I doubt we’ll ever see the likes of this type song under BO. Might be some heathen god smite amerika
I know just enough about the market to be scary. I know buy low, sell high. Utilities are mostly good, and stay away from steel and most American autos and airlines. BUT, over on Modern Survival Blog I saw this chart: http://modernsurvivalblog.com/the-economy/major-stock-market-crash-in-january/
To say the least, I don’t like the chart for what it shows, but I like the blog site. Ken Jorgustin does a good job http://ModernSurvivalBlog.com . Hopefully the circuit breakers at the NYSE Work.
But what I fear the most is the potential chaos this could cause. And after watching the would be Emporer, he would quickly make this an issue to call for country changing edicts all centering around a power grab. BTW, there is always a touch of cynicism and paranoia, or else why write on the Blog?
. . . from a traditional nuclear family.1 From NewsBusters:
NY Times Bids Farewell to Traditional Family
By Katie Yoder | November 27, 2013 | 10:03
The “American Dream”of a traditional nuclear family is getting harder and harder to come by, and the New York Times can hardly contain its glee.
The Times’ entire Nov. 26 “Science Times” section was devoted to the “redefined” American family. In her featured articles, NYT reporter Natalie Angier identified traditional family as a thing of the past: “the old-fashioned family plan of stably married parents residing with their children remains a source of considerable power in American – but one that is increasingly seen as out of reach to all but the educated elite.”
What’s taking its place? A lot of things the Times really likes: “Same-sex parents. Cohabiting couples. Voluntary kin. Children with parents in prison. Immigrant Americans. What we thought of as the typical American family is being rapidly redefined.”
Angier’s definition of family grew to include even singles. “Single people live alone and proudly consider themselves families of one – more generous and civic-minded than so-called ‘greedy marrieds,’” she argued.
To prove her point, Angier quoted author Bella DePaulo on how singles stay more “in touch” with others and their community. What are those silly married couples doing? Spending time on relationships and family? It just goes to show that any behavior or lifestyle – good, bad or indifferent – can be rationalized into an unquestionable civic virtue by urban liberals.
Read the rest here.
The sentence that got my attention is one that Mrs Yoder quoted, somewhat out of order:
At the same time, the old-fashioned family plan of stably married parents residing with their children remains a source of considerable power in America — but one that is increasingly seen as out of reach to all but the educated elite.
Sorry, but the ability to marry is available to any heterosexual couple who are not consanguineous or legally married to other people, and while people can, and do, blow thousands and thousands of dollars on extravagant weddings, getting married can be inexpensive: a marriage license is (relatively) inexpensive,2 and whatever fee a legal marriage officiant will charge. Getting married is not “out of reach” by any means.
The very next paragraph was:
“We’re seeing a class divide not only between the haves and the have-nots, but between the I do’s and the I do nots,” Dr. (Stephanie) Coontz said. Those who are enjoying the perks of a good marriage “wouldn’t stand for any other kind,” she said, while those who would benefit most from marital stability “are the ones least likely to have the resources to sustain it.”
And that is pure bovine feces. There are many working class and even poor people who have managed to get married and stay married and have their children live with them through the children’s minority. The “resource” to sustain a stable marriage is not money or property or family connections, but simply the will to stay married, the discipline to work through the rough spots, and the sense to see that an argument over something doesn’t mean that your spouse hates your guts.
Dr Coombs had it exactly backward. As we have already noted, marriage increases prosperity. The economic advantages of being married are legion, and, as Gallup noted, being legally married results in having more disposable income than any other living arrangement.3
Simply put: you don’t have to be well-to-do to get married; getting married helps you to become well-to-do.
The Times article noted all of the new family living arrangements out there:
Families, they say, are becoming more socially egalitarian over all, even as economic disparities widen. Families are more ethnically, racially, religiously and stylistically diverse than half a generation ago — than even half a year ago.
How can one miss the obvious: if “economic disparities widen” as families “are becoming more socially egalitarian,” the proper conjunction isn’t “even as” but “resulting in.”
The nuclear family structure is one which has been with virtually every human society, for as far back as we can know, precisely because it has proven to be the most efficient and economically sound way to provide for adults and children. What the Times is noting/ celebrating is the addition of less efficient, less effective ways of providing financial and psychological support for people.
- This article was written on Wednesday, November 27th, but delayed in publication until Thanksgiving Day. My wife and I should be heading to Kentucky on Thursday, and having Thanksgiving dinner at my sister’s house. ↩
- Between $45 and $85 in Pennsylvania, which I see as too high, and a more reasonable $35.50 to $37.00 in Kentucky, where my wife and I were married 34 years, 6 months and 9 days ago.. ↩
- The Gallup research concerned how much various types of living arrangements spent, which implies the amount of resources they have available to spend. Given that married couples also save much more than other arrangements, married couples spending more actually understates the economic advantage they have. ↩
Assuming that the Lord allows us to make the trip — the weather is iffy — my darling bride (of 34 years, 6 months and 8 days) and I will be leaving for the Bluegrass State early Thanksgiving morning, to spend the holidays at my sister’s house. And that makes this story from The Wall Street Journal even more important to me:
Coal’s Decline Hits Hardest in the Mines of Kentucky
Mine Closures and Layoffs Are Reshaping Region’s Coalfields
By Kris Maher and Tom McGinty | Nov. 26, 2013 11:00 p.m. ET
HARLAN, Ky.—Since he was laid off from his mining job in January, William Hensley’s life has been upended.Days after he lost his position, Mr. Hensley, 50 years old, said he was diagnosed with black lung disease. The bank soon took back his 2012 Chevy Suburban, after he was unable to make the $600 monthly payments. He can no longer afford health insurance and has drawn down all but $5,000 he had in a 401(k) retirement plan to pay for another vehicle and living expenses.
Mr. Hensley, who is raising his 12-year-old granddaughter with his wife, went from making $82,000 a year as an underground foreman to collecting about $15,000 in unemployment benefits this year. But that aid is set to run out in December and mining jobs are scarce.
“This is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” said Mr. Hensley, who has spent 32 years of his life mining coal.
More at the link.
I should note from the outset that while my sisters and I grew up in Kentucky, and my wife did as well, no one in my family has worked in the coal industry. The layoffs in the coal industry do not effect my family directly, but they do make Kentuckians as a whole poorer.
The coal mining industry is suffering right now because of the new hydraulic fracturing technologies, enabling petroleum and natural gas producers to extract more product then previously, and natural gas burns more cleanly than does coal.
That has meant an increase in natural gas consumption for electricity generation, but coal, while not on an increasing path, isn’t significantly decreasing as a fuel for electricity generation, and is still the primary fuel for that purpose; In 2011, 42% of the country’s nearly 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity used coal as its source of energy. Current estimates are that coal will continue to be the primary fuel for electricity generation in 2040.
Unless, of course, the Chicken Littles of the climate change crowd get their way. President Obama famously said that, under his plans, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” He was talking about a cap-and-trade system, and was including other fuels such as natural gas in that statement, but coal-generated electricity would obviously bear the greatest costs.
That is the economic cost to people who would have to buy electricity under such a system, but the JOURNAL article notes another costs, the costs of people losing their jobs in the coal industry. Coal production is already decreasing somewhat, hitting the coal counties of Kentucky hard . . . and the coal counties were already some of the poorer counties in the Bluegrass State.
This is the problem with the environmentalists: they cannot see what the effects of their policies, if put into action, would do to real people. The United States has the world’s largest recoverable coal reserves, and it would be foolish for the US to embark on policies which left such a valuable resource in the ground. Such would not only make everybody somewhat poorer, as they would have to pay more for electricity, but would make some people a whole lot poorer, as their jobs were destroyed.
I got an e-mail from the Democratic Party today:
From Democrats firstname.lastname@example.org
The Supreme Court just decided to take up a case that could determine whether or not for-profit companies can deny their employees’ access to birth control. Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act are taking an extreme position and arguing that women’s bosses should have a say in their personal health decisions — which could undermine a core tenet of Obamacare and compromise women’s health.
That means it couldn’t be a more important time to speak out in favor of a woman’s right to make her own choices about her health. Let’s all stand together to show this is a decision that belongs to a woman, not her employer:
Now, what is it that has the Democrats so indignant? From The Wall Street Journal:
High Court to Review Health Law’s Contraception Mandate
Two For-Profit Companies Cite Religious Grounds in Saying They Shouldn’t Be Bound by the Rule
By Jess Bavin | Nov. 26, 2013 11:57 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said it would decide whether businesses, like people, have a right to religious expression, in cases challenging the federal health law’s mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage to female employees.
The high court upheld most of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act in a June 2012 decision. But lower courts have split since then on whether contraceptive coverage must be included in minimum benefits packages.
The Obama administration has exempted religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, such as Catholic hospitals, from financing such coverage. At the same time, it held that for-profit companies remain bound by the requirement, regardless of the beliefs espoused by their owners.
The justices consolidated on Tuesday two appellate rulings that reached opposite conclusions into a single argument. The cases are expected to be heard in the spring of 2014, with a decision announced by June.
More at the link.
The cases at hand1 concern whether corporations must provide health insurance which covers contraception, if the owners are morally opposed to it; the Democrats are claiming that if the decision goes in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, then employers “can deny their employees’ access to birth control.” (Emphasis mine.) “Access” means:
- a way of getting near, at, or to something or someone;
- a way of being able to use or get something;
- permission or the right to enter, get near, or make use of something or to have contact with someone.
The Democrats would have people believe that, if the companies have their way, women would not be allowed to obtain contraceptives. The truth is that, if the companies win, their employees would have to purchase contraceptives on their own, but there would be no restrictions on them doing so. As we noted here, contraceptives are very inexpensive in this country,2 but that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health insurance provide contraceptives with no co-payments would actually increase the costs of contraceptives.
Of course, that wasn’t the Democrats only lie in the e-mail. They also said, “Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act are taking an extreme position and arguing that women’s bosses should have a say in their personal health decisions.” Again, that is completely false. The position of the companies is that the companies should not be required to provide contraceptive coverage if the owners are morally opposed to it, but in no way does that give the employers “a say in their personal health decisions.” It simply means that the employers would not be involved at all in those decisions.
Patterico noted that a majority of Americans now believe that President Obama is not honest or trustworthy. When the Democrats send out such blatant and obvious lies, it’s no surprise that only 47% of Americans believe that the President is honest, doubtlessly the same 47% whom Mitt Romney said were dependent on government and see themselves as victims.
Well, I can sort of understand the Democrats’ ploy. In a pattern consistent with previous elections, the Democrats did best in 2012 with people who never finished high school: 63% of dropouts voted for Barack Hussein Obama, while only 35% voted for Mitt Romney. When your base is the least educated and least intelligent people in this country, why should you expect them to be able to spot such obvious lies?
Truth…………from a man the media has never been able to throw dirt on…..amazing!
He has certainly hit the “world” on the head!
Billy Graham’s Prayer For Our Nation
‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable…
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from sin and Set us free. Amen!’
With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our
desire so that we once again can be called ‘One nation under God!’
For all of human history, as far back as we can know anything about social and family structures, a marriage relationship which bound a father to the mother of his children was present, in every society, in every culture, in every land. Whether you believe that our societal rules were handed down to us by a wise and benevolent God, or you think that our societal morés simply evolved, the concept of marriage as the basis of the family and of society was universal. And it has only been our oh-so-enlightened last couple of generations in which we decided that we were just plain smarter than those who went before us, that marriage was really just a scrap of paper that really meant nothing, and — if you were Amanda Marcotte — was just another control mechanism of Teh Patriarchy.
Someone speaks some sense.
From The Wall Street Journal:
Companies Prepare to Pass More Health Costs to Workers
Firms Brace for Influx of Participants in Insurance Plans Who Had Earlier Opted Out
By Theo Francis | Updated Nov. 24, 2013 9:36 p.m. ET
Companies are bracing for an influx of participants in their insurance plans due to the health-care overhaul, adding to pressure to shift more of the cost of coverage to employees.
Many employers are betting that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance starting in 2014 will bring more people into their plans who have previously opted out. That, along with other rising expenses, is prompting companies to raise workers’ premium contributions, steer them toward high-deductible plans and charge them more to cover family members.
The changes as companies roll out their health plans for 2014 aren’t solely the result of the ACA. Employers have been pushing more of the cost of providing health insurance on to their workers for years, and firms that aren’t booking much sales growth due to the sluggish economy are under heavy pressure to keep expenses down.
Some are dealing with rising expenses by making employees pick up a bigger share of the premiums for coverage of family members. Employees this year are responsible for an average 18% of the cost of individual coverage, but 29% of the cost of family coverage, according to a survey of employee health plans by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
More at the link. In other words, if you like your employer’s insurance plan, you can keep your employer’s insurance plan; if you liked your employer’s insurance premium, you’re just plain out of luck.
This was inevitable, of course. The new regulations require that your insurance carrier allow you to keep your children on the plan until they turn 26; that’s several additional years on the insurance, and that has additional costs, costs which have to be passed on. The new regulations state that no one can be denied insurance or charged a higher premium due to a pre-existing condition; that means higher costs for the insurance company, which means higher costs passed on to the consumer. That’s not some nefarious reich-wing plot; that’s just simple economics.
And we told you this! This is no surprise to anyone who was paying attention. Of course, anyone who was paying attention did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
I really do plan on working up some outrage over this incident later today:
If (Nidal) Hasan thought he was having a bad day when he had his beard forcibly shaven when he entered prison, his concept of a bad day got worse last week when, according to rumors coming out of Leavenworth, he had been beaten by three other inmates.
According to the rumors, three of Hasan’s fellow inmates set upon Hasan and beat him profusely while guards were “busy” looking away while transferring him from a religious service of his choosing back to his cell. It is alleged that he is suffering from a broken nose and several facial lacerations. The rumors are yet to be confirmed by the prison.
As the author noted, this story is just an unconfirmed rumor. If it is confirmed, I promise that I will be somewhat outraged, just as I plan to be outraged when rumors of Bradley Manning having a tough time in jail arise.