Thursday, August 1, 2013

FOXNews.com: Liberal media sharks continue feeding frenzy over 'Zealot' interview

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Liberal media sharks continue feeding frenzy over 'Zealot' interview
Aug 1st 2013, 16:45

The difference between the hard-left media and a school of sharks is … well, there isn't much difference. Both get fighting mad and keep attacking when they smell blood in the water. ("Sharknado" jokes are on hold till the sequel.) That's how left-wing sites like Huffington Post and Salon treat Fox News especially.

On Wednesday, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell (Hint #1: My boss) went on Fox (Hint #2: The owners of this website) to tear apart the latest media feeding frenzy. 

It all involved a FoxNews.com Live interview of author Reza Aslan that upset the left like throwing chum in the water. 

Fox New's Lauren Green dared to ask Aslan if his Islamic faith impacted his book that totally denies the divinity of Jesus Christ – just accidentally the entire foundation for all branches of Christianity. Aslan got his immense ego bruised. Libs smelled blood and attacked.

Bozell criticized Aslan as "arrogant" (understatement), "absolutely false" (even more of an understatement) and "very biased" (duh). Cue the music from "Jaws" or "Shark Week."

Lauren Green dared to ask author Reza Aslan if his Islamic faith impacted his new book about Jesus. Liberals smelled blood and attacked.

The Huffington Post reacted with vigor and its characteristically hyped headlines. Two versions of the same headline said either: "SURPRISE! Fox News Thinks This Went GREAT," or "Fox News DEFENDS Disastrous Interview." Weekly World News headline writers will always be able to find work with Arianna.

The headlines pointed to a story and a HuffPost Live piece that, once again, attacked Fox News.

HuffPost politics reporter Sabrina Siddiqui targeted her assault on the original interview, mocking "the flawed questioning" and saying it was part of the "double standard we see in this post 9/11 world." 

Host and former RT staffer Alyona Minkovski joined in, showing she believes Russian state propaganda is the perfect foundation for her professional journalism knowledge base. Minkovski called it "an incredibly embarrassing interview" and "absurd." Minkovski clearly hasn't watched RT recently.

Lefty Salon complained that "the Fox News propaganda machine continues to pump out more garbage." Writer Prachi Gupta kept on chowing down on Fox nuggets. "Bozell's mind-bogglingly backward interview confirms what Aslan said earlier today, that Fox News has an 'inherent anti-Muslim bias,'" he wrote.

The libs at Slate, a product of your allegedly neutral Washington Post, had an almost identical headline to HuffPo: "Fox News Thinks Fox News Did a Great Job With That Reza Aslan Interview." But hey, media group think never happens. Talking Points Memo, TV Newser, Mediaite and others followed.

Buzzfeed, the kitty lister site, naturally attacked Fox once again with its typical subtlety: "Fox News Tackles Most Embarrassing Interview Ever: Host Was Right To Question Muslim Author." Surprisingly though, Buzzfeed also followed with a humorous piece on Aslan, "Author Attacked By Fox News Is Actually Kind Of A Jerk On Twitter." Yes, Aslan is the same arrogant jerk online that he is on TV. Shocker.

Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski listed (of course) 25 Twitter examples, most of which used various foul words (22 in the 25 posts) including 10 separate detonations of the F-bomb. The "scholarly" comments read more like he was applying to be spokesperson for the Weiner campaign or perhaps it was "Jersey Shore Islam." Notably, Aslan called former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a "f***ing imbecile" without the polite asterisks.

The classy Aslan responded to the criticism on Twitter with more foul language and a new title for himself. "Seriously if calling hatemongers 'assholes' and trolls 'shit for brains' makes me a jerk then I proudly accept title #TwitterJerk," he wrote. Who are we to argue? But why limit it just to Twitter?

The liberal response to Bozell's comments was typical for the self-deluded. Yes, FNC's Lauren Green dared to question the bias of Muslim writer who attempted to undermine 2,000 years of religious history and belief. After all, Aslan could have been an Islamic writer criticizing Islam. Instead of a tough interview, he might have nabbed a fatwa or two.

Nah, that never happens. Just ask Salman Rushdie.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: 'I am not a monster' -- inside the mind of Ariel Castro

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
'I am not a monster' -- inside the mind of Ariel Castro
Aug 1st 2013, 17:37

I have written before that there is no original evil left in the world; everyone is just recycling pain.

Ariel Castro was, of course, wrong when he claimed, bizarrely, Thursday that there was "harmony" in the house where he kept three women hostage, repeatedly beating and raping them. But he was correct when he stated that he is not a monster.

Ariel Castro was not born a predator. He became one. I believe him when he says he himself was sexually abused. And, while most victims of sexual abuse harm no one later in life, Ariel Castro is an extreme example of what can happen in adulthood, when a child has been destroyed psychologically.

Based on my nearly two decades as an adult, adolescent and forensic psychiatrist, talking at the level of the soul and the gut about the human psyche with everyone from anxious kids, to abused women, to gang members, to men who have raped and killed, the origin of Castro's evil is the house of horrors in which he alludes to being raised.

I promise you that what Castro has been convicted of creating in Cleveland—a "home" where three women were allegedly held in ropes and chains, beaten and raped, where children were either enslaved or aborted—will turn out to be a magnified version (perhaps 2X, perhaps 100X) of the home in which he was raised.

Once someone no longer can appreciate the pain of others, that person is "free," in a terrible and terrifying way, to perpetrate horrific acts.

There, Casto reportedly maintains in an alleged suicide note which may have been written in 2004 and was found inside his home, that he was emotionally, physically and sexually abused by relatives.

That is the reason why Ariel Castro can maintain that the house of horrors he created in Cleveland was a place of "harmony:" Because Ariel Castro needed to summon psychotic levels of denial to barely exist in the house in which he was raised. I would bet that calling that place "harmonious" wouldn't be much more of a reach than calling it "harmony" to be abducted and raped.

Castro's diagnosis may turn out to be psychopathy, but the real key to understanding him is that he lacked empathy. And once someone no longer can appreciate the pain of others, that person is "free," in a terrible and terrifying way, to perpetrate horrific acts.

In fact, the torture that a person lives through that crushes his empathy, can be enough to create a house of mirrors, in which one reproduces his own suffering again, and again, and again, like the work of art by M.C. Escher of a hand drawing a hand, never quite being able to escape the dehumanized recreation of his own destruction.

Castro reportedly said as much in his suicide note. He cannot understand his addiction to taking women prisoner and knows, someplace deep inside him—which we may as well think of as the voice of God—that what he is doing is predatory and wrong and hellish. Yet, he cannot stop.

Perhaps, had Castro a little more intelligence or a spiritual guide or had been lucky enough to have been incarcerated early in life and introduced to a gifted prison psychiatrist, he might have noted that he is one of three brothers and he took three people hostage.

He might have noted that he and his brothers are all reportedly psychologically hobbled, chained to pathology of one kind or another (supposedly, including addiction). He might have noted that two of his adult brothers still live with their aging mother, like hulking, disempowered infants, like, one might wonder, prisoners.

You don't take three women hostage and make them abort repeatedly and beat them and humiliate them and sexually attack them if you have true, loving feelings for your mother.

But you might do that, if you deny all your primal, murderous rage toward that woman, because it is too psychologically threatening to feel it at 5 or 6 or 13 or 50-years-old, and it ends up erupting out of you—directed at every female you see, including your own wife and daughters.

It is popular to speak of children as resilient. It is a complete and utter myth.

Children are exquisitely emotionally sensitive. The seeds of major depression and panic disorder and PTSD and borderline personality disorder and, yes, antisocial (psychopathic) personality disorder are most often sown in childhood and adolescence. And while someone may be born gifted by God with a hardy brain chemistry, with serotonin and norepinephrine and dopamine aplenty, many are not, and are, therefore, even more vulnerable, from birth.

Ariel Castro is right about one thing, and maybe only one thing. He is no devil. He is no "monster."He's an abused, ruined decent boy made rancid by psychological dynamics that were at one time entirely beyond his control.

Does that mean he should not have been held responsible for failing to resist the dark forces that developed inside him? No, it does not.

Do lives sometimes tend unavoidably toward darkness? Yes, they do.

What does this imply for justice? That question is part of the human condition. We will debate it, forever.

I write these words because I just want to understand. I just want the truth. And I just told you the truth, too. 

Make of it what you will. Do with it, what you want. 

But now you know what I know having met men who killed their wives with bats and guns and knives, and women who beat their daughters and raped their sons, and teenagers who preyed viciously on other teenagers.

Every single case began at least a generation before—and, every time I have looked, more than one generation, and, sometimes, three or four.

I leave you with the words of philosopher Martin Buber and your own life story, to contemplate. Make of his words and your days all you can:

"Love ranges in its effect through the whole world. In the eyes of him who takes his stand in love, and gazes out of it . . . good people and evil people, wise and foolish, beautiful and ugly, become successively real to him; that is . . . they confront him as Thou...Love is the responsibility of an I for a Thou. In this lies the likeliness . . . of all who love, from the smallest to the greatest and from the blessedly protected man, whose life is rounded in that of a loved being, to him who is all his life nailed to a cross of the world, and who ventures to bring himself to the dreadful point—to love all men."

Only a predator would fail to hate what Ariel Castro did. But only a heartless person would fail to grieve the loss of the potential for goodness he was born with, which was stolen from him, decades ago, in a house of horrors we still know almost nothing about.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Bill Clinton could survive a sex scandal but Filner and Weiner will not

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Why Bill Clinton could survive a sex scandal but Filner and Weiner will not
Aug 1st 2013, 16:24

The male-power-arrogance-stories just keep on coming.

Former New York congressman Anthony Weiner and San Diego Mayor Bob Filner are just the latest variations on a theme.

In California, eight women have come forward with increasingly explicit allegations of sexual harassment by the mayor. Last Friday, Mr. Filner faced the cameras to explain his side.

He offered the by-now-oh-so-familiar narrative of the embattled leader: A carefully crafted statement of contrition. A desire to change. A willingness to go to rehab.

Every one of us is the failed hero who yearns for a second chance. Every one of us is a Bob Filner or Anthony Weiner.

And a fierce commitment to hold on to power.

Anthony Weiner, now a candidate for mayor in New York City, is also vowing to stay in the race.

Really?

As I watched Mr. Filner's press conference, I didn't see a hint of emotion. I saw no relationship between the pretty words Mr. Filner read and his public demeanor. I saw, instead, someone who is cold, calculating, and defiant.  Much like Anthony Weiner's demeanor in his newly released campaign video.

That is male-power-arrogance writ large.

What irks me most is not their behavior. Their arrogance is a tired old story that is no longer a surprise. No, what stuns me is our willingness to invite politicians like these back into office, again and again, as the voters of South Carolina recently did with Mark Sanford.

Why don't we consider a different kind of leader, instead? And I'm not talking about their politics. I'm talking about their personality make-up.

Mr. Filner exhibits no warmth.

None.

Mr. Weiner exhibits no warmth.

None.

No, these men are both prime examples of the male-power-ambition-arrogance species.

As flawed as President Bill Clinton's conduct was, he possessed a personal warmth that enabled him to rebound from a national sex scandal with aplomb. When he hugged a voter or said, "I feel your pain," we believed he really did care.

So what is the difference between a Bill Clinton and Weiner & Filner?

Consider the research of Amy J.C. Cuddy. An Associate Professor at the Harvard Business School, Cuddy is in the forefront of global research which compellingly suggests that great leaders need to embody both warmth and competence (Harvard Business Review, July/August 2013). Not surprising, is it? But here's the kicker. The ideal leader embodies a perfect balance of warmth and competence.

Even when President Clinton "did not have sexual relations" with then White House intern Monica Lewinsky, he was able to exude more warmth than we are witnessing today from either Weiner and Filner combined. Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since World War II.

Aware of his own character deficit, Mr. Weiner last week trotted out Huma Abedin, his usually press-shy wife, to add the warmth factor.

In last year's election cycle, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney relied on their wives, Michelle and Ann, to reassure us that, yes, Barack and Mitt really were well-rounded, complete human beings.

Sad, isn't it?

Didn't you, too, have those moments when you thought, darn it, Michelle and Ann should be running for office instead?

Amy Cuddy uses the term "Happy Warrior" to define the leader with a deft warmth/competence mix. She offers former Texas governor Ann Richards as an example of a Happy Warrior.

Yes, a woman.

And when I look at the profiles of our male leaders in Congress right now, I am hard-pressed to find a single Happy Warrior in the bunch.

Crisis management consultants make mega-bucks to get the arrogant males off-the-hook. They write the pretty little lies which the likes of Weiner and Filner utter with competence but no heart.

Yes, they play the public like a well-tuned piano. They understand the emotional arc of the client- redemption-sonata, from our outrage at their failings to our all-too-quick amnesia and our eventual desire for their triumphant return. And they know that, in the end, it's never about the fallen bad boy's redemption. It's about our own.

Every one of us is the failed hero who yearns for a second chance. Every one of us is a Bob Filner or Anthony Weiner. And every time we consider voting another male-arrogant-leader back into office, we're diving into our personal reservoir of guilt and shame.

Mind you, I am a firm believer in human learning. I believe in doing the hard personal work. I believe in the potential for transformation. Most importantly, I believe in forgiveness.

I just don't believe we have to elect a Bob Filner or an Anthony Weiner again.

Do community service. Make lots of money. Have a great life. But please move on.

Achim Nowak an international authority on leadership presence coaches entrepreneurs and Fortune 500 executives around the world. He is the author of "INFECTIOUS: How to Connect Deeply and Unleash the Energetic Leader Within" (Allworth Press, 2013). For more information visit his website:www.influens.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Liberty's backlash -- why we should be grateful to Edward Snowden

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Liberty's backlash -- why we should be grateful to Edward Snowden
Aug 1st 2013, 12:00

Last week, Justin Amash, the two-term libertarian Republican congressman from Michigan, joined with John Conyers, the 25-term liberal Democratic congressman from the same state, to offer an amendment to legislation funding the National Security Agency (NSA). If enacted, the Amash-Conyers amendment would have forced the government's domestic spies when seeking search warrants to capture Americans' phone calls, texts and emails first to identify their targets and produce evidence of their terror-related activities before a judge may issue a warrant. The support they garnered had a surprising result that stunned the Washington establishment.

It almost passed.

The final vote, in which the Amash-Conyers amendment was defeated by 205 to 217, was delayed for a few hours by the House Republican leadership, which opposed the measure. The Republican leadership team, in conjunction with President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, needed more time for arm-twisting so as to avoid a humiliating loss.

But the House rank-and-file did succeed in sending a message to the big-government types in both parties: Nearly half of the House of Representatives has had enough of government spying and then lying about it, and understands that spying on every American simply cannot withstand minimal legal scrutiny or basic constitutional analysis.

The president is deeply into this and no doubt wishes he wasn't. He now says he welcomed the debate in the House on whether his spies can have all they want from us or whether they are subject to constitutional requirements for their warrants. Surely he knows that the Supreme Court has ruled consistently since the time of the Civil War that the government is always subject to the Constitution, wherever it goes and whatever it does.

As basic as that sounds, it is not a universally held belief among the power elites. Gen. James Clapper, the current boss of all domestic spies, obviously lied when he testified under oath to a Senate committee recently that the government was not accumulating massive amounts of data about tens or hundreds of millions of Americans. 

Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA, materially misled a House committee when he was asked under oath whether the NSA has the "ability" to listen to phone calls and he stated it lacks the "authority" to do so. Right off the bat, we can see that these senior spies do not feel bound by the laws prohibiting perjury and the misleading of Congress.

Congress itself has legislatively attempted to amend the Constitution, knowing that the supreme law of the land can only be amended by three-quarters of the states. The Constitution requires probable cause of criminal activity to be presented to a judge as a precondition of the judge issuing a search warrant. It also requires that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

Yet, Congress told the secret FISA court that it can avoid the Constitution and issue a warrant to any spy looking for the phone calls and electronic communications of anyone in America, without probable cause, without naming the persons whose records are sought and without describing the place to be searched. Secrecy-smitten judges, whose clerks are NSA agents and who are not permitted to keep copies of their own rulings, have gone along with this.

Obama, who did not want a national debate on all this before Edward Snowden blew the whistle on it, has backed off of his earlier claims that the feds are not reading emails or listening to phone calls. 

He has done this, no doubt, in light of unrefuted statements by Snowden and other NSA whistleblowers to the effect that federal spies can, with the press of a computer key, read emails and hear phone calls. 

Only after the Snowden revelations did Obama welcome the "debate" in the House. That debate, in which more than half of his own party rejected his spying, lasted precisely 24 minutes.

How can a deliberative body of 434 current members debate an issue as monumental as whether the government is bound by the Constitution when it seeks out terrorists in just 24 minutes? 

Apparently, the House Republican leadership that established the absurd 24-minute rule feared a serious and meaningful public discussion in which its authoritarian impulses would need to confront the Constitution its members swore to uphold. In that 24-minute time span, millions -- millions -- of Americans' phone calls and emails were swept into the NSA's supercomputers in defiance of the Constitution.

There is a political wildfire burning in the land, and we should all be grateful to Snowden for igniting it. The fire eventually will consume the political derelictions of those who have abandoned their oaths to uphold the Constitution so they can sound tough back home. 

The Amash-Conyers amendment would have required the feds to tell the court the name of the person whose communications they seek and the evidence they have against that person -- just as the Constitution requires. And it would have prohibited the NSA dragnets the Constitution obviously was written to prevent.

Instead we have the almost unimaginable prospect and the nearly unthinkable reality of the feds claiming that they can legally put every person in America under their privacy-invading scrutiny in order to catch a few dozen evil ones -- most of whom were entrapped by the FBI in the first place and never posed a serious danger to the public or the nation.

Would we all be safer if the feds could knock down any door they wished and arrest any person they chose? Who would want to live in such a society? What value is the Constitution if those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping are afraid to do so?

I expect that the Amash-Conyers amendment will be back on the floor of the House soon. When it is, who will have the courage to preserve, protect and defend personal liberty in a free society?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Mr. President, ObamaCare is creating a part time economy

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Mr. President, ObamaCare is creating a part time economy
Aug 1st 2013, 11:00

President Obama's recent pivot yet again to the economy has caused Americans to wonder why we remain in an economic rut. 

Although there are signs of improvement, why is our country's growth so sluggish and unemployment rate still high? 

A closer look at the June jobs numbers reveals a grave problem that is flying somewhat under the radar. And Friday's unemployment announcement will most likely reveal the same problem.

Seven to eight percent unemployment, 14 percent under-employment, and a part-time economy should not – and cannot – be tolerated as the new normal in a nation as great as ours.

The June unemployment rate remained unchanged from the previous month at 7.6 percent, but the June underemployment rate, which includes those who have stopped looking or settled for part-time work, rose sharply from 13.8 percent to 14.3 percent. 

This is partly due to the transition of employment from full-time to part-time, as the private and public sectors are forced into the perilous compliance standards of the president's health care law.

Small businesses are a primary creator of jobs and the employer of half of all private sector employees. So, when analyzing this new part-time pattern, a look at the small business role in this trend is in order. 

By and large, small companies don't want to settle for part-time employees over full-time positions. But for many, hiring part-time employees is simply their only solution for staying in business.

The health care law forces businesses to offer health insurance to full-time workers. Surprisingly, the law defines full-time as just 30 hours a week or more. Contrast this with the fact that the average American non-farm worker puts in just over 35 hours a week.

Therefore, to remain viable, many companies and governments, like the state of Virginia for example, have been forced to cap part-timers' hours in anticipation of the mandate. 

While the administration recently delayed this requirement for one year until January 2015, many organizations had already adjusted their operations before the announcement of the delay, and some organizations are choosing to make workforce changes now rather than delay the inevitable.

Consider what small business owners have told the Small Business Committee. William J. Gouldin, Jr., president of a floral company in Richmond, Virginia, testified during an April hearing on how small businesses were complying with the health care law.

Mr. Gouldin articulated the law's conundrum for small businesses accurately when he said: 

"Every employer will be forced to define part-time employment as something below 30 hours per week and most will use between 20 and 27.5 hours per week. There are millions of people who currently work between 30 and 36 hours per week because that works for their lifestyle and income needs. …The fixed cost of health insurance premiums is already so high that many employers will pay the penalty of 'time and a half' because it is less than the marginal cost of health insurance per hour for an additional employee."

At another hearing, Brian Vaughn, president of Nearly Famous, Inc. in Douglas, Georgia said: 

"Prior to the law's enactment – my goal had always been to hire fewer people for more hours. It is easier to retain employees that work full time. However, now that the law has passed, I have to consider options other than what makes practical business sense. 

Now, because of what Washington has mandated, it seems to make more practical business sense for me to hire more people for fewer hours. 

At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, is this really the right incentive? This is not what I want and it is not what is best for my employees, but in order to survive and be able to pay the employees that I have, it is what I will have to do."

Their concerns are bolstered by data seen in recent polls and surveys of American entrepreneurs. A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce small business survey found that among small businesses that will be subject to the employer mandate, one-half say they will cut hours to avoid the penalties.

It's good news if the president is returning his focus to the economy. But Congressional Republicans never lost that focus. We have been fighting for solutions that will spur economic growth and create jobs for all Americans because we have been listening to what small business owners and employees have been telling us all along. 

That's why I have cosponsored common sense legislation by Rep. Todd Young, of Indiana, to redefine a full time employee as a worker who averages at least 40 hours a week.

Seven to eight percent unemployment, 14 percent underemployment, and a part-time economy should not – and cannot – be tolerated as the new normal in a nation as great as ours. Removing government-created obstacles to small business growth is what Washington should be addressing, and this focus should start with removing the herculean impediments to job creation found in the health care law.

Republican Sam Graves represents Missouri's 6th congressional district. He is chairman of the House Small Business Committee.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Will Friday's jobs report bring hope or hurt to Americans?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Will Friday's jobs report bring hope or hurt to Americans?
Aug 1st 2013, 11:00

Friday, forecasters expect the Labor Department will report the economy added 175,000 jobs in July, down from 195,000 in June. They also expect the unemployment rate to slip a notch to 7.5 percent.

The pace of jobs creation has been stronger in recent months; however, a noticeable shift toward replacing full-time workers with part-time employees masks a much tougher market for job-seekers. Since January, 833,000 more Americans reported working part-time, while 97,000 fewer have full time positions.

This is not surprising—a good deal of the new jobs are in the hospitality, retailing and other sectors where businesses may chop up full-time positions to avoid rising heath insurance costs for full-time employees mandated by ObamaCare.

A noticeable shift toward replacing full-time workers with part-time employees masks a much tougher market for job-seekers.

More part-time workers pushes down wages for ordinary workers and is one particularly poignant illustration of a public policy initiative intended to reduce income inequality that actually exacerbates it.

Under more normal circumstances about 360,000 additional jobs would be needed each month to pull down headline unemployment to 6 percent, but to attain a truly healthy labor market many more full time jobs are needed.

Adding in discouraged adults and part-timers who want full-time positions, the unemployment rate becomes 14.3 percent.

Slow growth is the ultimate factor behind income disparities.

In the second quarter, GDP was up only 1.8 percent, and has averaged a paltry 1 percent since President Obama's reelection.

Despite greater optimism expressed by consumers in sentiment surveys, real consumer spending, net of autos, has softened. $200 billion in higher taxes imposed at the beginning of the year dwarf sequester spending cuts and have severely limited consumer spending on nonessentials.

Businesses remain quite pessimistic and are not investing, dragging down growth. Obama's proposal to tighten up and raise corporate taxes for more jobs programs—especially given the poor record of his targeted initiatives in alternative energy and vehicles—only adds to investor skepticism.

Long-term, the president's proposal to further tax overseas corporate earnings, when other principal nations do not, will motivate more firms to move corporate headquarters and jobs to Ireland and other low-tax jurisdictions. Eaton, Sara Lee and many less well-known companies have already done so.

Major factors contribute to the slow pace of recovery. These include the huge trade deficits on oil and manufactured products from China, Japan and elsewhere in Asia. And these in turn slow demand for U.S. goods and services. 

Absent U.S. policies to effectively confront Asian governments about their purposefully undervalued currencies, and to develop more oil offshore and in Alaska, the trade deficit will continue to tax growth.

An artificially cheap yen will eventually undermine the auto-sectors recovery. It raises Japanese auto makers net on new cars by at least $2,000, which they can pour into incentives, more features and product development. T

he latter will have particularly insidious consequences for Detroit's ability to compete in the emerging hybrid and electric segments.

The recent surge in natural gas production, and accompanying lower prices, improves the competitiveness of energy-using industries like petrochemicals, fertilizers, plastics, and primary metals—as well as their consuming industries like industrial machinery and building materials. 

However, Department of Energy efforts to boost exports of liquefied gas will reduce the trade deficit and boost growth much less, and create many fewer jobs, than keeping the gas in the United States for use by energy-intensive industries.

Dodd-Frank regulations make mortgages, refinancing, and home improvement loans much more difficult to obtain. The recovery in housing construction, though welcomed, remains lackluster as compared to past recoveries.  

The high cost and slow pace of regulatory reviews are a constant complaint among businesses and dampen investment spending—and Washington shows no signs of listening. 

Government needs to subject policies designed to protect the environment and other regulatory goals to the same efficacy standards the market applies to commercial technologies—regulatory assessments and enforcement are needed but those must be delivered cost effectively and quickly to add genuine value.

Bottom line: without better trade, energy, tax, health care, and other regulatory policies, stronger growth and the creation of enough good jobs are simply not going to happen.

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

FOXNews.com: Will America will soon fall, as just like Rome did?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Will America will soon fall, as just like Rome did?
Jul 31st 2013, 17:00

Unfortunately, the fall of Rome is a pattern repeated by empires throughout history...including ours?

A group of libertarians gathered in Las Vegas recently for an event called "FreedomFest." We debated whether America will soon fall, as Rome did.

Historian Carl Richard said that today's America resembles Rome.

The Roman Republic had a constitution, but Roman leaders often ignored it. "Marius was elected consul six years in a row, even though under the constitution (he) was term-limited to one year."

Here in America we've accomplished amazing things, but we shouldn't take our continued success for granted.

Sounds like New York City's Mayor Bloomberg.

"We have presidents of both parties legislating by executive order, saying I'm not going to enforce certain laws because I don't like them. ... That open flouting of the law is dangerous because law ceases to have meaning. ... I see that today. ... Congress passes huge laws they haven't even read (as well as) overspending, overtaxing and devaluing the currency."

The Romans were worse. I object to President Obama's $100 million dollar trip, but Nero traveled with 1,000 carriages.

Tiberius established an "office of imperial pleasures," which gathered "beautiful boys and girls from all corners of the world" so, as Tacitus put it, the emperor "could defile them."

Emperor Commodus held a show in the Colosseum at which he personally killed five hippos, two elephants, a rhinoceros and a giraffe.

To pay for their excesses, emperors devalued the currency. (Doesn't our Fed do that by buying $2 trillion of government debt?)

Nero reduced the silver content of coins to 95 percent. Then Trajan reduced it to 85 percent and so on. By the year 300, wheat that once cost eight Roman dollars cost 120,000 Roman dollars.

The president of the Foundation for Economic Education, Lawrence Reed, warned that Rome, like America, had an expanding welfare state. It started with "subsidized grain. The government gave it away at half price. But the problem was that they couldn't stop there ... a man named Claudius ran for Tribune on a platform of free wheat for the masses. And won. It was downhill from there."

Soon, to appease angry voters, emperors gave away or subsidized olive oil, salt and pork. People lined up to get free stuff.

Rome's government, much like ours, wasn't good at making sure subsidies flowed only to the poor, said Reed: "Anybody could line up to get these goods, which contributed to the ultimate bankruptcy of the Roman state."

As inflation increased, Rome, much like the U.S. under President Nixon, imposed wage and price controls. When people objected, Emperor Diocletian denounced their "greed," saying, "Shared humanity urges us to set a limit."

Doesn't that sound like today's anti-capitalist politicians?

Diocletian was worse than Nixon. Rome enforced controls with the death penalty -- and forbid people to change professions. Emperor Constantine decreed that those who broke such rules "be bound with chains and reduced to servile condition."

Eventually, Rome's empire was so large -- and people so resentful of centralized control -- that generals in outlying regions began declaring independence from Rome.

At FreedomFest, Matt Kibbe, president of the Tea Party group FreedomWorks, also argued that America could soon collapse like Rome did.

"The parallels are quite ominous -- the debt, the expansionist foreign policy, the arrogance of executive power taking over our country," says Kibbe. "But I do think we have a chance to stop it."

That's a big difference between today's America and yesterday's Rome. We have movements like the tea party and libertarianism and events like FreedomFest that alert people to the danger in imperial Washington and try to fight it. If they can wake the public, we have hope.

The triumph of liberty is not inevitable, though. And empires do crumble.

Rome's lasted the longest. The Ottoman Empire lasted 623 years. China's Song, Qing and Ming dynasties each lasted about 300 years.

We've lasted just 237 years so far -- sometimes behaving like a republic and sometimes an empire. In that time, we've accomplished amazing things, but we shouldn't take our continued success for granted.

Freedom and prosperity are not natural. In human history, they're rare.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.