No Crisis

What Social Security Crisis?

It's disgusting to me how, when it serves Bush's purpose, even in spite of reality, the economy is doing wonderful and growing in leaps and bounds. Recall during his election campaign how he touted what a great job he and his administration had done in turning the economy around after its downturn. However, when he needs it to tank, which would precipitate a Social Security "crisis" that could only be solved by privatizing the program (and benefitting his handlers), it's suddenly never mentioned how "well" the economy is doing.

PRESIDENT Bush's entire plan for Social Security privatization rests on the premise that the system is in severe crisis. But a careful look at the numbers suggests that the financial crisis is largely a myth.

No kidding.

In its 1997 report, the trustees projected that the system would no longer be able to meet all its obligations by 2029. Just six years later in 2003, based on their acknowledgement of stronger economic growth, the trustees moved the crisis date back to 2042. So if the system can gain 13 years of life in six years, there's not much of a crisis.

But that's just the beginning. In June, the bipartisan Congressional Budget office used more realistic assumptions about economic growth. CBO puts the first shortfall year at 2052, not 2042, and it projects Social Security's 75-year shortfall at only about four-10ths of one percent (that's 0.4%, or 0.004, or 1/250) of gross domestic product. Currently, that's about $40 billion a year, or one-fifth of the revenues that the Bush administration gave up in tax cuts for the wealthy.

Simply restoring pre-Bush tax rates on the richest one percent of Americans could bring the Social Security system into balance indefinitely, without reducing promised payouts by one penny.

You don't say!!

The administration uses far rosier assumptions than the Social Security trustees in claiming high returns for its proposed private accounts. The administration assumes that individual portfolios will appreciate at 6 or 7 percent a year.

But if the economy is only growing at 1.7 percent a year, there is no way the stock market will achieve those results. Conversely, if we apply the Bush administration's rosy assumptions to the present Social Security system, there is no crisis at all.

Rrrreally!

The administration has also been throwing around a particularly hysterical statistic -- that Social Security faces $10 trillion to $11 trillion in "unfunded liabilities."

That figure is nothing but the total long-term payout that the government expects to pay retirees. But we don't calculate the rest of the budget that way. The Pentagon, for instance, spends about $400 billion a year. The Pentagon's 75-year "unfunded liability," at that rate, is $30 trillion.

The reason that we don't calculate budget that way, of course, is that we know government will keep collecting tax revenues and use them to pay its obligations.

Why haven't you read more about this?

First, the Bush administration casts the Social Security shortfall in the most dire terms possible, to build support for its privatization scheme. (Which takes money from those who actually need it and gives it to those who've "earned" it -- in other words, the wealthy). In reality, that scheme will make the modest shortfall far worse, by requiring the government to go another $2 trillion into debt. But whether to privatize, and how to make up a small shortfall, are two entirely distinct questions.

Second, some Wall Street leaders and academic economists, who share a dislike of social insurance, also paint a bleak picture of the system bankrupting itself and the country.

All this feeds into media assumptions. Indeed, the typical media account of the privatization debate simply takes the premise of a system in deep crisis as if it were fact.

Finally, many well-meaning Democrats who defend the Social Security system want to be absolutely sure that its funding is rock solid. So Democrats, as well as Republicans, talk of its shortfall and offer different ways to make up the gap. Unfortunately, that tends to play into Republican hands.

...

In the coming debate, defenders of Social Security need to educate the public on just how solid the existing system is and just how exaggerated is its supposed crisis. If they fail to do that, and get bogged down in a debate about how to "fix" a system that isn't really broken, the privatizers will win, and Social Security will be needlessly pillaged.

Proposed Moore Documentary

This time Michael Moore appears poised to take on the HMO/Pharmaceutical/Insurance industry and the mere mention of it has got the entire industry running scared. Good for him.

"Moore's past work has been marked by negativity, so we can only assume it won't be a fair and balanced portrayal," said Rachel Bloom, executive director of corporate communications for the Wilmington, Del.-based AstraZeneca.

Did she actually mean "fair and balanced" or "Fair and Balanced ™ "? Because if she meant the latter, she's damned right they won't be getting the Faux News, kid glove treatment from Moore. Neither do they deserved to get that kind of treatment. Whether or not I always agree fully with his views, I'm glad for the existence Michael Moore.

Not a Relative of Santa Claus

Saint-making Pope ready to ditch miracle clause

Then who will bring toys to all the good little girls and boys?

What's that? Hold on ladies and gentlemen, this is just now being brought to my attention: the Pope is not, in fact, trying to ditch Santa Claus, but Miracle Clause, who I'm told is not related to Santa Claus. Sorry for the confusion.

CANDIDATES for sainthood will be exonerated from the requirement to have performed a miracle under guidelines being considered by the Pope.

Oh, man, all those pre-existing saints are gonna be pissed! They all had to perform medically inexplicable miracles from the great beyond in order to earn their sainthood, but now...geeze, the beatified of today sure do have it easy!

The Pope, 84, has created 482 saints in his 26 years as pontiff — more than all his predecessors put together — and has beatified 1,337 people.

Fecking jayzus!

He believes that “latter-day saints” offer a much-needed example at a time when Christianity is under threat from secularism and rival religions.

Example of what? That there really isn't anyone the senile old leader of Catholicism won't grant sainthood to?

Bertone said that there was a growing feeling in the Vatican that the need for miracles for both beatification and canonisation was “anachronistic”.

Oh. Yeah. Because Catholicism itself isn't at all anachronistic. Quite very modern the whole theology is. Indeed.

Festivus for the Rest of Us!

Second Holiday Display Put Beside Manger

BARTOW -- Like an episode out of "Seinfeld," fans of the defunct comedy series erected the second covert holiday display within a week at the Polk County administration building.

After a group of grandparents from First Baptist Church of Bartow put up an unsanctioned Nativity scene on public property, the Seinfeld fans placed a sign promoting a made-up holiday.

"Festivus for the Rest of Us" is the greeting on the sign placed next to the manger scene on the lawn of the Neil Combee County Administration Building.

Festivus is an invention of characters on the TV show "Seinfeld." It's celebrated with a pole, insults (actually, an "airing of grievances") and wrestling (the "feats of strength").

...

Commissioner Jack Myers, who warned his peers repeatedly that allowing one display would open the door for everyone...

Oh the horror of the door being open to everyone! No, being fair to everyone simply will not do. After all, inclusiveness is the gateway ideal to compassion and understanding.

"It's going to have to come down," Myers said. "But I'm going to give them time to get it down."

"I'll give them until, say, December 26th. How's that sound?", he almost went on to say.

Which came first, the religious chicken, or the mentally unstable egg?

RELIGIOSITY COMMON AMONG MOTHERS WHO KILL CHILDREN

People with schizophrenia, personality disorders and a host of other mental disorders may be drawn (to) such faiths for their structure, he said.

"What isn't clear is what's causing what," she said. "Is the church causing people to develop these (psychotic/delusional/schizophrenic) feelings or are people with these feelings more likely to gravitate toward a fundamentalist church?"

Does it really matter which is causing which? There's a clear connection and that should be enough to cause concern.

The Same Thing Happens Every Year

The Bonk Jobs are, once again, up in arms over Secularists co-opting their Christian holiday.

THE PIOUS FOLK who exhorted their countrymen to "put the Christ back in Christmas" have lost. How badly? Not only is the "Christ-" not there, neither is the "-mas." The very phrase "Merry Christmas!" seems to be disappearing from general usage. People now attend "holiday parties," post "season's greetings," and exchange wishes of "Happy holidays."

Too bad most Christians aren't more informed as to the true history of the winter holidays. History shows that it was the Christians who first hi-jacked the winter holiday, so it's somewhat surprising that they don't know more about who co-opted whose holiday.

For a little history on the winter holiday(s): http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/christmas/real2.html

Saturnalia

In Rome, where winters were not as harsh as those in the far north, Saturnalia—a holiday in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture—was celebrated. Beginning in the week leading up to the winter solstice and continuing for a full month, Saturnalia was a hedonistic time, when food and drink were plentiful and the normal Roman social order was turned upside down. For a month, slaves would become masters. Peasants were in command of the city. Business and schools were closed so that everyone could join in the fun.

Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honoring the children of Rome. In addition, members of the upper classes often celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25. It was believed that Mithra, an infant god, was born of a rock. For some Romans, Mithra's birthday was the most sacred day of the year.

In the early years of Christianity, Easter was the main holiday; the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. In the fourth century, church officials decided to institute the birth of Jesus as a holiday.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not mention date for his birth (a fact Puritans later pointed out in order to deny the legitimacy of the celebration). Although some evidence suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring (why would shepherds be herding in the middle of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival. First called the Feast of the Nativity, the custom spread to Egypt by 432 and to England by the end of the sixth century. By the end of the eighth century, the celebration of Christmas had spread all the way to Scandinavia. Today, in the Greek and Russian orthodox churches, Christmas is celebrated 13 days after the 25th, which is also referred to as the Epiphany or Three Kings Day. This is the day it is believed that the three wise men finally found Jesus in the manger.

By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated. By the Middle Ages, Christianity had, for the most part, replaced pagan religion. On Christmas, believers attended church, then celebrated raucously in a drunken, carnival-like atmosphere similar to today's Mardi Gras. Each year, a beggar or student would be crowned the "lord of misrule" and eager celebrants played the part of his subjects. The poor would go to the houses of the rich and demand their best food and drink. If owners failed to comply, their visitors would most likely terrorize them with mischief. Christmas became the time of year when the upper classes could repay their real or imagined "debt" to society by entertaining less fortunate citizens.

See also: http://mkanejeeves.com/index.php?p=91

...Before I go on with the REALLY fun stuff, let’s go into the Irony WayBack machine and discover the religious origins of our Christmas, shall we? It was, originally, a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice around December 23rd. To the ancients, it appeared as if the Sun and Moon stopped in their flight across the sky—this is the longest night of the year and as a time of both anticipation and rejoicing at the Sun’s rebirth out of the Goddess.

The Sun’s representation as the male divinity, or celestial ruler, predates Christianity. As with other rituals and celebrations, the Catholic Church felt that by assimilating this holiday into the Christian beliefs, it would help convert those who still followed the Old Ways.

The selection of December 25th as a Christian holiday was first recorded in scholarly texts dating to 325 A.D., although the actual practice was first decreed in 274 A.D. by the Emperor Aurelian. Since the non-Christians viewed this time as the rebirth of the sun, it made sense for the Church to also mark this period as the celebration of the nativity of Christ. So, it was a way to get converts. Hey, you folks are here anyway, right? Have a rosary. Have two!

~snip~

Let’s take a deep breath here, before we go on with this nuttiness. Way back when, there was no Santa Claus. There was a Saint Nicholas. He was a Catholic Bishop in what is now called Turkey. He gave presents to poor children. After his death, he became a folklore figure whose practices spread across Europe. Saint Nicholas’ Day was celebrated December 6th, when children would leave out sweets and treats for the Saint and he’d reward them with presents. After the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, the feasting and veneration of Catholic saints were banned. But, Saint Nicholas had become such a custom that his day was merged with Christmas Day, presents and all, and he went under-cover, using such non-Catholic names as Weinnacthsmann, Father Christmas and Pierre Noel.

In the 1600’s, in America, the Dutch immigrants brought Sinterklass with them. That moniker evolved into Santa Claus. Washington Irving in 1808 wrote about old St. Nick. In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote “A Visit From St. Nicholas” (“The Night Before Christmas”) and, in 1863, illustrator Thomas Nast gave us our first physical view of Santa. But it wasn’t until 1931, that friggin’ Coca-Cola DEFINED Santa Claus IN A SERIES OF ADS!!!! So, this concept of elfin gift giving, which has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, actually was ultimately defined by commercialism. That seemed fine over the years, with the birth of the Christ child and Santa and his elves co-existing with no verbal bombs lobbed.

…Until advertisers started to use the word “Xmas” in their ads in the 1960s, probably saving money per letter. (Actually, the "X" in Xmas is derived from Greek and is shorthand for Christ). That evolved into protests by “Put Christ Back In Christmas” groups. Ultimately, they went nowhere. Then "artificial Christmas trees” arose, which led people to howl and scream about commercialism and produced the first “Charlie Brown” Christmas special. Today? A lot of people have artificial trees.

So, let’s tally up, here. Christmas is based on a pagan ceremony. Santa Claus arose because WASPS couldn’t venerate a Catholic
Saint and Coca-Cola saw an opening. Man, do you feel spiritual or what?

An accurate picture of the history of Christmas is easily found with a quick search of the internet for "history of Christmas".

Apparently, the Bonk Jobs are either too lazy or too stupid to be able to carry out that action and inform themselves.

Study finds that Hollywood reflects religion...well, pretty accurately, actually

Study: Religion portrayed negatively on TV. Also...war, famine, pestilence not shown very positively. Go figure!

The Parents Television Council watched every hour of prime-time on the broadcast networks during the 2003-04 season and logged 2,344 treatments of religion. They judged 22 percent of the mentions positive, 24 percent negative and the rest neutral.

Not exactly an overwhelmingly negative treatment of religion, if you ask me.

And in the category of things not-at-all completely obvious or ill-worthy of a council devoted to uncovering them, we have this little gem:

Well-publicized scandals about pedophile priests made Catholics particularly vulnerable (to criticism), the council found.

Ya think?

His group singled out NBC, saying its mentions of religion were nearly 10 time(s) more likely to be negative than positive. "Law & Order" episodes, which tend to have stories ripped from the headlines, helped skew those numbers, the group said.

Just so I have this straight, NBC chooses to air a drama that is based on actual events and they're the ones responsible for making religion look bad??

Bozell said he's not suggesting that all television programming "ought to be about St. Teresa" or even be all positive about religion, but that Hollywood should keep in mind the overall picture it presents to viewers.

I'm sorry, but since when did it become Hollywood's fault that Catholic priests are molesting children? Perhaps it's religion that should keep in mind the overall picture it presents.

Uproar Blasting to New Level

-- Franklin County, Columbus. A Danaher ELECTronic 1242 computer error with a voting machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. A cartridge from one of three voting machines at the polling place generated a faulty number at a computerized reading station. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections said the cartridge was retested Thursday and there were no problems. He couldn't explain why the computer reader malfunctioned. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10103910.htm?1c

"Malfunctioned". Yeah. No idea why the cartridge "malfunctioned". It's working fine now. Mmhmm…and it was working fine when it reported 3893 extra votes for George, too…just like it was supposed to do.

-- Warren County. Citing concerns about potential terrorism, officials locked down the county administration building on election night and blocked any independent observers from monitoring the vote count as the nation awaited Ohio's returns. County Emergency Services Director Frank Young explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security. The Warren results were part of the last tallies that helped clinch President Bush's re-election. James Lee, spokesman with the Ohio Secretary of State's Office in Columbus, said Thursday he hasn't heard of any situations similar to Warren County's building restrictions. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

Yeah, the "terrorists" were voting against George in too large of numbers. Remember, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? So, by definition, anyone voting against George is a terrorist. So, the George Cabal declared a "terrorist" emergency and blocked independent observers from witnessing the vote count in order to more easily…cheat!

Slip of the Tongue

Alabama Clings to Segregationist Past

"There are people here who are still fighting the civil war," Tommy Woods, 63, a deacon at Bethel Baptist church and a retired school administrator, told the Washington Post. "They're holding on to things that are long since past. It's almost like a religion."

What a fun little moment of honesty!

Whoops -- so much for inclusiveness

Christmas Displays in Denver

Hickenlooper has ordered that next year the decorative lights above the creche read "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

"We're trying to be more inclusive," he said.

Talk about a fire-brand radical! Going from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays"? Wow. Really making strides aren't we. Especially considering how the words will still hang over a Christian manger scene.

Strode frowns on the idea of adding a Hanukkah menorah or other religious symbol because, he said, "it would open the door for every other religion" to add their icons to his display.

Well, so much for inclusiveneness.

Tiernan blasts (Mayor) Hickenlooper for kowtowing to the religious right.

The mayor, in response, said, "I don't really understand politics well enough to be cowed or uncowed."

Uncowed?? Nevermind. I just have to say, if I were a citizen of Denver, I'd sure be proud of electing a politician who doesn't "understand politics". It would probably be a similar feeling to electing a cocksure moron as pResident.

"Once upon a time, slavery was a tradition in America. Once upon a time, women not having a right to vote was a tradition in America. Tradition is not a good argument (for having the creche displayed at City Hall)," he said.

Hey, cool! That was the same argument I made standing next to my dad as we watched the lighting ceremony at my grandmother's house in Denver last week.