As those of us who are greeted each morning with The Courier, we are never surprised to see the absurd statements of our putative U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan. Jim was at it again in Bluffton on Wednesday. This was reported in The Courier in the Thursday, November 12, 2009 edition. I suggest that at some point this swill must stop, unfortunately, area newspaper reporters do not have the fortitude to ask questions or think. Let me provide a little response.
We know that the United States must fully embrace a health care system that provides care for health, seeks to prevent illness and rewards practices for good health. We must also embrace health care as a moral imperative and duty to each American.
Mr. Jordan's views of health care are based on self-serving myths and his fulfillment of a do nothing political agenda. His statement that it is a moral question sounds good, but has no basis in fact or any morality associated with humanity. With reference to his defense of Joe Wilson, Jim Jordan is the person who is not being straightforward with his constituents.
It is now an established fact that nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published on September 17, 2009 by the American Journal of Public Health. The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. Call this whatever you want, it is a moral statement.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease. An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths, as the uninsured are more likely to go without needed care. Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who do not is the improved quality of care for those who can get it. The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured.
Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”
Jim Jordan lives in a world of delusion. The United States now ranks 31st in life expectancy according to the latest World Health Organization figures. This puts us up with Kuwait and Chile. The United States is 37th in infant mortality and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is 2 1/2 times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden. An American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland. This is a moral wrong and travesty in human terms.
I suggest that we can use common sense to provide universal health care through a nonprofit national health plan. We can participate in a system that rewards good health practices, that cares for health. A system where each of us can allow the physician or medical provider of their choice to see a comprehensive – on line - medical record. This alone would dramatically reduce unnecessary tests, missed prescriptions, conflicting diagnosis and decrease medical malpractice claims without demanding the forfeiture of patient’s rights. We may not be told that our doctor is “out of network” or that the procedure is considered “optional” without a separate medical opinion that must be covered by the patient.
How much can we save? I suggest that the savings alone will pay for the system. The final fact is that for those Americans below the age of 65, health care may be questionable, for those over 65, health care improves dramatically – why – think about it. Yes, the answer is a government run health care system – that appears to care for health. Why should we have to wait until we are 65 years old before entitlement to that care? We need politics beyond scare tactics and patriotically worded answers beyond tea bags.
American health care is a moral issue that when placed in the lives of people, we “the people” do know better. Jim Jordan – You Lie.
Respectfully, John F. Kostyo
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
No Excuse
It is a great new day for the United States, for the American People and for recognition that we have resumed a role of leadership in our world. Yes, this is in recognition that Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, is the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
With an invitation that you read Paul Krugman’s article in today’s New York Times entitled “The Uneducated American” we may expect to face again a question where American school students will be able to watch their President receive and deliver a Nobel Peace Prize address. Perhaps there will be another opportunity for local students to “op-out.”
Perhaps it is also time for schools to look for new educators and principals and superintendents. Is there little wonder why there may be consideration that those in favor of public education feel compelled to “op-out” of supporting schools that no longer support education?
This time, there is no excuse.
With an invitation that you read Paul Krugman’s article in today’s New York Times entitled “The Uneducated American” we may expect to face again a question where American school students will be able to watch their President receive and deliver a Nobel Peace Prize address. Perhaps there will be another opportunity for local students to “op-out.”
Perhaps it is also time for schools to look for new educators and principals and superintendents. Is there little wonder why there may be consideration that those in favor of public education feel compelled to “op-out” of supporting schools that no longer support education?
This time, there is no excuse.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama will address American school children from a classroom at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. He will commend dedicated teachers, compliment supportive parents and charge each student with the responsibility for their studies while telling them that remaining in school will help each realize the opportunities of a good education. He even plans to end the classroom “pep talk” with “God Bless you, and God bless America.” This is a message that may be feared and restricted by school administrators, school board members and concerned parents.
Certainly it is a message to be feared when delivered by a man reared in a single parent household and supported by grandparents. With this background, Barack Obama studied sufficiently enough to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He was the president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. While his words and message may be lost on many educational leaders, most of whom may not fathom the academic rigor of a competitive university or law school, one may only wonder how many young people in our schools may study just a little more, work harder and seek to realize a greater part of that great evolution called the American Dream as the result of his words.
The word appalling should appear foremost in the Tuesday, September 8, 2009 lexicon of educational “leaders” who have dutifully followed the punditry of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others who claim a victory for conservative America by forcing school districts to decline participation, offer an “opt out” or require “parental consent.” Beyond this, it is more important for conservative America to make a statement by keeping their children out of school or away from this message than allow a Democratic President to tell their children that working hard in school and scholarship will allow them to realize the benefits of a good education.
As school superintendents and educators sort between the apples and oranges drawn in comparisons from similar addresses by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that were included in the school curriculums at the time, it is readily apparent that an address to students given by Barack Obama is different. It is considerably different when cloaked in the verbal apology of words that seek to shelter our students from the potential threats of socialization and politicization that President Obama represents. It may not foster the correct image that some may want of an educated person.
At a time when our schools and universities face ever greater challenges to educate individuals for competition in a world economy, President Obama’s message of education is compromised in the convenient naiveté of school administrators. The world economy is blind to political convenience or the sheltered innocence so desired by protective policies. The goal of education for our schools and universities must be to inspire and allow each student to achieve the highest level of learning and accomplishment possible. The critical question continues to be whether our educators and school administrators have the fortitude of character, wisdom and vision to allow that potential. When an address to American school students by our President becomes subject to parental permission slips, the failure of character, wisdom and vision is not found in our children.
As Respectfully As Possible -
Certainly it is a message to be feared when delivered by a man reared in a single parent household and supported by grandparents. With this background, Barack Obama studied sufficiently enough to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He was the president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. While his words and message may be lost on many educational leaders, most of whom may not fathom the academic rigor of a competitive university or law school, one may only wonder how many young people in our schools may study just a little more, work harder and seek to realize a greater part of that great evolution called the American Dream as the result of his words.
The word appalling should appear foremost in the Tuesday, September 8, 2009 lexicon of educational “leaders” who have dutifully followed the punditry of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others who claim a victory for conservative America by forcing school districts to decline participation, offer an “opt out” or require “parental consent.” Beyond this, it is more important for conservative America to make a statement by keeping their children out of school or away from this message than allow a Democratic President to tell their children that working hard in school and scholarship will allow them to realize the benefits of a good education.
As school superintendents and educators sort between the apples and oranges drawn in comparisons from similar addresses by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that were included in the school curriculums at the time, it is readily apparent that an address to students given by Barack Obama is different. It is considerably different when cloaked in the verbal apology of words that seek to shelter our students from the potential threats of socialization and politicization that President Obama represents. It may not foster the correct image that some may want of an educated person.
At a time when our schools and universities face ever greater challenges to educate individuals for competition in a world economy, President Obama’s message of education is compromised in the convenient naiveté of school administrators. The world economy is blind to political convenience or the sheltered innocence so desired by protective policies. The goal of education for our schools and universities must be to inspire and allow each student to achieve the highest level of learning and accomplishment possible. The critical question continues to be whether our educators and school administrators have the fortitude of character, wisdom and vision to allow that potential. When an address to American school students by our President becomes subject to parental permission slips, the failure of character, wisdom and vision is not found in our children.
As Respectfully As Possible -
Saturday, July 11, 2009
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?
One must wonder how the suggestion that robust debate on critical issues is dependent on a well educated electorate entails a digression into pathological Pavlovian hyperbole. Let me be clear, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are an insult to Republicans and conservatives. Similarly, the engagement in abject idiocy as provided by the growling and barked responses of Mark P. Miller, Loren L. Pace, Lonnie H. Greer and Ryan C. McDonald are the actual plague that threatens critically necessary conservative thought and input into genuine political debate. The bottom line here is that no matter how insulting, reprehensible or ridiculous the attack dogs cannot help themselves.
Mr. Miller finds logical connections between Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the University of Virginia, the government of our founders, and agenda-driven science with the U.N.; a slur of his personal amusement in bumper stickers on foreign cars; innuendo about a control driven agenda; screaming or begging for an insurgent beheading and summary personal conclusions. More, Mr. Miller’s sub-literate meanderings fail to rise to the level of debate. It is possible that Mr. Miller missed his self-prescribed insurgent beheading and simply lobotomized himself.
Loren L. Pace engages in a diatribe of inconsistent references while begging the request for use of primary sources. Apparently, for Loren words like: “Democrat liberalism,” “leftists,” “secular progressives,” “socialistic, left-leaning indoctrination,” and “socialistic tendencies” have meaning beyond antiquated cold war jargon; although, such meanings are only found within his own edification. One must hope that the jargon is a substitute for carefully considered analysis. For Loren, this is considerably absent notwithstanding his extraneous appeals to unsubstantiated conclusions. Sorry Loren, you still missed the primary references, maybe best to stay in cold war politics or just look up ignoratio elenchi in your Latin dictionary.
An alternate dimension or parallel universe is embraced in the Rush and Sean fueled world of Lonnie Greer where the Outer Limits are alive and well at his house in Arcadia, Ohio. In these confines, Lonnie can witness the new socialist state rise from the pre-sophomoric rantings Hannity and Limbaugh. Lonnie is unique in imbecilic ability to accept the insights of two men who failed to complete a year of college against a graduate of Columbia University; a Harvard educated lawyer; President of Harvard Law Review, one of the most cited law reviews in the United States and a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. In this, he suggests that two men who have demonstrated no constitutional comprehension have greater insight than someone who actually read both the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution and graduated from an esteemed law school. Perhaps Lonnie should voice similar criticism of United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Articles Editor Vol. 77; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Editor for 1 year before transfer to Columbia Law School; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Managing Editor for Vol. 92 and Justice Antonin Scalia, Notes Editor for Volume 73; but, that would just be perceived as absurd or patently stupid. It is far easier for Lonnie to make statements with no idea about what he is saying or restricting himself to facts verifiable in the real world. The return of Star Trek has allowed Lonnie to investigate strange new worlds - by himself. The best suggestion for Lonnie is to seek professional help, add more padding to his walls or volunteer for an interview with a Washington Post Reporter.
For Ryan C. McDonald, we must hope that he does rediscover actual conservatism. Perhaps he may do this by separating political and economic concepts. Present review of our United States government reveals that we continue to enjoy life within the framework of a constitutionally based democratic republic. We elect our representatives in public and popular elections. Socialism refers to a number of theories involving economic organizations of state or cooperative ownership. There is no evidence that the present administration has advocated any such economic alternatives. Private rights and ownership have been preserved even with the infusion of public funds to re-capitalize private enterprise. No gifts were made; although, it is possible that Mr. McDonald would desire significant economic and manufacturing interests fail to remain consistent with the actual failure of Reagan and Bush economics. If we may seek to reclaim our roots, perhaps we need to actually study the words, acts and writings that motivated our founders rather than engage in romantic reminisces of conservative mythology. John Hancock, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, among others, were outlawed revolutionaries and traitors who were subject to hanging by British soldiers. Good conservative roots there for you Ryan.
The challenge continues to be a duty for “We the People” to be responsible for our experience under our constitutional democratic republic, particularly now that it appears – the dogs are out. Here boys! Sit – roll over – beg. Good dogs – don’t bite.
Mr. Miller finds logical connections between Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the University of Virginia, the government of our founders, and agenda-driven science with the U.N.; a slur of his personal amusement in bumper stickers on foreign cars; innuendo about a control driven agenda; screaming or begging for an insurgent beheading and summary personal conclusions. More, Mr. Miller’s sub-literate meanderings fail to rise to the level of debate. It is possible that Mr. Miller missed his self-prescribed insurgent beheading and simply lobotomized himself.
Loren L. Pace engages in a diatribe of inconsistent references while begging the request for use of primary sources. Apparently, for Loren words like: “Democrat liberalism,” “leftists,” “secular progressives,” “socialistic, left-leaning indoctrination,” and “socialistic tendencies” have meaning beyond antiquated cold war jargon; although, such meanings are only found within his own edification. One must hope that the jargon is a substitute for carefully considered analysis. For Loren, this is considerably absent notwithstanding his extraneous appeals to unsubstantiated conclusions. Sorry Loren, you still missed the primary references, maybe best to stay in cold war politics or just look up ignoratio elenchi in your Latin dictionary.
An alternate dimension or parallel universe is embraced in the Rush and Sean fueled world of Lonnie Greer where the Outer Limits are alive and well at his house in Arcadia, Ohio. In these confines, Lonnie can witness the new socialist state rise from the pre-sophomoric rantings Hannity and Limbaugh. Lonnie is unique in imbecilic ability to accept the insights of two men who failed to complete a year of college against a graduate of Columbia University; a Harvard educated lawyer; President of Harvard Law Review, one of the most cited law reviews in the United States and a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. In this, he suggests that two men who have demonstrated no constitutional comprehension have greater insight than someone who actually read both the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution and graduated from an esteemed law school. Perhaps Lonnie should voice similar criticism of United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Articles Editor Vol. 77; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Editor for 1 year before transfer to Columbia Law School; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Managing Editor for Vol. 92 and Justice Antonin Scalia, Notes Editor for Volume 73; but, that would just be perceived as absurd or patently stupid. It is far easier for Lonnie to make statements with no idea about what he is saying or restricting himself to facts verifiable in the real world. The return of Star Trek has allowed Lonnie to investigate strange new worlds - by himself. The best suggestion for Lonnie is to seek professional help, add more padding to his walls or volunteer for an interview with a Washington Post Reporter.
For Ryan C. McDonald, we must hope that he does rediscover actual conservatism. Perhaps he may do this by separating political and economic concepts. Present review of our United States government reveals that we continue to enjoy life within the framework of a constitutionally based democratic republic. We elect our representatives in public and popular elections. Socialism refers to a number of theories involving economic organizations of state or cooperative ownership. There is no evidence that the present administration has advocated any such economic alternatives. Private rights and ownership have been preserved even with the infusion of public funds to re-capitalize private enterprise. No gifts were made; although, it is possible that Mr. McDonald would desire significant economic and manufacturing interests fail to remain consistent with the actual failure of Reagan and Bush economics. If we may seek to reclaim our roots, perhaps we need to actually study the words, acts and writings that motivated our founders rather than engage in romantic reminisces of conservative mythology. John Hancock, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, among others, were outlawed revolutionaries and traitors who were subject to hanging by British soldiers. Good conservative roots there for you Ryan.
The challenge continues to be a duty for “We the People” to be responsible for our experience under our constitutional democratic republic, particularly now that it appears – the dogs are out. Here boys! Sit – roll over – beg. Good dogs – don’t bite.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Dispelling the Myth
The results are in and its time that they are released to the public. Over the past 58 years, “The politics of Democratic presidents have produced more employment and output growth, benefiting poor and middle-class families” while “Republican presidents have tended to focus more on containing inflation, which has negligible effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but substantial effects at the top.” In addition, the average unemployment rate has averaged almost 2 percentage points less and GNP growth has increased over 1 percentage point more over the same 58 years under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones. These findings are according to Princeton Economist Larry Bartels (a self proclaimed politically neutral observer who last voted for Regan) from his most recent analysis on the political economy which can be found in his new book Unequal Democracy.
More research by Bartels’s colleague Paul Krugman (a self proclaimed “progressive” whose ideals align with the current Democratic party but more so with the socioeconomic policies of FDR) indicates that since 1973 the top .01% of American’s have seen their incomes increase five times while the median inflation adjusted income of “working class” American’s has not statistically changed by any observable amount despite the fact that the average worker’s productivity has increased by 50%. This means that there has been absolutely no money trickling down from the rich to the poor over the past 40 plus years which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that supply side economics is a myth that was sold to wealthy businessmen who read slanted op-eds in the Wall Street Journal that appealed to their own biases and funded campaigns who in turn implemented policies benefiting their backers.
These facts are important today because it is likely - if not inevitable - that the economy will continue to slide for at least the entirety of President Obama’s first year in office, however it must be kept in mind that these failings are not due to his policies but the failed republican economic policies during the Bush Administration. So it is crucial that the majority of the American people continue to push for current democratic efforts to reinstate a stable welfare state and eliminate the tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans.
by Stephen J. Kostyo
More research by Bartels’s colleague Paul Krugman (a self proclaimed “progressive” whose ideals align with the current Democratic party but more so with the socioeconomic policies of FDR) indicates that since 1973 the top .01% of American’s have seen their incomes increase five times while the median inflation adjusted income of “working class” American’s has not statistically changed by any observable amount despite the fact that the average worker’s productivity has increased by 50%. This means that there has been absolutely no money trickling down from the rich to the poor over the past 40 plus years which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that supply side economics is a myth that was sold to wealthy businessmen who read slanted op-eds in the Wall Street Journal that appealed to their own biases and funded campaigns who in turn implemented policies benefiting their backers.
These facts are important today because it is likely - if not inevitable - that the economy will continue to slide for at least the entirety of President Obama’s first year in office, however it must be kept in mind that these failings are not due to his policies but the failed republican economic policies during the Bush Administration. So it is crucial that the majority of the American people continue to push for current democratic efforts to reinstate a stable welfare state and eliminate the tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans.
by Stephen J. Kostyo
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Robust Debate
There is good reason why the words “We the People” begin the Constitution of the United States. These words evidence the legitimacy of our government in a consent of and from the people governed. It is in this eloquence that we witness the democratic vision of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson in our constitutional democratic republic.
In the words “We the People” there is a critical and constant reminder that the responsibility of government begins with us. As a result, robust debate is not dependent on the media, present administration in Washington or Congress. The debate of critical issues that confront our community, our state and country begin with and depend on - us.
With the responsibility of citizenship, there is a duty vested in each and every citizen to seek, engage and pursue information necessary for robust debate. If we are to seek and find solutions to our present economic challenges; develop renewable alternatives to limited fossil fuel resources; reform our health care system to care for health and achieve the highest level of education possible for each person, then we must force ourselves to step beyond the dog-whistle political punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others who offer unsubstantiated conclusions rather than solutions.
Reference to dog-whistle punditry is not a compliment. It is a frequently used device that seeks acceptance of assumed facts. The term also describes a litany of appeals to assumptions that fail any scrutiny under critical review. At the same time, all too many never question.
If probative thought is sought rather a Pavlovian response, then reference must be demanded for reports from the Congressional Research Service, Council of Economic Advisers; or primary source material. The singular challenging fact is the sources do not exist for the conclusions made by dog-whistle politicos.
For “We the People,” Thomas Jefferson envisioned a university plan so broad, liberal and modern to merit public support and tempt even those from great distances. Jefferson’s proposed university was a place of study at the highest level with the greatest of world renowned scholars. In this “We the People” finds renewed vitality. The success of dog-whistle pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity evidence a failure of “We the People” to live up to the vision of our founders.
Even for “dog-whistle” followers we must hope that the level of inquiry and comprehension may exceed marginal high school acumen and failed college profundity. At the very least, it must rise above success through bombastic self-promotion, situational disregard for truth, gender and sex based bias, homophobia and bigotry. Perhaps we may instill in our children a level of intellectual curiosity or basic ability to think so they may survive one or two college semesters before undertaking leadership of the Republican Party.
In the words “We the People” there is a critical and constant reminder that the responsibility of government begins with us. As a result, robust debate is not dependent on the media, present administration in Washington or Congress. The debate of critical issues that confront our community, our state and country begin with and depend on - us.
With the responsibility of citizenship, there is a duty vested in each and every citizen to seek, engage and pursue information necessary for robust debate. If we are to seek and find solutions to our present economic challenges; develop renewable alternatives to limited fossil fuel resources; reform our health care system to care for health and achieve the highest level of education possible for each person, then we must force ourselves to step beyond the dog-whistle political punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others who offer unsubstantiated conclusions rather than solutions.
Reference to dog-whistle punditry is not a compliment. It is a frequently used device that seeks acceptance of assumed facts. The term also describes a litany of appeals to assumptions that fail any scrutiny under critical review. At the same time, all too many never question.
If probative thought is sought rather a Pavlovian response, then reference must be demanded for reports from the Congressional Research Service, Council of Economic Advisers; or primary source material. The singular challenging fact is the sources do not exist for the conclusions made by dog-whistle politicos.
For “We the People,” Thomas Jefferson envisioned a university plan so broad, liberal and modern to merit public support and tempt even those from great distances. Jefferson’s proposed university was a place of study at the highest level with the greatest of world renowned scholars. In this “We the People” finds renewed vitality. The success of dog-whistle pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity evidence a failure of “We the People” to live up to the vision of our founders.
Even for “dog-whistle” followers we must hope that the level of inquiry and comprehension may exceed marginal high school acumen and failed college profundity. At the very least, it must rise above success through bombastic self-promotion, situational disregard for truth, gender and sex based bias, homophobia and bigotry. Perhaps we may instill in our children a level of intellectual curiosity or basic ability to think so they may survive one or two college semesters before undertaking leadership of the Republican Party.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Fear Again
Time to gather the women and children, circle the wagons and batten down the hatches – we are in for a big one. You can bet that everything will hit the fan this time around. So -
Be afraid. Then, be more afraid because Jim Jordan and Bob Latta, Ohio 4th and 5th Congressional District Representatives, want you to be fearful that “cap-and-trade” in the Waxman-Markey Bill (The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) will cost jobs, increase energy costs, constitute an energy tax and drive manufacturing plants overseas to counties with lower environmental regulations. In response, it appears that Jordan and Latta propose – nothing – nada – zilch – zippo - only that they have “beliefs” and “feelings” based on hack studies from think tanks and pseudo-scientific reports funded by oil and coal industries. Such leadership should create fear – a fear that these do nothing politicians will – do nothing.
The fact is every part of their beliefs and feelings depends on the continued illiteracy of their constituents or that most are just too lazy to read the legislative draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Heck, if that is too much, one may just read the U.S. House of Representatives “Discussion Draft Summary” of the Act.
The Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” is designed to create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance American energy independence and reduce global warming. The Act has four parts: (1) clean energy in fuels, vehicles and an efficient electrical grid; (2) the promotion of energy efficiency through all economic sectors like building, appliances; transportation and industry; (3) limits on the emission of heat-trapping pollutants that contribute to “global warming;” and (4) a transition provision that protects United States consumers and industries while promoting green energy jobs in the adjustment to a green – clean – energy economy.
Hum – reading the Act or U.S. House “Discussion Draft” one can only wonder what Jordan or Latta are using as an authoritative legislative reference for their beliefs and feelings. Their statements of Ohio jobs lost, relocated manufacturing plants, sky-rocketing energy costs and tables without food are unsubstantiated conclusive fear mongering about the choice of putting food on the table or paying energy bills. The very best thing each citizen can and should do is – READ THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFT.
The Jordan – Latta objection to the Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade is just wrong. Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, states: “In principle, emission taxes and tradable emission permits are equally effective at limiting pollution. In practice, cap and trade has some major advantages, especially for achieving effective international cooperation.” Krugman: “The Perfect, the Good, the Planet” New York Times Op-Ed May 18, 2009. Waxman-Markey gives viable incentives for power industry polluters to reduce their emissions so they can sell excess permits issued by the government. The appeal for this is based on the fact that similar efforts have worked in the control of acid rain.
While Jordan and Latta believe that jobs will be lost. One must pause in quiet reflection to ponder what these legislative wizards have done to invite new clean energy jobs, or any jobs for that matter, into their districts. Nothing. The conclusion made that: “Any new jobs created will not even come close to compensating for jobs lost to this energy plan.” is mistaken. It is a conclusion made when doing nothing results in the same – nothing. It must be said that creating jobs requires action, strong and decisive action by entrepreneurs and business leaders who take action. There is no wallowing in the constraints of beliefs and feelings as those who see doing nothing as strong decisive action. Real business leaders share one great trait – they act.
If Jordan or Latta wish to be taken seriously perhaps they can seek to assist or simply foster establishing green energy jobs in the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts. There are profound and serious movements within major cities, on progressive college and university campuses and in schools to take steps toward greening their cities, campuses and schools. Perhaps the leaders of these movements have realized that doing nothing now will cost the citizens of Ohio and our country far more that working to build renewable energy sources and a smart electrical grid; build and renovate homes and businesses for greater energy efficiency; limit pollutants while protecting consumers and industry. Someone has to do this – sounds like – jobs.
The fact is that Jordan and Latta just do not get it. What they do know is that if you are afraid, you will need them to protect you. Who knows and they do not care from what – only that you react in fear. The protection we need is by demanding that we in the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts seek to lead in business, education, jobs and training necessary to build our economy, rebuild our businesses and refurbish our factories. At one time women did cut wood in Findlay, Ohio; then we discovered how to use our resources and abilities to compliment our communities, invite business and entrepreneurship. That time has come again in a new format. Fear can only guarantee our failure.
John F. Kostyo
Be afraid. Then, be more afraid because Jim Jordan and Bob Latta, Ohio 4th and 5th Congressional District Representatives, want you to be fearful that “cap-and-trade” in the Waxman-Markey Bill (The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) will cost jobs, increase energy costs, constitute an energy tax and drive manufacturing plants overseas to counties with lower environmental regulations. In response, it appears that Jordan and Latta propose – nothing – nada – zilch – zippo - only that they have “beliefs” and “feelings” based on hack studies from think tanks and pseudo-scientific reports funded by oil and coal industries. Such leadership should create fear – a fear that these do nothing politicians will – do nothing.
The fact is every part of their beliefs and feelings depends on the continued illiteracy of their constituents or that most are just too lazy to read the legislative draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Heck, if that is too much, one may just read the U.S. House of Representatives “Discussion Draft Summary” of the Act.
The Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” is designed to create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance American energy independence and reduce global warming. The Act has four parts: (1) clean energy in fuels, vehicles and an efficient electrical grid; (2) the promotion of energy efficiency through all economic sectors like building, appliances; transportation and industry; (3) limits on the emission of heat-trapping pollutants that contribute to “global warming;” and (4) a transition provision that protects United States consumers and industries while promoting green energy jobs in the adjustment to a green – clean – energy economy.
Hum – reading the Act or U.S. House “Discussion Draft” one can only wonder what Jordan or Latta are using as an authoritative legislative reference for their beliefs and feelings. Their statements of Ohio jobs lost, relocated manufacturing plants, sky-rocketing energy costs and tables without food are unsubstantiated conclusive fear mongering about the choice of putting food on the table or paying energy bills. The very best thing each citizen can and should do is – READ THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFT.
The Jordan – Latta objection to the Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade is just wrong. Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, states: “In principle, emission taxes and tradable emission permits are equally effective at limiting pollution. In practice, cap and trade has some major advantages, especially for achieving effective international cooperation.” Krugman: “The Perfect, the Good, the Planet” New York Times Op-Ed May 18, 2009. Waxman-Markey gives viable incentives for power industry polluters to reduce their emissions so they can sell excess permits issued by the government. The appeal for this is based on the fact that similar efforts have worked in the control of acid rain.
While Jordan and Latta believe that jobs will be lost. One must pause in quiet reflection to ponder what these legislative wizards have done to invite new clean energy jobs, or any jobs for that matter, into their districts. Nothing. The conclusion made that: “Any new jobs created will not even come close to compensating for jobs lost to this energy plan.” is mistaken. It is a conclusion made when doing nothing results in the same – nothing. It must be said that creating jobs requires action, strong and decisive action by entrepreneurs and business leaders who take action. There is no wallowing in the constraints of beliefs and feelings as those who see doing nothing as strong decisive action. Real business leaders share one great trait – they act.
If Jordan or Latta wish to be taken seriously perhaps they can seek to assist or simply foster establishing green energy jobs in the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts. There are profound and serious movements within major cities, on progressive college and university campuses and in schools to take steps toward greening their cities, campuses and schools. Perhaps the leaders of these movements have realized that doing nothing now will cost the citizens of Ohio and our country far more that working to build renewable energy sources and a smart electrical grid; build and renovate homes and businesses for greater energy efficiency; limit pollutants while protecting consumers and industry. Someone has to do this – sounds like – jobs.
The fact is that Jordan and Latta just do not get it. What they do know is that if you are afraid, you will need them to protect you. Who knows and they do not care from what – only that you react in fear. The protection we need is by demanding that we in the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts seek to lead in business, education, jobs and training necessary to build our economy, rebuild our businesses and refurbish our factories. At one time women did cut wood in Findlay, Ohio; then we discovered how to use our resources and abilities to compliment our communities, invite business and entrepreneurship. That time has come again in a new format. Fear can only guarantee our failure.
John F. Kostyo
Monday, May 18, 2009
Look Over There!
On the counter as you entered our kitchen was a beautiful bone china cookie jar. It was a precious heirloom from my grandmother’s house. That cookie jar was even more precious when it was filled with my mother’s cookies. Of course, mom had rules that prohibited free cookie access. As a result, my sisters and I engaged in conspiratorial raids of that cookie jar.
The raids were well orchestrated collaborations with the single purpose of relieving the jar of its cookies. This included a location survey to determine the whereabouts of “mom.” Then one sister would distract “mom” while another sister or I raided the cookie jar. The distraction worked best when it completely encompassed my mother’s attention to provide sufficient time for a full cookie jar raid. When mom got close to the kitchen during a raid – the call line was: “Hey mom, look over there!” This made sure mom was looking anywhere but where the actual raid was taking place.
Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, GOP poet laureate Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele and the choir of Republican Pundits are on a cookie jar raid. Well, actually – they are more focused on the “Look over there!” part with a hope that we forget entirely about the cookies or jar. All they need to do is keep focus on the distraction – any distraction, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Whoever or whatever the distraction is – the answer Newt, John, Mitch, Mike, Michael and their minions offer is that it is not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or anyone from the dishonored Bush Administration. Listen closely: “Look over there!” Anywhere! Forget the cookie jar.
Before we sold our souls to politics, political parties and rabid punditry, the United States was a democratic republic established by revolutionary founders under a Constitution. We lived in one nation under God who gave us moral strength in a home of the brave and land of the free. Our respect for “the rule of law” was a guiding light, a source of pride that blended with a sense of moral strength and patriotic furor. It was our defense of freedom, the blood of our founders, the greatest generation, our value for the rights of others, our respect for human dignity - all that made our country a land where laws and moral strength blended into a free and proud people. These are the actual cookies in the jar of democracy. Cookies so valued that we cannot live without them – even if we forget them for a moment.
Let’s deal with it straight up. Waterboarding is torture as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. There is no moral exemption. It is straight out illegal – a crime. It is a crime that does not survive the “good information” exemption. If you consider what someone may say during torture, truth appears secondary at best. It is a crime even when there may be some thought that torturing a terrorist who may be responsible for thousands of lost lives may be sold as morally just. It is not. This compromise cannot be accepted. There is no party excuse.
The point is we, the people of the United States, as a country that survives on the moral strength and blind justice of its laws and Constitution with no person above the law, cannot excuse torture. Nor can we protect those who chose to abandon our great history, our Constitution, our laws, our moral strength to allow torture. The choir of Republican Pundits are far more interested in politics than truth, the moral strength in the character of the American people or actual respect for our laws. If we keep listening, perhaps we will all end up just tossing our cookies. “Look over there!”
John F. Kostyo
The raids were well orchestrated collaborations with the single purpose of relieving the jar of its cookies. This included a location survey to determine the whereabouts of “mom.” Then one sister would distract “mom” while another sister or I raided the cookie jar. The distraction worked best when it completely encompassed my mother’s attention to provide sufficient time for a full cookie jar raid. When mom got close to the kitchen during a raid – the call line was: “Hey mom, look over there!” This made sure mom was looking anywhere but where the actual raid was taking place.
Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, GOP poet laureate Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele and the choir of Republican Pundits are on a cookie jar raid. Well, actually – they are more focused on the “Look over there!” part with a hope that we forget entirely about the cookies or jar. All they need to do is keep focus on the distraction – any distraction, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Whoever or whatever the distraction is – the answer Newt, John, Mitch, Mike, Michael and their minions offer is that it is not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or anyone from the dishonored Bush Administration. Listen closely: “Look over there!” Anywhere! Forget the cookie jar.
Before we sold our souls to politics, political parties and rabid punditry, the United States was a democratic republic established by revolutionary founders under a Constitution. We lived in one nation under God who gave us moral strength in a home of the brave and land of the free. Our respect for “the rule of law” was a guiding light, a source of pride that blended with a sense of moral strength and patriotic furor. It was our defense of freedom, the blood of our founders, the greatest generation, our value for the rights of others, our respect for human dignity - all that made our country a land where laws and moral strength blended into a free and proud people. These are the actual cookies in the jar of democracy. Cookies so valued that we cannot live without them – even if we forget them for a moment.
Let’s deal with it straight up. Waterboarding is torture as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. There is no moral exemption. It is straight out illegal – a crime. It is a crime that does not survive the “good information” exemption. If you consider what someone may say during torture, truth appears secondary at best. It is a crime even when there may be some thought that torturing a terrorist who may be responsible for thousands of lost lives may be sold as morally just. It is not. This compromise cannot be accepted. There is no party excuse.
The point is we, the people of the United States, as a country that survives on the moral strength and blind justice of its laws and Constitution with no person above the law, cannot excuse torture. Nor can we protect those who chose to abandon our great history, our Constitution, our laws, our moral strength to allow torture. The choir of Republican Pundits are far more interested in politics than truth, the moral strength in the character of the American people or actual respect for our laws. If we keep listening, perhaps we will all end up just tossing our cookies. “Look over there!”
John F. Kostyo
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Smell of Conservative Values
While growing up on Bell Avenue in Findlay, Ohio during the late 50’s and early 60’s, I witnessed difficult economic times and job layoffs. These were greeted with understanding neighbors borrowing sugar, a cup of flour and trading in children’s clothes. There was a time when the only money my parents had at the end of a month was enough to buy one Sundae at Diesch’s Bros. Ice Cream. It was wonderful. I once witnessed a dinner of Lake Erie perch exchanged for a few Old Dutch beers. Eventually the sugar, flour and clothes were paid back in one way or another and a mutual or shared responsibility was accepted. I believe this was repeated in many neighborhoods. It is what made where we lived then and grew up the very best place and the people there – neighbors.
It might be said that those were far simpler times. Then it seemed the worst thing that a kid could do was to hang from the cat walks at the old Producer’s Stock Yard on East Bigelow and fall into a big pile of whatever was piled up enough to fall into. Of course, by that point, there was no way to credibly deny where you were or what you were doing. You simply had to accept responsibility and fess up. A plea of excuses just did not work because the evidence of what you had fallen into was all too apparent.
A similar result occurs when Congressman Jim Jordan seeks to use the profound wisdom of Winston Churchill to obfuscate his shared responsibility with other Republicans for supporting years of pork spending, deregulatory duplicity and disastrous economic folly. It cannot be said that including billions of dollars in spending disclosed in alternate budgetary amounts, as done to hide Iraq war costs, contributed to a level of economic integrity consistent with our “first principles.” Equally, common sense consistent with our first principles tells us that it is schizophrenic to say that investment in local infrastructure makes sense for flood mitigation while supporting $40 Billion Dollars in stimulus cuts designated for municipal infrastructure improvements. Notwithstanding the denial of partisanship, Mr. Jordan and Congressional Republicans are using their re-found roots as born again conservatives - it is just – politics as usual – but we can smell the difference.
For those now between jobs due to layoffs, plant closings or just work slowdowns, the due time for our economy to return is yesterday not tomorrow. This was a responsibility we had entrusted through voting our conservative values. Our votes for Mr. Jordan are a mistake that we cannot afford to repeat. Congressman John Boehner has become an elected embarrassment. Unfortunately, many of those who espoused such conservative values lied or suffer selective recollection as it appears Mr. Jordan and House Minority Leader John Boehner are now forced to claim. It is wonderful to discuss free market economic theory and the use of tax cuts to achieve future prosperity. I invite tax incentives to promote investment and reward entrepreneurship. Yet a person who is not working and cannot find a job is not rewarded by another tax cut. The fact is that the Bush tax cuts hurt our economy and more cuts at this time will be even more disastrous according to Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Our first principles tell us that the billions of dollars pork’d out during years of undisciplined Congressional spending and purposeful market de-regulation are now the price tag left for “We the People.” If we are to invest again, let us invest our money in ourselves, re-building our communities from our infrastructure up, with flood mitigation, a re-engineered green energy grid and our schools for better educated children. That way some will have the integrity to abide by common sense or our first principles to admit when they have failed. Politicians like Jim Jordan and John Boehner can make any plea for excuses they want cloaked in the fragrant terms of fiscal responsibility; however, the smell remains from where they’ve been. Frankly, the smell of Republican swill is getting worse.
It might be said that those were far simpler times. Then it seemed the worst thing that a kid could do was to hang from the cat walks at the old Producer’s Stock Yard on East Bigelow and fall into a big pile of whatever was piled up enough to fall into. Of course, by that point, there was no way to credibly deny where you were or what you were doing. You simply had to accept responsibility and fess up. A plea of excuses just did not work because the evidence of what you had fallen into was all too apparent.
A similar result occurs when Congressman Jim Jordan seeks to use the profound wisdom of Winston Churchill to obfuscate his shared responsibility with other Republicans for supporting years of pork spending, deregulatory duplicity and disastrous economic folly. It cannot be said that including billions of dollars in spending disclosed in alternate budgetary amounts, as done to hide Iraq war costs, contributed to a level of economic integrity consistent with our “first principles.” Equally, common sense consistent with our first principles tells us that it is schizophrenic to say that investment in local infrastructure makes sense for flood mitigation while supporting $40 Billion Dollars in stimulus cuts designated for municipal infrastructure improvements. Notwithstanding the denial of partisanship, Mr. Jordan and Congressional Republicans are using their re-found roots as born again conservatives - it is just – politics as usual – but we can smell the difference.
For those now between jobs due to layoffs, plant closings or just work slowdowns, the due time for our economy to return is yesterday not tomorrow. This was a responsibility we had entrusted through voting our conservative values. Our votes for Mr. Jordan are a mistake that we cannot afford to repeat. Congressman John Boehner has become an elected embarrassment. Unfortunately, many of those who espoused such conservative values lied or suffer selective recollection as it appears Mr. Jordan and House Minority Leader John Boehner are now forced to claim. It is wonderful to discuss free market economic theory and the use of tax cuts to achieve future prosperity. I invite tax incentives to promote investment and reward entrepreneurship. Yet a person who is not working and cannot find a job is not rewarded by another tax cut. The fact is that the Bush tax cuts hurt our economy and more cuts at this time will be even more disastrous according to Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Our first principles tell us that the billions of dollars pork’d out during years of undisciplined Congressional spending and purposeful market de-regulation are now the price tag left for “We the People.” If we are to invest again, let us invest our money in ourselves, re-building our communities from our infrastructure up, with flood mitigation, a re-engineered green energy grid and our schools for better educated children. That way some will have the integrity to abide by common sense or our first principles to admit when they have failed. Politicians like Jim Jordan and John Boehner can make any plea for excuses they want cloaked in the fragrant terms of fiscal responsibility; however, the smell remains from where they’ve been. Frankly, the smell of Republican swill is getting worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
