Durban Zanrik: John Stossel- 'Stupid in America'

Source:Durban Zanrik- Jimmy Kimmel Live With Jay Leno: hopefully not talking to the best that America has to offer.

"Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it." 

From Durban Zanrik

Are we stupid in America as a country? Well, if you consider the fact that a lot of Americans know exactly which rehab their favorite celebrities are currently staying at or which jail they're currently residing at (after being pulled over their latest drunk driving arrest) but couldn't name their own mayor or governor, even if you spotted them their first and last names, perhaps even their city and state, that would suggest to a lot of intelligent people that we're pretty stupid as a country. 

But what do intelligent people know anyway? We're they one of the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone (because they camped outside the store the night before) no, because they have lives and better things to do. 

To sound serious just for a minute: of course not we're not stupid as a country (even with all of our escaped mental patients and morons hogging up our airwaves and media) otherwise we  wouldn't be as developed as a nation as we are, with the largest economy in the world, with a military not only capable of defending ourselves very well, but also other developed nations but do we have stupid people. 

Looking at the intelligence levels of Americans is sort of like looking at Islamic or Christian terrorists: sure, there are terrorists in those groups, but the percentage is so small that you can't define those groups as terrorists, but you have enough spoiled food in them to make their groups look and taste bad. Show me a country that doesn't have stupid people and I sell you my Miami beach house that's located in Minnesota. 

Do we have stupid policy's? Of course in government and the private sector, education being a perfect example of that. 

To give you a couple of examples: we reward educators for their time of service, not quality of service. And once they've served a certain amount time, it's almost impossible to fire them, which is called teacher tenure. And them we wonder (or some of us may wonder) why we are 39th in the world in education, even though we have the largest economy. Because our educators know that they don't have to do the best job they can in order to keep it. Or get a raise, all they have to do is serve a certain amount of time. Where all other professions the employees are judged by the job that they do, not by how long they've been doing their job. 

A major cause for our lack of education in America, gets to  teacher unions, who's number one job is to give their members who pay for their service the best compensation and benefits possible, which they do a great job of. They are not in the business to make our public education System the best it can be. Thats supposed to be the job of our public officials. But if they get a lot of contributions from teacher unions, that makes their job very hard, because they know who pays for their campaigns. 

If we don't educate our students, we are not going to be able to produce enough workers in the future that we need working high skilled jobs and making good livings, making our economy as strong as it can be. And being ranked 39th in the world in education is not educating your students well enough. 

Because of our lack of quality of education (not quantity) we are going to have to continue importing high-skilled workers from other countries and in some cases developing countries like China and India as well as exporting those jobs over there to countries that have the high-skilled workers to work these jobs. Which means we have to treat our education profession which is one of our top five most important professions. Because without it, people wouldn't be able to get the education they need in order to get a good job. 

So we need to treat this critical profession as important as it is. Good workers are rewarded for the work, bad workers are retrained or removed and our customers (meaning the students and parents) get a choice in where they consume this service. We don't as a country treat our education system as important as it is, we allow low-performing educators stay in the system. 

As well as low-performing schools stay in the system, some students are forced to go to bad schools, because of where they live. And then or some of us wonder why we are 39th in the world in education. 

Bill Moyers Journal: 'Hunger in America'

Source:Bill Moyers Journal- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Bill Moyers Journal looks at shortages in America's food banks. For more information, see:Bill Moyers Journal." 

From Bill Moyers Journal

Hunger or food insecurity which I guess would be the new popular term for people who don't have enough food to eat because they can't afford to buy enough food would be what I would call level three in poverty. I four levels - homeless being the worst and level four. Food insecurity being level three. Unemployed and low-skilled with kids being level two. And employed perhaps full-time and maybe another job on the side, as well as collecting Food Assistance being level one. 

Level one of poverty being the best (if you want to call it that) because these people are workers and have work experience and perhaps a lot of it and perhaps they just need to further their education or receive additional job training at work in order to get a good job and move out of poverty. 

But a problem with food insecurity, is that effects all levels of poverty. If you can't even afford to have a place to live, you probably can't afford enough food as well. And of course if you are food insecure, you don't have enough food to eat. 

If you are on public assistance like Welfare Insurance, you are probably collecting Food Assistance as well. And obviously can't afford enough food to eat on your own. And if you are a low-income, low- skilled worker, maybe you can afford enough food to eat or not. Maybe you are not collecting public food assistance, but you are eating at Church and other community places. And perhaps you collect food from food banks as well. 

With the Great Recession, if anything food insecurity has become a bigger problem in America and people that used to be middle class or upper Middle class workers and are well-educated, have now slipped into poverty and have lost their homes. And are collecting Food Assistance because they've been unemployed for so long. 

I have some ideas in how to solve this problem that gets to temporary food assistance for these people. As well as helping them further their education job training so hungry people no longer need this assistance . But ideas aren't in the New Deal or Great Society area. I'm not a Democratic Socialist.  (As if you didn't already know) 

I don't think in welfare state terms to solve these problems, but I do consider myself a Progressive and would like to see some progress here. My ideas have to do with creating a national system of food centers, at least semi-private in the short-term, that wouldn't be run by the Federal Government as well as non- profit, where each state would have their own food assistance system. 

This system would not be run by government and would be semi-private and non-profit with like a national headquarters. But each state would have their own system and these food centers would be a combination of grocery stores and like cafeteria's, with discounted food, with mostly healthy food, that people who are eligible for them could buy their grocery's, eat their meals, spend their money and use their Food Assistance to help pay for their food. 

This would be where individuals and organizations would be eligible to donate their extra food and other food to a food center that would be located in areas with high food insecurity. As we would set up a food assistance system like this. 

We as a country need to do more for people in poverty so they can get better skills and a better education, so they can get better jobs. And be able to move off of public assistance and into the middle class and to self-sufficiency. So they no longer have to collect from these programs which would make them easier to run.

AEI: 'U.S. Demand for Drugs Fuels Cartels'

Source:AEI- event on the War on Drugs.

"The Drug War's New Front Line: Combating Narco-Criminality in Central America

Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:AEI." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

If you look at the reasons why America still has a so-called War on Drugs and why narcotics are still a problem in America forty years after President Nixon officially launched the so-called War on Drugs in America, I believe its pretty simple and two reasons: the way we fight the so-called War on Drugs and how ineffectively we've been at it. As well as Mexico and the large demand in America as Mexico two huge countries, two of the largest countries in the world physically and in population. 

The combine population of both America and Mexico is roughly 430M people. And you are also talking about two of the largest economy's in the world. America still being the largest economy. And these two economy's put together total 16T$ with 430M people. And of course America and Mexico share a two- thousand mile border with each other. Easily one of the largest borders in the world. So there are a lot of resources and demand on both sides of the border to buy heroin, cocaine and meth, and marijuana. 

Marijuana, I and a lot of people would argue not being very dangerous compared with the big  three (cocaine, heroin, meth) for example it can't kill you right away. And again I and a lot of other people would argue that marijuana is as dangerous or as helpful as alcohol and tobacco and should be treated as such. 

America and Mexico, two huge country's that are trying to forcefully eliminate narcotics are actually feeding the problem and keeping narcotics dealers and growers in business by locking up drug addicts and treating them the same drug dealers. And locking these addicts up who have a medical condition in prison where they get no help for their problems and get more drugs while in prison. And if anything get back on the streets with a bigger addiction. 

Mexico has the same issues but they also have a lot of corruption in their Federal Government especially in the law enforcement. And this corruption is a problem not only for Mexico to deal with its so-called drug war, where their officers get paid off by narcotics dealers and gangsters. The good news is the answers to reforming the so-called War on Drugs are fairly simple. 

First of all you stop fighting a fake, so-called War on Drugs and admit that it was a failure and use those resources where we've spent over a trillion-dollars to fight and use them for better things. By decriminalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol and tobacco. 

And with heroin, cocaine and meth, separate the addicts from the dealers. Treat addicts like the patients that they are and get them in drug rehab and halfway houses where they would pay for their treatment and stay as well. 

And treat those dealers like the criminals that they are and put them away in prison. 

As I said before, part of the problem with the so-called War on Drugs is about demand: if people want something enough and are addicted to it they'll do whatever they can to get what they want and to hell with the consequences. So if you teach these people that these drugs are horrible for them, they are not going to want them and their dealers will have less customers to deal their dope to.

Paul Ryan: 'Tax Reform is Key to Fixing the Economy'

 

Source:Paul Ryan- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) Chairman of the Budget Committee.

"Paul Ryan goes 'On the Record' to discuss House Budget Committee video & need for tax reform." 

From Paul Ryan

I believe everyone on the American political spectrum believes that America needs tax reform at the Federal level. It's just a question of how to do it. 

Socialists believe that we should have tax reform that closes a lot of loopholes and also raises rates on everyone, to provide a lot more public services. Which they believe would benefit the economy for everyone. 

Conservatives believe in the flat tax (a middle class tax hike) basically one Tax Rate for everyone or perhaps just three rates. There are also Conservatives that believe in what's called a fair tax, which is a consumption tax taxing what people spend money on. Rather than taxing money that they make. That tax if done right I as a Liberal would be in favor of as well. 

Liberals believe in simplifying the tax code, closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates in exchange. 

Libertarians, some believe in eliminating the tax code all together and having no Federal taxes. Others who I believe are adults and reasonable, believe in the fair tax, something that Gary Johnson is running on for President ironically in the Republican Party, even though he's a Classical Liberal, but thats a different post that I've already written. 

So there's broad agreement for the need for tax reform in America and its a matter of how to do it. But I believe there's at least one step that has to be done first before we have tax reform figuring out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. And then how much money through taxes should we raise to fund the Federal Government and then can we afford to do it for the economy and our broader fiscal policy. 

If you want the Federal Government to do more, then you are going to have to raise more money to pay for that or get the economy strong enough to pay for it. If you want the government to do less, then you have to figure out what to reform or cut and based on that how much lower taxes will be. 

I have a two step plan that I've laid out in previous posts that I call government reform. 

First step is reforming the Federal Government to get it back to doing the things that only it can do. And that at least historically has done very well and been efficient and just by reforming the Federal Government and making it work better, you would make it smaller and cheaper with a smaller workforce, whether thats your goal or not. 

My goal in this is to make it more effective and efficient which would make it cheaper and smaller. And to give you a few examples of this: decentralization, independence and consolidation. (Or DIC, if you prefer) But also some reforms as well, but I think DIC sounds better so I'm going with that. 

Decentralization, take all of our social insurance programs and pass them down to the states. But not for the states to run and this is where independence comes in. Each State would have their own system in how these programs operate, that would have to meet basic Federal standards. But each of these programs would be semi-private, non-profit, self-financed community services, and each state would have their own version of each these programs to address the needs that they work on for the people of their state. 

Consolidation - the Interior Department, Energy Department, and Agriculture Department into one new Department of Natural Resources. Take the Public Health Service out of the Health Department including NIH and make it and independent service. And put the Education Department and combine it with the Department of Human Services that would become a regulator of the community services in America. Reform, pull all of our Armed Forces out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves and put that money into deficit reduction.

And after that the Federal Government would have saved a lot of money and not need a Federal budget of 3.7T$, because we would have saved 200B$ a year alone in defense. About 1.5T$ in Social Security and Medicare because the Federal Government would no longer be running these services. Each State would have their own system for them that would be self-financed, the FEDS would regulate them instead. 

I believe this plan would save the Federal Government and Tax Payers about 2T$ a year. And then I would move to tax reform, eliminating most if not all tax loopholes, but I would settle for most. And then have a consumption tax, taxing consumption instead of income. With low rates on the essentials that people need to survive and higher rates on luxury items. And keeping the same tax credits that are aimed at helping the working poor.

Euro News: 'Iran Due to Inaugurate First Nuclear Power Plant'

Source:VOA News- a member of the Iranian opposition.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Iran's first nuclear power plant is due to be officially inaugurated today amid ongoing concern about the country's nuclear ambitions. Some are also worried about a possible nuclear race in the region. Analyst and critic of the Iranian President, Saeed Laylaz, said: "In this atmosphere, it can bring or it can start a nuclear race, a race in the Middle East to have nuclear power for military purposes and so on. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Iran opening a nuclear plant, there's probably not much that the United States, Israel or the European Union, all countries that of course doesn't want to see the Islamic Republic obtain nuclear weapons, can do to stop them. It wouldn't be irresponsible to bomb a nuclear plant in a foreign country, just because it's a nuclear plant. You would cause a lot of damage killing a lot of innocent people. 

Now if you know that Iran has nuclear weapons in it and that information is clear with other countries understanding that, then that would be a different story, but hopefully Iran is actually building nuclear power for their economy and not for nuclear weapons. But with how badly they've managed their economy the last thirty years, we shouldn't take their word on that.

It's easy to be skeptical about Iran because this is a country thats also deep in natural resources, oil as well as natural gas, they also have a middle class an an educated class. Iranians are generally well-educated, but this is a very large country of 75M people thats still a developing country with high unemployment and poverty. 

Iran is still a developing country that if anything has taken steps backwards since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, with high poverty rate and high unemployment, with an educated workforce. And a lot has to do with the fact that the Islamic Republic spends a lot of their vast resources sponsoring terrorists who support their cause and would like to establish other Islamic theocracies in the Middle East. 

Iran has made it clear that they want to the superpower of the Middle East, just not economically apparently. By the way they've managed their economy, the way their government is set up, how they treat their democratic opposition, that has the education to lead this large country and get their economy going again, by essentially freeing its people to run their economy and put their vast natural resources to work for the country and not just for the regime. And to free the people of Iran to live their own lives and put the skills that they obtain to use to benefit the country. 

Iran is way too big to invade and occupy, especially by one country but even for an international coalition. Iran is three Iraq's both physically and in population. So and invasion and occupation of Iran is almost completely off the table especially for the United States. 

But letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons can't be an option either. Whether they get them in the end or not and they may very well get them in the end, they'll probably get the technology for them and since it's such a large country will probably be able to hide them pretty effectively. 

But what the Arab League, perhaps Pakistan, and India as well, as well as the European Union and United States can do is to support the democratic opposition in Iran, financially and in with other resources. And perhaps through a coalition of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, maybe even Pakistan, and India as well, take out any nuclear weapons that Iran successfully obtains if they are successful. After all peaceful options are exhausted, through the air destroy Iran's nuclear weapons through the air if they obtain them. 

The Islamic Republic of Iran now has a nuclear plant and hopefully thats to benefit their economy and people. And perhaps to a small extent it is, but the international community, can't allow the Islamic Republic to obtain nuclear weapons especially to fund their terrorists allies.

Euro News: 'EU Unveils New Energy Strategy to End Gas Cuts'

Source:Euro News- Gunther Oettinger: EU Commissioner For Energy.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The EU has unveiled a new energy strategy it says will help it avoid possible shortages arising from gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine.  Europe imports more than 60 percent its gas, most of it from Russia.  

Brussels has long recognised the need to diversify sources after some EU countries suffered supply cuts during price rows between Moscow and Kiev. The Commission's energy chief Günther Oettinger said the new strategy would make the bloc's gas stocks less vulnerable to interruptions beyond its control. Euro News" 

From Euro News

I'm glad that the European Union has come out with their own energy policy which will be a big help for them and their economy as far as them being able to produce their only energy sources and creating jobs in Europe and putting Europeans to work. Which will also benefit their foreign policy and environmental policy as well, as fiscal policy, because it would get them off of foreign oil and gas or at least non- European oil and gas. 

The European Union is not technically a country, yet and it would also help their environmental policy, because it would allow them to use renewable energy sources creating an alternative energy industry in Europe. 

This would also help Europe's fiscal policy and allow them to pay down their debts and deficits, because this would be a boost to their economy with all of the jobs that they would create. This all sounds great right, but how is this great for America? 

I'm talking here about a European energy policy, not an American energy policy. The same benefits that could come to Europe because of this, could come to America as well. How long as a country have we've been talking about the need for a national energy policy: forty years. Ut goes back to the Nixon Administration with the 1973 Middle Eastern Oil Embargo. 

President Ford took up energy to a certain extent. President Carter had some success at getting some reforms in on conservation. And things like solar and wind. And President W. Bush managed to get an energy policy through Congress in 2005. That was mostly about oil and gas, at least it was American oil and gas, but mostly subsidy's to these company's that are already doing very well. 

But six years later we are still in this debate about having a national energy policy because we still don't have one. What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that moves America towards energy independence. We have the most natural resources in the world or we only trail Russia, but yet we aren't energy independent. Because we don't have a national energy policy, which is why we import oil and natural gas from other countries. Even though we have plenty of both to help move us towards energy independence. Not by themselves but part of a broader energy package. 

We have a whole menu of energy sources that we don't use that could also help move us towards energy independence. To go along with oil and gas but natural gas, clean coal, solar wind, nuclear, electricity, water. But we haven't developed these resources, which is why we are still dependent on foreign nations, because we don't have a national energy policy. 

And we also need to conserve more, use less of wasteful and dirty energy by taxing, perhaps taxing low mileage autos like SUV's. And perhaps subsidizing at least in the short-term clean energy that America has a market for and can help move us towards energy independence. 

An energy policy that moves you towards energy independence is just as beneficial in Europe as it's in America, as long as both have their own energy policy's. And develop their own energy sources. And if Europe can do this, then so can America which has a lot more natural resources.

American News Project: 'HUD's Affordable Housing Project'

Source:American News Project- public housing in America.

"As the Obama Administration plans to implement their recently signed $787 billion rescue plan, one of the areas they will immediately be forced to confront is the ongoing housing crisis.  The stimulus gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development $13.6 billion to address the needs of low-income families across the country. Experts say it's a good start, but new HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan is facing an enormous task, as he attempts to overhaul an agency that is facing years of neglect and mounting debt." 

From the American News Project

To me people living in public housing is just one step away from what I would call at least being level 4 Poverty. Level 4 poverty to me would be homeless people, people who can't afford a place to live and live on the streets or sometimes stay in a homeless shelter. Level 4 to me would be the worst level in poverty, the best being low-income workers. 

Some low-income workers live in public housing, others live in low-rent apartments in rough neighborhoods. A woman in this video said that she basically has lived most of her life in public housing. To me that just evidence of how much the War on Poverty has failed in America. That we would allow as a country for this to happen and not do anything or anything that would actually move these people out of poverty and into private affordable housing. 

To actually reduce poverty in America, that gets to things like  education and job placement so these people can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and become self-sufficient. What we could've been doing the last forty plus years in public housing is helping these people get the skills that they need in order to get a good job, whether they are already working or not. Because a lot of these people are low-skilled. They either only have high school diploma's, but not college or vocational or didn't even finish high school. And we should've been sending these people back to school, including community college so they can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and be self- sufficient. 

But thats just one failure in public housing which was part of the so-called Great Society legislation of the mid and late 1960s. The main failure gets to how it was designed and is very fundamental. The Federal Government figured that they could take essentially a community of low-income, low-skilled people and basically force them to live together in these run down public housing projects in rough neighborhoods. And left them there in these bad neighborhoods to raise their kids and send them to bad schools. Where they remained low-income and low-skilled. 

What we should've been doing all along and what we should be doing today is reforming public housing not only in a way that would empower the residents of public housing to finish school and further their education. So they can get a job that can support themselves and their families and become self- sufficient. And be able to pay for their own home or pay for the rent of their home on their own. 

But instead of creating more ghettos through government of all things, what we should be doing is integrate public housing residents into middle class communities. So these people can live in better communities and send their kids to better schools and find better jobs, etc, s well as living in safer communities. 

And then we need to get the Federal Government as well as state and local governments out of the business of public housing. And let them be there to regulate, but give the power to the people and let them run public housing. Turn it into a semi-private, non-profit community housing service. With each state and local government having their own chapters, but where private sector to an extent would run them. 

And these public housing projects could be paid for by the residents up to a point and then by their employers for the people who work. And Unemployment or Welfare or Disability Insurance for the people who don't work. 

Public Housing has succeeded in the sense that its prevented millions of people from having to be homeless. And perhaps all that it was designed for and to that extent it's been a success. But if the goal is to actually move people out of poverty and not just sustain them, then we need some serious reforms in public housing and are other public assistance programs.