text:
Tim Essington
Resident orcas' appetite likely reason for decline of big Chinook salmon
Large, old Chinook salmon have mostly disappeared from the West Coast. A new University of Washington and NOAA study points to the recent rise of resident killer whales, and their insatiable appetite for large Chinook salmon, as the main driver behind the decline of the big fish.
Study shows that management and evolution give hope to coral reefs facing the effects of climate change
A new study released July 1 in Nature Climate Change gives hope for coral reefs. Launched by the nonprofit Coral Reef Alliance, with lead and senior authors at the University of Washington, the study is one of the first to demonstrate that management that takes evolution and adaptation into account can help rescue coral reefs from the effects of climate change.
Key ocean fish can prevail with changes to farmed fish, livestock diets
Anchovies, herring, sardines and other forage fish play an essential role in the food web as prey for seabirds, marine mammals and larger fish like salmon. When ground into fishmeal and oil, they are also a key food source for farmed seafood and land-based livestock such as pigs and poultry. As seafood consumption outpaces the…
Simple rules can help fishery managers cope with ecological complexity
A team of ecologists and economists is the first to test whether real-life ecological interactions produce economic benefits for the fishing industry. The results were published online Jan. 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Old fish few and far between under fishing pressure
A new study by University of Washington scientists has found that, for dozens of fish populations around the globe, old fish are greatly depleted — mainly because of fishing pressure. The paper, published online Sept. 14 in Current Biology, is the first to report that old fish are missing in many populations around the world.
Ocean acidification to hit West Coast Dungeness crab fishery, new assessment shows
The acidification of the ocean expected as seawater absorbs increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will reverberate through the West Coast's marine food web, but not necessarily in the ways you might expect, new research shows.
2 UW scientists lead effort to craft 'blueprint' for holistic fisheries management
Two University of Washington professors are leading an effort to help U.S. fisheries consider the larger marine environment, rather than just a single species, when managing a fishery.
Lingcod meet rockfish: Catching one improves chances for the other
In a new study, scientists found that selectively fishing for lingcod in protected areas actually avoided hampering the recovery of other fish, including rockfish species listed as overfished.
Fishing amplifies forage fish collapses
A new study implicates fishing in the collapse of forage fish stocks and recommends risk-based management tools that would track a fishery's numbers and suspend fishing when necessary.


text:
Futebolistas brasileiros
Zé Roberto (futebolista) — disputou duas Copas do Mundo pela Seleção Brasileira de Futebol
José Roberto de Oliveira — jogou pelo Flamengo e outros clubes grandes do Brasil
José Roberto Lopes Padilha — jogou no Fluminense e no Flamengo ná década de 1970
José Roberto Marques — jogou no Clube Atlético Paranaense, Coritiba Foot Ball Club, Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, São Paulo Futebol Clube, além das Seleção Olímpica de 1964

Desambiguações de antropônimos

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Huey P Long and Luke Fontana
Leave a Comment	/ Politics / By Luke Fontana / October 13, 2020 October 21, 2020 / 33 minutes of reading
Portrait of Huey P. Long standing at desk with view of state capitol in background.
Luke & Huey have a lot in common!
Huey P Long's "Share The Wealth Speech" (as entered into the March 12, 1935 Congressional Record)
Ladies and gentlemen, it has been publicly announced that the White House orders of the Roosevelt administration have declared war on HUEY LONG. The late and lamented, the pampered ex-crown prince, Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, one of those satellites loaned by Wall Street to run the Government, and who, at the end of his control over and dismissal from the NRA, pronounced it "as dead as a dodo", this Mr. Johnson was apparently selected to make the lead-off speech in this White House charge begun last Monday night. The Johnson speech was followed by more fuss and fury on behalf of the administration by spellbinders in and out of Congress.
In a far-away island, when a queen dies, her first favorite is done the honor to be buried alive with her. The funeral procession of the NRA (another one of these new-deal schisms or isms) is about ready to occur. It is said that General Johnson's speech of Monday night to attack me was delivered on the eve of announcing the publication of his obituary in the Red Book Magazine. Seems then that soon this erstwhile prince of the deranged alphabet makes ready to appear at the funeral of NRA like unto the colored lady in Mississippi who there asserted: "I is de wife of dese remains."
I shall undertake to cover my main subject and make answer to these gentlemen in the course of this speech tonight.
It will serve no purpose to our distressed people for me to call my opponents more bitter names than they call me. Even were I able, I have not the time to present my side of the argument and match them in billingsgate or profanity.
What is this trouble with this administration of Mr. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt, Mr. [Hugh S.] Johnson, Mr. [James A.] Farley,l Mr. [Vincent] Astor, and all their spoilers and spellbinders? They think that HUEY LONG is the cause of all their worry. They go gunning for me. But, am I the cause of their misery? They are like old Davy Crockett, who went out to hunt a possum. He saw in the gleam of the moonlight that a possum in the top of a tree was going from limb to limb. He shot and missed. He saw the possum again. He fired a second time and missed again. Soon he discovered that it was not a possum he saw at all in the top of that tree. It was a louse in his own eyebrow.
I do not make this illustration to do discredit to any of these gentlemen. I make it to show how often we imagine we see great trouble being done to us by someone at a distance, when, in reality, all of it may be a fault in our own make-up.
The trouble with the Roosevelt administration is that when their schemes and isms have failed, these things I told them not to do and voted not to do, that they think it will help them to light out on those of us who warned them in the beginning that the tangled messes and noble experiments would not work. The Roosevelt administration has had its way for two years. They have been allowed to set up or knock down anything and everybody. There was one difference between [Herbert] Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover could not get the Congress to carry out the schemes he wanted to try. We managed to lick him on a roll call in the United States Senate time after time. But, different with Mr. Roosevelt. He got his plans through Congress. But on cold analysis they were found to be the same things Hoover tried to pass and failed.
The kitchen cabinet that sat in to advise Hoover was not different from the kitchen cabinet which advised Roosevelt. Many of the persons are the same. Many of those in Roosevelt's kitchen cabinet are of the same men or set of men who furnished employees to sit in the kitchen cabinet to advise Hoover.
Maybe you see a little change in the man waiting on the tables, but back in the kitchen the same set of cooks are fixing up the victuals for us that cooked up the mess under Hoover.
Why, do you think this Roosevelt's plan for plowing up cotton, corn, and wheat; and for pouring milk in the river, and for destroying and burying hogs and cattle by the millions, all while people starve and go naked — do you think those plans were the original ideas of this Roosevelt administration? If you do, you are wrong. The whole idea of that kind of thing first came from Hoover's administration. Don't you remember when Mr. Hoover proposed to plow up every fourth row of cotton? We laughed him into scorn. President Roosevelt flayed him for proposing such a thing in the speech which he made from the steps of the capitol in Topeka, Kans.
And so we beat Mr. Hoover on his plan. But when Mr. Roosevelt started on his plan, it was not to plow up every fourth row of cotton as Hoover tried to do. Roosevelt's plan was to plow up every third row of cotton, just one-twelfth more cotton to be plowed up than Hoover proposed. Roosevelt succeeded in his plan.
So it has been that while millions have starved and gone naked; so it has been that while babies have cried and died for milk; so it has been that while people have begged for meat and bread, Mr. Roosevelt's administration has sailed merrily along, plowing under and destroying the things to eat and to wear, with tear-dimmed eyes and hungry souls made to chant for this new deal so that even their starvation dole is not taken away, and meanwhile the food and clothes craved by their bodies and souls go for destruction and ruin. What is it? Is it government? Maybe so. It looks more like St. Vitus dance.
Now, since they sallied forth with General Johnson to start the war on me, let us take a look at this NRA that they opened up around here two years ago. They had parades and Fascist signs just as Hitler, and Mussolini. They started the dictatorship here to regiment business and labor much more than anyone did in Germany or Italy. The only difference was in the sign. Italy's sign of the Fascist was a black shirt. Germany's sign of the Fascist was a swastika. So in America they sidetracked the Stars and Stripes, and the sign of the Blue Eagle was used instead.
And they proceeded with the NRA. Everything from a peanut stand to a power house had to have a separate book of rules and laws to regulate what they did. If a peanut stand started to parch a sack of goobers for sale, they had to be careful to go through the rule book. One slip and he went to jail. A little fellow w ho pressed a pair of pants went to jail because he charged 5 cents under the price set in the rule book. So they wrote their NRA rule book, codes, laws, etc. They got up over 900 of them. One would be as thick as an unabridged dictionary and as confusing as a study of the stars. It would take 40 lawyers to tell a shoe-shine stand how to operate and be certain he didn't go to jail.
Some people came to me for advice, as a lawyer, on how to run business. I took several days and then couldn't understand it myself. The only thing I could tell them was that it couldn't be much worse in jail than it was out of jail with that kind of thing going on in the country, and so to go on and do the best they could.
The whole thing of Mr. Roosevelt, as run under General Johnson, became such a national scandal that Roosevelt had to let Johnson slide out as the scapegoat. Let them call for an NRA parade tomorrow and you couldn't get enough people to form a funeral march.
It was under this NRA and the other funny alphabetical combinations which followed it that we ran the whole country into a mares nest. The Farleys and Johnsons combed the land with agents, inspectors, supervisors, detectives, secretaries, assistants, etc., all armed with the power to arrest and send to jail whomever they found not living up to some rule in one of these 900 catalogs. One man whose case reached the Supreme Court of the United States was turned loose because they couldn't even find the rule he was supposed to have violated in a search throughout the United States.
And now it is with PWA's, CWA's, NRA's, AAA's, J-UG's, G-IN's, and every other flimsy combination that the country finds its affairs and business tangled to where no one can recognize it. More men are now out of work than ever; the debt of the United States has gone up another $10 billion. There is starvation; there is homelessness; there is misery on every hand and corner, but mind you, in the meantime, Mr. Roosevelt has had his way. He is one man that can't blame any of his troubles on HUEY LONG. He has had his way. Down in my part of the country if any man has the measles he blames that on me; but there is one man that can't blame anything on anybody but himself, and that is Mr. Franklin De-La-No Roosevelt.
And now, on top of that, they order war on me because nearly 4 years ago I told Hoover's crowd it wouldn't do and because 3 years ago I told Roosevelt and his crowd it wouldn't do. In other words, they are in a rage at HUEY LONG because I have said, "I told you so."
I am not overstating the conditions now prevailing in this country. In their own words they have confessed all I now say or ever have said. Mr. Roosevelt and even Mrs. Roosevelt have bewailed the fact that food, clothes, and shelter have not been provided for the people. Even Gen. Hugh S. Johnson said in his speech of Monday night that there are 80 million people in America who are badly hurt or wrecked by this depression. Mr. Harry Hopkins, who runs the relief work, says the dole roll has risen now to 22,375,000 persons, the highest it has ever been. And now, what is there for the Roosevelt crowd to do but to admit the facts and admit further that they are now on their third year, making matters worse instead of better all the time? No one is to blame, except them, for what is going on because they have had their way. And if they couldn't change the thing in over two years, now bogged down worse than ever, how could anyone expect any good of them hereafter? God save us two more years of the disaster we have had under that gang.
Now, my friends, when this condition of distress and suffering among so many millions of our people began to develop in the Hoover administration, we knew then what the trouble was and what we would have to do to correct it. I was the first man to say publicly — but Mr. Roosevelt followed in my tracks a few months later and said the same thing. We said that all of our trouble and woe was due to the fact that too few of our people owned too much of our wealth. We said that in our land, with too much to eat, and too much to wear, and too many houses to live in, too many automobiles to be sold, that the only trouble was that the people suffered in the land of abundance because too few controlled the money and the wealth and too many did not have money with which to buy the things they needed for life and comfort.
So I said to the people of the United States in my speeches which I delivered in the United States Senate in the early part of 1932 that the only way by which we could restore our people to reasonable life and comfort was to limit the size of the big man's fortune and guarantee some minimum to the fortune and comfort of the little man's family.
I said then, as I have said since, that it was inhuman to have food rotting, cotton and wool going to waste, houses empty, and at the same time to have millions of our people starving, naked, and homeless because they could not buy the things which other men had and for which they had no use whatever. So we convinced Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt that it was necessary that he announce and promise to the American people that in the event he were elected President of the United States he would pull down the size of the big man's fortune and guarantee something to every family — enough to do away with all poverty and to give employment to those who were able to work and education to the children born into the world.
Mr. Roosevelt made those promises; he made them before he was nominated in the Chicago convention. He made them again before he was elected in November, and he went so far as to remake those promises after he was inaugurated President of the United States. And I thought for a day or two after he took the oath as President, that maybe he was going through with his promises. No heart was ever so saddened; no person's ambition was ever so blighted, as was mine when I came to the realization that the President of the United States was not going to undertake what he had said he would do, and what I know to be necessary if the people of America were ever saved from calamity and misery.
So now, my friends, I come to that point where I must in a few sentences describe to you just what was the cause of our trouble which became so serious in 1929, and which has been worse ever since. The wealth in the United States was three times as much in 1910 as it was in 1890, and yet the masses of our people owned less in 1910 than they did in 1890. In the year 1916 the condition had become so bad that a committee provided for by the Congress of the United States reported that 2 percent of the people in the United States owned 60 percent of the wealth in the country, and that 65 percent of the people owned less than 5 percent of the wealth. This report showed, however, that there was a middle class — some 33 percent of the people — who owned 35 percent of the wealth. This report went on to say that the trouble with the American people at that time was that too much of the wealth was in the hands of too few of the people, and recommended that something be done to correct the evil condition then existing.
It was at about the same time that many of our publications began to deplore the fact that so few people owned so much and that so many people owned so little. Among those commenting upon that situation was the Saturday Evening Post, which, in an issue of September 23, 1916, said:
Along one statistical line you can figure out a Nation bustling with wealth; along another a bloated plutocracy comprising 1 percent of the population lording it over a starving horde with only a thin margin of merely well-to-do in between.
And it was, as the Saturday Evening Post and the committee appointed by Congress said, it was a deplorable thing back in 1916, when it was found that 2 percent of the people owned twice as much as all of the remainder of the people put together, and that 65 percent of all of our people owned practically nothing.
But what did we do to correct that condition? Instead of moving to take these big fortunes from the top and spreading them among the suffering people at the bottom, the financial masters of America moved in to take complete charge of the Government for fear our lawmakers might do something along that line.
And as a result, 14 years after the report of 1916, the Federal Trade Commission made a study to see how the wealth of this land was distributed, and did they find it still as bad as it was in 1916? They found it worse! They found that 1 percent of the people owned about 59 percent of the wealth, which was almost twice as bad as what was said to be an intolerable condition in 1916, when 2 percent of the people owned 60 percent of the wealth. And as a result of foreclosures, failures, and bankruptcies, which began to happen prior to and in the year of 1929, before the campaign of 1932, and at this late date, it is the estimate of all conservative statisticians that 75 percent of the people in the United States don't own anything, that is, not enough to pay their debts, and that 4 percent of the people, or maybe less than 4 percent of the people, own from 85 to 90 percent of all our wealth in the United States.
Remember, in 1916 there was a middle class — 33 percent of the people — who owned 35 percent of the wealth. That middle class is practically gone today. It no longer exists. They have dropped into the ranks of the poor. The thriving man of independent business standing is fast fading. The corner grocery store is becoming a thing of the past. Concentrated chain-merchandise and banking systems have laid waste to all middle opportunity. That "thin margin of merely well-to-do in between" which the Saturday Evening Post mentioned on September 23, 1916, has dwindled to practically no margin of well-to-do in between. Those suffering on the bottom and the few lords of finance on the top are nearly all that are left.
It became apparent that the billionaires and multimillionaires even began to squeeze out the common millionaires, closing in and taking their properties and wrecking their businesses. And so we arrived (and are still there) at the place that in abundant America where we have everything for which a human heart can pray, the hundreds of millions — or, as General Johnson says, the 80 million — of our people are crying in misery for the want of the things which they need for life, notwithstanding the fact that the country has had and can have more than the entire human race can consume.
The 125 million people of America have seated themselves at the barbecue table to consume the products which have been guaranteed to them by their Lord and Creator. There is provided by the Almighty what it takes for them all to eat; yea, more. There is provided more than what is needed for all to eat. But the financial masters of America have taken off the barbecue table 90 percent of the food placed thereon by God, through the labors of mankind, even before the feast begins, and there is left on that table to be eaten by 125 million people less than should be there for 10 million of them.
What has become of the remainder of those things placed on the table by the Lord for the use of us all? They are in the hands of the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Mellons, the Baruches, the Bakers, the Astors, and the Vanderbilts — 600 families at the most either possessing or controlling the entire 90 percent of all that is in America. They cannot eat the food, they cannot wear the clothes, so they destroy it. They have it rotted; they plow it up; they pour it into the rivers; they bring destruction through the acts of mankind to let humanity suffer; to let humanity go naked; to let humanity go homeless, so that nothing may occur that will do harm to their vanity and to their greed. Like the dog in the manger, they command a wagon load of hay, which the dog would not allow the cow to eat, though he could not eat it himself.
So now, ladies and gentlemen, we come to that plan of mine for which I have been so roundly denounced and condemned by such men as Mr. Farley, Mr. Robinson, and Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, and other spellers and speakers and spoilers of the Roosevelt administration. It is for the redistribution of wealth and for guaranteeing comforts and conveniences to all humanity out of this abundance in our country. I hope none will be horror-stricken when they hear me say that we must limit the size of the big man's fortune in order to guarantee a minimum of fortune, life and comfort to the little man; but, if you are, think first that such is the declaration on which Roosevelt rode into the nomination and election of President. While my urgings are declared by some to be the average of a madman, and by such men as General Johnson as insincere bait of a pied piper, if you will listen to me you will find that it is restating the laws handed down by God to man; you will find that it was the exact provision of the contract and law of the Pilgrim Fathers who landed at Plymouth in 1620.
Here's what the Pilgrim Fathers said in the contract with the early settlers in the year 1620. I read you article 5 from that contract:
5: That at ye end of ye 7. years, ye capital & profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods, and chattels, be equally divided betwixt ye adventurers, and planters; which done, every man shall be free from other of them of any debt or detriment concerning this adventure.
So the Pilgrim Fathers wrote into the covenant to do just exactly what the Bible said to do, that they should have an equal division of the wealth every seven years. I don't go that far; I merely advocate that no man be allowed to become so big that he makes paupers out of a million other people
You will find that it is the cornerstone on which nearly every religion since the beginning of man has been founded. You will find that it was urged by Bacon, Milton, and Shakespeare in England, by Socrates, Plato, Theognis, and other wisest of men in Greece, by Pope Pius XI in the Vatican, by the world's greatest inventor, Marconi in Italy, by Daniel Webster, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt in the United States, as well as by nearly all of the thousands of great men whose names are yet mentioned in history.
The principle was not only the mainspring of Roosevelt's nomination and election, but in the closing speech of Herbert Hoover at Madison Square Garden in November 1932, even Hoover said:
My conception of America is a land where men and women may walk in ordered liberty, where they may enjoy the advantages of wealth, not concentrated in the hands of a few but diffused through the lives of all.
And so now I come to give you again that plan, taken from these leaders of all times and from the Bible, for the sponsoring of which I am labeled America's menace, madman, pied piper, and demagogue.
I propose:
First: That every big fortune shall be cut down immediately by a capital levy tax to where no one will own more than a few million dollars, as a matter of fact, to where no one can very long own a fortune in excess of about three to four millions of dollars. I propose that the surplus of all the big fortunes, above the few millions to any one person at the most, shall go into the United States ownership. How would we get all these surplus fortunes into the United States Treasury? Not hard to do. We would not do it by making everyone sell what he owned; no. We would send everyone a questionnaire. On that he would list the properties he owns, lands and houses, stocks and bonds, factories and patents, and so on. Every man would place his appraisal on his property, which the Government would review and maybe change on some items. On that appraisal the big fortune holder would say out of what property he would retain the few millions allowed to him, the balance to go to the United States. Say Mr. Henry Ford should allow that he owned all the stock of the Ford Motor Co., worth, say, $2 billion; he could claim, say $4 million of the Ford stock, but $1,996,000,000 would go to the United States. Say the Rockefeller fortune was listed at $10 billion in oil stocks, bank stocks, money, and stores. Each Rockefeller could say whether he wanted his limit in either the money, oil, or bank stocks, but about nine billion and eight hundred million would go to the Government. And so, in this way, the Government of the United States would come into the possession of about two-fifths of its wealth, which on normal values would be worth, say, $165 billion.
Then we would turn to the inventories of the 25 million families of America. All those who showed properties and money clear of debts that were above $5,000 and up to the limit of a few millions would not be touched. But those showing less than $5,000 to the family free of debt would be added to, so that every family would start life again with homestead possessions of at least a home and the comforts needed for a home, including such things as a radio and an automobile. These things would go to every family as a homestead, not to be sold either for debts or taxes or even by consent of the owner except by the consent of the court or Government, and then only on condition that the court hold it to be spent for the purpose of buying another home and comforts thereof.
Such would mean that the $165 billion or more taken from big fortunes would have about $100 billion of it used to provide all with the comforts of home and living. The Government might have to issue warrants for claim and location, or even currency to be retired from such property as was claimed, but all that is a detail not impractical to get these homes into the hands of the people.
So America would start again with millionaires, but no multi-millionaires or billionaires; with some poor, but none too poor to be denied the comforts of life. America, however, would still have maybe a $65 billion balance from these big fortunes not yet used to set up the poor people. What would we do with that? Wait a moment. I am coming to that, too.
Second: We propose that after homes and comforts of homes have been set up for the families of the country, that we shall turn our attention to the children and the youth of the land, providing first for their education and training. We would not have to worry about the problem of child labor, because the very first thing which we would place in front of every child would be not only a comfortable home during his early years but the opportunity for education and training, not only through the grammar school and the high school but through college and to include vocational and professional training for every child. If necessary, that would include the living cost of that child while he attended college, if one should be too distant for him to live at home and conveniently attend, as would be the case with many of those living in the rural areas.
We now have an educational system, and in States like Louisiana — and it is the best one — where school books are furnished free to every child and where transportation by bus is given to every student, however far he may live from a grammar or high school; there is a fairly good assurance of education through grammar and high school for the child whose father and mother have enough at home to feed and clothe them. But when it comes to a matter of college education, except in few cases the right to a college education is determined at this day and time by the financial ability of the father and mother to pay for the cost and the expense of a college education. It don't make any difference how brilliant a boy or girl may be, that don't give them the right to a college education in America today.
Now, Gen. Hugh Johnson says I am indeed a very smart demagogue, a wise and dangerous menace. But I am one of those who didn't have the opportunity to secure a college education or training. We propose that the right to education and the extent of education shall be determined and gauged not so much by the financial ability of the parents but by the mental ability and energy of a child to absorb the learning at a college. This should appeal to General Johnson, who says I am a smart man, since, had I enjoyed the learning and college training which my plan would provide for others, I might not have fallen into the path of the dangerous menace and demagogue that he has now found me to be.
Remember, we have $65 billion to account for that would lie in the hands of the United States, even after providing home comforts for all families. We will use a large part of it immediately to expand particularly the colleges and universities of this country. You would not know the great institutions like Yale, Harvard, and Louisiana State University. Get ready for a surprise. College enrollments would multiply 1,000 percent. We would immediately call in the architects and engineers, the idle professors and scholars of learning. We would send out a hurry call because the problem of providing college education for all of the youth would start a fusillade of employment which might suddenly and immediately make it possible for us to shorten the hours of labor, even as we contemplate in the balance of our program.
And how happy the youth of this land would be tomorrow morning if they knew instantly their right to a home and the comforts of a home and to complete college and professional training and education were assured! I know how happy they would be, because I know how I would have felt had such a message been delivered to my door.
I cannot deliver that promise to the youth of this land tonight, but I am doing my part. I am standing the blows; I am hearing the charges hurled at me from the four quarters of the country. It is the same fight which was made against me in Louisiana when I was undertaking to provide the free school books, free busses, university facilities, and things of that kind to educate the youth of that State as best I could. It is the same blare which I heard when I was undertaking to provide for the sick and the afflicted. When the youth of this land realizes what is meant and what is contemplated the billingsgate and the profanity of all the Farleys and Johnsons in America can't prevent the light of truth from hurling itself in understandable letters against the dark canopy of the sky.
Now, when we have landed at the place where homes and comforts are provided for all families and complete education and training for all young men and women, the next problem is what about our income to sustain our people thereafter. How shall that be arranged to guarantee all the fair share of what soul and body need to sustain them conveniently. That brings us to our next point. We propose:
Number 3: We shall shorten the hours of labor by law so much as may be necessary that none will be worked too long and none unemployed. We shall cut the hours of toil to 30 hours per week, maybe less; we may cut the working year to 11 months' work and 1 month's vacation; maybe less. If our great improvement programs show we need more labor than we may have, we will lengthen the hours as convenience requires. At all events, the hours for production will be gauged to meet the market for consumption. We will need all our machinery for many years, because we have much public improvement to do; and, further, the more use that we may make of them, the less toil will be required for all of us to survive in splendor.
Now, a minimum earning would be established for any person with a family to support. It would be such a living which one, already owning a home, could maintain a family in comfort, of not less than $2,500 per year to every family.
And now by reason of false statements made, particularly by Mr. Arthur Brisbane and Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, I must make answer to show you that there is more than enough in this country and more than enough raised and made every year to do what I propose.
Mr. Brisbane says I am proposing to give every person $15,000 for a home and its comforts, and he says that would mean the United States would have to be worth over a trillion dollars. Why make that untrue statement, Mr. Brisbane? You know that is not so. I do not propose any home and comfort of $15,000 to each person — it is a minimum of $5,000 to every family, which would be less than $125 billion, which is less than one-third of this Nation's wealth in normal times of $400 billion.
General Johnson says that my proposal is for $5,000 guaranteed earning to each family, which he says would cost from four to five hundred millions of dollars per year, which he says is four times more than our whole national income ever has been. Why make such untrue statements, General Johnson? Must you be a false witness to argue your point? I do not propose $5,000 income per year to each family. I propose a minimum of from $2,000 to $2,500 income per year to each family. For 25 million families that minimum income per family would require from $50 billion to $60.6 billion. In the prosperous days we have had nearly double that for income some years already, which allowed plenty for the affluent; but with the unheard prosperity we would have, if all our people could buy what they need, our national income would be double what it has ever been.
The Wall Street writer and statistician says we could have an income of at least $10,000 to every family in goods if all worked short hours and none were idle. According to him, only one-fourth of the average income would carry out my plan.
And now I come to the remainder of the plan. We propose:
Number 4: That agricultural production will be cared for in the manner specified in the Bible. We would plow under no crops; we would burn no corn; we would spill no milk into the river; we would shoot no hogs; would slaughter no cattle to be rotted. What we would do is this:
We would raise all the cotton that we could raise, all the corn that we could raise, and everything else that we could raise. Let us say, for example, that we raised more cotton than we could use.
But here again I wish to surprise you when I say that if everyone could buy all the towels, all the sheets, all the bedding, all the clothing, all the carpets, all the window curtains, and all of everything else he reasonably needs; America would consume 20 million bales of cotton per year without having to sell a bale to the foreign countries. The same would be true of the wheat crop, and of the corn crop, and of the meat crop. Whenever everyone could buy the things he desires to eat, there would be no great excess in any of those food supplies.
But for the sake of the argument, let us say, however, that there would be a surplus. And I hope there will be, because it will do the country good to have a big surplus. Let us take cotton as an example. Let us say that the United States will have a market for 10 million bales of cotton and that we raise 15 million bales of cotton. We will store 5 million bales in warehouses provided by the Government. If the next year we raise 15 million bales of cotton and only need 10, we will store another 5 million bales of cotton, and the Government will care for that. When we reach the year when we have enough cotton to last for twelve or eighteen months, we will plant no more cotton for that next year. The people will have their certificates of the Government which they can cash in for that year for the surplus, or if necessary, the Government can pay for the whole 15 million bales of cotton as it is produced every year; and when the year comes that we will raise no cotton, we will not leave the people idle and with nothing to do. That is the year when, in the cotton States, we will do our public improvement work that needs to be done so badly. We will care for the flood-control problems; we will extend the electricity lines into rural areas; we will widen roads and build more roads; and if we have a little time left, some of us can go back and attend a school for a few months and not only learn some of the things we have forgotten but we can learn some things that they have found out about that they didn't know anything about when we were children.
Now the example of what we would do about cotton is the same policy we would follow about all other crops. This program would necessitate the building of large storage plants, both heated and cold storage, and warehouses in all the counties of America, and that building program alone would take up all the idle people that America has today. But the money spent would go for good and would prevent any trouble happening in the future. And then there is another good thing. If we would fill these warehouses, then if there were to come a year of famine there would be enough on hand to feed and clothe the people of the Nation. It would be the part of good sense to keep a year or two of stock on hand all the time to provide for an emergency, maybe to provide for war or other calamity.
I give you the next step in our program:
Number 5: We will provide for old-age pensions for those who reach the age of 60 and pay it to all those who have an income of less than $1,000 per year or less than $10,000 in property or money. This would relieve from the ranks of labor those persons who press down the price for the use of their flesh and blood. Now the person who reaches the age of 60 would already have the comforts of home as well as something else guaranteed by reason of the redistribution that had been made of things. They would be given enough more to give them a reasonably comfortable existence in their declining days. However, such would not come from a sales tax or taxes placed upon the common run of people. It would be supported from the taxes levied on those with big incomes and the yearly tax that would be levied on big fortunes, so that they would always be kept down to a few million dollars to any one person.
Number 6: We propose that the obligations which this country owes to the veterans of its wars, including the soldiers' bonus and to care for those who have been either incapacitated or disabled, would be discharged without stint or unreasonable limit. I have always supported each and every bill that has had to do with the payment of the bonus due to the ex-service men. I have always opposed reducing the allowances which they have been granted. It is an unfair thing for a country to begin its economy while big fortunes exist by inflicting misery on those who have borne the burden of national defense.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, such is the share-our-wealth movement. What I have here stated to you will be found to be approved by the law of our Divine Maker. You will find it in the Book of Leviticus, from the twenty-fifth to the twenty-seventh chapters. You will find it in the writings of King Solomon. You will find it in the teachings of Christ. You will find it in the words of our great teachers and statesmen of all countries and of all times. If you care to write to me for such proof, I shall be glad to furnish it to you, free of expense, by mail.
Will you not organize a share-our-wealth society in your community tonight or tomorrow to place this plan into law? You need it; your people need it. Write me, wire to me; get into this work with us if you believe we are right. Help to save humanity. Help to save this country. If you wish a copy of this speech or a copy of any other speech I have made, write me and it will be forwarded to you. You can reach me always in Washington, D. C.
Luke Fontana Bio
Luke Fontana is a native New Orleans Photographer who documented New Orleans Jazz and her funeral marching bands from 1970-1980. His work is seen throughout galleries in New Orleans and was supported by a photography fellowship grant from the National Institute of Arts, Washington, D.C.
Luke Fontana is the President of SAVE OUR WETLANDS INC. (SOWL INC).
Luke's Art
Luke's Art Portfolio
Find Out Where to View & Purchase Luke's Art

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In a previous article, I layed out how men who look at the gym could be classified as 1 of 4 a variety of fish, a shark, your barracuda, a minnow, or even Pollock. Today, I am going to turn the tables and provide my thoughts as to how I observe the ladies when they arrive to a gym. I could engine chosen fish again and mammals (or really merely provided general observations, although what fun is that). I thought long and hard about what would of course make the most sense and provide just about the most "ah-ha" moments for my own readers.
The Quelea is one of the most adaptable birds in the world. It may spend it's days flying for hours or it can spend it's day sitting using a branch foraging and viewing the other animals are located their lives. Although there is certainly quite a difference in the size and weight of each Quela, to the average male, all the female's physical appearance looks quite similar. And although they are really numerous, each female Quelea has it's own individual personality, displaying unique action to attract a men.
The first type is one of the much more elusive creatures on earth, the women bodybuilder type. A types so foreign to most that whenever see her, we are typically in awe. That is why May possibly categorized the first type of customer gym patrons as that Philippine Eagle. The Philippine Eagle is the largest and most spectacular raptor in the world, a very distinctive species much more giant and colorful than dull and small.
This is how I imagine the women whom I consider to be roadrunners at the health and fitness. The roadrunner is legendary for it's speed, it is actually unique appearance, and because the device is one of the only birds easily enough to catch and even eat a rattlesnake. (If you haven't caught at yet, the rattlesnake with this scenario are the pickup painters at the gym).
They are much more clever and smarter than they look. If I were to ask you to picture a roadrunner immediately, I am fairly certain you would have an image for the Roadrunner/Wile E. viagra pret. Coyote shows of the old days where the bird yells, "Beep, Beep" and jumps up in the air while the feet move in between the two much more quickly that actually possible.
The third type of bird certainly is the roadrunner. The roadrunner is the cardio creature of the staff, the true exercisers, whether it is in the treadmill, in the weight living room, or on the stairmaster or simply elliptical. This bird moves from machine to product much more quickly, deliberate, and jagged than the other parrots. They are there for commonly one purpose only, in order to complete their workout and advance.
Over the years of often visiting my gym, if I were definitely to describe the women that walk through the doors, I believe the best way to describe them is to contrast them to birds. Birds are very graceful creatures and move with such elegance and precision that it would be very difficult not to see the similarities. Men are much more careless within their movements, arriving at the gym with the bravado that women generally do not feel the need to exude.
The last version of gym-bird is the Red-billed Quelea, possibly the most abundant at all birds in the world. It lives in to fly in big packs possibly because of the wellbeing factor, but on a lot of occasions it will travel alone.
The second type of women certainly is the beautiful and captivating peacock. (Just a note, in my research, a "female" peacock is normally called a "peahen"). When many people think of a peacock, the first thing that comes to mind is the beautiful colors from this bird's feathers. I am sure you've got noticed women who arrive to the gym in their maximum gala of make-up, elegant clothes, hair nicely coiffed.
It's not until till any male bird spends quite often up to 3 to 4 days frolicking and "getting to know" the female, does the man realize that the female Quelea is unique in here own manner. Once they find each other, they become mates for life.
Much like the peacock, we do not really know, nor might we ever know, the reason these women display his or her's beauty in such a fashionable and stylish way. Is it to attract mates? Or do you find it these birds have a will need to display their beauty to satisfy their esteem issues of being the prettiest bird globally.
Women are fully aware which usually, like it or not, as soon as they arrive their appearance might attract the attention of all who happen to glance their way. That is why their entrance and walk to the gym floors is precise. Birds find out exactly where they will be traveling regularly. There is rarely a time when birds have not mapped out their path before they take off for flight, similar to the women who go to the health and fitness.
What most people know about the Philippine Novelty helmet is mainly what they have discover in magazines, for this monster is very rare and hard to locate in the wild. Similar to the Philippine Eagle, can someone actually say that they have seen a woman bodybuilder in her natural habitat and not on in a magazine or using the web?


text:
From legislative man caves to the Viagra Court
When the ovum is ready, even if the woman isn't, sperm introduced into the picture will come from every direction.
That's the picture for women on the public policy front right now. They're getting it from every direction.
They've gotten it from five males on the Supreme Court who see birth control to be less the stuff of health-care mandates and more like, oh, eyeliner and blush.
They've gotten it from assorted Bible clubs – aka red-state legislatures – happy to ignore health concerns as they carve away at reproductive rights.
Now they have manly budget hawks in the U.S. House targeting the notoriously ill-gotten gain that is aid to single mothers.
Where to start? How about at the sex act?
It takes two. But when it comes to unintended consequences of the act, one sex skips out and makes like it – he – had no role in the matter. Whatever emanates becomes the woman's burden.
That's why we have TANF – Temporary Assistance to Needy Families: help for a woman with child when one half of the pairing that produced the child is a zero.
Chief budget hawk in the House, Rep. Paul Ryan, has proposed putting programs like TANF and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) into a budgetary blender and piping them to states as one big block grant. This is nothing more than a quest to strangle off social programs that have always rankled the right.
We are led to believe that such assistance is a reward for inactivity. In fact, the vast majority of SNAP recipients work outside of the home, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Yes, they are the working poor. And they are women.
Let's shift to women's bodily rights. For many years as an opinion editor, I grilled statehouse candidates about their opinions on abortion. Generally they recoiled and glossed over the matter with a dismissive, "Well, that's not going to be an issue this session."
That session has come. Twelve states now have enacted abortion bans beyond 20 weeks with almost no consideration to the health ramifications women face. And only one of the 12, Nebraska, provides an exception in the case of rape.
More insidious has been legislation that has dramatically reduced the number of abortion providers based on pointless criteria like proximity to an admitting hospital. This is portrayed – wink, wink – as being based on concerns for women's health. All it means is a dramatic drop in safe and accessible options.
For shame. Abortion is constitutionally protected. Denying access so dramatically means two things: (1) Those of means will travel whatever distance they need to have it done safely; (2) Those without means will travel shorter distances and have it done less safely.
Those who seek to ban abortion pine for a bygone time when "hospital admitting" was in the emergency room after women self-induced.
The discussion now takes us back to the Supreme Court and its unfortunate ruling granting religious exemptions from the contraception mandates under the Affordable Care Act.
Leave it to a woman, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, to point out the folly in a ruling penned by five men in black.
Could the religious exemption by which Bible-citing employers can cherry-pick on what is covered, she asked, extend to "blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations?"
One of a myriad of good reasons for the ACA was the fact that though many health plans didn't cover contraceptives, they did cover Viagra and Cialis. What about that, guys? If I were an employer, I'd resist. I've seen the TV commercials. Stuff's an ER trip waiting to happen.
Posted by John Young Column at 9:01 PM 2 comments:
We have an immediacy problem
Those of us who walked this planet 45 years ago this week remember exactly what we were doing that day when man first landed on the moon.
I was in the back seat of the family station wagon in my pin-striped jersey and navy-blue ball cap, headed to an American Legion baseball game.
I heard the breathless details, "The Eagle has landed," on the car radio. I was in front of the TV later when Neal Armstrong made history's most significant foot print.
It was 1969. Like rafting through an asteroid belt, we were about to exit America's most tumultuous and tortuous decade. That night, however, the nation's heart beat as one. Was it the last time?
It's said that television came of age with John Kennedy's assassination. By the time NASA acted out Kennedy's "to the moon" boast, TV had blazed trails of intimacy and immediacy unimaginable six years prior.
And today -- I think back to the increasing immediacy delivered to our eyes, and wonder at the cost.
We just passed another anniversary – 20 years since the slow-speed police pursuit of O.J. Simpson down an L.A. freeway.
Via cable news and network cut-ins, we had arrived at a new and dangerous state of knowing: We knew everything and nothing. Fixated, we knew the instant O.J. dismounted his Bronco. At the same time, we wouldn't know it if a neighbor's house was afire down the block. And we certainly wouldn't know the neighbor.
Such immediacy was still novel then. Now it is our addiction, our crack cocaine.
An airliner down in the Indian Ocean without explanation? We must have one. And if we can't have one, we will listen to experts explain that they don't have one, either.
If CNN's heyday was the immediacy delivered when Syrian scuds fell on Israel during American troops' liberation of Kuwait in 1991, its nonstop speculation about the (still) missing Malaysian Flight 370 last March was emblematic of a junkie who just can't stop.
Based on the CNN info loop, that jet was the biggest story of the year. Oh, sure; and at the same time the most significant domestic policy shift since Medicare was unfolding: the individual and employer mandates of the Affordable Care Act.
Immediacy. Immediacy. Now that we have the info-structure in place, there's no place on the globe where a "breaking" story can't distract us.
And while this addiction is endemic to cable news, understand that local TV news is similarly addled by its devotion to whatever is "breaking" – the hit and run, the shooting, the missing (Caucasian) child, the gripping murder trial.
It beats having to analyze something, anything, that actually affects our lives – be it education, transportation, the nation's scandalous distribution of wealth – whatever.
Newspapers do a better job with this, but have their own immediacy addiction, For instance, when it comes to education, too often the consumers of information are scandalously shorted. A 2009 Brookings Institute study of how newspapers covered education found "how little education coverage relates to education itself" -- the focus too often being on "breaking" incidents: a brawl here, a weapon there, a teacher bedding a student. Have you got a mug shot?
Ah, but the "analysis" burden is met when those state test scores are released. Yes? Actually, that's just another "breaking" moment, and a chance to break out graphs and charts depicting patently false comparisons – "good schools," "bad schools."
None of this gives us a better understanding of a community quest.
That moon landing was a community quest we all understood. And for one amazing moment, before immediacy became a national addiction and distraction, we were all on board.
Posted by John Young Column at 10:20 AM No comments:
Do-nothing theatrics on immigration
My son, the skateboarder, has a name for people who dress the part, talk the part, but who don't really do what dedicated skateboarders do. He calls them "posers."
On immigration, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn is a poser. He talks about it – oh, my, yes. But when it comes to doing something about it, he won't. That's because posing plays better for the cameras.
The other day the Texas Republican commanded the Senate lectern for 18 minutes deriding President Obama's border policies. If anyone actually wanted to know what Cornyn would do differently, well . . .
Cornyn wanted his CSPAN audience to know that the president was in Texas and didn't plan to go to the border, which meant Obama "either doesn't understand this crisis or he doesn't care."
Cornyn said the fact that Obama held an immigration summit in Dallas rather than in the Rio Grande Valley was one more indication that the president is "tone-deaf" about border issues, particularly concerning the 52,000 young refugees who have presented themselves on the nation's southern doorstep.
The senator parroted the Republican line that Obama's policies are to blame for the influx. In fact, it is tied directly to a widely supported law George W. Bush signed in 2008 to deal with human trafficking and children fleeing violence and exploitation in Central America. Cornyn said not a word about that law.
He did say that the Border Patrol is hurting for resources. Then he made a less-than-glancing reference to the $3.7 billion Obama has requested for deportations with due process, more Border Patrol agents, and more facilities to handle detainees humanely..
What typical rhetoric: Obama has done nothing to secure the border!
In fact, this president has deported people at a higher rate than any predecessor, often angering his political supporters.
However, we know what the president's loudest foes really don't like when it comes to immigration: anything that smacks of compassion and pragmatism regarding good people who've been among us for many years.
Last year, with the ardent support of the president, the Senate passed a bill that would have nearly doubled the Border Patrol -- while allowing applications for registered provisional immigrant status for otherwise law-abiding individuals who would pay a fine for entering the country illegally.
The so-called Gang of Eight bill was one of very few shows of bipartisanship on something that mattered. Cornyn ulimatey voted to advance it, but pushed a "trigger" provision certifying a 90 percent secure border. Good luck with that. Sen. John McCain called Cornyn's amendment a "poison pill."
It was the same kind of impossible-to-deliver guarantee demanded when the Senate bill went to that gallery of trolls, the House, where it died.
The thing is, it's not just President Obama and Democrats who want a solution that combines enforcement with compassion. A new poll in 26 states commissioned by Partnership for a New American Economy, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers finds stunningly high support for reform along the lines of the Senate-passed bill. In fact, 86 percent of Republicans surveyed supported the Senate bill. That's beyond stunning.
So, just who has the tone-deafness problem, Sen. Cornyn?
The situation with the young Central American refugees is a test of our common humanity. These are boat people without boats. Yet, hear Texas Republican Congressman Mike McCaul tell Fox News that, yeah, those little brown-skinned ones are precious, but the teens look "more like a threat." Yeah, Congressman, like a bunch of Trayvon Martins, or Martinezes.
Hear softies like McCaul and Cornyn talk about the "humanitarian crisis" at the border. Then see them talk their way around realistic, broad-based, humanitarian solutions.
Let's face it. They're opposed to stuff like that. They're mainly opposed to any real action at all. Now, where is the nearest microphone?
Posted by John Young Column at 11:39 PM 1 comment:
Health-care realities vs. free-market fantasies
Black helicopter watch can get lonely, even if there's one always just over the horizon.
Any day now, for instance, President Obama will assemble the death panels of his health-care designs, appointing the extraterrestrials we suspected he would, to a thousand cable-televised told-you-sos.
So much that was evil, we were told, would dawn with the Affordable Care Act. Most assuredly it wouldn't include 30 million newly insured Americans not even one year on.
One loses track of all the things by the ACA's most ardent foes assured us would happen. On this occasion, however, it's worth looking at one claim uttered over and over, and which will be uttered over again.
The claim: that the ACA used Medicare as "its piggybank" – that it took, stole, confiscated, filched, pilfered, over $700 billion from what was set aside to care for your grandparents and mine and to assure the future of the Medicare trust fund.
That claim not only is fallacious but doubly so. Most of the money in question is calculated savings on hospital reimbursements under Medicare, a crash diet, if you will, regarding overcharges that have been a national scandal. Not only do these savings mean less of an obligation for taxpayers, but as Factcheck.org explains, they significantly "prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund."
That's a good thing. So is this: With tighter Medicare criteria setting the standard, increasing numbers of hospitals are reining in costs, saving themselves and their patients money in the process.
Kaiser Health News recently focused a report on hospitals in Utah which had established a data base to track the cost and quality of services to all their patients. So doing, instead of the typical cost run-up, Utah hospitals actually spent less – $2.5 million less – in the last year, without sacrificing quality.
One big factor in this: constructive pressure from the Medicare system to do things differently.
Yeah, we know – government ruins everything. Well, when Time magazine's Stephen Brill spent a year studying why hospital bills were so insanely out of proportion, he found a hero and a model for getting us out of this mess: Medicare. Every hospital bill abomination was cast in stark contrast to Medicare's clear-eyed price-setting mechanism.
Where these comments are headed is this: Some readers don't want to hear it, but the answer to what long has ailed health care is, yes, more government.
Health care is something the free market cannot do by itself.
It cannot care for people scraping along in the ranks of the poor and the elderly. It cannot care for people with pre-existing conditions, or those who have no employer-based health coverage and can afford no alternative.
The free market cannot regulate prices fairly in health care, largely because actual competition is alien to the industry, whether it be making drugs or removing tonsils. The consumer is captive to virtual-to-absolute monopolies.
And anyway, hospitals are no more private enterprises than is the Pentagon. They are inextricably linked to government and public policy. That is never going to change. So, let's get real and get the most out of what government can do to make health care fairer and more equitable.
What an odd statement it was when the Supreme Court ruled that a business owner could apply religious tests to what kind of health coverage employees could have. But welcome to the odd coupling of private and public interests inherent in ACA's employer mandate.
And that says nothing about the role of private insurers who can, and did, drop policy holders on a moment's notice.
Don't want the government telling employers what they should do? Support a single-payer approach. Get real. To meet the needs of the uninsured and to hold down health-care costs, free-market fantasies don't work. They never have. They never will.
Longtime Texas newspaperman John Young lives in Colorado. Email:jyoungcolumn@gmail.com.
Posted by John Young Column at 1:03 AM 3 comments: