing with you.
Old saying in AA: I am the only one in step, everyone else is out of time. Take the cue and get help.
By Lily Toad
June 2, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
What if the husband is an abuser, an alcoholic, or unemployed? Is marriage the answer then? What if the mother has to work to support the husband and children? Marriage shouldn’t be promoted just to have two parents in the house if the adults are not good parents. Marriage can be used to protect criminal acts, like rape and abuse. Should this be promoted?
By Archie
June 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
No I don’t think the government should be in the business of promoting marriage but I personally don’t like shacking. The fact that gays want to be married shows they understand that relationships aren’t just about fairy tale love but relationships are important and deserve to be handled in an orderly fashion at every level. Marriage is not the answer to all problems but folks need to stop playing house and get their affairs in order. People like Shanti look at the money aspect of out-of-wedlock childbearing so shackers need to wrap it up or take the birth control pill, because people like Shanti will become more active when it comes to the money.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
Refresher:
Truth’s first post, which he was beat, yet continues on while slowly warping his original point and mine to build a winning argument:
I’m a film-maker but has avoided several offers to shoot porn. The reason is the porn industry is very connected with organized crime and much of modern porn exploits women and children.
And the first use of derogatory words for insult purposes:
I was trying to save you from yourself, but apparently, you are just too dumb to realize it.
Same old format from Truth: Start with absolute statement (like the bra strap equating sluttiness), move to insulting people, then change his and opponents points so that he feels like he won (like when you changed your point from the bra strap equating sluttiness to equating a stupid mistake).
Maybe it is just you that needs to think about his points more before posting them so that you and the rest of us know what you mean?hmmmm
By USinUK
June 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Truth -
yes. The dems want us to move away from oil into alternative fuels - it’s been the cornerstone of their energy legislation - and they want more funds for mass trans. so, you’re right - no drilling in ANWAR, no gouging the country for shale. both of them would ultimately lead to more CO2 emissions, anyhow, so the sooner we move to home-grown and cleaner fuels, the better. oh, and higher cafe standards for the cars we do have. that’s what the dems have been doing and the gop has been fighting tooth and nail (ultimately THEY’re the ones who want to keep us beholden to the foreign oil suppliers by keeping us reliant on oil)
The City was charged with maintaining it’s status and keeping it stocked with disaster relief.
and where was FEMA?? they surely had no problem getting food, supplies and lots and lots of money to FL immediately before the 2004 election … funny how Brownie didn’t even realize the levees were “overtopped” for the first 24 hours … as for the trailers - they were FEMA supplied, not from LA - and FEMA didn’t even bother to do safety checks.
as for off-shoring torture, surely you recall that the W administration has been shipping people off to black sites for years before it came out. And, no, I’m not saying that it was right when Clinton did it, either. Wrong is wrong. However, unlike Clinton, W has been on the record not just once but numerous times saying that “we don’t do torture” when his people wrote memos and did a whole lot of legal yoga to make sure they could and did.
oh, and as a quick reminder, we called simulated drowning a war crime when the Japanese did it in WWII.
The housing Market is almost as bad as it was in 1992. Now who was in charge of Congress in 1992?
the housing market of 1992 was brought about by speculation and a post Gulf I recession … nothing to do with Congress. and again I ask … are you saying that Congress is to blame for this housing bubble??? if so, then you need to answer my questions above exactly what role they played in ARMs, the bad loans, etc …
as for inflation, transportation and shelter are the largest components of it … so, you’re saying the Dem congress is responsible for high inflation? you’re saying that increased demand for gas and food from India, China and Russia have nothing to do with it? you’re saying that droughts in Australia have nothing to do with it? it’s allllll Nancy Pelosi’s fault, is it?
you’re a broken record, Truth, and you know nothing about economics … well, nothing apart from what you hear from your talk-radio friends …
By Missed something
June 2, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
My ex gay boyfriend’s, (not that there’s anything wrong with that except that he refuses to admit it and continues ruining the lives of women he’ll never love) most recent marriage is to a wealthy British woman (he only marries rich women, but strings along the less affluent) who wished to shelter her money here instead of suffer the oppression of the British tax code. They set up house in a wealthy north metro neighborhood near a top-rate high school, and he sponsored her children’s visas with the INS. Though they both sleep with other people and spend holidays on separate continents, and he actively seeks new victims on Match dot com, they periodically go to the INS office and play family. They also make a point to attend church as a family from time to time — nice photo op. He whines to his ex girlfriends about how miserable he is, and how gee, he really cares about us and marrying her was a mistake, yet there’s money in it for him, so he perseveres. What a stand-up guy! What a stand-up lady!
Tell me again why marriage is such a great thing?
By Copyleft
June 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Marriage is good for children, and good for the economy.
Gandalf: And what does that have to do with whether government should be in the business of promoting it? If you’ll check the top of the page, you’ll see that THAT is the question at hand.
By Alyce
June 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
I, personally, find it very sad that a supposedly serious newspaper supports discussion where one side of the argument consists of religious propoganda, touts said propoganda as if it were serious science or research, and apparently has no clue about determining the directions of causality in any research. Look up the sources of funding for Focus on the Family and Georgia Family Council. Follow the money. Sometimes people who make a lot of money from taxpayers and political contributions also support favorable religious propoganda which helps them solidify their political base. Can you say Blackwater, Iraq and Dobson in the same sentence?
By USinUK
June 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Regarding this week’s topic …
here’s the thing: Are people deciding to NOT get married because of something the government is/isn’t doing? Are people really saying “you know John/Marsha, I love you and would love to make this legal, but the taxes will kill me”…? Are the poor not getting married because they’ll be dinged on benefits? And, if that IS the case, what are the numbers? Do people REALLY make decisions based on what they’ll get from the gov’t/how they’ll be dinged??
Taking it the next step further, if they DO make those kinds of decisions based on that, are we really going to create the kind of stable environment I think we ALL want for kids by some kind of gov’t incentive? What I mean is, if people are just in it for the money, will they care about and be involved with the little carpet crawler as he grows up?
I agree with Mara that a 2-parent family is no guarantee of a stable, well-adjusted person - nor is a single-parent family a guarantee of a psychopath. As I’ve said in other threads, prior to WWII, a single-parent family was more common than you think due to deaths caused by war and industrial or agricultural accidents - and, yes, abandonment and divorce. The myth that the US has always had the 1950s nuclear family is just that - a myth. The 1950s was, in point of fact, an aberration.
So, those are my thoughts and my concerns everytime this kind of subject comes up -
By Mara
June 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
R.I.P. - Bo Diddley
By Lyrazel
June 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Thanks JokesOn but I did read your answer.
Why does the topic go from regulation of Porn to regulation of Marriage?
Literally, research shows that nearly all our costly social problems start with individual situations in which marriages fail or children are born to unmarried mothers Shaunti has declared being born to an unwed mother is a negative cost—so is it better to curtail cost, isn’t it? Shaunti’s argument is: government sanctioned abortions would save the country BILLIONS!
Be careful what you wish for—you may get it, Shaunti.
By alyce
June 2, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
I’m trying unsuccessfully to figure out what you characterize Sarvady as “left leaning”? Apparently she understands research, causality, and logic. This makes her intelligent and educated, not leftist. The religiousity and pseudo-science touted by the other side here simply puts her beyond any desire I have to know what she thinks. Feldhahn refers to overtly religious organizations and their self-serving publications as if that were science. Shame on you, AJC; this isn’t newspaper stuff.
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Why does the topic go from regulation of Porn to regulation of Marriage?
Porn is a left-over discussion from when they abruptly changed the topic last week.
Thanks JokesOn but I did read your answer.
Between the lack of a response and changing of topics mid-week, I was unsure if you saw it and posted it again.
By TooEarlyForLaughoftheWeek
June 2, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
This makes her intelligent and educated, not leftist.
and there is a difference?
maybe I have just been around too many thoroughly ignorant conservatives, some right here on this blog.
By Mara
June 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
alyce - haven’t you heard? Facts have a liberal bias.
By Newzwyre
June 2, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
here’s a fun one for Monday -
http://www.goodpersontest.com/
By JokesOn
June 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
Newzwyre,
More proof that good acts do not get you in heaven (for those that believe such) and that it comes down to asking for forgiveness and accepting jesus.
Then why is the religious right so apt on forcing (biblically) correct behavior when even if it is chosen does not matter?hmmmm
By Lyrazel
June 2, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
If I had one question to ask Shaunti it would be: After countless years of marriage counseling by members of religious organizations offered free of charge to couples pondering separation—how would a government agency succeed any better?
I can see lines at the DMV type office where you & partner wait all day to finally come before some overworked case worker who opens your case file and talks about your… marriage or lack of it. Wouldn’t such sage advice have to come from a married person? Does Shaunti realize how many divorced or single mothers the government employs?
By Truth
June 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
USinUK
FEMA is the Federal Government. They CANNOT BY LAW enter a disater area without the request of the local government. The day after they were requested they were there. IT WAS NOT FEMA’s JOB TO KEEP THE SUPERDOME STOCKED WITH EMERGENCY RATIONS. IT WAS THE JOB OF THE LOCAL DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT. And (say it ain’t so) the locals were so currupt that they ran like the rats they were, leaving a large part of the city to be victims of their own incompetence.
I really liked when the Democratic Senator from LA toured above the disaster with George Stephanapolis. They were in a helicopter that could seat, ten - fifteen people, but they refused to aid anyone. They just kept talking about how it was all Bush’s fault as they flew over people, begging for help.
As far as the Democratic’s energy policies, I call a huge Bullsh*t on that one. You are now making it up as you go along. The entire time Clinton and AlGod was in the White House, not a dime was spent on alternative fuels. Bush was the first to offer incentives to companies researching alternative fuels.
The dims are the party of special interest. I personally don’t want the hysterical crazies to control the government of a capitalist country. That’s why speculators are bailing like crazy at the thought of a Democratically controlled Washington.
Everyone wants a cleaner environment, but is everyone ready for $10/gal gas and total dependence on foreign oil? Is it too much to ask that the American People get a honest choice?
If what you say is true and it is all about the Democrats wanting to save us from ourselves, is it too much to ask they they TELL US ABOUT IT instead of claiming to give us CHEAPER gas?
Democrats telling the truth?
Too much to ask?
So which is it? Are you telling the truth and the DNC is lying?
By Truth
June 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Just looked up waterboarding and it’s use during WWII. While what the Japanese was similar, they took it much further. The sessions would last much longer, until the victim’s stomach was distended from the ingestion of the water. They they would jump on the stomach. Quite a difference.
As I have said: watch COPS on any day and see what trained attack dogs do to kids that run from the cops. Dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at Abu Grabe. In every city in the US, attacks dogs are trained to attack anyone the cops thinks deserve it.
Pardon me for not caring if an enemy of my country is made to feel uncomfortable. But comparing it to what the Japanese did is criminal. How in the hell can you compare American Soldiers to those butchers? Do democrats really need to buy that much BS?
By DNC Ad
June 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS IN 2008
We know what’s best for you.
Think gas is too high? Tough. It’s good for you. And it’s very good for the environment.
Can’t afford a hybrid? Tough. WE KNOW WHAT”S BEST FOR YOU. You shouldn’t have had kids in the first place and how dare you want the finer things in life. YOU HAVE THE ENVIRONMENT TO PAY FOR. NOW SHUT UP AND GET ON THAT DAMN MOTOR SCOOTER!!
DEAL WITH IT!!!
Don’t like your children being slaughtered in foreign energy wars?
Too bad. WE ARE PROTECTING THE CARIBOU, damn it!! What are a few kids. Hell they were lucky we allowed them to survive gestation.
WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR AMERICA!!
OBAMA ‘08
… Deal with it!!!
By Copyleft
June 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
I see “truth” believes in the principle of guilty until proven innocent… preferably without a trial!
Anything you allow to be done in our name, you’re an accomplice to. And anything you allow to be done prisoners can and will be done to YOU one day—just as soon as you do something the government finds inconvenient.
Funny, I could’ve sworn conservatives wanted to put LIMITS on governmental authority—or maybe I’m thinking of the olden times, when conservatives were actually conservative.
By Archie
June 3, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
After countless years of marriage counseling by members of religious organizations offered free of charge to couples pondering separation—how would a government agency succeed any better? Counselling doesn’t work most of the time. I was told that by someone who works as a counselor that marriage counselling has a very low success rate. Basically I don’t think a government agency would do any better than private practice Lyrazel. The counselor that told me this has years of experience and she went thru a divorce herself but that being said I still think marriage is better than shacking. Dealing with behavior issues is tough work as far as getting results because the human mind is complex.
By Truth
June 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Get a clue.
Our guys are not policemen and they are not lawyers. They are soldiers.
Do you understand the difference?
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Copyleft: Are you suggesting the goverment should somehow not promote marriage? I don’t understand you comment at all.
Let me be more clear, IF marriage is indeed good for children, and leads to finacial success, it should be promoted. NOTE:Below is a parady: If not, lets suppress it, put all new borns in state run facilities and let the village raise them. Take away that fiscal and moral responsibility from the baby momma and baby daddy. The state has done such a wonderful job doing everthing else, let’s let them do it..?
The Goverment should promote thing that are good for AMERICA, like baseball, Mom and Apple Pie, families (especially those that involve a married man and woman raising children) are important to our way of life.
By Newzwyre
June 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Pardon me for not caring if an enemy of my country is made to feel uncomfortable. But comparing it to what the Japanese did is criminal. How in the hell can you compare American Soldiers to those butchers?
Truth, if you are going to go by the name “truth” you should learn it first. The processes being used by the military and the CIA are a whole lot worse than making people “uncomfortable”. The techniques themselves were outlawed by the international community after WW2, thus anyone using them is a criminal.
Prisoners have died and detainee’s have been permanently harmed from the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on them. The same techniques used by the German Gestapo. The exact same techniques.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/thedailydish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html#more
[snip]
Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases.
[snip]
Here’s the Nazi defense (of their techniques) argument: “That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.”
This is the Yoo position. It’s what Glenn Reynolds calls the “sensible” position on torture. It was the camp slogan at Camp Nama in Iraq: “No Blood, No Foul.” Now take the issue of “stress positions”, photographed at Abu Ghraib and used at Bagram to murder an innocent detainee.
Here’s a good description of how stress positions operate: “The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.”
This is how one detainee at Abu Ghraib died (combined with beating) as in the photograph above. The experience of enduring these stress positions has been described by Rush Limbaugh as no worse than frat-house hazings. Those who have gone through them disagree.
They describe: “Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.”
Yes, this is an account of someone who went through the “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Dachau.
Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I’m not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn’t-somehow-torture - “enhanced interrogation techniques” - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
By Lyrazel
June 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
What’s really interesting to me is how there a hurricane that ripped through Pensacola, Fl a month before the Katrina hurricane and devastated the city, its beaches and even the naval air station. Very little was said about it after Katrina—and the city has recovered far better than N.O. I know Pensacola was not more affluent than N.O. just that the city pulled itself up—unlike N.O. that is still wetting itself. Is N.O. better equipped today to handle tomorrow’s hurricane—no.
Perhaps Americans should not fixate on making the government scapegoats in order to provide excuses for personal irresponsibility.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 3, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
EXPAT: You say that “a 2-parent family is no guarantee of a stable, well-adjusted person” actually agreed with someone else. Are you suggesting it isn’t the best place to get a stable, well-adjusted person?
I am not saying every, or even my marriage, is perfect. But I know 2 loving people sacrifice for and nuture thier children. The “I know of this one couple who..” isn’t getting the job done. Some people suck, some people are selfish and some are evil, but not MOST people. ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION is a good thing.
Silly liberals! Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Living in the 50’s
By Question for Troof
June 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
Hey guy who knows everything: What is the purpose of FEMA? Why have a federal agency to MANAGE EMERGENCIES? Isn’t the purpose to have a bigger agency that can act when an emergency supercedes jurisdictional, geographic, and practical boundaries and capabilities of local officials? (Like, when the local officials and resources are under water for example.) But your opinion on that does not matter. Here’s the question that matters: DID THE FEMA EMPLOYEES AND OR THEIR DIRECTOR CASH THEIR PAYCHECKS? If so, why wouldn’t we expect them to perform their duties? Is it okay with you that Washington is filled with fat cats who collect paychecks to do nothing of any use to the taxpayers? If so, is it only okay with you when Republicans do that, or do you forgive Democrats their inaction and ineptitude with the same grace and endless wellspring of excuses you afford this administration?
By USinUK
June 3, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
Truth -
The entire time Clinton and AlGod was in the White House, not a dime was spent on alternative fuels. Bush was the first to offer incentives to companies researching alternative fuels.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DC1E30F931A15751C0A963958260
additionally: *Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). In FY 1993, the Department of Energy devoted $49.7 million in grants under this competitive grants program that supports phased research and development on advanced concepts and technologies related to energy and the environment. The Department hosted a Commercialization Opportunity Forum in late September. After receiving extensive training in development of a business plan for a successful SBIR project, 24 companies made presentations to 56 representatives from venture capital firms and large corporations at the forum. These contacts are expected to produce significant investment in the SBIR projects, which will result in the creation of new jobs. Growing interest in the SBIR program among U.S. businesses was evident at the program’s national conference in October 1993. The meeting attracted 1,100 attendees, the largest of any such meeting in the program’s history.
*The Administration has put in place, and funded at $200 million per year, the first, credible, long-term Federal R&D effort for natural gas. It focuses on strategic opportunities in end-use markets, such as ultra-high efficiency utility gas turbines, fuel cells for both industrial and automotive applications, and natural gas vehicles
*On September 29, 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore joined with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to announce an historic new partnership. The Clean Car Initiative aims to strengthen U.S. competitiveness by developing technologies for a new generation of vehicles that are both safer and up to three times more fuel efficient (80 miles per gallon or better) than today’s cars. Major collaborations with the Big Three U.S. automakers are under development. On the government side, a high-level coordinating committee chaired by Under Secretary of Commerce for Tech- nology Mary Good is directing R&D in a strategic plan to avoid duplication, focus on priority areas, and make the most of existing resources. The first stage of the plan is in fast-track development, to be completed before the end of the year.
FEMA is the Federal Government. They CANNOT BY LAW enter a disater area without the request of the local government.
As for Gov. Bianco not sending FEMA an engraved invitation to help after Katrina … you’re right, Gov. Bianco didn’t ask for help after Katrina … SHE DID IT 2 DAYS BEFORE THE HURRICANE HIT and Bush authorized FEMA and DHS to coordinate disaster efforts … http://www.factcheck.org/article348.html
The dims are the party of special interest. I personally don’t want the hysterical crazies to control the government of a capitalist country. That’s why speculators are bailing like crazy at the thought of a Democratically controlled Washington.
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha … yeah, the GOP is completely devoid of special interest parties … stop! my sides … you’re killing me …
Truth … you remind me a lot of the Stephen Colbert speech at the WH Press Corps dinner a couple of years ago:
“Mark Smith, ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Madame First Lady, Mr. President, my name is Stephen Colbert and tonight it’s my privilege to celebrate this president. We’re not so different, he and I. We get it. We’re not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We’re not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say “I did look it up, and that’s not true.” That’s ‘cause you looked it up in a book.”
By USinUK
June 3, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Gandalf -
I think you missed the point of my post - yes, in an ideal world, a stable 2-parent family is the optimal way to raise kids, although it’s no guarantee.
My question - and the main point in my post - was whether or not people are/aren’t getting married because of something the government is/isn’t doing? I mean, when I decided to get married to my limey guy, my tax status wasn’t even in the top 50 things I considered. And, if there ARE people who take into consideration what they’re getting from the government (whether it is a tax break or benefits), what % is it? Is it significant or such a small 1-2% as to be statistically insignificant?
And, once you start to look at the situation in that light, if we’re using a carrot/stick approach to encourage marriage, will those new marriages that occur be the kind of stable environment that is needed to raise a kid? If people are “in it for the money”, will that be a positive environment?
That was all I was trying to say -
By Archie
June 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
UsinUk good post at 1:06 pm. Hopefully you will accept a compliment from me! a stable 2-parent family is the optimal way to raise kids, although it’s no guarantee. That’s a true statement. UsinUk, I really feel like you could be a good mentor to so many young women and I mention this just because of what I saw over the weekend. You’re not overly feminist and you give an honest opinion, at least that’s what I pick up on reading your posts.
By USinUK
June 3, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
archie, my friend!
Hopefully you will accept a compliment from me!
of course - like I said earlier in the week - you know that I like posting with you and respect you loads :-)
you’re sweet for what you said - I dunno about the mentor part, though - I have a hard time picturing myself as a role model for anyone (just muddling through and trying to figure things out as I go …)
:-)
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
EXPAT: I concur that getting married for the money is wrong (unless of course you are gold digger :-)).
I think it’s the “Build it and they will come” mentality at work here. A tax break is nice and we should stick with that.
WARNING
Parady follows:
Breeders that are married should get a big fat break, all others shouldn’t, well, except for a tax break for putting the b******* up for adoption, or sending them to Kindekamps…oops that’s from some other country, sorry got confused there for a second.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
EXPAT: If I ever have a daughter, and she turns out to be a bleeding heart liberal, I hope she is just like you, except for the part about moving to England, cuz when I am old I don’t want to fly to England for Christmas. It’s cold and damp there, and with all the old swords and armor lying around everywhere, it’s dangerous! At least the beer would be good……
By RF
June 3, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
The Goverment should promote thing that are good for AMERICA, like baseball, Mom and Apple Pie, families (especially those that involve a married man and woman raising children) are important to our way of life
So how do we decide what’s “good” for America? That can change depending on the definition of good. Financial stability? Physical health and well-being? I see lots of problems with a broadscale government backed definition of what is “good”. Eventually, that leads to something akin to Orwell’s 1984 if we depend on the government to tell us what is morally or socially right.
As to the parenting issue, would you say that my two boys, being raised by a single parent are LESS likely to succeed? I’d counter that the number of parents isn’t anywhere near as important as the devotion and determination to provide love and stability and an example of how to live. The key to success in parenting isn’t the number of parents. I’m doing the job of the traditional two and doing it quite well. My boys are happier and more prepared to succeed in life than many I know from all sorts of family situations. Devotion to the job of parenting isn’t dependent on number of parents in the home, nor is is an automatic guarantee of better outcome for the child/children in the home.
By RF
June 3, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
Is it just me or is the government a bit too involved in legislating what is morally right? I’m not a bleeding-heart liberal, but I see all sorts of problems coming out of government “support” for traditional marriage when so many parents are doing a wonderful job raising children outside of that institution. When you have a divorce rate above fifty percent, then you automatically have many single parents and blended families that are raising successful, happy children. It seems awfully narrow-minded and Victorian to assume that one type of family is better than another. And it seems to be giving the government way too much authority to determine what is right for the people to ask them or allow them to support a specific social institution. What’s next? First they support marriage, then they support marriages that produce healthy, intelligent children. Pretty soon they’re offering incentives to couples that produce blond-haired, blue-eyed children who score high on the SAT. Do we really want our elected government to assume that much authority over our lives? Scares the heck out of me!
By USinUK
June 4, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this
Dang! you go make dinner and you miss all the love!!
If I ever have a daughter, and she turns out to be a bleeding heart liberal, I hope she is just like you, except for the part about moving to England, cuz when I am old I don’t want to fly to England for Christmas. It’s cold and damp there, and with all the old swords and armor lying around everywhere, it’s dangerous! At least the beer would be good
Thanks Gandalf for your kind words. (and, you’re right, I’m constantly tripping over all the old swords and armor … or maybe it’s just my limey guy’s dirty socks and boxers … ) England isn’t any colder here than Atlanta in December, believe it or not (actually, you guys had lower temps than we did this year) - the only downside is that it gets dark at 4:30. And by dark, I mean it’s NIGHT at 4:30 …
but, you got it right that the beer is GOOD!! (I think you’d really like it here, actually).
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 4, 2008 8:11 AM | Link to this
RF: Glad you are doing a good job raising your children, but you are at a disadvantage and they are less likely to succeed in that environment. That being said, they are not destined to fail. A little adversity adds character. Good luck to you and all single mothers out there.
My point isn’t that it’s not possible to raise healthy, well adjusted children outside traditional marriage; it’s that it the best place to do so.
By USinUK
June 4, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Gandalf -
I think it’s the “Build it and they will come” mentality at work here. A tax break is nice and we should stick with that.
And that’s exactly my question - if people aren’t getting married because they’re dinged on taxes, then I agree that a tax break would be a solution. However, if it isn’t one of the “key drivers” in the decision to get hitched or not get hitched, then it won’t do anything to help achieve the goal of more married couples.
Believe it or not, I’m a HUGE fan of pre-marital counseling - I love-love-loved the pastor who counselled my limey guy and me. I think that would probably go farther than a tax break by helping set reasonable expectations and teaching better communication. Plus, I think it might raise “deal-breaker” issues like having/not having kids, financial goals, how to deal with the in-laws, etc, and maybe take some doomed marriages and head them off at the pass.
The question is - how do you administer it? is it voluntary or mandatory? who pays for it? is it religious or secular or can the couple choose one from a list? Then, of course, there’s the fact that you won’t really see results for at least 10 years because this is more about increasing the number of married couples by decreasing the divorce rate.
anyhooo … just my £0.02.
By Jack
June 4, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
The government should stay out of the personal lives of everyone.
The only reason I can see for the number of children born out of wedlock is that it’s easier to work the system if Daddy isn’t there. What a shame that is.
By Truth
June 4, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
USINUK
The article you listed was from 2008.
the incentive program was for natural gas, not exactly an alternative fuel.
One more time. Gas prices have increased at the rate of 66% a year since democrats have taken over congress. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in Congress released a press release before the 2006 Congressional elections that claimed that the dims would lower the price of gas.
You now claim that the dims are allowing the price of gas to skyrocket to help the environment, yet the dims are blaming the Republicans for the sharp increases, even though there is not a single thing a MINORITY in Congress can do.
You are lying, and the dims are lying. But that’s OK, You are liberals and the ends always justifies the means. And you can always blame it all on the Republicans … right?
The blog is now almost all liberals. The overt abuse of anyone with opposing ideas is working. Soon this place will be the perfect liberal debate: no opposing views.
I’m sick of the Bullying and I’m sick of creepy people like Joke claiming the schools system equates to the pornography industry. But more than anything, I’m sick of losing more and more respect for the few people I had here because of your penchant to defend liberals, no matter how sick or twisted thier stance might be.
My business is going crazy and unlike people who can set on their a* and collect a pay check whether they are working or posting on a blog, when the opportunity comes, I need to WORK.
Enjoy your little gulag. Personally, I wouldn’t let most of the people here within a mile of my children, especially after Joke’s little exposure of the way you guys feel about the porn industry.
I may check in, but I have been creeped out enough to last a lifetime.
Good luck in life. With people like the folks on this blog deciding who leads this country, seems you left just in time.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 4, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
EXPAT: Counseling should remain within the private sector, either religious or secular. The only government involvement should be a tax break.
By USinUK
June 4, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Truth -
fergodssake … the NYT article byline: By ALLEN R. MYERSON, Published: February 22, 1995
and, yes, natural gas IS considered an alternative fuel for powering automobiles, no matter how inconvenient that truth is to you.
as for rising fuel costs … LET IT GO, ALREADY!!! You have a weak dollar driving up the price of oil … you have investors like pension funds speculating in the petroleum market … you have OPEC keeping production low … you have increased demand from countries like China and India …
http://www.moneymorning.com/2007/12/20/outlook-2008-how-to-profit-when-oil-bubbles-up-above-the-100-level/
please, for the love of god, learn the difference between cause and coincidence.
By USinUK
June 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
GtG -
EXPAT: Counseling should remain within the private sector, either religious or secular. The only government involvement should be a tax break.
then, I wouldn’t expect any increase to the marriage rate or decrease to the divorce rate … to “cure the disease” (using Shaunti’s expression), you have to find out the causes of the “disease” - until we have solid data on why people are not getting married and why they are getting divorced, then we can’t give the appropriate government incentive to change the status quo.
By RF
June 4, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
speaking of tax breaks, we already have a child tax credit, which granted benefits all parents, married or not. Beyond that, isn’t the tax system usually more beneficial to couples? My parents jokingly checked a few years ago to see if they’d get any better deal if they weren’t married and filing as singles, and staying married and filing jointly worked to their financial benefit.
By Newzwyre
June 4, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
a few weeks ago I pointed out that innovation has often been stymied by energy and automotive companies because of the impact it would protentially have on their bottom line? Somebody asked for a concrete example and I never quite got back to it. This article illustrates what I was talking about:
‘They Can go 40 miles for a Dollar,’ if Cars Get Made - Joseph Tartakoff—Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Edward Furia says the electric car technology his Bellevue-based firm, AFS Trinity Power Corp., has developed could end the United States’ dependence on oil.
AFS Trinity’s prototype sport utility vehicles can go 40 miles on a single charge from a standard electric outlet, at which point a gas-powered engine takes over. The SUVs reach top speeds of 90 mph on the highway — and accelerate without a hitch, as Furia demonstrated while speeding Monday on Westlake Avenue North.
[snip]
“They can go 40 miles for a dollar, for a dollar,” Furia shouted, referring to the cost of power.
One problem, though: No automaker has agreed yet to license AFS Trinity’s technology, so it isn’t commercially available.
Furia, AFS Trinity’s chief executive officer, said he wants major car makers in the U.S., Asia, and Europe to license his company’s technology and build cars that use it.
So far, discussions with U.S. automakers are “preliminary”
“They have nibbled; they haven’t bitten,” he said. But he said foreign car makers have pursued the firm’s technology “aggressively.”
Still, he said, there is a “lot of institutional resistance” in the U.S.
After all, to choose just one example, he said, an electric car would need little maintenance — a big moneymaker for car manufacturers.
[snip]
AFS Trinity has worked around the problem by adding ultracapacitors to its batteries — devices that deliver little bursts of energy — powering the car when it accelerates and protecting the battery.
[snip]
Otherwise, they look just like regular SUVs.
In fact, the two prototypes are actually Saturn Vue hybrids, ——they should cost only $8,600 more than a regular automobile, Furia said.
[snip]
More at link - http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/6/3/theycango40miles_for.htm
By USinUK
June 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Am I the only one reminded of this little ditty everytime Truth/TOJ/CorporateDog/(whatever name he’s going by this week) throws a hissy and storms off:
Brave Sir Robin ran away. (“No!”) Bravely ran away away. (“I didn’t!”) When danger reared it’s ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. (“no!”) Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about (“I didn’t!”) And gallantly he chickened out.
*Bravely* taking (“I never did!”) to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat. (“all lies!”) Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin! (“I never!”)
So, to sum up, this week Truth was totally and completely wrong about (in no particular order):
1) content revenue generation
2) the US inflation rate
3) Hurricane Katrina and FEMA’s ability to step in and help
4) what is causing rising oil prices (hint: NOT Nancy Pelosi)
5) the Clinton Administration’s investment in alternative fuel (and, in a related incorrect statement, Truth - Mr. Media - was wrong about the date of the article proving he was wrong)
6) the US’s role in TORTURING the prisoners we’re holding in Guantanamo
… I’m sure I’m leaving a few out, but these are just the ones I could think of without scrolling.
And now, rather than acknowledge he’s wrong, he stomped his widdle feet and is wunning away …
all together now … awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww … (someone might wanna call him a waaaaaaahmbulance in case his widdle feewings are hurt).
By JokesOn
June 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
Too bury today to post, but looks like same old truth crying that everyone was mean to him after he insulted everyone for the last week.
And now, rather than acknowledge he’s wrong, he stomped his widdle feet and is wunning away
Has he ever acknowledged even the slightest bit of err?
And he will be back after he forgets his errs, start up with that same superior attitude, insult everyone, be proven wrong, and run away crying again….rinse and repeat…
all together now … awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww … (someone might wanna call him a waaaaaaahmbulance in case his widdle feewings are hurt).
Again? Can it just be understood from now on?It is getting old;)
By LaughoftheWeek
June 4, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
(someone might wanna call him a waaaaaaahmbulance in case his widdle feewings are hurt).
now let’s not be so mean to someone who has to work so bleepin hard just to get by.
By Jack
June 4, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Dog is not TOJ. TOJ models himself after Chuck. Dog is his own mongrel. Woof.
By Copyleft
June 4, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
So, to answer the original question more completely…
Is two-parent marriage a generally good thing for raising children? YES. (Is it essential? No, but it helps.)
Should the GOVERNMENT be in the business of PROMOTING marriage? Absolutely NOT. That’s none of the government’s business.
See, it takes liberals to protect our personal freedoms from governmental meddling in the name of Doing The Right Thing. “It’s for your own good” is what parents tell children; it shouldn’t be what government tells private citizens.
By Marnie
June 4, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Has it occurred to the promoters of marriage that people who can’t get or hold a job and have delinquent kids probably aren’t going to make very good spouses? Marriage isn’t going to make anyone employable or sober or well adjusted. Are two bad parents better than one bad parent?
By USinUK
June 4, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Jack -
Dog is his own mongrel. Woof.
you forgot “corporate dog” who was here a few months ago … (the guy can’t even pick an original name)
By RF
June 4, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
“It’s for your own good” is what parents tell children; it shouldn’t be what government tells private citizens
Amen, Marnie. That’s the business of pulpits, not the federal government. Of course, the two have been synonymous WAY too often in the last eight years. Teach morality in one’s own home and teach one’s children to respect the rights of others to have different ways of life. I’ve read the Bible many times and have yet to find a passage that says the Southern Baptists have found the HOV lane to Heaven and must save the country from moral ruin by legislating morality.
By USinUK
June 5, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
RF and Marnie …
… just to play devil’s advocate - both the fed and state/local gov’t do stuff ALL the time to encourage certain types of behavior: “sin tax” on alcohol and cigs, speed limits, zoning restrictions, waste disposal … heck, even Jimmy Carter used tax credits for installing insulation and storm windows on your house when we had Energy Crisis I in the 70s.
… if the gov’t does research and finds out that 9 out of 10 couples get divorced because they have different financial habits, would it necessarily be a BAD thing to offer that kind of counseling and, hopefully, trim the numbers of people divorcing? It’s not forcing people to marry. It’s not forcing them to STAY married - it’s just helping them with coping mechanisms.
Just a question for the class.
By Lyrazel
June 5, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
If the government wanted kids connected to their families that would mean a significant majority would be spending time in jail. The average incarceree has 2 children or more. Do we make the wives (girlfriends/ex) move in with them to keep a family together.
USinUK—if 9 of 10 couples divorce because they have different financial habits—what sort of counseling would a deficit burdened government program provide? Such programs cost money—money the government does not have unless they TAX MORE—or you would get another unfunded mandate. If such counseling is provided FREE elsewhere then why would the government need to be involved and would such an expensive program even change the status quo? (I mean we have 50 states and how many cities, rural areas and remote regions you are talking MAJOR $$$) You have not seen the state of the ‘community assistance-style programs’ recently, have you? They are dismal places to find help and underfunded!
By Mara
June 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
USinUK - 9 out of 10 couples get divorced because they have different financial habits, would it necessarily be a BAD thing to offer that kind of counseling and, hopefully, trim the numbers of people divorcing?
Lyrazel - If such counseling is provided FREE elsewhere then why would the government need to be involved?
see, that’s MY question also. Financial counciling is already widely available through non-governmental sources. Most programs are open to anyone, married or single, who wants to learn good money management.
If a troubled couple, with their marriage on the line, haven’t taken advantage of such services already, what makes you think they’d avail themselves of a government program?
By USinUK
June 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Lyra and Mara - it was just an example. My point was that I don’t think tax incentives are the answer - (who really gets married or stays married for tax reasons?) - if not that, then what?
If a troubled couple, with their marriage on the line, haven’t taken advantage of such services already, what makes you think they’d avail themselves of a government program?
well, there are states that require waiting periods before a divorce can be filed - what’s to stop them from requiring counseling? (and, yes, it can be from any one of the free resources available)
By Lyrazel
June 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Mara, I think what Shaunti wants (but fails to mention) is that marriage counseling programs run by church groups should given government funding to continue their free service.
By Lyrazel
June 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
USinUK Would you submit to government interviews concerning your marriage/divorce? In all honesty?
By Jack
June 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
2 things make staying married very difficult. Not enough money & not enough whoopie. (the amount of whoopie corresponds to the amount of money)
By USinUK
June 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Lyra -
USinUK Would you submit to government interviews concerning your marriage/divorce? In all honesty?
good god, no.
however, states like VA have a 6-month waiting period for divorce (no children) and a 1-year waiting period if children are involved. if they can impose that kind of delay, what’s to stop them from adding a “counselling requirement” (and, considering we’re talking about VA, I’m surprised they haven’t before now)
By Lyrazel
June 5, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
USinUK, The very idea of my being sent to a government group marriage counseling would be grounds for divorce!
By Archie
June 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
however, states like VA have a 6-month waiting period for divorce (no children) and a 1-year waiting period if children are involved. South Carolina has a 1-year waiting period. A lot of people do not know where the free financial counseling services are, but the idea that USinUk brought up sounds good. People really don’t understand money and Jack is right. I know I need to understand money better and that’s not a self-put-down but the truth.
By USinUK
June 5, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Lyra -
a government group marriage counseling
as you pointed out earlier, there are LOADS of free services around - who says you’re going to a gov’t group counselling session???
By Lyrazel
June 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
USinUK—I am not the government group hug sort of person.
Archie, NY has a waiting period. GA has 3 days from submission of petition… Archie do you feel single parents need marriage counseling? One of Shaunti’s points was they are causing billion dollar expenses we taxpayers fund (so what does Shaunti do but suggest another tax burden). Wink wink politics!
By USinUK
June 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Lyra -
look. I’m on your side - I’m against the gov’t intruding in our private lives, as well. I’ve also seen more than one couple in my own personal circle divorce just to get back together later (in one case, more than a decade, in another, less than a year). just saying that maybe a little counseling could have prevented a lot of money going to the lawyers and a lot of heartache.
but, maybe not.
I dunno.
By Bruce
June 5, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
I was wondering how long it would be before someone started talking out of both sides of their mouth. How much more private can you get than your marriage, USinUK?
By NYer
June 5, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
USinUK is on to something - the government engages in activities all the time that promote certain kinds of behavior and punish others. Therefore I think it’s too simple to accept CopyLeft’s comment yesterday that it’s none of the government’s business to promote marriage. By and large, the government will use incentives to promote behaviors that it believes are in the public’s interest or helps create a more stable society. It has for a long time, and it probably always will.
I have to admit, I feel somewhat conflicted because the topic concerns marriage. While most tangible benefits of marriage are technically conferred and recognized by the state, I personally believe marriage is fundamentally a religious topic, and overt government promotion of marriage blurs a line of separation between the state and the church that I prefer to see uncrossed. On the flip side, from a practical standpoint, I think we can all admit that solid marriages between loving people are a good thing for the stability of our society and the raising of children. Like so many other issues, I think this comes down to a shade of grey - how actively should the government promote marriage, and in what ways should it do this? At the end of the day, I agree with Ron Paul that what makes marriage work is the individuals involved - but as we’ve seen in so many other instances it never hurts to give people a nudge in the desired direction.
By RF
June 5, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
USinUK- I wouldn’t necessarily see a problem with a counseling service to help people save a marriage. Problem is selling people on the benefits of counseling. We’re a bit too isolated (and becoming even more so I’m afraid) and feel it’s a sign of weakness to seek outside help. I’ve known several couples that could have probably worked out the problems they had with a little outside help. Sadly they didn’t get it. I’d support a resolution to require counseling before a divorce is granted, but that is more of a state function anyway. The feds would be overstepping their limits a bit to require it. And, of course, one can’t forget what a financial nightmare most federal programs have become. Is it as bad over there in the UK with governmental waste of funds?
By Archie
June 5, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
just saying that maybe a little counseling could have prevented a lot of money going to the lawyers and a lot of heartache. Counseling doesn’t work very well when people are thinking divorce and that is according to the stats on that issue and a counselor that I know backed that up. I like what UsinUk had to Lyrazel and no I don’t think single parents need marriage counseling but I don’t have a problem with married couples getting financial counseling or at least made aware of the free counseling available.
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Bruce -
How much more private can you get than your marriage, USinUK?
I dunno … maybe my relationship with my gynecologist and the type of treatment we pursue … maybe the gender of the person I decide to sleep with (provided they are in their majority) … maybe whether or not I want to top myself with my doctor’s help …
but Republicans seem to have NO problem sticking their oars in with those issues, so why stop there? talk about “talking out of both sides of one’s mouth”
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this
RF -
one can’t forget what a financial nightmare most federal programs have become. Is it as bad over there in the UK with governmental waste of funds?
GAH!! I would love to say that gov’t waste is strictly a US-phenomenon, but it isn’t.
Again, I don’t know what the answer is - I am just floating an idea around to the class. Part of me is standing right there with Lyra waving the “NUNYA” banner (it’s nunya bidness!!) But, then, as I mentioned above, I know a couple of couples who may have been helped if there was a waiting period and counseling.
But, as anyone who has gone through counseling knows, you can only get better if you acknowledge there’s a problem. If the people don’t WANT to go to counseling, it’s just a waste of everyone’s time.
Of course, the major issue - heretofore unmentioned - what about when there’s domestic violence? Or what about when the children are actually at risk from one of the parents?
So, like I said … I wish I knew the answers - I’m just trying to float an idea. :-)
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
I dunno … maybe my relationship with my gynecologist and the type of treatment we pursue … maybe the gender of the person I decide to sleep with (provided they are in their majority) … maybe whether or not I want to top myself with my doctor’s help …
That’s my point with your opinion on this subject. You do not want the feds to interfer in those areas but it would be ok with you for them to require counseling before divorce. Either you want the feds to be involved or you don’t, which is it?
By NYer
June 6, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Promotion of an activity does not equate to involvement in that activity.
The government promotes home ownership through mortgage interest deductibility and homestead exemptions, but it isn’t involved in the house I buy, where it’s located, how much I spend on it, how I finance it, etc…
The government promotes education expenditures through Coverdells and 529’s, but it isn’t involved in whether or not I send my kids to public or private school, what school I send my kids to, etc.
The government promotes retirement savings through ERISA and all the tax advantaged retirement vehicles created since ERISA, but it isn’t involved in what I invest in and how I use the money once I start withdrawing it.
There are few people who want the government to stay out of their personal lives more than I do. Just because the government may promote certain behaviors and set ground rules concerning that support, does not mean it’s a significant presence in that activity or behavior.
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Bruce -
Either you want the feds to be involved or you don’t, which is it?
Considering marriage is licensed at the state level, let’s leave the feds out of it for now.
Do I want ANY government interference in my life? as I said above, oh, he!! no. Does government (Fed/state/local) already implement programs to shape our behavior? Yep, as I said a couple of days ago, gov’t at all levels use programs that can be either the carrot or the stick to shape our behavior for the good of society, the environment, etc.
My point is, if there IS going to be a gov’t intervention, then wouldn’t this type of situation be the least obnoxious? Not saying there SHOULD BE, just saying that if there is … It isn’t forcing unmarried people to marry - it’s trying to help married people get through a rough patch and possibly stay married. It wouldn’t necessarily be religious as it could take advantage of existing religious OR secular programs, depending on the couple’s choice.
Like I’ve said - it’s just an idea to kick around. It’s not a flag I expect you to salute.
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
NYer -
applause
very well said.