A Word From White Christian(?) Nutcases

Gotta Love Em?

As the US presidential campaign enters its final weeks, both the Republican and Democratic candidates are hitting the swing states.

But misconceptions and rumours abound and many voters have their facts about the candidates all wrong. Some believe that Democrat Barack Obama is a Muslim, for instance.

Casey Kauffman talked to some Republican supporters after a rally by Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, in Ohio.

Divorce's Effect Upon Stepfathers & Stepsons

Divorce Is The American Way

In this mixed marriage nation Americans have grown used to divorce. For better or worse divorce is the American way.

Either from personal experience, or from watching our friend's and relative's marriages disintegrate most of us have garnered some wisdom to share on the subject of divorce.

I've witnessed several divorces of friends and relatives over the decades. With the rate of divorce at over fifty percent it's normal, but despite the ubiquity of divorce I'm left with many questions.


Today's Father Must Be A Super Dad!

Women, have held the role of primary care giver for their children, and even stepchildren, in most cultures, historic, and modern. Men, have played the role of provider. There are some very good reasons, and explanations for this historic divergence of roles, however, in recent decades men and women have allowed themselves the option of experimentation.

Men have been encouraged to take an active role in caring for, nurturing, and bonding with their children from conception, and this has in my opinion been a very good thing for both children, and fathers.

As would be expected, as men have embraced more greatly their nurturing responsibilities the emotional bond between children and their fathers have increased, or at least that is my observation.

It is in fact this increased emotional bond between children, and fathers that has led modern men to being both better fathers, and husbands despite the divorce rate. Men, today, are expected to not only provide for their families, but to also expend great efforts in child rearing, and also being tender, loving, patient, understanding partners who treat women as equals. This represents a tremendous change in expectations for how men are judged by their children, spouses, and society.

The increased bonding between children and their fathers comes at a great cost for men - a cost which men have traditionally sought to avoid - emotional vulnerability.

Men are under more pressure today than in any other time to being sensitive to both the physical needs of their spouses, and children, and also the psychological and emotional well being.

Despite these increased expectations boys are not given any additional training in parenting and marriage survival skills than in previous generations. This may in fact be a major factor sustaining the high divorce rate.


Divorce's Effect Upon Stepfathers and Stepsons

One of saddest aspects of divorce is the affect it has upon the children of families affected by it, but men can be victims of divorce too.

Two divorces which I had the unfortunate privilege to witness have left me with questions.

I'm shifting this essay over to my observations of two mixed families in which two modern "superdad" fathers embraced the role of fathering stepsons.

This needs a rewrite, but I noticed how most of the stepsons in these two mixed families called the their stepfathers by their first names - instead of saying "Dad".

I noticed how in each case the youngest stepson embraced the stepfather enough to call the stepfather "Dad", instead of simply using their stepfather's first name.

I blame the mothers for this, for in the end it was essentially a power play by the mothers into forcing their husbands into the role of provider, and disciplinarian, while simultaneously denying the step fathers any legitimacy in their special relationship with their stepchildren.

I being, a stepfather, know of this tendency quite well, and am fortunate enough to have been embraced immediately as "Dad".

Now, the reason why the use of "Dad" as a title which the child employs instead of the stepfather's first name is critically important.

"Dad" speaks to the role that the stepfather has, and it identifies the stepfather's special relationship with the child (even when there is more than one living father). There are also connotations and expectations of respect, the power relationship, the role of the disciplinarian, and most importantly - the loving bond between stepfather, and stepchild.

And this is where my questions begin.

In one case in which a man I knew years ago divorced with his spouse he was separated from his stepson - immediately, and was never allowed to see his stepson again. The stepson loved his stepfather enough to call him "Dad", and most certainly thought of his stepfather as his "Dad", and yet the divorce simply destroyed their relationship - forever.

In a second case in which a man I know recently divorced he too enjoyed a relationship with his youngest stepson in which the stepson called him "Dad" at least part of the time, and when the divorce occurred he has no longer been allowed to even see this boy who once loved him as a father.

Without going into the actual divorces themselves, I will just say that neither father had molested, or physically abused, their children, nor physically abused their wives.

And so for reasons of incompatibility, or I suspect, unstable and over demanding wives, both men had one of the most tender, loving, important, and loving relationships utterly destroyed by their wives - who could do so - simply because the men were not the genetic fathers.

What this says about the nature of the mixed family, expectations for men as stepfathers, etc., is enormous. Our society both demands more from men than ever before in terms of being loving caring fathers, while simultaneously setting them up for emotional and spiritual devastation upon divorce.

Women often complain about the unfairness of society when it comes to gender role expectations, but while women have seen gains in their freedoms, and increases in their rights, men have been asked to stoically suffer the damage of not being prepared from childhood for their roles as fathers, while being told they should expect no understanding or compassion after divorce.

Growing The Economy The Obama Way

This article is worth thinking about if you're still undecided about which approach would be best for bringing the U.S. economy out of it's downward spiral.

Many Republican voters are under the false impression that Republicanism means greater economic opportunities, and growth, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Trickle down economics is nothing more than a lie. Trickle down economics is another code word employed as a substitute for "You're on your own".

Check out the table below, and read the follow article which recently appeared in the New York Times.

The truth is under Democratic rule the vast majority of the nation's population experiences double the income growth than under Republican administration.

And even the very well off do just as well whether under Republican rule, or Democratic leadership.

Simply put, trickle up economics is much more effective at building an economy.

Economic View

Would Obama’s Plan Be Faster, Fairer, Stronger?

By ALAN S. BLINDER

Published: August 30, 2008

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.