text:
85 Years AgoNovember 17, 1927 Miss Opal Root, who conducted classes and gave private instruction in voice and piano here last winter, has returned from Chicago where she studied under the direction of Professor Witherspoon and is again prepared to accept students. Miss Root has had three and one-half years of study at Yankton College in voice and piano and further fitted herself for this work by taking a course under Professor Witherspoon. Local News ... Dr. Ramsey was called to the Solan Brooks home Tuesday to see Mr.
I was sorry to hear that Bill Janklow has an incurable brain cancer. He had an announcement on TV for the public to let them know and to ask for complete privacy during this time for his family and himself. I don't know how other felt about Bill, I for one think that he was a good governor and that he did a lot for South Dakota. I learned a lot from him. I sat on his advisory and task force boards and he was always thinking of ways to better our state. He was a great force in transportation and especially for buses for the elderly and handicapped.
Greetings from breezy, cooler northeast Haakon County. The weather here has been so wonderful, but it sounds like we may see our first snow of the season this weekend. I am just thankful the snow has held off this long - hopefully it will mean that our winter will be shorter this year. Last weekend was opening weekend of the West River deer season, so there was a lot of activity in the community. Saturday, I spent most of the day working on projects in the house, just in case some stray bullets came flying through the yard.
Just when you know the answers, they change the questions! At least that seems to apply to these darned log in names and passwords. I much prefer the use of the old ways of doing business but have resigned to using a few accounts online. Well, Sunday when it would benefit me to log in and do some business, things went from bad to worse. I managed to get the log in numbers right the first time, when I entered the password it must not have been the one they made me change it to (an every six month event) then here came a new question - what was the color of your FIRST car?
Elderly Meals Thursday Nov. 17: Chipolte Lime Tilapia, Baby Bakers, Cauliflower Au Gratin, Roll, Banana. Friday, Nov. 18: Beef Tips Dijon, Mashed Potatoes, Cheesy Beans, Roll, Cran-apple Delight. Monday, Nov. 21: Chicken Cordon Bleu, Wild Rice, Prince Edward Veggies, Roll, Fruit Parfait. Tuesday, Nov. 22: Steak and Grilled Onions, Roasted Potatoes, Peas and Carrots, Roll, Fruit, Pudding. Wednesday, Nov.
The Milesville Rangers 4-H Club met Saturday, October 29, 2011, at the Milesville Hall with four members present. Since this was the first meeting of the 4-H year, we set club goals and elected officers: president, Rachel Parsons, vice president, Ben Stangle, secretary, Mark Stangle, treasurer, Grace Pekron, and reporter, Sarah Parsons. Our next meeting will be November 10. The Milesville Rangers 4-H Club met Thursday, November 10, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. at the Milesville Hall.
It's Monday and it's cloudy at the moment and the wind is blowing but...we don't have that white stuff yet! Sounds like we may get some moisture later in the week! We could use some moisture before the ground freezes but just between you and me I prefer rain to snow at this point. And haven't we had some beautiful nights with that full moon making a most picturesque photo. I do enjoy those evenings when the sky is full of stars and there is a full moon. God does paint an awesome picture of natural beauty!
At their November 1 meeting the Haakon County Board of Commissioners approved a request by the county auditor to use a collection agency to obtain outstanding monies owed to the county. Auditor Patsy Freeman submitted a request to use the Credit Collections Bureau to collect decades of outstanding fines, court costs and attorney fees that have not been collected by Haakon County. She told the board that the agency would take 35 percent of all collections with no other charges to the county for their services. "We've tried to keep up with it and we can't," said Freeman.
The Philip Livestock Auction has expanded its livestock holding capability to approximately 2,000 head in its feedlot area, while allowing its barn area capability to still hold 8,000 head. The construction aspect of the expansion project began around the middle of August, 2010. A gravel road running north and south was put in just north of the original cattle pens. That road was completed the middle of October. Three feed bunks were then put in, one to the west of the road and two east of the road.
After earning her way through local and district talent contests, Kianna Knutson, Philip, represented South and North Dakota when she competed in the Midwest Regional Finals at the Menominee Casino in Keshena, Wis., Saturday, November 5. Knutson competed against seven other acts to determine who would proceed on to the national competition in Nashville. Each regional act had seven minutes on stage. Of the eight acts, two were duets, one duet being brothers, while the rest were individual performers. Three musicians were 17 years old.
Get breaking news delivered to your email.


text:
Grinnell guard scores record 138 points
Sophomore Jack Taylor broke previous record by 25 points
UPDATED 11:43 PM CST Nov 21, 2012
The NCAA's single-game scoring record wasn't just broken Tuesday night. It was shattered.
Jack Taylor of Grinnell College in Iowa put up 138 points in a 179-104 Division III basketball win over Faith Baptist Bible.
The sophomore guard put up an astounding 108 shots -- draining 52 of them.
Taylor was also 27-for-71 from 3-point range
According to the league, he broke the old NCAA scoring record by 25 points.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Don't Have an Account? Join the IHG® Rewards Club
Redeem when you want, for what you want.
Reward Nights When redeeming points for a Reward Night, you may only book one room at a time. Once you complete your Reward Night reservation you will be given the option to duplicate this reservation
* Requires affiliation in the respective organization.
** Best Available Rate Search does not include affiliation rates.
To book more than 9 rooms for one stay or request a quote, please use our Easy Meetings tool, call 1-800-MEETING (in United States, Mexico and Canada) or contact a Global Sales Office.
Located off I-95, our Holiday Inn Express® & Suites Jacksonville North - Fernandina is perfect for business and leisure travelers in North Florida. Our hotel's location offers convenient access to Jacksonville, Fernandina Beach, Amelia Island and the Kingsland, GA area.
Since our hotel's near Jacksonville, FL corporate guests enjoy the easy access to Jacksonville International Airport, only 10 miles away. In addition, our View More
Since our hotel's near Jacksonville, FL corporate guests enjoy the easy access to Jacksonville International Airport, only 10 miles away. In addition, our 24-hour business center is equipped with fax, copy, print and e-mail services. Don't forget our 350-square feet meeting room seats up to 16 guests and features A/V equipment.
If you're on vacation in North Florida, our hotel in Yulee offers accommodations that are close to everything. We're just minutes from Amelia Island and Fernandina Beach, so your family can spend more time enjoying the sun and sand. You can also spend a day on the greens of North Hampton Golf Course, designed by the legendary Arnold Palmer.
The list of our deluxe amenities is what helps us stand out among Yulee hotels near Jacksonville, FL. Guests can relax by the outdoor pool or burn off a few calories in the fitness center. Don't forget there's hotel-wide free Wi-Fi access and a complimentary HOT breakfast bar every morning that includes over 30 items such as fresh hot pancakes and cinnamon rolls!. Enjoy NFL Sunday Ticket, HBO, CNN, ESPN and much more all in HD!


text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
The inexorable trend is that victims will get a smaller and smaller share of the entitlements. The printed money by Bernarke are distributed as free money to the cronies like the Banksters.
I agree! We should let the banks fail, the corporations fail, and put everyone on the street. That will show them who's boss! And then we can pass a law giving us all $100,000 a year. Boy! Will they be sorry!
Oh economist why keep on saying the same punditry, we all know what you really want to say:
"Print more dollars, redistribute wealth, more bread circuses for everyone!"
Sigh. You really can't be bothered to say much more than this?
The most helpful thing for the beleaguered population is a strong economy. Even more so, a sea change in the mindset of the country, where we stop treating our own as disposable and fix our minds on the notion that working your ass off to be the best is reality. Too much of the American attitude, one like yours, is to think success is a birthright and short cuts and short term thinking is the way to go.
The trouble with that is, only one little person can ever BE "the best". In our society, the best and only the best gets anything, and gets wayyy more than the second best, with very little left over for anyone else.
This creates suffering. If only the very cream of the very tippity-top deserves any money, then they are the only ones who get decent lives. What, 300 million other people don't deserve anything, because they aren't "the best"?
I undersrtand your point, but I mean a diligent mindset, not so much as a winner take all society. Contrast this with the more prevelent notion of American exceptionalism. that people in America can expect to succeed simply because they went to college or what not, and take note that Japan, Germany and South Korea are all nations that seem to share a notion personal diligence.
Well, this is the notion we were all raised on. All I heard growing up was, "You're going to college so you can get a good job" and for decades, that WAS in fact the way it was.
Things started changing...right about the time I got out of college! People are starting to get that college isn't the answer anymore, but for decades everywhere you looked and everything you read said "college is the way to a better future" and "student loans are good debt! (Of COURSE you'll be able to pay them off!)"
*sigh* Many were sold a bill of goods.
At least fewer than 26,000 of U.S. Citizens will die due to lack of access to health care this year- actions speak louder than words.
More unsubstantiated factoids. Words speak louder than words
If anything, the pre-Affordable Care Act numbers are higher:
Coincidence is not causation. The group of people who do not have medical insurance includes many who have high risk employment - bank robbery, drug trafficking,... The may also have health habits that differ from those who buy health insurance. A comparison of two statistically different populations is a well-known fallacy in statistical studies.
The lame coincidence studies are carried out by morons with no understanding of statistics. Or worse - they know the mistake they are making, but publish anyway.
Without The Affordable Care Act, I wouldn't be able to have access to health care- not because I'm some kind of a criminal or drug addict, because I was hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk, on my way to my productive job. Having been denied care at the ER, I am painfully aware of the problem.
The private industry can't be left to health care- they have already demonstrated their failure, time and again, to do what is morally right. Citizens of this Country are dieing in the streets, for profit. That is wrong, regardless of your political affiliation.
By not purchasing health insurance, you have included yourself in a statistical population of "non-purchasers of health insurance". That population is different from those who purchase health insurance and a comparison of death rates of the two is therefore invalid, as anybody trained in the use of statistics knows. This fact has nothing to do with your particular anecdote. Are the "scientists"(?) at Harvard who published the paper you cited fools or liars?
I had a very small gap between coverage when switching jobs, so it's not like I never had insurance. The car struck me two days before my new policy began.
So I am not a "non-purchaser" as you would like to conveniently believe. Perhaps Rob, you are the fool whom is lying to yourself. There are several reasons someone my find themselves without insurance, including before the ACA, when insurers could just drop you for no reason.
Just because people may be considered "non-purchasers" for your statistical purposes does not make their lives any less valuable.
You miss the point completely. I am not addressing your particular story. I am addressing the fallacious use of statistics. Take the word of somebody trained in this discipline. The study you cited is flawed. It did not compare death rates for two identical groups, differing only in the availability of health insurance. This is a common flaw in statistical studies. The results of the study are meaningless and the motives of the investigators suspect.
Your particular story is a very unusual one. Every insurance plan I am familiar with has a Cobra option that permits bridging between jobs, for at least a month. Your story gets more complicated each time you tell it.
Rob S. - It seems that these "scientists" (!) from Harvard are not morons - ""The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health," said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D.," Any other variables/factors that need to be compensated for?
In my state, Louisiana,the entire public school system was wiped out in a day. Admittedly it was a failing school system, but rather that take the opportunity to rebuild it immediately after Katrina, the football team was the priority. The justification was that the economic impact of the team was vital to the city (the team is worth more that 600 million today and certainly could have paid for its own repais to the Superdome) and region and that the schools would benefit from those tax revenues. Well the school system is no better and is made up largely of charter schools with sporadic results. The point is that the project to renovate the Superdome enjoyed near unamious support(left and right) at all income levels. How this all relates is a that a central cause of poverty, and crime for that matter, is education but the priorty (and we are not the only state guilty of this)seems to be on everything fun. I enjoy sporting events as much as anyone but I do not agree with these public and private partnerships to build these massively expensive stadiums at taxpayer expense. At least cut the taxpayers in when the team is sold. I did not want to see the team leave, but that was the implication.
If we get our priorites right many of our burdens, including the issues raised in this article will start to improve.
Sometimes I feel bad for local politicians when dealing with the problem you mention. NFL and NCAA can blackmail the local government - "Give me what we want or we're outta of here."
This isn't something just happen with sports nor it is a US specific problem. It is so easy nowadays for any reasonable sized insitutitions and companies to relocate across state or even nation borders to gain taxation and political advantage.
Its all about arbitrage. Stop that and things will improve quite a bit.
But that cannot be stopped easily:
1) Each US states and different nations have different taxation. Amazon placed their distribution in HQ in TN just for that reason, and the Irish economic bubble is caused by low tax rate in Ireland.
2) There are salary parity across different nations. Oh... Made in China (and that will getting replaced by get Made in Burma or India).
A catch for this is while it is simple to talk about Laffer curve and models of foreign exchange. In reality, often no one know what is the optimal taxation and exchange rate. What the becomes to be the race of the lowest, and hopefully it does not go bust.
Always interesting to see the role that marriage plays in debates pertaining to this subject, as witnessed in both the article and numerous comments here. I find it a bit of a paradox given a divorce rate in USA of around 50% (yes, that's half!).
The statistics do not, of course, lie. What they do, however, indicate to me is that children born into committed and loving relationships have a much smaller chance of falling into the poverty trap. That has little to do with the institution (marriage) as such, although in the context of American society this may seem to be the case.
Other developed countries, e.g. Netherlands, do not have this problem in spite of the fact that the marriage % is much, much lower (as is, consequently, the divorce rate). They do have a legal and moral structure that broadly puts rights and responsibilities of non-married and married couples on equal footing, though.
The fiction that underlies the "marriage as a solution" argument in USA is that the (marriage) certificate is the supposed reason for committed and long term relationships.
America is not the Netherlands. Nor is it Scandinavia. In both of these locales it is common for couples to form life-time relationships and provide a stable, prosperous setting in which their offspring can prosper and mature. The "piece of paper" that is the marriage certificate is, indeed, not needed since the "marriage" exists in fact.
In America, there is no ethical and, really, no legal sanction that "puts rights and responsibilities of non-married and married couples on an equal footing." Single-motherhood in the States is, rather, almost always the result of poor personal decisions. As often as not, the mother in American single-parent families is a fifteen year-old black or Hispanic impregnated by a boy her same age who, himself, has close to no earning power and even less education. He is incapable of assuming "rights and responsibilities" and, in fact, is a child himself. If you visit, say, Copenhagen on a pleasant summer day you will see adult, unmarried couples wheeling their child's stroller through Tivoli Gardens. He may be a school teacher and she a software engineer and their child the center of their lives. If you stroll through the area where I teach, however, you are as likely to see a freshman or sophomore in high school wheeling a stroller alone on the way to the local "community center."
In short, I don't think that marriage makes for stable relationships -- I think that people in stable relationships get married. In the USA, half of all women thirty years or younger who are mothers are SINGLE mothers. It is now the norm (NYT 2/17/2012.) Sex and motherhood for this population is, especially for the younger cohort among it, like a random collision of particles -- a sort of Brownian Motion of the body.
For the increasingly large American lower class, we typically find neither a stable relationship nor a "piece of paper."
I understand that the USA is not Netherlands or Sweden, having travelled, worked, and family/friend ties in all of those. That is why it frustrates me to see marriage being posed as the solution, since, as you yourself say, it does not neccessarily make for a stable ralationship. If those unmarried Hollanders, Swedish etc. have such different charactericstics compared to the US ones, surely the question is why that is so, and it's the answers to that that should be worked on.
"I think that people in stable relationships get married" is exactly that is NOT happening in Netherlands and Sweden, since there is little need (other than possibly religious or personal moral ones), and it's precisely on this point that we disagree. The majority of Dutch 25-45 year old couples are single.
I do understand and respect your opinion, and I know to a large extent where you're coming from, and likely you're right regarding my aspirations for USA: I'm fighting windmills, and against deeply ingrained cultural and moral norms.
I agree that Marriage is not necessary, only the stable relationship that provides an environment conducive to where offspring can be raised that are capable of gaining the values and skillets necessary to function in a modern economy.
I see the US approach and much of the West as dictating from ontop from government (everyone should get married/tax break for marriage etc) instead of cultivating values and culture where everyone agrees inherently on what is necessary for a properly functioning society.
Confucius realized this thousands of years ago, This is why the legalist Qin dynasty fell (legalism was the belief that big government through rigid dictated laws would produce a prosperous society) and was replaced by Confucianism, a bottom top approach where culture and values inspire people to act in the right ways.
Single parents receive child benefits or such government handouts.
In many cases, the mother lives with her children's father, but the children are declared 'from unknown father.'
While I don't advocate it, I have known several marriages which have stayed together until the children have grown, and then the couple split. Happy? No. Helpful to the children and kept them out of poverty? Certainly so.
The bottom 40% of U.S. households pay NO FEDERAL TAXES except for a very small Social Security Tax. By contrast, EU residents pay VAT on most every purchase, and I think the rates are over 20%, depending on country and item purchased? To get to that overall rate in the U.S. a person would have to make more than a living wage (do the numbers.) I guess what I am saying is that if the U.S. charged a 20% VAT on its poor and lower middle class it could afford more social benefits too. Maybe we should consider that too.
But don't teach sex education to grade schoolers, don't provide birth control to pre-teens and teenagers, and 'God Forbid!' don't ever have an open and honest conversation with your children about sexuality and the repercussions of exploring it! No NO NO NOOO!! Just keep burying your head in the sand and blame 'personal choices'... yeah... um... isn't that EXACTLY what a parent is supposed to do? Help a pre-teen/teenager understand exactly WHAT those choices are so they CAN make a good decision?
People in this forum have discussed the 'Calivinist' roots of some of our 'wealth is success' culture, but don't mention the other truly debilitating cultural religious 'baggage' we carry. The 'Puritan' influence on our cultural values and legal system is just an anchor weighing us down. Just my two cents of course, but from personal experience... my parents insisted on my siblings and I starting sex education at 8 years of age with 'full disclosure' from day one on what it was all about and the ramifications of pregnancy on a person's life, etc., and what do you know... two girls and four boys and not a single 'teenage/uncommited relationship' pregnancy amongst us. Not a coincidenc methinks.
Well, we don't find a stable home life where these children are coming from, and we don't find high aspirations for their future or a realistic hope of getting there.
Children coming out of a home where there is poverty and poor parenting are desperately needy and unhappy, and they have emotional problems. They have sex because they need to feel love and stability they never got at home. If you have these basic emotional needs met in a home where physical needs were met and you had two parents who were stable in their own lives and ready and wanting to take care of you, you don't need to do stupid things as a teenager and young adult in a frantic effort to belong and be wanted somewhere. Additionally, the child who sees a realistic trajectory up and out of poverty and into the middle class, is likely to delay the gratification of sex because they don't want to mess up their future.
In poor neighborhoods, most kids are likely to say, "What future?"
Why are we supposed to charge people who already don't have enough to live on...more money??
Have you looked at a tax table lately? If you are too poor to pay income tax, you are VERY poor indeed.
Even in the years when I worked at McDonald's in the summer, I ALWAYS owed income tax.
Lots of issues here are highlighted...I think the solutions lie in Thomas Friedman's book..The world is Flat. Outsourcing being rampant, should tell us that these displaced workers need retraining in different skills, meaning retraining programs along with their unemployment checks, some kind of workfare programs, more emphasis on education for children of the poor. Since 93 % of black Americans and 71% of Latinos voted for the president, what is being done for them today and the past 4 years?
But who's going to provide these training platforms? No private entity would run a business for free, and the if it is a government programme then everyone would be taxed even more. Obamacare will already be projected to enlarge the deficit to ridiculous realms, this retraining programme would not be a welcomed addition for the American People.
And, since so many blacks and latinos voted for re-electing Obama, surely it must mean that he's doing a great job for them so far with that big "Hope". Why spend more time or tax payer's money on that issue?
Training for what?? Training programs serve only one purpose - jobs for trainers. We fill our universities and colleges with young people, who invest large amounts of money, theirs and ours, and graduate with NO skills that can lead to productive employment. But they have guaranteed well-paid employment for the higher education industry.
Given Friedman's long association with academia, it is not a surprise that he imagines education to be the solution for our problems.
In the 1960's President LBJ started his Great Society programs which include billions of dollars for training mostly urban poor and minorities. Every so often the General Accounting Office would look into the money spent and the number of people who actually became employed. The conclusion was always the same; "very few of the retrained entered the job force in their area of training." In other words, the training program was hugely expensive and yielded very little results. The programs eventually terminated.
Lots of people do not really want to work, or are not willing to do what it takes. But they are more than willing to take the free training allowance and go to free classes. This is what bothers so many people, especially those who have to pay the taxes which fund it.
This is why the left and right with their combined non-sensical policies are destroying the US.
First, the far right with their anti-abortion, anti-family planning stance are guaranteed to increase the number of children born to single parents. But then they want to cut welfare and other social services for the poor, so this results in more single parent households in poverty, poor school results, increased crime etc.
Next, the far left with their lenient immigration policies to enrich their vote bank from latinos, allowing ever more cheap labor from the 3rd world to flood our job market (and welfare) causing high unemployment and stagnant wages. The illiterate from Mexico takes away the low skilled farm, service job and manufacturing jobs. Then there are the millions of Indians and other asians taking away the low to mid skill white collar jobs from our college grads, forcing them to take the service jobs from the poor. Our high school dropouts are being squeezed at both ends of the job market. Still, magazines like TE are calling for more immigration, while the media continues to drum up the latino vote fear brow beating our politicians into approving ever more leninet immigration policies for 3rd worlders.
Both the far left and far right are doing their best to run the country to the ground. When will we have a centrist government that governs based on commonsense rather than idealogies?
When the ignorant masses can elect competent leaders.
So never in our current direct liberal democracy, same thing will happen as in Greece, they (and us) will continue to elect leaders not based on competency but the ability to pander to special interest eventually causing the whole system to collapse like in Greece.
Leniency on immigration laws is not a far-left policy.
If Ms Hamilton's hand was "mangled" on the worksite then she is, in every one of the fifty states, entitled to Worker's Compensation. If she is now 'unable to work," she can collect benefits for life. She may also be entitled to SNAP and the Earned Income-Tax Credit. She may also be eligible for permanent, partial disability payments for life under Social Security. Ms Hamilton seems to have a difficult life and I wish her well but as a struggling citizen she is not without (substantial) resources.
As to Ms Durham who works 61.5 hours a week and collects $31,500 for her efforts -- that is about what I make each year for about the same number of hours as a teacher. Now, there is a HUGE difference -- I don't need the money. I am well-off and teach as a retirement hobby. However, my associates -- all very well-educated and dedicated -- make about the same amount of money as Ms. Durham and myself and they support their families. Some, I believe, are on SNAP but while they are not rich they are also not ground-down by poverty.
Most of us believe we have a duty to others. On the whole, the USA recognizes this duty and with the passage of Obamacare may finally fill a yawning failure to perform it. Still, when Romney talked about the "safety net" he was largely correct.
The Economist article was fair and balanced and a nice departure from the usual liberal moaning about THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL. I was especially impressed with its lengthy acknowledgment of the part that marriage plays in averting poverty. This should seem to be so obvious that it would hardly need restating, yet the Left so idolizes single-motherhood and so demonizes many of the rest of us for stating the obvious -- single-mothers struggle -- that this fact cannot be reiterated too often.
I remember the savage Left response to Moynihan's 1965 report. (I think that event may have been the origin of the tired phrase "blaming the victim.") It all seemed so obvious -- two parents living apart double the cost for themselves of many of the basics (housing, insurance, etc.) of life. A young single mother cuts herself off from further education and training and is behind the eight-ball for life. A child raised without a father in the hand is, statistically, far, far more likely to grow up poor and then, as an adult, live life in poverty. He is also far more likely to have trouble with the law.
Given the existence of Worker's Compensation, Section 8, Social Security Disability Payments, SNAP, Public Health Care (at last!) and free public education, it would seem entirely feasible to eliminate substantial poverty from American life. Has that happened?
The Left usually attacks conservatives for wanting to "legislate morality" for desiring that children be raised in intact families. The Left then almost ALWAYS proposes yet more "government programs" to "fight poverty" but poverty just continues to gain. So, who benefits from all this massive spending? Well it is pretty much the Left that benefits -- politicians are reelected by a grateful constituency for sending that constituency checks (blacks and Hispanics) and, of course, an army of literally millions of program administrators, civil servants, social workers, special ed teachers . . . those sort of birds.
Our programs for the poor are, really, subsidies to the middle-class. These graduate with their liberal arts degrees, slot themselves into a comfortable job administering this government largess and never have to look back. There is a good reason why the Left does not like to mention marriage as a solution to poverty -- it would put THEM into poverty!
Thanks to TE for a good article.
Conservatives haven't framed marriage in terms of helping poverty, it's a compelling case as this article states.
Instead they frame it in terms of biblical morality, intact two parent families should make them enthusiastic supporters of gay marriage yet they oppose it.
Frame the lack of marriage not as a moral failing, or a gender obligation, but as solution to poverty and you'll get left wing support. Framing it as "Out of wedlock birth is a sin" as the vast majority of conservatives do just makes people feel like they are judging them and are not concerned with their well being.
Also, as part of increasing marriage is decreasing the amount of out of wedlock births. That in mind, the conservative opposition to available contraception and sex education of the kind that keeps Sweden with very low teenage pregnancy is insane.
Conservatives have made the case for marriage in terms of religious judgement and moral decay. They've also been very vocal in opposing the kind of sex education and access to contraception that reduces teen pregnancy.
If they promoted marriage, the same way this article does, they'd find bipartisan support.
We want to help is always better than "You're living a sinful lifestyle."
I see your point . . . but isn't this splitting hairs? Living "a sinful lifestyle" when it creates poverty and lack of opportunity for children born in such a circumstances seems, to me at least, to be something very like a sin. I don't mean a gross moral failing that damns one's soul but, rather, an irresponsible lifestyle that inflicts suffering on one's self and those helpless kids who are dragged down with you.
As for sex ed and contraceptives, it is all around us. Sweden does "better" at this because it has a homogeneous, small population.
We can call this state of affair anything we want. We can call it "sin" or we can call it "late for supper." The fact is that it is immensely damaging to children.
It's not splitting hairs. Go back to the environmental movement in the 80's. After notable successes with the Clean Air and Water acts, the activists went off the deep end.
They started pushing for the preservation of green space based on it's intrinsic moral value and talking about Mother Earth and engaging in a sort of nature mysticism. They moved away from the down to earth "We don't want our rivers to catch on fire" message that had won broad based support. There was an overreach and a severe backlash that lasted for over a decade.
Nowadays, the Earth mystics are marginalized and the people at the Sierra Club or World Wildlife Foundation make their arguments in terms of economics. "A nature preserve here will mean 50 million dollars of fisheries revenue there." They started speaking the language of business and economics and long term growth. Now, these groups lobby businesses to be environmentally conscious by saying it's good for their bottom line, before it was "You're evil and we hate you so change."
So no even if the end is the same, how you deliver and promote your message is very important.
The "homogeneous population" excuse is a copout. Go type "teen pregnancy by state" into Google and you'll find that abstinence only education states have the worse record on it.
Having a child outside of wedlock needs to be framed as a poor idea economically that hurts the child, not as a moral failing that destroys the fabric of America.
The "sin" narrative is never heard by those it targets as "Love the sinner, Hate the sin." They just hear "Why didn't you know better at age 15 not to sleep with your boyfriend? You're a terrible person."
And honestly, I doubt it was actually stated with the intent of "love the sinner hate the sin" anyway. In the end, that phrase, along with "it's god's will", is nothing more than a pathetically lazy excuse used to freely condemn people in the name of religion.
"Freely condemning in the name of religion" is actually involvement. It is caring, in its own objectionable way, for those whose behavior rebounds on their well-being.
Not giving a damn -- "you have every right to hurt yourself and those who depend on you and we will defend that right" -- is what is really cold.
I have to wonder if a simple system of harping on the parents each day about what they are doing for themselves and the offspring. How have they expanded their support system, etc? But also, many of the problems listed are ones of finance that bankrupts them, and here I don't mean credit cards. When income is sporadic and unreliable, crises like a family death or other major expense can utterly destroy what little resources a family may have, like a car. Availability of microfinancing a la Grameen bank might offer the very poor a pathway out of ruinous short term loans.
There is much to be said about how the welfare system disenfranchised fathers, as eligibility depends on the lack of a father. But I can be tough minded about this. Don't have a job, well you will to break rocks or pick fruit to earn what feeds the kids, and if you don't like that then what are you doing to get yourself out of the situation?
A. Andros,
Maybe these boys and grils aren't poor because they have kids when they are 17. Maybe they have kids because they are poor.
Sweden and other NW-European countries don't have a relatively low rate of teenage pregnancy because they are homogeneous. They are far more diverse than you seem to think. The big difference with the US seems to be that there's less poverty.
Another thing that struck me when I was living in the US was this: Europeans - at least the Europeans I know - are sexually far more conservative than Americans. This may sound strange - after all, several European countries have gay marriage (we even have an openly gay prime minister), boyfriends are allowed to sleep over etc. But the implicit ideal still is a monogameous relationship between two partners. It's all very middle class.
If you give "the poor" a fair chance to become middle class, they probably will try to live according to these middle class values.
I agree with you about the value of marriage, but I think you mischaracterize the left's position. Maybe at the time of Moynihan's 1965 report there were extreme leftists who felt as you describe, but time and experience silenced them, or caused them to change their minds, long ago. You will find very few defending single parenthood these days, from any part of the political spectrum.
I believe that over 50% of birth in the U.K. are to single women. The state pays for all the costs forever. I guess this is working-out for the U.K. (Actually, it isn't but I am not sure they have figured it out yet.)
Can you please explain your last statement?
I know a number of very poor people and chances abound but they refuse to engage the opportunities handed to them. Free school. Free tutoring.
My experience is that the smarter the person, (many TE readers) the more unwilling or unable to understand that everyone is not like them, and they conclude that the reason someone is poor is that success is being withheld by someone else. On the contrary, usually it is being refused when offered!
Stop giving excuses to hatemongers.
"Sweden and other NW-European countries" are toy nations. And, no, they aren't diverse by American standards -- I used to work for a Scandinavian company and was there all the time. New York City, alone, has a population roughly equal to Sweden and has, altogether, more non-whites than ALL of Scandinavia combined. America also replenishes its poverty via immigration to an extent that staggers other countries. I wish the Swedes, Andorans and citizens of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick all the best but they are just the "Outer boroughs" of Europe. Real countries, such as Russia, France and Germany, have many of the problems we see in America.
I do agree with you on European sexual morality being somewhat more conservative -- except in Britain, which is a sort of stiff-upper-lip House of the Rising Sun.
As for your last paragraph, I would reword it: "The poor will become middle class WHEN they live according to middle class values." These values include finishing school, starting a family after marriage, showing up for work every day on time, putting a little money aside and not spending beyond income. It's not that complex.
I am pondering your assertion that something "that hurts the child" (your words) is not "a moral failing" (again, your words.)
If hurting a child's physical, emotional and material well-being as a result of one's own voluntary actions is not "immoral," then what action DOES so qualify --not reading the NYT Style Section?
"The Left usually attacks conservatives for wanting to "legislate morality" for desiring that children be raised in intact families. The Left then almost ALWAYS proposes yet more "government programs" to "fight poverty" but poverty just continues to gain."
Before Social Security most of the elderly in this country lived in poverty.
This article describes several poor families. If we (the taxpayers) gave each of these families an extra $300,000 per year in medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, WIC, and heating assistance...all of them would still be classified as "poverty level". Why? Because America's poverty measurements do not take into account any form of non-cash government assistance. Until this problem is corrected it is not possible to help the poor. Under the current system, we can't even identify who is really poor.
I would rather cancel all those "programs" and just give them cash, and then see what that does. It would be a good experiment.
I've always wondered about how much all the hoops you have to jump through (and the administration thereof) cost. If you just cut that all out, handed over a bit of the overhead savings in cash, would it actually be cheaper?
For example, someone I know of had 3 children. The father assaulted her and was dishonorably discharged from the military (which actually was lenient, for what he did he should have been locked up for a significant period). However, the catch-22 is that the discharge effectively killed his lifetime earning potential. He paid no child support. The woman had to receive benefits.
She found a likely job in another county. She moved, but unfortunately was downsized shortly thereafter. She then had to reapply for the same benefits she had before due to being in another county, even though it was approximately a 15 mile difference in location. During the application process, they received an absolute minimum in support as emergency funds, at which point even money for gas wasn't available so she was unable to continue to look for work.
I'm in no way looking for unlimited funds for those in poverty; what I want is enough funds, structured in a way that allows them to continue to look for work and provide their children with an environment that assists them in raising them to be productive citizens. For single mothers it is particularly hard; daycare can cost a huge amount of money, making the breakeven point for working vs just staying at home and collecting benefits quite high.
What I don't understand is, why it seems no one is willing to discuss imposing population control measures.
If you would like more children, you have to be able to afford them. Limit the family size, limit the amount of children, and you reduce the number of possible dependents.
Years ago, this would have had an adverse effect on the labor force,reducing the pool of skilled and unskilled labor needed by firms and companies. But, in this post-manufacturing era in America, we do not need to replenish the workforce as fast. We do not need as many workers.
Opponents of welfare and transfer payments to the non-working poor do not take into account that if everyone of these "freeloaders" actually pursued a job or a career, unemployment would increase dramatically.
Why is this never discussed?
What you say is doable! Have you ever watched those nature specials on TV where game wardens roam about with a tranquilizer gun and subdue fierce creatures without harming them? Why couldn't something similar work in America.
This would allow us to "impose population control measures," as you suggest. Why not equip a SWAT team with guns equipped to shoot mini-syringes of Dopa-Prevera or some other contraceptive and have them ride around minority and poor areas in unmarked SUVs? They could fire out the windows at blacks, Hispanics and the poor and render them infertile for lengthy periods of time.
This would not harm the lesser breeds without the law but would relieve the rest of us of the burden of their spawn. It's too bad the Crocodile Hunter was killed by that stingray -- he could have shown us the way.
... why not suggest sell half the United States to China, thus completely ridding the debt once and for all?!
... why not suggest sell half the United States to China, thus completely ridding the debt once and for all?!
I'm going to assume since you target only "blacks and Hispanics" you disagree with my post.
If we pay people to reproduce...they will.
By rewarding low income families with government subsidies...you are encouraging families with more than 1 child. Start paying the poor to not have children, take away the economic incentive to have children, and it will have a negative impact on population growth.
Population control does not work, especially if it is another government-controlled programme. There is a correlation that in lesser developed nations families have more children, as, despite having less income, there is manufacturing, low-skilled labour requirement available. However, the U.S. certainly has moved into an advanced economy, and relies very little on home-grown manufacturing. Yet, there are still those in the low-skilled, poor category creating child after child. Clearly, reality doesn't affect their choices to reproduce, why would a government incentive work? A question should be asked, is that if the US economy has indeed advanced, why hasn't the federal education system advanced in a way that teaches the core skills required more efficiently. Or even, why hasn't this liberal education system taught teenagers basic morality; instead, it is teaching them how to avoid accidental pregnancy, and the laws on abortion. It is understandable that the former requires time. If so, then the government should not have made it more favourable for job creators to outsource manufacturing labour elsewhere in the first place.
So, that's why federal government controlled anything will never work.
Hey, the majority of poor are still what we call white. Urban poor are non white, but the bulk of the poor are all whitey like us. So we just need game wardens in rural areas where they are located.. u_u
Whites are more easily seen in the dark, why not start with them?
As a person who was born in poverty and has worked their way out of poverty I think I have an insight that is not been discussed to much in the article. Your network has a huge impact on the trajectory of your life. In my most recent job search I had the privilege of having a network of smart forward thinking people to discuss the direction of the global economy with so I could choose a career that will be on the winning side of globalization not the outsourced side. Coming to this decision was not something I could have done on my own, and this kind of planning is not an option for most people in poverty. While I had to work to build the skills necessary to enter my chosen field, knowing what skills to acquire is a direct result of deliberately surrounding myself with people who could help me reach such important decisions. Many people I've known who failed to escape the poverty trap failed to do so because they lacked the knowledge to do so. Their lack of knowledge seems to be a direct result of their network as a whole lacking the knowledge of how to escape poverty. You can see how this is detrimental to a person wishing to escape poverty, and why so many never take a first step.
A second issues that is not discussed which is very important to why people get stuck in poverty is the amount of stress borne by people in poverty. When one is in poverty you are constantly having to struggle to meet the basic needs of you and any family you may have. This has two huge effects:
1) A near constant release of stress hormones
2) A rewiring of the brain to cope with this stress
It is well documented that stress hormones have a very negative mental and physical health. The brain rewires its self to cope with extreme and consistent stress (think PTSD). Asa result of this rewiring it becomes more difficult to escape poverty because the brain has changed its self to better cope with poverty and is thus less able to cope with not being in poverty. If we fail to address the persistent de facto segregation that exists and continue to ignore the prevalence of mental illness we will never address the root causes of persistent poverty.
So, now the poor are mentally ill.
Banana oil!
The point of this discussion and this article is to touch briefly on the topics surrounding poverty in America not oversimplify its causes and effects. What I am pointing does not simply cast those in poverty as mentally ill (a preposterous assertion) but to point out the deep impact living with persistent substantial stress has on people. My point is that policy which fails to help people obtain the skills necessary to cope with and plan around stress will fail to fully address the problem. People make worse decisions under stress, so it follows that people under persistent stress will make consistently worse decisions which in aggregate will cause more people to be unable to escape poverty. If there were simple ways to break poverty, they would already be implemented and poverty would no longer be an issue. Since that is not the case I am proposing that these two features of poverty which are seldom discussed can have a huge impact on poverty alleviation and need to be given substantial consideration.
You are so wrong! When Ronald Reagan began cutting funds for mental health services, the number of homeless began to rise. As each president continued to cut services to both aid to families and mental health services, the problem was exacerbated, and the homeless began to include families. I've been the both as a child and as a parent. I have bi-polar and tried so hard to keep it together as I raised my child, but there were too many times that I was too sick to stay employed, and we ended up homeless. This is a timely and accurate portrait of poverty and stress. Until you know what it's like or have been there, you have no idea what you're talking about. Attitudes like yours are not helpful, but are part of the problem.
NO, but any tendency to mental illness is much worse under chronic, unrelenting stress and survival-level fear.
My parent has BPD and she is much, much worse under stress.
(I think he was being facetious, up there, Patricia Rede.) :)
Nice article - you've tried to remain factual and neutral, only sporadically flashing your own preferences. Thanks! It is so hard for heartless people like me to read articles claiming that we absolutely have to sell the sofa to help the poor...
Given that you've written a honest article, I'll do my best to offer a honest commentary:
1. About the manufacturing jobs: it is true, but they are not coming back. No one is going to pay $25/h for jobs that can be done for $4/h elsewhere. The few manufacturing jobs that do come back will be pretty high tech - maybe you don't need to be an engineer to work those machines, but you'll have to be pretty close
2. About the fact that a majority of children are born in poor families: real problem, there are solutions, but they requires the let to take its head out of its #$@ and address things like unmarried parenhood and such.
3. Serious re-direction of spending has to be done to help those who are the "most vulnerable" (gee, I hate that expression, but it is right). This means focusing more resources into poor children than in wealthy elderly, more in final recipients and less on public employees. Less defense and more education. And, please, don't throw money into a bankrupt educational system and its unions: chuck them and start from scratch
Final point - and one that pains me to admit. People need to pay more taxes. What?!?! More taxes?! Yep, those quacks in the left are right about that. They are wrong to pretend that only "the rich" will have to pay, but then expecting nummeracy form some people in the left may be too much. "The rich" simply don't have the power to cover all those costs by themselves. The middle class (oh no!) will have to chip in as well - perhaps even giving up bits of the social safety net that was not intended for it anyway
Good post. Nice to read a "middle of the road" (not left and not right) post for a change.
I have one word. Automation. I have a career in destroying jobs by using all kinds of automation. Today the office workers look nothing like an office 20 years ago. Manufacturing is no different and even Foxon in China that makes Apple products is automating instead of hiring more people to meet demand.
I dont want to talk to someone at the bank, I would rather online bank or use an ATM. I would rather scan my stuff at the market then wait behind the long line of idiots writing checks and asking stupid questions. The more things automate, the less we have need for people that have no education and can not do things that require thought.
If you are a Republican then please try to gather like-minded people around you and take over the party - it needs intellectually honest moderates like you.
Not just Americans, everybody has an interest in sanity and moderation returning to the political system of the world's strongest country.
@ "tryworkingforaliving": Most people DO work. They still can't earn enough to get by.
The overwhelming problem for America's poor is that they have children they can't afford. Not to be crass, but to me that greatly detracts from the "victim of circumstances" argument. Deciding to have children is a choice that has forseeable financial consequences.
While what your saying is not incorrect, it is missing the point. Poverty is a process with a positive feedback loop. If you are born in poverty, you are surrounded by people in poverty, you learn how to make decisions from people in poverty, you learn values from people in poverty and you learn how to plan (or fail to plan) from people in poverty. Knowing this it is an obvious extension of poverty that people in poverty are more likely to make decisions that will keep them in poverty. Vilifying people whose actions prove they on average make worse decisions does not help solve the problem of making bad decisions.
You are thoughtful and intelligent. I have enjoyed reading your responses to this article.
I agree with what you have written above wholeheartedly, but I hope that you can see that those not in poverty don't think that it is their responsibility to break that cycle. It is a bit patronizing to tell other adults what to do. I know that I hate people telling me how to live my life.
What do you think would be a good solution to this problem
However, you assume that the poverty cycle cannot be broken. This is true if you believe that those in poverty will be separated from the rest of society in 2012 America and believe that the poor are always dependent on help and can never achieve economic independence. Change is hard for people, but if there is the right condition for change, more favourable than status quo, than people will change. Has the welfare-loving government done enough to break the cycle? No. Instead,it has "respected" the cycle, and respected the right for people to live in the cycle. And, to secure this right, tax payers' money must be used to support these people's dignity to live in this cycle. Why is it impossible to break away from the cycle through self-mobilisation? Because the government has made advanced education more expensive without really improving its effectiveness in the current advanced economy. Why don't they simply fill in low-skilled jobs then? Because there aren't enough low-skilled jobs to go on, and may already be filled by high-skilled graduates with useless degrees.
So, is the solution to continue respecting the right to live in a poverty cycle, taxing the rich or job creators more, or is it better to create a more favourable economic base for job creators to re-source low-skilled labour at home so those in poverty can become self-reliant?
I totally agree with you that it is patronizing to tell adults how to live there life, but where you're born has a huge impact on what you will do as an adult. In fact, being born is the most important thing that happens to an individual. To illustrate this it is helpful for me to think about poverty in probabilistic terms. Consider the following thought experiment, if we were to plot a distribution function of the possible life outcomes for an individual on an axis representing their expected peak income based on the conditions they were born into we would have a roughly normal distribution with a mean value about equal to their parents peak income. Using this framework if we think about the "life outcome distribution" of a person born into a wealthy family the shape of their distribution would likely have a more narrow left tail, a fatter right tail and the mean would fall much further to the right on the axis. If we think of the distribution of a person born into poverty it would be more narrowly distributed around the mean with a fatter left tail than right tail. What this says is that those in poverty are more likely to face an extreme negative outcome where as those born into affluence are more likely to face an extreme positive outcome. The policy implications of this thought experiment is that we need to focus on minimizing the random risk people face as a result of where they are born. To me addressing this has less to do with direct transfers of wealth to adults (I believe children need all of the direct assistance they can get), and a greater emphasis on teaching people to compete in a global workforce and to empower them with the network to do so. This should include but is not limited to:
Education reform centered focused on adaptability, math and science.
Encouraging greater networking across socioeconomic groups.
Encouraging greater private-public partnership in education and especially in adult education.
Addressing mental illness more seriously since it's impact is greatly understated and long lasting.
Increased access to birth-control.
Subsidizing work related relocation for the poor.
In my mind addressing these issues will help alleviate the disadvantages people are born into and go a long way to softening the affects of poverty.
That is fantastic and to the point. I believe poverty has no cure as it is a mindset which is why some can leave it and some can not. Toss in automation and you have a problem that will only get worse.
An excellent post. This may sound crass, but I've always likened welfare spending to growing crops. You water the plants while they are seeds and they are young. If you wait until they've grown up and stunted, more water won't do much.
That isn't to say people are irredeemable past a certain age. It's more that we shouldn't allow it to reach that point - to the extent possible, which I don't believe we're anywhere near.
The GOVERNMENT made advanced education more expensive??
SOMEBODY is making an awful lot off the interest and fees on student loans, and it isn't the government. It's a private, for profit business called the student loan industry, and colleges-for-profit.
I believe mental illness has a lot to do with the "mindset" and the refusal to change by some. The only people I have known who truly had an entitlement mentality ("*I* shouldn't HAVE to work!") were deeply mentally ill. I know the rabid conservatives believe every poor person is this way, but the fact is most that most healthy people want to work and take care of themselves. If you do nothing, you feel like nothing in this society, and those for those who don't there's generally a deeper explanation. Did you know that an estimated 9% of the population suffers from a personality disorder?
The US should be reluctant to give cash transfers to the poor. Outside of nations that generate a significant portion of their public revenue from natural resources, such programs are an affront to property rights.
What's needed in the US is to shift social spending from the elderly to the young. Better schools, perhaps including charters that operate as boarding schools, would go a long way towards ensuring that everyone in the US has sufficient opportunity to succeed based on their talents and motivation.
Do you know how much it costs to be old and unable to cook and do for yourself in this country??
The major problem in America is that our jobs are moving towards higher education/higher skilled jobs while our low income sectors continue to have more children per family than our high income sectors. Our jobs and our demographics are moving in opposite directions. Two solutions: invest a lot in education in ways that take a holistic approach to community building, or find ways to limit the growth of low-income families, for instance free, easy to access contraception. Unfortunately, both of these fly in the face of what the Left is willing to agree to. If they want to talk about the problem, they'd better be willing to offer one of the above two solutions.
I do not think the left are opposed to your thoughts here. Education for all doesn't seem partisan nor does easy access contraception as evidenced by planned parenthood appear to be opposed by the liberals.
So sorry, Ungg, you're right. That was a total mind gap on my part. I meant that the right won't stomach either of those issues. Holistic education in America's poor communities of the type this country needs is super expensive, which means higher taxes or more debt - both of which have been lines in the sand drawn by the right. As far as birth control, with the new Republican platform seeking to ban abortion, the Republican-backed Blunt amendment, Limbaugh's attacks on that poor woman from Georgetown, etc. they're also unlikely to stomach that solution either.
Ah, I understand what you now mean, dangr.
I reckon that education for America's poor communities would be a non partisan issue, but it has been as of lately for some reason. The only instance of where voters allowed a tax increase to occur for education was in the state of California for prop 30. I am curious if this helps in any way shape or form.
As for your comment on birth control, I agree with your previous comment and your response. I can only hope the parties can focus on the intersection rather than the symmetric differences.
We don't need more money for education in this country. I don't know where you live, but here in Austin we spend around $10,000 dollars per student per year. We need better education for sure, but more money won't fix what is wrong (no parent involvement being issue number 1).
I'm on "the Right", and I certainly wouldn't mind the "holistic education" approach or raising taxes to pay for it, as long as it was done right and can guarantee results for a reasonable cost.
That being said, I doubt that we'll get near the necessary efficacy or efficiency from a government program with our current political system. Any attempt would be terminally burdened by pork, racial divisions, and ineptitude.
As for birth control, free access to contraceptives and abortions won't do much when fairly large subsets of the population want large families even when they cannot afford them. Unless you're willing to forcibly sterilize these people, the most tenacious aspect of the positive feedback loop will remain. And I'm guessing you're not willing to do that.
I'd still support "free" contraceptives ("the Pill", condoms, IUDs, etc) and "free" abortions before the fetus is viable (~24 weeks), but I don't expect it will have much of an impact where it really needs to.
I live in Austin and have made a point to be involved and available to my son's school. The educational system still let us down. The system is broken. If your children don't learn in the typical way, if they do not fit the correct mold, they get slapped around pretty hard by the system. So do the teachers that try to help.
Maybe your figure is correct, but I can't tell you where that money was going, the class sizes are unacceptable, and the special education department is severely underfunded. What's more, there are steps that can be taken in a normal classroom that would help all students and address many special ed needs. But not with 30+ students.
Look up the cost of getting an IUD even with insurance. Also look up the correlation between abstinence states and teen-pregnancy rates.
Education and ease of access to contraception could in fact make a huge difference.
I'm so glad I was able to see the "Widespread problem" map while the electoral college map from Tuesday night's election was still seared on my retinas. Take a look: to an uncanny degree, the darkest areas of the Economist's map are the reddest areas on the electoral map. Now we see why all those people in the south, west, and plains states vote Republican--because they've got a whole lot of poor people living among them and they are just scared stiff that they're going to have to give up some of their goodies.
"the official federal poverty threshold of $11,702 in annual income for an individual or $23,201 for a family of four"
Wait a second, if we only look at nominal income to determine what constitutes poverty then we are counting the wrong people. In California prices (of everything not just housing) are substantially higher than the national average, meaning that $11,702 doesn't go as far in San Francisco as it does in Mississippi, in fact even $30,000 in San Francisco doesn't go as far as $11,702 in Mississippi.
We should be looking at what it costs to buy a given "minimum consumption bundle" in each state, and set that as the poverty line in that state. Hopefully that is the system that is being used and the number given by The Economist is merely a national average of varying state poverty lines.
If that is not how the poverty line is being calculated, and a single national poverty line is being used to generate this map (i.e. treating $11,702 like it is worth the same in Cali as in Ole Miss, when it clearly isn't), then the map should show substantially more people in poverty in the Blue states than it currently does once adjusted for actual Purchasing-Power to account for the regional price differentials.
Even State-by-State poverty lines are lacking in information. There's every bit as big a difference in how far that $11,702 will go in San Francisco or Davis as there is between how far it will go in San Francisco or Mississippi
Their goodies are theirs-- not something they possess merely because the government "generously" refrained from taking it. Poor people contribute to the depth of their own situation in staggering numbers of ways. A galactic vortex of bad decisions. But the only thing we hear from the Left is "poor people shouldn't have to be lectured." YES THEY SHOULD. That they must be lectured and lectured constantly is a categorical imperative. I see no point in discussing any kind of compromise until liberals give up their pet ideas that culture and pride are unrelated to spending patterns, or that spending is unrelated to poverty.
Yes, but the net recipients in even those states will still have a tendency to vote a certain way (can you guess?.) I actually find it telling that those states (and inviduals residing in said states) which have the greatest exposure to federal poverty and transfer programs express the greatest oposition to said programs. If they were working or provided a decent return on investment, I can't imagine that these individuals would be in opposition to what is mostly "free" federal monies.
The "net recipients," are in the minority. I don't think it's the exposure to the programs that's driving the voting pattern, I think it's the exposure to the poor and the nagging certainty of eventually being called upon to do more for them.
Given the unambiguous correlation between unmarried parenthood and subsequent poverty, it's clear that there is a role for challenging this behaviour as a PART of a poverty reduction strategy. When the left is willing to do this, it should be taken seriously; until then its nostrums are to be treated with some caution.
I'm curious about your claim that the left refuses to "challenge this behaviour" in order to reduce poverty. If my memory doesn't fail me, I believe it was the right wing that wanted to cut affordable access to contraceptives and to eliminate abortion, two services which provide an alternative for unmarried people who cannot afford to have children. If this is not the alternative you find suitable, your proposal must be to outlaw single parenthood? What a creative solution! I urge you to begin campaigning at once.
Do you really think access to free contraceptives and abortions will help reduce the birthrates among the parts of the populace that continually over-breed? They usually want to have lots of children, so they simply wouldn't use the freely provided services.
All free contraceptives and abortion would do is make life slightly less inconvenient for those that are already responsible.
And the Left does not challenge the behavior of these people. They would risk alienating their main voting constituencies (women, blacks, and latinos) by preaching personal responsibility.
You don't help anyone by PREACHING at them.
Try this thought: YOU CANNOT HAVE CHOCOLATE CAKE.
What do you want? Chocolate cake!
Simply saying, "It's bad. Don't do it, or you are a sinful and bad person," is not effective when you are talking about a natural and normal bodily appetite. What you do is NOT SHAME PEOPLE, while giving them the education and tools to make choices and show how those choices will benefit them.
Responding to tmbass, seems to me Paul Ryan is the lad whose budget thinking marches squarely with the Romney 47% crack. There sure doesn't seem to be an awful lot of scope in it for uplifting those 40% in the lowest quintile. Or do we only start uplifting them after it's too late and the better off have gotten a bit better off?
They can't be uplifted without changing their spending habits, something they vote themselves the ability not to have to change. 47% was much too high a number, but that was about the only problem with the remark.
I spent a large fraction of my life being poor - worrying about whether my father had a job, what we would eat, and later, how I would feed my children.
There was only ONE concern we had. Where can we get a better job. Nothing else mattered to us. So, ben, I suggest that you forget about "uplifting" the poor. We did not want your self-serving idealism. Figure out how this country can create more jobs, and leave the rest to the poor.
????? They don't have anything to spend!
Um, you do know that you can get former "luxuries" like, say, a DVD player, at Target for $30 now, right?
Economist: "Once upon a time the fates of these people weighed heavily on American politicians..."
Actually, Paul Ryan spoke movingly of their fates in a campaign speech in Cleveland, citing figures from the (liberal) Brookings Institute:
"Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America, but right now, Americans' engines of upward mobility aren't working the way they should ... You know there's something wrong in our country when 40% of the children born to parents in the lowest fifth ... never know anything better."
Exactly. Subsidize something and you get more of it, poverty included. Poverty sucks, and I would never like to wish it upon anybody (having been on the fringe myself); however, to a point the hardship is necessary for the long term sustainability of an economy.
Such hardship provides an incentive for long term alignment with good decisions (Eg. increasing the reward for strings of good behavior) and a disincentive for bad behavior (Eg. don't have 3 illegitimate children if you can barely support yourself, etc.).
I especially emphasize the latter because, in a generational context, such bad behavior creates an impossible societal obstacle that we most overcome with every new generation (Eg. >40% of children born into families {loose term} with the bottom 20% of incomes). At the very least, if we can't raise people out of poverty (which has proven to be grossly expensive and with a low success rate), we might allow for natural incentives to buffer the rate at which it propigates.
"...vote for us Republicans and we will make sure it stays that way..."
Shit wages don't help.
I thank you for this acute observation (I can do tongue-in-cheek too). Might I request that you propose a policy which would use resolution of "shit wages" to aleviate or reduce poverty? As I see it, labor (especially the low end) is having enough difficulty competing with capital currently. I would hate to see what may happen if we further increased the costs of employing said labor.
This is not to say that there aren't justifiable ways to increase such wages indirectly. A few examples might be:
a) Increasing demand for low-end labor by decreasing other direct or indirect costs which impact costs of employment. These costs are often born on in relation to number of employees not overall salaries disbursed, and as such impact low end labor disproportionately.
b) Increase the productivity of labor in the states by removing eronious or redundant regulations and introducing more flexibility into the labor market.
c) Improve the investment climate for capital investment in plants in the USA. Given the collusive or arbitrary actions by organized labor or many portions of govt, it can become very difficult to risk the large up front capital required for plant construction or renewal.
d) Improve the appeal of low-mid skilled labor in the states by re-emphasizing "blue collar" trades, skills, and training. Because resources are finite, this would also require us to do away with the "everybody deserves to go to college for anything" approach that we currently seem to be operating under.
I am, however, guessing that these are not policies that you had in mind (or would even support).
Look at Europe and you will see that subsidising poverty means... you get less of it! This has already been tried and the results are there for everyone to look at.
Just make sure the money is spent wisely.
You are presupposing that businesses will increase wages to the lowest paid workers if only they could, or at least if it were just a little more attractive. I have serious doubts about this in most cases.
I do not have all of the answers, and over a beer am usually happy to have a freindly conversation about how to solve the worlds problems. But it's a bit much for this forum. Thank you for reminding me that I prefer these conversations face to face.
As for my views, I'm not so sure you have any really interest in actually knowing what those might be. That's fair.
But that doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't have poor having children anywhere.
When people don't do what is objectively the smart thing to do, there is a reason. We need to address those reasons. They have to do with stress, discouragement, depression, hopelessness, and the pain of unmet need.
If you are overweight, the obvious thing to do is eat less and exercise more. Yet millions and millions struggle mightily with this, even when we know what we should do. Why? The behaviors that promote overweight are solving some very important problem for us in the moment, some pain that must be very much in the forefront of our lives if the behavior that soothes it is that hard to eradicate.
The same thing is in operation when those who can ill afford to have children have unprotected sex. Just saying, "Don't feed those people and they'll stop having sex" isn't going to work. Never has. Never will.
I agree. In particular, I think the best solution to poverty is putting distributism into practice.
It's sad that Americans have ignored Milton Friedman's proposal for a negative income tax.
(The author of this comment has a web log on economics at https://economics102.wordpress.com/)
The earned income tax credit is a negative tax of sorts.
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The deafening silence of David...
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
This looks like a pretty good movie. I think the wife would love to see it too.
Here is the UK trailer for Captain Phillips featuring Tom Hanks in the true story of Captain Richard Phillips. In short, it's a modern day pirate story featuring the one of the greatest living actors. Need we say more?
Synopsis: Columbia Pictures' action-thriller Captain Phillips stars two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks in the true story of Captain Richard Phillips and the 2009 hijacking by Somali pirates of the US-flagged MV Maersk Alabama, the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in two hundred years. The film is directed by Oscar nominee Paul Greengrass (Bourne Ultimatum), from a screenplay by Billy Ray and based upon the book, A Captain's Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALs, and Dangerous Days at Sea, by Richard Phillips with Stephan Talty. The film is produced by Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, and Michael De Luca.
Captain Phillips arrives October 11th, 2013.
This looks like a pretty good movie. I think the wife would love to see it too.
Ok Trate. You're entitled to your opinion...as am I to mine. But "one of the greatest living actors"...??? Jeez. Gush much? Some of think Hanks is merely OK. I think someone has a man crush going on.
DarkXid: the reason it's mentioned here is because it's TOM HANKS, dude. TOM HANKS: one of the greatest living actors!!! We know it's not genre...but damn!! TOM HANKS!!!
I remember following this story in the news and taking pride once again in the great job the US Navy Seals did. The genre for this movie would be biography, hey at least it's not a trailer for a Tyler Perry movie. Hanks might not make movies that I tend to gravitate towards but after Saving Private Ryan he will always have my respect.


text:
God Quotes, Sayings about God
It is better to have God over your shoulder, than carry the world alone on your back.
– Anthony Liccione
Many people turn to God when life has them down but forget to keep in touch with him when he turns it all around.
As names of countries are different but earth is one so deities and Gods' names are different but God is one.
Saying that you are moral because you believe in a God is like saying you are an economist because you play monopoly.
– Robert W. Cox.
Dear God, if one day I lose my hope and purpose, give me confidence that your destiny is better than anything I ever dreamed.
The sun, the moon, the stars, the birds, the animals, the flowers, are all proof that a universal power exists.
When we pray, God hears more than we say, answers more than we ask, gives more than we imagine, in his own time and in his own way.
Be brave!
God gives his hardest battles to his bravest soldiers.
God is stronger than my circumstances.
God is our refuge and strength. A very present help in trouble, therefore we will not fear.
God, sometimes takes us into troubled waters, not to drown us but to cleanse us.
His grace is bigger than your sins.
There is enough light for those who desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
– Blaise Pascal
God's "no" is not a rejection, it's a redirection.
Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish.
– Albert Einstein
Sometimes God doesn't change your situation because He's trying to change your heart.
Worry implies that we don't quite trust that God is big enough, powerful enough, or loving enough to take care of what's happening in out lives.
– Francis Chan
Throughout life people will make you mad, disrespect you and treat you bad. Let God deal with things they do, cause hate in your heart will consume you too.
– Will Smith
Disappointments are just God's way of saying "I've got something better" Be patient…live life…
Anxiety happens when we think we have to figure everything out. Turn to God, He has a plan.
I have amazing potential. I can make good choices. I am never alone. I can do hard things. I am beautiful inside and out. I am of great worth. He has a plan for me. I know who I am. A daughter of God.
You may feel lost and alone, but God knows exactly where you are, and He has a good plan for your life.
Don't give up. God will give you the strength you need to hold on.
When God gives us a "No" for an answer, keep in mind that there is a much greater "Yes" behind it. His "No" is not a "Rejection" but a "Redirection."


text:
The US authorities have charged 11 people in connection with the theft of credit-card details in the country's largest-ever identity theft case. The cracking was done using nothing but wireless routers and by driving around neighbourhoods and cracking into wireless equipment. I've already written about few basic tips about securing wifi router.
{ 3 comments }


text:
HEAT oven to 375ºF.
PREPARE cake batter as directed on package; pour into 30 paper-lined muffin cups, filling each cup 2/3 full. Bake 12 to 15 min. or until tops are golden brown and cracks feel dry. (Note: If baking in batches, refrigerate remaining batter in bowl until ready to pour into lined muffin cups and bake.) Cool cupcakes in pans 10 min.; remove to wire racks. Cool completely.
MIX dry pudding mix and pineapple in medium bowl. Gently stir in COOL WHIP; spread onto cupcakes.
TOP with berries.


text:
Take advantage of our special offers and enjoy unforgettable moments in our hotels
Enjoy exceptional offers from our hotels!
Lucien Barrière, Hôtels & Casinos vouchers: give your guests a wonderful time !
Magical, authentic and romantic places: give an unforgettable gift or treat yourself!
Hôtels Barrière Business Solutions, a solution for every event
Organising an event? Choose our made-to-measure solutions. The wide range of Hôtels Barrière Business Solutions offers combined with staff flexibility for events adapted to suit your requirements.
La Baule
Offer valid for a stay from 26 Nov 2013 to 31 Dec 2015
An authentic manor for enchanting stays
from€ 500 per night
if not, leave blank
+- Other preferential codes
We are looking for current availabilitiesPlease wait
The Lucien Barrière website reservation engine is secure and encrypted to ensure data confidentiality


text:
- Flat Rate Shipping. Any Size Order! -
- A Portion of Proceeds Benefit Baltimore Ravens Athletics -
Main Content
This item ships within one business day.
Order as many items as you like with our $6.99 flat rate shipping.
Need it faster?
Celebrate your Baltimore Ravens fandom with this Metallic magnet! This magnet allows you to put the gorgeous Baltimore Ravens logo display. This is the ideal way to add some Baltimore Ravens spirit to your car while adding a touch of shimmer that will really make your love for your team stand out! Get one for every Baltimore Ravens fan you know!
- Made in the USA
- Metallic magnet
- Sheet measures approximately 5" x 7"
- Officially licensed
Ravens Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game
or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are
received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items
are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite
number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Top Definition
cleansing your facebook friends list of the less than desirable and have lost their value, such as ex-coworkers, ex-girl/boyfriends, and those that you accepted originally with full intention of deleting as friends later.
Before my girlfriend notices I'm friends with my ex, I'm going to do a facescrub.
af Darksun33
8. december 2009


text:
"Weird Al" Yankovic Tickets
No events found near
Woodbridge, NJ
Find Events In a City
May 12
Tue 8:00 PM
May 13
Wed 8:00 PM
May 14
Thu 8:00 PM
May 15
Fri 8:00 PM
May 16
Sat 8:00 PM
May 26
Tue 4:00 PM
May 26
Tue 7:30 PM
Jun 5
Fri TBD
Jun 7
Sun 8:00 PM
"Weird Al" Yankovic Biography & News
"Weird Al" Yankovic Details
Official site |
http://www.weirdal.com |
About "Weird Al" Yankovic
Weird Al Yankovic Tickets - The Ultimate Music Parody Mastermind
Who would've thought Lynwood, California, would give birth to such a star as Alfred Matthew Yankovic, born October 23, 1959? Why was he such a star? Well, for one, he had one heck of a sense of humor -- but only matched by his creativity. ?After adopting the nickname 'Weird Al' in 1979, he earned recognition for some monster hits like 'My Bologna,' a parody of the Knack's monster hit 'My Sharona,' which was enough to get Capitol Records attention and spawn a wealth of other hits to make it a debut album.Weird Al Yankovic Tickets - The Music of Yankovic
. He broke out especially during the MTV video scene when music became visual, not only parodying the lyrics, but also the video clips -- such as his rendition of Michael Jackson's 'Beat It.' His single 'Eat It' was astronomical, featured in his 'Weird' Al Yankovic in 3-D' album back in 1984. He then later came out in 1988 with another platinum-selling album called Even Worse, spoofing on Michael Jackson's Bad LP. The first single parodying Jackson's 'Bad' single, titled 'I'm Fat,' really broke Yankovic out, and later earned him a role in the feature film UHF. After taking some time off, 1992 saw the release of yet another album called Off the Deep End, featuring the hit single 'Smells Like Nirvana,' spoofing on the rock band of the same name (Nirvana) and their single 'Smells Like Teen Spirit.' It proved that Weird Al could never go out of style. As long as he lives and breathes (whatever creative drugs he might be sniffing to come up with such awesome stuff), he'll keep putting out those albums!Weird Al Yankovic Tickets - The Sound and Style of Yankovic
He emanates with that comedic flair. Just look at him! Sporting funky colors, a goofy look on his face, and a nonchalant way about him that can only be described as, 'hey, I know I'm funny, but not that funny,' has immortalized him as a valid part of this music industry and America."Weird Al" Yankovic Discography
Album name | Release date |
Alpocalypse | 2011 |
Internet Leaks | 2009 |
The Essential "Weird Al" Yankovic | 2009 |
Whatever You Like | 2008 |
2007-06-07: Straight Outta Corpus: Old Concrete Street Amphitheater, Corpus Christi, TX, USA | 2007 |
Ultimate Collection 2.0 | 2007 |
You're Pitiful | 2006 |
Straight Outta Lynwood | 2006 |
Poodle Hat | 2003 |
DVD - Live! | 2000 |
Running With Scissors | 1999 |
The Saga Begins | 1999 |
Gump | 1996 |
Amish Paradise | 1996 |
Bad Hair Day | 1996 |
The TV Album | 1995 |
Permanent Record: Al in the Box | 1994 |
Headline News | 1994 |
Greatest Hits, Volume II | 1994 |
Jurassic Park | 1993 |
Alapalooza | 1993 |
The Food Album | 1993 |
Off the Deep End | 1992 |
Smells Like Nirvana | 1992 |
Even Worse | 1990 |
In 3-D | 1990 |
UHF and Other Stuff | 1989 |
"Weird Al" Yankovic's Greatest Hits | 1988 |
Peter & the Wolf / Carnival of the Animals, Part 2 | 1988 |
Polka Party! | 1986 |
I Want a New Duck | 1985 |
Dare to Be Stupid | 1985 |
"Weird Al" Yankovic | 1983 |
My Bologna | 1979 |
Top 10 "Weird Al" Yankovic Songs
Rank | Track Name | Play Count | Listener Count |
1 | White & Nerdy | 46 | 18 |
2 | Eat It | 21 | 18 |
4 | The Saga Begins | 13 | 13 |
5 | Polka Face | 38 | 13 |
6 | Your Horoscope for Today | 15 | 12 |
7 | Dare to Be Stupid | 13 | 12 |
8 | Skipper Dan | 23 | 12 |
9 | Perform This Way | 20 | 12 |
10 | Ringtone | 19 | 12 |
Next 4 Concerts
May 12
Tue 8:00 PM
May 13
Wed 8:00 PM
May 14
Thu 8:00 PM
May 15
Fri 8:00 PM
Are You Ready to Get Weird? It's Time For Weird Al to Go Back on Tour
Weird Al Concert Tickets Concert Dates Music Video Weird Al Tour Alfred Matthew Yankovic, otherwise known as Weird Al, is set to get back on the road as he takes his weird and goofy talent on tour this upcoming spring and summer. The tour is scheduled to open on April 10 in Raleigh, NC, at…
Read more"Weird Al" Yankovic Ticket Prices
Find TicketsPast 12 Months
$123Average Price
$764High price
$21Low price
Next 10 Concerts
Cheapest Upcoming "Weird Al" Yankovic Shows
Cheapest "Weird Al" Yankovic Shows of All Time
Most Expensive Upcoming "Weird Al" Yankovic Shows
Jun 5
Fri 12:00 AM
May 14
Thu 12:00 AM
May 15
Fri 12:00 AM
May 26
Tue 12:00 AM
Most Expensive "Weird Al" Yankovic Shows of All Time
Past Tour Dates for "Weird Al" Yankovic
"Weird Al" Yankovic Tour Dates 2014
date city state venue 10/18/2014 San Antonio TX Majestic Theatre San Antonio 09/28/2014 Los Angeles CA El Rey Theatre 09/13/2014 Los Angeles CA Hollywood Bowl "Weird Al" Yankovic Tour Dates 2013
date city state venue 10/19/2013 Tulsa OK Brady Theater 10/18/2013 San Antonio TX Majestic Theatre San Antonio 10/14/2013 Lawrence KS Liberty Hall 10/12/2013 Joliet IL Rialto Square Theatre 10/11/2013 West Lafayette IN Elliott Hall of Music 10/08/2013 Verona NY Turning Stone Casino 10/07/2013 Portland ME State Theatre 10/06/2013 Northampton MA Calvin Theatre 10/05/2013 Hampton Beach NH Hampton Beach Casino Ballroom 08/04/2013 Des Moines IA Hoyt Sherman Place 08/03/2013 Prior Lake MN Mystic Lake Casino Hotel 08/02/2013 West Allis WI Wisconsin State Fair Park 08/01/2013 Sterling Heights MI Freedom Hill Amphitheatre 07/31/2013 Cleveland Heights OH Cain Park 07/28/2013 Atlanta GA Atlanta Symphony Hall 07/27/2013 Evansville IN Victory Theatre 07/25/2013 Omaha NE Orpheum Theatre Omaha 07/24/2013 Columbia MO The Blue Note 07/23/2013 Salina KS Stiefel Theatre For The Performing Arts 07/21/2013 Boulder CO Boulder Theater 07/19/2013 Missoula MT The Wilma Theatre 07/18/2013 Portland OR Oregon Zoo 07/17/2013 Bellingham WA Mount Baker Theatre 07/14/2013 Sacramento CA California Exposition & State Fair 07/12/2013 Paso Robles CA Vina Robles Amphitheatre 07/07/2013 Mesa AZ Mesa Arts Center 07/06/2013 Paso Robles CA Vina Robles Amphitheatre 07/06/2013 Las Vegas NV The Smith Center 07/06/2013 Durham NC Reynolds Industries Theater 07/05/2013 Pleasanton CA Alameda County Fairgrounds 07/01/2013 Del Mar CA Del Mar Fairgrounds 06/15/2013 Manchester TN Manchester Farm 06/14/2013 Sylvania OH Centennial Terrace 06/13/2013 Manchester TN Manchester Farm 06/11/2013 Columbus OH Newport Music Hall 06/09/2013 Upper Darby PA Tower Theater 06/05/2013 Baltimore MD Rams Head Live 06/04/2013 Bethlehem PA Sands Bethlehem Event Center 06/02/2013 Port Chester NY The Capitol Theatre 06/01/2013 Washington PA The Meadows Racetrack and Casino 04/27/2013 Coquitlam BC Red Robinson Show Theatre 04/26/2013 Calgary AB Stampede Corral 04/22/2013 Kansas City MO Uptown Theater 04/20/2013 Springfield MO Gillioz Theatre 04/19/2013 St. Charles MO Family Arena 04/18/2013 Nashville TN Tennessee Performing Arts Center - Andrew Jackson Hall 04/16/2013 Jacksonville FL Florida Theatre 04/14/2013 Fort Pierce FL Sunrise Theatre 04/13/2013 Clearwater FL Ruth Eckerd Hall 04/11/2013 Knoxville TN Tennessee Theatre 04/10/2013 Raleigh NC Raleigh Memorial Auditorium "Weird Al" Yankovic Tour Dates 2012
date city state venue 10/21/2012 Rutland VT Paramount Theatre 10/20/2012 Burlington VT Flynn Center for the Performing Arts 10/19/2012 Beverly MA North Shore Music Theatre 10/18/2012 Westbury NY NYCB Theatre at Westbury 10/16/2012 York PA Pullo Family Performing Arts Center 10/14/2012 Louisville KY Louisville Palace 10/13/2012 Milwaukee WI Potawatomi Bingo Casino 10/11/2012 Winnipeg MB MTS Centre 10/10/2012 Regina SK Casino Regina 10/06/2012 Redding CA Cascade Theatre 10/05/2012 Reno NV Grand Sierra Resort and Casino 10/04/2012 Anaheim CA City National Grove of Anaheim 08/26/2012 Ventura CA Ventura Theatre 08/23/2012 Arvada CO Arvada Center 08/18/2012 Eugene OR Lane County Fairgrounds 08/14/2012 Saratoga CA Mountain Winery 08/12/2012 Costa Mesa CA Pacific Amphitheatre 08/11/2012 Folsom CA Three Stages 08/11/2012 Folsom CA Three Stages 08/10/2012 Folsom CA Three Stages 08/05/2012 Phoenix AZ Comerica Theatre 07/04/2012 Del Mar CA Del Mar Fairgrounds 05/13/2012 Waterbury CT Palace Theater - Waterbury 05/12/2012 Englewood NJ Bergen Performing Arts Center 05/11/2012 Atlantic City NJ House of Blues Atlantic City 05/08/2012 Akron OH Akron Civic Theatre 05/06/2012 Indianapolis IN Murat Theatre 05/05/2012 Detroit MI Fox Theatre Detroit 05/04/2012 Merrillville IN Star Plaza Theatre 05/03/2012 Minneapolis MN State Theatre 05/01/2012 Park City KS Hartman Arena 04/30/2012 Albuquerque NM Kiva Auditorium "Weird Al" Yankovic Tour Dates 2011
date city state venue 11/12/2011 Los Angeles CA Pantages Theatre 11/11/2011 Anaheim CA City National Grove of Anaheim 11/09/2011 Modesto CA Gallo Center for the Arts 11/07/2011 Santa Rosa CA Ruth Finley Person Theater 11/06/2011 Oakland CA Fox Theater 11/05/2011 Reno NV Grand Sierra Theatre 11/04/2011 Santa Cruz CA Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium 11/02/2011 San Luis Obispo CA Christopher Cohan Center 10/23/2011 New York NY Beacon Theatre 10/22/2011 Huntington NY The Paramount 10/21/2011 Morristown NJ Mayo Performing Arts Center 10/19/2011 Washington DC Warner Theatre 10/18/2011 Albany NY Palace Theatre 10/16/2011 Concord NH Capitol Center for the Arts 10/15/2011 Boston MA Orpheum Theatre 10/13/2011 Allentown PA Miller Symphony Hall 10/11/2011 Red Bank NJ Count Basie Theatre 10/09/2011 Durham NC Durham Performing Arts Center 10/08/2011 Charlotte NC Ovens Auditorium 10/06/2011 Clearwater FL Ruth Eckerd Hall 10/05/2011 Orlando FL Hard Rock Live 10/04/2011 Hollywood FL Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino 10/01/2011 Atlanta GA Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre 09/30/2011 Nashville TN Ryman Auditorium 09/29/2011 Montgomery AL Montgomery Performing Arts Centre 09/28/2011 Mobile AL Saenger Theatre 09/24/2011 Austin TX ACL Live at The Moody Theater 09/23/2011 Houston TX Bayou Music Center 09/22/2011 Grand Prairie TX Verizon Theatre at Grand Prairie 09/20/2011 Denver CO Ellie Caulkins Opera House 09/19/2011 Colorado Springs CO Pikes Peak Center 09/15/2011 Puyallup WA Puyallup Fairgrounds 07/25/2011 Los Angeles CA The Grammy Museum 07/16/2011 Toronto ON Massey Hall 07/16/2011 Toronto ON Massey Hall 07/14/2011 Lancaster PA American Music Theatre 07/13/2011 Buffalo NY University At Buffalo Center for the Arts 07/12/2011 Rochester Hills MI Meadow Brook Music Festival 07/09/2011 Costa Mesa CA Pacific Amphitheatre 07/08/2011 Costa Mesa CA Pacific Amphitheatre 06/15/2011 Del Mar CA Del Mar Fairgrounds 06/12/2011 Riverside CA Fox Performing Arts Center 06/11/2011 Tucson AZ Fox Tucson Theatre 06/10/2011 Chandler AZ Gila River Casino 06/05/2011 Springfield IL Prairie Capital Convention Center 06/03/2011 St. Charles MO Family Arena 06/02/2011 Milwaukee WI Potawatomi Bingo Casino 06/01/2011 Effingham IL Effingham Performance Center 05/31/2011 Saint Charles IL Arcada Theater 05/29/2011 Cincinnati OH PNC Pavilion 05/28/2011 Waukegan IL Genesee Theatre 05/27/2011 Mount Pleasant MI Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort 05/24/2011 Verona NY Turning Stone Casino 05/22/2011 Pittsburgh PA Stage AE 05/21/2011 Englewood NJ Bergen Performing Arts Center 05/20/2011 Glenside PA Keswick Theatre 05/19/2011 New Brunswick NJ Ukrainian Museum "Weird Al" Yankovic Tour Dates 2010
date city state venue 09/04/2010 Stroudsburg PA Sherman Theater 09/03/2010 Cleveland OH Time Warner Cable Amphitheater at Tower City 09/02/2010 Rockford IL Coronado Performing Arts Center 09/01/2010 Saint Paul MN Minnesota State Fair Grandstand 08/29/2010 Glen Ellyn IL McAninch Arts Center 08/28/2010 Milwaukee WI Riverside Theatre 08/26/2010 Kansas City MO Uptown Theater 08/23/2010 Arcata CA John Van Duzer Theatre 08/22/2010 Ventura CA Ventura Theatre 08/21/2010 Lancaster CA Antelope Valley Fair 08/20/2010 Henderson NV Henderson Pavilion 08/14/2010 Costa Mesa CA Pacific Amphitheatre 08/13/2010 Costa Mesa CA Pacific Amphitheatre 08/12/2010 Phoenix AZ Celebrity Theatre 08/10/2010 San Francisco CA The Warfield 08/03/2010 Portland OR Roseland Theater 08/01/2010 Sacramento CA The Cove at Cal Expo 07/29/2010 Denver CO Paramount Theatre 07/25/2010 Saint Petersburg FL Mahaffey Theater 07/24/2010 Boca Raton FL Mizner Park Amphitheater 07/21/2010 Orlando FL Hard Rock Live 07/20/2010 Jacksonville FL Florida Theatre 07/17/2010 Houston TX Bayou Music Center 07/16/2010 Grand Prairie TX Verizon Theatre at Grand Prairie 07/15/2010 Tulsa OK Brady Theater 07/12/2010 St. Charles MO Family Arena 07/10/2010 Columbus OH Lifestyle Communities Pavilion 07/09/2010 Merrillville IN Star Plaza Theatre 07/07/2010 Greensburg PA Palace Theatre (Greensburg) 07/03/2010 Rochester Hills MI Meadowbrook Festival 07/02/2010 Kettering OH Fraze Pavilion 06/30/2010 Toledo OH Toledo Zoo Amphitheatre 06/27/2010 Holmdel NJ PNC Bank Arts Center 06/27/2010 Asbury Park NJ Paramount Theatre 06/26/2010 Gilford NH Bank of New Hampshire Pavilion at Meadowbrook 06/25/2010 Glenside PA Keswick Theatre 06/24/2010 Westbury NY Westbury Music Fair 06/21/2010 Verona NY Turning Stone Casino 06/19/2010 Atlantic City NJ Atlantic City Hilton 06/18/2010 Washington DC Warner Theatre 06/17/2010 Reading PA Santander Performing Arts Center 05/22/2010 Austin TX Paramount Theatre 05/22/2010 Austin TX Paramount Theatre
Weird Al Concert Tickets Concert Dates Music Video Weird Al Tour Alfred Matthew Yankovic, otherwise known as Weird Al, is set to get back on the road as he takes his weird and goofy talent on tour thi…
March 01, 2013


text:
Prices and availability are subject to change from the time and date that you print this page.
4/28/2015 7:54:01 AM. For Customer Service, please call
Pickup Check store pickup options
animal attraction. Wild things wander yonder on the fridge, exploring head-first with tails wagging. Elephant, tiger, lion, leopard, giraffe and hippo bring up the rear in exotic fashion.