To look at Christian history, it is hardly conceivable that modern, prosperous, relatively peaceful nations would exist today. Christians "evolved" from brutal zealots to modern, peace-loving people.
You also can't look to the Bible for the source of this peace. The Bible is filled with social rules, prohibitions, and punishments that are barbaric by modern standards. If Christians don't judge the Bible with modern sensibilities, why do they judge the Quran with modern sensibilities?
If we judge the Quran to be more violent, you have to consider the times in which it was written. The Quran was written in the 7th century, which was an extremely violent time in human history. It was written down as events unfolded.
On the other hand, the old testament came from oral tradition passed down for thousands of years, and finally written down when writing became possible. Before it was written down, the stories likely changed. Over the course of thousands of years, much of the violence was probably lost in the oral transmission. The new testament was written during the time and geography of "Pax Romana", a time of relative peace in human history.
One of the most peaceful religions on the planet has holy books that are much more violent than the bible or the quran. The Hindus have the mahabharata and the ramayana. The Hindus have managed to become quite peaceful. Perhaps they take lessons on the evils of violence from these books. Is it so inconceivable that Muslims could do the same from the Quran? Many do, actually.
Christians have modernized and moderated through education, prosperity, and learning from the mistakes of their ancestors. Christianity has gone through enlightened / peaceful periods, and fell into violent periods of regress. Islam has enjoyed many enlightened /peaceful periods.
Islam is emerging from a violent period of regress. Just look at the progress of women's suffrage in the middle east to see how rapid this emergence is happening. Christians live in a nascent period of enlightenment. It wasn't so long ago that Christians were violent and aggressive toward "pagans", "heathens", and "savages".
If history has any lesson for the modern world it is this:
Enlightenment, prosperity and peace are fleeting and fragile. These ideal states of human existence are easily disrupted by violence, aggression, and war. If we wish to live our lives in, and pass on to our children this ideal state, we must stop vilifying each other. It is imperative that we start building cultural bridges and break down the barriers that divide us. We can pass on to our children a culture of enlightenment and peace. We just have to set aside our hatred and mistrust.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
Traditionally, the National Defense Authorization Act is a yearly spending bill that allows the military to operate for the year covered by the bill. The yearly renewal of this bill has traditionally been quick and non-controversial.
However...
This year the NDAA has provisions that basically allows for two things:
However...
This year the NDAA has provisions that basically allows for two things:
- Military detention (without trial) of those suspected of links to al qaeda, taliban, or of planning or carrying out attacks against the U.S. and coalition partners. It states that this detention will be continuous until the "end of hostilities".
- "Transfer of custody" of "covered persons" to any foreign entity.
These two sections are troubling to me.
The "military detention" provision has a "waiver for national security" which applies to "paragraph 1", which allows for the military detention. "Paragraph 1" refers to paragraph two, which contains the specific limitation to suspected terrorists.
My concern is that this waiver could be interpreted to allow the Secretary of Defense to "waive" the limitation to suspected terrorists. The bill only requires a written "certification" be sent to congress that the "wiaver" is necessary for "national security". If such a waiver to submitted, it is conceivable that this could allow the indefinite military detention of individuals that have no association with terrorist groups.
The "transfer of custody" section is worrisome because it allows the military to skirt U.S. laws pertaining to treatment of prisoners (specifically those prohibiting torture) by sending "covered persons" abroad for "detention". This practice, known as "extraordinary rendition", has been in practice for years. However the authority to do this is pieced together from pieces of different laws and disparate provisions of the "Patriot Act". Since this authority is piecemeal, the legality of that authority has been questionable. If this law passes, "extraordinary rendition" will be codified in law.
There is a provision that supposedly exempts U.S. citizens from military detention. There is another provision that supposedly exempts "lawful resident aliens" (green card holders) and their activities within the United States. I struggle with these exemptions because most lawmakers specifically state that this applies "American citizen or not" (quoted from Lindsey Graham and verified by calling his office in DC).
There is legal ambiguity as to whether or not current law allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and "resident aliens". The only institution that could clear up this ambiguity is the Judicial branch. However, the bill specifically removes judicial oversight by moving the entire process to military tribunals. The Supreme Court could take the extraordinary step of declaring that citizens are "resident aliens" are NOT subject to this law. However, considering the current makeup of the court, and the fact that the entire process will be outside their jurisdiction, that possibility seems quite slim.
When I called Senator Graham's office to inquire about this, his staff seemed unaware of the provisions exempting U.S. Citizens and "resident aliens". I asked about the constitutionality of this bill, I was told that is the job of the Supreme Court.
This bill passed the House of Representatives, but that version didn't have these troubling provisions. Now that the bill passed the Senate, it must be "reconciled" with the House version, then the "reconciled" bill must be passed by both houses.
Even if you agree with the indefinite detention provisions, the legal ambiguity of existing detention laws makes this very dangerous. Please contact your representative in the House of Representatives and ask them to vote against any "reconciled" bill that includes these harmful provisions. These provisions were slipped into a spending bill to force it through congress. Afterall, any representative who votes against it will be labelled "unamerican" and "against the troops". Our representatives need to know that we will support them if they vote this bill down because of these provisions.
Use the following link to contact your representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
You can also call the white house and ask the President to veto such a bill if it reaches his desk.
White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Response to Tony Perkins - Jesus Was a Free Marketer
My Take: Jesus was a free marketer, not an Occupier
To use the parable of the minas to claim that Jesus was a free marketer is simply political spin. Keep in mind that Mr. Perkins is the leader of the "Family Research Council", which is one of the most vile homophobic organizations around. The FRC has made it their mission to malign single mothers, poor people, and gay people.
When I read the parable of the Minas, I see industriousness being rewarded and sloth being punished. I see nothing of "free markets".
The reason I doubt Mr. Perkin's "free market" comparison is because of what Jesus actually said (not in a parable) to a wealthy young man who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21
The boy went away sad, unwilling to give up his vast wealth to help the poor. Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24
So, Jesus seems to deplore greedy people who horde wealth and do nothing for the poor. Keeping that in mind, the parable of the Minas (Luke 19) seems to be about rewarding industriousness and punishing sloth.
I would like to point out some fallacies that Mr. Perkins also attempts to pass in his article:
1. He states that "each of us is given the same opportunity to build our lives", which is demonstrably false. The child of an auto mechanic doesn't have the same opportunities as the child of a doctor. The child of a welfare mother does not have the same opportunities as the child of an auto mechanic.
2. He talks about "occupiers" who trash public property, and engage in anti-social behavior. I don't believe the intent of OWS is to "trash" anything. Many of the nasty pictures people see are AFTER the encampment has been trashed by the police. The OWS camps that I visited (in Seattle and Minneapolis) were clean and well organized. I'm not sure what anti-social behavior he is referring to. OWS is collaborative and sociable by it's very nature. Rioting is anti-social, but it seems to have only happened in Oakland. Oakland has a history of rioting, which cannot be associated with OWS.
3. He states that "wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual". If our "free market" system were truly merit / results based, there would be no reason for OWS to exist. OWS exists because of a peculiar blend of "laissez faire" / crony capitalism, and merit / results NOT being rewarded. OWS exists because the economic and political systems have been corrupted by power, influence and money.
4. He states that "[abuses] are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise". I tend to disagree! Totally free markets are prone to consolidation and manipulation. Mr. Perkins must be living on a planet inhabited by a species much more noble and honest than homo sapiens. Free markets can be beneficial until they are consolidated and manipulated by powerful players. Once that happens the entire system is liable to crash. There are few forces on earth that can challenge the powerful players that manipulate markets, and government regulation is one of them. The fact is that Mr. Perkin's political party has meticulously gutted every state and federal financial regulatory agency.
He closes by saying: "our free market system works when bridled by morality. Not arbitrary morality that changes with political parties, but transcendent moral principles."
Mr. Perkins is again talking about his fantasy planet.
Perhaps on Kolob (planet where God lives according to Mormons), Mr. Perkins morality guides the markets. I suspect that morality guides those markets because Jesus is standing near the opening bell with a whip!
On the planet Earth, the morality of homo sapiens is easily over-run by greed when "no one is watching". Since Jesus isn't standing on Wall Street with a whip, we need some way of controlling the greed, consolidation, and manipulation.
Republicans like to champion the "self regulation" doctrine, while ignoring the complete and repeated failure of that doctrine.
I personally don't support overbearing regulations. But I support regulations that ensure the safety, sustainability, and fairness of industry and markets. Based on results, industry and markets are unable to properly enforce rules even if they make the rules.
I also don't support the idea that OWS should be sleeping in parks. Not only is it an eyesore, it tends to lead to unhygienic conditions. It also has a tendency to attract elements that most Americans would consider deplorable (drugs, prostitution, etc.). People will pay more attention to clean, organized, peaceful protesters than they will dingy, chaotic, rowdy protesters.
IMHO
To use the parable of the minas to claim that Jesus was a free marketer is simply political spin. Keep in mind that Mr. Perkins is the leader of the "Family Research Council", which is one of the most vile homophobic organizations around. The FRC has made it their mission to malign single mothers, poor people, and gay people.
When I read the parable of the Minas, I see industriousness being rewarded and sloth being punished. I see nothing of "free markets".
The reason I doubt Mr. Perkin's "free market" comparison is because of what Jesus actually said (not in a parable) to a wealthy young man who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21
The boy went away sad, unwilling to give up his vast wealth to help the poor. Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24
So, Jesus seems to deplore greedy people who horde wealth and do nothing for the poor. Keeping that in mind, the parable of the Minas (Luke 19) seems to be about rewarding industriousness and punishing sloth.
I would like to point out some fallacies that Mr. Perkins also attempts to pass in his article:
1. He states that "each of us is given the same opportunity to build our lives", which is demonstrably false. The child of an auto mechanic doesn't have the same opportunities as the child of a doctor. The child of a welfare mother does not have the same opportunities as the child of an auto mechanic.
2. He talks about "occupiers" who trash public property, and engage in anti-social behavior. I don't believe the intent of OWS is to "trash" anything. Many of the nasty pictures people see are AFTER the encampment has been trashed by the police. The OWS camps that I visited (in Seattle and Minneapolis) were clean and well organized. I'm not sure what anti-social behavior he is referring to. OWS is collaborative and sociable by it's very nature. Rioting is anti-social, but it seems to have only happened in Oakland. Oakland has a history of rioting, which cannot be associated with OWS.
3. He states that "wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual". If our "free market" system were truly merit / results based, there would be no reason for OWS to exist. OWS exists because of a peculiar blend of "laissez faire" / crony capitalism, and merit / results NOT being rewarded. OWS exists because the economic and political systems have been corrupted by power, influence and money.
4. He states that "[abuses] are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise". I tend to disagree! Totally free markets are prone to consolidation and manipulation. Mr. Perkins must be living on a planet inhabited by a species much more noble and honest than homo sapiens. Free markets can be beneficial until they are consolidated and manipulated by powerful players. Once that happens the entire system is liable to crash. There are few forces on earth that can challenge the powerful players that manipulate markets, and government regulation is one of them. The fact is that Mr. Perkin's political party has meticulously gutted every state and federal financial regulatory agency.
He closes by saying: "our free market system works when bridled by morality. Not arbitrary morality that changes with political parties, but transcendent moral principles."
Mr. Perkins is again talking about his fantasy planet.
Perhaps on Kolob (planet where God lives according to Mormons), Mr. Perkins morality guides the markets. I suspect that morality guides those markets because Jesus is standing near the opening bell with a whip!
On the planet Earth, the morality of homo sapiens is easily over-run by greed when "no one is watching". Since Jesus isn't standing on Wall Street with a whip, we need some way of controlling the greed, consolidation, and manipulation.
Republicans like to champion the "self regulation" doctrine, while ignoring the complete and repeated failure of that doctrine.
I personally don't support overbearing regulations. But I support regulations that ensure the safety, sustainability, and fairness of industry and markets. Based on results, industry and markets are unable to properly enforce rules even if they make the rules.
I also don't support the idea that OWS should be sleeping in parks. Not only is it an eyesore, it tends to lead to unhygienic conditions. It also has a tendency to attract elements that most Americans would consider deplorable (drugs, prostitution, etc.). People will pay more attention to clean, organized, peaceful protesters than they will dingy, chaotic, rowdy protesters.
IMHO
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Pictures from Occupy Oakland that make me nervous
I promised a friend that I would post these pictures I found. I am worried that the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland is being over-run by these communist and anarchist agitators. I'd be willing to be that they are the ones who scream the loudest about police use of force, while actively taunting the police.
Let me clarify that I am well aware the Oakland has a reputation for police brutality. I certainly don't hold the police, mayor, or city council blameless. But it does seem reasonable that certain subversive groups are stirring up trouble for their own political agendas. Whether the agendas are to discredit OWS, or to instigate revolution is not clear.
What is clear is that the General Assembly needs to keep the subversive elements under control. It wouldn't hurt for them to send representatives to the mayor and city council to work out an equitable solution to the safety and sanitation problems.
Here are the pictures:
Protesters disrespecting the flag, and glorifying Che Guerva (a Marxist).
Protesters rioting...
A sign purporting to be from the "international communist worker's party". Admittedly, their website looks like it was designed by a child. It is registered in Panama. It seems possible that this "group" is a ploy to discredit OWS. If it isn't, I want nothing to do with it.
I totally disagree with this sign. Capitalism works MUCH BETTER than communism. I want to reform the system so that jobs are created, economic bubbles are checked, wealth is distributed more evenly, military expenditures are reduced, and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
Again with the communist crap. OVER MY DEAD BODY!
Vandalism...
Vandalism and anarchist symbolism...
I understand that people are angry, but I don't think it is wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. Reform, not revolution!
My guess is that none of these communist agitators have actually lived under communism. Yet, they use the symbolism of communism, and associate communism with freedom. Perhaps they need a history lesson.
Rioters, and what appears to be a PLO style head covering on the guy on the right. While I support the rights of Palestinians, I don't believe we should be imitating the violence of the PLO or islamic fundamentalists in order to reform our system.
Again... what exactly do these people want to replace capitalism with? Reform, not revolution!
I'd love to find this bastard and slap him around a few hundred times. You may disagree with the state of things. You may want change. But when you trample on my flag, you'd better prepare yourself for a BIG FIGHT!
As stated before, OWS needs to reign in the crazy elements. Cool heads need to prevail, or this movement will drive away moderate people. When that happens, it will fail in a violent way.
Let me clarify that I am well aware the Oakland has a reputation for police brutality. I certainly don't hold the police, mayor, or city council blameless. But it does seem reasonable that certain subversive groups are stirring up trouble for their own political agendas. Whether the agendas are to discredit OWS, or to instigate revolution is not clear.
What is clear is that the General Assembly needs to keep the subversive elements under control. It wouldn't hurt for them to send representatives to the mayor and city council to work out an equitable solution to the safety and sanitation problems.
Here are the pictures:
Protesters disrespecting the flag, and glorifying Che Guerva (a Marxist).
Protesters rioting...
A sign purporting to be from the "international communist worker's party". Admittedly, their website looks like it was designed by a child. It is registered in Panama. It seems possible that this "group" is a ploy to discredit OWS. If it isn't, I want nothing to do with it.
I totally disagree with this sign. Capitalism works MUCH BETTER than communism. I want to reform the system so that jobs are created, economic bubbles are checked, wealth is distributed more evenly, military expenditures are reduced, and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
Again with the communist crap. OVER MY DEAD BODY!
Vandalism...
Vandalism and anarchist symbolism...
I understand that people are angry, but I don't think it is wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. Reform, not revolution!
My guess is that none of these communist agitators have actually lived under communism. Yet, they use the symbolism of communism, and associate communism with freedom. Perhaps they need a history lesson.
Rioters, and what appears to be a PLO style head covering on the guy on the right. While I support the rights of Palestinians, I don't believe we should be imitating the violence of the PLO or islamic fundamentalists in order to reform our system.
Again... what exactly do these people want to replace capitalism with? Reform, not revolution!
I'd love to find this bastard and slap him around a few hundred times. You may disagree with the state of things. You may want change. But when you trample on my flag, you'd better prepare yourself for a BIG FIGHT!
As stated before, OWS needs to reign in the crazy elements. Cool heads need to prevail, or this movement will drive away moderate people. When that happens, it will fail in a violent way.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Troy Davis scheduled for execution 9/21/2011
First let me state that I fully support capital punishment for murderers who's guilt is beyond doubt. I would approve of capital punishment for rapists and child molesters who's guilt is beyond doubt. However, I firmly believe that Troy Davis' guilt is questionable. If he is innocent, the state of Georgia will be executing an innocent man on September 21st.
Troy Davis was convicted of murder based on witness testimony. That was 1991 in Savannah, GA.
One of the "witnesses", Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was actually a suspect before he turned states evidence. Here is a picture of Mr. Coles from 2007:
Here is a photo of Mr. Davis from circa 2008:
All the other witnesses, except one, have recanted their testimony citing police coercion. Only one witness is sticking to the original identification of Davis as the murderer.
At the time of his conviction, the Jury seemed to have two choices:
1. Believe one man against the testimony of 6 witnesses (possibly setting a killer free)
2. Convict of murder on the testimony of 6 witnesses.
Here is some information on some of the "witnesses":
1. Atwan Williams - "When the police arrived, I told them I could barely recognize the shooter, I was scared, nervous, I was just trying to take off." When asked if he read the back of the deposition he gave to police, he said "No Sir, I can't read".
2. Kevin McQueen - Has stated that he made up the details of a confession he attributed to Mr. Davis. He now says the confession never took place, and that he made up the confession in exchange for a lighter sentence in another case.
3. Jeffrey Sapp - "I had cops all around me. I was so scared, I'd have told them everything they wanted. They kept saying 'Troy told you, Troy told you.' I was saying the same thing they told me to say."
4. Monty Holmes - "It seemed like they (the police) wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop." "When I had to go to court that first time, I felt like I had to say what was in that statement or I’d be in trouble, so that’s what I did. When it came to the trial though, I didn’t want to go because I knew that the truth was that Troy never told me anything about shooting [the police officer]. I heard the police were coming by to give me a subpoena for trial. I dodged the subpoena but they still left it with my mother. I still didn’t feel like I could walk in a court and say those things so I didn’t go to the trial".
5. Dorothy Ferrell - "I was real tired because it was the middle of the night and I was pregnant too… I was scared that if I didn’t do what the police wanted me to do, then they would try to lock me up again. I was on parole at the time and I had just gotten home from being locked up earlier that year." "From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer."
6. Darrell Collins (16 at the time of the murder) - "I testified against Troy at his trial. I remember that I told the jury that Troy hit the man that Red was arguing with. That is not true. I never saw Troy do anything to the man. I said this at the trial because I was still scared that the police would throw me in jail for being an accessory to murder if I told the truth about what happened. It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail."
7. Larry Young (the homeless man who was being assaulted when the murder took place) - "They kept asking me what had happened at the bus station, and I kept telling them that I didn’t know. Everything happened so fast down there. I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them"
8. Antoine Williams - "They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read."
9. Robert Grizzard - "I have reviewed the transcript of my testimony from the trial of Troy Davis… During my testimony I said that the person who shot the officer was wearing a light coloured shirt. The truth is that I don’t recall now and I didn’t recall then what the shooter was wearing, as I said in my initial statement [to the police]. My testimony to the contrary was an honest mistake on my part… As I said in my statement given on that night, I do not and did not remember what the shooter was wearing."
These statements cause serious doubt in my mind as to the guilt of Mr. Davis. Considering the fact that his conviction was based solely on witness testimony, and the fact that most of the testimony has now been recanted, I believe that Mr. Davis deserves another jury trial. The trial should be based on non-coerced testimony, and the suspicious testimony of Mr. Coles should be eliminated.
The state of Georgia is preparing to execute a man who's guilt is clearly questionable. If you agree that innocent people shouldn't be put to death for the convenience of the state, please click here for more information.
Troy Davis was convicted of murder based on witness testimony. That was 1991 in Savannah, GA.
One of the "witnesses", Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was actually a suspect before he turned states evidence. Here is a picture of Mr. Coles from 2007:
Here is a photo of Mr. Davis from circa 2008:
All the other witnesses, except one, have recanted their testimony citing police coercion. Only one witness is sticking to the original identification of Davis as the murderer.
At the time of his conviction, the Jury seemed to have two choices:
1. Believe one man against the testimony of 6 witnesses (possibly setting a killer free)
2. Convict of murder on the testimony of 6 witnesses.
Here is some information on some of the "witnesses":
1. Atwan Williams - "When the police arrived, I told them I could barely recognize the shooter, I was scared, nervous, I was just trying to take off." When asked if he read the back of the deposition he gave to police, he said "No Sir, I can't read".
2. Kevin McQueen - Has stated that he made up the details of a confession he attributed to Mr. Davis. He now says the confession never took place, and that he made up the confession in exchange for a lighter sentence in another case.
3. Jeffrey Sapp - "I had cops all around me. I was so scared, I'd have told them everything they wanted. They kept saying 'Troy told you, Troy told you.' I was saying the same thing they told me to say."
4. Monty Holmes - "It seemed like they (the police) wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop." "When I had to go to court that first time, I felt like I had to say what was in that statement or I’d be in trouble, so that’s what I did. When it came to the trial though, I didn’t want to go because I knew that the truth was that Troy never told me anything about shooting [the police officer]. I heard the police were coming by to give me a subpoena for trial. I dodged the subpoena but they still left it with my mother. I still didn’t feel like I could walk in a court and say those things so I didn’t go to the trial".
5. Dorothy Ferrell - "I was real tired because it was the middle of the night and I was pregnant too… I was scared that if I didn’t do what the police wanted me to do, then they would try to lock me up again. I was on parole at the time and I had just gotten home from being locked up earlier that year." "From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer."
6. Darrell Collins (16 at the time of the murder) - "I testified against Troy at his trial. I remember that I told the jury that Troy hit the man that Red was arguing with. That is not true. I never saw Troy do anything to the man. I said this at the trial because I was still scared that the police would throw me in jail for being an accessory to murder if I told the truth about what happened. It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail."
7. Larry Young (the homeless man who was being assaulted when the murder took place) - "They kept asking me what had happened at the bus station, and I kept telling them that I didn’t know. Everything happened so fast down there. I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them"
8. Antoine Williams - "They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read."
9. Robert Grizzard - "I have reviewed the transcript of my testimony from the trial of Troy Davis… During my testimony I said that the person who shot the officer was wearing a light coloured shirt. The truth is that I don’t recall now and I didn’t recall then what the shooter was wearing, as I said in my initial statement [to the police]. My testimony to the contrary was an honest mistake on my part… As I said in my statement given on that night, I do not and did not remember what the shooter was wearing."
These statements cause serious doubt in my mind as to the guilt of Mr. Davis. Considering the fact that his conviction was based solely on witness testimony, and the fact that most of the testimony has now been recanted, I believe that Mr. Davis deserves another jury trial. The trial should be based on non-coerced testimony, and the suspicious testimony of Mr. Coles should be eliminated.
The state of Georgia is preparing to execute a man who's guilt is clearly questionable. If you agree that innocent people shouldn't be put to death for the convenience of the state, please click here for more information.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Attention Congress, Repay Borrowed Social Security Funds
It is a well known fact that the government "invests" social security tax revenue in treasury bonds, which really means they put treasury bonds into the old age trust fund and put the cash into the general operating fund. Those funds are then used to fund the bloated federal budget.
But that isn't enough to satisfy the ravenous appetite we have for spending beyond our means. Our government then goes on and borrows hundreds of billions of dollars more to continue spending.
That's what this "debt ceiling" debate is all about. I believe that both parties are to blame for the massive debt caused by out of control spending.
The overall federal budget has grown since Obama took office. But let's take a look at the numbers more closely for 2007 vs. 2010. I chose 2007 because it was the last full year before the economy collapsed. I have stripped out some spending (defense, social security, medicare, and stimulus), for reasons described below. Here are the numbers:
2007 (millions of dollars):
Total Budget: 2,863,084
Defense costs (deduct) 625,835
Social Security (deduct) 588,962
Medicare (deduct) 385,008
Income Security (deduct) 368,026
Jobs Bill (deduct) 0.00
Adjusted Budget: 895,253 (895 billion, 253 million dollars)
2010 (millions of dollars)
Total Budget: 3,600,577
Defense costs (deduct) 722,138
Social Security (deduct) 723,504
Medicare (deduct) 462,087
Income Security (deduct) 664,559
Jobs Bill (deduct) 50,000
Adjusted Budget: 978,289 (978 billion, 289 million dollars)
If you take the "adjusted budget" from 2007 and adjust it for 2.28 (roughly 7% total), you get an inflation adjusted total of 957, 895 (957 billion, 895 million). That is only 20 billion less than the 2010 adjusted budget.
So, in reality Obama has only increased the size of the federal government by 2.13%. Keep in mind, this is using "official inflation" which excludes oil price fluctuation. Real inflation has been more than 2.28% per year since 2007. Oil prices alone increased 68% between Jan 2007 and Jan 2010.
Let me explain my reasoning for deducting some of these expenses. Keep in mind that these deductions were done for both 2007 and 2010 to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
Defense: This really isn't discretionary spending. The fact is, we have two wars going on. We should not place blame on Obama for properly funding our troops. That's why I removed the defense spending.
Social Security: If it were not for the "investment" of social security funds in treasury bonds, the social security system would not be part of the federal budget. It could be, and should be completely separate. These costs are not caused by Obama, but by relentless borrowing over the decades. Not even the increase can be attributed to Obama. That's why I deducted them.
Medicare: For the same reasons as social security.
Income Security: This includes a number of expenses for retirement, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, disability, and nutrition assistance. Most of the increases have been caused by the recession.
Jobs Bill: This was part of the overall stimulus. If you're against stimulus, I urge you to read about Hoover's role in the great depression. Stimulus was necessary to limit the catastrophe, regardless of what political talking heads say.
If you aren't a fan of Obama, that's fine. But keep these numbers in mind when you think about the fiscal outrage coming from the right. If you want low taxes, some of these expenses are going to have to be reduced.
However, it seems that Republicans want to eliminate parts of the national debt (or delay them a good while) by cutting social security and medicare. Since these programs are funded by taxes taken from the paychecks of average workers, and these funds were "borrowed" to keep taxes artificially low, I am absolutely opposed to cutting these programs to continue keeping taxes artificially low. If cuts must be made, they need to be phased in over a decade or more.
If you want a bloated military, fine. If you want massive subsidies to multi-national corporations, fine. If you want to deduct your mortgage interest, fine. If you want a deduction for your children, fine.
But you must be willing to pay the taxes to fund these expenses, deductions, and loopholes. If we continue to have artificially low taxes while we continue our spending binge, we will soon find ourselves insolvent as a nation.
Now let's talk about this debt ceiling debate. Republicans say that Obama isn't willing to compromise on increasing taxes. But the facts show that Obama has "sweetened the pot" for the GOP many times during these negotiations. Obama recently offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional tax revenue.
Economists agree that the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. The defense budget and "core" federal budget exceed tax revenues. Tax revenue must be increased, along with significant spending cuts in order to put our country on a sustainable financial course. If we also invest in small businesses, we will see the job market improve significantly.
But that isn't enough to satisfy the ravenous appetite we have for spending beyond our means. Our government then goes on and borrows hundreds of billions of dollars more to continue spending.
That's what this "debt ceiling" debate is all about. I believe that both parties are to blame for the massive debt caused by out of control spending.
The overall federal budget has grown since Obama took office. But let's take a look at the numbers more closely for 2007 vs. 2010. I chose 2007 because it was the last full year before the economy collapsed. I have stripped out some spending (defense, social security, medicare, and stimulus), for reasons described below. Here are the numbers:
2007 (millions of dollars):
Total Budget: 2,863,084
Defense costs (deduct) 625,835
Social Security (deduct) 588,962
Medicare (deduct) 385,008
Income Security (deduct) 368,026
Jobs Bill (deduct) 0.00
Adjusted Budget: 895,253 (895 billion, 253 million dollars)
2010 (millions of dollars)
Total Budget: 3,600,577
Defense costs (deduct) 722,138
Social Security (deduct) 723,504
Medicare (deduct) 462,087
Income Security (deduct) 664,559
Jobs Bill (deduct) 50,000
Adjusted Budget: 978,289 (978 billion, 289 million dollars)
If you take the "adjusted budget" from 2007 and adjust it for 2.28 (roughly 7% total), you get an inflation adjusted total of 957, 895 (957 billion, 895 million). That is only 20 billion less than the 2010 adjusted budget.
So, in reality Obama has only increased the size of the federal government by 2.13%. Keep in mind, this is using "official inflation" which excludes oil price fluctuation. Real inflation has been more than 2.28% per year since 2007. Oil prices alone increased 68% between Jan 2007 and Jan 2010.
Let me explain my reasoning for deducting some of these expenses. Keep in mind that these deductions were done for both 2007 and 2010 to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
Defense: This really isn't discretionary spending. The fact is, we have two wars going on. We should not place blame on Obama for properly funding our troops. That's why I removed the defense spending.
Social Security: If it were not for the "investment" of social security funds in treasury bonds, the social security system would not be part of the federal budget. It could be, and should be completely separate. These costs are not caused by Obama, but by relentless borrowing over the decades. Not even the increase can be attributed to Obama. That's why I deducted them.
Medicare: For the same reasons as social security.
Income Security: This includes a number of expenses for retirement, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, disability, and nutrition assistance. Most of the increases have been caused by the recession.
Jobs Bill: This was part of the overall stimulus. If you're against stimulus, I urge you to read about Hoover's role in the great depression. Stimulus was necessary to limit the catastrophe, regardless of what political talking heads say.
If you aren't a fan of Obama, that's fine. But keep these numbers in mind when you think about the fiscal outrage coming from the right. If you want low taxes, some of these expenses are going to have to be reduced.
However, it seems that Republicans want to eliminate parts of the national debt (or delay them a good while) by cutting social security and medicare. Since these programs are funded by taxes taken from the paychecks of average workers, and these funds were "borrowed" to keep taxes artificially low, I am absolutely opposed to cutting these programs to continue keeping taxes artificially low. If cuts must be made, they need to be phased in over a decade or more.
If you want a bloated military, fine. If you want massive subsidies to multi-national corporations, fine. If you want to deduct your mortgage interest, fine. If you want a deduction for your children, fine.
But you must be willing to pay the taxes to fund these expenses, deductions, and loopholes. If we continue to have artificially low taxes while we continue our spending binge, we will soon find ourselves insolvent as a nation.
Now let's talk about this debt ceiling debate. Republicans say that Obama isn't willing to compromise on increasing taxes. But the facts show that Obama has "sweetened the pot" for the GOP many times during these negotiations. Obama recently offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional tax revenue.
Economists agree that the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. The defense budget and "core" federal budget exceed tax revenues. Tax revenue must be increased, along with significant spending cuts in order to put our country on a sustainable financial course. If we also invest in small businesses, we will see the job market improve significantly.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
FICA Tax, steal from average workers to cut taxes for the rich
Every wage earner in the United States pays FICA tax, which is the tax that funds social security. Your employer is required to match your contribution, bringing the total tax to 12.4%.
The problem is, there is an income limit of $106,000 above which there is no FICA tax.
The other problem is, the government issues IOUs to the social security trust fund and uses that money to fund the general government operations.
Now, let's look at the swindle:
Based on an IRS study of the 400 wealthiest American taxpayers, their "effective tax rate" was 16.5%. Effective tax rate is basically the final percentage after all deductions, write offs, and loop holes are taken into account.
Now take a taxpayer making $50,000 / year, who does the standard deduction. This taxpayer actually pays around 14% effective tax.
So, when the wealthy complain about higher taxes they really aren't paying that much higher percentage after all their exemptions, write offs, and loop holes.
Then comes social security tax. Add the 6.2% paid by the $50,000 worker, and you come up with 20% tax. Add in the employer's portion (which puts downward pressure on wages), and you actually have a 26% effective tax rate.
With the exemption of wages over $106,000, social security tax has a negligible effect on the effective tax rate of the uber-rich.
Now you may be saying, "So what? Employees eventually get that money back".
Let me demonstrate some scenarios that will unfold as social security becomes depleted.
1. The government will raise the social security tax, as they have done many times. They will likely leave the income exemptions (but likely increase them for inflation). Since the government won't be able to borrow from social security anymore, income taxes will have to be increased to cover government operations.
2. They will phase out social security, leaving millions of American's out in the cold in retirement despite the fact that they paid into the system their whole lives.
In either case, social security taxes have been taken from average wage earners, then transferred to the general operating fund and used to fund the government. When the time comes to pay the IOUs, the government will either cancel the "internal debt" by eliminating social security, or it will raise the social security tax.
The reality is, after social security taxes are taken into account, average wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income to fund the bloated federal government than their wealthy counterparts. Social security taxes are taken disproportionately from average Americans, and those funds used to fund the government, while their wealthy counterparts stop paying into social security after $106,000.
Because the government borrows from social security to keep taxes artificially low, the social security tax is a defacto tax increase on the average American taxpayer. In essence, the wealthy get tax breaks on the backs of average American workers.
While I agree that we need to get our financial house in order, I see nothing being done by either party to fix this problem. We must stop borrowing from the social security trust fund, and we must raise taxes and cut spending to ensure that social security remains viable for current and future workers. If we can't get our financial house in order, we will see a drastic decline in American power, influence, and prestige.
The problem is, there is an income limit of $106,000 above which there is no FICA tax.
The other problem is, the government issues IOUs to the social security trust fund and uses that money to fund the general government operations.
Now, let's look at the swindle:
Based on an IRS study of the 400 wealthiest American taxpayers, their "effective tax rate" was 16.5%. Effective tax rate is basically the final percentage after all deductions, write offs, and loop holes are taken into account.
Now take a taxpayer making $50,000 / year, who does the standard deduction. This taxpayer actually pays around 14% effective tax.
So, when the wealthy complain about higher taxes they really aren't paying that much higher percentage after all their exemptions, write offs, and loop holes.
Then comes social security tax. Add the 6.2% paid by the $50,000 worker, and you come up with 20% tax. Add in the employer's portion (which puts downward pressure on wages), and you actually have a 26% effective tax rate.
With the exemption of wages over $106,000, social security tax has a negligible effect on the effective tax rate of the uber-rich.
Now you may be saying, "So what? Employees eventually get that money back".
Let me demonstrate some scenarios that will unfold as social security becomes depleted.
1. The government will raise the social security tax, as they have done many times. They will likely leave the income exemptions (but likely increase them for inflation). Since the government won't be able to borrow from social security anymore, income taxes will have to be increased to cover government operations.
2. They will phase out social security, leaving millions of American's out in the cold in retirement despite the fact that they paid into the system their whole lives.
In either case, social security taxes have been taken from average wage earners, then transferred to the general operating fund and used to fund the government. When the time comes to pay the IOUs, the government will either cancel the "internal debt" by eliminating social security, or it will raise the social security tax.
The reality is, after social security taxes are taken into account, average wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income to fund the bloated federal government than their wealthy counterparts. Social security taxes are taken disproportionately from average Americans, and those funds used to fund the government, while their wealthy counterparts stop paying into social security after $106,000.
Because the government borrows from social security to keep taxes artificially low, the social security tax is a defacto tax increase on the average American taxpayer. In essence, the wealthy get tax breaks on the backs of average American workers.
While I agree that we need to get our financial house in order, I see nothing being done by either party to fix this problem. We must stop borrowing from the social security trust fund, and we must raise taxes and cut spending to ensure that social security remains viable for current and future workers. If we can't get our financial house in order, we will see a drastic decline in American power, influence, and prestige.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)