Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs
Posted by
PBR
at
12:29 AM
0
comments
Labels: agriculture, conservatism, demography, economy, immigration
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Where have the good men gone?
- FEBRUARY 19, 2011
Where Have The Good Men Gone?
Kay S. Hymowitz argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence.
By KAY S. HYMOWITZ
For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.
So where did these pre-adults come from? You might assume that their appearance is a result of spoiled 24-year-olds trying to prolong the campus drinking and hook-up scene while exploiting the largesse of mom and dad. But the causes run deeper than that. Beginning in the 1980s, the economic advantage of higher education—the "college premium"—began to increase dramatically. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of younger adults enrolled in college or graduate school more than doubled. In the "knowledge economy," good jobs go to those with degrees. And degrees take years.
Another factor in the lengthening of the road to adulthood is our increasingly labyrinthine labor market. The past decades' economic expansion and the digital revolution have transformed the high-end labor market into a fierce competition for the most stimulating, creative and glamorous jobs. Fields that attract ambitious young men and women often require years of moving between school and internships, between internships and jobs, laterally and horizontally between jobs, and between cities in the U.S. and abroad. The knowledge economy gives the educated young an unprecedented opportunity to think about work in personal terms. They are looking not just for jobs but for "careers," work in which they can exercise their talents and express their deepest passions. They expect their careers to give shape to their identity. For today's pre-adults, "what you do" is almost synonymous with "who you are," and starting a family is seldom part of the picture.
Pre-adulthood can be compared to adolescence, an idea invented in the mid-20th century as American teenagers were herded away from the fields and the workplace and into that new institution, the high school. For a long time, the poor and recent immigrants were not part of adolescent life; they went straight to work, since their families couldn't afford the lost labor and income. But the country had grown rich enough to carve out space and time to create a more highly educated citizenry and work force. Teenagers quickly became a marketing and cultural phenomenon. They also earned their own psychological profile. One of the most influential of the psychologists of adolescence was Erik Erikson, who described the stage as a "moratorium," a limbo between childhood and adulthood characterized by role confusion, emotional turmoil and identity conflict.
Like adolescents in the 20th century, today's pre-adults have been wait-listed for adulthood. Marketers and culture creators help to promote pre-adulthood as a lifestyle. And like adolescence, pre-adulthood is a class-based social phenomenon, reserved for the relatively well-to-do. Those who don't get a four-year college degree are not in a position to compete for the more satisfying jobs of the knowledge economy.
Unlike adolescents, however, pre-adults don't know what is supposed to come next. For them, marriage and parenthood come in many forms, or can be skipped altogether. In 1970, just 16% of Americans ages 25 to 29 had never been married; today that's true of an astonishing 55% of the age group. In the U.S., the mean age at first marriage has been climbing toward 30 (a point past which it has already gone in much of Europe). It is no wonder that so many young Americans suffer through a "quarter-life crisis," a period of depression and worry over their future.
Given the rigors of contemporary career-building, pre-adults who do marry and start families do so later than ever before in human history. Husbands, wives and children are a drag on the footloose life required for the early career track and identity search. Pre-adulthood has also confounded the primordial search for a mate. It has delayed a stable sense of identity, dramatically expanded the pool of possible spouses, mystified courtship routines and helped to throw into doubt the very meaning of marriage. In 1970, to cite just one of many numbers proving the point, nearly seven in 10 25-year-olds were married; by 2000, only one-third had reached that milestone.
American men have been struggling with finding an acceptable adult identity since at least the mid-19th century. We often hear about the miseries of women confined to the domestic sphere once men began to work in offices and factories away from home. But it seems that men didn't much like the arrangement either. They balked at the stuffy propriety of the bourgeois parlor, as they did later at the banal activities of the suburban living room. They turned to hobbies and adventures, like hunting and fishing. At midcentury, fathers who at first had refused to put down the money to buy those newfangled televisions changed their minds when the networks began broadcasting boxing matches and baseball games. The arrival of Playboy in the 1950s seemed like the ultimate protest against male domestication; think of the refusal implied by the magazine's title alone.
In his disregard for domestic life, the playboy was prologue for today's pre-adult male. Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad, however, our boy rebel is a creature of the animal house. In the 1990s, Maxim, the rude, lewd and hugely popular "lad" magazine arrived from England. Its philosophy and tone were so juvenile, so entirely undomesticated, that it made Playboy look like Camus.
At the same time, young men were tuning in to cable channels like Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network and Spike, whose shows reflected the adolescent male preferences of its targeted male audiences. They watched movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks. Americans had always struck foreigners as youthful, even childlike, in their energy and optimism. But this was too much.
Today's pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn't say. He has to compete in a fierce job market, but he can't act too bossy or self-confident. He should be sensitive but not paternalistic, smart but not cocky. To deepen his predicament, because he is single, his advisers and confidants are generally undomesticated guys just like him.
Single men have never been civilization's most responsible actors; they continue to be more troubled and less successful than men who deliberately choose to become husbands and fathers. So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with "Star Wars" posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn't be surprised.
Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do.
They might as well just have another beer.
—Adapted from "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys" by Kay S. Hymowitz, to be published by Basic Books on March 1. Copyright © by Kay S. Hymowitz. Printed by arrangement with Basic Books.
- FEBRUARY 19, 2011
Two Cheers for the Maligned Slacker Dude
By NATHAN RABIN
Thanks to the movie "Knocked Up," the actor Seth Rogen became the chubby, curly-haired face of male arrested development and an unexpected flashpoint in the war of the sexes. A good percentage of American opinion was apoplectic at the notion that a pot-smoking, ambition-free loser like Mr. Rogen's slacker antihero would even hook up with a hot, put-together young woman like the television journalist played by Katherine Heigl, let alone agree to raise a child with her.No one would suggest that the antihero of "Knocked Up" is the apogee of masculinity, but he does possess an admirable quality shared by many members of his generation: He creates. He creates because he's too young and naïve to realize that the odds are stacked against him. He's also too green to realize that he's creating something (a database of celebrity nudity) that has already been created (a website called Mr. Skin), but that doesn't change the fact that he's showing real initiative.
Men in their late teens and 20s have historically accomplished great things. They have started record labels and newspapers and zines and social networking sites that help other men in their teens and late 20s accomplish great things. It's telling that the most talked-about businessman in the world right now isn't Warren Buffett or Bill Gates—it's Mark Zuckerberg, a 26-year-old, scruffily dressed Jewish kid who started a cultural revolution in his dorm room and inspired a movie that just may win the Oscar for best picture.
Mr. Zuckerberg isn't the only 20-something achiever who has changed the world at an age when our fathers and grandfathers were still trying to scramble up the first few rungs of the corporate ladder. In 2005, a trio of 20-something PayPal employees named Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim were too young and green to realize that you can't start putting television shows and movies and seemingly every piece of filmed entertainment from the past century online just because you think it'd be cool to share, say, a clip of Johnny Cash playing a Jimmie Rodgers number alongside Louis Armstrong.
Yet Messrs. Chen, Hurley and Karim went ahead and started YouTube so that they could share the media they loved with the entire world. YouTube proved a powerful catalyst for creativity; it gave the world Justin Bieber (but don't hold that against it!) but also improbable success stories like the Lonely Island, a comedy troupe of three guys in their 20s who parlayed making goofy homemade videos with their buddies into hit albums and gigs on "Saturday Night Live" (a show that has made television history by relying on the comic energy of several generations of ambitious 20-somethings).
On a more personal note, in the late 1980s a group of slackers in Madison, Wis., didn't know that sophisticated satire was supposed to be the exclusive domain of Harvard Lampoon types, not of depressive college dropouts, and they founded the Onion. A decade later, as a 22-year-old college junior, I was (thankfully) too naïve to realize I had no business being the paper's first head entertainment writer.
It's remarkable what you can achieve when you're too young to realize your limitations, or even to know that limitations exist. Men who put off marriage and fatherhood and home ownership until their 30s might be immersing themselves in work or they might be trying to extend the college experience as long as possible. Is that necessarily a bad thing? People do a whole lot more in college than down shots and hit bongs. College is also a place for experimentation, for reflection, for figuring out who you are and what you want to do with your life. Those kinds of issues and questions shouldn't end with college graduation.
If men are getting married and having children later than at any time in human history that's probably because men in their 30s are almost invariably better prepared to tackle the responsibilities of adulthood than men in their 20s. Do we really want more generations of 23-year-old men who drink themselves to sleep every night dreaming about what they might have done if they hadn't gotten married and had kids right out of school? Do we want to repeat the mistakes of our fathers or learn from them?
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter foster a certain level of narcissism. They make each of us the star of our own little universe and create the illusion that the world is interested in what we have to say. The Holy Trinity of social networking titans reflects the self-absorption of a generation that increasingly defines itself by the media it consumes.
We're part of a generation that is not content to passively consume culture. We're creators: of memes, hashtags, Twitter one-liners and homemade videos that take the pop culture of our collective past and recreate it in our own image. Marriage and parenting and mortgages can wait; we're all about living in the sacred present tense and chronicling its key moments 140 characters at a time.
So you can scoff and snicker all you like at the shaggy, hangdog 27-year-old next door dressed in a baggy college sweatshirt and cargo shorts, taking empty pizza boxes and beer bottles to the dumpster. He could be a loser just trying to extend his adolescence indefinitely—or he might just be getting ready to change the world with what he creates in his unkempt guy lair.
—Mr. Rabin is the head writer of A.V. Club, the entertainment section of the Onion, and the author of "My Year of Flops" and "The Big Rewind."
Posted by
PBR
at
8:35 PM
0
comments
Labels: conservatism, economia, history
Saturday, October 24, 2009
O declínio do ensino no Brasil
Educação
O declínio do ensino no Brasil
O ensino brasileiro, principalmente do setor público, está em franca decadência, como comprovam os testes realizados por órgãos especializados ao medirem o nível do aprendizado nas escolas. Portanto, o fracasso da educação no Brasil não é questão de hipótese, mas de evidência, sendo várias as suas causas e de naturezas diversas.
Inicio o rol com a desestrutura familiar, porquanto se percebe uma progressiva inversão de valores nos lares de nosso país, o que se constata rotineiramente, através de observações de nossos vizinhos, amigos e parentes e, de forma mais acentuada, através dos órgãos de comunicação, onde lemos, vemos e ouvimos notícias de alunos que agridem professores, demonstrando a falta de respeito com o educador, assim como brigas entre estudantes, a exemplo de recente reportagem onde a própria mãe de uma aluna estimula o ato de violência entre a filha e uma colega de escola.
Esse exemplo é emblemático e reflete, com intensa nitidez, o que se passa em milhares de casas de família. A violência urbana é trazida para dentro dos lares, e estes, que antes eram santuários de respeito recíproco entre os membros da família, agora mais parecem campos de batalha, observando-se cenas terríveis de desavenças entre pais e filhos, irmãos com irmãos, sobrinhos e tios, enfim, um verdadeiro caos. Perdeu-se o respeito.
Esse comportamento familiar é levado para a escola, desaguando nas salas de aula, nos pátios, ou mesmo nos arredores, comprometendo o aprendizado e a própria segurança dos estudantes, dos educadores e de terceiros.
Outra causa é a falta de perspectiva de aproveitamento no mercado de trabalho de ponta, devido à falta de oferta nesse setor, o que, em certa medida, termina por desestimular o aluno a continuar os estudos ou o leva ao aprendizado superficial, buscado nos cursinhos preparatórios para concurso, que direcionam os alunos, quase que exclusivamente, para o emprego público, através dos chamados macetes e de testes elaborados para respostas objetivas, onde não se aufere profundamente o nível de conhecimento do aluno.
Ao lado dessas causas do declínio do ensino brasileiro, com ênfase para o ensino público, mas que afeta também o ensino privado, não se pode relegar ao esquecimento a falta de investimento dos governos na educação e isso nas três esferas do Estado: federal, estadual e municipal. Todos os dias saem manchetes nos meios de comunicação sobre o crescimento da economia brasileira, sobre projetos do pré-sal, apontando o Brasil como potência energética, sobre a importância de nosso país na economia mundial globalizada e sobre o investimento em armas, em submarinos nucleares e em aviões (caças) de guerra.
Recentemente, foi veiculada até notícia de empréstimo ao Fundo Monetário Internacional. Todos esses investimentos custam bilhões aos cofres públicos, cuja receita é obtida através de dura carga tributária. Mas e o investimento na educação? Infelizmente, para nossos governantes, a educação - ao lado da saúde e da segurança - fica em segundo plano e, ao invés de aumento do orçamento nesse setor, o que se vê é a redução de custos, sob o argumento de contenção de despesas, implicando em baixos salários dos professores, ausência de cursos de treinamento e falta de reciclagem e de aperfeiçoamento do corpo docente, péssimas condições físicas das escolas, falta de material didático para os alunos etc.
Concluindo, em meio a tamanho descaso, somado às demais causas supra mencionadas, outras não poderiam ser as consequências, senão greves de professores, ensino de má qualidade, desestímulo de aprendizagem e generalização da violência escolar. Definitivamente, ao contrário dos países civilizados, estamos correndo em sentido contrário à educação e nós educadores temos o dever de denunciar essa agressão, bem como cobrar dos poderes constituídos que façam cumprir sua obrigação constitucionalmente prevista, no sentido de investir no ensino e na educação do principal patrimônio de um país: o seu povo.
Posted by
PBR
at
10:21 PM
0
comments
Labels: Brasil, conservatism, economia
Bolsa Família desincentiva trabalho entre famílias pobres
Informalidade
Nas 85 cidades do país com maior cobertura do Bolsa Família, só 1,3% da população trabalha com carteira assinada
PRESIDENTE VARGAS, MA - O emprego formal é praticamente inexistente nos municípios brasileiros no topo da lista de beneficiários do Bolsa Família. Em Presidente Vargas, no Maranhão, contam-se nos dedos de uma mão empregos com carteira assinada no setor privado. Segundo reportagem de Regina Alvarez na edição dste domingo do jornal O GLOBO, o município tem 10 mil habitantes e 2.292 domicílios; 1.832 famílias (80%) recebem o auxílio do governo e só quatro pessoas têm emprego com carteira, segundo o Cadastro Geral de Emprego e Desemprego (Caged), do Ministério do Trabalho. ( Você acha que o Bolsa Família desestimula a procura por outra fonte de renda? ).
A reportagem mostra ainda que, entre os cem municípios com maior cobertura do programa, 85 têm informações disponíveis sobre emprego formal. Juntos, abrigam um milhão de habitantes e 259 mil domicílios, sendo que 184,3 mil famílias recebem o Bolsa Família - 71%. Já os empregos com carteira assinada no setor privado somam 14,1 mil, o equivalente a 1,3% dessa população.
Leia também: Donos de estabelecimentos sabem até a senha dos beneficiários A precariedade do emprego formal nessas cidades - municípios pobres, com população abaixo de 30 mil habitantes - não tem relação direta com a concessão do Bolsa Família. Existem barreiras anteriores ao programa que impedem o acesso dos trabalhadores a empregos: a baixa escolaridade e a falta de capacitação profissional. As parcas vagas com carteira assinada no comércio de Presidente Vargas exigem ensino médio.
Segundo a reportagem de Regina Alvarez, os beneficiários do Bolsa Família em Presidente Vargas não estão no mercado formal nem no informal. O programa mantém as crianças na escola, mas a maioria das famílias está acomodada com o benefício, que varia de R$ 22 a R$ 200. Elas têm medo de perdê-lo ao adicionar outra fonte ao rendimento familiar. Assim, não demonstram interesse em cursos de qualificação profissional.
- Relutei em aceitar a ideia, mas é a realidade. As famílias estão acomodadas, e não tem sido fácil tirá-las da acomodação. Acreditam que podem se manter com cento e poucos reais - afirma Ivete Pereira de Almeida, secretária de Assistência Social da prefeitura de Presidente Vargas.
Leia a íntegra da reportagem no Globo Digital (exclusivo para assinantes).
Posted by
PBR
at
10:04 PM
0
comments
Labels: conservatism, economia, economy
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sarah Palin, faith-based mayor
Sarah Palin, faith-based mayor
Sept. 18, 2008 | In April 2000, under the direction of then-Mayor Sarah Palin, the Wasilla City Council passed a resolution declaring itself a "City of Character." Adopted unanimously, the resolution pledged that the city would "do all in its power" to promote "positive and constructive character qualities which distinguish between right and wrong," which the resolution predicted could work a range of wonders, from reducing juvenile delinquency to increasing corporate profits.
Thanks to Palin's efforts, Wasilla is now among roughly 200 cities nationwide (and others in 27 countries around the world) that have committed themselves -- in name, at least -- to following the teachings of the International Association of Character Cities (IACC), an organization that purports to be secular but is modeled on the evangelical teachings of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP).
Palin's personal connection to IACC, and her efforts to bring its agenda to Wasilla as mayor, sheds new light on her connections to the Christian far right, as well as her willingness to infuse government with its ideals rooted in religion. Her championing of IACC principles raises further questions about Palin's views on running government, including the hiring and firing of government employees, an area in which she has come under intense scrutiny in part due to her involvement in "trooper gate."
By becoming a City of Character, Wasilla under Palin committed to adhering to 49 "character qualities" as outlined by the IACC, which are secularized versions of IBLP's 49 "character qualities" derived from the Bible. Critics have charged that the organization and its affiliated Character Training Institute are for all intents and purposes a front group for the evangelical IBLP.
IBLP was founded in 1974 by evangelist Bill Gothard "for the purpose of introducing people to the Lord Jesus Christ," and is "dedicated to giving individuals, families, churches, schools, communities, governments, and businesses clear instruction and training on how to find success by following God's principles found in Scripture." IBLP claims to have taught over 2.5 million people its Basic Life Principles seminar, and boasts assets exceeding $100 million, an affiliated correspondence college course program and an unaccredited law school.
The IACC, says its director, Steven Menzel, is not a religious organization. Instead, he points to its practical effects. When IACC's founder, Oklahoma City businessman Thomas Hill, was having difficulties with the workforce of his company, Kimray, in the 1990s, IACC legend has it that his adoption of Gothard's "character approach" led to a 90 percent drop in workers' compensation claims and a 60 to 70 percent drop in turnover. "The change in that company was so profound," said Menzel, that local companies asked Hill to teach "character" to them as well, leading to the Character First program that is the backbone of IACC and CTI.
Palin, Menzel confirmed, learned how Wasilla could become a City of Character at an IACC conference held at IBLP's International Training Center in Indianapolis in April 2000. A conference brochure shows that Gothard and other speakers affiliated with IBLP taught several of the sessions. The conference included a videotape presentation on the separation of church and state by David Barton, a regular on the Christian right speaking circuit who argues that the separation of church and state is a "myth."
Although Menzel and the IACC's materials insist that the program Hill launched at his company is secular, IBLP's Web site boasts that as a result of Hill's efforts, Kimray "benefited from the application of Biblical principles." Menzel admitted to the Texas Observer two years ago that "these are biblical principles." Hill has ties to Gothard dating back to 1974; he served on IBLP's board of directors from 1993 to 2005, and is currently on its "board of reference."
Gothard's teachings, and his implementation of them, are highly controversial even among evangelical Christians. Based on seven "non-optional" biblical principles, Gothard demands obedience to "God-ordained authorities, such as parents, government, and the church."
In 2003, the flagship evangelical magazine Christianity Today observed, "an important issue to consider regarding Gothard's influence is that it is directed to the core leadership of our nation's conservative Christian churches. Gothard has largely succeeded in reaching that audience. While many have winked at Gothard's teachings on authority, what's more alarming is how readily his supporters accept his interpretation of Scripture," which he reads "through an authoritarian lens."
The teachings have bubbled beneath some disturbing events. Matthew Murray, who shot two people at a Colorado church last December, blamed his troubles on his authoritarian home-school curriculum from IBLP. Gothard denied that his curriculum played any role in Murray's dysfunction.
In Indianapolis, a City of Character, an IBLP-run juvenile center -- housed in the same building where Palin attended the April 2000 conference -- was embroiled in an investigation of child abuse, including spanking and restraining children and committing them for days to the solitary confinement of a "prayer room" without food. The center was cleared after a state investigation in 2004, although it did abandon the practice of spanking while under scrutiny, according to news reports.
Through its Character First training seminars, IACC has spread its gospel of character to local government officials like Palin as well as to Fortune 500 companies, law enforcement agencies, federal government agencies, and the private prison giant Corrections Corporation of America, which uses the character training in its prisons. Character First principles are taught in hundreds of public schools across the country.
Each of the 49 character qualities, as outlined by Gothard, have a biblical basis and are therefore required for believers to fulfill God's goal "to transform them into the image of His Son so that they may be a reflection of the character of Christ." The character quality of diligence, for example, is rooted in Colossians 3:23 ("Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,") meaning, for Gothard, that one should "visualiz[e] each task as a special assignment from the Lord and us[e] all my energies to accomplish it."
IACC's secularized version requires one to "invest my time and energy to complete each task assigned to me," and is compared, like Gothard's version, to the diligence of a beaver. (Each character quality is linked to an animal, although apparently none to the barracuda.)
The desired implementation of a City of Character's mission is somewhat murky. Menzel advocates using the character qualities as a guide for hiring or promoting employees, and suggested advertising the "character quality of the month" through posters and billboards. He could not point to a policy initiative Palin undertook as mayor to advance the character initiative, and he expressed disappointment that Wasilla, Alaska's only City of Character, had not done more to advance the cause.
But Sandy Holladay, who heads the Alaska Councils of Character, which works with the IACC to encourage more municipalities to become Cities of Character, notes ways in which the teachings permeated the town government under Palin. Holladay, who said she met Palin once, in 2001, said she recalled that Wasilla put the teachings' "character quality of the month" on city employee paychecks and utility bills, and displayed posters provided by the CTI. (Utility bills in Wasilla began bearing the words, "Wasilla: A City of Character! Help us promote good character in our community!" shortly after the resolution passed.)
Mary Bixby, executive assistant to Wasilla's current mayor, Dianne Keller, said that the city no longer sends a representative to the CTI conferences, but it still receives materials from the organization. The city gives out certificates of good character to citizens who do "heroic deeds," she said, like turning in a lost wallet to the police department, and recognizes employees of "good character" in the employee newsletter. She said she admires the book outlining all the character traits, which she did not view as religious in nature, and added she would like to do more to study and promote it.
Menzel maintains that Palin exhibited the character quality of discernment, because after she took in the program at the Indianapolis conference in 2000 "she immediately returned to Wasilla and implemented it." Menzel described discernment as "understanding the deeper reason of why things happen." (Gothard describes it as "the God-given ability to understand why things happen.")
But perhaps above all, Menzel said, Palin exhibits boldness -- "a confidence in what I have to say or do is true, right, and just." (Gothard's definition, citing Acts 4:29, is "confidence that what I have to say or do is true and just and right in the sight of God.") Menzel added, "I think that really epitomizes her character, that boldness."
Posted by
PBR
at
3:53 PM
0
comments
Labels: Christianity, conservatism, protestantism, religion
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Dia da Liberdade de Impostos será comemorado em 25 de maio
| |||||
“A comemoração serve para termos uma ideia da interferência governamental em nossas vidas, o tamanho da carga que temos de suportar em termos de impostos”, explica Guilherme Reischl, vice-presidente do Instituto Liberdade.
O tamanho da mordida será representado de diversas formas no comércio dos municípios de Porto Alegre e Novo Hamburgo. Na próxima segunda-feira o contribuinte poderá abastecer o automóvel com a gasolina custando R$ 1,25. O ‘protesto’ será feito no posto Firense em Porto Alegre.
Segundo dados da ANP (Agência Nacional do Petróleo), o preço do litro da gasolina vendida ao consumidor no Brasil é de R$ 2,5. Como o objetivo é mostrar o tanto que se paga de imposto em um produto, serão distribuídas senhas e haverá um limite de 20 litros por veículo. O estabelecimento estabeleceu 5 mil litros para o dia da liberdade fiscal.
Como o consumidor não arcará com os tributos, quem pagará será a Associação da Classe Média (Aclame), Instituto de Estudos Empresariais (IEE) e Instituto Liberdade com o apoio da Fiergs (Federação das Indústrias do Rio Grande do Sul).
Na primeira tabela, a Petrobras mostra a quantidade de impostos embutida no combustível nacional. Repare que o brasileiro compra um dos litros mais caros do mundo, graças à quantidade de impostos. Apesar de o levantamento ter sido feito no ano passado, dá para se ter uma ideia da discrepância. Porém, o grande vilão dos impostos aparece na segunda tabela. O ICMS está representado em 29% no preço da gasolina. O PIS e Confins ficam responsáveis por mais 14%. Os cálculos são baseados no valor médio do combustível no Brasil.
Em Novo Hamburgo também haverá o dia para conscientizar a população sobre o imposto embutido em cada produto. A iniciativa é promovida Associação Comercial, Industrial e de Serviços de Novo Hamburgo, Campo Bom e Estância Velha, Aclame e Fiergs. Entre as atividades estão: caminhada pela conscientização, a "corrida maluca" dos impostos, a comercialização de combustível e medicamentos sem tributos embutidos.
Em Novo Hamburgo quem oferecerá 3.150 litros de gasolina sem tributos, no dia 25, será o Posto Ipiranga Santa Helena. Lá serão distribuídas 150 senhas de 20 litros cada, por carro, e 30 senhas de cinco litros por moto, ao valor de R$ 1,25 o litro.
Como funciona o cálculo?
De acordo com Fernando Steinbruch, advogado tributarista, consultor de empresas e diretor do IBPT (Instituto Brasileiro de Planejamento Tributário), o contribuinte brasileiro trabalha até o dia 27 de maio, somente para pagar os tributos (impostos, taxas e contribuições) exigidos pelos governos federal, estadual e municipal. A tributação incidente sobre os rendimentos é formada principalmente pelo Imposto de Renda Pessoa Física, pela contribuição previdenciária (INSS, previdências oficiais) e pelas contribuições sindicais.
Além disso, o cidadão paga a tributação sobre o consumo – já inclusa no preço dos produtos e serviços – (PIS, COFINS, ICMS, IPI, ISS etc) e também a tributação sobre o patrimônio (IPTU, IPVA, ITCMD, ITBI, ITR). Arca ainda com outras tributações, como taxas de limpeza pública e coleta de lixo.
Steinbruch explica que: em 2003, do seu rendimento bruto o contribuinte brasileiro teve que destinar em média 36,98% para pagar a tributação sobre os rendimentos, consumo, patrimônio e outros. Em 2004 comprometeu 37,81%, em 2005 destinou 38,35%, em 2006 destinou 39,72%, em 2007 comprometeu 40,01%, em 2008 destinou 40,51% e em 2009 comprometerá 40,01% do seu rendimento bruto. “Assim, no ano em curso, dos 12 meses do ano, o cidadão tem que trabalhar 4 meses e 27 dias somente para pagar toda esta carga tributária”, acrescentou o advogado tributarista.
Conheça o imposto pago em alguns produtos
GASOLINA - 53,03% de impostos - Preço médio R$ 2,60 – sem impostos custaria R$1,22.
TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO - 33,75% de impostos - Preço médio R$ 2,30 – sem impostos custaria R$ 1,52.
CARRO - 38,66% de impostos - Preço médio R$ 22 mil – sem impostos custaria R$ 13.494,80.
GÁS DE COZINHA - 34,04% de impostos - Preço médio R$ 32,00 – sem impostos custaria R$ 21,10.
Posted by
PBR
at
8:29 AM
0
comments
Labels: conservatism, economia, fair tax, taxes
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Camille Paglia's article about Sarah Palin
Fresh blood for the vampire
A beady-eyed McCain gets a boost from the charismatic Sarah Palin, a powerful new feminist -- yes, feminist! -- force. Plus: Obama must embrace his dull side.
By Camille Paglia
Sep. 10, 2008 | Rip tide! Is the Obama campaign shooting out to sea like a paper boat?
It's heavy weather for Obama fans, as momentum has suddenly shifted to John McCain -- that hoary, barnacle-encrusted tub that many Democrats like me had thought was full of holes and swirling to its doom in the inky depths of Republican incoherence and fratricide. Gee whilikers, the McCain vampire just won't die! Hit him with a hammer, and he explodes like a jellyfish into a hundred hungry pieces.
Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain's imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain's credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain's sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let's turn the damned page.
We need a new generation of leadership with fresh ideas and an expansive, cosmopolitan vision -- which is why I support Barack Obama and have contributed to his campaign. My baby-boom generation -- typified by the narcissistic Clintons -- peaked in the 1960s and is seriously past it. But McCain, born before Pearl Harbor, is even older than we are! Why would anyone believe that he holds the key to the future? And why would anyone swallow that preening passel of high-flown rhetoric about "country above all" coming from a seething, short-fused character whose rampant egotism, zigzagging principles, and currying of the gullible press were the distinguishing marks of his senatorial career?
Having said that, I must admit that McCain is currently eating Obama's lunch. McCain's weirdly disconnected persona (beady glowers flashing to frozen grins and back again) has started to look more testosterone-rich than Obama's easy, lanky, reflective candor. What in the world possessed the Obama campaign to let their guy wander like a dazed lamb into a snake pit of religious inquisition like Rick Warren's public forum last month at his Saddleback Church in California? That shambles of a performance -- where a surprisingly unprepared Obama met the inevitable question about abortion with shockingly curt glibness -- began his alarming slide.
As I said in my last column, I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama's efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin' his g's like there's no tomorrow. It's analogous to the way stodgy, portly Al Gore (evidently misadvised by the women in his family and their feminist pals) tried to zap himself up on the campaign trail into the happening buff dude that he was not. Both Gore and Obama would have been better advised to pursue a calm, steady, authoritative persona. Forget the jokes -- be boring! That, alas, is what reads as masculine in the U.S.
The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick -- there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly -- though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into "Star Wars" -- a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.
After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.
Pow! Wham! The Republicans unleashed a doozy -- one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life. By lunchtime, Obama's triumph of the night before had been wiped right off the national radar screen. In a bold move I would never have thought him capable of, McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his pick for vice president. I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football -- or one of the great light-saber duels in "Star Wars." (Here are the two Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, going at it with Darth Maul in "The Phantom Menace.") This woman turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor.
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.
In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation -- a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.
As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose steady nerves in crisis were demonstrated when she came to national attention after the mayor and a gay supervisor were murdered in their City Hall offices in San Francisco. Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me -- and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste).
Feinstein, with her deep knowledge of military matters, has true gravitas and knows how to shrewdly thrust and parry with pesky TV interviewers. But her style is reserved, discreet, mandarin. The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America's pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War -- long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did -- which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.
Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics -- which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama's campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don't see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.
One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil). Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones -- nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days. Ambitious professionals in those cities, if they want to preserve their social networks, are very vulnerable to received opinion. At receptions and parties (which I hate), they're sitting ducks. They have to go along to get along -- poor dears!
It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.
Perhaps Palin seemed perfectly normal to me because she resembles so many women I grew up around in the snow belt of upstate New York. For example, there were the robust and hearty farm women of Oxford, a charming village where my father taught high school when I was a child. We first lived in an apartment on the top floor of a farmhouse on a working dairy farm. Our landlady, who was as physically imposing as her husband, was an all-American version of the Italian immigrant women of my grandmother's generation -- agrarian powerhouses who could do anything and whose trumpetlike voices could pierce stone walls.
Here's one episode. My father and his visiting brother, a dapper barber by trade, were standing outside having a smoke when a great noise came from the nearby barn. A calf had escaped. Our landlady yelled, "Stop her!" as the calf came careening at full speed toward my father and uncle, who both instinctively stepped back as the calf galloped through the mud between them. Irate, our landlady trudged past them to the upper pasture, cornered the calf, and carried that massive animal back to the barn in her arms. As she walked by my father and uncle, she exclaimed in amused disgust, "Men!"
Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism -- a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.
Here's another example of the physical fortitude and indomitable spirit that Palin as an Alaskan sportswoman seems to represent right now. Last year, Toronto's Globe and Mail reprinted this remarkable obituary from 1905:
Abigail BeckerFarmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830
A tall, handsome woman "who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all," she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper's cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.
Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today's pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.
But what of Palin's pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? Book banning? Gay conversions? The Iraq war as God's plan? Zionism as a prelude to the apocalypse? We'll see how these big issues shake out. Right now, I don't believe much of what I read or hear about Palin in the media. To automatically assume that she is a religious fanatic who has embraced the most extreme ideas of her local church is exactly the kind of careless reasoning that has been unjustly applied to Barack Obama, whom the right wing is still trying to tar with the fulminating anti-American sermons of his longtime preacher, Jeremiah Wright.
The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.
Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women's movement -- leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.
But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.
On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?
What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.
The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.
If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society's acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life. If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.
It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism -- one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.
But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.
Camille Paglia's column appears on the second Wednesday of each month. Every third column is devoted to reader letters. Please send questions for her next letters column to this mailbox. Your name and town will be published unless you request anonymity.
Posted by
PBR
at
11:02 PM
0
comments
Labels: conservatism, democracy, john mccain, politics, sarah palin