Here's A Clue: If You Want A 'Child-Free' Life, Don't Have Kids!

Colorado mom Heather Jensen and Georgia dad, Ross Harris, are bookends for a disturbing trend in this country for parents to de-prioritize or devalue the lives of their kids, leading to brutally careless behavior - such as leaving offspring in hot cars and forgetting about them,

In the case of Harris, it now has emerged that he'd text-messaged six women, sending and receiving explicit texts -- some including nude images -- from work, while his 22-month-old was dying in a burning hot car. Prosecutors, rightly or wrongly have sought to portray Harris as wanting a "child free" life. See e.g.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/justice/georgia-hot-car-toddler-death/

But irrespective of that, it shows at the very least that Harris didn't put his child's welfare first. If he had, as opposed to subordinating it to his own self-obsessed actions, this abominable incident never would have occurred. From that perspective, one could say Justin Ross Harris really did hanker for a child-free life. What better way to sex- text strange women at will while forgetting (deliberately?) his own duties as dad and husband. Did his wife deserve this? Hell no! She expected much better of this guy than to treat their precious only kid like yesterday's fish wrap.

Then there was Heather Jensen, who Prosecutors claimed carried out a "death sentence" against her two young sons when she locked then in her car on Nov. 27, 2012, while she had went to have unbridled sex with a guy in a car park. The children were said to have spent 90 minutes in the car- with the heat on, and an investigation revealed temperatures could have reached 60 degrees Celsius (113F) . Both boys died from hyperthermia.

Careless? Indeed, but the subtext is that she also obviously harbored a desire for the"'child free" life or she'd not have been so damned negligent. Though the case has also been made that her low IQ (of 76) played a role,  it still doesn't exonerate her since many low IQ moms don't exhibit such careless behavior. They have enough sense and perspective to put their child's welfare first. See more here:

http://www.news.com.au/world/mother-heather-jensen-on-trial-for-overheating-deaths-in-car-of-two-young-sons/story-fndir2ev-1226811632404

Both these cases highlight the reasons, mostly wrong, that people have children in this country - since these cases are by no means exceptional or unusual.  In each case, it is arguable the culprits should never have had children at all. So why did they? Family pressure? Spousal pressure? Possibly. Then there might also be the lamebrain media talking heads, many of them, who make childless couples feel like freaks. Look no further than Abby Huntsman who in August last year on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' - asked the author of 'The Childless Life' (related to a TIME special issue that'd just appeared on newsstands):

"Well, how do you go about asking a woman if she's going to have children? Or when she's going to have children? I mean, it's what we do when attending social outings!"

 TIME editor Radhika Jones (responsible for the Childfree Life investigation in TIME) had to constrain herself from erupting in mocking laughter. Instead, she put on her most professional air and responded:

"Do we really have to ask such questions? I can understand curiosity but perhaps the best thing is  not to ask."

Indeed, they shouldn't be asked at all. Period! The couples making such a decision clearly know they aren't cut out for parenthood. Being childless by choice is a personal matter, but in a nation that not only harbors a cult of motherhood but a cult of child worship that can be like climbing Mt. Everest. What we as a society ought to be doing is making the decision to be really child free - as in CHILD -less, easier, not harder. In this way, parents are less likely to treat their offspring carelessly down the line - as Jensen and Harris did.

My wife and I both knew from early on that we were simply too self-absorbed to have children - which, let's face it,  are 24/7 demanding especially when young . And so we declined to be parents. This was despite enormous pressure from family as well as friends, including one former  Headmistress of Janice's old school (Queen's College, Barbados) who informed us bluntly if we didn't have our own kids we'd be "contributing to the dumbing down of society".  

But we knew in our hearts that reproducing just to maintain some perceived societal "I.Q." was the wrong reason. We also knew that once having had children, one couldn't just take it back and decide not to. Once you were in you were all in and this we never wanted to be. So childless by choice was a no-brainer for us.

The bottom line here is that the  choice to have a child ought to be each couple's own. Not to be second guessed by anyone else, or looked askance on via clueless moron questions by an Abby Huntsman. In the same way I don't second guess anyone who has their own kids, or adopts them- provided that they are actively caring and responsible parents.. It is not for me to say they did the right thing or not. They have to live with their choices and the possible negative repercussions arising from them, i.e. finding they don't have enough money to provide in a society that refuses to support families economically.

Social Security & Medicare : "An unjustified transfer of wealth from the young to the elderly"? NO!

Once more an undereducated know-nothing is provided a privileged stage on which to spout his insufferable, uninformed bollocks. Woe is me! Woe is us! And it’s all the fault of them damned greedy geezers with all their blinkin’ excessive benefits! 

In this case, indignant Sunday New York Times letter writer, Daniel Bronheim, reaches full throated pitch and bile as he writes:

 “The rising cost of Social Security and Medicare has for a generation crowded out adequate government investment in infrastructure, education and research. It has meant a huge and unjustified transfer of wealth from the young to the elderly, especially when it’s being funded by borrowing from the future”.

 

After reading just this portion one is left to wonder how much more false grievance can be expressed in one letter of 150 words – but there’s a lot. I merely note his next sentence is that “insult is added to injury to realize the poor die so much younger and this transfer benefits is to those who need it the least.”

 

Where did this dolt get this misinformation? One must ponder seriously that question, given 44% of seniors have only Social security to live on and certainly aren’t among those “who need it the least”.  As for the “poor dying much younger” – yes, so how about the poor seniors I noted in McDowell, WVA in my post skewering the idiot Abby Huntsman?

How many times and in how many venues must we educate these twerps to grasp what is going on here?  Bronheim gets his perceptual panties in a twist over the elderly, but in fact, if he had more brains or common sense he’d recognize it’s the expanded military industrial complex which now consumes 58 percent of current expenditures. THAT is what’s responsible for leaving his young generation with debt, poor job outlook, and transferred wealth.

 

Does he not know, for example, that the Bushies pilfered Social Security monies from 2001 on to pay for their illegal, neocon-inspired wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? It is estimated that over a trillion bucks went for that purpose, with the Bushie architects trying to conceal the size of the actual deficits by raiding S.S.   But let’s add the total gov’t yearly grabs up from 2001-08, as extracted from GAO and Trust Fund data – as I reported in my blog post responding to Huntsman:

2001    -  $163 billion

2002   - $159 billion

2003   -$155.6 billion

2004   - $151.1 billion

2005   -$173.5 billion

2006   -$185.5 billion

2007   - $186 billion

2008   $180.2 billion

-----------------------------

TOTAL:  $1.353 trillion

 

Oh, and does the illustrious Master Bronheim have sufficient education to also know how the Bushies ramped up unnecessary spending from Medicare? Does he know, or is he even faintly aware, that the Medicare Modernization Act passed in 2003 was really designed as a corporate welfare bonanza for Big PHrmA and other Bushie campaign donors?  This bill interjected the “Part D” or  Prescription Drug Plan – when there was already one in place (as part of Medicare Part B). It also introduced Medicare Advantage which introduced private plans much more expensive than standard Medicare and which have been creating deficits of around $12b each year, leading the program toward insolvency – even as it caused premium for regular Medicare beneficiaries to rise.

 

From assorted Denver Post 2003 editorials (e.g.  ‘Medicare Drug Plan Confusing Sign Up’, p. 6E, Nov. 13) and articles we learned the following:

 

- Drug companies would see $139 billion in benefits (read ‘corporate welfare’) via this bill over a decade

 

-        There would be no bargaining or leverage allowed by the government to control prices, as in the case with the VA. (Saving an estimated $200b over ten years)

 

-        All "re-importation” of drugs from Canada would be outlawed- hence eliminating a REAL source of drug savings. (an estimated  $11b a year)

 

-        Private HMOs would be able to compete directly with Medicare and those in the latter program will eventually have to make up the difference out of their pockets as private costs soar. (And taxpayers, YES – would have to shell out more to help out – paying attention there, Daniel?)

 

In the end, as articles in the Post and other assorted press sources (NY Times, Baltimore Sun etc) observed, the misbegotten Bushie  Medicare law was a “crazy quilt”  - engineered and written by the likes of HMO lobbyist Billy Tauzin, by  “trying to please too many potential voters”.  But as I noted in a letter to the Post editor, it also tried to bamboozle as many potential voters as possible with smoke and mirrors ploys. Dangling a benefits’ “carrot” but delivering mostly hot air and glazed eyes.

 

Indeed, as the  years rolled by, the Post and other papers lost track of how many seniors had fallen into the infamous “donut hole” – where they ended up having to shell out full price for all their meds, many actually forced to choose between food and meds.

Bronheim advises  “making all Social security income taxable and the market value of Medicare taxable to its recipients”? What kind of half wit moron is this guy?  (Does he even know the average income for Social Security beneficiaries is $12,000 a year?) More accurately I am trying to understand how this Jasper even managed to put two coherent sentences together – if he understood so little of what he was yapping about.  Taxation? You fucking idiot! People receiving these benefits paid in 30 years or more via FICA taxes! (And let's bear in mind the richest 1 percent don't have to shoulder the burden on most of their income.)

And even now those benefits are taxed in subtle ways. Social Security taxes rise to over 30%  (i.e. 1/3 of S.S. is taken back) for many elderly recipients still trying to keep roofs over heads by working.  Medicare taxes are more indirectly applied, generally through steady increases in premiums.   And on account of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) $500 billion stands to be cut from Medicare over the next ten years, much of it in terms of hidden costs (such as allowing hospitals to accept patients under 'observation' instead of full admission) as well as cuts to Medicare providers. Already, as assorted letters in The Denver Post have noted, many seniors have been dumped by their doctors who want no more of the paperwork if their remuneration is to be cut even 2%.  That means those seniors go without care or have to go to charity clinics.

 

Medicare premiums -expenses have increased 133% over the past 6 years compared to only a 31% increase in paid benefits (COLAs suspended for over 3 years) hence amounting to a pure benefits cut- or de facto TAX.

 Sadly, it appears little can be done – short of brain transplants-  to get the likes of these simpletons to understand the current economic dynamic which is also based on past history. The latter includes how the previous administration misused Social Security monies for their “wars” (to hide deficits)  and implemented an expensive new Medicare law that wasn’t needed.

 

If those like Daniel Bronheim really want greater investment “in infrastructure, education and research” they first need to know WHO is benefiting from the status quo.  (“Oh wait, yuh mean there is a status quo?”)

 

Hint, hint: It isn’t seniors, and letters like Bronheim’s only serve to foment more inter-generational conflict – which is exactly what the asshole neocons and Neolibs want!  Way to go playing into their feral hands, Danny Boy!

The Time Has Come For An Automatic Base Income for 80% of Americans

                                                                                                          "Food is the most fundamental of all human needs. Hungry children can't learn, hungry adults can't work, create or think or be functioning members of their communities"- Abby Leibman, MAZON, 'Bread for the World'

The statistics have been so often repeated that they should be ensconced in nearly every reading American's brain by now.  But to repeat some of them: The past ten years have seen 80% of Americans lose in income, many falling out of the middle class, meanwhile the other twenty percent have ratcheted up gains - especially the top 10%.

The inequality in the U.S. has never been higher, now rivaling Mexico and the Philippines  - with a Gini coefficient approaching 0.5. (A Gini of 1.0 denotes total income-economic inequality, while 0.0 denotes complete economic equality.)

15.6 million kids go to bed hungry every night because of cuts to food stamps, most recently as part of a Farm Bill which delivers huge subsidies to rich, corpora-farms.  Economist Jared Bernstein has put it this way:

"It's like don't look at all the ways in which the economy is underperforming, and the benefits are flowing right to the top. Look at the people getting $4.50 a day for food stamps. It's an old trick but it continues to be used."

The "trick" is also used against people getting "entitlements" (the egregious term used by Neoliberals) such as Social Security and Medicare. Look at Abby Huntsman's rant on the Cycle last week, e.g. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-abby-huntsman-20140314,0,489874.story#axzz2w9RuRdqG

Then there was the biased, nonsensical column by George Will last Sunday in which this pinhead bitched that:

"Nearly two-thirds of households receive food stamps under 'categorical eligibility ...and we still spend $1 trillion on federal welfare programs."  

Adding, idiotically:

"The welfare state, primarily devoted to pensions and medical care for the elderly, aggravates inequality"

He then insists this is because "young people just starting up the ladder must subsidize the elderly"

But in typical  S'Will' fashion doesn't say WHY.  If the young ones knew that the gov't had taken $1.79 trillion out of Social Security since 2000, they'd also understand they wouldn't be the ones having to shoulder much of the theft. (Given they are the ones mainly still working).  Or, if they knew the government spent that money instead on 'wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq they would be hopping mad and be able to blame the right culprits, unlike their dimwit peer, Abby Huntsman.

The 'welfare state' Will describes is also a myth. People on 'welfare' - thanks to Neolib Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" law in 1996-  now have to work for their benefits, usually below minimum wage. (In Maryland it has been $3.30 for a long time).  Medicare and Social Security are NOT "welfare" - though morons like Will might like to believe it - because people have paid in taxes to receive those benefits (which those earning over $113,000 don't have to!) They also must pay added medical costs for Medicare, which doesn't cover dental, or all of treatment-surgical expenses. It is estimated that a typical couple retiring at 65 will need $220,000 to cover added medical costs over their retired lives. How the hell is that "welfare"?

The low -wage "bottleneck" described in the Business Section of the Sunday Denver Post also shows why all the above problems aren't going away any time soon. ('Low Wage Bottleneck Traps Many', p. 3C). The article describes a jobs "bottleneck" since the recession in 2007-08, such that mid-level jobs have essentially vanished. These were generally the next step jobs after minimum wage or "entry level" - but  no more.  As the article puts it:

"This means lower wage workers have to stay put.  The resulting bottleneck is widening the gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. "

The article goes on to note that these low wage jobs, once seen as only 'steppingstone' - not permanent- are now being held for long periods by better-educated, more experiences workers. In other words, the young are generally even shut out in this niche.  The article continues:

"The trend extends well beyond Walmart ...and is reverberating across the U.S. economy. It's partly why average adjusted income has declined 9 percent for the bottom 40 percent of households since 2007, even as incomes for the top 5 percent exceed what they were before the recession."

Research also shows that ninety percent of the occupations that "once helped elevate people from the minimum wage" have gone the way of the Dodo since 1991.  These include: bookkeepers and executive secretaries which occupations used to command $16.54 an hour on average. In addition, the associate professor at university level is becoming  thing of the past. The percentage of teaching positions occupied by non-tenure-track faculty has more than tripled in the past four decades. According to the Adjunct Project, “Two-thirds of the faculty standing in front of college classrooms each day aren’t full-time or permanent professors.” 

70 percent of college courses offered are now taught by adjuncts — part-timers who are paid a pittance and have no job security. Many indeed, have to go on food stamps along with the minimum wage workers at Mickey D's or Walmart. This has only come to the fore recently with a widely circulated article, 'The Ph.D. Now Comes With Food Stamps', published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. See:

http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/

All of which brings us to the idea of an automatic income for all, with no strings attached. This minimum income, or 'min-come' would assure that no matter the vicissitudes of life, the citizen and his children will never have to go hungry or submit to the vagaries of "food stamp" politics. He or she will receive an automatic income of at least $1,000 a month to cover all basic needs - irrespective of whether having another job or not. There will be NO "offsets", so long as the person or family is below the level of those whose incomes aren't falling over time. (I.e. the upper 20 percent).


This is not some new idea, btw, so no need for anyone to get hysterical.  All over the world, sensible and intelligent people are talking guaranteeing basic incomes for citizens as a viable policy.Half of all Canadians want it. The Swiss have had a referendum on it. The American media is all over it: The New York Times’ Annie Lowrey considered basic income as an answer to an economy that leaves too many people behind, while Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker of The Atlantic wrote about it as a way to reduce poverty.

In his final book, Martin Luther King Jr. suggested that guaranteeing people money without requiring them to do anything in exchange was a good way for Americans to share in prosperity. In the 1960s and early 1970s, many in the U.S. gave the idea serious consideration. Even Richard Nixon supported a version of it. But by 1980, the political tide shifted to the right and politicians moved their talking points to unfettered markets and individual gain. In other words, the odious Neoliberal idiom had taken hold like a plague, polluting brains and polluting economics - as all and sundry became hostage to the "market god".

Advocates say it’s an idea whose time has finally come, and I concur with that - though doubtless our home bred Puritans and Calvinists will demand some kind of output to receive it - but why? The rich, according to Michael Parenti ('The Dirty Truth') , get 95% of their money from inheritance. They don't have to do a damned thing!  Besides, in  a world of chronic job insecurity, stagnant wages, boom-and-bust cycles that wipe out ordinary people through no fault of their own, and shredded social safety nets, proponents warn that we have to come up with a way.

Look at the benefits!

1) It would help fight poverty: America is the richest country in the world, yet widespread poverty continues to afflict us. (See above for the low -wage bottleneck reasons for this!)

Matt Bruenig calculated that by giving everybody a mere $3,000 a year, including children (who would receive the money through their parents), we could potentially cut poverty in half.

2)  It would be good for the economy: A basic guaranteed income has the potential to positively impact the economy in several ways, which is why economists from John Kenneth Galbraith to Milton Friedman have advocated it. The basic problem solved would be low aggregate demand.

3) It would be more efficient than present hodge podge of systems: In the current patchwork of systems confronting poverty, like welfare, food stamps and vouchers, people can fall through the cracks. A guaranteed income could help solve problems caused by rules and restrictions that leave some without subsistence income when they need it. It's automatic nature - merely by having a birth certificate or S.S. number ensures receipt.


4) It supports  basic human dignity: Why is living in dignity not a right? These days, even Americans who get up in the morning every day and report to full-time jobs may not earn enough for a decent standard of living. People like fast-food workers, big-box store employees, caregivers (paid and unpaid, i.e. in families), beauty salon workers, and farm hands often can’t earn enough to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. Millions have seen no real increase in earnings in decades. Material security, as well as the intangible things that come along with it, like self-esteem and peace of mind, are often out of reach.  A guaranteed basic income is one way to help people to survive with dignity and free them from the humiliation of having to participate in criminal activity.

Of course, the knuckle draggers will howl like stuck pigs and banshees at all of this:

"Get money for nuthin'? Are you nuts? Where's the money gonna come from to support it?"

Easy, Sparky! We stop acting like a World Empire - projecting our self-interest hither, thither and yon -  spending trillions a year on 'occupations', military toys (like the F 35) and adventures, and start taking care of our people at home, and of course, tending to our crumbling infrastructure. 

 We do not need 4,400 military bases all over the world, nor can we be the permanent cops of the world. It is madness to believe so.  It is now time to take care of business at home and an automatic income would go a long way in that regard.

Abby Huntsman: Is She A Moron - Or Does She Just Play One On 'The Cycle'?

Once more the question is elicited as to whether Abby Huntsman is a born 'n bred moron, or just plays one in her assorted tube appearances - now mainly on MSNBC's 'The Cycle'. It's one thing to emulate or be a moron in a 'one off' as I pointed out in a post last April, referencing her appearance on Bill Maher's 'Real Time' and  having to be schooled by Sen. Bernie Sanders on Social Security, i.e.why cuts to that program hurt millions of seniors.  But it's another to be a moron 5 days a week and especially to repeat the mistakes she did last year on Social Security.

This time Abby was publicly 'spanked' by long time Social Security expert, Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times, e.g.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-abby-huntsman-20140314,0,489874.story#axzz2w9RuRdqG

He therein referenced  how Huntsman went on an extended rant about Social Security last Thursday on MSNBC's "The Cycle."

As usual, the little uninformed dope got almost everything wrong, which makes me wonder why one of her co-hosts didn't shut her up or change the subject earlier, instead of letting her babble on confirming her moron I.Q.  and her incompetence as a political or economic commentator. One of her first howlers was claiming Social Security is "going bankrupt" which shows she doesn't know what bankrupt means, or the law as it applies to Social Security. In fact, if the little moron knew anything she'd know Social Security has NO creditors, hence cannot go 'bankrupt'. Au contraire,  it is Social Security which is a creditor to the   GOVERNMENT  - which has borrowed from it relentlessly over the past forty years.

 The following data shows how much has been raided each year from 2000 through 2011, the data from the same Trust Fund sources and GAO:

Year:  ................Amount raided

2011.................$67.0 billion

2010.................$87.0 billion

2009...............$137.0 billion

2008...............$180.2 billion

2007...............$186.0 billion

2006...............$185.5 billion

2005..............$173.5 billion

2004..............$151.1 billion

2003.............$155.6 billion

2002.............$159.0 billion

2001.............$163.0 billion

2000.............$151.8 billion
----------------------------

TOTAL:  $1.79 TRILLION  (and $2.63 TRILLION since 1990)

Now, any person with more than a minimal number of neurons would realize that it doesn't matter if you fill a one gallon bucket with a cup every day (equal to 6 oz.) if there are massive holes in the bottom that let out 5 oz. in the same time! 

Also evident from this is that the  low worker-to -beneficiary ratio is a red herring meant to deflect attention from the REAL problem which is the yearly raids on monies received from payroll taxes and intended to go to future beneficiaries! So long as these raids continue unabated, NO solution or "re-tooling" of the program will work, including Abby's brilliant "solution" of increasing the retirement age -- by as much as 10 years -- because life expectancies are about 20 years longer than they were in 1935.

First, Abby ought to be forced to read the Sunday NY Times Business section and the main story on the gap in longevity between the upper class rich in a Virginia suburb, and the poverty stricken in McDowell, West Virginia. The latter, on average, live ten years LESS than the former.   This resonates with the point made by Hiltzik that  "life expectancies are very sensitive to social and economic status".  But, if Ms. Butt Brain has her way, virtually none of the poverty stricken seniors would see a single dime.

Second, one doesn't even have to delve into the senior poverty demographic to see what the elderly are still up against.  That is, because of the widespread practice of age-ism by companies (often letting workers go at age 50-55 before they can amass sufficient savings)  the senior American is faced with a yawning gulf between what he needs in any retirement scenario and what he actually has.

The AARP Magazine (March, 2014, p. 49) referenced this and noted, for example, that even in an ideal condition, a 55 or older American who's successfully saved via  his 401k will have about $269,500 total put away. However, though this sounds like a hefty sum one must bear in mind that $220,000 of that will be "needed to cover medical expenses for a 65-year old couple entering retirement." That leaves roughly $49,500 to live off another 25-30 years and we aren't even including possible nursing home stays - say if the senior falls and fractures a hip. In other words, if Abby's genius idea of adding ten more years to collect benefits was realized the couple would be in the shitter.  They'd likely have to use the money saved for living expenses, and - if they got seriously ill - have to beg, borrow or whatever from their kids to get help. Don't forget here that Medicare, which idiots call an "entitlement",  actually only pays a fraction of medical expenses. For major operations it's only 80% and it pays nada, not one dime, for dental work - which is no mere "luxury" when one is older. (Poor nutrition exacerbates many existing health problems and creates others.)

But according to The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (ibid.), the typical account size for a worker now nearing retirement is  only $42,000. Worse, 55% of current workers have no employment based saving at all, usually because they have been stuck in low wage scut jobs that pay minimal wage only and haven't been able to escape.  AARP's own analysis found that three fourths of Americans between 55 and 64 have less than $30,000 socked away. According to the article:

"It all adds up to a $6.6 trillion gap between what we have and what we need."

In other words, if Social Security doesn't help to fill that gap, millions of seniors will be in penury. Indeed, the effects will even rebound on Huntsman's own Millennial generation if her nutso ideas are adopted.  Her idiotic claim that we need to cut Social Security, or else there will be "nothing left when it comes time for millennials to retire" is the most blatant exposure of her stupidity. In truth, we need to EXPAND Social Security benefits. (The best way is simply to increase the FICA payroll tax threshold, say to $650,000.)

But even if we don't,  the truth is that Social Security as it is can pay out full benefits through 2033, and 75 percent of benefits through 2087.  In other words, even when Abby is a doddering old lady of 104 she will be able to collect 75% of what seniors do today.

Little Miss Abby whines and whines about "all the spending" but if she pulled her head out of her ass long enough she'd grasp and see that the federal budget game isn't stacking her Gen Y bunch against my Boomers, but rather BOTH our groups against the Military Industrial Complex, which is sucking us all dry. See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-military-industrial-complex-still.html

She believes the enemy of her Millennials getting their S.S. due is greedy seniors, but in fact it is the Military -defense contractor budget that insists on propping up an empire with 4,400 bases scattered across the globe.  These fools seemingly don't understand it wasn't so much barbarians that brought down the Roman Empire but military overstretch.

The next time Abby or any other overpaid, blabbering bimbo thinks of playing the "generational war" meme they need to be reminded of the following:

- Seven million children currently live with grandparents - who depend on Social Security to care for them

- 8.5 million other children (including college kids that find themselves jobless and live at home) who live with elder parents that depend on Social Security to make do.

- The tens of millions of 50-plus Americans who, through their tax dollars and Social Security monies, pensions, provide voluntary contributions to support public schools, child health programs, grandparent guardianship programs as well as other charities that care for homeless kids (e.g. Covenant House).

 Concocting war between the generations, pitting young against old, therefore serves no useful or moral purpose. It is merely a cheap, malicious tactic to deflect attention from the REAL problem: the malignant growth of the Military Industrial Complex to the detriment of all of us outside it!

If Abby  Huntsman can't finally get this into her hard head, maybe NBC- MSNBC needs to find another more appropriate venue for her.  Say like hosting Saturday morning kiddie cartoons!

See also:
 http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/54880/abby-huntsman-promotes-the-wall-street-banksters-big-lie

Abby Huntsman Displays Her Brilliance Again - on Childless Women

Well, you know it had to happen sooner or later. Abby Huntsman, who so acquitted herself as a moron on Bill Maher's Real Time back in April, has done it again. Yesterday as a first guest on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' - with the topic 'The Childless Life' (related to a new TIME special issue to come out Monday) and she couldn't help blurting:

"Well, how do you go about asking a woman if she's going to have children? Or when she's going to have children? I mean, it's what we do when attending social outings!"

At this dumbo blurt, TIME editor Radhika Jones (responsible for the Childfree Life investigation in TIME) had to constrain herself from erupting in mocking laughter. Instead, she put on her most professional air and responded:

"Do we really have to ask such questions? I can understand curiosity but perhaps the best thing is  not to ask."

Spoken quietly and acknowledging it's a woman's personal matter and really no one else's business, and certainly not Abby Huntsman's.

This, despite the fact, as Ms. Jones noted, the statistics show an increased choice for childlessness over the past 4 decades. In 1976 there were 1 in 10 childless couples, now there are 1 in 5. The reasons for the increase are multifold, from economic (raising a child costs on average $230,000 today) to the  choice of many professional women to delay it, to the honest acknowledgement that one may not be cut out for motherhood, or a couple may not be cut out for it.

Alas, despite the growing choice to be childless, a cult of motherhood persists as pointed out by Radhika Jones. This cult fetishizes parenthood and imbues our entire culture, unlike in Germany and Austria where citizens can "get a life".  Its presence was echoed by Mike Barnacle on the same segment when he said that on learning a couple is childless "it just doesn't ring right - it's like a cultural disconnect."

WHY?

The cult of motherhood is indeed so endemic that the insistent and pernicious demands have even migrated to the next level: whether a mother now breast feeds her child or not. Those who can't or won't are demonized or put down in much the same way the childless woman is. Why can't  people, like Abby Huntsman, mind their own business instead of snooping into others' lives and setting artificial expectations and standards? Who knows?

Being childless by choice is a personal matter, but in a nation that not only harbors a cult of motherhood but a cult of child worship, what Barnacle noted can be a constant irritant. Despite that, my wife Janice and I have been contentedly childless by choice for our entire 38 years -anniversary on Aug. 9.  We never once considered having a child of our own, or adopting any. We simply don't have the temperament for it.

I came from a family of five siblings and saw how our parents struggled endlessly, as income soon didn't match the needs of the children born. My dad's prolonged periods of unemployment didn't help and the only saving grace is that we still lived in an era where one salary was sufficient, and savers could thrive with 4-5% interest on passbook accounts.

Seeing such struggles confirmed for me the choice to never have kids. This meant, however,  assiduously practicing birth control with whomever I seriously went with, and also with my future wife. It was because of the birth control proscriptions that I ultimately left the Catholic Church because I felt that to remain, receiving communion and all while engaging in "mutual masturbation" (assorted padres' phrase)  was morally duplicitous.

For Janice, the choice was much simpler, since she'd never felt the motherly inclinations so adulated in our society, but often reflected in a disturbing lack of real care and interest for kids.

A single year's experience back in 1987-88 confirmed for us the wisdom of our choice. At that time we - for some reason - took in an American Field Service (AFS) student of 18. The girl had problems in all her other homes but from her own accounts we believed ours might provide the right one for her to thrive. We were wrong, way wrong. The whole thing turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

On numerous occasions the girl exhausted my patience with her spoiled brat behavior, i.e. choosing not to eat the food cooked in our home but to go to the Barbados Hilton for "special" burgers instead, or to negatively influence our niece - who I was tutoring in CXC physics at the time, so she could pass and be eligible for higher level employment (she's now an assistant bank manager in B'dos). The AFS kid constantly told her I was trying to "boss" her and she didn't have to do any physics experiments on Saturday mornings if she didn't feel like it.

At some point, I can't say when, I just shut her out and stopped talking to her, period. This struck me as how I might well have dealt with similar situations had I actually been a parent. My wife and I agreed from then we wouldn't even consider adoption - it just wasn't right for us.

The bottom line here is that the  choice to have a child ought to be each couple's own. Not to be second guessed by anyone else, or probed  via clueless moron questions by an Abby Huntsman. In the same way I don't second guess anyone who has their own kids, or adopts them. It is not for me to say they did the right thing or not. They have to live with their choices and the possible negative repercussions arising from them, i.e. finding they don't have enough money to provide in a society that refuses to support families economically.


The amazing thing about Abby is how her media  star continues to rise despite her on air blunders and dopiness. Now, it turns out she will be co-host on MSNBC's 'The Cycle'!

Ultimately, she is confirmation that looks trumps brains in our corporate media landscape.

Welcome, Millennials and Other New Brane Space Readers! But....There's Much More Material Here Besides 'Abby Huntsman's Hijinks'!

Scanning over the blog statistics the past week I see almost one thousand new Brane Space readers, which is very gratifying - especially considering I don't do "Facebook" - so it's clear certain stories are spreading via word of mouth or links sent to others via e-mail.  The one which has attracted the most reads by far, however, is the April 6th entry:  'Bernie Sanders Schools Millennial Moron Abby Huntsman on Bill Maher's REAL TIME'. 

When I put that blog up last Friday night, almost as an afterthought , I figured it might attract some eyeballs but not anywhere near 856 at last count. (But this is still far fewer than the 3,700 hits for last June's Venus transit of the Sun.) 

The blog itself referenced Millennials, Generation Ys and Huntsman as perhaps (hopefully!) an outlier example of what author Mark Bauerlein has called "the dumbest generation". He referenced this as pertaining to those embedded almost entirely in social media like Twitter and Facebook and hence seldom leaving those solipsist, self-referenced cocoons to read or explore any other venues, subjects or areas - especially which may appear too challenging at first glance.

What I hope, however, is that if Millennials are pouring in to read the post on Abby Huntsman, they will also move eyeballs to the right column and check out all the other blogs, articles which will be seen to be of an eclectic variety.  The emphasis then is on diverse content, and much of it is expressly designed for a college level or college age audience.

As I wrote in my inaugural blog (in 2007) launching Brane Space.

"The name for this blog implies multi-dimensional (or multi-faceted) content in time. I will blog on aspects of science (especially astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics etc.) as well as on pseudo-science (astrology, Velikovskianism etc.), philosophy, religion, mathematics and even economics. Most of the time the blogging will simply reflect ruminations on current events, developments or scientific discoveries, but sometimes the writing will embody current worries......whether of economic malaise and dollar decline, or global warming, or perhaps when the next major asteroid may strike Earth....My main goal is to provide captivating content that enlightens and maybe entertains as well."

I suppose in many ways the 'Abby Huntsman' blog was "entertaining" - but I hope new blog readers, especially many Millennials (because they appear to be most interested in a fellow Millennial) will understand that only eating ice cream without any veggies, will not be conducive to health. In this case, one's mental health, intellect, .....the point Bauerlein made in his book, i.e.

"For education to happen, people must encounter worthwhile things outside their sphere of interest and brainpower. Knowledge grows, skills improve, tastes refine and conscience ripens only if the experiences bear a degree of unfamiliarity"

So, enjoy the Abby blog, but don't let the other content -unfamiliar though it may be-  turn you off!

What Sen. Bernie Sanders Didn't Get To Say on Bill Maher's REAL TIME

Here's a brief piece of advice to Bill Maher, host of HBO's REAL TIME: Next time you deign to have a  guest of Sen. Bernie Sanders' gravitas and caliber on your show, please don't 'bring in the clowns' with the likes of Abby Huntsman, and Wall Street Journal flack, Steve Moore. Many left blogs that noted the show described it as a "mess" on account of mixing up an informed Senator with two yahoos, or maybe one yahoo and one bimbo. As it was, Sen. Sanders was repeatedly shouted down or cut off in mid-sentence by one of other of the two guest morons, and what help Bill did deliver - in terms of explaining more about the "Chained CPI" was too little, too late. It got so bad and so hard to watch, that wifey had to bail out after three minutes - using unprintable names to describe both Huntsman and Moore, which I will not repeat here.

But what I will do is produce here a key segment of a speech Sen. Sanders gave, and which elements might have served to educate millions (especially of the Gen. Y group Huntsman belongs to) had he been able to get a word in edgewise, as opposed to having to resort to animated hand motions (which wifey and I interpreted as efforts to maybe shut capitalist troll Moore up!)

Anyway, here's what Bernie would have said in completeness, had he had the chance:

I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, I also am especially concerned about the impact this change would have on disabled veterans and their survivors.


The Senate just last month went on record in opposition to the president’s approach. In poll after poll, the American people are overwhelmingly against cutting Social Security. And organizations representing a broad spectrum of millions of Americans from the AFL-CIO to the American Legion to AARP to NOW have urged the president not to make this terrible mistake.

This is not a minor tweak, as its proponents contend. Under Obama’s proposal, according to the Social Security Administration, 65-year-old retirees would lose more than $650 a year by their 75th birthday, and more than $1,000 a year would be cut from their benefits once they reach 85. The proposed change would also affect more than 3.2 million disabled veterans receiving disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans who started receiving V.A. disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 a year at age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at age 65. Benefits for more than 350,000 surviving spouses and children would also be cut.

I remember when Obama said he was concerned about retirees struggling to get by and was unequivocal in his opposition to cutting cost-of-living adjustments. On September 6, 2008, then Sen. Obama spoke to the AARP 50th anniversary convention. ‘John McCain’s campaign has gone even further suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressure on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear. I will not do either.’

I also hope the president follows up on another suggestion that he made during that campaign and gets behind my legislation to raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, extending the life of Social Security for generations to come without the need to cut benefits or raise taxes on the middle class.

Yes, we must move forward on deficit reduction, but it must not be done on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

-----
Bravo to Sen. Sanders! If we had more Socialists in Congress we might actually be able to make this a nation of, by and for the PEOPLE - as opposed to corporations and the Neoliberal Imperative.

Bernie Sanders Schools Millennial Moron Abby Huntsman on Bill Maher

Here is a cautionary note for any up and coming "Millennials" (aka Generation Ys) seeking to make a bigger and brighter name for themselves over the tube: Educate yourselves first! Abby Huntsman's pathetic appearance last night on Bill Maher's Real Time, reminded me why we have books like Mark Bauerlein's  The Dumbest Generation  widely circulating.

Huntsman, much like the woefully ignorant 'Kennedy' (aka Lisa Kennedy) last year on Maher's show ( in regard to global warming - who spouted "Sunspots!" as the reason)  had to be schooled by Sen. Bernie Sanders on the details of the Chained CPI (i.e. Obama's proposed cut via changing the cost of living to inflation index for seniors on Social Security). She also had no clue, not one, that the federal budget game isn't stacking her Gen Y bunch against my Boomers, but rather BOTH our groups against the Military Industrial Complex, which is sucking us all dry.

But instead of being informed, demonstrating some scintilla of education, she whined about "My generation - what're they gonna do?" like a sniveling nitwit. Bernie tried his best to educate this star of  'Huffpost Live' - in the brief spans of time allotted to him - between her interruptions, as well as those of the congenital moron Stephen Moore. But it seemed at times she was more invested in getting her two cents in than in listening to what the elder statesman Sen. Sanders had to say - given he has about 40 years more experience in the political -economic world. 

I know not all Millennials are clones of either Kennedy or Ms. Huntsman, but so far the feature performances are not inspiring.

Regarding 'The Dumbest Generation', readers may recall from a blog three years ago that it revealed how a whole generation of youth (mainly Generation Y'ers) were being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance, and their addiction to digital crap, and socializing via Twitter, Facebook, etc. Wasting time when they ought to have been developing their minds by accessing the (written) works for politics, science, history, economics etc.  As soon as I listened to Huntsman for five minutes, after her first interruption of Sen. Sanders, I pegged her in this category of hyper-social networking twits.

The problem with the hyper-networked bunch is that they erect confected and artificial solipsist worlds in which all the things that bother and bore them are blocked out. In the case of Huntsman, it could well be that she simply didn't care enough to really learn why the Chained CPI is a terrible idea or why her generation isn't losing to us older farts, but rather both of our generations are losing out to the rich fuckers and the war mongering assholes. But her narative, that we (older folks on Social Security) are "taking from" her gen's mouths, and grabbing their jobs - while corporations sit on $1.7 trillion in capital - discloses she's in the same brain league as Kennedy.

Of course, this is exactly the strategy of the Neoliberal scumballs and parasites who are all about "divide and conquer". Regrettably, Abby Huntsman, by her obtuse reaction to Sen. Sanders, shows she's bought this hook, line and sinker. She actually believes in her heart of hearts that we old farts would rather her generation fall behind than that we miss out on our 'goodies' (Never mind Obama plans to cut them!)

Meanwhile, Abby's take on letting the Keystone XL pipeline go through was equally uninformed (adding 'Well, we all have to take risks, like when we walk across the street!' which had Maher falling out of his chair in a pseudo-mock demo) . Abby then  interjected  "bestiality" in a discussion of same sex marriage. One is left to wonder if she really got all those brains from dad, Jon Huntsman.

Sadly, if Facebook “friending”, texting, tweeting and video gaming is what defines a group's limited universe, then their overall education (which must exist beyond any classroom) will be a casualty. As author Bauerlein notes (p. 138):

"For education to happen, people must encounter worthwhile things outside their sphere of interest and brainpower. Knowledge grows, skills improve, tastes refine and conscience ripens only if the experiences bear a degree of unfamiliarity"


What that means, as he further observes, is one must move through and beyond the initial knee-jerk reaction: “I don’t get it! That’s not for me, not my cup of tea!”  Even if it's a blog on the chained CPI, or 'order and disorder' and evolution, or even complex numbers. At least make a minimal effort to learn.

Bauerlein again (ibid.):

“Nobody savors the process, but mature adults realize the benefits. Adolescents don’t and digital connections save them the labor of self-improvement…..the screen and cell bombard adolescents with youth trifles and the sporadic brush with challenging subjects that recall their shortcomings are quickly offset by a few minutes back in virtual comfort zones"

And – as the author warns, the “opportunity costs are high”. Imagine instead of wasting hours and days on pseudo-socializing (which I define in terms of digital contacts-communication, rather than face-to-face or the famous “bull sessions” such as we used to partake of in the 60s) the young adult pursued actual knowledge aims – learning the conjugation of Russian verbs, or Latin, or how to integrate around a pole using residue calculus, or …just learning about what’s transpiring now at the interface of politics and ecoomics, say in terms of financial implications of the sequester, or the history of the deficit and the debt ceiling.  Oh....and how U.S. taxes are at the lowest percentage of GDP in over a generation!


‘AWWWWWW……BOOOOOOOOORRRRRING!’

Well, yes, to the undeveloped and raw mind. But getting beyond that reaction is what molds and defines the adult. It is, if you will, the sine qua non rite of passage to adulthood in a civilization which generally foregoes such rites.

One hopes Abby Huntsman will learn and actually apply that next time she gets a prime time gig. Assuming she does get one! But given how often superficial looks get a pass in our  consumer, 24/7 Bimbo-Himbo corporate media culture, I wouldn't be surprised if her star rises even further after her just concluded 'brainiac' performance!