WHY I HATE FOX NEWS, GLENN BECK & EVERYONE ELSE THERE!

Glenn Beck is great American unlike you, you liberal loon. Liberalism is a sick weak philosophy that is rightly dying in the USA. The Wall Street Journal is thriving, the New York Times is going bankrupt, MSNBC, a pathetic liberal channel is being killed by Fox News which has millions of viewers.

Only 5 or 6 people will read your pathetic blog while the great Bill O'Reilly has 3 million viewers, not cool aid drinkers like yourself , but true Americans who think for themselves, a recent Poll showed that O'Reilly watchers were the best informed of all viewers.

I now going back to my Bill O'Reilly book, read by TENS OF THOUSANDS and still in the: "Top Ten bestseller" list after weeks and weeks. And leave you liberal losers to your powerless little blog, that's all you guys are capable of. Pathetic little bogs read by 3 people, YOUR TALK BACK RADIO IS A BORING FAILURE TOO.

L for liberal, L for loser.

Hmm. The end of liberalism. Sounds great, but see definition below from Merriam-Webster.

LIBERALISM:

1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Lesson for Mr. Hannity: you have to think outside of your tiny little bubble, look back into the past, and try to understand what the concept of liberalism has meant to our history. You may not like liberals now, but they were once the founders of our nation.

Anyone who references a dictionary in a political philosophy debate is obviously a liberal.  Not a Liberal, a liberal.   I hate this world.  

The world needs Obama not just America, i think it is possible for this man to go down in history as one of the greatest men that has ever lived ... but time will dictate that story. Glenn Beck has a right to preach his version of reality as have we all no matter how distorted that version may be, but i believe there is a line in the sand, should your views cause violence then you are just as accountable as the person perpetrating the violence .

  Obama reaches out to Cuba. Obama reaches out to the Taliban. Obama reaches out to Iran. Obama reaches out to Muslims.   The only ones he hasn't reached out to except to reach into their wallet is The American People. Now he insults us to the entire world!! WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING!!! This is NOT our President, he's a criminal, he's a traitor, he's an enemy of the United States of America. I haven't heard ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD TALK TO US THE WAY HE HAS!!!! We The People need to begin impeachment proceedings IMMEDIATELY TO RID OUR GREAT COUNTRY OF THIS UNBELIEVEABLE MONSTROCITY MASQUERADING AS THE PRESIDENT!!!!!   He should be hung as a traitor!!!  

I agree that Obama is a sad, pathetic excuse for a president. While he is very charming, his lust for power, control and command is very clear to me. He should be impeached if possible. He is destroying our once great country. Sadly all we can do is comment and suggest ideas. The power the president and sec. of treasury is very great now. Nothing we can say or do will change anything. Once power is gained it is not given back; ever! All these sites, talk and T.V. shows only allow the public to vent their frustration and keep from rioting. I await the kingdom of God! 

I hate Fox News:

Fox News basically works for the republican party, works for the rich people, works for the military-industrial-complex. Fox News hate the little guy, the american middle class. Fox News opposes social programs, opposes universal health class. Fox News supports the warmongers, supports the American Imperialism abroad. Fox News supports military bases all over the world. Fox News supports trade agreements that screws the american worker. Fox News is supportive of the reagonomics (ronald reagan) which started this economic crisis that we are in right now. reagan started to create hedge funds in wall st, started the deregulation of the economy.

Check my blog: bushit1.blogspot.com where people can find some real news.

Learn the truth....watch Fox news ,,

And Cookie dear ..48% of Americans DID NOT vote the the Anointed one,,not exactally a landslide by any means ....

I have hated fox news network since the morning of 9-11.I thought eventually I will get over it,but I havent,in fact my hatred for fox has grown. 

It is necessary to watch fox news network. know your enemy.

WHY DON'T YOU TRY THE POWER OF THE FORCE ON THESE GUYS, GET A PICTURE OF MURDOCK OR HANNITY, WHOEVER YOU HATE MOST.

AND EVERY MORNING FOR TEN MINUTES FOCUS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE GUYS WISHING THEM THE WORSE KIND OF EVIL. 

YOU HAVE TOO FOCUS HARD, NO DISTRACTIONS

YOU NEVER KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE GET LUCKY. (there is evidence that physic warfare may work the book: "The Conscious Universe" available form amazon.

FOR THE MORON: "An Informed Voter--Not a Liberal Lune (not verified)". HE THINKS HE KNOW THE FACTS, TYPICAL DUMB FOX WATCHER.

Those socialist countries are  failures aren’t they. Statistics form OECD show for instance Norway and Australia ( by your measurement) have higher quality of life than your country.

http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/aboutnsw/lifestyle/E1_quality_of_life.htm,  AMERICA CAME 17TH



TRUTH:
Wrong again. I'll only cite the statistics here.

USA Ranking on Adult Literacy Scale: #9
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway)- OECD

USA Ranking on Healthcare Quality Index: #37
(#1 France and #2 Italy)- World Health Organization 2003

USA Ranking of Student Reading Ability: #12
(#1 Finland and #2 South Korea)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Problem Solving Ability: #26
(#1 South Korea and #2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Student Mathematics Ability: # 24
(#1 Hong Kong and #2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Science Ability: #19
(#1 Finland and #2 Japan)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Women's Rights Scale: #17
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway)- World Economic Forum Report

USA Ranking on Life Expectancy: #29
(#1 Japan and #2 Hong Kong)- UN Human Development Report 2005

USA Ranking on Journalistic Press Freedom Index: #32
(#1 Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands tied)- Reporters
Without Borders 2005

USA Ranking on Political Corruption Index: #17
(#1 Iceland and #2 Finland)- Transparency International 2005

USA Ranking on Quality of Life Survey: #13
(#1 Ireland and #2 Switzerland)- The Economist Magazine ...Wikipedia
"Celtic Tiger" if you still have your doubts.

USA Ranking on Environmental Sustainability Index: #45
(#1 Finland and #2 Norway)- Yale University ESI 2005

USA Ranking on Infant Mortality Rate: #32
(#1 Sweden and #2 Finland)- Save the Children Report 2006

USA Ranking on Human Development Index (GDP, education, etc.): #10
(#1 Norway and #2 Iceland)- UN Human Development Report 2005

NORWAY, SWEDEN AND FINLAND, socialist countries, hmmm.

Earhart said on friends that everyone agrees that US health care is the best in the world, hmmn, everyone means 100%, well here is news for that bimbo. World health rating 37th in the world and the commonwealth fund rates it the Worse on access, affordability AND efficiency out of 5 western states.



96%  of Canadians according to a poll,  believe their system is superior to yours.


Fox news is a disgrace when it lies like this, it is a sorry case when a non-American cares more for the average citizen of America than you, supposedly AMERICANS.

What types of Americans are you?


More evidence on the best system in the world:


1, Financial collapse due to illness and injury led a U.S. family to file for bankruptcy every 90 seconds in 2007, according to researchers at Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Harvard Law School, and Ohio University. Medical problems were the reason underlying more than 60% of all bankruptcies that year in the U.S., the researchers noted. These bankruptcies, they found, happened when income was lost due to illness, or family finances were overwhelmed by the magnitude of medical debts.



2, New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed. A slightly lower percentage, 55 percent, agreed with a different question on what researchers considered "incremental" reform -- that is, one that relies on tweaking the existing employer-based insurance system and filling in the gaps from there.

"National health insurance is national health insurance," says Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at the medical school. "They (doctors) support a plan where there is government legislation to establish government financing for health care -- a Medicare-for-all type of plan."



3, (CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/


4,

Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.

After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.

   
5, U.S. Health Care: World Beaten     Email    Printer-Friendly
Bernard Wasow, The Century Foundation, 5/3/2006

Results of a recent British-American study of health outcomes among white citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States have surprised a lot of people. These show that the British are healthier than the Americans at every income level.

Of course, the bad results may not be due to deficiencies in health care. Discussion of the British result has focused on general environmental determinants of health, notably stress, rather than differences in the health care systems. But with tens of millions of Americans lacking any insurance, and health care costs spiraling, we need to look long and hard at how health care is delivered and paid for in the United States.

We flatter ourselves that our health care system is cutting edge. Yet our health outcomes are not only worse than Britain’s, they look bad in a global context.

The United States spends more of its income on health care than any nation on earth, nearly $6,000 per person per year, more than 15 percent of our total income. In contrast, the countries of the European Monetary Union spend about $2,500 per person per year, less than 10 percent of their income.

What do we get for our money? One simple test is to see where the United States stands in a comparison of the most basic health statistic of all: life expectancy at birth.

The answer is that the United States appears to be doing badly, not just compared to Britain but compared to every advanced country in the world. Taking into account the overall standard of living and spending on health care, we should expect a newborn in the United States to live 81 years. [1] In fact, life expectancy at birth is 77 years. Of 25 high-income industrialized countries, the United States is in last place, both in life expectancy at birth and in the gap between actual life expectancy and predicted life expectancy given the standard of living and spending on health care. The next worst outcome, behind U.S. life-expectancy deficit of four years, is a deficit of 2.7 years in Denmark. In contrast, a Japanese newborn is predicted to live about 79 years but actual life expectancy in Japan is nearly 82 years. A Japanese newborn can be expected to live two and a half years more than Japanese living standards and medical spending would lead one to expect, while an American lives four years fewer.

The four year deficit in life expectancy in the United States is one of the worst outcomes anywhere outside Sub-Saharan Africa. All the other countries with life expectancy outcomes substantially worse than predicted are developing countries or part of the former Soviet Union.
Countries with the Biggest

No other G7 country has such a large gap between actual life expectancy and that predicted on the basis of its standard of living and medical expenditures.

The United States is very rich and we spend the most in the world on health care. We have a right to expect more for our money than a life expectancy outcome that places us thirtieth in the world, behind Singapore, Chile, and Costa Rica as well as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and every Western European nation.

Our health care system certainly delivers innovations in pharmaceutical and other technologies. It leads the world in Nobel Prizes for medicine and physiology. But it does not deliver medical care equitably to all Americans. Those who can pay have access to the best health care in the world. Those with good insurance plans—a decreasing fraction of the population—get good, life-extending health care. The rest must make do. And the result is that enough people fall through the cracks to place us at the bottom of the rich country life expectancy tables.

Bernard Wasow is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation.


NOTES

[1] Living standard is measured by average income, corrected for price differences among countries. Life expectancy at birth in a country is statistically related both to its living standard and to its health care spending. Our analysis of 114 countries (excluding Sub-Saharan Africa) explains 73 percent of the variation in life expectancy at birth using these two explanatory variables. Data are from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators.
   
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1287



Hannity types  shame on you, you anti-ameircans  who puts your dollars ahead of  your OWN people.

20,000 DEAD EACH YEAR THORUGH POOR COVERAGE, DISGUSTING!!!

 (SOURCE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION)

Publicly funded health care has its problems, as any Canadian or Briton knows. But like democracy, it’s the best answer we’ve come up with so far.

US Canada Health CareShould the United States implement a more inclusive, publicly funded health care system? That's a big debate throughout the country. But even as it rages, most Americans are unaware that the United States is the only country in the developed world that doesn't already have a fundamentally public--that is, tax-supported--health care system.

That means that the United States has been the unwitting control subject in a 30-year, worldwide experiment comparing the merits of private versus public health care funding. For the people living in the United States, the results of this experiment with privately funded health care have been grim. The United States now has the most expensive health care system on earth and, despite remarkable technology, the general health of the U.S. population is lower than in most industrialized countries. Worse, Americans' mortality rates--both general and infant--are shockingly high.

Different paths

Beginning in the 1930s, both the Americans and the Canadians tried to alleviate health care gaps by increasing use of employment-based insurance plans. Both countries encouraged nonprofit private insurance plans like Blue Cross, as well as for-profit insurance plans. The difference between the United States and Canada is that Americans are still doing this, ignoring decades of international statistics that show that this type of funding inevitably leads to poorer public health.

Meanwhile, according to author Terry Boychuk, the rest of the industrialized world, including many developing countries like Mexico, Korea, and India, viscerally understood that "private insurance would [never be able to] cover all necessary hospital procedures and services; and that even minimal protection [is] beyond the reach of the poor, the working poor, and those with the most serious health problems." 1 Today, over half the family bankruptcies filed every year in the United States are directly related to medical expenses, and a recent study shows that 75 percent of those are filed by people with health insurance.2

The United States spends far more per capita on health care than any comparable country. In fact, the gap is so enormous that a recent University of California, San Francisco, study estimates that the United States would save over $161 billion every year in paperwork alone if it switched to a singlepayer system like Canada's.3 These billions of dollars are not abstract amounts deducted from government budgets; they come directly out of the pockets of people who are sick.

The year 2000 marked the beginning of a crucial period, when international trade rules, economic theory, and political action had begun to fully reflect the belief in the superiority of private, as opposed to public, management, especially in the United States. By that year the U.S. health care system had undergone what has been called "the health management organization revolution." U.S. government figures show that medical care costs have spiked since 2000, with total spending on prescriptions nearly doubling. 4

Cutting costs, cutting care

There are two criteria used to judge a country's health care system: the overall success of creating and sustaining health in the population, and the ability to control costs while doing so. One recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares mortality rates in private forprofit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals: for-profit patients have a 2 percent higher chance of dying in the hospital or within 30 days of discharge. The increased death rates were clearly linked to "the corners that for-profit hospitals must cut in order to achieve a profit margin for investors, as well as to pay high salaries for administrators."5

"To ease cost pressures, administrators tend to hire less highly skilled personnel, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists…," wrote P. J. Devereaux, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the lead researcher. "The U.S. statistics clearly show that when the need for profits drives hospital decisionmaking, more patients die."

The value of care for all

Historically, one of the cruelest aspects of unequal income distribution is that poor people not only experience material want all their lives, they also suffer more illness and die younger. But in Canada there is no association between income inequality and mortality rates—none whatsoever.

In a massive study undertaken by Statistics Canada in the early 1990s, income and mortality census data were analyzed from all Canadian provinces and all U.S. states, as well as 53 Canadian and 282 American metropolitan areas.6 The study concluded that "the relationship between income inequality and mortality is not universal, but instead depends on social and political characteristics specific to place." In other words, government health policies have an effect.

"Income inequality is strongly associated with mortality in the United States and in North America as a whole," the study found, "but there is no relation within Canada at either the province or metropolitan area level -- between income inequality and mortality."

The same study revealed that among the poorest people in the United States, even a one percent increase inincome resulted in a mortality decline of nearly 22 out of 100,000.

What makes this study so interesting is that Canada used to have statistics that mirrored those in the United States. In 1970, U.S. and Canadian mortality rates calculated along income lines were virtually identical. But 1970 also marked the introduction of Medicare in Canada -- universal, singlepayer coverage. The simple explanation for how Canadians have all become equally healthy, regardless of income, most likely lies in the fact that they have a publicly funded, single-payer health system and the control group, the United States, does not.

Infant mortality

Infant mortality rates, which refl ect the health of the mother and her access to prenatal and postnatal care, are considered one of the most reliable measures of the general health of a population. Today, U.S. government statistics rank Canada's infant mortality rate of 4.7 per thousand 23rd out of 225 countries, in the company of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, and Denmark. The U.S. is 43rd--in the company of Croatia and Lithuania, below Taiwan and Cuba.

All the countries surrounding Canada or above it in the rankings have tax-supported health care systems. The countries surrounding the United States and below have mixed systems or are, in general, extremely poor in comparison to the United States and the other G8 industrial powerhouses.

There are no major industrialized countries near the United States in the rankings. The closest is Italy, at 5.83 infants dying per thousand, but it is still ranked five places higher.7

In the United States, infant mortality rates are 7.1 per 1,000, the highest in the industrialized world -- much higher than some of the poorer states in India, for example, which have public health systems in place, at least for mothers and infants. Among the inner-city poor in the United States, more than 8 percent of mothers receive no prenatal care at all before giving birth.

Overall U.S. mortality

We would have expected to see steady decreases in deaths per thousand in the mid-twentieth century, because so many new drugs and procedures were becoming available. But neither the Canadian nor the American mortality rate declined much; in fact, Canada's leveled off for an entire decade, throughout the 1960s. This was a period in which private care was increasing in Canadian hospitals, and the steady mortality rates reflect the fact that most people simply couldn't afford the new therapies that were being offered. However, beginning in 1971, the same year that Canada's Medicare was fully applied, official statistics show that death rates suddenly plummeted, maintaining a steep decline to their present rate.

In the United States, during the same period, overall mortality rates also dropped, reflecting medical advances. But they did not drop nearly so precipitously as those in Canada after 1971. But given that the United States is the richest country on earth, today's overall mortality rates are shockingly high, at 8.4 per thousand, compared to Canada's 6.5.

Rich and poor

It has become increasingly apparent, as data accumulate, that the overall improvement in health in a society with tax-supported health care translates to better health even for the rich, the group assumed to be the main beneficiaries of the American-style private system. If we look just at the 5.7 deaths per thousand among presumably richer, white babies in the United States, Canada still does better at 4.7, even though the Canadian figure includes all ethnic groups and all income levels. Perhaps a one-per-thousand difference doesn't sound like much. But when measuring mortality, it's huge. If the U.S. infant mortality rate were the same as Canada's, almost 15,000 more babies would survive in the United States every year.

If we consider the statistics for the poor, which in the United States have been classified by race, we find that in 2001, infants born of black mothers were dying at a rate of 14.2 per thousand. That's a Third World figure, comparable to Russia's.8

But now that the United States has begun to do studies based on income levels instead of race, these "cultural" and genetic explanations are turning out to be baseless. Infant mortality is highest among the poor, regardless of race.

Vive la différence! Genetically, Canadians and Americans are quite similar. Our health habits, too, are very much alike -- people in both countries eat too much and exercise too little. And, like the United States, there is plenty of inequality in Canada, too. In terms of health care, that inequality falls primarily on Canadians in isolated communities, particularly Native groups, who have poorer access to medical care and are exposed to greater environmental contamination. The only major difference between the two countries that could account for the remarkable disparity in their infant and adult mortality rates, as well as the amount they spend on health care, is how they manage their health care systems.

The facts are clear: Before 1971, when both countries had similar, largely privately funded health care systems, overall survival and mortality rates were almost identical. The divergence appeared with the introduction of the single-payer health system in Canada.

The solid statistics amassed since the 1970s point to only one conclusion: like it or not, believe it makes sense or not, publicly funded, universally available health care is simply the most powerful contributing factor to the overall health of the people who live in any country. And in the United States, we have got the bodies to prove it.

AND

A report issued yesterday by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed the United States has the third worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states. Only Mexico and Turkey ranked higher in those categories. OECD states in western Europe, along with Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia, all recorded better figures than the US, as did central and eastern European states, including Poland and Hungary.

The 300-page report, entitled “Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD countries,” was based on three years of research into the relevant data of the organization’s member countries over the past two to three decades. With increased inequality and poverty levels recorded in three-quarters of OECD countries, the report’s central conclusion was that “the economic growth of recent decades has benefitted the rich more than the poor.”

On the US, the report explained: “Since 2000, income inequality has increased rapidly, continuing a long-term trend that goes back to the 1970s ... Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind. This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States. The average income of the richest 10 percent is US$93,000 in purchasing power parities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have an income of US$5,800 per year—about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.” [Original emphasis]

These income figures actually underestimate the gulf between the ultra-wealthy and the working class and poor. Wealth inequality is far higher than reported income disparities. A tiny elite layer comprising less than 1 percent of the population has amassed unprecedented levels of wealth over the last three decades through various forms of speculation and financial parasitism. But this wealth, largely concealed through tax evasion schemes and other mechanisms, is difficult for economists and statisticians to accurately measure.

The OECD said it recorded income rather than wealth inequalities because many countries do not gather data on household assets and because of other difficulties in comparing wealth between countries. The report noted, however, that available statistics showed that wealth inequality was substantially higher than income distribution in every country. In the US, it was estimated that the top 10 percent hold 71 percent of the national wealth (compared to 28 percent of total income), while the top 1 percent control between 25 to 33 percent of total net worth.

The report cited estimates that average income inequality across the OECD was 7 to 8 percent higher in the mid-2000s than in the mid-1980s. “This may not sound like much of an increase,” it explained, “but it is equivalent on average to taking $880 away from the poorest 50 percent and giving $880 to the richest 50 percent, although incomes at every level grew over the two decades.”

The OECD report defined those in poverty as households with an income below half of median national incomes. On this basis, poor people comprise 17 percent of the US population—higher than all the advanced OECD economies and only marginally behind Mexico and Turkey.

The US also ranked among the worst in OECD countries in regard to the length of time people remain trapped in poverty. According to the report, in most member states about half of poor people move above the poverty line within three years. But deep disparities were discovered; in Denmark and Holland the “persistently poor” comprise less than 2 percent of the population, while in the US the figure is 7 percent.

The US also ranks among the worst countries in “inequality of opportunity.” Comparing income levels between fathers and their sons, the OECD assigned member countries an “earnings mobility” rating, with zero meaning the younger generation would earn the same income as the previous one, and 100 indicating no relationship between the two generations’ earnings. An inverse relationship was found to exist between income inequality levels and earnings growth between generations. While several countries, such as Canada, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, recorded more than 80 on the earnings mobility index, the US scored just over 50.

These various findings point to the deepening class divide that dominates every aspect of American society. They also put paid to the various right-wing nostrums advanced in defence of the extraordinary levels of social inequality in the US. Far from having anything to do with merit or “hard work,” individuals’ incomes are largely determined by the family and social circumstances they are born into.

The OECD report also documented the correlation between higher social spending and reduced poverty and inequality. In Scandinavian and western European countries, social spending on people of working age (such as family benefits) averaged 7 to 8 percent of national income in 2005 and the proportion of working-age people in poverty was 5 to 8 percent. In the US, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea, 2 percent or less of national income was spent on equivalent benefits, while 12-15 percent of the working age population lived in poverty.

The unfolding financial crisis and the deepening world recession is set to rapidly accelerate the regressive poverty and inequality trends, both in the US and internationally.

Oxford University economist Anthony Atkinson published an article, “Unequal growth, unequal recession?,” in the OECD Observer magazine to coincide with the major report’s release. “The time of its publication inevitably leads the reader to ask: what will happen if the next decade is one, not of world growth, but of world recession?” he wrote. “If a rising tide does not lift all boats, how will they be affected by an ebbing tide? Recession—if it comes—does not sound like good news for those on the margins of the labour force.”

Juan Somavia, director general of the International Labour Organization (ILO), announced on Monday that global unemployment could next year rise by an additional 20 million people, to a total of 210 million. An ILO press release explained that this figure was derived from UN data, revised International Monetary Fund economic growth rates and recent reports of layoffs in several countries.

Somavia also estimated that the number of working poor living on less than $1 a day could rise by another 40 million, and those on less than $2 a day by more than 100 million. He added these projections “could prove to be underestimates if the effects of the current economic contraction and looming recession are not quickly confronted.”

Earlier this month the ILO director general told officials of the IMF and the World Bank meeting in Washington that “The crisis of the international financial system has grave consequences for enterprises, workers and families around the world. Coming on top of still high food and fuel prices, its effects are provoking a slide into a recession that unless averted by prompt and coordinated government actions could be severe, long lasting and global.”

He warned the banking and political elite that they had to take action to get credit flowing again quickly “before more serious damage is done to the productive capacity and social fabric all around the world.”

I REST MY CASE!

HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE WHICH MUST BE ADDED TO SHOW THE WONDER OF THE US SYSTEM:

US notches world's highest incarceration rate A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

Numbering in the millions

Justice Department analysts say that experts in criminal justice have long known of the stark disparities in prison experience, but they have never been as fully documented. By the end of year 2001, some 1,319,000 adults were confined in state or federal prisons. An estimated 4,299,000 former prisoners are still alive, the new report concludes.

"What we are seeing is a substantial involvement of the public in the criminal-justice system. It raises a lot of questions in the national dialogue on everything from voting and sentencing to priorities related to state's expenditures," says Allen Beck, chief of correction statistics at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who directed the report.

Nor does the impact of incarceration end with the sentence. Former inmates can be excluded from receiving public assistance, living in public housing, or receiving financial aid for college. Ex-felons are prohibited from voting in many states. And with the increased use of background checks - especially since 9/11 - they may be permanently locked out of jobs in many professions, including education, child care, driving a bus, or working in a nursing home.

Enfranchisement for ex-felons

More than 4 million prisoners or former prisoners are denied a right to vote; in 12 states, that ban is for life.

"That's why racial profiling has become such a priority issue for African-Americans, because it is the gateway to just such a statistic," says Yvonne Scruggs- Leftwich, chief operating officer of the Black Leadership Forum, in Washington. "It means that large numbers in the African-American community are disenfranchised, sometimes permanently."

Some states are already scaling back prohibitions or limits on voting affecting former inmates, including Maryland, Delaware, New Mexico, and Texas.

In addition, critics say that efforts to purge voting rolls of former felons could lead to abuses, and effectively disenfranchise many minority voters.

"On the day of the 2000 [presidential] election, there were an estimated 600,000 former felons who had completed their sentence yet because of Florida's restrictive laws were unable to vote," says Mr. Mauer of the Sentencing Project.

The new report also informs - but does not settle - one of the toughest debates in American politics: whether high rates of imprisonment are related to a drop in crime rates over the past decade.

The prison population has quadrupled since 1980. Much of that surge is the result of public policy, such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent.

Narcotic-related arrests

New drug policies have especially affected incarceration rates for women, which have increased at nearly double the rate for men since 1980. Nearly 1 in 3 women in prison today are serving sentences for drug-related crimes.

"A lot of people think that the reason crime rates have been dropping over the past several years is, in part, because we're incarcerating the people most likely to commit crimes," says Stephan Thernstrom, a historian at Harvard University.

Others say the drop has more to do with factors such as a generally healthy economy in the 1990s, more opportunity for urban youth, or better community policing.

But no one disagrees that prison experience will be a part of the lives of more and more Americans. By 2010, the number of American residents in prison or with prison experience is expected to jump to 7.7 million, or 3.4 percent of all adults, according to the new report.

YES THE USA IS GREAT

US notches world's highest incarceration rate A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

Numbering in the millions

Justice Department analysts say that experts in criminal justice have long known of the stark disparities in prison experience, but they have never been as fully documented. By the end of year 2001, some 1,319,000 adults were confined in state or federal prisons. An estimated 4,299,000 former prisoners are still alive, the new report concludes.

"What we are seeing is a substantial involvement of the public in the criminal-justice system. It raises a lot of questions in the national dialogue on everything from voting and sentencing to priorities related to state's expenditures," says Allen Beck, chief of correction statistics at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who directed the report.

Nor does the impact of incarceration end with the sentence. Former inmates can be excluded from receiving public assistance, living in public housing, or receiving financial aid for college. Ex-felons are prohibited from voting in many states. And with the increased use of background checks - especially since 9/11 - they may be permanently locked out of jobs in many professions, including education, child care, driving a bus, or working in a nursing home.

Enfranchisement for ex-felons

More than 4 million prisoners or former prisoners are denied a right to vote; in 12 states, that ban is for life.

"That's why racial profiling has become such a priority issue for African-Americans, because it is the gateway to just such a statistic," says Yvonne Scruggs- Leftwich, chief operating officer of the Black Leadership Forum, in Washington. "It means that large numbers in the African-American community are disenfranchised, sometimes permanently."

Some states are already scaling back prohibitions or limits on voting affecting former inmates, including Maryland, Delaware, New Mexico, and Texas.

In addition, critics say that efforts to purge voting rolls of former felons could lead to abuses, and effectively disenfranchise many minority voters.

"On the day of the 2000 [presidential] election, there were an estimated 600,000 former felons who had completed their sentence yet because of Florida's restrictive laws were unable to vote," says Mr. Mauer of the Sentencing Project.

The new report also informs - but does not settle - one of the toughest debates in American politics: whether high rates of imprisonment are related to a drop in crime rates over the past decade.

The prison population has quadrupled since 1980. Much of that surge is the result of public policy, such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent.

Narcotic-related arrests

New drug policies have especially affected incarceration rates for women, which have increased at nearly double the rate for men since 1980. Nearly 1 in 3 women in prison today are serving sentences for drug-related crimes.

"A lot of people think that the reason crime rates have been dropping over the past several years is, in part, because we're incarcerating the people most likely to commit crimes," says Stephan Thernstrom, a historian at Harvard University.

Others say the drop has more to do with factors such as a generally healthy economy in the 1990s, more opportunity for urban youth, or better community policing.

But no one disagrees that prison experience will be a part of the lives of more and more Americans. By 2010, the number of American residents in prison or with prison experience is expected to jump to 7.7 million, or 3.4 percent of all adults, according to the new report.

US notches world's highest incarceration rate
A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

Numbering in the millions

Justice Department analysts say that experts in criminal justice have long known of the stark disparities in prison experience, but they have never been as fully documented. By the end of year 2001, some 1,319,000 adults were confined in state or federal prisons. An estimated 4,299,000 former prisoners are still alive, the new report concludes.

"What we are seeing is a substantial involvement of the public in the criminal-justice system. It raises a lot of questions in the national dialogue on everything from voting and sentencing to priorities related to state's expenditures," says Allen Beck, chief of correction statistics at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who directed the report.

Nor does the impact of incarceration end with the sentence. Former inmates can be excluded from receiving public assistance, living in public housing, or receiving financial aid for college. Ex-felons are prohibited from voting in many states. And with the increased use of background checks - especially since 9/11 - they may be permanently locked out of jobs in many professions, including education, child care, driving a bus, or working in a nursing home.

Enfranchisement for ex-felons

More than 4 million prisoners or former prisoners are denied a right to vote; in 12 states, that ban is for life.

"That's why racial profiling has become such a priority issue for African-Americans, because it is the gateway to just such a statistic," says Yvonne Scruggs- Leftwich, chief operating officer of the Black Leadership Forum, in Washington. "It means that large numbers in the African-American community are disenfranchised, sometimes permanently."

Some states are already scaling back prohibitions or limits on voting affecting former inmates, including Maryland, Delaware, New Mexico, and Texas.

In addition, critics say that efforts to purge voting rolls of former felons could lead to abuses, and effectively disenfranchise many minority voters.

"On the day of the 2000 [presidential] election, there were an estimated 600,000 former felons who had completed their sentence yet because of Florida's restrictive laws were unable to vote," says Mr. Mauer of the Sentencing Project.

The new report also informs - but does not settle - one of the toughest debates in American politics: whether high rates of imprisonment are related to a drop in crime rates over the past decade.

The prison population has quadrupled since 1980. Much of that surge is the result of public policy, such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent.

Narcotic-related arrests

New drug policies have especially affected incarceration rates for women, which have increased at nearly double the rate for men since 1980. Nearly 1 in 3 women in prison today are serving sentences for drug-related crimes.

"A lot of people think that the reason crime rates have been dropping over the past several years is, in part, because we're incarcerating the people most likely to commit crimes," says Stephan Thernstrom, a historian at Harvard University.

Others say the drop has more to do with factors such as a generally healthy economy in the 1990s, more opportunity for urban youth, or better community policing.

But no one disagrees that prison experience will be a part of the lives of more and more Americans. By 2010, the number of American residents in prison or with prison experience is expected to jump to 7.7 million, or 3.4 percent of all adults, according to the new report.

US notches world's highest incarceration rate
A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

Numbering in the millions

Justice Department analysts say that experts in criminal justice have long known of the stark disparities in prison experience, but they have never been as fully documented. By the end of year 2001, some 1,319,000 adults were confined in state or federal prisons. An estimated 4,299,000 former prisoners are still alive, the new report concludes.

"What we are seeing is a substantial involvement of the public in the criminal-justice system. It raises a lot of questions in the national dialogue on everything from voting and sentencing to priorities related to state's expenditures," says Allen Beck, chief of correction statistics at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who directed the report.

Nor does the impact of incarceration end with the sentence. Former inmates can be excluded from receiving public assistance, living in public housing, or receiving financial aid for college. Ex-felons are prohibited from voting in many states. And with the increased use of background checks - especially since 9/11 - they may be permanently locked out of jobs in many professions, including education, child care, driving a bus, or working in a nursing home.

Enfranchisement for ex-felons

More than 4 million prisoners or former prisoners are denied a right to vote; in 12 states, that ban is for life.

"That's why racial profiling has become such a priority issue for African-Americans, because it is the gateway to just such a statistic," says Yvonne Scruggs- Leftwich, chief operating officer of the Black Leadership Forum, in Washington. "It means that large numbers in the African-American community are disenfranchised, sometimes permanently."

Some states are already scaling back prohibitions or limits on voting affecting former inmates, including Maryland, Delaware, New Mexico, and Texas.

In addition, critics say that efforts to purge voting rolls of former felons could lead to abuses, and effectively disenfranchise many minority voters.

"On the day of the 2000 [presidential] election, there were an estimated 600,000 former felons who had completed their sentence yet because of Florida's restrictive laws were unable to vote," says Mr. Mauer of the Sentencing Project.

The new report also informs - but does not settle - one of the toughest debates in American politics: whether high rates of imprisonment are related to a drop in crime rates over the past decade.

The prison population has quadrupled since 1980. Much of that surge is the result of public policy, such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent.

Narcotic-related arrests

New drug policies have especially affected incarceration rates for women, which have increased at nearly double the rate for men since 1980. Nearly 1 in 3 women in prison today are serving sentences for drug-related crimes.

"A lot of people think that the reason crime rates have been dropping over the past several years is, in part, because we're incarcerating the people most likely to commit crimes," says Stephan Thernstrom, a historian at Harvard University.

Others say the drop has more to do with factors such as a generally healthy economy in the 1990s, more opportunity for urban youth, or better community policing.

But no one disagrees that prison experience will be a part of the lives of more and more Americans. By 2010, the number of American residents in prison or with prison experience is expected to jump to 7.7 million, or 3.4 percent of all adults, according to the new report.

those numerous SAME posts are due to computer error, not my fault.