Follow the bouncing data points.
Why? All that bouncing is confusing.
There are signs that the U.S. economy is improving, but such a sharp swing from a 2 percent drop in the first quarter to a 4 percent leap in the second three months of the year leads one to question the accuracy of the survey.
However, it's important to keep in mind that the first estimate -- which is the 4 percent growth rate that the Commerce Department just reported -- is an early number, and first estimates are inevitably revised as larger amounts of survey data join the parade.
Meanwhile, the same day the GDP number came out, The Federal Reserve noted that while things look pretty good, the job market could be better, the housing recovery "remains slow," and fiscal policy "is restraining economic growth."
Even so, the Fed will scale back its money pump to $10 billion monthly, from $15 billion, beginning in August.
Separately, the Census Bureau reported that both the homeownership rate and the housing rental rate in America faded in the second quarter. Taken together, this suggests that people are buying less and staying longer in rental units. It figures. When families are not confident about their future earning power, they hesitate to commit to a long term mortgage and decide to wait until things improve.
And for what it's worth, the International Monetary Fund expects the economy in Japan to grow by 1.6 percent this year. China's growth was 7.7 percent last year and will likely be almost as much this year, but the nation "would benefit from slower but safer growth."
In Europe, the United Kingdom economy "has rebounded strongly and prospects are promising," the IMF said. "Nonetheless, sustaining strong growth will depend on a recovery in productivity growth and real wages," the IMF said.
A recovery is also under way in Germany, the IMF noted. And the outlook for France is for "a gradual recovery," with GDP growth expected to by almost 1 percent this year and 1.4 percent in 2015.
So it seems the Great Recession is increasingly a thing of the past, as is the Great Depression of the 1930s. Whether both remain ghostly or ghastly memories is another matter. Either may yet come back to haunt, especially if policy makers and corporate geniuses fail to keep remembrances of things past.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Saturday, July 26, 2014
The Power of Twelve
There are:
12 inches in a foot
12 months in a year
12 grades in the American school system
12 signs of the zodiac
12 items in a dozen
12 pence in a shilling
12 people on a jury
12 districts in the U.S. Federal Reserve bank system
12 tribes of Israel
12 apostles in Christianity, which borrowed the idea from
12 apostles in Mithraism
12 labors of Hercules, imposed as punishment
12 days to the Christmas season, from Yule to Epiphany
12 steps to humility (St. Benedict, 520 A.D.)
12 steps of pride (St. Bernard of Clairveaux, 1130 A.D.)
12 steps to sobriety (Bill Miller, founder of AA, 1937)
12 parts to the Boy Scout Law (Trustworthy, loyal, etc.)
12 tones in the chromatic musical scale
12 bars in standard blues music
12 animals in the Chinese cycle of years (rat, ox, tiger, etc.)
12 times 2 = 24 hours in a day
12 times 5 = 60 minutes in an hour
12 times 30 = 360 degrees in a circle
12 times 10 = 120 beats per minute, the standard military marching pace
12 times 10 = 120, the optimum systolic blood pressure
12 volts in automobile electrical systems
12 was the base for early mathematics
12 chairs in the Mel Brooks movie based on a Russian folk tale
12 Monkeys, another movie, by Terry Gilliam
12 Years a Slave, a book and a movie
12 strands in a DNA sequence
Finally, the atomic weight of carbon, the base of all life forms on earth, is 12.01
12 inches in a foot
12 months in a year
12 grades in the American school system
12 signs of the zodiac
12 items in a dozen
12 pence in a shilling
12 people on a jury
12 districts in the U.S. Federal Reserve bank system
12 tribes of Israel
12 apostles in Christianity, which borrowed the idea from
12 apostles in Mithraism
12 labors of Hercules, imposed as punishment
12 days to the Christmas season, from Yule to Epiphany
12 steps to humility (St. Benedict, 520 A.D.)
12 steps of pride (St. Bernard of Clairveaux, 1130 A.D.)
12 steps to sobriety (Bill Miller, founder of AA, 1937)
12 parts to the Boy Scout Law (Trustworthy, loyal, etc.)
12 tones in the chromatic musical scale
12 bars in standard blues music
12 animals in the Chinese cycle of years (rat, ox, tiger, etc.)
12 times 2 = 24 hours in a day
12 times 5 = 60 minutes in an hour
12 times 30 = 360 degrees in a circle
12 times 10 = 120 beats per minute, the standard military marching pace
12 times 10 = 120, the optimum systolic blood pressure
12 volts in automobile electrical systems
12 was the base for early mathematics
12 chairs in the Mel Brooks movie based on a Russian folk tale
12 Monkeys, another movie, by Terry Gilliam
12 Years a Slave, a book and a movie
12 strands in a DNA sequence
Finally, the atomic weight of carbon, the base of all life forms on earth, is 12.01
Friday, July 25, 2014
3 R Socialism
Pay it forward to the next generation even as previous generations paid it for you.
No one seriously doubts the value of universal basic education, publicly funded and available to all. The ability to read, write and calculate is essential in any modern society. Call it 3 R Socialism.
So if the social benefits of basic education for all is not disputed, neither should the social benefits of universal basic health care. The exceptionist doubters, however, come largely from the for-profit insurance industry and those who have a knee-jerk opposition to regulation of any kind, especially by government.
Few can deny the need for government sponsorship and/or regulation of many other fields, including public education, police and fire protection, national defense, road and bridge construction and maintenance, air traffic control, water and sewage service, food and drug purity, and licensing of professionals such as physicians and nurses, plumbers, electricians and teachers, as well as auto and truck drivers, and airline pilots. Take away these and other functions of government and the result is chaos.
However, there are still many who preach the value of pure, unfettered and unregulated free market capitalism, and these are the same troglodytes who oppose a government-sponsored health care system in the name of protecting the free enterprise of a for-profit insurance industry.
The reality is that fully free, uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism not only doesn't work, but no longer exists, and hasn't for many years. For that matter, neither does a fully controlled socialist system, because there is little incentive to innovate and produce more than a pre-set, government established quota.
Unfettered greed sends free market capitalism toppling, as it did several times during the 19th Century. It brought on the Great Depression of the 20th Century as well as the Great Recession and the widespread fiscal crisis of the 21st Century.
Soviet style socialism, also known as communism, failed for reasons beyond the stifling of incentive. For one thing, it was imposed on a Russian feudal society, attempting to leap directly to the dream of a socialist economy, bypassing any Industrial Revolution such as occurred in Britain and German. This is what Karl Marx had in mind when he wrote of the inevitable collapse of capitalism. In fact, he was specific in saying that it would not and could not happen in Russia, because that country was still operating in a feudal economy.
Moreover, while Marx did describe the rise of labor unions, he did not foresee that management would come to a cooperative agreement with labor to the benefit of both sides.
So what we have in America is a mixed economy, combining elements of a free enterprise system with essential controls by government.
But this is a digression only to describe the problem of uncontrolled for-profit industries -- in this instance, health insurance.
In the current system in America, there are hundreds of private enterprise firms offering a bewildering array of health insurance policies, all with varying payment systems and amounts for the many medical issues that the company chooses to cover. Or not.
To cope with this, many physicians must hire extra staff to handle and process claims and rejections, supply referrals to other physicians for needed care, make followup calls to clarify issues and attempt to get payment from the many companies and policies that must be dealt with.
There is also a widespread practice in the industry of instructing employees to routinely reject claims, thus delaying payment in the hope that the applicant will give up and go away.
In the words of one physician, "I just want to practice medicine." Instead, the profiteers force the profession to boost fees to hire extra staff to process the paperwork.
Would a single-payer system resolve all the problems? Possibly not, but such systems work reasonably well in other major countries, including Canada, Britain and other nations. Meanwhile, America spends more on health care per person than any other major country, yet has one of the worst outcomes.
Health care, like public education, is a social benefit. It's too important to left entirely, solely and completely to the private sector.
No one seriously doubts the value of universal basic education, publicly funded and available to all. The ability to read, write and calculate is essential in any modern society. Call it 3 R Socialism.
So if the social benefits of basic education for all is not disputed, neither should the social benefits of universal basic health care. The exceptionist doubters, however, come largely from the for-profit insurance industry and those who have a knee-jerk opposition to regulation of any kind, especially by government.
Few can deny the need for government sponsorship and/or regulation of many other fields, including public education, police and fire protection, national defense, road and bridge construction and maintenance, air traffic control, water and sewage service, food and drug purity, and licensing of professionals such as physicians and nurses, plumbers, electricians and teachers, as well as auto and truck drivers, and airline pilots. Take away these and other functions of government and the result is chaos.
However, there are still many who preach the value of pure, unfettered and unregulated free market capitalism, and these are the same troglodytes who oppose a government-sponsored health care system in the name of protecting the free enterprise of a for-profit insurance industry.
The reality is that fully free, uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism not only doesn't work, but no longer exists, and hasn't for many years. For that matter, neither does a fully controlled socialist system, because there is little incentive to innovate and produce more than a pre-set, government established quota.
Unfettered greed sends free market capitalism toppling, as it did several times during the 19th Century. It brought on the Great Depression of the 20th Century as well as the Great Recession and the widespread fiscal crisis of the 21st Century.
Soviet style socialism, also known as communism, failed for reasons beyond the stifling of incentive. For one thing, it was imposed on a Russian feudal society, attempting to leap directly to the dream of a socialist economy, bypassing any Industrial Revolution such as occurred in Britain and German. This is what Karl Marx had in mind when he wrote of the inevitable collapse of capitalism. In fact, he was specific in saying that it would not and could not happen in Russia, because that country was still operating in a feudal economy.
Moreover, while Marx did describe the rise of labor unions, he did not foresee that management would come to a cooperative agreement with labor to the benefit of both sides.
So what we have in America is a mixed economy, combining elements of a free enterprise system with essential controls by government.
But this is a digression only to describe the problem of uncontrolled for-profit industries -- in this instance, health insurance.
In the current system in America, there are hundreds of private enterprise firms offering a bewildering array of health insurance policies, all with varying payment systems and amounts for the many medical issues that the company chooses to cover. Or not.
To cope with this, many physicians must hire extra staff to handle and process claims and rejections, supply referrals to other physicians for needed care, make followup calls to clarify issues and attempt to get payment from the many companies and policies that must be dealt with.
There is also a widespread practice in the industry of instructing employees to routinely reject claims, thus delaying payment in the hope that the applicant will give up and go away.
In the words of one physician, "I just want to practice medicine." Instead, the profiteers force the profession to boost fees to hire extra staff to process the paperwork.
Would a single-payer system resolve all the problems? Possibly not, but such systems work reasonably well in other major countries, including Canada, Britain and other nations. Meanwhile, America spends more on health care per person than any other major country, yet has one of the worst outcomes.
Health care, like public education, is a social benefit. It's too important to left entirely, solely and completely to the private sector.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Priorities
Cooperation and compromise go a long way.
Despite a harsh winter and a "still-struggling housing market, an inventory correction, and slower external demand," the International Monetary Fund reported today, economic momentum faded in America.
Even so, the IMF said, "the U.S. recovery is gathering steam, but managing the exit from zero interest rates and boosting potential growth remain top priorities."
As noted here yesterday, a drop in GDP growth earlier this year could be just a pause before a summer bloom, and confidence can be a major force for improvement. The IMF reported today that the group "expects growth to accelerate in the remainder of the year," probably in the 3 percent to 3.5 percent range, "as employment improves, firms boost production, sales and orders of durable goods pick up, and confidence returns."
However, "the large drag from the first quarter contraction" (a drop of 2.9 percent in GDP), "will be tough to offset, ... and growth for the year as a whole will be a disappointing 1.7 percent."
Meanwhile, almost 50 million Americans "still live in poverty," the IMF continued, and this includes almost one-in-four American children." To bring this number down, the IMF report urged an increased minimum wage and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit to help solve the problem.
And among other things, the IMF called for a more flexible fiscal plan so the government can help support economic growth, reduce poverty, rein in health care costs, increase tax revenues and reform Social Security.
A tall order. But one that must be filled if the U.S. is to achieve stable but steady economic growth and prosperity, assisted by government investment. "Without further policy interventions, the IMF expects potential growth to level off at around 2 percent in the coming years," the report said. These policies should include more investment in infrastructure, improved education, a better tax system, building a skilled labor force (including through immigration reform, job training and childcare assistance for working families), the report said. For more, visit the IMF web site, at www.imf.org.
So it may be easy to list what should be done, but it's a lot harder to estimate what will be done. Clearly, cooperation and agreement on goals, without being hampered by political bickering, will go a long way toward dealing with America's economic issues.
Despite a harsh winter and a "still-struggling housing market, an inventory correction, and slower external demand," the International Monetary Fund reported today, economic momentum faded in America.
Even so, the IMF said, "the U.S. recovery is gathering steam, but managing the exit from zero interest rates and boosting potential growth remain top priorities."
As noted here yesterday, a drop in GDP growth earlier this year could be just a pause before a summer bloom, and confidence can be a major force for improvement. The IMF reported today that the group "expects growth to accelerate in the remainder of the year," probably in the 3 percent to 3.5 percent range, "as employment improves, firms boost production, sales and orders of durable goods pick up, and confidence returns."
However, "the large drag from the first quarter contraction" (a drop of 2.9 percent in GDP), "will be tough to offset, ... and growth for the year as a whole will be a disappointing 1.7 percent."
Meanwhile, almost 50 million Americans "still live in poverty," the IMF continued, and this includes almost one-in-four American children." To bring this number down, the IMF report urged an increased minimum wage and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit to help solve the problem.
And among other things, the IMF called for a more flexible fiscal plan so the government can help support economic growth, reduce poverty, rein in health care costs, increase tax revenues and reform Social Security.
A tall order. But one that must be filled if the U.S. is to achieve stable but steady economic growth and prosperity, assisted by government investment. "Without further policy interventions, the IMF expects potential growth to level off at around 2 percent in the coming years," the report said. These policies should include more investment in infrastructure, improved education, a better tax system, building a skilled labor force (including through immigration reform, job training and childcare assistance for working families), the report said. For more, visit the IMF web site, at www.imf.org.
So it may be easy to list what should be done, but it's a lot harder to estimate what will be done. Clearly, cooperation and agreement on goals, without being hampered by political bickering, will go a long way toward dealing with America's economic issues.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Recovery
Restless kids in the back seat: "Are we there yet?"
Mom in the front seat: "We're on the way, but don't start to party while we're still in the car."
Economic recovery is on the way, but it's not yet time to celebrate. The signs are not firm, and the base is still a bit shaky, but confidence can be a major force in solidifying the trend.
Here are a few good signs:
* Every state but one (Alaska) showed economic growth for 2013.
* The national debt has stabilized and the deficit has declined. The Congressional Budget Office said the government will post a deficit of $492 billion this year, a sharp drop from an earlier estimate of $680 billion. As a percent of GDP, the deficit this year is estimated to be 2.8 percent of the economy, compared to nearly 10 percent five years ago, the CBO said.
* The unemployment rate is ticking downward, and is now 6.1 percent, compared to 7.5 percent a year ago.
* Interest rates are stable, so government can borrow at very low rates, enabling it to finance its operations and infrastructure projects that provide employment and income to many workers.
* Foreign trade is up, and the balance of payments negativity is improving. The Census Bureau reported an international trade balance of minus $44.4 billion in May, an improvement from the minus $47.0 billion in April as exports increased and imports decreased.
* Finally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the federal budget for the coming year would boost the economy over for the next decade, and the economic effect will "feed back into the budget in ways that would reduce deficits."
True, GDP figures showed a drop in output early this year, but that could be a springtime pause before a summer bloom.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve noted that in all twelve districts surveyed in its July report, the regional economies "continued to expand."
A mash of numbers can be stupefying, and reports of encouraging signs can be meaningless to those still out of work. Even so, it's useful to look for hints of improvement in order to build some confidence.
Recession is when my neighbor loses a job. Depression is when I lose mine.
If I grasp enough straws, maybe I can build a boat.
Mom in the front seat: "We're on the way, but don't start to party while we're still in the car."
Economic recovery is on the way, but it's not yet time to celebrate. The signs are not firm, and the base is still a bit shaky, but confidence can be a major force in solidifying the trend.
Here are a few good signs:
* Every state but one (Alaska) showed economic growth for 2013.
* The national debt has stabilized and the deficit has declined. The Congressional Budget Office said the government will post a deficit of $492 billion this year, a sharp drop from an earlier estimate of $680 billion. As a percent of GDP, the deficit this year is estimated to be 2.8 percent of the economy, compared to nearly 10 percent five years ago, the CBO said.
* The unemployment rate is ticking downward, and is now 6.1 percent, compared to 7.5 percent a year ago.
* Interest rates are stable, so government can borrow at very low rates, enabling it to finance its operations and infrastructure projects that provide employment and income to many workers.
* Foreign trade is up, and the balance of payments negativity is improving. The Census Bureau reported an international trade balance of minus $44.4 billion in May, an improvement from the minus $47.0 billion in April as exports increased and imports decreased.
* Finally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the federal budget for the coming year would boost the economy over for the next decade, and the economic effect will "feed back into the budget in ways that would reduce deficits."
True, GDP figures showed a drop in output early this year, but that could be a springtime pause before a summer bloom.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve noted that in all twelve districts surveyed in its July report, the regional economies "continued to expand."
A mash of numbers can be stupefying, and reports of encouraging signs can be meaningless to those still out of work. Even so, it's useful to look for hints of improvement in order to build some confidence.
Recession is when my neighbor loses a job. Depression is when I lose mine.
If I grasp enough straws, maybe I can build a boat.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Technobots
Technology robots are taking over the world. Not the actual machines, which don't really think for themselves (Hal, take note: No offense intended.), but the humanoid types who superficially appear to be human but are so addicted to their do-everything mobile devices that they can't set them aside, pocket them or even (Heaven forbid!) shut them off long enough to share a pleasant conversation with another human.
We're not calling for a return to crank-to-ring wall-mounted phones (Hello, Central? Get me Farmer Jones.) but a modicum of civility is in order.
Restaurateurs are already complaining that diners (?) who check their email, voice mail, video, Twitter and Facebook feeds so often that a lingering dinner becomes a marathon and leads to gripes and walkouts from those waiting for a table. As with so many things, the result is a hit on the bottom line, as owners lose business and profits.
What's the answer? Some establishments are banning mobile devices from their premises. However, that's not really a good answer. Courtesy is.
There are still many folks around who remember the days B.C. (Before Cellphones) when they were blissfully incommunicado for an hour or so and would not dream of disturbing their table mates -- much less those at nearby tables -- with loud yammering of private matters in public places.
Remember telephone booths? They were enclosed for privacy. Then came cellphones, and street corners and supermarket aisles became phone booths for those who were oblivious to the concept of privacy. In their minds, they were holding a private conversation. The fact that a dozen or so others some 30 feet away could hear the entire, often foul-mouthed discourse, did not register.
That was the opening tirade, a carryover from the early notion that one had to speak louder on a long-distance call than during a table-top conversation. Since then, technobots -- people so addicted to technology that they become robots, an extension of the mobile device -- have proliferated, and the idea of courtesy has been overwhelmed.
We're not calling for a return to crank-to-ring wall-mounted phones (Hello, Central? Get me Farmer Jones.) but a modicum of civility is in order.
Restaurateurs are already complaining that diners (?) who check their email, voice mail, video, Twitter and Facebook feeds so often that a lingering dinner becomes a marathon and leads to gripes and walkouts from those waiting for a table. As with so many things, the result is a hit on the bottom line, as owners lose business and profits.
What's the answer? Some establishments are banning mobile devices from their premises. However, that's not really a good answer. Courtesy is.
There are still many folks around who remember the days B.C. (Before Cellphones) when they were blissfully incommunicado for an hour or so and would not dream of disturbing their table mates -- much less those at nearby tables -- with loud yammering of private matters in public places.
Remember telephone booths? They were enclosed for privacy. Then came cellphones, and street corners and supermarket aisles became phone booths for those who were oblivious to the concept of privacy. In their minds, they were holding a private conversation. The fact that a dozen or so others some 30 feet away could hear the entire, often foul-mouthed discourse, did not register.
That was the opening tirade, a carryover from the early notion that one had to speak louder on a long-distance call than during a table-top conversation. Since then, technobots -- people so addicted to technology that they become robots, an extension of the mobile device -- have proliferated, and the idea of courtesy has been overwhelmed.
Brevity and Quality
Flashy phrasing is no substitute for quality writing.
The story hasn't been written that can't be cut.
If you can't tell it in 500 words, you can't tell it.
That was part of the prime directive from an editor long ago. (Rule No. 1 was: Get the name right.) Opposing that concept was and remains the Great American Fallacy: Bigger Equals Better. And in writing, that is taken to mean that longer is better. The reality is that books must be longer to help justify the high sales price of a book.
Meanwhile, in the pocket-computer world of web sites and teaser items, brevity has gone so far that quality is sacrificed. And while it remains true that any story -- especially news stories -- can be told in 500 words or less, Internet-driven devices put a limit of a sentence or so to any item. And that means readers are fed only a headline's worth of information.
That's not enough. Information is the lifeblood of a democracy, and the more of it the public has, the better will be their reaction to what government does in their name. A corollary is that the less information the public has, the easier it is to control their behavior and their voting.
There is, however, both hope for the future and some storm signals warning of approaching ignorance. Daily newspapers are reacting to the prevalence of pocket Internet devices by expanding the print coverage, providing more background and explanatory news. This is no surprise, since they cannot hope to compete with the immediacy of TV journalism. They can, however, supply the full background information necessary in an informed, free society.
The bad news is that so many folks are relying almost exclusively on snippets of information provided on their mobile devices, often set up by any radical with access to a computer. Reliability is important, but you don't often get it from some of these so-called "news" sites.
And while brevity is important, so is quality. Too many otherwise responsible news outlets, in their zeal to capture a part of the mobile market, have substituted flashy phrasing for quality writing.
Remember the Four C's of good writing: Clear, Concise, Complete, Compelling.
The story hasn't been written that can't be cut.
If you can't tell it in 500 words, you can't tell it.
That was part of the prime directive from an editor long ago. (Rule No. 1 was: Get the name right.) Opposing that concept was and remains the Great American Fallacy: Bigger Equals Better. And in writing, that is taken to mean that longer is better. The reality is that books must be longer to help justify the high sales price of a book.
Meanwhile, in the pocket-computer world of web sites and teaser items, brevity has gone so far that quality is sacrificed. And while it remains true that any story -- especially news stories -- can be told in 500 words or less, Internet-driven devices put a limit of a sentence or so to any item. And that means readers are fed only a headline's worth of information.
That's not enough. Information is the lifeblood of a democracy, and the more of it the public has, the better will be their reaction to what government does in their name. A corollary is that the less information the public has, the easier it is to control their behavior and their voting.
There is, however, both hope for the future and some storm signals warning of approaching ignorance. Daily newspapers are reacting to the prevalence of pocket Internet devices by expanding the print coverage, providing more background and explanatory news. This is no surprise, since they cannot hope to compete with the immediacy of TV journalism. They can, however, supply the full background information necessary in an informed, free society.
The bad news is that so many folks are relying almost exclusively on snippets of information provided on their mobile devices, often set up by any radical with access to a computer. Reliability is important, but you don't often get it from some of these so-called "news" sites.
And while brevity is important, so is quality. Too many otherwise responsible news outlets, in their zeal to capture a part of the mobile market, have substituted flashy phrasing for quality writing.
Remember the Four C's of good writing: Clear, Concise, Complete, Compelling.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Gender Brouhaha
Men and women are different.
Vive la difference!
"For you easy, for me difficult." -- Senor Wences.
Variety is good, bigotry is not.
Scientific American, a highly respected magazine, ran afoul of many sensitivities when it published several blogs on its web site dealing with realities of employment differences among men and woman and the theories of why this is so.
The Washington Post reported that the blogs "unleashed waves of criticism and claims that the publication was promoting racism, sexism and 'genetic determinism.'"
From this corner, the issue is not whether one gender is inferior or superior to another, but that of perceptions and actions, especially why actions based on perceptions are common. There are, of course, differences between men and women. For example, women can put on a bangle bracelet easily, while men find it nearly impossible. That's a physiological difference. Medical professionals, especially pharmaceutical researchers, know that women and men react differently to many drugs. That's a chemical difference. Only women can become mothers, and as such tend to be more nurturing than men. That's yet another difference.
The issue, then, is whether these and other differences are genetic or cultural, and the study of these differences is therefore an appropriate subject for scientific inquiry, whether through psychology, sociology, anthropology, chemistry, physiology, medicine or any other science.
Far too many act on the false assumption that because one person or group is different, another person or group is therefore better. Ability and potential are separate issues. Some folks have talent in art, others in music, still others in mathematics, science, medicine, or other fields. Some are good at spelling, but for others, the use of a computer spellcheck program doesn't help -- a word may be spelled correctly, but be the wrong word.
There have been several recent reports quoting top level academics as saying that because women and some minority groups may score lower on math and science tests, they are therefore genetically inferior. Another false conclusion. Correlation is not always causation. People observed the sun rising in the east, which led many to conclude that the earth stood still and the sun moved. Low test scores are due to many factors, including educational background and opportunity as well as individual intelligence levels. In addition, nutrition, environment and other factors can influence test scores. These are important subjects for science to explore. Moreover, to condemn all because of the performance of a few is a false generality.
For many years, careers open to women were mostly in teaching (except college), nursing, and airline flight attendants. Why? Largely because other fields were closed to them. But when corporate executive doors opened to women, they acted on these opportunities. Meanwhile, there was still a demand for nurses, flight attendants and teachers, so men entered these fields.
In some cultures, women are still deemed to be inferior creatures to men. But this remains a cultural issue, not genetic. Ability and potential have little to do with gender or racial differences. Performance and success come from education and training, as well as opportunity.
To deny opportunity because of gender, race, ethnicity or cultural background is, to put it bluntly in a single word, stupid.
Vive la difference!
"For you easy, for me difficult." -- Senor Wences.
Variety is good, bigotry is not.
Scientific American, a highly respected magazine, ran afoul of many sensitivities when it published several blogs on its web site dealing with realities of employment differences among men and woman and the theories of why this is so.
The Washington Post reported that the blogs "unleashed waves of criticism and claims that the publication was promoting racism, sexism and 'genetic determinism.'"
From this corner, the issue is not whether one gender is inferior or superior to another, but that of perceptions and actions, especially why actions based on perceptions are common. There are, of course, differences between men and women. For example, women can put on a bangle bracelet easily, while men find it nearly impossible. That's a physiological difference. Medical professionals, especially pharmaceutical researchers, know that women and men react differently to many drugs. That's a chemical difference. Only women can become mothers, and as such tend to be more nurturing than men. That's yet another difference.
The issue, then, is whether these and other differences are genetic or cultural, and the study of these differences is therefore an appropriate subject for scientific inquiry, whether through psychology, sociology, anthropology, chemistry, physiology, medicine or any other science.
Far too many act on the false assumption that because one person or group is different, another person or group is therefore better. Ability and potential are separate issues. Some folks have talent in art, others in music, still others in mathematics, science, medicine, or other fields. Some are good at spelling, but for others, the use of a computer spellcheck program doesn't help -- a word may be spelled correctly, but be the wrong word.
There have been several recent reports quoting top level academics as saying that because women and some minority groups may score lower on math and science tests, they are therefore genetically inferior. Another false conclusion. Correlation is not always causation. People observed the sun rising in the east, which led many to conclude that the earth stood still and the sun moved. Low test scores are due to many factors, including educational background and opportunity as well as individual intelligence levels. In addition, nutrition, environment and other factors can influence test scores. These are important subjects for science to explore. Moreover, to condemn all because of the performance of a few is a false generality.
For many years, careers open to women were mostly in teaching (except college), nursing, and airline flight attendants. Why? Largely because other fields were closed to them. But when corporate executive doors opened to women, they acted on these opportunities. Meanwhile, there was still a demand for nurses, flight attendants and teachers, so men entered these fields.
In some cultures, women are still deemed to be inferior creatures to men. But this remains a cultural issue, not genetic. Ability and potential have little to do with gender or racial differences. Performance and success come from education and training, as well as opportunity.
To deny opportunity because of gender, race, ethnicity or cultural background is, to put it bluntly in a single word, stupid.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Independence and Accountability
Question: Can an independent government agency maintain independence even as it yields to increasing demands for accountability?
That can be a tough one. Can the Federal Reserve, for example, keep its independence as the nation's central bank with major responsibility for encouraging economic growth, yet be fully accountable to Congress for what it does? And does accountability reduce its independence? More important, perhaps, where is the balance between the two?
The Fed is supposed to have a free hand in setting monetary policy to influence economic growth and control inflation. But when an increasingly partisan Congress pushes legislation demanding explanations and detailed accountability for Fed actions, that can easily diminish the Fed's independence.
Republicans in the House of Representatives are pushing a bill that would require the Fed to set rules on when and how it would take action on, for example, inflation. Fed Chair Janet Yellen told a House committee that such a requirement would limit the central bank's flexibility. Republicans maintained that the legislation would not specify the quality of the rule, only that such a rule be set. The Fed would be able to change the rule, they said, but meanwhile, there would be increasing transparency into what the Fed does and how it does it.
So there's the puzzle. How much transparency should there be in the operation of an agency that, by its nature, needs to be flexible as it operates behind the financial and economic scene?
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy seems to be recovering, although not as swiftly or as strongly as many would like. In the Fed's so-called Beige Book outlining economic conditions throughout the country, the central bank said today that all twelve regions in the Federal Reserve system have shown modest to moderate growth recently.
Separately, the Census Bureau reported business inventories were up 0.5 percent, and sales were up 0.4 percent. The nation added 288,000 jobs in June, and the unemployment rate faded to 6.1 percent. The Commerce Department reported the exports of goods and services over the past five years have increased 45.7 percent, and the international trade deficit has been reduced.
That can be a tough one. Can the Federal Reserve, for example, keep its independence as the nation's central bank with major responsibility for encouraging economic growth, yet be fully accountable to Congress for what it does? And does accountability reduce its independence? More important, perhaps, where is the balance between the two?
The Fed is supposed to have a free hand in setting monetary policy to influence economic growth and control inflation. But when an increasingly partisan Congress pushes legislation demanding explanations and detailed accountability for Fed actions, that can easily diminish the Fed's independence.
Republicans in the House of Representatives are pushing a bill that would require the Fed to set rules on when and how it would take action on, for example, inflation. Fed Chair Janet Yellen told a House committee that such a requirement would limit the central bank's flexibility. Republicans maintained that the legislation would not specify the quality of the rule, only that such a rule be set. The Fed would be able to change the rule, they said, but meanwhile, there would be increasing transparency into what the Fed does and how it does it.
So there's the puzzle. How much transparency should there be in the operation of an agency that, by its nature, needs to be flexible as it operates behind the financial and economic scene?
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy seems to be recovering, although not as swiftly or as strongly as many would like. In the Fed's so-called Beige Book outlining economic conditions throughout the country, the central bank said today that all twelve regions in the Federal Reserve system have shown modest to moderate growth recently.
Separately, the Census Bureau reported business inventories were up 0.5 percent, and sales were up 0.4 percent. The nation added 288,000 jobs in June, and the unemployment rate faded to 6.1 percent. The Commerce Department reported the exports of goods and services over the past five years have increased 45.7 percent, and the international trade deficit has been reduced.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Watching Words
Bellwether: A male sheep that wears a bell for the flock to follow.
Economic bellwether: A bit of data that indicates the direction investors may take.
Wall Street is less a barometer of economic health than of investor emotional health.
Panic selling or irrational exuberance by turns can dominate stock markets.
"When faith meets evidence, evidence doesn't stand a chance." -- Paul Krugman.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley.
Reality may have little effect on the so-called wisdom of the crowd -- or the flock.
Buried somewhere in the obtuse language of the Federal Reserve Board's minutes of its last meeting is the hint that the U.S. economy is recovering enough so that the Fed may stop priming the fiscal pump by autumn. Then again, it may not.
The minutes of the meeting said "participants continued their discussion of issues associated with the eventual normalization" of monetary policy -- whatever that means -- but that such a discussion "did not imply that normalization would necessarily begin sometime soon." Then again, it might.
In any case, those at the meeting agreed that adjusting interest rates "should play a central role" in the normalization process, the text of the minutes said. Moreover, participants "expressed a preference for a simple and clear approach to normalization that would facilitate communication to the public and enhance the credibility" of the Fed's monetary policy.
Editors always endorse "simple and clear" writing to "facilitate communication" and "enhance credibility." One wonders when the Fed will follow its own advice.
Meanwhile, the American economy as measured by production (GDP), faltered earlier this year, but inflation (prices) rose and the labor force participation rate declined even as the unemployment rate dipped and personal consumption spending fell. This suggests that some folks stopped looking for work and that some workers couldn't afford to buy stuff they needed because prices rose even as output increased. So who is buying the stuff American industry produces?
Otherwise, Fed staffers at the June meeting advised the board that GDP growth would "rebound briskly" in the second quarter. Possible? Yes. Likely? Maybe. The U.S. economy began to slide last year, and fell off by 2.9 percent in the first three months of this year. Signals are entirely too mixed to expect a "brisk" turnaround during the April-June period.
Meanwhile, central banks in other major nations are remaining cautious. The Bank of England voted last week to hold its key interest rate steady at 0.5 percent, and to continue pumping cash into its economy. And Canada's central bank, while seeing encouraging signs, still noted uncertainty over growth potential. In Mexico, the central bank voted to hold its key lending rate steady, despite hints of stronger growth and slack in the economy.
Economic bellwether: A bit of data that indicates the direction investors may take.
Wall Street is less a barometer of economic health than of investor emotional health.
Panic selling or irrational exuberance by turns can dominate stock markets.
"When faith meets evidence, evidence doesn't stand a chance." -- Paul Krugman.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley.
Reality may have little effect on the so-called wisdom of the crowd -- or the flock.
Buried somewhere in the obtuse language of the Federal Reserve Board's minutes of its last meeting is the hint that the U.S. economy is recovering enough so that the Fed may stop priming the fiscal pump by autumn. Then again, it may not.
The minutes of the meeting said "participants continued their discussion of issues associated with the eventual normalization" of monetary policy -- whatever that means -- but that such a discussion "did not imply that normalization would necessarily begin sometime soon." Then again, it might.
In any case, those at the meeting agreed that adjusting interest rates "should play a central role" in the normalization process, the text of the minutes said. Moreover, participants "expressed a preference for a simple and clear approach to normalization that would facilitate communication to the public and enhance the credibility" of the Fed's monetary policy.
Editors always endorse "simple and clear" writing to "facilitate communication" and "enhance credibility." One wonders when the Fed will follow its own advice.
Meanwhile, the American economy as measured by production (GDP), faltered earlier this year, but inflation (prices) rose and the labor force participation rate declined even as the unemployment rate dipped and personal consumption spending fell. This suggests that some folks stopped looking for work and that some workers couldn't afford to buy stuff they needed because prices rose even as output increased. So who is buying the stuff American industry produces?
Otherwise, Fed staffers at the June meeting advised the board that GDP growth would "rebound briskly" in the second quarter. Possible? Yes. Likely? Maybe. The U.S. economy began to slide last year, and fell off by 2.9 percent in the first three months of this year. Signals are entirely too mixed to expect a "brisk" turnaround during the April-June period.
Meanwhile, central banks in other major nations are remaining cautious. The Bank of England voted last week to hold its key interest rate steady at 0.5 percent, and to continue pumping cash into its economy. And Canada's central bank, while seeing encouraging signs, still noted uncertainty over growth potential. In Mexico, the central bank voted to hold its key lending rate steady, despite hints of stronger growth and slack in the economy.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Fugitives or Felons
"And all they will call you will be deportee." -- Woody Guthrie
If jobs were available at home, there would be no reason to leave.
Is a puzzlement.
Every day, hundreds of children, mothers and desperate fathers rush across the Texas border and surrender to the first uniformed American they see. Many are from Central American countries such as Honduras who are fleeing violence, corruption and lack of opportunity in their home countries, and make the long trek through the length of Mexico hoping to get to America and safety.
What prompts the exodus? Aside from the historic reasons, they hope to gain safety through a federal law passed in the last days of the Bush II Administration, specifying that illegal immigrants from Central American countries cannot be immediately deported. (Mexico was not covered in the law.) The law's purpose was to protect those who were being forced into prostitution and other nefarious activities, but its possible protection is now being sought by others.
Meanwhile, many who live near the border have mounted huge protests, and are demanding that all those who cross the border illegally be sent back.
But sent back to where?
Are children to be considered felons simply because they seek safety? Are mothers to be deported to the very places they seek to escape? And whatever happened to the historic offer of help for refugees?
Historically, Americans have stepped in to provide a refuge for people in other countries who have suffered because of war, corruption, disease and other causes. Those who have fled such situations have long found safe harbor in America.
Ultimately, a full solution would be to make their home countries safe, with jobs, food, clothing and shelter available to all. Simply put, if jobs and safety were available at home, there would be no reason to leave.
A full solution, of course, would be for governments in the home countries to crack down on criminal gangs who terrorize the population. But if these governments themselves are part of the problem, by being inept and taking bribes from the gangs, or even participating in criminal suppression of the people, what then is the solution? Intervention by a foreign government, in this case the U.S., is not a viable option. America is not, and should not be, police for the world.
Meanwhile, however, as desperate mothers and children seek a safe haven, Americans have a moral obligation to help.
It has happened many times before. What cause withholds us now to weep for them?
If jobs were available at home, there would be no reason to leave.
Is a puzzlement.
Every day, hundreds of children, mothers and desperate fathers rush across the Texas border and surrender to the first uniformed American they see. Many are from Central American countries such as Honduras who are fleeing violence, corruption and lack of opportunity in their home countries, and make the long trek through the length of Mexico hoping to get to America and safety.
What prompts the exodus? Aside from the historic reasons, they hope to gain safety through a federal law passed in the last days of the Bush II Administration, specifying that illegal immigrants from Central American countries cannot be immediately deported. (Mexico was not covered in the law.) The law's purpose was to protect those who were being forced into prostitution and other nefarious activities, but its possible protection is now being sought by others.
Meanwhile, many who live near the border have mounted huge protests, and are demanding that all those who cross the border illegally be sent back.
But sent back to where?
Are children to be considered felons simply because they seek safety? Are mothers to be deported to the very places they seek to escape? And whatever happened to the historic offer of help for refugees?
Historically, Americans have stepped in to provide a refuge for people in other countries who have suffered because of war, corruption, disease and other causes. Those who have fled such situations have long found safe harbor in America.
Ultimately, a full solution would be to make their home countries safe, with jobs, food, clothing and shelter available to all. Simply put, if jobs and safety were available at home, there would be no reason to leave.
A full solution, of course, would be for governments in the home countries to crack down on criminal gangs who terrorize the population. But if these governments themselves are part of the problem, by being inept and taking bribes from the gangs, or even participating in criminal suppression of the people, what then is the solution? Intervention by a foreign government, in this case the U.S., is not a viable option. America is not, and should not be, police for the world.
Meanwhile, however, as desperate mothers and children seek a safe haven, Americans have a moral obligation to help.
It has happened many times before. What cause withholds us now to weep for them?
Friday, July 4, 2014
Who Closed the Golden Door?
The first seven Presidents were not born in the United States of America.
"Send me your tired, your poor ... I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- From a poem by Emma Lazarus, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
Spanish has never been a foreign language in America. Spanish explorers and conquerors were here long before speakers of English.
Recent news reports have detailed the efforts of many folks, especially in towns near the southern border of the U.S., to stop those they consider unworthy from coming to America. But who are these deciders, and what standards do they use in determining who is, or who is not, eligible to cross the borders and come to what has traditionally been called the Land of Opportunity? What methods do they use to snuff out the lamp beside the golden door?
It's curious that almost all the reports of nearly violent opposition to newcomers come from those states along the border with Mexico. Oddly, those states in the West and along the border with Mexico used to be part of Mexico. Moreover, many of those states, and cities within those states, still are known by the Spanish names, including California, Montana, Colorado and Arizona, along with San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and San Antonio. Florida is also a Spanish term. And New Orleans was populated by the Spanish and the French before being acquired by America in 1803.
So considering that ferocity of opposition to immigrants -- granted, the justification for this is the claim that so many are illegal -- it's curious that all the protest marches are along the southern border. When was the last time you heard of protests against a rush of Canadians sneaking across the northern border? Doesn't this issue raise the possibility of racial or ethnic bias?
Speaking of which, there remains the allegation that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore is not eligible to be President. Aside from the truth or falsity of this claim, it is provably true that John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008, was born in Panama. George Romney, a GOP candidate in 1968, was born in Mexico. And Barry Goldwater, the founder of modern Republican Conservatism and a Republican presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before that region achieved statehood. In addition, there was a movement a few years ago for Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor of California, to run for President. He was born in Austria.
The Constitution stipulates that presidential candidates be "natural born" citizens. It does not say "native born." By that standard, a person with an American citizen as a parent is a "natural born" citizen, no matter the location of his or her birth. McCain's father was serving in the military at the time of the future senator's birth. Young Romney's parents were serving as missionaries at the time of young George's birth. And Arizona, while not yet a state, was a U.S. territory.
Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, came to the U.S. and became a citizen through the process known as naturalization. He was not a "natural born" citizen, nor was he "native born." This is not to take away from his other qualifications to run for any office other than the presidency. Yet there was widespread support for him to run for President.
So why so much support for the Republicans and so much opposition to the Democrat? Obama's mother was born and raised in Kansas. Young Barack was born in Hawaii, and documentation has proven this. But even if he had been born outside the U.S., he would still be a natural born citizen through his mother, who was born and raised in Kansas. Moreover, he would have had to show his birth certificate when applying for a driver's license or registering to vote.
As for those who came to America and achieved success, here's a short list of some of the most famous: Andrew Carnegie (Scotland), John Kenneth Galbraith (Canada), Anthony Quinn (Mexico), Desi Arnaz (Cuba), Maureen O'Hara (Ireland).
In addition, consider this: Henry Ford's grandfather originally came from Ireland, moved to Canada and illegally crossed the border to the U.S. And the grandfather of President John F. Kennedy also immigrated to America. So also did the parents, grandparents and even earlier generations of present-day American citizens come to America to join the millions of others seeking prosperity in this Land of Opportunity.
For them, the Golden Door was open. Who but bigots dare to close it now?
p.s. The opening statement of this posting is true. The first seven Presidents of the United States were born before July 4, 1776, when the Thirteen Colonies declared their independence.
"Send me your tired, your poor ... I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- From a poem by Emma Lazarus, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
Spanish has never been a foreign language in America. Spanish explorers and conquerors were here long before speakers of English.
Recent news reports have detailed the efforts of many folks, especially in towns near the southern border of the U.S., to stop those they consider unworthy from coming to America. But who are these deciders, and what standards do they use in determining who is, or who is not, eligible to cross the borders and come to what has traditionally been called the Land of Opportunity? What methods do they use to snuff out the lamp beside the golden door?
It's curious that almost all the reports of nearly violent opposition to newcomers come from those states along the border with Mexico. Oddly, those states in the West and along the border with Mexico used to be part of Mexico. Moreover, many of those states, and cities within those states, still are known by the Spanish names, including California, Montana, Colorado and Arizona, along with San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and San Antonio. Florida is also a Spanish term. And New Orleans was populated by the Spanish and the French before being acquired by America in 1803.
So considering that ferocity of opposition to immigrants -- granted, the justification for this is the claim that so many are illegal -- it's curious that all the protest marches are along the southern border. When was the last time you heard of protests against a rush of Canadians sneaking across the northern border? Doesn't this issue raise the possibility of racial or ethnic bias?
Speaking of which, there remains the allegation that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore is not eligible to be President. Aside from the truth or falsity of this claim, it is provably true that John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008, was born in Panama. George Romney, a GOP candidate in 1968, was born in Mexico. And Barry Goldwater, the founder of modern Republican Conservatism and a Republican presidential nominee, was born in Arizona before that region achieved statehood. In addition, there was a movement a few years ago for Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor of California, to run for President. He was born in Austria.
The Constitution stipulates that presidential candidates be "natural born" citizens. It does not say "native born." By that standard, a person with an American citizen as a parent is a "natural born" citizen, no matter the location of his or her birth. McCain's father was serving in the military at the time of the future senator's birth. Young Romney's parents were serving as missionaries at the time of young George's birth. And Arizona, while not yet a state, was a U.S. territory.
Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, came to the U.S. and became a citizen through the process known as naturalization. He was not a "natural born" citizen, nor was he "native born." This is not to take away from his other qualifications to run for any office other than the presidency. Yet there was widespread support for him to run for President.
So why so much support for the Republicans and so much opposition to the Democrat? Obama's mother was born and raised in Kansas. Young Barack was born in Hawaii, and documentation has proven this. But even if he had been born outside the U.S., he would still be a natural born citizen through his mother, who was born and raised in Kansas. Moreover, he would have had to show his birth certificate when applying for a driver's license or registering to vote.
As for those who came to America and achieved success, here's a short list of some of the most famous: Andrew Carnegie (Scotland), John Kenneth Galbraith (Canada), Anthony Quinn (Mexico), Desi Arnaz (Cuba), Maureen O'Hara (Ireland).
In addition, consider this: Henry Ford's grandfather originally came from Ireland, moved to Canada and illegally crossed the border to the U.S. And the grandfather of President John F. Kennedy also immigrated to America. So also did the parents, grandparents and even earlier generations of present-day American citizens come to America to join the millions of others seeking prosperity in this Land of Opportunity.
For them, the Golden Door was open. Who but bigots dare to close it now?
p.s. The opening statement of this posting is true. The first seven Presidents of the United States were born before July 4, 1776, when the Thirteen Colonies declared their independence.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
SCOTUS and Pandora
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
If abortion protesters can't be kept away from clinic doors, then military protesters can't be kept away from funerals.
Politics and religion don't mix, goes the old saying, but recent rulings by the Supreme Court show that conservatives on the court are letting their personal views influence their legal opinions.
Last week, the court ruled that a Massachusetts law that kept abortion protesters at least 35 feet from the doorways of women's health providers was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. This despite the court's own policy of keeping protesters at least 250 feet from their own door in Washington.
This week, the court overturned a requirement that companies -- at least those that are family-owned -- pay for health insurance coverage for contraception, citing religious freedom. Under the Affordable Care Act, companies must supply health insurance coverage. But challengers assert such a law violates their religious belief that life begins at conception, and therefore violates their constitutional right to religious freedom.
So. Now comes the issue of the Westboro Baptist Church and their claim of the First Amendment right of free speech and to carry signs proclaiming "God hates fags" at the funerals of those who died in the service of their country.
Previously, their "in-your-face" picketing at church doors led to laws ordering them to stay at least a block away from the funeral. In Missouri, it's 300 feet. Florida, North Carolina, California and others have enacted similar "funeral buffer" measures, and motorcyclists have formed a "Patriot Guard" to escort the fallen and keep the protestors at a distance.
Such protests led to a federal law, signed by President Obama in August of 2012, ordering picketers to stay at least 300 feet away from the door an hour before and an hour after a military funeral.
Such laws have not stopped the legal challenges, however. And the SCOTUS rulings of the past few days can only feed the Westboro picketers hunger to satisfy what they claim is their constitutional right to express their views.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
If abortion protesters can't be kept away from clinic doors, then military protesters can't be kept away from funerals.
Politics and religion don't mix, goes the old saying, but recent rulings by the Supreme Court show that conservatives on the court are letting their personal views influence their legal opinions.
Last week, the court ruled that a Massachusetts law that kept abortion protesters at least 35 feet from the doorways of women's health providers was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. This despite the court's own policy of keeping protesters at least 250 feet from their own door in Washington.
This week, the court overturned a requirement that companies -- at least those that are family-owned -- pay for health insurance coverage for contraception, citing religious freedom. Under the Affordable Care Act, companies must supply health insurance coverage. But challengers assert such a law violates their religious belief that life begins at conception, and therefore violates their constitutional right to religious freedom.
So. Now comes the issue of the Westboro Baptist Church and their claim of the First Amendment right of free speech and to carry signs proclaiming "God hates fags" at the funerals of those who died in the service of their country.
Previously, their "in-your-face" picketing at church doors led to laws ordering them to stay at least a block away from the funeral. In Missouri, it's 300 feet. Florida, North Carolina, California and others have enacted similar "funeral buffer" measures, and motorcyclists have formed a "Patriot Guard" to escort the fallen and keep the protestors at a distance.
Such protests led to a federal law, signed by President Obama in August of 2012, ordering picketers to stay at least 300 feet away from the door an hour before and an hour after a military funeral.
Such laws have not stopped the legal challenges, however. And the SCOTUS rulings of the past few days can only feed the Westboro picketers hunger to satisfy what they claim is their constitutional right to express their views.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)