The Wall Street Journal reported Friday February 5 information from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics that at the end of January 2010 the U.S. unemployment rate had dropped to 9.7%.  Virtually every television and radio station, along with every tv network and every cable news outlet, dutifully followed with headlines to announce the historic recovery.  Details from any of them were nonexistent.

Let me weigh in with but a few observations.  First, expect that the announced figure will later be revised, but sort of like a retraction, you know, appearing on page B-11, not page A-1 and above the fold.  Second, the number represents U3 unemployment.  U3 accounts for those currently not employed, but actively seeking full-time equivalent employment.  U6 includes those people counted by U3, plus marginally attached workers (not looking, but want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past), as well as persons employed part time for economic reasons (they want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule).

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases official percentages following the end of the first quarter, so in April,  I predict that U3 will be under 9.7%, though end-of-January will be revised back above 10%.  U6 will be about 20%.  That because the percentage of those without employment who have given up has been increasing.  And the numbers of Americans employed continues to drop.

What also helped get us a figure of 9.7% at the end of January was that the U.S. Census Bureau hired 45,000 new people to conduct the 2010 head count.  The plan for February is for the Bureau to hire an additional 1.4 million census takers or about 1% of the entire workforce.  That might account for a U3 down around 9.0%.  U6, however, will by then probably exceed 20%.

Incidentally, running the numbers -- which I always do -- suggests that each census worker will have to actually count about 200 people.  That might pressure them into counting about 40 per month or more than one per day.  Think of the pressure, the tempo, the stress.  Actually, the stress for them will be knowing that they are temps, destined for dismissal in early summer.

I'm just wildly-speculating here, just guessing -- and with no inside knowledge or reason to be suspicious or skeptical -- but, I'm thinking that no-nil-nada-zip-zilch of the 1.4045 million hires will see pink prior to the Independence Day weekend (unless participating in another of the ubiquitous "breast cancer awareness" 5k's).  That having absolutely nothing to do with the end of the second quarter having occurred mid-week four days before the rockets glare red.  No way can or will Democrats face rising and again double-digit unemployment (U3) rates data all summer recess back in their districts, especially with those pesky-astroturf Tea Partiers*** (See below) out for blood.

Speaking of wildly-speculating, I'm truthfully clueless vis-a-vis how the Democrats will handle whatever news might be forthcoming at the end of the third quarter September 30.  BLS figures will be due for publication a full month before election day.  What scares the bejeebers outa me is the create-a-crisis strategy.  "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste", says Rahm Emanuel.  So, what will be this year's "October Surprise"?

Most readers here will recall that at the beginning of October 2008 New York Senator Chuck Schumer "leaked" that a certain California bank was about to collapse.  That precipitated a depositor rush on the bank, which started the house of cards or dominoes vis-a-vis other financial institutions.  That -- along with the incompetency of John McCain -- assured the Democrat sweep.

---

***  This very weekend in Nashville, Tennessee there's a "National Tea Party" Convention.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of "Tea Party Groups" around the country.  There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Tea Party Coalitions around the country.  I was unaware that there was a National Tea Party.  The convention has some 600 registered attendees and about 500+ news people from around the world.

Back in September I offered my view on the Tea Party's signature "912 rally", and later in December I offered herein my take on the status of the Tea Party movement going forward.  In it I opined that the grassroots and uncoordinated movement was at once its greatest strength and greatest future weakness.  I also noted that it was easy to get crowds to complain and oppose, but difficult to get large numbers to coalesce around a theme, much less candidates, going forward.  It might be -- though it's too early to sense -- that this convention becomes the attempt to achieve the latter.  If it is, I can but hope and pray that it is successful.

What I'm hearing from convention leadership is an attempt to do exactly what was unsuccessfully attempted by GetAmericaRight and later GAR on the state of the union.  With my attempt I failed.  I got no traction, that undoubtedly a testament to my woeful lack of talent, leadership, and charisma.  Again, I can but hope and pray that this attempt is successful.

---

Addendum Sunday morning February 6

Fox News reporting from the convention in Nashville details the basics of a platform going forward.  A piece in the Wall Street Journal discusses the next step for the Tea Party movement.  Then, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow provides the lead indicator that the lefties are getting their thongs all in a wad.

Here in my neck of the woods in East Tennessee local Tea Party Coalition spokesmen (aka "leaders") expressed their disdain  of the Tea Party Nation, and were, to say the least, somewhat snarky.

If the take here locally is at all representative of the rest of the nation, there's serious fracturing.  Convention leaders opine that the movement needs to replace rallies with candidate advocacy and financial support.  Local Tea Party organizers and Tea Party Coalitions opine that bottom-up and grass roots should continue.

I harken back to decades ago when star-athlete from Florida State (Neon) Deion Sanders was asked whether he'd choose to play baseball for the Cincinnati Reds for, whatever it was, $2.6 million or play football for the Dallas Cowboys for, whatever it was, $1.4 million.  His reply?  "Both."

As to which way the Tea Party movement should go, I say . . . "both".


Addendum Monday morning February 7

Liz Sidoto of Associated Press has an an analysis piece on the Tea Party movement, post-convention, that for AP isn't bad.

Okay, young Jamal or Jose or Joe . . . or Jasmine or Juanita or Janice.  Just imagine that you start working as a journeyman, let's say just as example, for a plumber.  She pays you $10 per hour (just to make the arithmetic easier).  You work 40 hours and earn $400.  Out of that the federal government takes 7 1/2 % for payroll taxes.  Okay so far?  The government also takes 7/12 % of that $400 from the plumber.  If not for that, she might have paid you more.  Okay so far?  Now the federal government takes 12% of the $400 for federal income taxes.  Okay?  So you lost $30 for payroll taxes, then $48 for income taxes, so your net is now $322.  Still okay?

The plumber for whom you work hired you because she might really need you down the road, say, if one of her experienced guys leaves or the business grows.  You're costing her $400 plus $30 plus unemployment-compensation insurance plus workers'-compensation insurance, so about $470 per week.  That's just under $25,000 annually.

When she took you on, business was good and booming.  Lots of new houses with new kitchens and new baths.  Lots of remodels.  Now, the business is almost-exclusively repairs.  No new stuff.  But, she's hanging on, trying to keep the crew together, awaiting better days.

As a small businessperson her business income is her personal income, and she's taking in, say, $260,000 per year.  She has five trucks and still owes $125,000 on them.  She has a tool and work shed on which she still owes $65,000.  Her federal income taxes on the $260,000 are $83,000.  Payroll taxes for herself from herself (not the business) are another $10,500.  State and local business taxes add another $31,000.  Her after-taxes net take-home, then, is $145,500.

The federal government is going to increase her tax rate from 32% to 40%.  What do you think?  Okay with you?  She works harder than you and much longer than you.  She has the debt on the shed and the trucks.  She's okay with supporting her household and family on $145,500 per year . . . for the short-term.  If and when the business can grow, she'll make more and be happier.  She hates how much she's taxed, but can live with it . . .  for now.  The federal tax increase will cost her $21,000, lowering her net to $124,500.  Is that okay with you?  It's not okay with her, Jane the Plumber.

Here's what Jane will likely do.  She'll sell one truck to replace the $21,000 she just lost.  Then, she'll get rid of one person and do less business.  She'll reduce her income from $260,000 down to $240,000, thus her federal tax rate from 40% to 31%.  With the reduced federal, state and local taxes, her net take-home-to-the-family will again be in the upper 140s.  Oh, and you'll be unemployed.

Remember when then-candidate Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber that it's good to spread the wealth around?  How's that "hope and change" working out for you now?  You were applauding that.  You thought it right to "tax the rich", including Jane.  It's not smart to bite the hand that feeds you, and that was Jane.  As I see it, you'd have been better-served by working as hard and productively as possible for Jane, then attending a couple of Tea Party rallies.

You were on a path to, likely, earning $50,000 after a few years.  Sometime down the road you may have started your own plumbing contract business.  Now you're unemployed.

Here are a couple of truisms:  The behavior you reward tends to be the behavior you get.  The behavior you punish tends to be the behavior you don't get.  It's based on these truisms that parents raise children.  Punishing Jane for building and expanding her plumbing business got you what?  Unemployment.  Got the government what?  Less tax revenues and one more person -- you -- as a cost.

So, young man or woman, with the spare time and energy you'll now have since you're unemployed, I recommend your thinking about a few other things you think you know.  Is a government-mandated minimum wage a good idea?  Is the government's raising it a good idea?  Is government mandating that employers pay for employees' medical care a good idea?  How do you think Jane would answer?  Should that matter to you?

Just one final parting shot.  With your disdain and loathing of the "evil rich" (Was that redundant?), have you ever known of anyone -- anyone -- who's gotten a job from a poor person?

Have you ever seen a guy at the top of an exit ramp holding a sign that reads, "Will hire for food?"

Unregulated liberty.  See this two-minute video of urban traffic in India, no rules, no regulations, just people regulating themselves.

When there are no stop or yield signs and no traffic lights or even speed limits, liberty (and certainly not license) become top-of mind for drivers, riders and pedestrians alike.  And everyone becomes focused and alert.  The laws of physics aren't ignored, but the bigs understand the responsibility coming therefrom.  It's a syncopated symphony.

The case for regulated liberty.  See this two-minute video to see why probably none of the drivers and riders should be women.

Hard to imagine the video's protagonist being in sync or tune with that roadway ragtime, no?  Imagine, then, if she were simultaneously farding (That's French terminology for applying make-up while driving)  Imagine if she were driving because of TSA mandates.  (This line rewards loyal readers)  Imagine if, along with the above, she were blond.

The case for animal privilege.  See this even-shorter video to see why pets might be able to negotiate traffic in India better.

Can't here speak of animal rights, because in America animals don't have rights.  They are property.  Further, driving isn't a right even for people.

The case against liberty . . . for men.  See this half-minute video showing how men compete and one-up, making them terrible candidates for no-rules driving.

Maybe, Obama and the oligarchy who put him as turtle atop the fencepost, albeit aided immensely by TOTUS, has it right with this tyranny versus liberty thingy.  Maybe, the Indians can handle this personal-responsibility deal, . . . but Americans?

Check out this 4 1/2-minute Ford commercial to remember why we fight for liberty and against tyranny.

First, let me iterate here that it is way too early to apply gray matter to the subject of true-conservative candidates for the 2012 prexy race, much less discuss it.  If you know of someone that the rest of us likely don't, and that person has a stellar track record of fighting aggressively for our unalienable rights, for the U.S. Constitution (original meaning), and against federal government unconsitutionality, and whose closet echoes because it's so empty, okay, I'll make exception.  Give us the heads-up and call to arms.

Surely, John McCain wouldn't be the choice.  He is a progressive, is naiive enough to "reach across the aisle" to be "bi-partisan" (i.e., devoid of core principle), and is both economics- and technology-illiterate.  And, please don't trot out Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.  The first person to suggest Scott Brown gets my dufus-of-the-decade award.  His resume doesn't beat that of . . . Barack Obama.

Our current focus, methinks, should be on (1st) your own congressional district, (2nd) your next senatorial race, whether it's in 2010 or 2012, and (3rd) legislative attempts at in-state sovereignty initiatives, and (4th) other bellweather races in 2010.  For example, Marc Rubio v. Charlie Crist in the Florida senate Republican primary, replacing Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, replacing Chris Dodd in Connecticut, replacing Barney Frank in Massachusetts, replacing Harry Reid in Nevada, taking the "Barack Obama" senate seat in Illinois, taking the "Hillary Clinton" senate seat in New York, and replacing John McCain as senator from Arizona.  In addition to changing the numbers, these victories are game-changers and harbingers.

Given this last example, let me back up and suggest taking off the 2012 list of possibles for prexy former Alaska governor and 2008 veep candidate Sarah Palin.  I liked what she did (albeit my view being from afar) as mayor of Wassilla.  I liked (again having to witness using high-power field glasses) her job as governor.  I liked the heck outa her performance on the campaign trail  as John McCain's sidekick, sometimes discounting what she said as necessitated by her "supporting" roll.  I liked what I read in Going Rogue, though my take must be discounted because the book was autobiographical and, thus, might be better placed in the "fiction" category, just because of human nature.  Sarah Palin has announced that in March she will travel to Arizona to campaign for and raise money for the McCain senate re-election bid.  Unless her closet has stuff in it that the McCain gang can intimidate her with, she, methinks, could have properly and gracefully just stayed out of Arizona this year.  Whether, then, it's her closet or whether it's her voluntary support of a progressive, I think that Sarah Palin should be gone from the list.

Many here in our Townhall blog community argued in 2008 that supporting and voting John McCain for prexy was the right call.  That because it's an iterative world (like at the eye exam, i.e., better or worse, better or worse), they contended, and Barack Obama was worse.  The Palin announcement, however, will serve to discourage potential conservative candidates in Arizona from joining the fray in the Republican primary.  It's preemptive politics by McCain-Palin.  And even if you buy the "iterative world" premise, it's unclear whether McCain would be the "better" or the "worse".

All Republican, and some Democrat, candidates self-anoint themselves as "conservatives".  No Democrats are or they wouldn't be Democrats.  Many Republicans aren't, but claiming to be enhance their election chances.  Some are, but cave under the pressure of Washington's culture, news media, and bureaucracy.  It's tough living as pariah.  A few Republicans both are and continue to act that way.   All but the final cadre should be ejected from our "possibles" list. 

Bye, Governor Palin!

Talk about getting your boxers or briefs all in a bunch?  For most, if not absolutely all, of us of the male persuasion, just the thought of packing a potential-747-downing load of explosives in our undies sends shivers down our spines and up our legs.  And this is nothing like what Chris Matthews experiences when watching now-President Obama.  I think this so-called "Christmas panty bomber" has an insanity plea defense that's a lock.

It's come to my attention -- off-the-record, indeed, deep-background -- that some fellas at Homeland Security and their cronies at TSA got to talkin' during a poker night.  It was sorta late and after some joking about the new full-body scanners when somebody raised the question about liquids having to be in containers 3 ounces or less and the lotta them having to be secured within a sealed quart-sized ziplock bag.  What got everybody's attention and suspended the card game was that the guy posed question about whether breast implants oughta be a point of emphasis during security screening.

He said that during some daydreaming in a slow time at the airport and after a prodigiously-endowed 20-something bombshell had sauntered by, his mind wandered to thought of whether said sideshow coulda been a suicide-bomber-terrorist needing some serious profiling.  Might she not be hauling well over 3 ounces of a dangerous liquid concoction, if not more than could be squeezed into a quart-sized clear ziplock bag, . . . per?  Ya know, fair and balanced?  A two-pronged attack?  Military-like redundancy?

When Secretary Napolitano got wind, she immediately stuck out both hands, fingers skyward and palms forward in extreme whoa mode.  First, she said that, for her, establishing a big-boob-bomb--booby-trap profiling protocol would be career suicide.  First would come liquids litigation from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).  Then, it was be incomprehensible what the protests by NOW (the National Organization of Women) would look and sound like.  And Code Pink?  Following would surely be CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) rallying and ranting about burqua sanctity.

Should a bra be considered just like a backpack, you know, a "carry-on"?   If, after the "shoe bomber", we all have to take off our shoes and send them through screening in a bus tub . . . ?  If a guy with a knee replacement has to step aside for interminable wanding and patting, shouldn't the bearer (Note the spelling there) of a coupla apparently-enhanced heads-turning eye catchers be subjected to some targeted inspection in the interest of safety and security, if not for the morale of about half of the TSA "professionals"?  (I'm sure that the other half of the TSA folks will want some, shall we say, tat-for-tit, if you will.)

Clearly, Secretary Napolitano thought that the "system had worked" when men aboard the Northwest 253 flight inbound to Detroit were vigilant enough to note that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's crotch was smoking profusely, and took aggressive action.  The Secretary's reaction has subsequently been subject to scorn and derision.  There being no marshals aboard, it was left to passengers to take initiative and risk.  What happens when some voluptuous damsel-with-an-aisle-seat drips some of her water on her blouse and a coupla guys with initiative and imagination, and libation-induced courage, take "matters" into their own hands?

Shouldn't the Secretary get out front of this (as it were) and act  pro forma (i.e., with her "professional" TSA guys) versus  ex post facto-grabbo passengers du jour.?  Should the big-boob-bomb-booby-trap profiling protocol be left to amateurs?

The state of drpete is pretty good following his morning double espresso in St. Thomas.


The state of the union -- these United States of America -- is . . . well . . . fractured; it is broke, is insolvent, vulnerable, is over-governed and over-regulated and over-secularized and over-PC'd.  Government isn't "too big to fail"; it is too big to survive.  Many will comment following President Obama's "State of the Union" address.  I won't, so I thought I'd get out front.



Both feet firmly-planted, head on straight, focused.  Scenery a bit of a distraction.


Americans who have employed their unalienable rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness have in the course of events thrived and prospered for most of the union's 221 years.  Their industry, energy, intelligence, and commitment has resulted in personal wins and losses, growth following right decisions and setbacks following mistaken decisions.  Losses and setbacks for them -- as well as the wins and growth spurts -- have been life lessons, teachable moments.  These Americans have for themselves and others produced prosperity and abundance.  They have lived the American dream.



The state of the late-morning Atlantic with the ladies wasn't too shabby either.


The state of the union's government is morbidly obese.  It is big and fat.  It eats way too much, yet grows even more; that because it eats from tomorrow and the next day, the next year, the next generation.  The government has for 221 years gradually usurped the lives and the liberties and the property and the pursuits of industrious Americans.  For the last 100 years of America's tenure an ever-increasing number and percentage of Americans have willingly endorsed the slavery of the industrious, and willingly traded their own unalienable rights for womb-to-tomb government largess and security.  People wanting happiness delivered rather than pursued when combined with a government ready, willing and able to exceed its constitutional authority to enslave producers to grant to (and also enslave) the "gimmees"; that is the American nightmare.



A challenging approach shot amid beautiful scenery on the first hole of the "Devil's Triangle" at Mahogany Run Golf Club.



Shaky on the follow-through on the second hole of the "Devil's Triangle", par 3 over the Atlantic, but got a par.


The federal government's current debt is almost $113,000 per taxpayer and its unfunded liabilities are currently at about $1,000,000 per taxpayer.  The federal government's current debt is 87% of  annual GDP (gross domestic product).  Interest on federal debt this month of January 2010 has been $1,000,000,000 (that's billion) per day.  See more about the nation's financial train wreck here.  What's known as "America's greatest generation" has allowed -- even encouraged and facilitated -- its federal government to bankrupt the nation on its watch.  In this past year, the government has not only put overspending on steroids, but it's simultaneously made us more-vulnerable to Islamofascist attacks and more vulnerable to foreign creditors with ill will.


Ah, it must be 5 o'clock somewhere.  The book?  A mystery novel.  Nothing real-world.  The amber liquid?  Macallan 12-year old single-malt scotch.


I think I've found the key to stopping the train, even getting it to back up in reverse.  I went to St. Thomas and spent twelve days golfing, playing tennis, sailing, hitting the surf, reading fiction books while squeezing sand among my toes, dining lavishly, consuming adult beverages with verve and gusto; all this while avoiding like a plague newspapers, tv, radio, email and the internet.  No news, none.  Not only did I find ignorance, indeed, to be bliss, but while returning at 35,000 feet aloft with two liberal Bostonians as seatmates, election results were revealed in Massachusetts, and while driving the final three hours to home the Supremes came through with a huge decision restoring the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


I'd like to ask that you rethink contributing money to political and issues campaigns, to parties and PACs.  Instead, send money immediately to fund my next vacation.  You may think that I'm suffering from too much Caribbean sunshine combined with too much single-malt, but I'm pretty convinced that I'm onto something here.


Post-sunset is also wonderful, even without Fox News.

The so-called "Tea Party Movement" is, on the one hand, grass-roots and, thus, certainly not what Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it, "Astroturf".  The so-called "Tea Party Movement" is, on the other hand, uncoordinated, disorganized, and "diverse" in the true sense of that.  That's both positive and negative, in my opinion; positive because it's bottom-up, no followers, no sheep; negative because the resulting mass isn't on the same page.  The so-called "Tea Party Movement" is made up, generally, of people with skin in the game that is America, but not skin in the game of gaming America's government.

These are people pulling the wagon, not riding in it.  These are people who work for a living rather than vote for a living.  These are people who are givers, not takers, givvies, not gimmes.

If you want a "million man march", you can get lots of them -- who arise late-morning and usually sit on a milk crate outside a corner convenience store shooting the bull with like bums or urban outdoorsmen -- to come to Washington . . . as long as you have ACORN or SEIU and their ilk provide the free transportation, food and drink, and maybe a few bucks.  If you want poor, uneducated, unemployed, single moms on welfare to march on Washington with their hands out -- palms raised -- seeking increased goodies, heck, give 'em a ride, free childcare, and some grub, and they'll be there.  If you want "seniors" who never saved, never prepared, never budgeted, who are now predictably helpless to come, that's easy as well.

A lobbyist for the sugar industry will be there at Congress' door 24/7 if need be, that because government protectionism is worth 10s of $billions to that industry, his employer.  You'll not expect those who're hurt by that, who actually pay the 10s of $billions there because each of them only pays an extra $21 per year.  Not worth the cost of the trip.

Marches on the Capitol in Washington D.C cannot, in my opinion, be the centerpiece of the "Tea Party Movement" playbook.  First, these are people who just don't "march", don't whine, don't beg, don't organize.  These are people who value liberty, not statism.  Second, these are people who have something to lose by going to Washington, and it's who they are.  They have businesses to run, jobs to perform, families to support, payrolls to meet, taxes to pay, children to raise, customers and clients to serve, rent and mortgages to pay, and in some cases, grandchildren to help with while the aforementioned gets done.  And third, these are people who know that the federal government is to be small, very small, and that most -- by a long shot -- issues are to be left to the states, counties, municipalities, communities or individuals, so sayeth the U.S. Constitution.  Therefore, these folks are invested there, closer to home.

I thought that I was the guy -- albeit by default since I didn't see anyone else stepping forward -- to grab the reins and start a movement.  But, GetAmericaRight failed to gain any traction, so I failed.  That alone should be enough reason to discontinue reading.  That alone should make you skeptical, at the very least, at anything I suggest herein.

Given the criticality of America's circumstance, I both applaud and join and support the "Tea Party Movement".  That, despite my personal conviction that it's over, America is now toast and irretrievable.

I believe that the "Tea Party Movement" should be organized at the "grass- (not "astroturf") roots" level" and that level ought to be by congressional district.  No subsets thereof.  Each state should have someone, some coalition, form to integrate those district organizations within that state to communicate, sometimes collaborate, where the state's two senators are the focus.  Anyone who wishes at the national level should compete to be heard, even joined by these aforementioned groups or coalitions.  It's not that I don't think there is ever a reason for a a national march, just not often or on short-notice or on a weekday.

Each "Tea Party" coalition should focus on (a) the desired national agenda and its congressman's role therein, either working for or against; (b) the desired national agenda and it's senators' role therein, either for or against.  Each group -- organized by congressional district --  should either both support and influence its congressman or work like heck to oppose, influence, and replace him.  Further, each coalition-- collaborating with others in the state -- should do the same with respect to each of the state's senators.

District-level TPCs (Tea Party Coalitions) should have members write to its congressman, call, and email.  Ditto to its senators.  When appropriate, these TPCs should organize and rally at the congressman's offices.  Get voices on news-talk radio stations.  Get video and voices on local tv evening news programs.  Over time, the congressman will recognize the names and faces, and know that these aren't kooks.  When appropriate -- say, immediately before a major senate vote -- these TPCs -- hopefully with some statewide collaboration -- will rally at their senators' offices.  These rallies should be scheduled either during the noon hour or during the 5 o'clock hour, lunchtime or immediately-post-work.

My congressman here in TN-2 has 3 in-district offices, and Tennessee has 9 districts.  Each of Tennessee's senators has 6 in-state offices.  Some congressmen may have more, some less.  Ditto with other senators in other states.  Here in Tennessee, then, if we had the House and Senate meeting in conference to resolve a bill, previously passed by both bodies, we should have about ([9x3] + [2x6]) 39 rallies.

FreedomWorks, sponsor of the 2009 912 Rally is planning another for the weekend of Saturday September 11 and Sunday September 12, 2010.  Their on-the-ground organization and execution in 2009, I thought, was excellent.  Details from them should be forthcoming in the next couple of months.  Great that it was, and that it will again be a weekend.

Washington D.C. should be better prepared in 2010.  In 2009 no one in D.C. was prepared for the immense crowd it received.  From sanitation to subways, from police to porta-potties, from EMTs to eateries, all are likely to be ready next time.

My one suggestion to FreedomWorks would be that, if the rally is to be Sunday, they begin it with an ecumenical religious service, led by, say, a priest, a minister or two, a rabbi, and even an imam (chosen very carefully).

Note that the United States of America has never ever moved to the right.  It has moved -- sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly -- always inexorably to the left.  If the Tea Party Movement is to save America, and prove me wrong -- and that would be a dream come true for me -- TPCs will have to accomplish that for the very first time.  The federal government must be shrunk, and not a little.  We need to restore the decimated and ignored Constitution.

Just as convicted sex offenders are disallowed within 1,000 feet of a schoolyard or playground, liberal-leftist-socialist-fascist-statists must be prevented from getting within 1,000 miles of Pennsylvania Avenue, either end.  Republicans must be true conservatives, and their feet must be constantly held to the fire and feel the pressure.

Can the Tea Party Movement do that?  Will they?

Tuesday December 15, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. EST there will be a rally at the U.S. Capitol Building and the Mall in Washington, D.C.  The focus will be the so-called "healthcare" bill.  I spoke with my congressman's chief of staff this afternoon.

He informs that Democrats are hell-bent on completing this before Christmas.  He also informs that the leadership wants to adjourn for the "Holidays" Wednesday the 16th.  Thus, push comes to shove December 15.

He told me that the 912 rally had huge impact on legislators' thinking and awareness.  Everyone in D.C. was totally unprepared for the numbers, and they know what the real numbers were, what media have said notwithstanding.  His one caution to me was that the numbers had to be big.  A small rally would have the opposite effect, energizing the enemy, and encouraging them.

The rally is being called, "Code Red", so attendees should wear red.  See here and also here for the latest info.

Half of all Americans are below-average in intelligence.  Duh.  Half of all Americans are below average in income.  Duh.  Half of all Americans are above average in ignorance.  Duh.  These are just statistical truisms.  America's "educational" systems -- pre-k, k-12, colleges and universities -- overwhelmingly indoctrinate rather than educate, and that indoctrination is left-leaning.  America's "news"  media -- newspapers, news magazines, network television, radio news -- are overwhelmingly biased and editorial, and left-leaning.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Much of America is brainwashed.

Liberal Democrats -- whether in schools, on tv, at the coffee shop, or politicians on the stump -- easlily connect with most Americans with demagoguery, soundbites, victimology, focus-group-pretested phraseology, and identification with the underdog.  Heck, almost everyone sees himself or herself in one way or another as an underdog or even a victim.

Conservatives -- that's a subset of Republicans -- counter the liberal spin with data, facts, history and science, all packaged in a logical treatise.  I harken back to my early adulthood.  The line was, "In your heart, you know he's right."  They were speaking of presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.  I remember thinking that opponent, Lyndon Johnson, must be whispering, "Okay, Barry you're right, but I'll be president."  As Tom DeLay said, Demagoguery beats data."

Political campaigns are a series of soundbites, all 30 seconds or less, most less than 10 seconds.  Whether it's top-of-the-hour five-minute radio news or an insert in a piece on the nightly news on tv or part of a paragraph in a newspaper or during a televised debate, it's all quick hits.  In a debate the Dem says, " . . . looking out for the little guy . . . tax cuts for the rich . . . corporate greed . . . loopholes . . .  racism . . . women make just 70 cents . . . " all in under 30 seconds, and leave the Republican without a snowball's chance in hades of anything but the first half of a logical treatise on one of the allegations.  Incidentally, during that impotent response the (liberal-friendly) camera will pan to the Democrat, who is either smiling or smirking or shaking his head with horizontal motion.

The game is rigged.  The odds are stacked.  Conservatives care about truth, know that seeing is believing.  Liberals know that truth doesn't matter, only what the audience perceives as truth, what they can be persuaded is truth, and that believing is seeing.  (One might argue -- and have a point -- that conservatives should refuse to play the rigged game, maybe eschewing soundbite journalism for paid 30-minute infomercials wherein they lay out logical and organized fact- and history-based arguments in favor of conservatism and against liberalism, fascism and socialism.)  Any attempt on my part to help conservatives in this game is seriously hampered by my being a conservative.  And I'm an ideologue, not a politician.

Nonetheless, below is my attempt at some soundbites for conservatives in 2010.  Please comment on them, and suggest others.

Government – specifically Democrats – destroyed the black family. Black men will have to fix that, but we Republicans promise to get government programs out of their way. We want black men to once again be fathers rather than mere sperm donors. We want black children to learn what a man should be from their father, a role-model in the home.

Government – both Republicans and Democrats – have bankrupted your children and your grandchildren, even before they’re born. The current leftist-Democrat congress and administration have so crippled government revenues while spending beyond comprehension that America is already on the edge of a cliff.  We Republicans promise to fix that. It will not be easy and not be quick. We’ll stop doing government and start undoing government. At first, most won’t like it. You’ll see what’s lost, but not what’s gained. Your children will. You’re grandchildren will. And they’ll thank you for it.

 

Government for many decades has served as a ceiling. It limits energy production. It limits business potential. It stifles creativity and invention. It enslaves people on welfare and keeps them from being all that they can become. It makes operating a business so difficult that jobs by the millions are taken overseas. We’ll return government to its rightful role, the floor, one that’s level and allows all who wish to succeed.

If you want government to give things to you, you should vote for Democrats. They’ll steal it from other folks for you. If you want government to get out of your way, to quit stealing what’s yours, to allow you to grow and thrive, vote for us, the Republicans. Government has no property or assets that it hasn’t taken from the American people, and it would have been better in the people’s hands than in politicians’ hands.

You know what “Affirmative Action” means? Half the time it means that a black person gets admitted to a college where they’ll fail or promoted to a job where they’ll fail. The other half of the time it means that a black person gets a job or into a college for which they’re eminently qualified, and all the white folks just know for sure that it was “Affirmative Action” that got them there.

“Affirmative Action” is what liberal-Democrat whites do to help blacks because those Democrats just know that black people are incapable of succeeding without their help. How arrogant. How condescending. Part of why liberal Democrats get away with this arrogance and condescension toward, and at the expense of, blacks is that they have Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons as cover. Why do Jackson and Sharpton do it? Follow the money. It’s called shakedowns.

Housing and Urban Development – HUD – is very good at what it does. It develops slums, then leaves it to gangs to run them. It’s how they get all the poor black people in one place so that they have no idea that life could be different and better. It’s how government keeps poor black people dependent on government forever and voting for Democrats.

Of course, then there’s Jimmy Carter and Democrats in congress with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to help blacks get to own their own homes. Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Maxine Waters, The Congressional Black Caucus, along with Obama’s ACORN and SEIU and HUD intimidate and force banks to offer subprime variable-rate mortgage loans to people who have zero chance of actually repaying. That worked out well for the little guy, right?

Hey, I’ve got a job for you. It pays $7.50 an hour and your expenses for travel and uniforms, etc. will be $8.50 an hour. You want it? That’s exactly what Democrats have just done to America’s doctors. Older docs will retire early. Some younger ones will move offshore. Some will leave medicine. Your medical care will be free . . . and unavailable. That hope and change working for you?

Speaking of jobs, have you ever gotten one from a poor person? People who earn lots of money invest lots of it, and that generates jobs, jobs for you and for me. So, how good an idea is it that Democrats want to increase and increase taxes on the rich? Every time they do, it costs jobs. If you’re smart, you won’t scorn a rich guy. You’ll walk up and thank him.

Want your government to increase taxes on businesses, you know, those evil corporations? Where do you think those businesses get the money to pay those taxes? No, they can’t print it. Either they get it from customers or they go out of business. When you say you want business to pay more taxes, what you’re calling for is higher prices.

It just isn't fair.  If you peruse, say in Forbes, a gallery of America's wealthiest, the faces seem devoid of hue.  So many aging white guys, with a couple of Asians tossed in, presumably for "diversity".  Where are the black guys?  Is Oprah an "affirmative action" inclusion?

In the late Spring I look in our local newspaper at pictures with bio captions (by high school) of the top grads.  There are about five schools represented each day.  You can look daily for weeks without seeing hue.  Lots of fresh-faced white kids, with a couple of Asians tossed in, presumably for "diversity".  Not that it's relevant here, but another thing that has struck me is that in the little bio captions these kids always seem to have listed both a mother and a father.

I was looking at a feature video about a big-city Texas high school.  Immediately after school most of the students would head to the big downtown library.  Obviously almost a century old, with ornate columns, three sets of steps in the front ascending to the entry, a courtyard of sorts with seating-high walls, a couple of "handicap" ramps per ADA law.  Interesting.  The white kids and the Asians climb the stairs, backpacks loaded down with books, and head straightaway through the doors.  The black kids and the Hispanics and/or Latinos -- whatever -- carry their skateboards.  They ascend the stairs, but only part way, then start dashing and jumping their boards in all directions at the entryway and courtyard.

After a couple of hours, the youngsters from within the library begin to appear, departing with tired eyes, but with a look of steely purpose, and walking briskly with a destination clearly top of mind, presumably home.  Meanwhile, most of the skateboarders remain, though a few have opted for a basketball court a few blocks away.

Harvard researchers tell us that black middle- and high schoolers spend one-third the time as whites and Asians studying and more than three times more watching tv.  Then we read that town "leaders" -- worried about boredom among black teens -- propose organizing "midnight basketball" to drain them of some of their pent-up energy.  Black members of school boards in system after system just know that what they see in their schools is unique.  Black boys are sent to detention or suspended disproportionately -- by a factor of three or more -- and that can mean only one thing: teachers -- including, even especially, black teachers -- are racists and biased.  Those same Harvard researchers document that the disparity is true nationwide and has zero to do with racism or bias, but that doesn't influence the locals.

Okay, so I know the peer-reviewed research that shows that IQs among American blacks are -- in the aggregate -- one whole standard deviation (from the mean) below that of whites and a little more than that below Asians -- again, I hasten to iterate and highlight, in the aggregate.  Viewing the bell curve illustrates, then, that only 14% of whites have IQs below that of the average black.  Nonetheless, if blacks coming out of high school account for about 1/7 of the class and if colleges and universities are fair, shouldn't 1/7 of the freshmen class at Princeton, Wake Forest, MIT and Yale be black?

Obviously, the answer is "yes" and that's why our legal system -- including the U.S. Supremes -- has invented "Affirmative Action" discrimination to insure such fairness.  Whew!  Thank you.

Have you -- like I -- ever perused the football or basketball program or media guide for your college or university team?  Have you -- like I -- ever noted the contrast in hue demographics versus the Forbes list or the late-Spring local paper top-grads features or the faces in the library versus outside it?  Hold on.  Don't jump ahead here.  I'm talking about the head coaches.  They are disproportionately white, big time.  That's why the NCAA and the BCA (Black Coaches Association [Note: there is no WCA]) have stepped up to the fairness plate to impose their version of "affirmative action" (discrimination), though some under the umbrella of "diversity". 

The NFL (National Football League) requires that before any team hires a new head coach it must include in its applicant pool and interview at least one black candidate.  There are, I think (off the top of my head), eight black head coaches for the thirty-two teams.  That means that blacks are disproportionately represented relative to the percentage of the population at large.  Nonetheless, the NFL continues to require "affirmative action" (discrimination).

There are 22 blacks among the 64 offensive and defensive coordinators in the NFL.  To the NFL that means that fairness dictates that there be 10 more blacks, half of the 64.  To the 22 it must mean that every time there's a head coaching vacancy they have to pack their bags and jump aboard a plane, regardless of whether they're actually being considered.  They (the 22) oughta band together and demand big money for agreeing to interview.

There are thirty NBA (National Basketball Association) teams, and at my last count nine black head coaches.  So again, blacks are disproportionately represented.  Despite that, the BCA continues to whine.  Of course, as I see it, the self-defined mission of the BCA -- as with the NAALCP (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People) -- is to whine loud and whine often.

Okay, finally let me get to it, get to my real point, get to what has my boxers all in a bunch.  It is incontrovertible that both the NBA and the NFL discriminate against white athletes.  82+% of NBA players are black.  65+% of NFL players are black.  Blacks account for about 15% of the population.  Independent auditors have carefully assessed, then told me flat out that I'm no Lebron James.  At 5'7" and a vertical leap of 4 1/2", I may not be a crowd draw, but I demand my due.  Fair is, after all, fair.

It is incontrovertible that  America's colleges' and universities' football and basketball programs both discriminate against white athletes. 46.1% of NCAA Division 1A football players are black. 61.1% of NCAA college basketball players are black.  Blacks account for about 15% of the population.  These schools keep recruiting guys who run fast, jump high, hit the trey, dunk backwards, dribble with either hand, pass without looking, and irrelevant factors like that.  If they were employing the right  - i.e., fair -- criteria, 85% of players would be white.  I demand a piece . . . and justice.  I deserve hope and, thus, change.

Don't get me wrong now.  This isn't about me.  I see myself here as a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton, you know, one of the Justice Brothers.  Big-time football and basketball will obviously be better off with more "diversity".  It's conventional wisdom.  It's settled science.  It would be just.  It would be fair.  And Yao Ming may be big, but he's not enough.  The token Chicom.

So, how do we make this work?  First, we think like government "civil rights" bureaucrats.  Never mind what the NBA or NFL want, what the colleges and universities want.  They may own the game and own the programs, but property rights don't stack up against "diversity" and fairness.  Never mind what fans want, and will support and pay for.  The free market is clearly flawed, self-serving, unjust.  What's needed is a sorta Title IX for short, slow, white guys who can't jump.

The original Title IX served to devalue testosterone in favor of pony tails.  Our new "Title IX"-type initiative will discriminate against endomorphic body types with fast-twitch muscles, disproportionately characteristic of West-African-origin people especially males.

_____________________________________________________________

Sidebar:  Later, we'll take up the pesky issue of those ectomorphs with slow-twitch muscles and  disproportionately large hearts and lungs, so characteristic of the East-African-origin guys -- like the Kenyans and Ethiopians -- who keep dominating distance running, whether track, cross country, or road racing.

____________________________________________________________

It'll be just like ignoring SAT and ACT scores and high-school grades and class standing in college-admissions decisions in favor of "diversity"  and "richness of life experience."  It'll be just like refusing to promote fire fighters because they're not black enough.  Perfect solution.

CNN reports here that golf balls are "humanity's signature litter".  Just in the United States alone, there are 300,000,000 golf balls lost each year.  And it takes between 100 and 1,000 years for a ball to biodegrade.  Moreover, in the core of the ball are harmful chemicals which, when released, can harm both flora and fauna.

Now, I've been an active supporter of both the First Tee Program for kids and the Wounded Warrior Project for wounded veterans and their families.  Sorry, kids and sorry war heroes, I've gotta rethink here.  We may well  be endangering or injuring some snail darters and seaweed.  Maybe, we need to at least mitigate the devastation by going to treehugger.com to begin using biodegradable tees and balls.

Golfers could also contribute toward saving and sustaining the planet by leaving 13 clubs in the garage, and playing solely with a putter.  Studies show that fewer balls are lost and fewer golfers are able to tee off since a typical putter-only round takes 11 hours to complete.  Both the strategy and the unintended consequence result in fewer lost balls in the global aggregate.

I beg for some brainstorming about this crisis.  If guys don't go out with their buddies to engage in sports, we can assume that birth rates will increase and we could face a population-bomb crisis.  If guys get discouraged with golf and switch to tennis, this will result in a precipitous increase in CO₂ exhalation per player per hour, and the global-warming crisis will be ever-more exascerbated.  If golf-course revenues are seriously hurt, many might close and revert to being cow pastures.  Uh-oh, worsening the precipitous methane crisis.  Algore alert!


Postscript!!  Shortly after publishing the above, I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh Program, and he started talking about this.  Dr. Roy Spencer, Climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, emailed Rush to inform that zinc -- the alleged dangerous chemical element in golfball cores -- is 95% of the content in a penny.  And 400,000,000 pennies are lost each year.  Now I could see that as justification for doing nothing about my golf game (such that it is) and golf charity.  But, that's not how I am.  I just want to add the admonition to my fellows that we avoid using pennies as ball markers.

Thursday November 5, 2009 in the early afternoon there was a terrorist attack at the U.S. Army's Fort Hood.  The apparent sole-perpetrator was an Islamist who gunned down 43 people, killing 13 and wounding another 30.  The victims were Fort Hood military personnel, soldiers either preparing to ship out for duty, soldiers having just shipped in from duty, and some bystanders.

It is no surprise here that CNN, ABC and PBS "news" people, et al, are reporting this  as a possible case of PTSD with the shooter as victim.  After all, the shooter is Muslim, a devotee of the religion of peace.  After all, what could have set him off to do something so crazy?  And there's also the matter that this would have to be a brand-new disorder.  "PTSD" would have to stand for "pre-traumatic stress disorder" since this psychiatrist hasn't done anything yet other than talk with people.  Of course, when deployed, he'd be in the rear, not in combat.  Such PC drivel is standard stock in trade for these folks.

What is of surprise to me, however, is the handling of this Islamist by the United States Army.  Up until July, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was psychiatric fellow at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland and a captain.  In late Spring he received both a poor performance review and a promotion.  Following graduation from Virginia Tech in 1997, Hasan enrolled in the military's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda.  Following that schooling he did an internship, then a residency, then a six-year fellowship, all at Bethesda.

In his off hours for all of those years Hasan gave speeches, chastising infidels, and imploring conversion to Islam.  He was combative both on-duty and off-duty, and explicit regarding his disagreement with American involvement both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  According to an aunt, he had sought a discharge from the Army.  He was not a closet Islamist.

Was it an actionable clue to intelligence people when  Islamic men enrolled in pilot training, but didn't want to learn take-offs and landings?  I think the clues here were as clear and as actionable for U.S. Army superior officers and the clues were repeated and repeated by Hasan for years.  What made it clear to Hasan that it was time?  Impending deployment overseas to support a war against Islamists.

Nidal Malik Hasan resided within the U.S. Army and "prospered" there for a decade, became an officer, was even promoted to the rank of major.  Enlisted -- even sgt. majors -- and even lieutenants and captains had to salute him and follow his orders.  He wasn't just allowed to infiltrate the mammoth Fort Hood Army base; he was placed there.  And as an obvious radical Islamist was even not proscribed from owning and possessing personal firearms and ammunition.  The wolf was in the hen house.

Do we expect the "news" media to kneel at the altar of PC crapola?  Do we expect such from college professors?  Do we expect such from k-12 government-school teachers?  Do we expect such from the Hollywood elites?  Do we expect such from an Obama and a Pelosi and a Reid and a, well you know the roster?  Yes.  Yes. Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  Do we expect such from the ranking officers of the U.S. Army?  We'd better not.

About a half-century before The Great Depression philosopher and “classic liberal” professor, William Graham Sumner, of Yale developed a lecture against “progressives” titled “The Forgotten Man.” “As soon as A (a progressive) observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B (another progressive), and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine . . . what A, B, and C shall do for X.” Sumner said that what was wrong was the indenturing of C to the cause. C is the forgotten man, the one who pays.

In FDR’s first great speech he promised to champion “the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.” At that moment in 1932 presidential candidate Roosevelt flipped the meaning of “liberal” on its head, ending the focus on individualism and substituting a focus on groups, reinstituted slavery (C), and trash-canned the Constitution. FDR went to war against C (mostly private enterprise) and substituted X for C as Sumner’s “forgotten man”. Still today – three-quarters-of-a-century after FDR’s speech – liberals (new meaning) obsess about groups. They make as X such as Blacks, Hispanics and Latinos, Gays and Lesbians, the Disabled; refer to them as “communities”; and try to make them “vote for a living” rather than work for a living (as individuals do).

Atop the list of groups or communities for liberals is "The Poor". Aside from the fact that the Constitution does not enumerate any power to the federal government to rob from Pete (C) to pay Paul (X), there are other problems with liberal (new meaning) thought. First, except for the small percentage which is mentally or physically disabled, poverty is a behavioral disorder. Second, poor today doesn’t mean poor tomorrow and visa versa. Third, the average poor person in America today is richer and wealthier than (a) the average middle-class person in, say, France today, (b) the average middle-class person in America in1960, and (c) the average rich person in most of the world today. Fourth, they’re fat.

Only about an eighth of persons in the lowest quintile of earners remain there after two decades, and many are in the third or fourth quintile. Some from the top quintile go bankrupt, lose a business, and drop into the lowest . . . temporarily. For a young person the formula for not being poor is simple. First, graduate from high school, even a government school. Second, get and keep a full-time job, work hard and improve skills. Third, get married before bringing a child into the world, stay married, and don’t have a child until it can be afforded . . . by you, with your money, not Pete’s (C’s) money.

Many Baby Boomers learned as teenagers an “entitlement mentality”, thanks to FDR’s New Deal. Then as those youngsters were approaching adulthood, locking in their fundamental values which would guide their adult lives, the New Deal got supersized by LBJ and his Great Society, and then the Hillary Rodhams became A’s and John Kerrys became B’s. Being “on welfare” got mainstreamed for Xs who didn’t follow the young-person formula (society’s Pauls) and paying for welfare became a growing tax and burden on Cs (society’s Petes). Even at that, a recent Knoxville, Tennessee mayoral candidate called for a “living wage” for X’s, this despite the top 50 percent of earners paying 96 percent of all federal income taxes. Giving money to "The Poor" doesn’t reduce poverty one bit. Behavior modification will. Learn the formula. Follow the formula. Discipline.

“The rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer”, is the consensus. Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards says, “. . . there are two Americas, not one . . .” Democrat presidential candidates all echo in sync. Obviously not buying the conventional wisdom, I wrote October 14, 2007 that a high percentage of earners in the lowest quintile had moved up even to the middle quintile or higher during the last two decades; and that some from the top quintile had gone bankrupt. And I wrote that for a young person the formula for not being poor is simple. Did I get letters? Of course, the writers who claimed they couldn’t get out of poverty had all violated at least two proscriptions from my formula. Former Texas congressman Tom DeLay once said, “Demagoguery beats data.” Nonetheless, let us forge forward with some data.

A U.S. Treasury report, published in November 2007, confirms that Democrat prexy candidates and consensus are wrong and that Pete is right. Between 1996 and 2005 income earners over age twenty-five increased their earnings in real dollars by an average of 24 percent. Of those who were in the lowest earnings quintile in 1996, their earnings grew by 90.5 percent by 2005, almost double. The second-lowest quintile earners had their earnings grow by 34.8 percent. The third, fourth and fifth quintile folks achieved gains of 23.3, 16.6 and 10 percent respectively. The actual data, then, suggest that while the rich keep getting richer, the poor (of 1996) for the most part (a) aren’t poor anymore and (b) are getting richer even faster than the rich. The conclusion would be even more dramatic if earners under age 25 were included, and if “other income” were counted. (Welfare transfer payments, subsidies, IRA payouts for retirees, etc. are about 75% of “income” for “the poor”.)

There’s a lotta class and wealth envy in America these days. Demagoguery achieves that. So for those who can’t be happy unless the evil rich are getting hosed, here are more data. Splitting the top quintile further, of those in the top ten percent in 1996 their earnings grew by a mere 2.9 percent while the top five percent lost 6.8 percent. The top one percent lost 25.8 percent of their earning power during those ten years. Is that cheering I hear from the whiners? A return to the demagoguery I see and a rejection of the data? Treasury research data show that: (1) Being poor for most folks is a life stage (young, unskilled and inexperienced) or temporary condition (lost a job or business or just got whacked by a house fire or medical emergency). (2) Talking about “the poor” ala Edwards, Clinton, and Obama makes as much sense as talking about “the pregnant”. They’re both temporary conditions, not groups or communities. (3) At least between 1996 and 2005, the sorta-rich kept getting slightly richer while the super-rich kept getting poorer while the poor kept getting richer and the middle class wasn’t doin’ bad either. Herein repeated is the young-person formula for not being poor. First, graduate from high school, even a government school. Second, get and keep a full-time job, work hard and improve skills. Third, get married before bringing a child into the world, stay married and don’t have a child until it can be afforded – by you and with your money, not Pete’s money. I recommend teachers share this (data, not demagoguery) and discuss this with every freshman in high school. Except for someone with a major disability, poverty is a behavioral disorder. It’s a choice. Behaviors have consequences.

The previous tableaux have applied for decades. America has been a land of opportunity for those who were industrious and made smart choices. Illegal discrimination has been subliminal, for the most part unintentional, and most injurious to the discriminator. Since January 20, 2009 – and to a lesser extent in the couple of post-election months preceding – the landscape has radically changed. My earlier-stated and iterated formula is now invalid. The formula for not being poor in America is neither understandable nor executable by an individual. The “American Dream” can no longer be sought, only “hoped” for.

Unemployment is 9.8% nationwide, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor as of October 2. That rate has doubled in 22 months, and the numbers have risen from 7.6 million to 15.1 million. I hate to report this, but that’s the good news.

That’s the “official” unemployment statistics, what’s known as “U3”. “U6” measures U3 plus those who became too discouraged to continue to hunt, plus those who took part-time or significantly-lower-skill positions, plus those only marginally-attached (temporary). That rate as of October 2 – again according the U.S. Department of Labor – is 17% n nationwide.

The U6 unemployment rate as of June 2009 (the latest I can find) for black teens is 56%, U.S.-born Hispanic teens is 47%, black young adults with a high school degree is 44%, black high school dropouts of all ages is 41%, U.S.-born Hispanic young adults with only a high school degree is 35%, all teens (16-17) is 32%, young adults with only a high school degree (18-29) is 30%, and all Americans 15.9%. In Michigan, California, and a few other states these percentages are much higher yet. According to even the N.Y. Times the U6 for Oregon reached 23.5%, 21.5% in Michigan and Rhode Island, and 20.3% in California in late Spring.

Technically, America is in a recession. And amid that recession the federal government passed and imposed an increase in the minimum wage, thus to exacerbate the above figures, minorities as always hardest hit. In reality, however, America is in a transformation, one imposed by the federal government with malice aforethought. The “recession” is manufactured via government fiscal and monetary policy, by the substitution of the rule of an oligarchy for the rule of law, by the intentional trashing of the U.S. Constitution and the dismissal of the Declaration of Independence, and by the successful takeover of America by liberal-fascist statists hell-bent on erasing liberty in favor of tyranny. The “recession”, then, isn’t a phase; it’s structural.

A gradual smaller American economy, a weaker America, a poorer America, a more-government-controlled America has been the new norm . . . for a century at least.  A geometric decline rather than arithmetic is the this-year-new norm.  Given this new reality, America’s run-of-the-mill, everyday, garden-variety, college –graduate homemaker is focused on what? Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Entertainment Tonight, People, Sudoku, the crosswords, and youth sports. They are convinced that the 401k-now-201k will again become a 401k or 501k, despite the near-impossibility of said happening. So, what’s the new paradigm? How does a young person avoid becoming poor? What should she or he do?

Governor Bradford of the end-of-the-15th-and-beginning-of-the-16th-century Virginia Colony recognized a disaster in the making.  It was the commune, based on "to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities."  The Colony had experienced a 25% annual death rate for its first two years, mostly from starvation.  He asserted leadership, and got commitment to individual liberty and property, each family owning its own plot and reaping its own harvest.  The result was surplus, and trade with both England and the natives (Indians).  Resulting was the first Thanksgiving, whereat both the Indians and the settlers celebrated the new prosperous reality.

From his pre-Adam-Smith aha-experience (eureka) discovery, we have finally returned full-circle.  And I think it important to note here that if the Constitution had been honored, defended and protected, and adhered to, this could not have happened.  Mohamed El-Erian, ceo of Pacific Investment, said on Bloomberg October 5th that today's unemployment picture -- with its depth, its breadth, its demographics, and its seeming hopelessness -- is and will be the "new norm".

Entrepreneurs and their small businesses know exactly what they want from government:  nothing.  Leave me alone.  Get outa da way.  Executives at what used to be small business, but are now large, know exactly what they want from government as well: either nothing or provide protectionist policy that mitigates stiff competition.  For great examples study either General Electric (GE) or Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM) . . . or both.  As many small and mid-size business have gone under, along with some large (but not deemed "too big to fail"), those jobs are now gone, never to return.  In recent decades at least, more than 70% of new jobs have been created by small business, and today's federal government is systemically discouraging anyone from taking on the incredible risk of entrepreneurship.  So, what’s the new paradigm? How does a young person avoid becoming poor? What should she or he do?

Last Thursday I had my annual physical exam and semi-annual check-up with my internist.  After some lab tests and the like, we sat down and he asked me if anything were "bothering" me, you know, like coughs or headaches or chest pains and the like.  And I said, "Yes".  I said that I wondered whether he'd still be my highly-valued doctor two years hence.  We agreed that he might not.  When the President or Speaker or Majority Leader talk of cutting "healthcare costs", what they're actually talking about is cutting medical-care prices.

When the federal government takes over the "system", its sole motivation will be to reduce its costs.  To do that, they will dictate that my doc cut his prices by, say, 20%.  His overhead is 65%; his costs are what they are.  His pre-tax  will, therefore, drop from 35% of gross to 15%.  Then, the following year the federal government will dictate that is original price be dropped 40% total or another 20%.  At that point, he'd be working an entire year in order to lose money . . . structurally.  What would he do, cut overhead or just get out?  He'd get out.  Hey, he could just accept a lower standard of living, become a homemaker and stay-at-home dad, and leave it to his wife to bring home the bacon.  Woops, she's also an internist.

Though we didn't discuss, it, my guess is that they'd move, leave the country.  So, what’s the new paradigm? How does a young person avoid becoming poor? What should she or he do?  Heck, how do you and I avoid becoming poor?

It's difficult to read through those U6 demographic statistics and not have the mind wander to contemplating what the impact might be on burglaries, robberies, gang activity, drug consumption, assaults; with increasing anger and anomie the impact on homicides and rapes, arsons.  It's difficult to hear the El-Erian assessment without wondering  just who it will be that pays the more-than-$900,000 per household in unfunded American obligations now in place.  But, those aren't the questions here.

And then there's this guy.

Why should there be "health insurance"?  There shouldn't.  Health is a matter of nature and nurture, of genetics and lifestyle.  Why would I start a company to insure health?  Insurance is the sharing of risk.  Where's the risk in health.  Either nurture doesn't matter because of nature, or nurture does matter and is manageable by the individual in question.

Americans' lifestyles are less-healthy than many others around the world in developed nations.  We exercise too little, are sedentary too much.  Too much meat, not enough fruits and vegetables.  Too much tobacco and alcohol and other drugs.  Too much murder, assault, rape, and gang violence.  All of these negatives, however, affect us based on personal choices and behaviors.  And behaviors have consequences.  Each of us is granted by our Creator, however, with the unalienable right to liberty, to choose for ourselves.  One consequence of that right is that each of us has an unalienable right to stupidity, and many exercise that right . . . regularly.  You can't fix stupid?

Among companies that provide -- as part of compensation -- some level of medical (not health) insurance, leaders have developed and encourage participation in "wellness" programs.  It has been demonstrated that healthy workers are more productive workers.  Also demonstrated has been that investment in wellness lowers company medical insurance costs more than cost of the wellness programs.

The contention, however, by proponents of a womb-to-tomb government-involved medical-care system that incentivising healthier diet and appropriate exercise will lower medical costs is bogus at best, disingenuous more likely.  What's smart for company executives is that their wellness programs postpone medical costs, say, until after retirement.  Then, those former employees become beneficiaries of Medicare and, in some cases, Medicaid or both.  It is irrefutable fact that sooner or later we all die.  The statistic that as much as 2/3 of our total lifetime outlay for medical care occurs in the last year of life still holds.  What those smart companies did was to reduce their costs while pushing them forward onto the government, and also likely increasing the drain on Social Security as those folks live retired longer.

Why is there no private-sector company offering flood insurance?  If you live near the shoreline of the Mississippi River, you'll definitely want flood insurance.  If I had a private insurance company, I'd see you as a bi-annual claim just waiting to happen and suck me dry.  If you live in downtown New Orleans, ditto.  If as a private-sector insurance guy I offered you flood insurance on your $100,000 riverfront homestead, I'd have to charge you about $60,000 per annum.   If you live atop a mountain, you won't want flood insurance, though as an insurance guy I'd need you to buy it to share the risk.  Why does FEMA offer "flood insurance"?  You have to ask?  It's the government, that's why.

Suppose you're a private-sector insurance gal, and you get a frantic phone call from someone wanting fire insurance on his house.  He wants it now and says he'll pay the first month's premium over the phone.  You say that someone will have to come out and inspect the place first, and you can schedule that for tomorrow.  He says he can't wait, because the house is in flames, and won't be there tomorrow.  He points out that he called you first, even before calling the fire department.  Would you make the deal?  You might, from a business perspective, see that as about as smart as offering ex post facto flood "insurance" to post-Katrina homeowners in the Big Easy, or life insurance to someone with terminal liver cancer.

In today's "healthcare debate" -- even as citizens with more than two gray cells to rub together know that what's being floated is either  the achievement of socialized medicine or another significant increment toward that end -- there is talk of  a role for private-sector insurance companies.  These entities are not now, nor have they been for decades, in a free and competitive marketplace.  Liberal-leftist fascism has emasculated them, regulating them such that they aren't really in the insurance business.  Analogous would be requiring the people living atop mountains to buy flood insurance, people in Iowa to buy hurricane insurance, the deaf to buy coverage for hearing aids, and the homeless to buy homeowners insurance.  A major focus in today's "debate" is whether "insurers" should be required to provide coverage for "pre-existing conditions" without surcharge.

This would be like requiring the fire-insurance gal to agree to insure the guy whose house is ablaze.  This would be like requiring the homeowners insurance rep to offer a flood insurance policy to someone whose house was already underwater.  So, when you get sick, you buy insurance . . . for awhile.  When you have stage-four lymphoma, you call Travelers or Blue Cross, and tell them that you'll pay for coverage at $100 per month for a couple of months, and send them the $300,000 tab for your care.

The auto insurance industry seems to be fairly sensible.  Risk is shared, but those deemed higher-risk pay higher premiums than those deemed lower-risk.  Urban higher versus rural lower.  High-crime area higher versus low-crime area lower.  Teenagers higher versus middle-age lower.  Couple of accidents and a couple of tickets higher versus no accidents or tickets lower.  Zoomzoom car higher versus 4-door sedan lower.  None of the insurance companies offers fuel or oil or lube or tire-rotation insurance.  None offers carwash or brake-job insurance.  Would be nonsensical.  Wouldn't be "insurance".  Indeed, both thinking rational auto owners and insurers see the wisdom in high-deductible -- say, $2,000 or more -- policies.  Why?  Everybody gets scratched and/or dinged.  Can't go to the mall without that.  It's the big crashes that are the budget busters, and with those there can be some financial risk sharing.

So, let's talk about insurance bennies.  How'd we get where so many Americans think that they shouldn't themselves have to pay for medical care; not procedures,  not prescriptions, not tests, not check-ups, not dental cleanings, not eye glasses, not condoms, not birth-control pills, not Viagra  (Wassup widdat?), and certainly not power chairs?  A century ago one of the top-five killers was diarrhia.  (Some will see that assertion as a blowback to my most-recent previous thread.)   Now, lots and lots of Americans think that no-cost-to-them MRIs, cat scans, joint replacements, micro-surgeries, "miracle" drugs and the like are rights.

In the current "debate", those on the left and, indeed, some of those not thought of as on the left eschew the idea of high-deductible plans, of people paying for everyday, routine, predicable basics themselves.  The first nickel is to be "covered".  Doctor visits for check-ups, annual eye exams and the resulting eyeglasses, dental cleanings, mammograms, STD screenings, abortions; everything.  For them from the get-go, risk and actual insurance are off-the-table.  Free markets and free choice are off-the-table.  Personal responsibility and unalienable rights -- all of them -- are off-the-table.

There is rationing in everything.  Only so many hours in the day.  So much to do; so little time.  So many wants; limited cash.  Shall I buy steak?  Can I afford it?  At issue here are (1) who will ration -- the individual (exercising liberty) or the government (exercising tyranny) -- and (2) supply and demand, with price the arbiter in a free market, or severely-limited supply from the government and infinite demand from consumers, with government bureaucrats the arbiter, based solely on government cost-containment.

Why did employers get involved?  Because of the government.  Did the government require it?  No.  The government -- early on in WW II -- tried to rewrite the laws of supply and demand.  The guv didn't want wages escalating and taking money away from the war effort (Remember, they were Keynesians), so they capped them.  Employers now couldn't compete for a scarce resource -- employees, given that so many men had become GIs -- by offering more pay, so they used their ingenuity and offered non-wage bennies, like medical insurance.  Why didn't the government crack down on those pesky-miscreant employers?  For FDR and his fellow liberal-leftist fascists having individuals dependent -- even if to employers rather than the government -- was an incremental step in the desired direction.  It was a small step toward where our latter-day liberal-leftist fascists are today as we speak.



Everything with which the federal government is involved is a mess.  Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals, clinics, and treatment are a tragedy for our wounded warriors and their families, and a blight on American culture.  Medicare is unconstitutional, bloated, corrupt, bureaucratic, and soon-to-be bankrupt.  Medicaid is unconstitutional, corrupt, and grossly-inefficient.  SCHIP is everything wrong with Medicaid, and on steroids.

Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP all serve to discourage and disincentivise personal responsibility among those who could and should take care of themselves.  They also discourage and disincentivise acts and organizations of charity for those incapable of taking care of themselves.

For Americans who would seek out and avail themselves of true medical insurance for the very same reason that they seek out and avail themselves of homeowners, auto, flood, hurricane and fire insurance  -- i.e., to mitigate the financial devastation of "the big one" -- state governments nationwide have unconstitutionally (14th amendment) regulated and manipulated insurers such that there isn't a marketplace where they and those wishing coverage can freely negotiate.

International intellectual-property law is inadequate and enforcement is selective.  The result is that patents and copyrights infringement is near-ubiquitous.  A pharmaceutical company can invest a $billion on a project that fails, then another $billion one one that succeeds.  On the second one, a company in, say, Asia steals the formula and produces the drug itself, already a $billion ahead of the game.  Then, the socialized medical system in Canada will negotiate for a bulk buy from the U.S. firm at a price a mere fraction of what Americans pay.  That is accomplished both because of the threat of ignoring a patent and by the pharma company violating U.S. laws against "predatory pricing in restraint of trade."