Maureen Dowd - irrelvant harpy

Writing with his usual insights, Bob Somersby, author and editorial staff of the Daily Howler deconstructs the writings of Maureen Dowd, to skillfully and convincingly make his point. The woman is has to go. She's a disgrace to the national discourse.

IT’S TIME FOR [DOWD] TO GO: Try to believe what the columnist said. Here are the first three grafs of her Saturday column. Try to believe that she actually made the ludicrous statement we highlight:

DOWD (4/21/07): Whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman president or a black president, it's definitely not ready for a metrosexual in chief.

In presidential politics, it's all but impossible to put the man into manicure. Be sensitive, but not soft. Effete is never effective. Not much has changed since George H. W. Bush drove his New Hampshire campaign off the road by requesting ''a splash'' more coffee at a truck stop.

John Kerry sank himself by windsurfing in spandex and ordering a cheese steak in Philly with Swiss instead of Cheez Whiz.

Try to grasp what this columnist seems to have said. According to the barely sane Maureen Dowd, John Kerry lost the 2004 White House campaign because he requested Swiss cheese —instead of Cheez Whiz —when he ordered a cheese steak in Philly. Similarly, George Bush the Elder supposedly “drove his New Hampshire campaign off the road by requesting ‘a splash’ more coffee.”)

Yes —that actually is what Dowd said. The fact that she could make such foolish remarks points to a national problem.

Make no mistake, Kerry was damaged by silly stories during Campaign 04. (Below, we’ll take note of Dowd’s flip-flop about his disturbing wind-surfing.) But no —Kerry didn’t lose the 04 campaign because he once asked for Swiss cheese on a steak. Only a fool could think such a thing. And only a fool would make this claim in the manner Dowd does in her column —without the slightest sign of understanding how bizarre such a thought really is.

Kerry lost —because he asked for Swiss cheese! In paragraph 2, the scribe said that!

But then, Dowd has long been a public fool —one of your “press corps’” leading idiots. Just a guess: It has been years since Dowd made a sincere statement in a Times column; for her, as for so many in her sad cohort, our politics really is “fun,” “entertainment” and “sport,” as Margaret Carlson told Imus. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/16/03. Scroll down to “Howler history.”) Is Maureen Dowd ever sincere in the various weird things she says? Can she even recall what sincerity is? Her columns are endlessly loaded with nonsense —with cat-like quips which define her throw-back style, and her gross insincerity.

No, Kerry didn’t lose in 2004 because he asked for Swiss on a cheese steak. But then, George H. W. Bush didn’t “drive his New Hampshire campaign off the road by requesting ‘a splash’ more coffee at a truck stop,” as Dowd claimed in Saturday’s paragraph 2. As we’ll show you below, it isn’t clear that Bush even made this iconic remark —it may be another of Dowd’s invented “quotations.” And Bush ended up winning that 1988 New Hampshire primary —and then the nomination, and then the White House. Indeed, Bush’s stop at that New Hampshire truck stop was often cited, in 1988, as the moment when he salvaged a failing campaign! But so what? Today, Dowd reinvents this apocryphal incident, in service to her endless hiss-spitting at Edwards. But then, Dowd has long self-displayed as an empty-souled fool. If we care a fig about our discourse, it’s time for her to go.

Below, we hash a few aspects of Dowd’s newest column. But readers, let’s get one thing straight. If you think your country’s discourse matters, it’s time for this crackpot to go.

ANTOINETTE’S LATEST PRONOUNCEMENT: How foolish is the latest pronouncement from our press corps’ number-one Antoinette? In Saturday’s column, Dowd pretends to be deeply disturbed by the price of John Edwards’ haircuts. (And make-up.) But uh-oh! She has her facts wrong, as she constantly does, and her logic doesn’t make much sense either. How dare he spend so much for a haircut? For Dowd, it leads her back to her dad in the blessed ’50s —and to her crazy brothers:

DOWD: Speaking of roots, my dad, a police detective who was in charge of Senate security, got haircuts at the Senate barbershop for 50 cents. He cut my three brothers' hair and did the same for anyone else in the neighborhood who wanted a free clip job. Even now, Mr. Edwards could get his hair cut at the Senate barbershop for $21 or the Chapel Hill Barber Shop near his campaign headquarters for $16.

So it's hard for me to understand how a guy could spend $400 without getting Bergdorf Blonde highlights. (The tabloids claim that Brad and Jen used to get matching streaks.) And don't campaign donors get snippy about sponsoring tonsorial treats?

It’s hard to know how any of this leads back to the habits of Maureen Dowd’s dad. Meanwhile, Dowd herself has written columns about what perfect crackpots her brothers are, so it’s hard to see why we’re now supposed to emulate their hoary upbringing.

But then, the foolishness is never far off when you read a column by Dowd. One part of that passage is pure Dowdism: Edwards could have gotten his cut at the Senate shop, she says —except for the fact he was in California! Of course, there are cheaper ways to get a haircut there than the one Edwards actually chose. Which leads us ahead to Dowd’s great pronouncement —her Current Great Thought on the world:

DOWD (continuing directly): Someone who aspires to talk credibly about the two Americas can't lavish on his locks what working families may spend on electricity in a year. You can't sell earnestness while indulging in decadence.

Get that? According to Dowd, Edwards can’t “talk credibly” about working-class or poverty issues if he’s spending too much for his haircut. Plainly, this is the basic idea Dowd presents in this latest column.

Of course, according to this brand of “logic,” Bobby Kennedy couldn’t “talk credibly” about poverty in Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta. After all, he lived in a big, fancy house —a Virginia mansion which had its own name —and he was frequently spotted on fancy sailboats. And FDR couldn’t “talk credibly” about Social Security from his grand manse in Hyde Park. What actually happened in California? Getting his hair cut on the fly, Edwards called a dude who traveled to him —and charged a very high price. From this point of utter trivia, the press corps’ leading Antoinette is prepared to draw a vast, sweeping judgment. As she continues, she helps us see how fake this guy actually is. Be sure you’re seated before you read this. It also helps if you’ve been drugged:

DOWD (continuing directly): Mr. Edwards, the son of a mill worker, moved from a $5.2 million, six-bedroom Federal mansion in Georgetown to a 28,000-square-foot behemoth in North Carolina with a basketball court, a squash court, two stages and a swimming pool.

His 25-year-old daughter, Cate, a former editorial assistant for Vanity Fair, co-founded Urbanista, an online Rolodex that dispenses advice for ''hip'' girls in Manhattan, offering to be a ''bestie'' (a best friend) and answer questions like ''Where should I go to get my Marc Jacobs shoes reheeled?'' and ''Does anyone know the best place to get a really great haircut?'' One salon the site recommends is Warren-Tricomi, where Edward Tricomi says haircuts range from $121 to $300.

Did you follow the reasoning here? John Edwards lives in a very big house! And his daughter co-founded a web site!

Pathetic, isn’t it? Now we’re trashing a major pol as a big faker/phony —based on something completely innocuous which his daughter (allegedly) did. But then, there’s nothing so stupid this cohort won’t say it, if it can be used to advance their grand theories. On Christmas Eve 1999, for example, the Post’s Al Kamen declared Gore a big phony because of the photographic process used on his family’s Christmas card! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/24/99.) Here at THE HOWLER, we received that card; it looked very much like the Christmas cards which other smiling families send out. So let’s repeat: There’s nothing so stupid these people won’t say. That’s why it’s time for their most foolish prophet to pack her pink satchel and go.

Should Edwards have paid big bucks for a haircut? Politically, no —he should not have. Given the state of our modern “press corps,” this kind of coverage was sure to follow. But only a fool could actually think that a man who lives in a big house (or who pays big bucks for a cut-on-the-run) is therefore unable to “speak credibly” about his nation’s alleged economic inequities. Dowd, of course, doesn’t care about that sort of thing (link below); like other people who care about nothing, she often seems eager to make the claim that no one else cares about anything either. But the notion that Edwards can’t “speak credibly” about such issues because of a web site his daughter(allegedly) co-founded? Only a fool could produce such mean thoughts. And that’s why these losers must go.

BRIEF INTERLUDE: Remember; when people like Dowd pursue such nonsense, they tend to do so very selectively. Have you ever seen work done on John McCain’s money? On the house he lives in with his (rich) second wife? Have you ever seen a column about how much Bush’s suits cost? Do you think a columnist couldn’t invent a story-line to justify that kind of nonsense?

THE SAINT AND THE SAPPHIRE: And then, of course, as we’ve long shown you, the facts will always get ground into dust when losers like Dowd seek to pimp their Grand Visions. Such “journalists” always reshape their facts. Consider this piece of High Dowdism:

DOWD: Following his star turn primping his hair for two minutes on a YouTube video to the tune of ''I Feel Pretty,'' Mr. Edwards this week had to pay back the $800 charged to his campaign for two shearings at Torrenueva Hair Designs in Beverly Hills. He seems intent on proving that he is a Breck Girl —and a Material Boy.

He did not pony up for the pricey bills from Designworks Salon in Dubuque, Iowa, or the Pink Sapphire spa in Manchester, which offers services for men that include the ''Touch of Youth'' facial, as well as trips ''into the intriguing world of makeup.'' The Edwards campaign calls makeup a legitimate expense.

Yes, she had to include her standard gender-based jibes about Edwards “feeling pretty” and being “the Breck Girl.” But consider the way Dowd hissed/spat about the Pink Sapphire —the “pricey” Manchester spa.

How insincere is Dowd’s outraged passage about this deeply-troubling spa? Start with this: Edwards didn’t get that “Touch of Youth” facial —the facial Dowd lovingly puts in her column. And while we’re at it, how about Dowd’s logic in the last part of that passage? In fact, we’d assume that every campaign considers makeup for TV appearances “a legitimate campaign expense” —and that, of course, is what Edwards purchased. Does anyone go on TV without makeup? This brings us to the newspaper story which appeared in New Hampshire this Wednesday, and then was quickly deep-sixed.

Wednesday morning, the Manchester Union-Leader–one of the country’s most conservative newspapers–rolled its eyes at the “Pink Sapphire” part of this developing story. In a front-page news report, John Whitson quoted Ariana Franggos, the Manchester woman who did Edwards’ makeup. Whitson then made an obvious point:

WHITSON (4/18/07): Franggos said she thinks Edwards...is being damned for something every politician does: apply makeup before surrendering to the scrutiny of TV cameras.

In fact, it's unlikely a national candidate has participated in a debate or formal interview au natural since Richard Nixon's infamous meltdown while pitted against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Duh! Presumably, every politician has makeup applied before he or she does a TV interview. If the candidate is being interviewed from a remote location, he must hire a makeup person himself. And yes, such people do pretty much get paid. Did Edwards pay big crazy money to Franggos (“pricey bills”)? Sorry. Here’s the start of Whitson’s report:

WHITSON (pgh 1): Reports that a local day spa for women did John Edwards' makeup for $225 are, like the candidate's hair, greatly overblown.

Ariana Franggos, co-owner of Pink Sapphire on Elm Street, said yesterday she's applied makeup for the Democratic Presidential candidate several times in recent months before television appearances, and $225 covers about three sessions.

Franggos, who has run the makeup boutique and day spa for three years, said she's carved out a niche for herself through contacts at WMUR-TV. After applying makeup for employees there, she said, word got out and political hopefuls have come calling.

No one has challenged this information, which means that Franggos charged Edwards $75 per session —sessions for which she presumably had to travel to Edwards’ location. No, that isn’t a high, shocking rate —and Edwards isn’t the only “political hopeful” who has paid such “pricey bills” from Franggos. Uh-oh! Guess who else has been made up by Franggos? Omigod! It’s just too perfect! Our greatest living saint, John McCain!

WHITSON (continuing directly): Both sides of the aisle are welcome.

"I literally don't talk politics," she said. "I just go in and do their makeup."

Franggos made John McCain look pretty and hid the flaws on Dennis Kucinich. "I'm definitely not picky about it," she said, referring to political party.

Omigod! The dragon-lady from the pricey Pink Sapphire made McCain “look pretty” too! And she even did Dennis Kucinich! Maybe he needs to shut up now too!

Let’s repeat —Whitson’s report graced the Union-Leader’s front page Wednesday morning. In it, he rolled his eyes at the way the “Pink Sapphire and its $225 services were lumped into the mix” when the AP wrote its initial report about Edwards’ troubling haircuts. But Whitson’s debunking report was ignored in DC; it wasn’t picked up by the Hotline, for example, and Nexis records no other citations anywhere in the national press. Result? Three days later, Dowd was still describing the pretty-boy services Edwards didn’t purchase from the Pink Sapphire. And she forgot to say that McCain and Kucinich had used the spa’s makeup work too.

But then, they always reinvent and select their facts to produce their pleasing, dumb-as-rocks stories. Dowd has done this for year after year. If you doubt that, let’s revisit her work in 1988, when she was still a Times reporter.

This takes us back to that truck stop visit by Candidate Bush in 1988 —the one Dowd described in paragraph 2 of Saturday’s column. According to Dowd’s hiss/spitting account, Bush the Elder “drove his New Hampshire campaign off the road by requesting ‘a splash’ more coffee at a truck stop.” This claim is just completely bogus, like so much of the tripe Dowd writes. But then, Dowd has long been just this side of delusional. Unless you think our lives are a joke, it’s time for this big kook to go.

Obama is NOT the one

Writing for the Black Commentator, Larry Pinkney, a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes many important points.

To Be Black In America: An Unflinching Necessity
By Larry Pinkney | Guest Commentator
The Black Commentator: 19 April, 2007 -- Issue # 226

We are well into the 21st century and it continues to be absolutely essential to be Black in America. Beyond mere color, being Black is first and foremost a conscious political, social, and economic commitment to the struggle for the collective betterment of the descendants of the Black slavery holocaust, in what has now become the United States of America, in conjunction with other people of color and humanity as a whole.

(MG) The imperialist project, implemented so effectively by the British Empire, has been taken up by the U.S. which has over 750 military bases in 150 countries all over the globe. If 150 countries from all over the globe had 750 military bases in the U.S., one might call it quid pro quo. How many thumbs does one need to count the number of foreign military bases in the U.S.

Indeed, to be Black is not only to be physically of a certain hue, but just as importantly--to be consciously of a certain mental hue--from what some have called 'high yellow' to deep, dark, rich blue-Black. Blackness is, in fact, not only a rainbow of color but also a rainbow of active consciousness and commitment. To be Black is to be socially and politically conscious, as the late and incomparable artist-activist, lyricist, and singer Curtis Mayfield poignantly stated it in his powerful song entitled, "We People Who Are Darker Than Blue"..."Now I know we have great respect./For the sister and mother it's even better yet./But there's the joker in the street/loving one brother and killing the other./When the time comes and we are really free/there'll be no brothers left you see..." In other words, Blackness in its truest sense means consciousness, and more to the point, an active consciousness. Thus the term 'Black consciousness.'

In 21st century America, other than perception, very little of real substance has changed for the better in the daily lives of the vast majority of Black people and other people of color. In fact, Black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than ever before in US history, and far too many of the hard-won gains of the so-called "civil rights movement" have been eroded, outright reversed, or otherwise nullified, for the majority of Black men, women, and children in America. Moreover, Black youth in particular are under sustained intense social, economic, and cultural assault on virtually every level of American society. The reality of Black life in America--has been insidiously and deliberately replaced in the US media and institutions--by illusion, which in fact has little or nothing to do with the increasingly deplorable conditions in, of, and under which the masses of Black people really exist today in America. To paraphrase the words of Malcolm X, "Wrong has become right and bad has become good..." Today, it is illusion that is touted as if it is reality, while reality itself is expeditiously discarded.

(MG) "illusion .. is touted as if it is reality, while reality itself is expeditiously discarded."
Examples of this abound. the cheney sock-puppet continues to spout babble - "if we leave Iraq, the terrorists win" ... "mission accomplished" ... Ron Suskind writing in the New York Times quotes an unnamed source as saying "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." .... It's a mindset that can be explained only by its complete and utter faith in its ability to use propaganda to fool most of the people, all of the time.

To be Black means a conscious recognition of reality for what it really is, so that it can forthrightly be addressed, not dooming ourselves and our posterity to ultimate oblivion and historical ignominy by playing go-along-to-get-along ostriches. Being consciously Black means choosing reality over illusion. One of the most potent mainstays of racist oppression in America, is deluding ourselves to succumb to illusion. For example, as in the case of the US Presidential aspirations of Barack Obama as they relate to Black America; to be Black means choosing reality--versus perception and disastrous illusion. As former Oakland (CA) City Council Member, Wilson Riles, recently and correctly wrote:

The US would not be a racist nation if those on top didn't want it that way. No matter how close Obama comes to the Presidency, racism will not shift significantly. The Perception of it will, making the struggle against it more difficult... That Barack has a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas has little relevance... Obama has signaled where he stands--he passed the powers-that-be vetting. For example, he took neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman as his Senate mentor, voted to re-authorize the PATRIOT Act, blames concentrated black poverty on "cultural issues" and not on white supremacy, and he favors keeping troops in Iraq and keeping the bombing of Iran "on the table." Obama is not the one.

To be Black, demands active consciousness and rejects lethargy.

(MG) To be HUMAN, to be MUSLIM, to be CHRISTIAN demands an active consciousness and a rejection of lethargy. To be Black, in the sense that Larry Pickney is describing here is to be a fully actualized human being, with deep concerns for ones brothers and sisters, especially those of lower estate.

To be Black is to recognize the controlling distinction between some (not all) personally misguided and corporately manipulated rap and/or hip hop artists--versus the outright traitors to humanity--such as Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice, et al. Blackness recognizes the unassailable beauty, potential, intelligence, and achievements of our young Black women and men--whether they are playing basketball for Rutgers or some other university--or simply walking past us down the street.

(MG) The integrity of BC magazine in calling Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice outright traitors to humanity isn't merely refreshing. It's renewing and affirming. Integrity is as integrity does.

Black, Red, and Brown peoples--both young and old alike--in America, perhaps more than any other group of people in this nation, collectively know the utter horror and enormous pain of having violence constantly thrust upon us and our loved ones; and so it is that we sense the recent tragic and terrible events on the campus of Virginia Tech. Not surprisingly, however, conscious Black people are also painfully aware of the almost total absence on the part the US so-called news media in drawing the connections between the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech, the proliferation and increasing accessibility to guns inside the US, and America's own role in perpetrating and perpetuating the daily violent horrors experienced by the people of Iraq, Haiti, Palestine, and so many other places on this planet.

(MG) To the Black, Red, and Brown peoples in America, I would add the poor, the beggars, the homeless ... these too have come to know the fiction of the American dream. Try falling asleep on a bench waiting for a train in Union Station in Chicago. The police will come and tell you to get up and move on. Don't want no homeless in the train station. There are tourists, and the homeless might leave an accurate impression.

To be Black in this context is to be conscious, and conscious people, regardless of color, know that the only effective way to address the terrible ruthlessness acted-out, within the borders of this nation, is simultaneously to address and stop the bloody carnage being inflicted by America upon the rest of the world. Again it must be said:

To be Black demands active consciousness and rejects lethargy.

To be Black in America is not a burden; it is a wondrous and unflinching necessity.

(MG) to be black is to be beautiful. Thank you Larry Pinkney for your insightful article.

Gender wage issues

Writing in the Des Moines Register, Rehka Basu notes inequities of compensation for women.

... Women should earn as much as men. Not 80 percent. Not 77 percent. Not 69 percent, but 100 percent.

... nearly four extra months it takes the average U.S. woman to make up the wage gap with men for the previous year. ... Women working full time make 77 cents to every dollar that men make for the same work, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research. In Iowa as of 2005, it was 75 cents.

(MG) This violates my sense of right and wrong. In corporations where women and men work together in the more highly paid professions (my background is actuarial science, at one time rated the "#1 best profession in America" and this was more than true of that professions from the 60's through the late 70's) the mere presence of a woman in a "traditionally male" role tended to be overwhelming evidence that the woman was a) more highly qualified to begin with, than her male cohorts - the mere fact of her success in a male dominated field meant that she had to separate herself by virtue of talent, dedication, creativity and loyalty.

One year out of college, it's 80 percent, but at 10 years out, 69 percent, and women have less authority and fewer supervisory roles than men, according to a new report by the American Association of University Women.

Instead of narrowing, the gap is widening. That can't be explained away by women having less education or experience. In the 1970s, 38 percent of men between 18 and 24 were in college, compared to 33 percent of women. But by 2003, it was 51 percent of women and only 41 percent of men. Women have higher grade-point averages and are more likely to get professional licenses or graduate degrees.

Partly, it's the fields women choose. Engineering, math and science, which are dominated by men, pay more than education and health-services occupations, which have more women.

(MG) there was a time in America when only two fields were open to women - nursing and teaching. The best and the brightest women either taught or nursed. The decline in US SAT scores which surfaced sometime in the late 60's / early 70's can be correlated to women getting into the work force in "other non-traditional" roles. When the best and the brightest women began to enter the legal, medical, advertising, financial fields, etc, the more highly compensated arenas, the quality level of new teachers had to fall.

But even when women choose the higher-paying fields, there's a discrepancy. Women in math, for example, earn 76 percent as much as men a year into their jobs.

"Too often both women and men dismiss the pay gap as simply a matter of different choices," says the AAUW report, "but even women who make the same occupational choices that men make will not typically end up with the same earnings."

Women are still the ones who take time off to raise children. While motherhood demands substantial economic and personal sacrifices of women, men get a "wage premium."

(MG) calling the extra earnings of men a "wage premium" looks to my eyes like a thinly disguised attempt to deflect the issue of worker compensation - "wage penalty" is what women endure, for being female. The evidence is overwhelming, clear, convincing .... the whole issue of compensation, especially EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION is worthy of a large book of itself.

Less than 2 percent of fathers were out of the work force in 2003 compared to 23 percent of mothers. Men actually spend more time at the office after becoming fathers - maybe to escape the thankless demands of wailing infants and messy homes.

This isn't just a crude game of competition. It has real consequences. For example:

- In retirement, women are twice as likely as men to be living alone, in or near poverty.

- One sexist pattern spawns another. If wives earn less, their jobs get lower priority in couples' decisions about who stays home, and then even fathers who want to take on a bigger share of the child-rearing can't.

- ... especially for single mothers, the earnings gap creates a real hardship.

Mothers, on average, earn less than women without children, but both groups earn less than men. Even women who don't have kids may be penalized by employers' expectation that they will.

While this is discouraging news, some of the recommended solutions have the potential to bring exciting changes in how society approaches work, time and raising children. As women are freed from the bonds of sex roles, so are men. And, with cooperation from employers, all could be liberated from the rigid working world.

One AAUW conclusion is that employers should be more flexible. A particularly intriguing recommendation is to rethink measuring productivity by hours spent at work. The Best Buy chain, for example, instituted a successful program where workers are responsible for their own schedules and meeting their performance goals.

The AAUW's other suggestions range from promoting science and technology careers to girls to extending the Family and Medical Leave Act to include paid leave, possibly using disability insurance, as California is doing.

This issue speaks to so much more than the division of labor by sex. It's also about our quality of life in America, where we're working longer hours than ever, with less time for community or family.

This is an opportunity to think creatively about making life fuller, more meaningful and more equal for all of us.

How about it, employers? What are you gong to do?

The War Goes on Forever

Paul Craig Roberts has long been critical of the bush regime. This piece was recently put up at the counterpunch web site. Roberts says it all, leaving me with nothing to add.

...

As bad as it is, the situation [in Iraq] could suddenly become much worse. Those in charge of US policy want to expand their targets from Sunni insurgents to Shiite militias. US forces have been unable to prevail over a lightly armed insurgency drawn from 20% of the population. The Shiite population is three times larger. Moreover, Shiites control southern Iraq, the territory through which US supplies must pass from Kuwait to Baghdad. If the Bush administration manages to get itself at war with 80% of the Iraqi population, US troops could be cut off and destroyed.

How would an unstable egomaniac such as President Bush deal with the humiliation?

The US dollar, already under pressure from large and growing trade deficits, has lost more of its value to the Bush administration's dependence on foreign borrowing to finance its war. With foreigners accumulating huge annual sums in US denominated assets, the US dollar's reserve currency role is jeopardized. If the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreigners will not finance our wars or our trade and budget deficits.

The risks of Bush's war both to Iraqis and Americans is out of proportion to any conceivable gains. The war is all cost and no benefit. Iraqis have been made massively insecure, and their country has undergone tremendous destruction and turned into a training ground for terrorists.

(MG) it is all cost to the "American people", with no benefit to the "American people" but it DID enable Bush to get re-elected in 2004, and it has filled the coffers of the Oil industry and the various components of the War Machine, and whole lot of bush family buddies have increased their net worth, directly as a result of the war.

The entire Middle East has been put at risk of Sunni-Shiite conflict. Muslim hostility to US puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan is rising. The Saudis have warned Washington that the Iraq war is causing the ground to shake beneath their feet.

Bush claims that he invaded Iraq because he so highly values democracy that he desired to establish one in Iraq as an example for other Middle Eastern countries to follow. However, what Bush has demonstrated to Muslims is that American democracy is unresponsive to citizens and voters. Bush has demonstrated to the world that the US government is controlled by a small oligopoly of vested interests, the public be damned. Democracy means a government that follows the will of the people. Bush is ignoring public opinion and has made it clear that he will continue the practice.

(MG) and he is starting to demonstrate to Americans that American democracy is unresponsive to citizens and voters.

Bush has shown the world that the only difference between American dictatorship and other dictatorships is that, for now, Americans are permitted to remove their dictator after his term is served.

(MG) And perhaps, inshAllah, Americans will be permitted to remove their dictator WHILE his term is served.

Bush Light Bulb Joke

One of my dear friends, and, for the last 47 years, a recovering republican from Rockford, Illinois, sent this to me via e-mail. It's too good to not sure, with both of you, my faithful readers:

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a light bulb?

Answer: TEN.

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb;

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor and standing on a step ladder under the banner "Bulb Accomplished";

7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally "in the dark" the whole time;

8. Another one to viciously smear #7;

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along;

10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing in a light bulb and screwing the country.

And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to change the light bulb.

Reallocation of wealth?

Well, why the hell not.
Sure, this country was founded upon the principle
That NOTHING was more sacred than private property
Especially not to the private property owners
And the founding fathers, most of them
Set about to keep theirs (their private property)
Which, of course, included slaves
(and take everything else in sight - just ask the Native Americans
Y'all remember the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Okay, so, that was what they WROTE
And when Jefferson penned the words
"all men are created equal"
we can rest assured that when he said MEN, he meant MEN, and not women
and he really meant this to apply only to WHITE MEN, because
BLACK MEN, where in fact, PROPERTY, chattle, like cattle
and BLACK WOMEN, where in fact, sperm receptacles
for those times, when Mrs. Thomas Jefferson, got headaches

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, applies, of course, only to
those who had a say in government, and as envisioned
by the signatories to the Constitution
this meant, property-owning white males
(except "the South", which based on the recent political
(alliance with "the West" actually had retaken the advantage
(lost on the battle fields of the civil war
(in this nation's more recent and better advertised "culture wars"
(and the republican party's cooption by the
(theocons, neocons, wealth elites, corporate elites, media elites and academic elites


But, as my dearly departed brother John was so 'oft wont to day,
I digress.

In a previous post, I performed some number massaging in
an attempt to quantify this nation's distribution of wealth disparities
between the top 1%, top 2-5%, Blacks & Hispanics, and the rest

On a per capita basis, after adjusting out the cost of the HIDDEN HIT
(hidden health insurance tax, upon which I have MUCH more to comment, later)

[PLEASE .. don't EVEN get me started on the differentials between men and women]
[That's just wrong. Y'all know it, and I know it. In my white collar professional field,
[the women who succeeded were WAY better than the majority of the men
[who were hired into the actuarial science community.
[Of course, they HAD to be.
[My long time lady friend, SBG, was also an actuary
[We lived together almost six years
[Ultimately, we became managers of equal rank
[Reporting to the same boss
[Although, I was three years younger than her
[Had three less years of experience
[Supervised far fewer people, ever than did she
[I made more money than she did
[After 8 years in the profession to her 11
[And quite frankly, she was a FAR more competent professional
[Than was I
[BUT ... I was a cute white suburban kid
[who felt that his role on earth
[was to please everybody, all the time
[this sometimes happens
[to the grandsons of alcoholic fathers
[whose youngest daughters take it upon themselves
[to be the in-house peacemaker
[to be Pollyanna, and to ensure
[that all is well in the world
["If I say all is well in the world
["Then, all will be well in the world
[Back to SBG getting hired out of a small liberal arts
[college in Indianna ... DePauw University
[Sue and a guy were hired at the same time
[They hired the guy at about $1,500 more
[Explaining to Sue, that because she was a woman
[She could get pregnant, and quit her job
[and that this was likely
[the year was 1970
[and our company, Bankers Life and Casualty
[was about as liberal a place to work
[as you can possibly imagine
[hiring minorities long before any federal legislation
[because John D MacArthur foresaw the sweep of events
[and wanted to make sure to hire into that market early
[in order to have the pick of the best of the minority candidates
[Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Asians ... etc

So, I grew out of it, and dropped the baggage.
I'm no longer cute, that's a promise
Although suburban, I prefer rural America
And, as for white .. well ... I am a traitor to my race
I REALLY am appalled by the untold misery
the white race has inflicted on the human race
(and upon itself, from time to time, of course)

The average US per capita share of the GDP is $ 42,000
There is a hidden health insurance tax (HIT) per capita of $ 3,500
The adjusted GDP, after the hidden HIT is thus $ 38,500
Trouble is, averages are misleading, quite misleading sometimes

Adj per capita share of the GDP (reduced for Hidden HIT)

Top 1% ........... $ 1,567,000
Top2-5% ........ $ 225,666
BH ................... $ 4,583
PWT ............... $ 17,601

An interesting thing happens, if, by public policy, the federal government were to enact legislation mandating a tax on the top 5% of the wealth elites in this nation to raise revenues sufficient to "reimburse" the lower 95 for the Hidden HIT. This involves a transfer (tax) on the top 5% sufficient to raise:

285,000,000 * $3,473 = $ 0.990 T

Because, if a mechanism could be put into place to get an additional $3,473 per capita into the hands of the lower 95, THEN, the PWT per capita would increase to:

17,601 + 3,473 = 21,074, about HALF of the per capita wealth in the US, with no adjustments
........................... for the hidden HIT.

But, from where to get the $ 0.990 T ... well, TAKE it from the rich
IF the poor people of this country were to ever wake up and arise
As did the French people during the French rebellion
With 43% of the country owning firearms. that's about 129,000,000 people
and with adequate leadership
that's enough to win a revolution

in France, of course, the cut off the heads of the elites
which, of course, I would never advocate

all human life is sacred
all animal life is sacred
all plant life is sacred
all mineral life is sacred
to me

But .. if one were to consider the potential downside
Of having 129 million armed pissed off poor people
roaming the streets, pillaging and plundering
well .. it might give one pause enough
to consider voluntarily surrendering some assets
for the betterment of the commonweal
and with the military bogged down in the middle east
and the national guard too
it would only be necessary to convince local law enforcement officials
that the RIGHT side of such a contest
would be on the side of the poor
(of course, blackwater and all the other mercenary corporations
(would get a LOT of funding to quell such a revolution
(so ... it's unlikely to happen
(still, actuarially speaking, the probability of such an event, is NOT zero

........... Just saying, ya know.

And, heck, you wouldn't have to take it all out of the pockets of the rich
Just open up a dialogue with Iran, "the most dangerous nation in the world"
which spends $91 per capita on defense
talk to their defense experts, learn what it is they spend their money on
and say, "okay, we have four times as many people as you have
"and we'll be willing to spend two and a half times per capita on defense
"what you Iranians spend on defense, get us up to about $230 per capita
"and we'll take the residual of the $1,500 or so the U.S. presently spends
"on defense, the extra $1,270 and use THAT as an offset
"and then go over the budget some more to raise the extra [$3,473 - $1,270 =
"$2.203 per capita, maybe by eliminating the oil depletion allowances
"we been feeding like slop to the pigs at the trough
"from the oil industry
"and we can get it from the pharmacuetical industry, which for more than
"20 years running has been the most profitable sector of the U.S. economy
"and then what we need to make up, THEN, we can tax the rich

Now, aren't those some revolutionary concepts?

Beatles - Revolution Lyrics

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright?
Alright?
Alright?

Alright! (repeat X number of times)

Good news, white folks

Racial inequality: In 1995, the household median net worth was $49,030 for households with a White householder, $7,073 for households with a Black householder, and $7,255 for households with a Hispanic householder. (Source: US Census Bureau, 1995 highlights).

Time to massage some more numbers. That numeric high is really starting to kick in.

Comparing Black householder median income to white

$ 49,030 / $ 7,073 = 6.97 X more white wealth per black household

Comparing Hispanic householder median income to white

$ 49,030 / $ 7,255 = 6.76 X more white wealth per Hispanic household

Good news white folks! Y'all got it all over blacks and hispanics!

Cheers, cheers for dear whitey's game!
Cheering our fortune, cheering our fame!
While our loyal sons are marching
Onward to yon hanging tree.

Get a machine gun
For the Mexicans do come
To take over our land of freedom
Shoot all of them Mexican bums

Live white
Live white
Live white and free!!

Onward to white victory!

(Hang em up, hang em high
(Shoot em up, make em die
(Onward to white victory!


Going down a much more slipper slope here.
Because as my metrics get more out of date,
they also become less meaningful.
It's misleading to use net household median income
to calculate an adjusted per capita GDP by race
A clear cut case of comparing dill pickles to sweet gherkins
So, I am aware of the shortcomings of my data
And a potential bias in my assumptions.
To all this, I say:
"Close enough for government work."

But, like the U.S. generals commanding the troops in Vietnam
learned soon enough how to placate the number freak
Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara

(who, probably more than any one other single person
(was responsible for US military victory in WWII
(based on his computer like mind
(and operations research skills
(in getting man power and equipment
(guns and ordnance
(from hither to yon
(via rail in the most efficient way
(from coast to golden coast
(from sea to shining sea
(to equip, to feed and to arm
(our soldiers who went to fight
(the last - and perhaps only
(war that was ever worth fighting
(in our nation's history
(since George Washington's
(rag tag troops
(triumphed over the brits, the bloody brits
(and the huns, the bloody hessians
(MacNam made that victory possible
(via the numbers
(that was what he was
(a number jack hack, a number jack hack

CENTCOM in Nam learnt well and quickly
to give MacNam all the numbers he wanted

I'm going to TAKE my numbers - nobody's gonna give 'em to me
I'm not gonna make 'em up
But I will use them for the time being
Until I find more relevant metrics

(The Body count was the metric of choice from Vietnam
(to DefSec Robert MacNam
(And the military soon learned
(They could just make the shit up
(GI-GO .... GI joe
(Garbage In ... Garbage Out
(shake it up baby
(twist and shout
(do the fake numbers
(then we can work it out
(and, based on Robert Macnam's numerical analysis
(the U.S. was winning the war of attrition

........ winning the war of attrition
........ winning the war of attrition?
....... You CANNOT win the war of attrition!

That's THE number #1 problem with numbers
And those who would abuse or willfully misuse them
To prove their points.
You can prove anything you want
To make your points
By a careful selection of your numbers.

For example, FUX Newds, to show how "safe"
For the troops it was in Iraq
Compared US troop fatalities in Iraq
To US troop fatalities by vehicular accident
In the state of California
..... which, to FUX Newds, was a legitimate comparison
..... because the geographical area of the two regions
..... were comparable
......... ALTHOUGH
..... that was back in the day
..... when US troop fatalities
..... were significantly less
..... than they presently have died to become

OKAY ... I'll estimate per capita income by race as follows:

To simplify the math, assume


27.2% of US population is black and hispanic (this varies GREATLY by region)


Let bh = black / hispanic household wealth index = 1
Let w = white household wealth index = 6.876 bh

.272 bh + .728 * 6.876 bh = total household wealth = $ 12.41 T, or
5.278 bh = $12.41 T
bh = $ 2.351 T

(no reductions for the health care tax yet)

allocate over 27.2% of the population (the apx black / hispanic total)
.272 * 300,000,000 = 81,600,000

$ 2.351 T / 81,600,000 = $ 28,811


But, wait, I've been going at this in an obscure way
That caused me to go to bed early with a headache
(it's 2:43 now, I've awakened, fresh and raring to go
(having figured out the errors of my way
(having awakened from some kind of nightmare
(in which I was being pursued
(and finally captured by
(spanish inquisition guys
(they were torturing me, to get a confession
(for my confession, of traitor to my race
(traitor to my creed

$28,811 is an INDEX number, for bh
the INDEX number for w = 6.876 * bh =
6.876 * 28,811 = 198,104

So, NOW the actuarial slight of hand becomes
By what factor must I compress these index numbers
To reproduce an average per capita GDP of $ 42,000

As already stated, bh is an INDEX number, which will be
used to DERIVE a couple of meaningful metrics

WHATEVER the bh index number is (I used ONE, in the beginning)
The relationships between the bh number and the w number
will remain in proportions 1 : 6.876

28,811 * .272 + 198,104 * .718 =
7,837 + 142,239 = 150,076 (indexed per capita GDP)

to NORMALIZE the index numbers "bh" and "w" so
that they remain in proportions 1 : 6.876
AND they reproduce an actual per capita GDP of $42,000
calculate 42,000 / 150,076 = 0.28 (for all intents and purposes)

SO ... black and hispanic per capita GDP = 0.28 * 28,811 = $ 8,067
white and other per capita GDP = 0.28 * 198,104 = $ 55, 469

Okay ... how 'bout that, can't we all FEEL the white pride coursing
through our veins. Clear, overwhelming, ample, unadulterated evidence that

White people in america have it better than blacks and hispanics
(on average)

Oh, but wait ... y'all ALREADY knew that
Mark - you freak of nature, what the heck, what's the point?
We already knew that.
You're wasting our time!
[AUTHOR]

Oh, but, I'm not done ... because, now it's time to go back
Back to the Genesis of this post
Because, now we know, just how much of the GDP can be allocated to

Blacks & Hispanics
Whites
The upper 1%
The upper 5%

I'm going to make a horrible assumption now,
one that I knew to be completely untrue
That the upper 1% of the wealth elites in this country
are all white (sorry Oprah, sorry Johnson family)
Same assumption - that the upper 5% of the wealth elites
in the good old Ewe.Ass.ofA are all white

It simplifies my calculations, that's all
It shortens my research time
It will enable me to get back to
the things more dear and near to my heart
than numbers.

Black / Hispanic total GDP wealth =
81,600,000 * $ 8,067 = $ 0.658 T ($658 Billion)

Top 5% owns $ 7.466 T

Top 1% owns $ 4.716 T
95-99% owns $ 2.750 T

bh owns $ 0.658 T
------------------------
subtotal ......... $ 8.124 T

Poor White Trash (PWT: those not in the upper 5%)
thus owns 12.410 - 8.124 = 4.286

By the numbers - total populations

Top 1% = 3,000,000
95-99 = 12,000,000
BH = 81,600,000

PWT = ..... 203,400,000

Not done yet. Have to back the "hidden health insurance tax"
on individuals out of the wealth numbers - multiply each of the
four population cohorts by $3,473 and then reduce each
cohort's total wealth by the corresponding amount

Top 1% $ 0.010 T
95-99 $ 0.042 T
BH $ 0.284 T
PWT $ 0.706 T

Top 1% adj for hidden HIT: $ 4.716 - 0.010 = $ 4.706
95-99 adj for hidden HIT: $ 2.750 - 0.042 = $ 2.708
BH adj for hidden HIT: $ 0.658 T - 0.284 = $ 0.374
PWT adj for hidden HIT: $ 4.286 - 0.706 = $ 3.580

Per Capita Numbers by cohort

Top 1% $ 4.706 T / 3,000,000 = $ 1,567,000
95-99 $ 2.708 T / 12,000,000 = $ 225,666
BH $ 0.374 T / 81,600,000 = $ 4,583
PWT $ 3.58 T / 203,400,000 = $ 17,601

GOOD NEWS White People - y'all got it REAL good!
384% better than Blacks and Hispanics

song lyrics: Ain't That America:
John Cougar Mellancamp

There's a black man with a black cat livin' in a black neighborhood
He's got an interstate runnin' through his front yard
You know he thinks that he's got it so good
And there's a woman in the kitchen cleanin' up the evenin' slop
And he looks at her and says, "Hey darlin', I can remember when
you could stop a clock."

Oh but ain't that America for you and me
Ain't that America somethin' to see baby
Ain't that America home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me

There's a young man in a t-shirt
Listenin' to a rockin' rollin' station
He's got greasy hair, greasy smile
He says, "Lord this must be my destination."
'Cause they told me when I was younger
"Boy you're gonna be president."
But just like everything else those old crazy dreams
Just kinda came and went

Oh but ain't that America for you and me
Ain't that America somethin' to see baby
Ain't that America home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me

Well there's people and more people
What do they know know know
Go to work in some high rise
And vacation down at the Gulf of Mexico
Ooh yeah
And there's winners and there's losers
But they ain't no big deal
'Cause the simple man baby pays for the thrills, the bills,
the pills that kill

Oh but ain't that America for you and me
Ain't that America somethin' to see baby
Ain't that America home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me

The lower 99 & 95

Another numeric fix. Got some mo adjustments to make to the U.S. adjusted (for wealth inequities and for the "health insurance tax").

These numbers are from 1998, and so, out of date. They are on the "conservative side" as far as actuarial assumptions go. I'll use them, even though they are out of date.

The top 1% of U.S. population owns 38% of the country's wealth.
The top 5% owns 60% of the country's wealth.

This is where the needle-struck actuarial junkie has to be careful.
Must remember to always compare dill pickles to cucumbers.
I'm going to do some further adjusting to the GDP share per capita,
to adjust out the HEALTH INSURANCE TAX

Health Insurance Tax per capita calculations:

Total US GDP = $ 12.41 trillion
Total US population out of pocket share of GDP = 8.4%
0.084 * $ 12.41 trillion = $ 1.042 trillion
Total US population = 300,000,000

$1.042 T / 300 M = $ 3,473 the per capita GDP health care "hidden tax"
which I'm going to allocate equally over the entire population

THE LOWER 99

Top 1% of population (3,000,000) owns 38% of the wealth
.38 * $ 12.41 T = $ 4.716 T

Lower 99% owns 12.41 T - $ 4.716 T = $ 7.694 T
Lower 99% of population = 297,000,000
Lower 99% of population allocated health care hidden tax = $ 1.032 T

$ 7.694 - $ 1.032 = $ 6.662 T

$ 6.662 T / 297,000,000 = $ 22,431

$22, 431 = average per capita adjusted GDP for the lower 99% of US population

(Deutschland is starting look better and better).

OK. Here goes the same exercise, but for the lower 95%

THE LOWER 95

Top 5% of population (15,000,000) owns OVER 60% of the wealth
.60 * $ 12.41 T = $ 7.446 T

Lower 95% owns 12.41 T - $ 7.446 T = $ 4.964 T
Lower 95% of population = 285,000,000
Lower 95% of population allocated health care hidden tax = $ 0.989 T

$ 4.964 - $ .989 = $ 3.975 T

$ 3.975 T / 285,000,000 = $ 13,947

$13, 947 = average per capita adjusted GDP for the lower 95% of US population

Holy bloated flatulence batman! Freaking SOUTH KOREA is starting to look pretty good by comparison.

Okay, Joe Blows and Jane Schmoes .. how does THAT grab you darlins?

Y'all was livin high on dee hog, thinking you was feeding like pigs at the trough.
Whatcha think now?

I done just screwed y'all (including the wife and kiddies) out of
$ 42,000 - $ 13,947 = $28,053 EACH.

You don't like it?
Stop reading this blog.

(But wait, all you racist fundies, I got some GOOD news comin' right up in my next post.)

Okay. So, some of my more numerically literate readers out there are gonna protest.
Markus, you lunatic madman junkie actuary, YOU didn't screw 'em out of their wealth.
You just massaged the numbers. Something, (or somebody) ELSE screwed 'em out of their wealth (you egomaniacal solipsist).

Oh, let's compare now what things look like from the top 1%.
And don't forget the pickles/cucumber hidden health care tax thingie.

Top 1% of population "share" of GDP = $ 7.446 T
Top 1% hidden health care out of pocket tax = $3,473 * 3M =

$ 3,473 * 3,000,000 = $ 0.014 T

$ 4.716 - $ 0.014 = $ 4.702 T / 3,000,000 = $ 1,567,333 per capita upper 1%
- - - - - -

Okay, things aren't lookin all THAT good for the top 5%, they on dee outside
looking in.

Top 5% of population "share" (but don't share alike) of GDP = $ 7.446 T
Top 5% of population hidden HC tax = $3,473 * 15M = $ 0.0521 T ($52 B)

$ 7.446 T - $ 0.052 T = $ 7.394 T
$ 7.394 T / 15,000,000 = $ 492,933 per capita upper 5%

You can understand why the 95th -99th upper percentiles of the population
are merely tolerated with mild amusement (for the most part)
by the upper 1%.

The 95-99 ers don't really have ANYTHING made.
Just a bunch of sniveling, glad-handed wanna be's.

I feel so sorry for their loss. And the trauma their progeny will have to face, knowing ... theirs is an inferior lot. A COMFORTABLE lot, albeit, but, inferior.

Mr Businessman song lyrics by Ray Stevens

Itemize the things you covet,
As you squander through your life:
Bigger cars, bigger houses,
Term insurance for your wife.
Tuesday evenings with your harlot,
And on Wednesdays it's your charlatan
analyst, he's high upon your list.

You've got air conditioned sinuses,
And dark disturbing doubts about religion.
And you keep those cards and letters going out,
While your secretary's tempting you.
Your morals are exempting you from guilt and shame,
Heaven knows you're not to blame.

(CHORUS:)
You better, Take care of business Mr. Businessman:
What's your plan?
Get down to business Mr. Businessman if you can,
Before it's too late and you throw your life away.
(1st time)

Did you see your children growing up today?
And did you hear the music of their laughter?
As they set about to play.
Did you catch the fragrance of those roses in your garden?
Did the morning sunlight warm your soul,
Brighten up your day?
Do you qualify to be alive
or is the limit of your senses so as only to survive?
Hey yeah.....

(CHORUS)

Quality of Life Metrics: U.S. and Germany

The recovering actuary needs a fix. Numbers, numbers, numbers, must get my hands on numbers. Must massage them, assuage them, USE them to prove my points (to make my OWN reality, because that's just what this blogger does -- I create my OWN reality). I can do it, I can do it. How exciting. How arousing. The latent actuarial junkie is about to get his fix. Insert needle ... feels SO good.

Sheesh, I'm starting to feel a whole lot less worse about putting my wandering key-board troubadour career on hold for the past 42 years. I can use my numbers for good! I can slay dragons! I am become as Lancelot! Perhaps it always was my lot to traverse an apparently crooked back-tracing path to keep on the one straight path to which the universe, and Allah hath called me to walk. All is well in my world.

Quality of Life Metrics - U.S. and Germany (unadjusted)

Infant mortality: Germany 4.1 / 1000 U.S. 6.4 / 1000

Life expectancy: Germany 78.8 yrs U.S. 77.8 yrs

GDP / capita Germany $29,800 U.S. $42,000

exports: Germany $1.016 Trillion U.S. $0.9275 Trillion

imports Germany $0.801 Trillion U.S. $1.727 Trillion

population 2006 (e) Germany 82,422,299 U.S. 300,000,000

population density Germany 609 / sq mile U.S. 84 / sq mile


Okay. So, the Krauts (Ganzer, is Kraut, so I AM free to use what used to be a racial slur/epithet, just ask my Great Grandfather John, whose butcher store was vandalized during WWI by the gallant patriots who wanted to kick kraut butt (this side of the ocean only however -- the forefather of today's college republican fighting 101st stenographic and keyboard battilion),

the krauts -- 1. Live longer
------------- 2. kill fewer kids at birth
------------- 3. export more goods in $ than we do

but, the yanks -- a) we got more bread, more dough, by a LOT
----------------- b) spend a lot more of our dough on foreign goods (we support the WORLD)
----------------- c) got a WHOLE lot more room where we don't have to be so crowded

But, how much more bread, how much more dough, do the average John and Jane Dough in good 'ole Uncah Sam's You.Es.ofA have than the Herren and the Fraulienens of Deutschland?

Here's how actuaries are trained to THINK. Yes, dammit, we WERE trained to think.

Caution, adjustments to the crude numbers are coming up.

ADJ #1: there is an immense disparity in the distribution of wealth in the US. Corporate CEOs make at least 100's of times more money than working stiffs, maybe 1000's.

To compensate for this, I'm going to adjust the per capita GDP numbers by eliminating the wealth of BOTH the U.S and German billionaires. Many thanks to Forbes Magazine for being so good as to publish such information!

In 2006 there were four hundred and eighteen people in the U.S. whose fortunes amounted to one billion or more dollars. The total wealth of the 418 wealthiest (which TRUST me is completely inaccessible to you or to me .. these are shekels we ain't never gonna sniff, lessen we marries into the brood .. and even then, we'd probably have to sign away any access to it via a pre-nupt).

The combined wealth of the 418 billionaires in the US amounts to $1.268 trillion dollars. So, from the US GDP, (2005) $12.410 trillion, lets deduct the 1.268

$12.410 - $1.268 = 11.142 T which we will eventually allocated over the remaining
....................population of 299,999,582 ... (one more adj later on)
....................US working stiff's GDP / capita = $37,141

But, in order to compare pickles to cucumbers, we must deduct from the Kraut GDP the wealth of their fifty-five (55) billionaires. It's the lot of the working class stiffs that this analysis is trying to get a handle on ... which is consistent with the assumption that anybody making less than one billion a year, is a working class stiff. Which, seems about right, I suppose.

Germany's 55 billionaires' have wealth amounts to $0.2423 trillion ($242.3 billion)

$ 2.454 - $ 0.2423 = $ 2,2177 T to be allocated over a remaining population of
.................... 82,422,299 - 55 = 82.422,244
.................... Deutschland stiff's GDP / capita = $26,898

Couple of quick percentages, which might be of interest

US working stiff adj GDP/capita to Total US GDP/capita = 37,141 / 42,000 = 88.45%

German working stiff adj GDP/capita to Total Kraut / capita = 26,898 / 29,.800 = 90.26%

Okay .. now, this is truly another plus in favor of the U.S ... our wealthy have it better than the German wealthies. Ergo, if in the U.S., one desires to become wealthy, at least by becoming wealthy, they will be better off than the comfortable krauts.

Here's the part where my Individual Health Insurance Actuarial Pricing background helps me to justify my massaging of the numbers. Because there is one more significant adjustment that must be made to the U.S. average numbers ONLY. And not to the German adjusted working stiff GDP per capita numbers.

US GDP per capita numbers must be reduced (IMO) by the amount US citizens pay out of pocket for health insurance. Germany has a universal health insurance system. Whatever monies the average Herr or Fraulein puts into the system, comes back, plus some more from the government.

In the US, 15% of the GDP is spent on health care. Of this, the US government's share is 6.6%. The remaining 8.4% is a "tax", the price of living large in the Ewe.Ass.ofA. So the TOTAL US GDP needs to be reduced by 0.084 to account for the "health care tax", which is born by citizens not eligible for medicare or medicaid. That would be mostly likely, you and me, bubbuh and sistuh.

$12.242 T * 0.916 = $11.214 T don't forget to subtract out the wealth of billionaires

$11.214 T - $1.268 T = $9.946 T

$ 9.946 T / 299,999,582 = $ 33,154 working stiffs health care tax adjusted per capita GDP

So .. just how much better do "we the proles" have it in the Ewe.Ass.ofA? Compared to the Krauts, that is?

We don't live as long
More of our kids die at birth
BUT ... kind of on average, we make more bux than the WSK's $ 33,154 to $ 26,898

That would be about 23.26% more bux.

HOWEVER ... there's one more factor to consider, which I shan't quantify in THIS post.

The value of the $ versus the value of the EURO ... because, baby, that dollar be FALLen, Fallen, Fallen.

Lyrics to Beatles Ive Just Seen A Face

I've just seen a face,
I can't forget the time or place
Where we just meet.
She's just the girl for me
And want all the world to see
We've met, mmm-mmm-mmm-m'mmm-mmm.
Had it been another day
I might have looked the other way
And I'd have never been aware.
But as it is I'll dream of her
Tonight, di-di-di-di'n'di.

Falling, yes I am falling,
And she keeps calling
Me back again.

I have never known
The like of this, I've been alone
And I have missed things
And kept out of sight
But other girls were never quite
Like this, da-da-n'da-da'n'da.
[ these lyrics found on http://www.completealbumlyrics.com ]
Falling, yes I am falling,
And she keeps calling
Me back again.
Falling, yes I am falling,
And she keeps calling
Me back again.

I've just seen a face,
I can't forget the time or place
Where we just meet.
She's just the girl for me
And want all the world to see
We've met, mmm-mmm-mmm-da-da-da.
Falling, yes I am falling,
And she keeps calling
Me back again.
Falling, yes I am falling,
And she keeps calling
Me back again.
Oh, falling, yes I am falling,
And she keeps calling
Me back again.

AFSC discussion: re Two State Solution

(MG) I recently received the e-mail shown below in. The path way to peace in the world in our children's lifetimes leads directly through Jerusalem. Until all people can live and worship in peace and security in Jerusalem, there will be discord, violence, death and destruction in the world.

(MG) Then there is the Avenue of America. Until my country can stop its imperialistic self-centered plundering of the planet, AND confess its sins of indifference to the misery of the world's peoples (and its own native population, and its own descendants of African slaves, and its own immigrants from South of the Border), AND atone, until such time, there will be discord, violence, death and destruction in the world.

(MG) And one day, the world will decide it can no longer tolerate our continued despoiling of the planet and the murder of its peoples. The world will rise up, decide they can do quite well without us, and just stop inviting us to the party. Envision this: a world where the euro is the oil standard, a world that has no fear of American Military Cruelty and Destruction, a world that sells off all its U.S. assets, that lets the U.S. dollar go into free fall, a world which figures out it can subcontract out top management positions currently paying 10's of millions of dollars to international managers who will work for much less. A world that won't sell us its petroleum products.

(MG) "Oh, that can't happen," you might think. Well, as a recovering actuary, I'd say the probability of such a scenario of events is small. I'd not say the probability is zero, however.

(MG) U.S. hubris, pride and vanity, plus an over arching belief in the superiority of U.S. technology and culture, and its ability to hypnotize the population into what to think are sewing the seeds of decay for what was NEVER a people favored by God, but a land of bounteous resources, enough to support all its inhabitants, human, plant, animal, many times over -- a land of opportunity. Opportunity to plunder and spoil it, to claim it.

(MG) There are deft and flexible strategies for dealing with declining empires, and citizens who have taken their creature comforts for granted, and have not developed critical thinking skills, who have not developed strong community ties, and have not had to survive on the streets (or in the fields, or by the streams) by their wits and the kindnesses of kindred spirits.

(MG) And, as for the children of privilege ... think governor bush, for instance, think about his daughters and their immaturity ... each generation grower weaker and more wanton ... cultural inbreeding (going to the same prep schools, the same colleges, belonging to the same country clubs, the same social clubs, marrying in the same socio-economic circle, belonging to the same churches, belonging to the same political party, living in the same gated communities ... this too is inbreeding, and the effects of cultural inbreeding are at least as damaging as genetic inbreeding.

The Two-State Solution: Still Possible?

June 7, 2007 | 6:30 p.m. |
University of Chicago, International House,
Assembly Hall, 1414 East 59th St.

As we near the 40th anniversary of the Israeli military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, there is still hope that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be reached. For the past two decades the two-state solution has become and remains the international consensus framework for a solution to the conflict. Yet, in recent years questions have been raised as to whether this proposal is still feasible after 40 years of military occupation.

Please join the American Friends Service Committee for an evening of discussion of this important question.

Panelists:

Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, an internet gateway about Palestine and the Palestine-Israel conflict (www.electronicintifada) is author is When he is not writing and speaking about Palestine-Israel issues, he directs research for children services in the US and Europe. He received his MA from the University of Chicago.

Prof. Yigal Bronner is an activist in Caayush: Arab-Jewish Partnership, an Israeli conscientious objector who was imprisoned for refusing to serve in occupied Palestine, and an active parent in Hand in Hand, a Jewish-Arab elementary school in Jerusalem. Dr. Bronner currently teaches South Asian languages at the University of Chicago.

Emily Hauser is an American-Israeli writer and speaker. She has regularly placed commentary regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in major American dailies, such as the Chicago Tribune. She received her MA in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago.

Rev. Said Aliabouni served as Director for the Europe and Middle East Program in the Global Mission Unit of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) from 1997-2007. He is presently serving as Senior Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church in La Grange, Illinois.

Moderator:

Jennifer Bing-Canar is interim national coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee AFSC's Israel-Palestine Peace building Program. Jennifer's involvement in Middle East issues began in 1982 when she lived and traveled in Israel and Palestine and researched the Israeli peace movement. She later returned to work at the Ramallah Friends School in the West Bank where she taught middle school and high school boys for three years.

Sponsors: University of Chicago Center for Middle Eastern Studies, International House

This event is free and open to the public.

For more information please contact:
Miryam Rashid, American Friends Service Committee
Middle East Peace Education Program

(312) 427-2533 x 18

Sacrificing troops for the Bush surge

Below are some key excerpts from an opinion piece in the Billings Gazette published on Friday, April 13, 2007. Such an op-ed piece, so factually documented, would be MOST unlikely to appear in the Chicago Tribune.

Those of us who never had the privilege of knowing Pvt. Matthew Zeimer ... have an obligation to learn more about the sacrifices [he] made.

... recently, U.S. Army officials informed the soldier's family that he and another soldier killed on Feb. 2 may have been hit by friendly fire, contrary to information given earlier by the Army. ... Zeimer was sent to Iraq combat without "the intense four-week pre-Iraq training" that most of his fellow combat soldiers received. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other soldiers among 4,000 in the 1st Brigade received only a "10-day course on weapons use, first aid and Iraqi culture," ...

... this sad story indicates that the U.S. military command is still cutting corners in providing troops on the ground with all the resources needed for their difficult work in Iraq.

... the four-year occupation of Iraq is straining the U.S. military to the point that troops training for combat don't have all the equipment they need and troops in the field are using equipment that is rapidly wearing out. ...Marines no longer have time to complete their standard training classes because of demand for troops in Iraq.

... all regular Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan - about 100,000 U.S. soldiers - can expect their tours of duty to be extended from 12 months to 15 months ... In the past week, the Pentagon has notified National Guard units in four states that to prepare for a second combat deployment to Iraq. ... The surge means asking more of the Americans who have already sacrificed much in four years of the Iraq War.

Those of us who haven't sacrificed anything should think about those who do. If your brother, sister, spouse or child were among the U.S. troops in Iraq, what would you tell President Bush?

WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE 
words and music by Pete Seeger
performed by Pete Seeger and Tao Rodriguez-Seeger

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone?
Taken husbands every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

©1961 (Renewed) Fall River Music Inc