About Me

Name: INTHENOW
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Islamophobia - An Indian Perspective

Posted by INTHENOW on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6:25:13 AM
 This post is in response to the TH essay: “Amerabia” 

 Comments by Bhumi Putra 

Here are some points to ponder about Islam:


1. Malaysia, with a slender majority of Muslims, is an Islamic State. Countries with huge majority of Christians or India with such majority of Hindus are not Christian or Hindu States.


2. In Malaysian cities where non-Muslims are in a majority, elections are not held. Kuala Lumpur with a huge non-Muslim majority has always had a Muslim mayor, nominated by the Government.


3. Muslims have multiplied four fold in India, much faster than Hindus, since Independence while Hindus in Pakistan have been reduced to an insignificant number.


4. Muslims are the only immigrant minority who create trouble in the country to which they migrated and prospered economically. Today, they are threatening the British Government with danger to civilians unless the foreign policy is modulated to their dictates. The country which gave them shelter is being asked to make foreign policy not as the nation feels fit but as this immigrant minority dictates.


5. In all the conflicts in the world, one party is invariably Muslim.


6. In all non-Muslim countries, there is respect for rule of law. Legitimate violence is the preserve of instruments of State and any other actor using violence is condemned as outlaw. In Muslim countries, the non-State actors using violence are glorified.


7. In none of the religious capitals of the world, persons of other faiths are barred from entering the city. Only in Mecca, they are not only barred, the punishment is death.


8. No other religion of the world berates the followers of other faiths in such crude terms as does Islam. No other religious book legitimizes the killing of persons of other faiths or destruction of their places of worships and religious icons.


9. In India, millions of Hindus visits the shrines of Muslim saints. Do the Muslims reciprocate?


10. When a Muslim marries a non-Muslim, why is it that it is the latter that has to change faith?


11. The Muslim aversion to music and arts in general is difficult to explain in rational terms. No other religion, not even the extremely orthodox Catholic Christianity had such aversion.


12. Islam is the only religion (except the few Mormons) which legitimises polygamy even in 21st century. All others who permitted it earlier have changed with times.


13. The position of women in Islam has continuously deteriorated. Practices in some other cultures might still be abhorrent but these do not have State sanction. In Islam, the wrapping up of women is mandatory. Inequality, polygamy but not polyandry, evidence of women being equal to half a man, asymmetry in divorce laws, all point to a belief that women are to be subjected to total control by men which the holy book says in so many words. Practice of septuagenarians marrying teenagers is prevalent only among Muslims perhaps following the example of the Prophet


14. Islam is the only religion founded on negative concepts. The Book exhorts to do things in a manner opposite to that of Kaffirs.


15. Islam is the only religion founded by a totally illiterate Prophet.


16. Only Islam permits rejoicing at the destruction of places of worship and religious symbols of other faiths and considers it an act of merit. The writing of Muslim historians who wrote from tenth to eighteenth century in India is replete with expressions of jubilations and praise for the perpetrators when such acts were done. In 21st century, persons of other faiths entering through Jeddah airport are frisked for any scriptures which, if found, are torn on the spot and thrown in the dustbin. Religious icons, if found, are crushed underfoot by the soldiers in the presence of the owners. There are numerous records of Hindu idols being placed at the entrance of mosques, which were trampled by everyone who entered the mosque. Even the Prophet destroyed the 360 images in Mecca when he gained control of it. All this has religious sanction and is not considered an aberration. Even modern Muslims take pride in these acts and are not willing to concede that these were acts of religious bigotry.


17. The apostasy laws of Islam, which provide death penalty for any Muslim trying to change his faith, are the only one of their kind in the world. These are all the more irrational when one notices that Islam, being a proselytizing religion, would not have come into being except through apostasy by adherents of some other faith.


18. While we keep hearing of Islam being a religion of peace and of brotherhood, very few Muslims, if any, are willing to say that this extends to persons of other faiths. The peace and brotherhood of Islam is confined to co-religionists while there is much overt hostility, scorn and derision for other faiths.


19. While Muslims have reacted strongly to religion specific security measures being contemplated to solve the problems created at the airports by the threat in August 2006 by certain Muslim elements to passenger air transport, they have been comfortable with religion specific measures taken by many Islamic countries:


a. In Pakistan, non-Muslims constitute separate electorates.


b. In many Islamic countries, non-Muslims are given distinct passports.


c. In several of the Islamic countries there are different visa requirements for non-Muslims.


d. Mecca is the only religious capital of the world where it is an offence for non-Muslims to enter. The penalty is death. In India, there is hardly any important Hindu shrine which was not demolished and substituted by a mosque during the centuries of Muslim rule or where a mosque has not been constructed adjacent to it. In some cases, as in Ramtek in Vidarbha, a shrine finding mention even in writings of Kalidasa, you are greeted by a mosque as you enter the expanse of the hilltop shrine.


e. There are hardly any Muslim majority countries which have not been declared Islamic countries. There is hardly any non-Muslim majority country which has been declared a theocratic State. Bangladesh, liberated with Indian help, started as a secular country, assassinated the liberator Sheikh Mujib and declared itself an Islamic State. Malaysia with a slender majority of Muslims is an Islamic State with laws loaded against non-Muslims.


f. Many Islam States have, even in this age, religion specific taxation. Hindus suffered it for centuries of Muslim rule.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialized Medical Care Example

Posted by INTHENOW on Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:31:54 AM

I live in Southern Italy.

Last week I accompanied my wife to see an orthopedic surgeon for a consultation. It only took about a week to get the appointment. However, normal wait-time for an OB/GYN is about three months; unless you are willing to pay.

The appointment was scheduled for 1500, so we arrived about 1430. The doctor offices were in a long corridor of one of the hospital wings. Specialties were listed on removable placards beside each door. The appointments run from 0800-1200 and then again from 1500 – 1800. The office space is shared between doctors, so one group arrives for the morning shift and then the next for the afternoon…hence the changeable nameplates. 

There was no waiting room; just the hall and about twenty chairs, which quickly filled, leaving about half the patients standing. There was no central check-in, so people literally crowded near their respective doors, hoping to be the first served. As the plastic seats began to fill, I noticed two distinct groups of people. Those dressed casually like us, and about one quarter in business suits with brief cases.

At around 1500 the doctors and assistants began to file in. However, almost all of them went directly to an unmarked room. You could hear laughter and conversation, accompanied by the smell of fresh brewed espresso every time the door was opened. Two rooms were open for business at around 1515, the others sometime between 1530 and 1545. The first “patients” admitted into the rooms were the guys wearing suits. My wife informed me that they were drug company salesmen. I don’t think I need to elaborate further.

The ortho guy we were waiting for never showed and no one provided any explanation.  We depated about 1615. 

However, the most astonishing thing for me personally, was observing the attitude of the office assistance and doctors. It wasn’t distain, but damn close. The patients had absolutely no leverage. They basically had three options:  

1) Accept it (which all seemed to do)

2) Complain (which amounts to complaining to the choir)

3) Go see and pay the same doctor in his/her private studio. Which will guarantee you a prompt appointment, good service, and treatment.

But if we look at the bright side, the sub-standard visit was at least cheap. Maybe.

The progressive income tax rate in Italy starts at about 23% near the poverty level and goes to 47% for those earning above 75,000 Euro a year. 

We pay about 2.35 Euro/Liter, which equals about $8.50 a gallon, depending on the dollar/Euro exchange rate. 70% of the price of gas is tax:

http://www.italiensk.info/Economia/article.php?itemID=241

In addition to State (federal), Region (state), Province (county) and Municipal (city) taxes, there is also a nationwide VAT (sales) tax of about 20%, depending on the product.

Nearly, if not everything is taxed. The best illustration I can think of is the “Beware of Dog” tax.

Several years ago I wanted to get a Beware of Dog sign for our gate. My neighbor informed me that the sign was subject to an annual tax (not kidding). Needless to say, I don’t have the sign.

I am not advocating any medical program. Nor am I making a comparison to any other country that has socialized medicine. I’m only telling what I’ve seen and know firsthand to exist in this socialized model.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The U.S. Economy and the Next 'Big One'

Posted by INTHENOW on Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:05:10 PM

 




A few months ago, in a piece entitled “Subprime Geopolitics,” we addressed two questions. The first was whether the U.S. economy was heading into recession. The second was whether such a recession would represent anything more than the normal business cycle, or whether it would represent a fundamental, long-term shift in the way the American economy works. We answered that while the economy could reasonably go into recession ­ and we would not be surprised if it did ­ in our view, a recession did not seem imminent. As for whether such a recession would represent a fundamental shift in U.S. economic life, we answered, no, this would not be “the big one.”

Americans have been waiting for the big one ever since 1929. In many ways, the Great Depression should not have come as a surprise. Some sectors of the U.S. economy ­ particularly agriculture ­ had been in a depression for years, and the global economy was deeply troubled. Nevertheless, there was a sense of euphoria in the 1920s, unjustified by circumstances. Indeed, euphoria is the classic sign of an economic peak, and one of the warnings of an impending collapse.

Still, the market crash ­ followed by a prolonged depression ­ stunned the country and permanently scarred it. The contrast between the euphoric expectations of the 1920s and the grim reality of the 1930s imbued Americans with a fundamental fear. That fear is this: Underneath the apparent stability and prosperity of the economy, things are terribly wrong, and there suddenly will be a terrible price to pay. It is the belief that prosperity is all an illusion. This was true in 1929, and the American national dread is that 1929 is about to repeat itself. Every recession evokes the primordial fear that we are living in a fool’s paradise.

There is now an emerging consensus that the United States has entered a recession. In a technical sense, this may or may not be true. Whether the economy will contract for two successive quarters or be considered a recession by some other technical measure, clearly the U.S. economy has shifted its behavior from the relatively strong expansion it has enjoyed for the past six years.

But whether there is a recession now is not the question. Rather, the question should be whether what we are experiencing is a cyclical downturn on the order of 1991 or 2001 ­ which were passing events ­ or whether the economy is entering a different pattern of performance, a shift that could last decades. The dread of hidden catastrophe is one thing. Quite another thing is whether the economic expansion that began in 1982 and has lasted more than a quarter-century is at an end.

The United States has had three economic eras since World War II. The first was the period from about 1948 until about 1968. It was marked by tremendous economic growth and social transformations, rising standards of living and cheap money. Then, there was the period between 1968 and about 1982. This period was marked by intensifying economic problems, including much slower growth, increasing commodity prices, high interest rates and surplus labor. The third period, which began in 1982, saw extremely high growth rates, rapid technological change, increasingly cheap money and low commodity prices. The first era lasted 20 years. The second lasted 14 years. The third has lasted 26 years. None of these eras moved in a straight line; each had cycles. But when we look back, each had a distinct character.

The important question is this. Have we really been in a single era since 1948, with the 1968-1982 period representing merely a breathing space in a long-term, multigenerational expansion? Or are we in a period of alternating eras, in which expansionary periods alternate with periods of relative dysfunction and economic stagnation?

If the former, then 1968-1982 was simply a period of preparation for an intensification of the 1948-1968 era, and the extremely long 26-year cycle makes complete sense: The United States has just resumed the long-term growth of the first era. If we are stuck in alternating eras, however, then the 26-year cycle is overdue for a profound cyclical shift. In confronting this question, of course, we are not only talking about the United States; we are talking about the very structure of the international system. If the United States periodically will be shifting into periods such as 1968-1982, we are facing a very different world than if the United States is in a long-term expansion with shorter down cycles.

To answer this question, we need to consider why the United States underwent the 1948-1968 expansion in the first place. To begin with, the United States has been in a massive economic expansion since about 1880. The basis of that expansion was the massive inflow of labor through immigration coupled with intense foreign investment. That plus American land completed the triad of land, labor and capital.

In a world of expanding population, the demand for American industrial and agricultural products always grew, as did the available labor force. The gold standard put in place at the time the American expansion began also accelerated the process by encouraging domestic investment and limiting consumption. Indeed, it was this combination that temporarily caught up with the United States in 1929: Surplus capacity combined with a shortage of demand and credit crippled the economy.

World War II, not the New Deal, began solving the problem by using the industrial and agricultural plant while constraining consumer demand due to war production. It put people back to work and put money into their hands ­ money that could not easily be spent during the war. The war also created two other phenomena. The first was the GI Bill, which created massive credit supplies for veterans buying homes and cheap or free educations, increasing the quality of the labor pool. The children and grandchildren of immigrants became professionals, able to drive the economy through a variety of forms of increased productivity.

The second phenomenon was the Interstate Highway System. That not only increased economic activity in itself, it decreased the cost of transportation, making hitherto inaccessible land usable for homes and later businesses. While the system devastated the inner cities by shifting population and business to the newly accessible suburbs, the availability of cheap land allowed for a construction boom that went on for decades. You could now live many miles from where you worked, which led to two-car families and so on. So where the expansion in 1880 was heavily dependent on foreign labor, capital and markets, the expansion in 1948-1968 depended instead on domestic forces.

The first postwar era (1948-1968) also was driven by deficit financing during World War II and the creation of consumer credit systems; it was then disciplined by somewhat tighter economic policies in the 1950s. The basic principle remained encouraging consumption. This led to the use of the existing industrial plant, thus putting people to work in it and in building new businesses.

The era ran out of steam in a crisis of overconsumption and underinvestment. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the desire to stimulate consumption created massive disincentives for investment. Low interest rates and high marginal tax rates shrank the investment pool. As time went on, the industrial plant became less modern and therefore less competitive globally. Demand for money drove interest rates up, while the inefficiency of the economy drove inflation.

Moreover, the baby boomers became adults and began to use credit and social services at an increasing rate. Using an increasingly undercapitalized industrial plant meant greater inefficiency as usage increased. Inflation resulted, paradoxically along with unemployment. The attempt to solve the problem through techniques used in the first era ­ more credit and more deficit spending ­ ultimately created the crises of the late 1970s and early 1980s ­ high interest rates, increased unemployment and high inflation.

The third era began when high interest rates forced massive failures and restructurings in American business. The Gordon Gekkos of the world (for those who have seen the 1980s movie “Wall Street”) tore the American economy apart and rebuilt it. Global commodity prices fell simply because the money not being invested in the United States was being invested in primary commodity production since the prices were so high. Therefore, they plunged inevitably. Finally­ and this will be controversial ­ the Reagan administration’s slashing of the marginal tax rate increased available investment capital while increasing incentives to be entrepreneurial. Low marginal tax rates weaken the hand of existing wealth and strengthen the possibility of creating new wealth.

This kicked off the massive boom that emerged in the 1990s. It drove existing corporations to the wall and broke them (Digital Equipment) and created new corporations out of nothing (Microsoft, Apple, Dell). The highly capable workforce, jump-started in the 1950s by the GI Bill, evolved into a large class of professionals and entrepreneurs. The American economy continued to rip itself apart and rebuild itself. America was indeed the place where the weak were killed and eaten, but for all the carnage of the U.S. economy, the total growth rate and the rise in overall standards of living were as startling as what happened in the first era.

Now we get to the big question. The first postwar era culminated in a crisis of overconsumption and underinvestment that took almost a generation to work through. Are the imbalances of the last quarter-century such that they necessitate a generational solution, too, or can they be contained in an ordinary recession? Behind all of the discussions of the economy, the question ultimately boils down to that. To put it another way, the first era contained many leftover structural weaknesses of the Great Depression. It could not proceed without a pause and restructuring. Was the restructuring of the second era sufficient to give the third era the ability to proceed without anything more than an ordinary recession?

There are certainly troubling signs. The return of commodity prices to real levels last seen in the late 1970s is one. The size of the U.S. trade imbalance with the rest of the world is another. Most troubling is the relative decline of the dollar, not so much because it directly affects the operation of the American economy but because it represents new terrain. When we take all these things together, it would appear that something serious is afoot.
U.S. Deficits as a Percentage of GDP

But there are the things that are not troubling, too. In spite of high commodity prices for several years, the inflation rate has remained quite stable. Interest rates have moved around, but actually are quite low, certainly by the standards of the 1970s when mortgage rates were in the high teens. The budget deficit in 2007 ran at 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, which is not any bigger than it has been since those Reagan tax cuts. Unemployment is higher than it was, but certainly is not soaring. And we are not seeing any of the combination of conditions we saw in the late 1970s, nor any of the conditions that led Richard Nixon to impose wage and price controls in the early 1970s.

The most remarkable thing is the ability of the U.S. economy to absorb record-high oil prices without going inflationary. This is because oil consumption in the United States today is not much higher than it was in the 1970s. It is not simply a matter of efficiency; it is also a reward for de-industrialization. By shifting from an industrial to a technological/service-based economy, the United States insulated itself from commodity-driven inflation.

The key to the U.S. economy is the service sector ­ which comprises everything from computer programmers to physicians to Stratfor employees. The service sector has high levels of productivity driven by technology. Productivity continues to grow, which is not historically what you would find as you enter a recession. So long as productivity grows and inflation and unemployment remain under control, the total wealth of a society increases. The transformation of the economy that occurred as a result of the pain of 1968-1982 is creating a situation in which massive economic disequilibrium has not yet interfered with productivity growth. The historical hallmark of the beginning of a recession is declining productivity due to overutilization of the economy. Productivity continues to rise. And that means, in the long term, wealth will continue to rise.

As a result, while disequilibriums in the financial system require serious recalibration that must limit growth or even cause a decline, it is our view that we are not facing an end to the expansion that began in 1982. The old dread that this is the big one, the depression we all deserve, is actually a positive sign. The dread causes caution, and caution is the one thing that can control and shape a recession, since lack of caution is usually the proximate cause. Therefore, the effects of the changes forced in the second postwar era remain intact. The financial crisis is cyclical. And growing productivity rates indicate that while this will hurt like hell, it is not the big one ­ it is not even going to be like 1982. This is 1991 and 2001 all over again.
 
STRATFOR March 4, 2008
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Middle East Connection

Posted by INTHENOW on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:43:39 PM

A massive battle broke out between two Shiite factions in Iraq. One, led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim ­ who effectively controls Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki due to the small size and fractured nature of al-Maliki’s party ­ confronted the faction led by Muqtada al-Sadr. Clearly, this was an attempt by the dominant Shiite faction to finally deal with the wild card of Iraqi Shiite politics. By the weekend, al-Sadr had capitulated. Backed into a corner by overwhelming forces, apparently backed by U.S. military force, al-Sadr effectively sued for peace.

Al-Sadr’s decision to lay down arms was heavily influenced by the Iranians. We would go further and say the decision to have al-Sadr submit to a government dominated by his Shiite rivals was a decision made with Iranian agreement. The Iranians had been restraining al-Sadr for a while, taking him to Tehran and urging him to return to the seminary to establish his clerical credentials. The Iranians did not want to see a civil war among the Iraqi Shia. A split among the Shia at a time of increasing Sunni unity and cooperation with the United States would open the door to a strategically unacceptable outcome for Iran: a pro-American government heavily dominated by Sunnis with increasing military power as the Shia are fighting among themselves.

The Americans also didn’t want this outcome. While the Iranians had restrained al-Sadr at the beginning of the U.S. surge ­ and thereby massively contributed to the end of the strategy of playing the Sunnis against the Shia ­ Tehran had not yet dealt with al-Sadr decisively. Just like Iran, the United States prefers not to see a new Sunni government emerge in Iraq. Instead, Washington wants a balance of power in Baghdad between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, and it wants intra-communal disputes to be contained within this framework. If a stable government is to emerge, each of the communities must be relatively (with an emphasis on “relatively”) stable. Thus, not for the first time, American and Iranian interests in Iraq were aligned. Both wanted an end to Shiite conflict, and that meant that both wanted al-Sadr to capitulate.

This is the point where U.S. and Iranian interests can diverge. The Iranians have a fundamental decision to make, and what happens now in Iraq is almost completely contingent upon what the Iranians decide. They can do three things. First, they can hold al-Sadr in reserve as a threat to stability if things don’t go their way. Second, they can use the relative unity of the Shia to try to impose an anti-Sunni government in Baghdad. And third, they can participate in the creation of that government.

We have long argued that the Iranians would take the third option. They certainly appeared to be cooperating in the last week. But it has not been clear what the U.S. government thought, partly because they have been deliberately opaque in their thinking on Iran, and partly because the situation was too dynamic.

STRATFOR 01 Apr 08  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For the Record

Posted by INTHENOW on Monday, March 31, 2008 5:25:20 AM
 A trusted friend sent this to me…it seemed worthy of a post:

Regardless of your political affiliation ---- you should read this . . . it's your money! 
 
CAPITAL GAINS TAX 
 
MCCAIN 
15% (no change) 
 
OBAMA 
28% 
 
CLINTON 
24% 
 
How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. 
 
 
DIVIDEND TAX 
 
MCCAIN 
15% (no change) 
 
OBAMA 
39.6% 
 
CLINTON 
39.6% 
 
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama or Clinton become president. The experts predict that "Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit." 
 
 
INCOME TAX 
 
MCCAIN 
(no changes) 
Single making 30K - tax $4,500 
Single making 50K - tax $12,500 
Single making 75K - tax $18,750 
Married making 60K- tax $9,000 
Married making 75K - tax $18,750 
Married making 125K - tax $31,250 
 
OBAMA 
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 
 
CLINTON 
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 
 
How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. 
  
INHERITANCE TAX 
 
MCCAIN 
0% 
(No change, Bush repealed this tax) 
 
OBAMA 
keep the inheritance tax 
 
CLINTON 
keep the inheritance tax 
How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. 
Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. 
 
 
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY BOTH CLINTON AND OBAMA 
* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet 
* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) 
* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) 
* New taxes on retirement accounts 
and last but not least.... 
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! 
 
Can you afford Clinton or Obama? I can't! & nbsp;
In case you want more information on Obama's tax and spend agenda: 
 
If Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $874.35 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term: 


Updated February 14, 2008: Obama's National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank Will Cost $60 Billion Over Ten Years; Equal To $6 Billion A Year And $24 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: "I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Economic Policy, Janesville , WI, 2/13/08)

 
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. "[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it." (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, "Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage," The New York Times, 5/30/07) 

Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

 
Obama's Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. "[Obama's] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually." (Margaret Talev, "Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor," McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07) 
 
Obama's Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama's tax plan includes: "[i]ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)

Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. "Barack Obama's economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan To Stimulate The Economy," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 1/13/08) 


Obama's Earl y Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07, p. 15)

 
Obama's National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama's national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented." (Obama For America, "Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama's Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)

 
Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. "Obama will embrace the Millenni um Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53) 


Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. "He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51) 


Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. "As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15) 


Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change,"www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42) 


Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: "We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build -- or come to the brink of building -- a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Renewing American Leadership," Foreign Affairs, 7-8

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I’m a Better Man

Posted by INTHENOW on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:00:00 PM
 

Chuck Norris

First and Foremost, before I get started, let me thank you for your over-the-top support for our troops in Iraq. You are a patriot!  

This is obviously a delicate and emotional subject. Its one thing to banter politics and quite another to criticize someone’s religion. So before I continue, let me get my alibis out of the way. Nothing I say is personal and the last thing I want to do is attack someone's faith. 

Please don’t let the name “INTHENOW” mislead you to any foregone stereotypical conclusion about me, or my political stance. I have 22 years of military service and probably like you, consider myself a patriot and traditionalist in most respects. In my 51 years of life, I’ve learned that the truth is usually hidden somewhere in the middle between black and white, right and left, etc. On most issues, I try to keep an open but critical mind in search of the perfect shade of grey. However like most folks, I’m not without my absolutes that guide me through life.  

I assume you’ve read both “The Power of Now” and “A New Earth” and are not just relying on critiques as your source. I listened to the audio version of the former last year, after my staunchly conservative friend of 35 years insisted on it. And I’ve just started the latter…which so far seems to be a rehash of The Power of Now. I would’ve gladly joined the Tolle discussion, but I live in Italy with a 256kbps connection…not an option for me.

I spent some hours at the Oprah website blogging with others about the book. What amazed me the most, was the sheer number of people who came away with such diverse interpretations after reading the same chapters. I began to wonder if there was more than one version in print. However, there seemed to be two underlying themes to the plethora of posts; total rejection or complete acceptance. I fall in neither category and we know where you stand.

From what I read, Tolle’s not advocating that his text is religious. In fact he makes it a point to define religion and spiritualism as two different concepts. He further goes on to say, “This book’s main purpose is not to add new information or beliefs to your mind or try to convince you of anything, but to bring about a shift in consciences, that is to say, to awaken.” He reiterates this theme throughout the book. It’s not about finding or redefining your faith...it’s about seeing it from a completely different perspective.

You said: “The fact is Tolle's "A New Earth" is being adopted and transformed into Oprah's new Easter”

I’m not sure what you mean. I think you’re inferring that Tolle and Oprah are somehow scheming to replace traditional Easter with something else. Maybe I’m gullible, but I think their efforts are motivated by a sincere desire to help others. You might disagree about the value of the content they’re espousing, but to infer a left oriented hidden agenda to replace Easter is, I think a bit much. However, I’ll assume you’re exaggerating to make a point that I’m missing.

You said: “Like most self-help spiritual texts of this type, it is a blend of half-truths and half-fabrications One easily could save the purchase price of "A New Earth" -- and subsequently avoid its misleading remarks -- by reading the Bible, which gives a much more thorough and accurate picture of life's purpose and the methods for overcoming its obstacles.”.

This is unnecessary and detracts from your article. It’s completely subjective and without supporting reference…including the Star and C.S. Lewis. What makes you qualified to make such a sweeping statement without supporting proof? Misleading to whom? In what way? These are the kind of subjective unsubstantiated statements the opposition seeks to discredit you with. I could just as well say the Koran is crap, or point to a particular version of the old or new testament, and proclaim this one “gives a much more thorough and accurate picture of life's purpose and the methods for overcoming its obstacles.” These kind of unsupported remarks have already misled those on this board who have not read the book. No doubt you could open the bible and point to a reference that supports your stated belief and discredits any others…beware false prophets. Again, totally subjective based on your religious perspective and interpretations. “This is the only path to the one true god.”

Your premise (besides trying to discredit the book) appears to be that the true religion is “hard” to come by…you have to “work” at it…it’s not “easy”. And if it comes easy, it must somehow be cheap or false. Tolle would agree with you. He cites more than one example of people becoming enlighten, awakened, conscious (use whatever term you want) after extreme pain and suffering. Only when they hit bottom, did their perspective change.

You also note that Tolle mentions many works of theological and spiritual literature and quotes prophets from across the religious spectrum. All true. But what you’re failing to tell your readers is why. What he does is highlight the parallels and underlying connecting themes of most religious teachings. This is nothing new. Theologists have been studying this for a long time. How do you think he supports his assertions…he uses references…someone’s already done the work. His point is that typically religions divide us; they tend to give us all or nothing choices…my way or the highway.  

.Tolle doesn’t deny that Jesus is the son of god…or that he isn’t. He doesn’t dispute Mohamed or espouse Buddha. He advises that if you’re already at peace with whatever religion you practice, then look no further…put down the book a go in peace.

You do yourself and your readers an injustice by telling them not to read the book. I hope they’re wise enough to read it and make their own decision.       

I’ve read the Bible and listen to the Power of Now. I don’t ascribe to everything in either book…but I’m a better man for listening to both.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »