The Wrong Path to Justice

For John, BLUF:  The idea that Caucasian success in America was built solely on slavery (the 1619 thesis) will result in a very bad outcome for everyone.  We all need to learn about hard work and sharing the wealth.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Math Professor:  The '2+2=4 Trope ... Reeks of White Supremacist Patriarchy'

From Pajama Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neil, 13 August 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

In the name of social justice, many Marxists push a kind of absurd brainwashing that denies basic rationality.  This month, a math professor denounced the “MYTH” that math is objective.  She said the “math is neutral because 2 + 2 = 4” trope “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”  Ironically, associating mathematics and basic knowledge with white men actually undermines Marxists’ ostensible goal of empowering women and people of color.

Laurie Rubel, a mathematics education professor at New York’s Brooklyn College, tweeted, “the idea that math (or data) is culturally neutral or in any way objective is a MYTH.”

Rubel added, “along with the ‘of course math is neutral because 2 + 2 = 4’ trope are the related (and creepy) ‘math is pure’ and ‘protect math.'”  She claimed this kind of statement “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”

“i’d [sic] rather think on nurturing people & protecting the planet (with math in service of them goals),” the professor added.

The people pontificating about systemic racism seem to be be clueless about actually fixing it.  Some police departments have problems.  Hoever, below that is education.  In Massachusetts the MCAS scores tell the story.  A lot of kids go out into the real high stakes test, life, and with low MCAS scores.  But, more fundamental is the damage we have done to the nuclear family, and in particular by our welfare system.  I want to fix the problem, but there are a lot of unserious people who just wish to rant.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Climate Change in Perspective

For John, BLUF:  The people who are panicking over climate mate change, eg, te end is in ten years, are not doing good analysis.  As California is learning, life is not as modern and acceptable when the electricity goes out.  Are People prepared to go back to how it was in 1800?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On climate change, humanity is not ‘evil’

From The Globe and Mail (Canada), by Prof Bjorn Lomborg, 26 September 2019.  (Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.).

Here is the lede plus four:

Speaking at the United Nations, 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg said that if humanity really understands the science of climate change and still fails to act, we’re “evil.”  This is because climate change means “people are dying.”  Helpfully, she also told us what we must do to act correctly:  In a bit more than eight years, we will have exhausted our remaining allowance for carbon emissions, so we must shut down everything running on fossil fuels by 2028.

While this claim is not uncommon, it is fundamentally misguided. Yes, global warming is real and human-caused, but her vision of climate change as the end of the world is unsupported.  The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by the 2070s, the total effects of climate change, including on ecosystems, will be equivalent to a reduction in average income of 0.2 to 2 per cent.  By then, each person on the planet will be 300 to 500 per-cent richer.

We don’t emit CO2 with malign intent.  Indeed, it is a byproduct of giving humanity access to unprecedented amounts of energy.

Just a century ago, life was back-breaking.  Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities.  Life expectancy doubled.  Plentiful energy, mostly from fossil fuels, has lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in just the past 25 years.

That is not evil – it is quite the opposite.

Stopping climate change may be important but the shortcut that leaves billions in poverty is not an acceptable solution.  We need more engineering, and more trade offs.

Regards  —  Cliff

Maximizing Benefits

For John, BLUF:  There is a lot of hand waving with regard to fighting global warming, but not a lot of hard economic facts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

EXTINCTION REBELLION ADMIT THEY WANT PERMANENT RECESSION

From Order-Order, by Guido Fawkes, 17 July 2019.

Here is the lede plus:

Extinction Rebellion’s (and former Green Party spokesman) Rupert Read admitted to the Today Programme this morning that he is arguing for an end to economic growth.  Responding to a new report by Policy Exchange exposing the underlying extremism of the campaign. If anything he confirmed the report’s findings…

“You want there to be a permanent state of recession in this country, that is your position is it… you want a recession, that’s what you’re arguing for is it?”

“… the alternatives are this, on the one hand business as usual and climate breakdown and mass death, on the other hand we reassess.”

We pulled a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years.  Do we want to reverse that or extend it?  We need to carefully think about where we are going.

Hat tip to Order-Order.

Regards  —  Cliff

Things Getting Better

For John, BLUF:  The world is a better place than it was when we were born..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

World Bank:  'extreme poverty' to fall below 10% of world population for first time

Here is the sub-headline:

It projects 702 million people or 9.6% of the world’s population will be living in extreme poverty in 2015, down from 902 million people or 12.8% in 2012

From The Guardian, via Reuters, 4 Oct 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

The number of people living in extreme poverty is likely to fall for the first time below 10% of the world’s population in 2015, the World Bank said on Sunday as it revised its benchmark for measuring the problem.

“This is the best story in the world today,” said World Bank president Jim Yong Kim.  “These projections show us that we are the first generation in human history that can end extreme poverty.”

Extreme poverty has long been defined as living on or below $1.25 a day, but the World Bank’s adjustment now sets the poverty line at $1.90 a day.

The Bank said the change reflects new data on differences in the cost of living across countries, while preserving the real purchasing power of the previous yardstick.

So, is this due to the spread of Socialism, including Bolivarian Socialism and juche or due to various forms of capitalism, or due to the secret spread of some third approach?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Charles Koch Agrees With Bernie Sanders—On Some Things

For John, BLUF:  Some think that party distinctions based on ideas are less and less viable.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing in the InstaPundit Blog, Ms Elizabeth Price Foley gives us an " EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY"♠ comment.  Mr Charles Koch has an OpEd in The Washington Post, “This is the One Issue Where Bernie Sanders is Right.”

As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates.  I have never met the senator, but I know from listening to him that we disagree on plenty when it comes to public policy. . . .

Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers.  This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States.  These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies. . . .

Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit.  This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers.  That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us.  (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States.)

It may surprise the senator to learn that our framework in deciding whether to support or oppose a policy is not determined by its effect on our bottom line (or by which party sponsors the legislation), but by whether it will make people’s lives better or worse. . . .

Our criminal justice system, which is in dire need of reform, is another issue where the senator shares some of my concerns.  Families and entire communities are being ripped apart by laws that unjustly destroy the lives of low-level and nonviolent offenders.

Today, if you’re poor and get caught possessing and selling pot, you could end up in jail. Your conviction will hold you back from many opportunities in life.  However, if you are well-connected and have ample financial resources, the rules change dramatically.  Where is the justice in that? . . .

At this point you may be asking yourself, “Is Charles Koch feeling the Bern?”

Hardly.

I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives.  This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place. . . .

I don’t expect to agree with every position a candidate holds, but all Americans deserve a president who, on balance, can demonstrate a commitment to a set of ideas and values that will lead to peace, civility and well-being rather than conflict, contempt and division.  When such a candidate emerges, he or she will have my enthusiastic support.

Isn't it pleasant to find that Senator Bernie Sanders and Industrialist Charles Koch actually agree on some things.

Ms Foley notes:

I’ve always thought it was strange for Democrats to spend so much energy demonizing the Kochs who are, after all, libertarians who agree with the left on many social issues.  Most of their non-profit spending goes to educational efforts aimed at enhancing individual liberty (which explains why they are the functional equivalent of Lucifer to liberals/progressives/totalitarians).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  In the digital age might that be once a day?

DC Sliced into Quarters

For John, BLUF:  If we are going to lick poverty, we ought to start in our Nation's Capitol.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Late last night the Instapundit posted about a Twitter feed that highlighted a problem in our Nation's Capitol.  “If you want to see jaw-dropping inequality and racial segregation, just compare NW to SE D.C.”

He suggested it for a Sunday Feature in The Washington Post.

But, in a way it buries the lede.  Compare NE with SE and while you don't get the same wealth gap, you do find a quality of life difference.  The fact is that NW is the ritzy part of town.  Southeast, especially south of the Anacostia River, is not so good, unless you are living on Bolling AFB.  Few live in SW, but some of it looks like SE and some of it isn't so bad.  But, it is mostly Federal Government buildings.  As for NE, it is not necessarily a great place to live, but it isn't SE.  People dress up and go to Church on Sundays.  They have jobs.  They spruce up their property.  They are Middle Class.

The contrast amongst the four quarters of DC is not something to be proud of.♠ 

As for unemployment, the May 2015 Preliminary rate is 7.3%.  Not great, but not bad (in contrast, Massachusetts was 4.6%).♥  The problem is, unemployment is concentrated in SE.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I wonder if this all traces back to when President Woodrow Wilson segregated the City.
♥  The problem with these statistics is you have to pick you set of numbers.  The President says national unemployment is 5.3% (June 2015), but Presidential Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders says it is 10.5%.  I am with Senator Sanders.

Doing Bad, Trying to Do Good

For John, BLUF:  "We must destroy the village to save it!"  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a quote that Mr Perry de Havilland, writing from London, likes:

Yet Oxfam also claims, without any real evidence, that excessive inequality hampers economic growth.  It suggests that, since we want that economic pie to be as large as possible, we should tax wealth and capital.  The problem is that all taxes destroy some economic activity, shrinking that pie.  And different taxes do so differently.  We also know that capital and wealth taxes destroy more of the pie than almost any others (other than that Robin Hood Tax Oxfam also supported).  So the argument is that we must shrink the economic pie in order to stop inequality shrinking it.  This has shades of having to destroy the village so as to save it.

The source is an article from City AM, by Mr Tom Worstall, "Why we should beware Oxfam’s claims about the world’s richest 1 per cent".

Hat tip to Samizdata.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Assault Weapon Myth

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes you need to dig down to find the cause of the cause.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Instapundit sends us to the blog Bearing Arms, which has a link to an Opinion Piece of the "Week in Review" section of The New York Times.  The writer of the NYT item, Mr Lois Beckett, is a reporter who covers gun violence for ProPublica.  The article is "The Assault Weapon Myth".

The story in the Bearing Arms starts with this short paragraph:

In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.

That may be a bit over the top, but I have to admit that I have thought the definition of "assault weapon" seemed pretty contrived to me.  It is sort of like the distinction between a regular weapon and an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapons.♠

Here is the lede from the story in The Old Gray Lady:

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition:  The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public.  In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth:  The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year.  Little handguns do.

So, we were seeing the difference between analysis and theater.

That said, there are thoughtful people out there trying to develop other solutions, such as Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu of New Orleans and Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia.♥  These two are the founders of Cities United, a network of mayors trying to prevent the deaths of young black men.  As Mayor Landrieu says “This is not just a gun issue, this is an unemployment issue, it’s a poverty issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a culture of violence issue.”

The New York Times article ends up:

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.

Working with Professor Kennedy, and building on successes in other cities, New Orleans is now identifying the young men most at risk and intervening to help them get jobs. How well this strategy will work in the long term remains to be seen.

But it’s an approach based on an honest assessment of the real numbers.

Imagine that, "an honest assessment of the real numbers".

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  From Wikipedia we have this description:  "An automatic firearm is a firearm which continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed and held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber.  This is in contrast to a semi-automatic firearm which fires one round with each individual trigger pull. Although both "semi automatic" and "fully automatic" weapons are "automatic" in the technical sense that the firearm automatically cycles between rounds with each trigger pull, the terms "automatic weapon" and "automatic firearm" are conventionally reserved to describe fully automatic firearms.  Confusion can be avoided by this convention."
♥  I used to be pretty impressed with Mayor Nutter, but then indications of voter fraud emerged in his city and he covered for it, which made me less impressed.  This could change my mind again.

That Top 0.1% Problem

For John, BLUF:  It isn't the top 1%, it is the top 0.1%.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The question of wealth inequality is out there, from the Occupy Wall Street Movement to French economists.  Because it is catchy and easy to grasp the expression "Top 1%" is used to capture the issue.  Truth being the first victim, so here we have the real number being the Top 0.1% of people representing this yawning gap in wealth.  And this morning from the Quartz site we have this:

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century went on sale in the US this week, and its central message can seem like a prophecy of doom.  It is that capital tends to accumulate faster than the economy grows in the long run; wealth thus concentrates in the hands of a few; and the egalitarian, upwardly mobile America of the mid-20th century was more a historical aberration than the natural order of things.  Through their research into income inequality, Piketty and his colleague Emmanuel Saez provided the “1% vs the 99%” narrative that drove the Occupy Movement.

But what’s often missed, as Quartz’s Tim Fernholz found out when he talked to Piketty, is that the 42-year-old French economist is actually rather optimistic.  To those who say that a global wealth tax, his proposed solution to inequality, is something that Americans would never accept, he retorts that nobody in 1910 thought the US would ever have income taxes, or more recently, that Swiss bank secrecy could ever be broken.  A wealth tax, he suggests, could replace a tax on property, making it popular with middle-class homeowners and giving politicians a lever to push it through.

But whether Piketty’s optimism is misplaced, or even whether he is right, matters less than the fact that, by framing the problem in these clear terms, he has enabled a public debate.  “Piketty has transformed our economic discourse; we’ll never talk about wealth and inequality the same way we used to,” wrote Paul Krugman, who knows a thing or two himself about changing economic discourse.  Another legendary economist, Paul Samuelson, once said, “I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws, or crafts its treatises, if I can write its economics textbooks.”  If Piketty’s work influences the terms in which politicians fight their battles, he too may end up having more influence than many of them.—Gideon Lichfield

OK, I don't have a lot of respect for Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who, per Gawker, just took a $225,000 pa job teaching one course a semesteryear, beginning year two.  I wonder what all the underpaid Adjunct Professors think of that?

Here is a Quartz ten question interview with Author Thomas Piketty.

I am not so sure I can get all the worked up about the super-rich.  My focus is on those who just scraping by, and how we can improve their lot, and on those who have fallen into some sort of poverty trap, where their moral outlook is one of living off the work of others, and how we can help them develop a sense of responsibility for themselves and for others.  Those are two different points and people fall all along a spectrum from one point to the other.

Regards  —  Cliff

Reform From the Netherlands

For John, BLUF:  Incentives work, even perverse incentives, in perverse ways.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Those folks over at the CATO Institute are saying something nice about how the Dutch do business, at least with regard to providing welfare to Citizens.  The author is CATO Senior Fellow Michael D Tanner.

Remember, poverty is not a single group of people, but rather a spectrum of people, and one size does not fit all.  Further, people in poverty respond to incentives.  Simple solutions are not always good solutions.

Regards  —  Cliff

Some Cities Fail

For John, BLUF:  Some Cities make it and some don't and it is the People who make the difference.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From a post at Renee Aste's blog Cappadocia in Lowell I found a link to K T Kat, writing on the blog The Scratching Post who was talking about Camden, New Jersey.  K T is actually living in San Diego, but is somehow either following Camden as I follow Detroit, out of interest and horror and fear, or he has a tie.  In my case I have a tie. In the early 1950s we would travel from our small town in South Jersey, through Camden, to get to Philly and points beyond.  First by bus and then by car.  I remember the Camden Airport and Airport Circle.  I can still see the Airport Hotel from the New Jersey Turnpike.  I remember the big Walt Whitman Candy sign on the Camden side of the Ben Franklin Bridge.  Two of my friends had Fathers who worked in Camden, one as a naval architect and one selling pretzels to workers at the gates of the Sun Shipbuilding Yard.  There were jobs in Camden in those days.

Mr K T Kat was talking about an article in Rolling Stone, called "Apocalypse, New Jersey: A Dispatch From America's Most Desperate Town".  The point of K T Kat is that no where in the article in Rolling Stone does the writer focus on the responsibility of the People in Camden.  That is to say, it is their City.  it doesn't belong to the cops or the State of New Jersey or Governor Chris Christie or to Federal Anti-poverty officials or to the drug gangs rampant in the city.  The City belongs to the potential voters of Camden and it looks like they gave up.

Not everyone gives up.  Reporting from Tepalcatepec, Mexico, The Washington Post gives us:

An audacious band of citizen militias battling a brutal drug cartel in the hills of central Mexico is becoming increasingly well-armed and coordinated in an attempt to end years of violence, extortion and humiliation.

What began as a few scattered self-defense groups has spread in recent months to dozens of towns across Michoacan, a volatile state gripped by the cultlike Knights Templar, a drug gang known for taxing locals on everything from cows to tortillas and executing those who do not comply.

Not the Government, state or Federal.  Not the Army.  Not the Police.  The People.

As Renee was saying, don't be a Political Zombie.

Regards  —  Cliff

Talking Kids Out Of Poverty

For John, BLUF:  Little kids need a lot of nurturing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at The New York Times we have a Sunday OpEd by Mr Nicholas D Kristof, regarding Pre-School.  Frankly, given the research data, I am always dubious about Pre-School, but the approach in Oklahoma, being touted by Mr Kristof has some additional parts which I think warrant attention.  The piece starts with a mischaracterization of what is a Liberal♠ and a putdown of the Republican fly-over states, but then it gets down to business.

Every 4-year-old in Oklahoma gets free access to a year of high-quality prekindergarten. Even younger children from disadvantaged homes often get access to full-day, year-round nursery school, and some families get home visits to coach parents on reading and talking more to their children.

Later the article notes:

Research suggests that high-poverty parents, some of them stressed-out kids themselves, don’t always “attach” to their children or read or speak to them frequently.  One well-known study found that a child of professionals hears 30 million more words by the age of 4 than a child on welfare.

So the idea is that even the poorest child in Oklahoma should have access to the kind of nurturing that is routine in middle-class homes.  That way, impoverished children don’t begin elementary school far behind the starting line — and then give up.

Thirty million more words.  That is a lot of words.

What I like about the Oklahoma program is that the school is coaching (repeat, coaching) the caregiver (in the article a step great-grandmother) about all those things "middle class parents" do to nurture their young children and prepare them for school.

This is the kind of effort former City Councillor Franky Descoteaux has been pushing under the title "Promise Neighborhoods".

We have to break the "cycle of poverty" and this kind of coaching of young parents seems to be an important step in the proper direction.

Maybe I should have run for School Committee.  No, on reflection, I have a job, License Commission, and we have the right folks on the School Committee to move in this direction.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I'm a Liberal, just like Maggie Thatcher.  The Democrats on Beacon Hill are, by and large, Progressives.

Is Welfare Too Generous For Some?

For John, BLUF:  It is decades since the "Great Society" and we still don't understand welfare.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I am not a big fan of Boston Herald Reporter Howie Carr's style in presenting the news, but he is a force in local discourse.  Here he talks about the size of welfare payments, "Mass. earns distinction as freeloaders’ paradise".

Skipping the personal scathing attack on the Governor in the lede, we skip to the meat of the issue:

Do you make $50,540 a year?  Because that’s how much you need to earn, pre-taxes, to live the same lifestyle as a hypothetical local welfare family.

That’s the finding of the libertarian Cato Institute in a new study, and we’re No. 3 in the generosity of our largesse to the non-working classes.  The only places ahead of us are Hawaii, which Obama refers to as “Asia,” and the District of Columbia, which isn’t a state.

Most People will respond that this is outrageous.  My response is to ask if these numbers are real.  Here is the announcement from the Cato Institute, which says that welfare recipients in 35 states do better than minimum wage.  The study can be found here. If we go to the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance web site, we can see their report, "Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2010".  One interesting point is the few number of two parent families receiving Temporary Need for Needy Families.  Some states have none.  Is that a sign of the value of two parent families or a failure in some states?  Incidentally, the web page has two attachments.

By the way, here is a list of state minimum wage laws.

A friend of mine wrote the other day:

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever, to 46 million people.  Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us, "Please do not feed the animals."  Their stated reason for the policy is because, "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."

Thus ends today's lesson in irony.

This is a very complicated issue and it involves issues of not just economics but also culture.  What is our duty to generosity to the lest fortunate and what is our duty to our fellow Citizens to not spend their tax money in ways that encourage indolence or merely salve our consciences.

Regards  —  Cliff

Poverty Growing As A Problem

For John, BLUF:  "In this war on poverty, poverty is winning."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

One in six Americans are in poverty today—the highest rate in a generation.  In this war on poverty, poverty is winning.

Exactly!  We are currently doubling down on our current approach.  Taking a new approach is not only risky, but it means choosing between alternatives.  On the other hand, government collected statistics say things are not getting better.  At the end of the day I end up agreeing with Rep Paul Ryan.

We need a better approach.

Yes, the first quote is also from Rep Ryan.  Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Obama Phone

For John, BLUF:  Free cell phones are bad political optics, but may actually help the less fortunate.  Nothing to see; just move along.

As we know, sitting Senator Claire McCaskill is being challenged by the inept US Representative Todd Akin.

Here is a plus for the Senator, from her web page, "McCaskill Moves to Stop Government Waste in Free Phone Program".  Well, the phones aren't free.  Those of us who pay phone bills pay for them.

This came up after an SEIU paid protestor outside a Romney rally in Bedford, Ohio, outside of Cleveland, 26 September, talked about her Obama Cell Phone.  A good program, but bad optics.

Actually, the idea of giving, say, the homeless, cell phones, makes some sense.  That way those who are interested in jobs are always available to those who may have their name and number and a job for them.  The program may, in the long run, save taxpayers money.  Besides helping people get work, it may serve to reduce the stress induced by being disconnected from family.  Less stress means better health and thus fewer trips to the emergency room.  Life is complicated and it takes some thought to find the best path to success.  In the end, it is about helping the homeless become taxpayers, and a successful part of this great American experiment.

In the mean time, Lowell is looking at its Seventh Conference on Homelessness, later in October.  Food Security and Healthy Living is the topic and the date is 26 October, starting at 8:30 AM, but with Registration at 8:00.  The location is the UMass Lowell Inn & Conference Center, 50 Warren Street in Downtown Lowell.  Costs must be defrayed, so there is a $25.00 registration fee (includes breakfast and box lunch).  And, there is a "Gleaning Event" on 3 October at 9:30 AM at Farmer Dave’s farm, 437 Parker Road, Dracut, MA.  This event is free.  To participate, RSVP to King Linda at LKing@lowellma.gov or call (978) 674-1428.

Regards  —  Cliff