Saturday Morning: What’s The Matter With Kansas?

Kansas Wheat Field

I spent my early childhood in Lawrence, Kansas while my dad was working on his Ph.D. at KU. We lived in the married student housing, which consisted of a group of wood frame former army barraks painted yellow. They called it “Sunnyside.” As a child I just loved the place. My mom remembers how the dust would blow up through the floorboards and the clothes would be dry before she even finished hanging them on the clothesline. I remember it as a kind of paradise where there were plenty of other kids around and vast fields nearby where we could run and play to our heart’s content. In those carefree days of the 1950s, parents didn’t feel they had to watch their children every minute. We didn’t need play dates, we just ran outdoors and joined the fun. We had a lot of freedom then.

I can still recall the simmering summer afternoons when all the adults were sheltering indoors and we wore ourselves out climbing the jungle gym and hanging upside down or wandering through the fields looking for arrowheads or relaxing in the shade of a giant oak tree where someone had nailed boards together to make a tree house. We’d climb up there and enjoy the view from on high.

welcome to kansas

One of my clearest memories is the joy I’d feel when, after driving up to North Dakota with my family to visit my grandparents we’d cross the Kansas border and the “Welcome to Kansas, the Sunflower State” sign, and I’d know I was back home at last. I’d survey the wheat fields waving in the breeze, the distant horizon, the endless highway, straight and flat, where if there was a speed limit sign all it was 100 mph.

Yes, I loved Kansas, as only a child can love a place. When we moved away to Ohio, I was broken-hearted and homesick and for a long time I begged my parents to take us back there.

I guess these memories are the reason it hurts my heart to hear about what is going on in Kansas today. I suppose it was always a conservative place, but today it has become cruel and mean-spirited. Look at the news from my old home state this morning.

Kansas passes anti-abortion bill declaring life begins ‘at fertilization.’ The Christian Science Monitor reports:

Kansas legislators gave final passage to a sweeping anti-abortion measure Friday night, sending Gov. Sam Brownback a bill that declares life begins “at fertilization” while blocking tax breaks for abortion providers and banning abortions performed solely because of the baby’s sex.

The House voted 90-30 for a compromise version of the bill reconciling differences between the two chambers, only hours after the Senate approved it, 28-10. The Republican governor is a strong abortion opponent, and supporters of the measure expect him to sign it into law so that the new restrictions take effect July 1.

In addition to the bans on tax breaks and sex-selection abortions, the bill prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in more detail what information doctors must provide to patients seeking abortions.

Yes, the War on Women continues, and the Kansas legislature is apparently determined to beat out North Dakota as the most dangerous place for women to get pregnant.
Read the rest of this entry »


Boehner Dismissively Rejects Obama Budget

John Boehner

Politico:

House Speaker John Boehner immediately dismissed President Barack Obama’s package of significant new entitlement cuts tied to new tax revenues, calling them “no way to lead and move the country forward.”

The White House had portrayed the proposal, part of the budget it will release next week, as a compromise with Congressional Republicans that could have put them on track for another run at a grand bargain.

But Boehner said he will not consider new revenues as part of the deal, arguing that “modest” entitlement savings should not “be held hostage for more tax hikes.”

Politico notes that Obama has now opened himself up to attacks from both the left (such as it is) and the right. Right wing nuts hate the increased taxes on “tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires”

Already, Obama’s budget proposal goes farther than many in his own party and base said they would bear by including “chained CPI,” the adjustment that would over time reduce cost-of-living increases to Social Security and other federal benefit programs — effectively, a cut to Social Security benefits by tying them to inflation….

And Obama is already facing a backlash from liberal Democrats as he has floated the chained CPI idea. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Friday that any Social Security cuts are a no-go for him.

“While there are large portions of the president’s budget that I strongly support, I remain firmly opposed to the chained CPI,” Harkin said. “This policy is an unnecessary attack on Social Security, a program that by law is unable to add to the deficit.”

As I’ve repeatedly said, our only defense against Obama’s obsession with cutting social programs is the stupidity of the House Republicans.


As Expected, Obama’s 2014 Budget Includes Chained CPI

ChainedCPI

Here we go, folks. The Associated Press (via Business Insider) reports that Obama’s New Budget Will Contain The Infamous ‘Chained CPI.’ The story is based on a anonymous leak from “an administration official.

The proposal attempts to strike a compromise with congressional Republicans on the Fiscal 2014 budget by combining the president’s demand for higher taxes with GOP insistence on reductions in entitlement programs.

The official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity to describe a budget that has yet to be released, said Obama would reduce the federal government deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.
A key feature of the plan Obama is proposing for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called “chained CPI.” This new formula would effectively curb annual annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security.

Obama’s budget proposal also calls for additional tax revenue, including a proposal to place limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for wealthy taxpayers. Obama has also called for limits on tax deductions by the wealthy, a proposal that could generate about $580 billion in revenue over ten years.

The inflation adjustment would reduce federal spending over 10 years by about $130 billion, according to past White House estimates. Because it also affects how tax brackets are adjusted, it would also generate about $100 in higher taxes and affect even middle income taxpayers.

This is completely unacceptable. We should not have to rely on the stubbornness of right wing opposition to tax increases to save us from our supposedly Democratic President, but that’s the position we’re in right now. Obama has basically just put his 2011 “grand bargain” (already rejected by Boehner), put it down on paper and called it a budget.

Michael Lind at Salon writes that Obama is “making a historic mistake on Social Security.”

President Obama reportedly is unveiling a budget using the chained CPI inflation measure to cheat elderly Americans out of the benefits they were promised. In two previous posts I’ve explained the perversity of the current debate about Social Security. The tax-favored private components of America’s mixed private-public retirement system — programs like employer pensions, 401Ks and IRAs — are inefficient, volatile and subject to manipulation by overcompensated, fee-extracting money managers. In contrast, the Social Security program is simple and efficient, and has low overhead costs. And yet the bipartisan establishment, including many “progressive” Democrats as well as Republicans, wants to cut Social Security — the part that works — and expand tax-favored private savings, the inefficient, unstable and inequitable part.

While cutting Social Security makes no sense at all in terms of economics or public policy, it makes excellent sense in terms of the selfish class interests of the super-rich. They have extracted about half the gains from economic growth in the U.S. in the last half-century and recycle some of their profits to fund politicians, and lobbyists, as well as mercenary propagandists who pose as neutral think tank experts. Social Security’s contribution to the retirement income of the rich is negligible, while the top 20 percent receives around 80 percent of the income from tax-favored private retirement savings accounts like 401Ks. Naturally many of America’s oligarchs want the public discussion to be solely about cutting Social Security benefits for the bottom 80 percent, rather than 401Ks for the top 20 percent. To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, Social Security is for the little people. And if we cannot afford all of our present public-plus-private retirement system … well, as the saying in Tsarist Russia had it, let any shortage be shared among the peasants.

Elite discourse on this subject is radically at odds with public opinion. According to a February 2013 Pew poll, only 10 percent of Americans want to cut Social Security while 41 percent want to increase Social Security benefits. It’s time to change the public conversation about retirement security in America to reflect the beliefs and interests of the struggling many, not the fortunate few. We need to change the subject from cutting Social Security while subsidizing luxury retirements for the elite to cutting retirement subsidies for upper-income groups while expanding Social Security benefits for the majority of American retirees.

Please go read the whole thing and then we all need to bombard the White house with calls and e-mails.


President Obama Apologizes to Kamala Harris

Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom

President Obama showed some serious class today, and in the process, set a good example for the country. He called California District Attorney Kamala Harris for commenting on her looks in a professional setting. Politico reports:

President Obama called California Attorney General Kamala Harris on Thursday to apologize for his comments about her appearance that have drawn a storm of criticism.

“He called her to apologize for the distraction created by his comments,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said during his briefing Friday, later adding that the president had also “apologized for the remark.”

Obama “did not want in any way to diminish the attorney general’s professional accomplishments and her capabilities,” Carney said. “He fully recognizes the challenges women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance.”

Good job, Mr. President!

At The Atlantic, Garrance Franke-Ruta explains Why Obama’s ‘Best-Looking Attorney General’ Comment Was a Gaffe

President Obama’s biggest gaffe yesterday when speaking of California Attorney General Kamala Harris was not in flirtatiously complimenting her as “the best-looking attorney general,” but in introducing an observation from the system of beauty into a forum that was about the system of power.

What’s that, you say? Irin Carmon does a great job in Salon in laying out the bounds of propriety for when it’s appropriate to talk about a woman’s looks as a general matter. But I’ve long felt we lack a solid theoretical underpinning for easily discussing these issues, and why precisely it is that admiring and complimenting women for the beauty they work so hard to maintain–and let’s be clear, nobody looks like Harris at her age (48) without effort and without herself valuing beauty and fitness, which are achievements as much or more than naturally occurring properties–can sometimes be inappropriate.

It seems to me–and I touched on this a bit a 2009 Slate piece–that a simple distinction between the two worlds in which women today operate can help us think about this: They are the system of beauty, and the system of power.

Take a look at the rest–it’s a thoughtful and well-argued piece.


Friday Reads

vintage_april_showers_bring_may_flowers_print-r42d9e98985b54c6387bbd6c8ee033177_a7jgy_400Good Morning!

Movie critic Roger Ebert passed away yesterday at the age of 70.  His cancer had recurred and spread. I actually met Ebert on a plane to London 30 years ago. He was working on the movie “Syd and Nancy” and I was celebrating finishing my first masters.  I used to love to watch his show with Siskel.

Ebert, 70, who reviewed movies for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years and on TV for 31 years, and who was without question the nation’s most prominent and influential film critic, died Thursday in Chicago.

“We were getting ready to go home today for hospice care, when he looked at us, smiled, and passed away,” said his wife, Chaz Ebert. “No struggle, no pain, just a quiet, dignified transition.”

He had been in poor health over the past decade, battling cancers of the thyroid and salivary gland.

He lost part of his lower jaw in 2006, and with it the ability to speak or eat, a calamity that would have driven other men from the public eye. But Ebert refused to hide, instead forging what became a new chapter in his career, an extraordinary chronicle of his devastating illness that won him a new generation of admirers. “No point in denying it,” he wrote, analyzing his medical struggles with characteristic courage, candor and wit, a view that was never tinged with bitterness or self-pity.

On Tuesday, Ebert blogged that he had suffered a recurrence of cancer following a hip fracture suffered in December, and would be taking “a leave of presence.” In the blog essay, marking his 46th anniversary of becoming the Sun-Times film critic, Ebert wrote “I am not going away. My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers hand-picked and greatly admired by me.”

Some times a story shocks me, then I stop to wonder why I should really be shocked.  A high school in Georgia is still holding segregated prom.april-in-paris-2-movie-poster

WSAV in Georgia reports that Wilcox County High School holds two proms for its students: a whites-only prom, and an integrated prom. WSAV notes that the school has never had a fully inclusive prom in its history.

Best friends Stephanie Sinnot, Mareshia Rucker, Quanesha Wallace and Keela Bloodworth are trying to change that. “We are all friends,” said Sinnot. “That’s just kind of not right that we can’t go to prom together.”

If any non-white person tried to attend the whites-only prom, “They would probably have the police come out there and escort them off the premises,” said Bloodworth. According to WSAV, this was the case in 2012 when a biracial student who tried to attend the dance was “turned away by police.”

i'll remember aprilI’m not one to go round quoting the Harvard Business Review but this particular study is a good one.  “Companies that Practice “Conscious Capitalism” Perform 10x Better”.

Blake Mycoskie, who founded Tom’s Shoes at age 26, talked about the profitable business he’s built on a model of giving a pair of shoes to a child in need for each pair of shoes the company sells. Shubhro Sen, who leads people development for Tata, the huge, privately-owned Indian conglomerate, described the founding tenet of the company that endures to this day: “We earn our profits from society and they should go back into society.” Most of the company today is owned by philanthropic trusts.

I took away from these three days a very clear and inspiring message. It’s not necessary to choose up sides between consciousness and capitalism, self-interest and the broader interest, or personal development and service to others. Rather, they’re each inextricably connected, and they all serve one another.

Raj Sisodia looked at 28 companies he identified as the most conscious — “firms of endearment” as he terms them — based on characteristics such as their stated purpose, generosity of compensation, quality of customer service, investment in their communities, and impact on the environment.

The 18 publicly traded companies out of the 28 outperformed the S&P 500 index by a factor of 10.5 over the years 1996-2011. And why, in the end, should that be a surprise? Conscious companies treat their stakeholders better. As a consequence, their suppliers are happier to do business with them. Employees are more engaged, productive, and likely to stay. These companies are more welcome in their communities and their customers are more satisfied and loyal. The most conscious companies give more, and they get more in return. The inescapable conclusion: it pays to care, widely and deeply.

Chelsea Clinton told MSNBC viewers that ‘We can’t leave a gender behind’ on Alex Wagner yesterday.

While affluent American women debate the merits of “leaning in” or “having it all,” U.S. women still earn 77-cents for every dollar earned by men, and the U.S. ranks 77th in the world for participation of women in government. And the economic stress is far greater for women worldwide. Today, 70% of the world’s poor and two-thirds of the world’s illiterate adults are women.

On Thursday, Chelsea Clinton, Jada Pinkett Smith and Zainab Salbi joined the NOW with Alex Wagner panel to discuss both the plight and the progress of women in America and across the globe.

One of most glaring gender disparities in the U.S. is the lack of women in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Women currently hold fewer than 25% of STEM jobs.

The U.S. Department of Commerce predicts  the number of STEM jobs will grow 17% between 2008 and 2018–three times the growth rate for non-STEM jobs. “If we’re really going to own our own future,” Clinton said, “we can’t leave a gender behind. We all need to be a part of that.”

When it comes to investing in women, Zainab Salbi says, “it’s the one investment that will help everyone.”

I’ve got a few quick links on antiquities smugglers that you might find intriguing.  First, a Utah couple has been indicted for smuggling Peruvian antiquities to the US.

A federal grand jury indicted two West Valley City residents Wednesday on allegations they helped smuggled Peruvian artifacts, including pre-Columbian vessels, to the United States.

Cesar Guarderas, 70, and his wife, Rosa Isabel Guarderas, 45, were arrested March 25 following an investigation that began in October. They will make their first court appearance Friday.

Two other men also are named in the indictment: Javier Abanto-Sarmiento, 39, and Alfredo Abanto-Sarmiento, 36, of Trujillo, Peru. Javier Abanto-Sarmiento and Rosa Isabel Guarderas are siblings.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents arrested Javier Abanto-Sarmiento on March 4 when he arrived in Miami from Peru. He is currently being brought to Salt Lake City by U.S. Marshals. Alfredo Abanto-Sarmiento has not yet been arrested.

HSI used an undercover agent to buy two Peruvian artifacts from Cesar Guarderas in November for $3,000. The agent then paid $20,000 that same month for 10 additional artifacts.

Professors at Utah Valley University and Tulane University who are Peruvian experts authenticated the artifacts; the items also were tested at a laboratory in Washington. Since 1997, the U.S. and Peru have had an agreement barring specific artifacts and ethnological religious objects from being brought to the U.S.

The artifact trafficking scheme also was corroborated by undercover telephone, email and in-person discussions with Javier Abanto-Sarmiento and Cesar Guarderas. At some point, Cesar Guarderas said Javier Abanto-Sarmiento had access to more than 100 pieces of pottery in Peru, some he had found buried in the ground, and was willing to ship them to the U.S.

Then, there’s a gang in India that’s been arrested for taking ancient idols from Temples.

 The police on Wednesday arrested a four-member gang involved in idol thefts at various places in and around Kumba­konam and recovered 26 ancient and exquisite stone and copper idols besides four thiruvasis (arch around an idol), all dating back to the Chola and Pallava era.

Following frequent incidents of idol theft from ancient temples in Kum­ba­konam, Swami­malai and Pasupathikoil recently, the police formed a special team under the direct supervision of DSP Silambarasan to investigate the issue.

This reminds me of a ring of thieves in New Orleans that were stealing some of the angels, vases, and grave ornaments from our historic St Roch Cemetarycemeteries.  Here’s a link to a really terrific description of that crime in the NYT.  I think it would make a great movie, frankly.

On a moody February day, with rain dripping off the muscadine vines and a concerto by Respighi wafting through the living room, Peter Patout, an antiques dealer, was cosseted in the splendor of his Bourbon Street home. There amid Paris porcelain and ancestral oils in gilt frames, he gave his version of the insidious crime that has made him one of the most talked-about men in the city: conspiring to steal cemetery ornaments from hallowed tombs.

”The thieves are in jail,” said Mr. Patout, a descendant of sugar planters, who is out on bail. ”I’ve been arrested four times. Would you like some Patout sugar in your coffee?”

Around New Orleans, there is the smell of a rat amid the scent of sweet olive. It was in Mr. Patout’s secluded courtyard, lush with banana trees of deep Louisiana lineage, that detectives seized two funerary statues, including a $50,000 marble Madonna. The New Orleans police say these were part of a cache of more than 200 romantically patinated urns, angels and Blessed Mothers plundered by thieves last year from the above-ground marble tombs and granite sarcophagi that populate New Orleans’s legendary ”cities of the dead.”

If we had google “nose”, I would try to waft some night blooming jasmine your way.

You just knew I’d fit something in here about grave goods didn’t you?  I love antiques as much as the next person.  I want folks stealing from graves, temples, and poor countries to support my passion.  However, I’m sure these items are way out of my league but evidently some people don’t care how they come by a collectible.

So, I tried to concentrate on some newsy things today and give us a break from the politics.  It’s up to you to fill in the blanks.  What’s on your reading and blogging list this morning?