Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The "Poor" in America. We really need to get out (into the world) more.

Wow! 43% of the poor are homeowners!
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America:
"The following are facts about persons defined as 'poor' by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:
* Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump­tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour­ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."

I have a friend who says " ... poverty is a industry in the USA. If your definition of poor does not garner enough votes then change the definition." We certainly have succeeded in doing that during the last couple of generations.

Americans who travel need to ensure that they see "the real world" and not just tourist spots - most of the world's poor would love to be poor in America.
"...
There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially."

This represents the impact of governmental social engineering, particularly since Lyndon Johnson's administration. Society was managing things better before the government stepped in to "help" us.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

IBM mainframes central to 'Big Green Linux' initiative

Much like COBOL, The imminent death of the mainframe computer has been predicted "really soon now" for at least the last 20 years. The efficiency of putting massive amounts of computing power together with enormous communications bandwidth is once again being revealed in the search for more energy efficient computing.

IBM launches 'Big Green Linux' initiative - ZDNet UK:
"The 'Big Green Linux' initiative is part of the wider Project Big Green, launched in May, which is specifically aimed at helping IBM and its clients reduce data-centre energy consumption. IBM kicked off the new initiative at the opening of the LinuxWorld and Next Generation Data Center trade shows in San Francisco, accompanied by Novell and the Linux Foundation.
The initiative doesn't centre on any one product announcement, but instead highlights several new IBM systems and projects aimed at Linux-based energy efficiency.
. . .
IBM said last week it would take its own advice, with a plan to consolidate about 3,900 of its own servers onto about 30 System z Linux mainframes, cutting energy consumption by about 80 percent in the process."

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Why the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea

As discussed in this blog below, the main stream media (MSM) is widely represented and largely liberal in political bias. Despite that, they've targeted talk radio for their "Fairness Doctrine" legislation because most successful talk radio shows have a conservative political bias. As noted here, such legislation, if applied fairly, would also decimate some popular liberal talk radio, such those heard on NPR.
Pajamas Media: The Talk-O-Sphere: Why the Empire is Striking Back with the Fairness Doctrine:
"Two other key members of the media establishment—National Public Radio and Manhattan-based book publishers—are on the fence when it comes to talk radio.

While NPR doesn’t have a “Rush Room” in its sprawling Massachusetts Avenue headquarters and its executives probably don’t drive home listening to Mark Levin or Michael Savage, the network knows that bringing back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” will not be good for “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” let alone some of its liberal lions like talk show host Diane Rehm. Would NPR really want to air a “responsible opposing view” for every stray comment on its airwaves?

NPR, by the way, is proof that the old saying that “liberals can’t make it on talk radio” is dead wrong. It is just that liberal radio audience already tunes it to NPR; they don’t need another network.
. . .
For what it’s worth, Air America, the ultimate attempt at lefty talk radio, is against the ‘fairness doctrine.’ Air America Radio personality Thom Hartmann writes in “CTA Aircheck,” an industry publication:

“The “progressive has failed” frame is simply wrong. In just three short years, our format has gone from a small handful of progressive stations to 10% of the talk radio content of this country. If I’d started a soda pop business in my garage and in three years had taken 10% of Coca Cola’s market, my picture would be on the cover of Forbes! Nobody thinks of Apple as a failure, but they only have 4.8% of the U.S. computer market, and that’s taken them 20 years! What if a new music format had taken 10% of the radio market in just three years? Everybody would be talking about it . . ."

Why in 2007 are we talking about limiting freedom of speech? If you don't like what you're hearing, change the channel, hit the power button, or go surf the Internet.

If you don't like what other people are hearing, then you might consider moving to a country where freedom isn't a priority - there are many choices available.