text:
Personal Observations
It's one thing to argue the economics of inequality. The reality is that there are different and conflicting interpretations of the data and the theories. There is ambiguity. Personal biases play in. Some feel the most important thing is to allow motivation to be undisturbed by taxation, that opportunity abounds, and others feel the wealthy should help the underprivileged in one way or another.
It's entirely another thing to experience the realities of the world around us on a daily basis. Sometimes, what we see with our own eyes, in the halls and on the streets of our city, on the back roads of the world, tells us more, with no ambiguity. There is a reality.
Yesterday, I had the privilege to attend a San Francisco Symphony performance. Herbert Blomstedt, now about 87, was conducting Sibelius and Mozart.
I found a hall filled to about 2/3 capacity at 10am on a weekday, tickets very cheap ($40) at this "open rehearsal," in which we could see and hear this elderly icon graciously instruct his large orchestra, and then conduct them through the complex and beautiful compositions.
I felt deeply moved by the music and by the whole scene. Blomstedt, without a glance at his music, so clearly calling out with his hands to the oboes, then the bassoons, and to each section of instruments, calling up their volumes in one and down in another. The musicians, each with an accomplished specialty, some in their twenties, some in their seventies, each in complete command of their unique instruments and roles. All of it coming together in a way that transcends the imagination of just how--how the composer dreamed it up and wrote it down, a different score for each of the dozens of instruments and individual parts; how the conductor memorized it and knows each part, adding his own interpretation; how the musicians have been able to devote their entire careers to playing a viola or a french horn, with excellence. All for our pleasure, and for a short period of almost touching the essential beauty of life.
As I listened and watched, I considered the cost of all this--the hundreds of musicians and support staff coming from all over the Bay Area, maintenance of the great hall, and all of it. The hundreds of years of devotion to these exquisite compositions.
I reflected on how fortunate I am, having the privilege to be touched by such accomplishment and beauty. I thought of those in The Ukraine, in Nigeria, in Syria and Iraq, in rural India, and in the homeless shelters of our own cities, some only a few blocks from this great hall. We have 45 million in poverty in our country. I imagine none of them would regard even the $90 for two tickets to this performance to be inconsequential in their daily survival needs.
How can we avoid being reminded vividly of the privilege of our lives here, realizing that much of the world will not have this opportunity in their lifetimes? Here in San Francisco, one of the wealthiest cities in the US, the wealthiest country in the world. Maybe it's easy to be remain oblivious, surrounded as we are by such privilege and wealth.
Branko Milanovic, noted scholar of inequality at the World Bank, has analyzed available global data to conclude the following: some 50-60% of your economic destiny today is pre-determined by the country in which you happen to have been born; another 20% is pre-determined by the wealth of your parents. Thus, almost 80% of your economic destiny is pre-determined. And, he speculates that when the data permits analysis of gender, race, religion and other factors which are givens at birth, the percentages will be far higher.
For those who haven't seen this conclusion before, it doesn't mean there is no chance for pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, even if one was born of color, female, in Uganda, of poor parents, or an equivalent set of pre-determined obstacles. Some do. However, the data clearly shows that the "chance" of your "making it" with such birth handicaps is far lower than for the rest of us. It is "almost" impossible. My parents were relatively poor, but I was born in the USA. I'm male, Caucasian, Protestant. And, that was a very different time, a very different political scene, and a very different economy than today. There was more opportunity.
Some in this area who live in poverty, some who are working with very tight budgets, some who have been forced to move to the distant suburbs of our San Francisco by our increasingly unaffordable housing, many, many, will not be able to experience the Symphony. Ever. And, as Milanovic says, the vast majority of those born in the wrong country of poor parents, never will. Ever.
I have a wonderful young couple who clean my home biweekly. They are immigrants. They work very hard, do an excellent job for me, always willing to do anything extra that I need. As I was recording these thoughts today, the husband arrived , and with great trepidation took me aside to ask whether I could consider an advance on future cleaning of my home, so that he could buy the little things they need for the new baby they are soon expecting.
Branko Milanovic: http://www.demos.org/blog/11/14/14/income-inequality-interview-branko-milanovic
Republicans and Inequality
There can be no dispute that we are seeing a staggering rise in inequality in the US. This has rightfully become a political issue worth debating (and resolving).
When a right wing academic chides his own side of the political spectrum for disingenuously promoting a political solution to inequality, his analysis deserves reading, and he deserves recognition for intellectual honesty. This is the message from Ramesh Ponnuru of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, in today's NY Times.
He's pointing out that Republicans have started blaming the Obama administration and the Democrats for the significant rise in inequality, and have even been so bold as to suggest that Republicans will provide a solution, less inequality, if only we elect a Republican President in 2016, giving them control of all three chambers of our federal government. If ever there was, this is truly the pot calling the kettle black!
Ponnuru explains--there is no real interest among the consensus of Republicans in addressing inequality. There are no visible Republican proposals which would improve inequality. It's worse. He goes on to explain a critical variable: That the Republican economic centerpiece is just economic growth. That's all. He clearly explains that when growth is strong, everything else constant, guess what? Inequality increases! So, in essence, the Republican agenda is indisputably inconsistent with improving inequality. It's really that simple.
I'm impressed with this accurate and honest explanation, and most especially coming from a sound voice on the Right. He advises Republicans to give it up--it's dishonest.
On the other hand, Republicans can honestly argue that they might be able to make the economy grow faster than Democrats can. Comparisons between Democratic and Republican administrations' growth records across the Twentieth Century would not lend credence to that argument, at least not based on history. Nevertheless, I would trust Republicans might honestly believe they can do that.
However, they may not be able to pull it off. As Ponnuru suggests, removal of some of the restrictive, burdensome and ineffective regulations would be helpful (although many have been added under Republican administrations, as well as Democratic). So, they will find me with an open mind, interested, if they think they can grow the economy faster. I would listen to their proposals. Growth is good, beneficial. But, growth alone will not reduce inequality.
Ponnuru accurately observes that the American population still seems more interested in jobs and opportunity than in measures to reduce inequality. Faster growth might improve opportunity. Wages might increase. But wealth and income disparity will not diminish--it will worsen, unless there is some form of redistribution. I believe it indisputable that at some extreme of inequality, depending (of course) on other variables, any country will eventually face revolution. I suppose the Republicans who really understand economics and history are banking on the hope that inequality will (somehow) level out on its own. This is known as the "Kuznets curve," no longer believed by most economists. And in the meantime, they are betting that improving jobs and wages (a little) will suffice. The real questions are (a) is it getting worse? (b) at what rate? and (c) and how far are we from the precipice?
Redistribution is the only answer to reducing inequality. There is no other answer. Redistribution can come in many forms, however. Some are particularly painful to conservatives--like taxing the rich to provide welfare to the unemployed. But, there are more palatable forms of redistribution. Schools and infrastructure would be good places to start. We shouldn't even be debating these priorities. They contribute to opportunity for all, which Republicans claim they support. These are properly called redistribution when the wealthy pay for more than their share of the benefit. But isn't that better than wondering whether your children or grandchildren will have the wherewithal to hire enough vigilantes to protect their gated homes?
The rationale for the continuing tolerance among Americans (and for Chinese and other unequal developed nations) for rising inequality is perhaps best explained by a parable from the noted economist Albert Hirschman in 1973. Paraphrased by Debraj Ray, this is it:
"You're in a multi-lane tunnel, all lanes in the same direction, and you're caught in a serious traffic jam.
After a while, the cars in the other lane begin to move. Do you feel better or worse? At first, movement in the other lane may seem like a good sign: you hope that your turn to move will come soon, and indeed that might happen. You might contemplate an orderly move into the moving lane, looking for suitable gaps in the traffic. However, if the other lane keeps whizzing by, with no gaps to enter and with no change on your lane, your reactions may well become quite negative. Unevenness without corresponding redistribution can be tolerated or even welcomed if it raises expectations everywhere, but it will be tolerated for only so long. Thus, uneven growth will set forces in motion to restore a greater degree of balance, even (in some cases) actions that may thwart the growth process itself."
Americans and Chinese are still believers in the Horatio Alger story, but reality for the great majority is that bootstrapping it is harder than ever.
It's not so easy to get into that fast lane. The traffic there is moving faster and faster these days. Those Bentleys and Rolls Royces only seem to brake to admit those of their own kind. Expensive private high schools in my neighborhood, feeders to Ivy League Universities, cost $35-40,000 per year, while the San Francisco public schools must get by on a budget amounting to about $9,000 per student.
The Republican stance on key economics defies rationality. For example, to promote growth, few would disagree that appropriate spending on our infrastructure is needed and would greatly benefit growth. Here we are talking about worn out roads and highways, bridges, tunnels, inadequate fast rapid transit, tired airports, our power grids, and even our internet (slower than many other nations). Note the powerful correlation between public investment and economic growth:
Paul Krugman has argued the key point repeatedly and does so again in today's NY Times. Essentially, it comes down to the Republican attitude of severe austerity--that reducing debt and meanwhile reducing government (continuously) is the answer. Europe is demonstrating now that this cannot be the entire answer. I argue that the Obama administration (and the Federal Reserve) deserve great praise for rather miraculously dragging our economy to this stage of growth while continuously restrained in proper tools to do so, by Republican excessive adherence to austerity. Maybe austerity can be understood for Japan, with astronomical debt, but certainly not for the largest economy in the world, the reserve currency of the world.
If we are to continue across the next few years with Republican control of the purse strings, just how are they going to grow the economy? Removing regulations alone will simply not do it.
A better statement from Republicans can be suggested: "We don't think inequality is important to fix. It is simply a factor of motivation, which is a good thing for everyone. As to those with motivation who have obstacles to their achievement, we're sorry, but we simply can't distinguish between those who really want to work and those who don't, so we don't favor any form of redistribution. We will only be able to contribute to improved opportunity for those who can take advantage of it. We hope you all continue to agree with us."
I will close by acknowledging there are poor legislators on both sides of the aisle, as there are wise voices on both sides. However, it is now the Republican Party which has allowed itself to be hijacked by extremists on the far Right, such that it is unlikely Republicans can even stimulate growth. And, as Ponnuru so rightly states, Republicans have no interest in reducing inequality.
In just previous posts, I argue that Republican policies (neoliberalism) are largely responsible for the rise in inequality across the last 30 years.
Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
Ramesh Ponnuru:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/lets-not-mention-inequality.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
Debraj Ray on Hirschman: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Papers/Uneven.pdf
Postscript re Republicans
If you're kind enough to read my blog and haven't yet read the just previous posting, please look it over before reading this one. This is a postscript resulting from two things: One is a very useful exchange I had with a friend whose opinions I value, a very respected economist and professor. He doesn't agree with my conclusions. I probably haven't changed his mind, and he hasn't changed mine, often the case in a good debate. However, I took away a number of good points and benefitted greatly from the exchange. I'll explain below, without identifying the person, because I don't pretend to be able to represent his complete views on the subject.
The other is from the New York Times of today. There is an opinion piece by Paul Krugman and a piece by Robert Pear. Both result from the outcome of the omnibus funding bill just approved by Congress. References are below. Again, my focus is on the behavior of the Republican Party, which I believe is very poorly serving our country.
One of the reactions to my post of yesterday was to argue the point of who/what is responsible for the rise in inequality experienced in most countries. Here in the US, I argued that the Republicans and their policies are the prime culprit. My friend argued that globalization is the cause.
Just what is "globalization?" "Globalization and Development" was the title of my MSc. program in London during 2012-3. Many definitions were discussed in class. Merriam dictionary's is good for today's purposes: " the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets." Note that these are prototypical Republican agenda. This is what American business wants. Republicans of today are committed to advancing the private market as a solution to most all our needs, while starving government. Republicans have accelerated globalization, in the form they prefer, for the benefit of private capital.
Technology and transportation are companion elements to globalization, the recent accelerated development of both of which has enabled the rapid spread of globalization in it's third wave (1870-1914, 1950-1980, and 1980 forward).
My friend is right. Globalization has resulted in inequality--inequality between countries (failure to converge in incomes) and inequality within countries. The latter has happened because cheaper foreign labor accompanied by faster transportation and advancing technology has moved jobs overseas. In my home town in North Carolina, almost the entire local employer base in textiles and furniture was moved to China and elsewhere around the globe. Improved technology provided for communication and remote management with China. Improved transportation enabled China to ship heavy sofas to the US at substantially lower prices than for US manufacturers. Enhanced financialisation and open borders enabled US producers to move labor, factories, capital and funds flows rapidly around the world. Enhanced "flexibility" for US employers pursued by Reagan and Republicans since has enabled them to abandon North Carolina workers on a moment's notice and leave them without support or new skills training. These policies are central to the Republican agenda.
Globalization also means facing how pollution from China affects the US and vice versa. We two are the top producers, and we may endanger the planet if we don't cut back. Just now, legislators are struggling to restrain our use of fossil fuels. This necessity costs jobs for coal miners in Kentucky and elsewhere. I believe this action is necessary, but what's lacking is government and industry working together to re-train and support workers who lose jobs. China is far ahead of the US now in fully accepting the role of government to pave the way for its industry, with infrastructure, research, and significant investment where private capital cannot do the job. In the US, Republicans even resist government investment to develop solar. Of course there will be some failures when government invests in pioneering business where private industry will not, but that's a justified role of government. That's how the internet was first developed--by the US government, not by private industry.
My friend pointed out correctly that the support for globalization comes from Democrats as well as Republicans--e.g., note the impact of the Clinton administration and the retired Clinton activity on advancing globalization. However, I do believe Republicans and their "neoliberal" policies have been the major drivers of globalization. It would have happened anyway, most likely, but under Democratic philosophies, I believe there might well have been far less impact on inequality. We would have retained worker protections which have been whittled away since Reagan. We could have better managed the danger of free flowing capital around the world.
He reminded me that Wall Street supports both parties. Yes, but according to the research behind Paul Krugman's article of today, starting with support for Romney in 2012, Wall Street money swung much more heavily to Republican candidates and policies.
I'll try to tackle globalization more in another post--can it be restrained? How? What would be some wise global policies to enable a more fair and sustainable outcome to the continuance of globalization? One thing for sure--the optimal development of globalization is not just uncontrolled free borders, free markets, free capital, and "flexibility" for employers. If capitalists feel everything about their corporations needs to be carefully controlled, why do they think that world markets need no controls? Why is that different? Isn't good management all about controlling outcomes?
For now, just consider this: The graph below displays countries which have experienced the greatest globalization, as defined in the chart:
Note that Singapore, Ireland, and Switzerland are now more "globalized" than even the US. But, the movement of inequality (measured the the Gini index) has been dramatically different for these 4 countries. What have Singapore, Ireland, and Switzerland done to manage the impact of globalization on their populations, their pursuit of equality, that we have not?
Here is a comparison of the Gini indices (measurement of inequality--higher is worse) for the four:
Ireland 35.9 (1987) 33.9 (2010)
Singapore NA 46.3 (2013)
Switzerland 33.1 (1992) 28.7 (2012)
United States 34.0 (1985) 47.6 (2013)
While Singapore appears to have been consistently high, not increasing much (based on other data), Ireland and Switzerland reduced inequality over roughly comparable periods, while the US significantly increased inequality.
And, what about Finland and Norway? They have also been actively engaged in globalization and yet have kept inequality remarkably low--both below 26.0 in 2011, about equal to where they were in 1999. Between 1985 and 2008, income inequality rose in most OECD countries, but not all. It fell or held constant in Turkey, Greece, Hungary, France, and Belgium.
The mentioned constitute a good list of outliers to the trend of increasing inequality. It's not just one country with unique characteristics that managed it well. It's not just non-participants in globalization which performed well in inequality. How did they do it? Part of the answer is in how much the government did to reduce market-generated inequality. As shown in the chart below, the US diid less than most in the way of redistribution.
Source: The Economist Nov 26 2013
As a result of our form of capitalism and our reduced form of social welfare and related investments to benefit lower classes, the income of the top 20% and especially the top 1% significantly outpaced the rest of our population between 1979 and 2011, both before and after taxes:
And the US poverty rate today of about 14% of our population has not declined from its level in 1967. In a word, things have not been getting better in the US since Republican agenda (sometimes called "neoliberalism") began to dominate our economics:
Yes, we have had Democratic administrations during this time, and they too have paid too much homage to the neoliberal economics, whether by pressure of Republican political force, the pressure of big conservative money, or by simply failing to see how far the pendulum was swinging. Maybe it just wasn't clear until some of us began to marvel at the atrocious behavior of the GOP during the 6 years of the Obama administration.
The point was also made in response to my previous post, that it's not just the Republicans opposed to expanding immigration--in fact, many of the poor and middle class Americans oppose immigration, because immigrants are taking some of the jobs in the lower income category, driving down wages--restaurant workers as an example. Yes, with apology for the necessity to speak here in broad terms when indeed there are so many variations of philosophy within both parties, I nevertheless think that almost all of the anti-immigration rhetoric preceding the recent election came from the Republican side of the aisle. I believe this is just one of the "tools" conservatives realize they can use to lure Americans to vote their way (along with freedom to own and carry guns, opposition to abortion, continuing tax reductions, etc.). In my view, these points are not the major wins Republican leaders seek (except for the tax reductions). This is a carefully developed marketing program, designed to appeal to the poorer segments of our population.
I'm in favor of some form of amnesty for those illegals within our borders who have worked and paid taxes for a period of time. I'm in favor of increased quotas. I believe it's time for us to recognize in our globalized world that our responsibilities do not stop at our borders. We must start to think as citizens of the world.
Unfortunately, it is not possible for any country to just accept all immigrants who want to come. If we could, it would solve a great deal of global inequality, but the disruption to any receiving nation has to be managed. In-migration has to be paced. Along with increased immigration, we need increased equal education for all, to enable us to keep advancing the US economy in service and information sectors. As shown in this chart, we do not need many immigrants to support our agricultural segment. We need them to support the advanced sectors of our economy. We have to recruit well educated immigrants and train and educate others to do that work.
The omnibus spending bill was approved by Congress this week, after much fear that Republicans would halt spending in objection to Obama's recent executive action on immigration. Ted Cruz apparently tried, but as a credit to more reasonable Republicans, that didn't happen. However, an important element of Dodd-Frank regulation of banks was substantially weakened as a rider to the spending bill. Republicans held the funding of government hostage to this payoff to Wall Street, as well as to Blue Cross and Blue Shield tax breaks, relief from environmental controls for cattlemen, and tax experts said the bill "bestowed favors on all sorts of constituencies," ending up "a Christmas tree bill."
Perhaps the most significant of these was the weakening of one particularly key part of bank regulation. Having spent most of my career in banking, I feel qualified to comment on it. My career involved lending of most all types--commercial, real estate, and consumer. I'm not a huge fan of bank regulation, because we have done it so poorly--far more complicated and costly than it needs to be.
A great deal of today's banking regulation is a massive waste of time and money. For example, the increased regulation of mortgage loans under HMDA (the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) is a huge and expensive burden to regulators, banks, and to borrowers. If you have bought or re-financed a home in recent times, you know. There are dozens of documents to sign. No-one reads them. There are many forms to fill out. Regulators comb through banks files in examinations to see if every rule and document requirement is met. Much of this could be eliminated if we had just a few rules for banks, whose deposits are protected by the FDIC. We could require banks only make home mortgage loans with 20% minimum cash down payment. We could require banks not sell more than 80% of the loan, or that banks retain the first 10% of the risk of all loans that are sold. Just these regulations could replace endless paperwork, save millions if not billions, and strengthen bank regulation.
But such rules are not favored by banks and their Republican friends. Big banks would rather suffer the burden of complex detailed regulation in order to still be allowed to make riskier loans and to sell 100% of the loans if they prefer--leaving the risks to the buyers of those loans.
Bundling these loans up and securitizing them into tranches with suggested levels of risk and return (sometimes called "financial weapons of mass destruction--WMD's") is what led to the start of the economic depression beginning in 2008. The rights of big banks to trade for their own account in these kinds of instruments was just what Dodd-Frank was created to eliminate. The rider to the omnibus bill, added by Republicans, weakened that protection to American bank investors and taxpayers substantially. These protections are not wasted regulation like those cited above. They are important. Republicans have scuttled them with their amendments to the omnibus bill. In the meantime, it is hard to find a segment of capitalism in which executives are paid more than in the financial sector. Jamie Dimon of Chase was paid $20 million for 2013, notwithstanding trading losses of $6 billion a year earlier and fines for $1 billion in 2013.
Due to the exchange with my esteemed friend, I want to say again (if I did not do this sufficiently in the previous post) that both Democrats and Republicans are at fault across the Board. The tax advantages that Democrat Harry Reid added to the omnibus bill to satisfy the casinos in his home state of Nevada are one example--similar to all of Republican Mitch McConnell's earmarks for Kentucky coal mine operators. Tax reductions have taken place in both administrations, as have added burdensome and ineffective regulation. Pork barrel "earmarks" are inserted by legislators of both parties. Hilary Clinton's courting of Wall Street donors is another example. I regret that the justification usually given by Democrats is probably unavoidable in the hard scrabble world of politics: "The Republicans drive these issues like big donor money, and we can't go to a gunfight with only a knife."
Ultimately, regardless of how one ranks the influences that caused the rise in inequality, I would like to add two points to what I said in the previous post:
No matter what one believes to be the cause (s) of our high inequality, Republicans have done virtually nothing to try to restrain it across the last 30 years, unless one gives credit to attempts to strengthen the private sector vs. workers, in order to raise growth--the "trickle down" approach. But as we know from the last 30 years with steadily rising inequality, there hasn't been any trickle down. We still have 45 million Americans categorized as in poverty in the US and wages of the middle class have hardly moved. Jobs have become insecure.
As to the future--can anyone point to current Republican policies, legislation proposed, that is intended to reduce inequality, restore more equal opportunity, other than trying to raise growth by more power and freedom to the private sector?
Thank you for reading my posts!: I get so few comments to this blog, and I am most grateful to my friend for stimulating discussion, asking me to clarify, and educating me. I would be most grateful to any of you for doing the same, regardless of whether you agree with me or you do not!
Paul Krugman, NYT, Dec 15 2014:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-damaged-by-the-budget-bill.html?ref=politics
Robert Pear on the omnibus spending bill, NYT, Dec 15
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/us/politics/in-final-spending-bill-salty-food-and-belching-cows-are-winners.html?ref=politics
Sources for Gini comparisons:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
US Gini and poverty record:
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2014/us-inequality-backdrop.aspx
The Pope or the Republicans...?
Across my lifetime, I never thought the Republicans were the best party for social justice, although I'm told they once were. I spent a career in the private sector, during which I generally thought the Republicans were best for economic wisdom. As a lifelong registered Democrat, I voted Republican a number of times. But, I have felt growing concern with how the world and our country have changed in recent years. And after a year (2013) studying economics in London, and observing for a year since, I have concluded that the "Grand Old Party" has lost its wisdom on economics (and a few other important attributes) along the way. I am now planning to look to the Pope for more economic guidance than to the Republicans.
Consider the message from the Pope when speaking to the European Parliament recently, as reported in the Huffington Press:"To cheers from both the Eurosceptic and left-wing members, the Pope railed against the 'certain selfish lifestyles, an opulence that is no longer sustainable' and the 'frequent indifference to the world around us, especially to the poorest of the poor.'"
Quoting Pope Francis: "To our dismay we see technical and economic questions dominating the political debate, to the detriment of genuine concern for human beings. Men and women are reduced to cogs in a machine, items of consumption to be exploited.The result is that when human life is no longer useful to the machine, it is discarded without qualms, as in the case of the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and the children who are killed in the womb. It is a great mistake when technology is allowed to take over, and there is a confusion between ends and means. It's an inevitable consequence of throwaway culture and uncontrolled consumerism." These characterizations apply to the US as much as to Europe, if not more so, considering that our inequality and social mobility is worse than that of most European countries.
I don't agree with all of the Pope's views, abortion rights as an example. However, I do agree with much of what this Pope stands for. He's a great transforming voice in the Catholic church and in religion today. Of course, some will say, what does the Pope know about economics? And what kind of economic message is conveyed in his views? He is calling for countries and companies to restore recognition of people as human beings, as opposed to units of production, who can be discarded as soon as capitalism finds better alternatives for production, without obligation to help re-train and re-deploy, without obligation to provide gainful and equal opportunity for all. He is insisting that citizens are not just automatons whose fulfillment is met only by constantly increasing consumption. I relate to his objection to selfish lifestyles and opulence, when there remain hundreds of millions in poverty, significant segments in most all countries in the world. The US Census Report says we have 45.3 million US citizens living in poverty, as of 2013.
These are most definitely economic factors. They are reflections of the harmful excesses of an unrestrained capitalism, the American version of which may be the most harsh on the middle class and poor. These behaviors cost our country and our economy. These are reflections of the Tea Party, the Libertarians, the Conservatives, mostly represented by the contentious and fractionalized Republican Party of today--the party now distinguished for its inability to propose any meaningful legislation, focusing all its attention on criticizing President Obama and the Democrats, and reducing government, at the expense of schools and infrastructure, as well as worker protections and social welfare.
What the Pope is decrying can be considered under the broad umbrella of "inequality," a term Republican refuse to use and consider. They prefer "poverty" because that term suggests I can choose to help if I want to, whereas "inequality" suggests I am responsible to help--I failed to provide for others as I should have. Republicans don't want any obligation assumed, since that would invite another pejorative word--"redistribution." Some find that the essence of this position by the Right is based on deep seated ideology, such as value of the individual (as opposed to the group), the belief that anyone can make it here (and if you haven't, it's your own fault), and favoring opposition to government doing much more than protecting private property rights, rule of law, and national defense. Unfettered capitalism should be left to do the rest.
In contrast, the Democratic view can be summarized as valuing the collective, recognizing that equal rights means equal opportunity that requires work and protections to sustain. Democrats understand that some citizens simply need support from the state, which should be active in its partnership with capitalism, and should restrain some of the excesses of uncontrolled capitalism. Consider the agreements reached for the Millenium Development Goals. The much debated process ended up agreeing that while markets drive economic growth, they need the public sector to support them. The MDG goals also ended up agreeing that poor countries must have active support from rich countries. We were a major party to these global MDGs. Have we forgotten--government has a significant role, and we should concern ourselves with the needs of developing countries and their citizens? Consider what might happen if we really applied these principles in our trade and immigration policies.
As to the Republicans, I'm forced to agree with the views of Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. They wrote a best selling book in 2012. Mann is a Senior Fellow at Brookings, a centrist Think Tank, and Ornstein is a scholar at The American Institute, a conservative think tank. Indicating they have come to stark conclusions of today's Republican Party with regret, they write, "We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."
I hold Republicans largely responsible our high inequality, driven by their economic policies since around 1980, sometimes called "neoliberalism." There are other contributing factors, such as technology, globalization, and financialization, but Republican policies have significantly influenced these as well.
So, just how severe is our inequality in the US? Just how successful have the Republicans been in advancing this set of views?
The answer is very successful. We are now back to the 1925 peak of inequality, the "robber baron" peak. We enjoyed a period of improvement between 1925 and 1975. Recognizing that some "re-balancing" of the power of labor and capital may have been necessary in the 70's and 80's, the pendulum has now swung way too far to the Right. Republicans have done an excellent job of persuading Americans that Democrats and big government are responsible for their lackluster wages and poor jobs prospects, by arguing that the Democrats have hobbled capitalism with too much government and regulation--just get rid of all that, and everything will soon be hunky-dory. The Republican argument is that all we need is more growth! More growth comes only from unfettered capitalism. That's the argument.
There are two main problems with this argument:
First, it is certainly not evident that growth alone will reduce inequality, without any form of redistribution (either via increased taxes on the wealthy, or by simply re-allocating the existing government budget--federal, state, or local--to such as education and infrastructure from such as military or excessive government support for the relatively wealthy elderly, as examples).
Actually, for the world's largest economy, we have had pretty decent growth since 1980, when all the ups and downs are smoothed out, but inequality increased steadily, regardless of the growth. Conservatives can argue that even more growth might do it. But, what about China? From a much smaller base in 1980, China's GDP grew at about 10% annually across this period, becoming the 2nd largest economy, and their inequality index has risen at about the same pace as ours. Once an egalitarian country, China also has very high inequality now. China has proven that growth can reduce poverty (from 65% of the population in 1980 to 10% now), but not necessarily inequality--that is, not without government intervention. There is certainly no evidence of the "Kuznets curve" revealing itself (inequality actually correcting for itself without government actions).
Second, how is growth to be achieved? What will induce greater growth? Conservatives argue that reduced government intervention (reduced regulations) will raise growth. Yes, in some cases, done selectively, that will help. We have many regulations that are burdensome on business. This posting is not intended to address the waste in government, but if properly addressed, there is more than enough there to allow for significant progress in education and infrastructure without raising taxes on anyone. It is indeed a major opportunity not addressed by either party. But until it is, we can't just starve government without re-allocating and re-engineering what government does. Just reducing regulations will not produce the result. And regulations have come from both sides of the aisle.
Then, Republicans argue that more foreign trade will do it. Yes, that can help, but there are complications. One is that conservatives are not fair in WTO and other trade negotiations--they want to protect our producers and persuade others to lower barriers. Another is that the open borders forced upon developing countries by neoliberal policies adopted by the IMF have had severely deleterious effects...except for the benefits to developed country producers, or course.
A third argument is the "supply side" one--reduce taxes on the wealthy and they will invest it in productive jobs producing businesses. Yes, in theory, but in the period of the highest marginal tax rate (above 90%), 1951-1963, the economy had outstanding growth--3.7%. And, we have reduced taxes from a high of 65% (top incomes) in 1980 to below 40% today--and look what happened to inequality across that period--it rose steadily, wages stagnated, worker protections deteriorated, and we have a highly dissatisfied citizenry now. So, there is good cause to question whether the wealthy are now putting their savings into jobs producing investments. Maybe it's now going mostly into luxury homes, cars, yachts, art, and passive investments in financial markets.
Beth Ann Bovino, Chief US Economist at Standard & Poors, a very capitalist organization, wrote recently: "One of the reasons that could explain this [current] pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession." The major argument in the S&P study is that the wealthy tend to spend less of their money, so putting more money in the pockets of the middle class and below will grow the economy (the "demand side" argument). Indeed, many economists (e.g., Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman) have argued that we could have had higher growth since 2008 if we had been willing to stimulate the economy--spend large sums on infrastructure, for example, employing millions of people. Republicans refused to spend, even to restore our deteriorating US infrastructure. Five years ago S&P forecasted our 10 year growth rate at 2.8%. They have now reduced it to 2.5%.
The NYT article on the S&P study adds, "Ms. Bovino and her colleagues find that if the average amount of education of the nation's work force were to increase at the same rate it did during the middle of the 20th century, over the next five years annual G.D.P. would be 2.4 percent higher." Makes sense. I got a good education in public schools in the 50s and 60s, even in a small town in North Carolina. But public education has been starved by the Republicans in recent decades. In fact, within 3 blocks of my home, four private schools educate about 1,500 high school students of the wealthy at a cost of about $35,000 per year. Meanwhile, San Francisco's Unified School District tries to educate 52,000 students on a budget of about $9,000 per pupil. Wealthy public school districts like Orinda, CA, operate essentially like private schools, where the high cost of housing can only be met by the wealthy, who give generously to public school support. You must live there to attend. These are examples of what the economist Albert Hirschman explained in his 1970 treatise on the "exit voice." When the wealthy exit public services because they can afford private services, there is no effective political voice remaining to defend the institutions they no longer care about.
In addition to logic and reasoning, there is also scholarly evidence that inequality does slow growth. The think tank of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has just published a study which concludes that "income inequality has a sizeable and statistically negative impact on growth, and that redistributive policies achieving greater equality in disposable income have no adverse growth consequences." They estimate that US economic growth over the period of 1985-2005 would have been 6 or 7 points higher if inequality had not risen over that period.
Angel Gurría, the OECD's secretary general, said: "This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate. Countries that promote equal opportunity for all from an early age are those that will grow and prosper."
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), historically very conservative in its economics, released a report in April 2014: "… lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth, for a given level of redistribution. And…redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth; only in extreme cases is there some evidence that it may have direct negative effects on growth. Thus the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth." While Republican rebuttals to any mention of higher taxes like to raise ire by suggesting Democrats are talking about doubling rates on the wealthy, in fact, no one is. A 10% increase would yield significant results. Or, how about raising capital gains taxes from 20% to 30%?
Yet, the conclusion that inequality reduces growth will certainly remain disputed disputed. Even the findings of such entities as S&P, the OECD, and the IMF will undoubtedly be disputed by conservative economists.
However, I certainly haven't found any studies arguing the contrary--that high and rising inequality enhances growth.
Second, there is no dispute about the social and moral negatives to high and rising inequality, at least none other than the Libertarian response that we are all on our own, and that somehow this is what God intended.
Furthermore, Republicans should take note--regardless of their arguments, there is a growing chorus of concern expressed across the spectrum from liberal to conservative. Politically, it is time for Republicans to pay attention.
Finally, even if growth should be slightly restrained by actions taken to improve equality of opportunity, or even to gradually redistribute by modestly increased taxation on the wealth and those of higher incomes, the trade offs would certainly be more acceptable to Americans than continuance of present trends.
It does seem abundantly clear that Americans are not happy with the trends of the last 30, 20, or 10 years. It's getting worse (for middle class and below). The recent mid-term election results suggest Americans have been persuaded to blame their frustrations over poor jobs, low wages, and reduced opportunity on the Democrats and big government. The reality is that these ills are largely the result of Republican policies over the last 30 years.
So, to me, it's Paul Krugman and Pope Francis, who would constitute a good start to make economic policy for us for the next few years. I've had enough of "starve the beast (of government)," let infrastructure crumble, trust the private sector and the invisible hand, and everyone for himself. Not to mention that some Republicans are overanxious to get involved in foreign wars (or even to start one--e.g., with China). As for building more fences, I'm for finding ways to admit more hard working immigrants who want to abide by our laws and pay their taxes. We didn't become the strongest nation on earth by closing our borders. Have we forgotten we are all immigrants or children of immigrants? At a time of challenge to our strength and leadership, this is not a time to kick away the ladder.
Of course, I recognize that the above description of the two parties is overly simplistic, as there are all kinds of combinations of views on both sides of the divide. Nevertheless, for these purposes, I felt this description adequate.
The Republicans are "out to lunch." I hope it's a short lunch, not too much champagne, and they will soon recover some balance and some wisdom. I occasionally voted Republican in the past, and would be open to doing so in the future. I acknowledge that there are some wise and reasonable voices in the Republican ranks, whose views are not those I criticize above--but they appear to be in a minority and unable to influence progress in recent times. Regrettably, our best hope may be for the upcoming period of Republican control to demonstrate to Americans that Republican policies will not achieve the improvements they rightfully demand--and that we can then move the pendulum toward greater equality, progress in wages and jobs, in equal opportunity, and a more egalitarian country.
Pope Francis Slams EU's 'Opulence' and 'Aloofness' in Historic Speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/25/pope-francis-european-parliament_n_6217178.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World
Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
US Census: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.pdf
Brookings on MDG's: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/12/09-post-2015-global-agenda-mcarthur-kharas?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=15227592&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--J2TFfFiJgD0WJ_YBUon1bGki4N2kib6W82IFlbCbKL1LT8QFPlF7a_PzPTUYt_ev_BK46Up33FEUDrDoQesWwV9Kazw&_hsmi=15227592
Standard and Poors on how inequality restrains economic growth: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html?abt=0002&abg=0
The Guardian: Summary of OECD report: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report
IMF Report "Redistribution, Inequality and Growth, April 2014:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf


From a side salad to composed salads using fish, poultry or meats and various vegetables, or even those we look to for dessert, warm weather provides plenty of opportunity to incorporate leafy garden greens and herbs. Using our greenhouse and garden as inspiration, we will prepare a variety of salads to tempt the tastebuds throughout the summer and beyond.
Please arrive 5-10 minutes early to class as we start right on time.
Special Note: The class is located in the greenhouse and classroom at Denny Farrell Riverbank State Park. You may register online or in person.
In our Family Cooking Classes you learn how to cook with the seasons, making nutritious and delicious suppers – easy enough for a school night or for a celebratory gathering around your table. Enjoy preparing dinner with your child or a younger person in your life. Tips on how to shop seasonally and economically, ideas for weekly menu planning and presentation, and how to include younger kids in the kitchen with age-appropriate cooking tasks. Classes are for one adult and one child (children 6 and up).
The Hort's NYDigs program is supported by The Burpee Foundation.


To view Area V requirements for a major, select it in the box below and click submit. A PDF will be generated showing the Area V requirements for the selected major. Students transferring from Alabama public colleges and universities should visit the STARS/AGSC website to request a STARS guide for the chosen major and to view complete information regarding Areas I-IV for all majors.
All students intending to transfer to the University of Alabama should be reminded that a minimum of 50% of the coursework required to earn a bachelor's degree at UA must be earned at a bachelor's degree granting institution (four year college or university). A minimum of 25% of the coursework required must be earned in residence at UA. The complete University of Alabama Transfer Credit policy can be found in the Undergraduate Catalog.


December is here and that means the annual London Body Odor & Halitosis Christmas Meetup is around the corner ... in Leicester Square.
The meetup will be hosted by Arun Nagrath as always, and will start at the AllBarOne bar in Leicester Square from 12 noon onwards. A great time was had by all at last years body odor & halitosis xmas meetup. Everyone is welcome.
London meetup 12 Dec : Are you going ?
Enjoy the company of others who know exactly how you feel and let the Christmas season begin on a happy note.


text:
het podium
ISABELLE BORGES (BR/D)Marleen van Wijngaarden2019-12-10T18:03:52+01:00
ISABELLE BORGES (BR/D)
ISABELLE BORGES Born in Salvador / Brazil – Lives and works in Berlin
1985 – 1988 Social Sciences, UnB, Brasilia. Brazil
1989 – 1992 Escola de Artes Visuais do Parque Lage, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
1993 – 1996 Atelier Assistant from Jack Ox, Köln, Germany
1994 – 1996 Atelier Assistant from Antonio Dias, Köln, Germany
1996 – 1997 Atelier Assistant from Sigmar Polke, Köln, Germany
1995 – 1997 Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, Germany with Prof. Christian Megert
Isabelle Borges brings in her luggage from Brazil to Berlin – where he studied, lives and works, the Neoconcrete heritage and the theoretical and historical lessons learned in the courses taken at the School of Visual Arts, EAV Parque Lage, where in the late 1980s she attended. Here in Europe was the contact with modernist avant-garde art, with artists such as Kurt Schwitters, the expanded field of art, the search for the fusion of art and life that sediment her trajectory, but without losing the utopian aspirations of Le Corbusier.
The experience of all these predecessors are the influences that the work dialogues within its achievement of a very personal language developed through almost three decades of work. The leap from the two-dimensional pictorial experience to the experiential space, the total space of art in this expanded field without frontiers. Borges is reaching to this balance of ineffable space through the drawings that extrapolate the edges, through the luminous poetry she builds on the walls, in the play of the colors that gently pop up here and there fighting against the blackened border lines or against the vast white and empty spaces. The pictorial space unfolding before our eyes in a continuous movement lead us towards this totalizing and comprehensive experience of art, of which Borges's work takes part.
Marleen van Wijngaarden2019-05-30T23:09:44+02:00
PHK18 #17: CC #4 Contemporary Contemplations
Murals Inc. (office)
Piekstraat 31
3071 EL Rotterdam
is open during office hours
from 9 to 5 / Monday to Friday
Murals Inc.
Marleen van Wijngaarden
info@murals-inc.com
www.murals-inc.com
Bank NL25TRIO0198306679

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Meticulously cared for 3 bed/ 2bath END unit in The Sage at Auguston! Lots of UPGRADES in this one! Engineered hardwood and tile flooring on the main level. Brand new quartz counter in the kitchen with double sized undermount sink, tiled backsplash, pot lights just installed and S/S appliances. New quartz counter in the ensuite and freshly painted throughout. A lovely covered front porch and a back balcony as well. Fully fenced yard with gate. Large double tandem garage and room for a 3rd vehicle on the driveway. Amazing location with hiking/ biking trails, schools and ledgeview golf course close by. Call for your private viewing today! Open House Sunday December 2nd between 2-4.


We're just four days from Selection Sunday. The 68-team field for the NCAA men's basketball tournament will be unveiled on CBS starting at 5 p.m. Central time March 17. Read on for the key games to watch Wednesday as well as our latest projected March Madness bracket.
The next Northwestern? These 12 teams could be next to snap their NCAA tournament droughts.
Published in Chicago Tribune on March 27, 2017 — Print headline: "Final roar: No going out quietly"
Published in Chicago Tribune on March 13, 2017 — Print headline: "Midwest"
Published in Chicago Tribune on March 13, 2017 — Print headline: "South"
Published in Chicago Tribune on December 03, 2015 — Print headline: "Leonard paces Dayton cross country team - College notes"
Published in Chicago Tribune on November 15, 2015 — Print headline: "Maxwell digs deep for EKU - McAuley grad stars on defense for Colonels - College Notes"


After wrapping up their 20th consecutive summer of touring, the Dave Matthews Band have revealed plans for a fall tour this November. The band will hit Boston for two nights at the TD Garden on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 9 and 10. Australia's John Butler Trio will open both shows. Tickets, which are priced at $75 and $85, go on sale Saturday at 10 a.m. through Ticketmaster.
The band continues to tour in support of their most recent release, 2009's Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King. The platinum-certified selling album was nominated for two Grammy Awards this year – Album Of The Year and Best Rock Album. In December, the Dave Matthews Band released Europe 2009, a box set commemorating their tour overseas. The three-CD set, Live from Lucca, is a recording of the group's July 5, 2009 show in Lucca, Italy. The DVD, "Across the Pond", was filmed at the band's performance at the O2 Academy Brixton in London, England on June 26, 2009.
Over the summer, the Dave Matthews Band announced they will not tour in the summer of 2011.
Great live recordings from top festivals, concerts and in-studio performances…The Dead, Widespread Panic, Phish, Allman Brothers, DMB…Bonnaroo, Woodstock, Mountain Jam…many others…long jams, complete sets…24/7 Internet radio channel Radio Woodstock LIVE…also Radio Woodstock 69 with music from the original Woodstock era and Radio Woodstock WDST, Woodstock's hometown radio station…all three available at http://www.radiowoodstock.com or Google Radio Woodstock. Peace, love, music…life is a festival.


text:
#import <SAObjects/AceObject.h>

#import "SAAceSerializable-Protocol.h"

@class SADistance, SADuration;

@interface SALocalSearchAceNavigationEta : AceObject <SAAceSerializable>
{
}

+ (id)aceNavigationEtaWithDictionary:(id)arg1 context:(id)arg2;
+ (id)aceNavigationEta;
@property(retain, nonatomic) SADuration *timeEta;
@property(retain, nonatomic) SADistance *distanceEta;
- (id)encodedClassName;
- (id)groupIdentifier;

@end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


molly.sterrs@chronogram.com for any questions about your invoice or balance or any general concerns.
ONLINE BILLPAY: To pay your bill online, click here.
If you have having trouble using the site, or have questions about its functionality, please email us at web@chronogram.com. We'll try to get back to you promptly. If you are reporting a bug, please help us out by telling us: the operating system you are using; the name of your browser (with version, if possible); the specific URL (web site address) on the site that is causing the problems; and a description of the problem. Doing this will help us resolve your specific issues, and help us improve the quality of service we can deliver to you.


26 March: Scenic Rim's Youth Week celebrations will hit thrilling highs with the Extreme Ninja Challenge coming to Beaudesert, Tamborine Mountain and Boonah during the Easter school holidays.
Scenic Rim's Youth Week celebrations will hit thrilling highs with the Extreme Ninja Challenge coming to Beaudesert, Tamborine Mountain and Boonah during the Easter school holidays.
In a test of speed and agility, competitors will be able to take on the 28-metre inflatable Ninja Warrior Obstacle Course while Under 12s can also take part in the Youth Week activities with the 14-metre junior ninja course. There will also be high-octane virtual reality fun for all ages.
Mayor Greg Christensen said Youth Week was a great time to celebrate the positive contributions young people make within the Scenic Rim.
"These young people are the future of our communities and we want to support them by celebrating their boundless energy, which is fitting with the 2019 Queensland Youth Week theme of Unlimited," he said.
"We look forward to encouraging them to look at how they can be part of the social, economic and cultural life of their community."
At Beaudesert and Boonah, the sky's the limit with young people able to fly in the Air Force's F18 Super Hornet simulator. They can also have a turn flying a PC-21 aircraft or try their air traffic control skills inside a simulated control tower. Serving RAAF personnel will be on hand to answer questions.
At Tamborine Mountain, young people can get behind the wheel in a driving simulator.
The free events will include a barbecue lunch with other food and drinks available for purchase.
Scenic Rim's Youth Week activities are funded with support from the Queensland Government.
Queensland Youth Week is held from 3 to 14 April as an annual celebration for young people aged 12 to 25.


When it comes to cars, Porsche is one of the kings of the road (well in suburbs where you can safely show-off without getting car-jacked) and now they have turned their attention (and brand name) to the audio market with the release of the new P'9120 Porsche Design Eton Stereo system with separate iPod dock (I thought that Eton was a posh boys school in England?).
The P'9120 Porsche Design Eton Stereo system is rather striking to look at and the stereo design gives a hint as to the power that lies beneath which is what GadgetHeat would expect from all things Porsche. Three speakers on the aluminium outside (flashy) hide a sub-woofer underneath to give you bumping bass just when you need it.
The tech specifications state something about double wall construction for 'superior acoustics' which just means to us that this is what they are using to justify the $900+ price tag attached to the P'9120 Porsche Design Eton Stereo system (boo Porsche for making us pay way over the odds for your brand name).


text:
To Drive The Cold Winter Away är den kanadensiska sångerskan Loreena McKennitts andra, egenproducerade album. Spåren är traditionella, mindre kända vinter- och julsånger inspelade på plats med sparsamma arrangemang i kyrkor och hallar: The Church Of Our Lady, Guelph, Ontario, och, på Irland, en benediktinsk katedral och The Tyrone Guthrie Centre i Annaghmakerrig.

Skivspår
"In Praise Of Christmas"
"The Seasons"
"The King"
"Banquet Hall"
"Snow"
"balulalow"
"Let Us The Infant Greet"
"The Wexford Carol"
"The Stockford Carol"
"Let All That Are To Mirth Inclined"

Externa länkar
Quinlan Road's officiella webbplats

Julmusikalbum 1987
Kanadensiska julmusikalbum
Album av Loreena McKennitt

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Having healthy teeth, free of cavities and gum disease, will help you look and feel better. Taking care of your teeth today also makes it possible to keep them for the rest of your life. Our gentle family dentist practice in Chalfont, PA, located right near Lansdale, can help you achieve just that.
Lansdale is a borough in Montgomery County. It is home to a Kugel Ball, which is a large granite ball made out of 1000 pounds of granite that rotates around in water. It was officially incorporated by 1872 and named after Phillip Lansdale Fox, chief surveyor of the North Penn Railroad. For more information visit the official township website.


text:
First look at the new LEGOLAND just 30 minutes from Cov ahead of the opening
We got a behind-the-scenes look of the construction at the £7 million attraction
Zoe Chamberlain
Katy HallamAudience Editor
The countdown is on for the launch of the new LEGOLAND® Discovery Centre in Birmingham.
It's just seven weeks until the attraction opens at Arena Birmingham (the former Barclaycard Arena) near Brindleyplace.
Work is well underway now, with many of different sections nearly ready to go.
We got a behind-the-scenes look of the construction at the 58,900 square-foot centre.
Here's a taster at what the £7m million attraction will be like when the doors open on July 9.
Giraffe at LEGOLAND (Image: Handout)
A huge 10ft LEGO giraffe is now in place at the main entrance.
This is similar to the exterior of LEGOLAND in Berlin but is the only large LEGO giraffe in the UK.
Made of 30,000 LEGO bricks, the giraffe, which is yet to be named will be perfect for selfies, even for those not going into the attraction.
Once completed, Birmingham LEGOLAND will feature more than three million LEGO bricks (Image: Birmingham Mail)
The Play Zone Hub
The whole site is full of bricks, and not the usual clay and shale ones!
As construction sites, go this is a pretty unusual one.
There are bricks everywhere, in all different colours, shapes and sizes - and they all have the classic LEGO knobbly bits to make sure they fit together perfectly!
In fact, once completed, Birmingham LEGOLAND will feature more than three million LEGO bricks!
Great things to do near Coventry
Aqua park opens for bank holiday
Best value theme park
JCB play area
Children's Play Village
Once you've gone past the ticket desk, you go straight into The Hub, from which you'll be able to explore 10 themed LEGO play zones.
The attraction is basically open plan so you'll duck in and out of The Hub to go and check out the Build and Test Area, DUPLO Farm, 4D cinema and more.
"This is where families will spend most of their time, building and playing with LEGO," said Chris.
Look: Lady Godiva shows a bit of Lego in giant mosaic at Herbert Art Gallery
"It feels a bit like a town, centred around a large clock tower, and there will be lots of brick pits on offer together with staff, known as Play Makers, to help with hints and tips and to set up challenges.
"It's all about families playing together.
"We want people to be able to pick up and build anyway in the attraction."
Bullring and Selfridges at MINILAND (Image: Birmingham Mail)
Brum's MINILAND installation is well underway.
This will feature 47 iconic local landmarks , such as The Library of Birmingham, Spaghetti Junction, The Cube, New Street Station and the BT Tower plus attractions from further afield like Warwick Castle and Shakespeare's Birthplace.
"This will be really special as it's the only place where you'll be able to see all these landmarks together made out of LEGO," said Chris.
"It will be a celebration of the Midlands."
The Rotunda at MINILAND (Image: Birmingham Mail)
MINILAND will be interactive, with glowing towers, lighting effects, animations, working LEGO traffic lights, vehicles and roadworks.
There will even be a football stadium, with one side dedicated to Villa and the other to Blues - and you get to help influence who wins!
The LEGO BT Tower will stand at 1.73m tall, the highest model to feature in the MINILAND and will compromise of 4,700 individual elements, whilst the Library's symbolic circles will be fashioned from customary LEGO car tyres.
What the new LEGOLAND just 30 minutes from Coventry will look like inside
A whopping 1.5 million bricks LEGO bricks are being used to create MINILAND alone.
And over 6,800 man-hours will have been ploughed into the design and construction of this area once it's finished.
Minifigures at LEGOLAND Discovery Centre (Image: Birmingham Mail)
It wouldn't be LEGOLAND if it wasn't populated by minifigures!
Only these minifigures are on the large side.
You'll be able to meet Bertie, the original minifigure and more than 2,500 of his LEGO minifigure friends.
There will also be a LEGO dragon, a giant balloon and an aeroplane, all centred around The Hub.
New Legoland Discovery Centre in Birmingham (Image: Birmingham Mail)
The Rides
The track and the infrastructure for the attraction rides are now in place.
There are two rides - Merlin's Apprentice and Kingdom Quest, the entrance to which is set to look like a castle complete with balconies, flags, knights and jesters.
New Legoland officially launched - and it's 30 minutes from Coventry
You'll hop aboard your chariot to rescue a princess, doing your best to zap trolls and skeletons lurking in the shadows as you carry out your quest!
"Merlin's Apprentice will be a bike ride challenge where the faster you pedal, the higher you go," said spokesman Chris Coventry.
"And Kingdom Quest will be a bit like the Disney Toy Story ride only with knights and princesses and the chance to collect points."
Lego master model builder Michelle Thompson.
These half-hourly creative sessions will be with LEGOLAND's master builder Michelle Thompson .
She beat off more than 7,000 applicants to get the job.
"Michelle reminds me of Miss Honey from Matilda, she's great with kids and really passionate about LEGO.
Legoland Birmingham Barclaycard Arena opening date revealed as construction gets ready to start
"She used to work in HR so this is quite a career change for her.
"She'll be teaching new builds to kids and parents and offering hints and tips too."
People can just drop into these sessions during their time at the attraction.
New Lego Discovery Centre in Birmingham under construction (Image: Birmingham Mail)
DUPLO Farm
Not forgetting little ones, there's a whole section devoted to DUPLO.
Kids will be able to build a colourful DUPLO flower for the farmer's garden and play in the barn.
"There are big LEGO cows in this area which are really cute," said Chris.
Build and Test station at LEGOLAND Discovery Centre Birmingham
Build and Test Area
This is an Formula 1 themed area where you'll be able to build your own car and contraptions.
"It's set up a bit like a Scaletricks track and is really well themed," said Chris.
"You'll be looking at aerodynamics so make your car go faster."
400 Alton Towers season passes up for grabs this half-term
There's also an Earthquake Table, a bit like the one at Euginuity in Ironbridge, where you get to construct a building on a wobble table and see if withstands the movement.
"Kids love it if their construction remains stable and they find it hilarious if it falls down," he said.
LEGOLAND Discovery Centre under construction (Image: Birmingham Mail)
LEGO City Soft Play
This is a huge soft play area based around the LEGO City toys.
"LEGO City is the most popular series of toys for LEGO," explained Chris.
"This isn't just a small soft play area, it's a city!"
LEGOLAND Discovery Centre Birmingham - LEGO FRIENDS area
Fans of LEGO Friends are in for a treat too.
In this pastel-coloured play area, you'll get to meet your favourite LEGO Friends characters in large form built in bricks.
There will also be Play Makers to encourage more building too.
UK's largest JCB play area to open
You'll be able to watch a 3D film change to a 4D cinema experience complete with rain, wind and even snow!
"There will be three different films showing," said Chris.
"One will be our version of The LEGO Movie with Emmet, which is specifically for us.
"It will be a great 4D experience."
Birmingham University at LEGOLAND (Image: Birmingham Mail)
There will be a large chef minifigure character in the themed coffee shop, where you'll be able to pick up coffees, cakes and sandwiches.
"We want parents immersed in LEGO too so they'll be challenged to build even when they're having a coffee in the cafe!" said Chris.
There will also be a dedicated LEGO shop full of treasures to purchase to continue the building fun at home.
It will have a Brick and Mix section and some hard-to-find lines too.
"It's the only LEGO shop in Birmingham and it will give people a first chance to look at stock," said Chris.
"You will be able to access the shop without coming in the attraction too."
This is the best value theme park for Coventry families this summer
Booking is essential as tickets will be limited to ensure there is always plenty of space for people to play.
Tickets start at £15 when you book online in advance for an afternoon slot. Morning slots start from £17.
It's thought people will spend two to three hours at the attraction.
Advanced tickets are now on sale here
It will be open every day of the year except Christmas Day, and it will stay open until 7pm on selected days during the summer.
Download our all-new mobile app to get the latest news, sport and what's on. Click here for iPhone and here for Android
Looking for an older story? Search our archives
Search for jobs, motors and property, or place an advert or family notice here.
Shakespeare's Birthplace


text:
export default function(client /* , data */) {
  client.control.send('502 Command not implemented.');
}


text:
Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Gershwin Recordings?
70 members (AndrewJCW, Bluthendorfer, anotherscott, Carey, bohemiatotal, Abdol, 14 invisible), 854 guests, and 557 robots.
Gershwin Recordings?
#450614 05/26/07 10:11 AM
Bassio OP
Bassio
Any recommended recordings?
Obviously including the famous Rhapsody, the piano concertos .. other famous piano pieces .. etc.
Re: Gershwin Recordings?
The authentic Gershwin plays Gershwin recordings. I also like Michael Tilson Thomas' Rhapsody in Blue.
Pacific Northwest, US.
argerichfan
Not to be missed:
Earl Wild and the Boston Pops: Rhapsody, Concerto in F, "I Got Rhythm" Variations (really nifty music), American in Paris.
Jack Gibbons, one of my favourite interpreters of Alkan, recorded 4 CDs of Gershwin's piano music on ASV. The playing is top notch and there are some real treasures to be found.
#450617 05/26/07 12:35 PM
pianojerome
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1242755/a/Gershwin:+Piano+Music,+Songs+%2F+Joan+Morris,+William+Bolcom.htm
That's a really splendid recording with the Joan Morris songs as a bonus. The Jack Gibbons CDs I mentioned above do not have the Gershwin Songbook, so the Bolcom is even more indispensible. Cheers!
loveschopintoomuch
Bassio: Here's
Gershwin plays Gershwin
Chopin's music is all I need to look into my soul.
jello_g
A selection of song transcriptions have been recorded by Sergio Fiorentino, and I enjoy this CD a lot. A very intimate and private-session feel to these takes. They are matched with Concerto in F, the 3 preludes, and American in Paris (Concert Artist CACD 9234-2).
Leonard Pennario has a fantastic recording of the songbook also. A much different style compared to Fiorentino, Pennario is flashier and a showboater here which is the preferred approach to this material IMO. I have it on LP (EMI Angel DS-37359), not sure if it's been released on CD.
wisredz
Fazıl Say's Gershwin with Kurt Masur is extremely beautiful... I recommend it with all my heart.
jpw101
Frank Braley's Gershwin album is unmissable - virtually all Gershwin's solo piano output, including Daly's phenomenal solo version of An American in Paris.
http://www.amazon.com/George-Gershwin/dp/B0007ULBA6
Israel/USA
Originally posted by Bassio:
I've recorded some Gershwin, but you won't find it on the open market...
So the next best is go to my videos on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ocsuFv0Sc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_OfUpFh9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW2l0BxDqMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-f4trbIts8
One of the most animated Rhapsody's I've ever seen/heard was by a Japanese pianist named Masanobu Ikemiya who's been running the Arcady music fest up in Bar Harbor for the past number of years. But I don't think he's ever recorded a solo piano version of it before. I'm going to be seeing him this weekend and if I can get him to do it, I may be able to remedy that and perhaps have something to post. He's really quite spectacular.
Another really clean and lively Gershwin interpreter whom I've seen only once before is named Richard Dowling. He's from NYC, I believe. He's got a pretty nice Gerswin CD out:
http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Low-Down-Richard-Dowling-Gershwin/dp/B00005N9Z9
As luck would have it, he's going to be presenting a Gershwin lecture and recital this weekend too. I'll try and record that too. Can't have too much Gershwin.
Here's a link to Mas's performance which I uploaded last night. I talked at length with Richard Dowling today about the roll Mas adapted the arrangement from... according to Richard who's made a study of the matter, Gershwin couldn't fit the entire composition onto 1 roll so he split it up and shortened the notes so it would play back correctly at a lower tempo. But it's believed that the tempo markings printed onto the 2 rolls they ended up with did not reflect this. Anyway, everything Mas does, including positioning his mic stand, is an entertainment experience. Sorry for the audio quality on this but it's raw off the camera. I'm on the road and new to video. My digital audio recordings will be better once I get back to my home studio to process them. Hope you enjoy this for now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oazQIdtBs3k
I also recorded Richard Dowling's informative Gershwin seminar earlier today and hope to carve it up and upload it soon.
Originally posted by hv:
Here's a link to Mas's performance which I uploaded last night. .......Hope you enjoy this for now:
I went to this YouTube link and listen to it.
It is a terrible performance of the Rhapsody.
How can you play American music based on jazz, in a Romantic style which was over already by the time Rhapsody was composed...?
...and then all the bad notes and mess...
Do yourself a favor, listen to my arrangement/interpretation of Rhapsody:
Hi, Rami. I think a few folks, including me, would dispute your contention of this style of music being over... particularly those still composing and performing, not to mention the audiences at the sold-out performances all this week. And I've video'd and audio recorded them all so there will be many more to follow.
I got a chance up parse and upload about half of Richard Dowling's "Gershwin Rediscovered" seminar late last night. I had to chop it up into 11 segments and have upload 6 so far. My apologies for the audio quality in the church we used as the venue. Here's the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsCOWXlQxA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRB-7g_zTek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwih6ywD6mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riuDAik-AmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz6h9tuBpgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhpgDby_eXo
Hope you enjoy these.
I'm finally home after 2 weeks on the road and just got a chance to post the remainder of Richard Dowling's wonderful "Gershwin Rediscovered seminar which included live performances of six Gershwin preludes, a foxtrot-styled "Someone To Watch Over Me", plus an obscure piece entitled "Two Waltzes in C". Here's a link to the complete series of clips:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7AC7999A68445338
And may thanks to Richard Dowling for so graciously letting me do this. He's got to be one of the nicest guys anywhere. Should anyone want to find out more about him, or perhaps contact him, here's a link to his web site:
http://www.richard-dowling.com/
First of all, Gershwin's music is not based on jazz at all. Most of the 'Rhapsody in Blues' are played in a style that is not in line with Gershwin's intentions. It has taken me several years to get it right. It is based on klezmer and ragtime. I have had many conversations with family members and experts in his life about this, as far as Anne Brown, during a visit in Norway. Anne was Gershwin's own personal pick to play 'Bess' in the original 'Porgy AND Bess'. I say 'AND Bess', because, originally, it was only 'Porgy'. After hearing Anne's beautiful voice, he decided to expand the role and include it in the title. What I am trying to share is that most post-Gershwin era pianists have decided upon themselves to do with Gershwin what many did to Chopin and other Romantic composers' music in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Over-indulging in rhythmic figurations which deviate with what the composer intended. Michael Tilson Thomas, fortunately, does Gershwin's Rhapsody very well.
Kreisler
For me, Previn is unmatched. He's the only one who (IMHO) knows how and when to swing. (I think the fact that he's a jazz pianist also helps.)
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed
Hey Jeffrey,
Maybe "based on jazz" was not the correct terminology. Meant to say "written in the jazz idiom/language". Some jazz musicians consider Gershwin as part of jazz history and development.
After all, he wrote the Rhapsody for the "king of jazz" and his orchestra...
Yeah, it took me a while too, to get it right and that was some 35 years ago... When I was young I used to play the 2nd Prelude like it was Chopin (what a "coincident" Gershwin's 2nd prelude and Chopin's...), but then I did away with the Romantic style for that...
"based on klezmer and ragtime" is a little overdoing it. Yes of course Gershwin was Jewish and grew up on Ragtime and loved it, and even though the Blues Scale is almost identical to one of the old Jewish modes, Rhapsody is a far cry from both. Besides, ragtime is one of the early forms of jazz.
BTW, the term "klezmer" as used today, is a relatively recent commercial invention, not used/known in Gershwin's time, or before.
Now-a-days it's used for calling a mixture of Jewish Europian music styles.
Originally it was what the players themselves were called. The translation of the word is: an instrument of song.
I think what you meant to say was "Jewish music".
There are other pieces, rather songs by GG which are so much more clearly influenced by ragtime.
The Jewish roots are found more easily in Porgy and Bess.
Example: "It ain't necessarily so" is a variation on the blessing "BARCHU ET ADONAI HAM'VORACH" (Hebrew pronunciation).
Many years ago, Anne Brown was at one of my concerts in Norway and loved my Rhapsody rendition. So did Leo Godowsky III who was present at a recital I gave in NYC a few years ago.
Funny you should mention 'It Ain't Necessarily So'--I use that Hebraic allusion in my lecture/recitals on Gershwin! When referring to 'klezmer', it is in reference to the immigrants who came to the US and whose 'gypsy' style had an influence in Gershwin's musical language. For the most part, the 'Rhapsody' is traditionally harmonic with small blues inflections--it's the rhythmic motives that give it the popular feeling based on the dance rhythms of the time too. My point in the thread is that many take those rhythmic motives and swing them, jazz them up, bend them, twist them etc. It is much more straightforward and naturally beautiful if played as written with generous feeling, in the sound and phrasing.
Yeah, I also use 'It Ain't Necessarily So' to show the Jewish music influence in my concert lectures... I know other people who use it too.
This, for example, has nothing to do with what is referred to as Klezmer music, as mentioned before it is a blessing which comes from the prayers.
"the 'Rhapsody' is traditionally harmonic with small blues inflections"...
I wouldn't call it "small blues inflections", it is full of it in its themes and harmonies.
And of course it is full of complex jazz rhythms, way ahead of and much more advanced than the dance rhythms of the time.
Yes, many do various things to the Rhapsody, far beyond just jazzing up some rhythms...
"It is much more straightforward and naturally beautiful if played as written with generous feeling, in the sound and phrasing."
These are nice words, but like any interpretation, they are interpreted differently by different people.
Have you heard my Rhapsody, are you referring to it when saying what you do about jazzing it up...?
If you are, you'd be the first to say such a thing about my interpretation, as so far, and it's been many years now, I received only the highest praise.


text:
Dreampop
Slowcore
Post Metal
The Dead Milkmen: (We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang / A Complicated Faith
Veteran punks, The Dead Milkmen, return with a new seven-inch, a limited, hand-numbered release composed of a great cover and a strong original. Heaven 17's powerful anti-fascism anthem, (We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang, originally from 1981's Penthouse and Pavement, gets a dynamic new rendition in the hands of the experienced punk band, and the new composition, A Complicated Faith, completes the group's excellent new release.
The single comes out on the Philadelphia-based label, The Giving Groove, and all label profits will be donated to a 501(c)3 music-related charity. The Dead Milkmen selected Girls Rock Philly as the beneficiary which is a youth-centered music organization keen on building an intergenerational community of girls, women, trans and gender non-conforming people.
It's The Dead Milkmen's first new offering since their EP, Welcome to the End of the World, from 2017, and a much potent return for the band who treat the new wave classic with devotion and appreciation, and accompany it with a new cut which sounds absolutely matching to the A-side's post punk/new wave tenacity.
The Dead Milkmen Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
girlsrockphilly.org
music punk the dead milkmen zr
D//E Firsts
Featured D//E Playlists
ABOUT ⚫ CONTACT ⚫ PRIVACY POLICY
Copyright © Destroy//Exist.


text:
SOHP Database Home
About the SOHP
SOHP Home
Home Southern Oral History Program Interview Database K-0196_Audio
K-0196_Audio
Previous 1 of 2 Next
loading audio
Interview no. K-0196
Restrictions No restrictions. Open to research.
Project K.2.7. Southern Communities: Listening for a Change: History of Gay Men and Transgender People in the South
Project description Interviews, 2000-2002, conducted by Chris McGinnis, an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, discussing gay life in the South with particular emphasis on North Carolina in the 1960s through the 1980s. Topics include the development of the gay community, gay bars, social events and festivals, organizations and activism, and places where gay men met and engaged in public sex. Interviewees include Chapel Hill, N.C., town council member Joseph A. Herzenberg, writer Perry Deane Young, and several transgendered individuals.
Interviewee Herzenberg, Joseph A., 1941-
Interviewee occupation City council members
Political activists
Interviewee DOB 1941
Interviewee ethnicity Whites
Interviewer McGinnis, Chris.
Abstract In this interview, longtime Chapel Hill, North Carolina, city councilman Joseph A. Herzenberg describes his experiences as a gay man in a southern town. He remembers a life relatively free of discrimination first as a young man growing up in New Jersey, where his parents accepted that Herzenberg and his brother were both gay; then at Yale University, a homophobic place where nevertheless Herzenberg did not experience a great deal of direct discrimination; as a member of Chapel Hill's gay community, a community that flourished in the diversity of a college town; and finally in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area, where Herzenberg has enjoyed a long career in local politics. Herzenberg seems to be an active member of the gay community, helping found gay advocacy organizations, for example, or urging the president of the UNC system to respond to a homophobic threat. However, in this interview, he more often positions himself as something of an observer of, rather than a participant in, gay life in Chapel Hill, remembering parties he did not go to, romantic encounters he did not participate in, or homophobia he feels he rarely experienced. The result is a thoughtful interview that will be useful to researchers interested in the experiences of gay men in the South and the rhythms of the gay community in one southern town.
Subject Topical Gay politicians--North Carolina--Chapel Hill.
Gay activists--North Carolina--Chapel Hill.
Gay liberation movement--North Carolina--Chapel Hill.
Gay men--North Carolina--Chapel Hill.
Subject Name Herzenberg, Joseph A., 1941-
Citation Interview with [interviewee name] by [interviewer name], [interview date] [interview number], in the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Interview no. K-0196_Audio
K0196_Transcript
SOHP


text:
Pregnancy Centers
Support Care Net
Men's Conference
Abundant Life Blog
Had an Abortion? Know someone who did??
Researchers Uncover Hidden Risk Factor For Breast Cancer
Posted by Ardee Coolidge on Jun 28, 2016 10:00:00 AM
Research indicates that one action could increase the risk of breast cancer 30%-79%.
Breast cancer. In 1973, one out of every twelve women battled it. Currently, one of every eight women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with it. We likely all know someone who has been diagnosed; many of us have seen the fight within our own families. While I was in high school, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to undergo treatment and surgery. Thankfully, she is one of the survivors. Every year, about 40,000 women aren't so fortunate.
Despite marches for the cure, millions of dollars of research, and public campaigns against overeating, smoking, and anything else that might be related to breast cancer, more than 240,000 women are expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. While a woman's risk for breast cancer increases if she has a family member who has suffered from it, about 85% of cases occur in women who have no family history of breast cancer.
So what else could contribute to the increased number of women diagnosed with breast cancer?
What if there was research that showed one action could change your risk of breast cancer by 79%? Would it be worth exploring? What if this action only made it 30% more likely you would develop breast cancer? Would you feel entitled to know more?
These questions are at the center of Punam Kumar Gill's new documentary film Hush. Gill, an award winning pro-choice feminist filmmaker dared to ask the question, "Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer?" What she discovered changed her life and revealed that few women are equipped with the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision about their pregnancy.
Gill started her search by looking at the opinions of the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Both categorically stated on their websites that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Case closed.
But is the science actually settled on this question?
Having seen the official story, Gill turned to the published research on the subject to see if it matched what women were hearing from the media and the NCI.
Currently there are more than 108 world-wide studies published on abortion and breast cancer. Fifty-three of them found a strong link between abortion and breast cancer. Twenty-three studies found a small link, and only 29 found no link.
In research jargon, a "link" is properly termed a "positive association" or "increased risk" or "risk factor." It does not define a cause and effect relationship between the risk factor and getting the disease. It's important to note that having a risk factor does not mean you will definitely come down with a particular condition, just that you are at an increased risk of developing the disease.
Out of the 108 studies, 79 (nearly 3 in 4) found an increased risk between induced abortion and the later development of breast cancer. When she delved deeper, she discovered that studies from all over the world demonstrated a higher rate of breast cancer among women who have had abortions:
10 out of 10 studies conducted in India
30 out of 37 studies conducted in China
5 out of 6 studies in France
4 out of 4 in Japan
Dr. Joel Brind, professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology, performed a meta-analysis of twenty-three available studies in 1996. He found that there was a 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortion histories.
Brind told Gill, "This about science. This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer." He went on to explain how his meta-analysis was peer-reviewed and conducted in partnership with pro-choice scientists.
In 2014, a meta-analysis published in the international journal Cancer Causes and Control by Yubei Huang et. al of the Tianjin Medical University provided shockingly similar results. Huang examined 36 studies in China and found a 44% average increased risk of breast cancer among women with abortion histories. This risk increased to 76% for those with two abortions and 79% for three.
But how is this possible? How can induced abortion increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer?
Dr. Pierre Band, a pioneer in the field of Oncology, explained to Gill why the two may be linked. Scientists performed a study of rabbits. If they painted rabbit ears with a cancer-causing substance, a carcinogen, nothing happened. But, if they then injected the rabbits with medicine to cause cells to multiply rapidly cancer did develop. Scientists like Band refer to this process as initiation and promotion. One agent or substance sets the stage for cancer to develop, and another one gets the process in motion. When a woman conceives, her body begins producing estrogen and progesterone at 2000% the normal rate.
Estrogen and progesterone are both initiators and promoters in the development of cancer.
Currently, the medical community warns women that hormone replacement therapy, post-menopausal obesity, plastics, and the number of lifetime menstrual cycles can dramatically increase their risk for breast cancer. Each of these increases estrogen or estrogen-like substances in the body. Estrogen causes breast cells to multiply through cellular division.
Each time a cell divides, it copies its DNA. Each time it copies its DNA, errors can result that turn cells cancerous. How does pregnancy factor into this?
When a woman reaches late-term pregnancy, after 32 weeks, many of her breast cells have matured fully to begin producing milk. Once a breast cell matures, it has "switched off, "meaning it can no longer multiply, making it less susceptible to carcinogens. Mature, milk producing breast cells are less vulnerable to becoming cancerous. This is one of the reasons women are often encouraged by their doctor to breastfeed.
Late-term pregnancy turns off cellular multiplication. Abortion terminates the pregnancy before the woman's breast cells switch off, leaving her with a body pumped full of estrogen and progesterone and breast cells left in a vulnerable state of increased risk of becoming cancerous.
Unlike induced abortion, spontaneous abortion in the first trimester, or miscarriage as it is commonly known, does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer because her hormone levels never reach that of a normally developing pregnancy.
Gill discovered that the science of breast maturation and its possible connection to cancer is recognized by the medical community, including the National Cancer Institute which states, "pregnancy and breastfeeding have direct effects on breast cells; causing them to differentiate, or mature, so they can produce milk. Some researchers hypothesize that these differentiated cells are more resistant to becoming transformed into cancer cells than cells that have not undergone differentiation."
Even the World Health Organization has recognized the risks of increased estrogen. It listed the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill, "The Pill" as it is most popularly known, as a group 1 carcinogen, along with other forms of estrogen and progesterone therapy.
While the media is comfortable telling women not to take hormone replacement therapy because of the increased risk of breast cancer, it refuses to extend the same logic to abortion and its effects on estrogen levels in the body. If both result in increased estrogen levels without a subsequent maturation of breasts' cells, then logically both can result in increased breast cancer risk.
Troubled by the research, Gill returned to the politically-funded national medical organizations to ask why they were so sure there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Their response?
They stonewalled her. Not a single national medical organization would respond to her requests for comment.
What were they afraid of? If the science was so settled, why not explain the faults with Huang's research, or any of the many other domestic and international studies that continue to find a link between abortion and breast cancer?
Gill pointed out that the Surgeon General decided to require warning labels on packs of cigarettes highlighting the link between smoking and birth defects when there were only seven studies that showed such a link.
Today, there are more than seventy-eight studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer and yet most women remain unaware that there is any connection.
I am pro-life. Gill remains pro-choice. In fact, Hush ends with her reiterating her conviction that a woman deserves the right to freely choose abortion. We both agree, however, on the importance of women receiving all the available information before making a decision.
There are few things that are actually settled in science. It is clear that more research can and should be done regarding the link between abortion and breast cancer. However, when those entrusted with crafting medical policies for our nation treat the question as a settled conclusion and shut down, minimize, and outright ignore evidence to the contrary, they reveal that their motivations are dogmatic, not scientific.
In such a climate, the woman trying to decide what to do with her unplanned pregnancy loses.
*Statistics taken from Hush unless otherwise noted.
Previous post View all posts in this blog Next post
Can you take 30-seconds to sign a pledge against abortion and infanticide?
Some pro-choice activists now publicly defends infanticide. As believers in Jesus Christ, we know that every baby deserves protection and that abortion breaks God's heart.
Planned Parenthood and their allies promise horrific new abortion laws across America unless we act.
Say, "I stand with other believers against abortion and infanticide."
Sign the Pledge:
Find a Pregnancy Center
What is a Pregnancy Center?
Care Net Affiliation
Making Life Disciples
PREGNANT? NEED HELP?
Pregnancy Decision Line
44180 Riverside Parkway
Lansdowne, Virginia 20176
Donor relations:
info@care-net.org
© 2015 Care Net. All Rights Reserved.