Fly from New York to Cartagena, Colombia for $382 round-trip, nonstop, including all taxes, on JetBlue.
This fare is valid for travel on Tuesdays, Fridays, and Sundays, from November 2 through February 9. Avoid blackout dates from December 15 through January 2.
For booking info, see our fare details.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Why the Sikh temple shooting got less coverage than the Aurora massacre
Two mass murders happen two weeks apart, but they get very different treatment by the media. Were the Dark Knight killings that much more important?
When James Holmes allegedly walked into a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colo., and opened fire, killing 12, there was a "flood of media coverage" for days afterward, says Dylan Byers at Politico. Now, just two days after Wade Michael Page allegedly walked into a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., and opened fire, killing six, "the story has become just one item among many in the national news cycle." More than that, after Oak Creek there's been "none of the sense of outrage that followed the Aurora massacre, none of the national heartbreak and grief that seemed so pervasive only two weeks ago," says Riddhi Shah at The Huffington Post. The obvious question is: "Why is it that the American people, and the American media in particular, care less about this attack?" Here, four theories:
1. Sikhs are being treated as second-class victims
If the media gave the Aurora shootings "round the clock coverage because they thought [the American public] would and should care," what does the relative paucity of Oak Creek coverage say about the media, and about us? says Jeneba Ghatt at Politic365. Sadly, it suggests "there may be tiers of Americans," where "those who are foreign-born, of foreign parentage, and practicing a religion foreign to many" are deemed too foreign for our sympathies and attention. If that seems too harsh, consider what would have happened if "instead of a white supremacist, the [Wisconsin] attacker had been a Muslim fundamentalist, and the place of worship a synagogue or a church," says The Huffington Post's Shah.
SEE MORE: The Sikh temple shooting: Mistaken anti-Muslim terrorism?
2. The relative randomness of the Aurora shooting is scarier
By most measures, the racially motivated Oak Creek killings are at least as newsworthy and frightening as the Aurora shootings, says Robert Wright at The Atlantic. But "what freaks people out about Aurora is the 'randomness' of it," the sense that it could happen to any of us. The media focused more on the Colorado murders because like most of us, "the people who shape discourse in this country by and large aren't Sikhs and don't know many, if any, Sikhs." They "can't imagine being in a Sikh temple," but they can picture themselves and their loved ones watching Batman in a movie theater. It's unfortunate, but natural that we "get freaked out by threats in proportion to how threatening they seem to you personally."
3. The Oak Creek shooting wasn't as dramatic
For all the similarities between the Wisconsin and Colorado shootings, there are also some pretty dramatic differences, says Politico's Byers. Twice as many people were killed in Aurora and many more were wounded. While Page was gunned down by police, Holmes is still alive, "adding the promise of a dramatic court appearance." On top of that, Holmes rigged his apartment with explosives and "provided the added flair of claiming to be 'The Joker.'" In other words, the "theatricality of the Batman murders" added to their media appeal, says The Atlantic's Wright.
When James Holmes allegedly walked into a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colo., and opened fire, killing 12, there was a "flood of media coverage" for days afterward, says Dylan Byers at Politico. Now, just two days after Wade Michael Page allegedly walked into a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., and opened fire, killing six, "the story has become just one item among many in the national news cycle." More than that, after Oak Creek there's been "none of the sense of outrage that followed the Aurora massacre, none of the national heartbreak and grief that seemed so pervasive only two weeks ago," says Riddhi Shah at The Huffington Post. The obvious question is: "Why is it that the American people, and the American media in particular, care less about this attack?" Here, four theories:
1. Sikhs are being treated as second-class victims
If the media gave the Aurora shootings "round the clock coverage because they thought [the American public] would and should care," what does the relative paucity of Oak Creek coverage say about the media, and about us? says Jeneba Ghatt at Politic365. Sadly, it suggests "there may be tiers of Americans," where "those who are foreign-born, of foreign parentage, and practicing a religion foreign to many" are deemed too foreign for our sympathies and attention. If that seems too harsh, consider what would have happened if "instead of a white supremacist, the [Wisconsin] attacker had been a Muslim fundamentalist, and the place of worship a synagogue or a church," says The Huffington Post's Shah.
SEE MORE: The Sikh temple shooting: Mistaken anti-Muslim terrorism?
2. The relative randomness of the Aurora shooting is scarier
By most measures, the racially motivated Oak Creek killings are at least as newsworthy and frightening as the Aurora shootings, says Robert Wright at The Atlantic. But "what freaks people out about Aurora is the 'randomness' of it," the sense that it could happen to any of us. The media focused more on the Colorado murders because like most of us, "the people who shape discourse in this country by and large aren't Sikhs and don't know many, if any, Sikhs." They "can't imagine being in a Sikh temple," but they can picture themselves and their loved ones watching Batman in a movie theater. It's unfortunate, but natural that we "get freaked out by threats in proportion to how threatening they seem to you personally."
3. The Oak Creek shooting wasn't as dramatic
For all the similarities between the Wisconsin and Colorado shootings, there are also some pretty dramatic differences, says Politico's Byers. Twice as many people were killed in Aurora and many more were wounded. While Page was gunned down by police, Holmes is still alive, "adding the promise of a dramatic court appearance." On top of that, Holmes rigged his apartment with explosives and "provided the added flair of claiming to be 'The Joker.'" In other words, the "theatricality of the Batman murders" added to their media appeal, says The Atlantic's Wright.
Gore Vidal: Analog troll
The kitchen-sink correction that ran with the obituary for Gore Vidal in The New York Times may be the best commentary yet on the life of Vidal, the larger-than-life writer and TV personality who died on July 31 at 86.
In 1968, Gore Vidal, it seems, had savaged a prominent right-winger as a “crypto-Nazi”—not, as his obituarist had erroneously reported, a “crypto-fascist.”
Vidal was not a cousin to Al Gore, though he often liked to dilate on their kinship. And although Vidal publicly credited the longevity of his relationship with his companion Howard Austen to their practice of never having sex, the couple did copulate, at least once, on the night they met. That encounter was robustly described in Vidal’s memoir, “Palimpsest.”
Taken together, these earnest Times-style corrections suggest that Gore Vidal led a rich, florid and glorious life being Gore Vidal—advertising himself and dismantling others and then fleeing into umbrage, smugness, pedantry, fake innocence or actual exile when his audience went bananas. He also—as the wonderful correction demonstrates—got the last laugh.
He got to take a last posthumous jab at William F. Buckley, the formidable intellectual he must have deeply envied. He got to raise again the pet subject of his in-bedness with prominent American political families. And, from beyond the grave, he got to crow about his sex life in the pages of the Times. To say “well-played” would sell the achievement short!
Fortunately, the 21st century has bestowed on us a name for figures like Vidal, the garrulous tricksters who are as necessary to politics and culture as buffoons, beetle-browed commenters and tender-hearted artists.
It’s plain: Vidal was a virtuoso troll. A 20th-century, pre-Internet troll. An analog troll of the first rank.
Trollism has only come into its own with the Internet, though it’s a time-honored set of intellectual stratagems. Now, of course, it’s far easier to do than ever. Success in the massive multiplayer game of social media requires skill spotting trolls in our midst—thus, more trolls seem to exist because more are caught. With Google, emotional sweet spots—sensitive subjects like abortion or Israel on which freaking people out is easiest—are a cinch to find. Anyone with a smartphone can post “James Eagan Holmes is hot” on a site for mourners and savor the lulz from a smug, safe distance as the outrage rolls in.
But imagine in Vidal’s time! Take just one famous example from Vidal’s trolling life. To splendidly troll, he had to get booked on “The Dick Cavett Show.” He had to bait pugnacious, crypto-homicidal Norman Mailer with a snippy review in a prominent publication, get Mailer fired up and booked on the same show. And then Vidal would have to get Mailer to go nuclear as he nastily but elegantly goaded him.
No wonder Vidal is most famous for having said, "I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television." On TV was where one trolled in those far-off pre-Internet days.
And saying Vidal never missed a chance to have sex—well, that was perhaps his way of trolling that chaste live-in boyfriend. On second thought, Howard Austen probably was untrollable. Another type that was before his time. Maybe, living so close to Vidal, Austen was the original practitioner of “DNFTT”—“do not feed the troll”—the idea that trolls like Vidal live on the emotional spasms of other people, and the way to fight them is to deny them our spasms.
No worry. Vidal found spasms aplenty on which to feed himself for decades on decades. And that cycle—trolling and spasms and trolling and spasms—was intellectually fruitful in that it engendered memorable quips, mad showdowns and a cultural pose that’s now deeply embedded in our intellectual dialogue. A YouTube commenter on the Cavett show video recently described Vidal as both a “troll” and the nation’s “asshole laureate.” Maybe so. But he was awfully fun to watch and will be missed.
In 1968, Gore Vidal, it seems, had savaged a prominent right-winger as a “crypto-Nazi”—not, as his obituarist had erroneously reported, a “crypto-fascist.”
Vidal was not a cousin to Al Gore, though he often liked to dilate on their kinship. And although Vidal publicly credited the longevity of his relationship with his companion Howard Austen to their practice of never having sex, the couple did copulate, at least once, on the night they met. That encounter was robustly described in Vidal’s memoir, “Palimpsest.”
Taken together, these earnest Times-style corrections suggest that Gore Vidal led a rich, florid and glorious life being Gore Vidal—advertising himself and dismantling others and then fleeing into umbrage, smugness, pedantry, fake innocence or actual exile when his audience went bananas. He also—as the wonderful correction demonstrates—got the last laugh.
He got to take a last posthumous jab at William F. Buckley, the formidable intellectual he must have deeply envied. He got to raise again the pet subject of his in-bedness with prominent American political families. And, from beyond the grave, he got to crow about his sex life in the pages of the Times. To say “well-played” would sell the achievement short!
Fortunately, the 21st century has bestowed on us a name for figures like Vidal, the garrulous tricksters who are as necessary to politics and culture as buffoons, beetle-browed commenters and tender-hearted artists.
It’s plain: Vidal was a virtuoso troll. A 20th-century, pre-Internet troll. An analog troll of the first rank.
Trollism has only come into its own with the Internet, though it’s a time-honored set of intellectual stratagems. Now, of course, it’s far easier to do than ever. Success in the massive multiplayer game of social media requires skill spotting trolls in our midst—thus, more trolls seem to exist because more are caught. With Google, emotional sweet spots—sensitive subjects like abortion or Israel on which freaking people out is easiest—are a cinch to find. Anyone with a smartphone can post “James Eagan Holmes is hot” on a site for mourners and savor the lulz from a smug, safe distance as the outrage rolls in.
But imagine in Vidal’s time! Take just one famous example from Vidal’s trolling life. To splendidly troll, he had to get booked on “The Dick Cavett Show.” He had to bait pugnacious, crypto-homicidal Norman Mailer with a snippy review in a prominent publication, get Mailer fired up and booked on the same show. And then Vidal would have to get Mailer to go nuclear as he nastily but elegantly goaded him.
No wonder Vidal is most famous for having said, "I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television." On TV was where one trolled in those far-off pre-Internet days.
And saying Vidal never missed a chance to have sex—well, that was perhaps his way of trolling that chaste live-in boyfriend. On second thought, Howard Austen probably was untrollable. Another type that was before his time. Maybe, living so close to Vidal, Austen was the original practitioner of “DNFTT”—“do not feed the troll”—the idea that trolls like Vidal live on the emotional spasms of other people, and the way to fight them is to deny them our spasms.
No worry. Vidal found spasms aplenty on which to feed himself for decades on decades. And that cycle—trolling and spasms and trolling and spasms—was intellectually fruitful in that it engendered memorable quips, mad showdowns and a cultural pose that’s now deeply embedded in our intellectual dialogue. A YouTube commenter on the Cavett show video recently described Vidal as both a “troll” and the nation’s “asshole laureate.” Maybe so. But he was awfully fun to watch and will be missed.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Arnold Schwarzenegger says his bodybuilding zeal put him in Austrian army brig
Arnold Schwarzenegger says he was so eager to pursue bodybuilding success that he briefly ended up in an Austrian military jail.
The Austrian-born actor said Friday he was 18 and serving a mandated year with the army when he snuck out of camp for the Junior Mr. Europe contest in Germany.
Schwarzenegger says he won the contest but also earned two or three days in the brig. But he says military officials felt "uncomfortable" and released him.
The 65-year-old Schwarzenegger is the subject of a new ESPN Films documentary, "Arnold's Blueprint," which will debut Sept. 26 on the ESPN website Grantland.com. The film is the first of a series of short documentaries that will be available online.
The Austrian-born actor said Friday he was 18 and serving a mandated year with the army when he snuck out of camp for the Junior Mr. Europe contest in Germany.
Schwarzenegger says he won the contest but also earned two or three days in the brig. But he says military officials felt "uncomfortable" and released him.
The 65-year-old Schwarzenegger is the subject of a new ESPN Films documentary, "Arnold's Blueprint," which will debut Sept. 26 on the ESPN website Grantland.com. The film is the first of a series of short documentaries that will be available online.
More than gay marriage driving Chick-fil-A flap
When President Barack Obama said same-sex couples should have the right to marry, it was national news for a few days before the presidential campaign and the country went back to business as usual.
Yet weeks after a fast-food executive doubled down on his opposition to gay marriage, debate rages on about equality, religious values and free speech. "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on Wednesday, with supporters flooding the chain's franchises around the country, was countered with "kiss-ins" by same-sex couples at assorted locations Friday, long after Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's initial comments to a religious publication touched off the clash.
That's an unusual amount of staying power for what initially looked like just another skirmish over a hot-button question.
Coursing throughout the conversations on social media, in letters to the editor and in long lines to buy chicken sandwiches is the sense among proud Southerners that the outcry over Cathy's comments smacks of regional stereotyping. When public officials in Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago tell a Southern icon such as Chick-fil-A that it's no longer welcome, and that Cathy should keep his opinions to himself, many in the Atlanta-based chain's home region hear more than a little northern condescension.
"Maybe the reaction is just because we're Southerners," said Rose Mason, who was lunching Friday at a Chick-fil-A in suburban Atlanta.
Mason, who described herself as Christian, said she grew up in New York City. Now, she said, "I deal with my sister telling me we're a little backward. People have this idea that we're just behind on everything. So they view anything we say through that (perception)."
Cathy, a devout Southern Baptist whose family has always been outspoken about its faith, sparked the controversy by telling the Baptist Press that he and his family-owned restaurant chain are "guilty as charged" for openly — and financially — supporting groups that advocate for "the biblical definition of a family unit." He later added that the United States is "inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."
For Marci Alt, organizer of a protest Friday at a Chick-fil-A in the relatively liberal Atlanta suburb of Decatur, it's Cathy's financial backing of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council that takes the conversation beyond merely what he said.
"Dan Cathy has the same First Amendment rights that I do. If he doesn't want to agree with same-sex marriage, I understand that," she said.
"But when he puts a pen to paper and writes a check to an organization that is about to squash my equal rights, I have a problem with that."
Cathy's comments were in keeping with the tradition established by his father, Truett Cathy, who started the chain in 1967 and never allowed franchises to open on Sundays.
Beyond Friday's organized displays of affection, there were other signs that the furor still had legs. Police were investigating graffiti on the side of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Torrance, Calif., that read "Tastes like hate" and had a painting of a cow, in reference to the chain's ubiquitous ads featuring cows encouraging people to eat poultry.
In Tucson, Ariz., an executive at a medical manufacturing company lost his job after filming himself verbally attacking a Chick-fil-A employee and posting the video online.
For William Klaus, a 26-year-old X-ray technician with traditional views on marriage, the debate starts at ends with Cathy's liberty to voice his beliefs.
"He said what he said. Freedom of speech. Bottom line," Klaus said at a Chick-fil-A in Jackson, Miss.
However, that goes for Cathy's critics, too, said Klaus, adding that he stopped by the Jackson store simply to pick up some good food.
Yet weeks after a fast-food executive doubled down on his opposition to gay marriage, debate rages on about equality, religious values and free speech. "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on Wednesday, with supporters flooding the chain's franchises around the country, was countered with "kiss-ins" by same-sex couples at assorted locations Friday, long after Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's initial comments to a religious publication touched off the clash.
That's an unusual amount of staying power for what initially looked like just another skirmish over a hot-button question.
Coursing throughout the conversations on social media, in letters to the editor and in long lines to buy chicken sandwiches is the sense among proud Southerners that the outcry over Cathy's comments smacks of regional stereotyping. When public officials in Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago tell a Southern icon such as Chick-fil-A that it's no longer welcome, and that Cathy should keep his opinions to himself, many in the Atlanta-based chain's home region hear more than a little northern condescension.
"Maybe the reaction is just because we're Southerners," said Rose Mason, who was lunching Friday at a Chick-fil-A in suburban Atlanta.
Mason, who described herself as Christian, said she grew up in New York City. Now, she said, "I deal with my sister telling me we're a little backward. People have this idea that we're just behind on everything. So they view anything we say through that (perception)."
Cathy, a devout Southern Baptist whose family has always been outspoken about its faith, sparked the controversy by telling the Baptist Press that he and his family-owned restaurant chain are "guilty as charged" for openly — and financially — supporting groups that advocate for "the biblical definition of a family unit." He later added that the United States is "inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."
For Marci Alt, organizer of a protest Friday at a Chick-fil-A in the relatively liberal Atlanta suburb of Decatur, it's Cathy's financial backing of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council that takes the conversation beyond merely what he said.
"Dan Cathy has the same First Amendment rights that I do. If he doesn't want to agree with same-sex marriage, I understand that," she said.
"But when he puts a pen to paper and writes a check to an organization that is about to squash my equal rights, I have a problem with that."
Cathy's comments were in keeping with the tradition established by his father, Truett Cathy, who started the chain in 1967 and never allowed franchises to open on Sundays.
Beyond Friday's organized displays of affection, there were other signs that the furor still had legs. Police were investigating graffiti on the side of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Torrance, Calif., that read "Tastes like hate" and had a painting of a cow, in reference to the chain's ubiquitous ads featuring cows encouraging people to eat poultry.
In Tucson, Ariz., an executive at a medical manufacturing company lost his job after filming himself verbally attacking a Chick-fil-A employee and posting the video online.
For William Klaus, a 26-year-old X-ray technician with traditional views on marriage, the debate starts at ends with Cathy's liberty to voice his beliefs.
"He said what he said. Freedom of speech. Bottom line," Klaus said at a Chick-fil-A in Jackson, Miss.
However, that goes for Cathy's critics, too, said Klaus, adding that he stopped by the Jackson store simply to pick up some good food.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Share this on:Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn Taxmageddon is headed our way
Taxmaggedon is coming. Unless President Obama and Congress act, Americans will be hit with what would be in total dollars the largest tax increase in history in little more than five months.
Income taxes will go up on every single taxpaying American. The Alternative Minimum Tax, designed decades ago to ensure that 154 wealthy Americans paid income taxes, would hit an additional 27 million Americans with a $92 billion tax hike. The death tax will come roaring back -- hitting farmers, ranches and businesses.
The cost? A family of four earning $50,000 would see their tax bill go up by $2,200. A single mother with a $36,000 a year paycheck would see $1,100 more go to Uncle Sam. And a married senior citizen couple with $40,000 in income would see their taxes double -- paying $1,700 in higher taxes.
Sen. Orrin HatchAnd there's a clear difference in vision for how to address this fiscal crisis.
I and other Republicans have proposed stopping these tax increases for all Americans. As the top Republican on the Finance Committee, I've put forward a proposal to prevent the largest tax hike in history from taking place and to pave the way for comprehensive tax reform in 2013.
If Congress doesn't agree with President Obama's plan to raise taxes on one of the most productive segments of our economy by allowing the top two marginal tax rates to expire, Washington Democrats' default position appears to be to let everyone's income tax rates skyrocket.
The Senate Democrats' plan would hit just under 1 million small business owners who file their taxes not as C corporations but as individuals. These are the job creators trying to lead our economic recovery and the Democrats seek to raise their taxes substantially. That doesn't make any sense.
Goolsbee on tax reform
Lee: Congress should extend tax cuts
Sen. Blumenthal: Extend tax cuts Taxmageddon is real, and the uncertainty caused by it is contributing to the lackluster economic recovery. That's not a Republican talking point; that's based on comments from job creators across the country.
It's based on people like Brent Gines from Sandy, Utah, who said that "Any increase in expenses or outlay always has a big decrease on our ability to do business."
It's based on data like those from a recent report by accountants at Ernst & Young, who find that President Obama's proposed tax hike would shrink the economy by 1.3% and shed 710,000 from the American workforce. It's based on information from the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told the Senate Banking Committee that our country's economic recovery "could be endangered by the confluence of tax increases and spending reductions that will take effect early next year if no legislative action is taken."
The Congressional Budget Office and International Monetary Fund have also both issued warnings.
The American people understand that raising taxes is not a solution. In 2010, the president said that allowing tax rates to increase "would have been a blow to our economy, just as we're climbing out of a devastating recession." He was right, and the same idea applies today.
The only solution is to provide job creators and working families the certainty they need by extending all the current tax rates for another year, as we did in 2010, and then work next year to fundamentally reform our broken, costly tax code.
The president and his allies need to listen to what Americans are saying. They need the certainty of an extension of current tax rates for another year, and they need Congress to move forward together to reform the tax code to spur economic growth and job creation.
What does fundamental tax reform look like?
It means lower marginal income tax rates that would lead to more hiring, greater capital formation, better returns on our investments and a stronger economy.
A simpler tax code means that many of the resources currently poured into complying with the tax laws could be put to other uses -- investing in new businesses, paying for our children's education, and giving money to charitable causes, to name a few.
This is not a time for political games, divisiveness and vilifying business and industry. Businesses continue to sit on the sidelines because they don't know what Washington is about to throw at them. The uncertainty is holding them back, and it's stifling our economy.
The president and his liberal allies in the Senate need to stop holding America's economy hostage in order to get what they want -- which is higher taxes that would hit small businesses and the workers they hire.
Let's extend current tax rates for a year to give job creators and working families some certainty, then roll up our sleeves and pass meaningful tax reform to ensure America remains the leader we know it to be.
Income taxes will go up on every single taxpaying American. The Alternative Minimum Tax, designed decades ago to ensure that 154 wealthy Americans paid income taxes, would hit an additional 27 million Americans with a $92 billion tax hike. The death tax will come roaring back -- hitting farmers, ranches and businesses.
The cost? A family of four earning $50,000 would see their tax bill go up by $2,200. A single mother with a $36,000 a year paycheck would see $1,100 more go to Uncle Sam. And a married senior citizen couple with $40,000 in income would see their taxes double -- paying $1,700 in higher taxes.
Sen. Orrin HatchAnd there's a clear difference in vision for how to address this fiscal crisis.
I and other Republicans have proposed stopping these tax increases for all Americans. As the top Republican on the Finance Committee, I've put forward a proposal to prevent the largest tax hike in history from taking place and to pave the way for comprehensive tax reform in 2013.
If Congress doesn't agree with President Obama's plan to raise taxes on one of the most productive segments of our economy by allowing the top two marginal tax rates to expire, Washington Democrats' default position appears to be to let everyone's income tax rates skyrocket.
The Senate Democrats' plan would hit just under 1 million small business owners who file their taxes not as C corporations but as individuals. These are the job creators trying to lead our economic recovery and the Democrats seek to raise their taxes substantially. That doesn't make any sense.
Goolsbee on tax reform
Lee: Congress should extend tax cuts
Sen. Blumenthal: Extend tax cuts Taxmageddon is real, and the uncertainty caused by it is contributing to the lackluster economic recovery. That's not a Republican talking point; that's based on comments from job creators across the country.
It's based on people like Brent Gines from Sandy, Utah, who said that "Any increase in expenses or outlay always has a big decrease on our ability to do business."
It's based on data like those from a recent report by accountants at Ernst & Young, who find that President Obama's proposed tax hike would shrink the economy by 1.3% and shed 710,000 from the American workforce. It's based on information from the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told the Senate Banking Committee that our country's economic recovery "could be endangered by the confluence of tax increases and spending reductions that will take effect early next year if no legislative action is taken."
The Congressional Budget Office and International Monetary Fund have also both issued warnings.
The American people understand that raising taxes is not a solution. In 2010, the president said that allowing tax rates to increase "would have been a blow to our economy, just as we're climbing out of a devastating recession." He was right, and the same idea applies today.
The only solution is to provide job creators and working families the certainty they need by extending all the current tax rates for another year, as we did in 2010, and then work next year to fundamentally reform our broken, costly tax code.
The president and his allies need to listen to what Americans are saying. They need the certainty of an extension of current tax rates for another year, and they need Congress to move forward together to reform the tax code to spur economic growth and job creation.
What does fundamental tax reform look like?
It means lower marginal income tax rates that would lead to more hiring, greater capital formation, better returns on our investments and a stronger economy.
A simpler tax code means that many of the resources currently poured into complying with the tax laws could be put to other uses -- investing in new businesses, paying for our children's education, and giving money to charitable causes, to name a few.
This is not a time for political games, divisiveness and vilifying business and industry. Businesses continue to sit on the sidelines because they don't know what Washington is about to throw at them. The uncertainty is holding them back, and it's stifling our economy.
The president and his liberal allies in the Senate need to stop holding America's economy hostage in order to get what they want -- which is higher taxes that would hit small businesses and the workers they hire.
Let's extend current tax rates for a year to give job creators and working families some certainty, then roll up our sleeves and pass meaningful tax reform to ensure America remains the leader we know it to be.
Aurora heroes: Three who gave their lives
Great evil often brings out the best in good men, men like Todd Beamer on Flight 93, Medal of Honor recipient Michael Murphy in Afghanistan and now the Aurora three -- the three young men, each in different parts of theater nine, who gave their lives to protect their girlfriends.
Twenty-five-year-old Jon Blunk was sitting next to his girlfriend, Jansen Young, at the midnight premiere of "The Dark Night Rises" when the gunman (who shall remain nameless) opened fire in the dark theater. Blunk instinctively pushed his girlfriend to the ground and threw his body on top of hers. Blunk, a security guard, served eight years in the Navy and was in the process of re-enlisting in hopes of becoming a Navy SEAL, family and friends said. He was killed in the gunfire; his girlfriend survived.
Twenty-four-year-old Alex Teves dived on top of his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, when the gunfire erupted. Covering her body, he took the bullets so they did not harm her. She survived the massacre; he did not.
Matt McQuinn, 27 years old, threw his body in front of his girlfriend, Samantha Yowler, as the shooting continued. Yowler survived with a gunshot wound to the knee; McQuinn's body absorbed the fatal shots.
William BennettThese men were three of the 12 innocent people killed early that morning. Their incredible sacrifice leaves us asking: Why? Why would a young man with his entire life ahead of him risk everything for a woman he has no legal, financial or marital obligations to?
Opinion: Looking into the minds of killers
As Hanna Rosin so eloquently pointed out in a recent article, calling it chivalry would be a tremendous understatement. By all appearances, these men believed that a man has a responsibility to protect a woman, even to the point of death. They believed that there are things in life worth dying for and the innocent woman sitting next to them was one.
Meet the man behind the Aurora crosses
Widow's kids struggle to understand
Babysitter tried to save youngest victim They believed, to put it simply, in a code of honor. They put the lives of the women before their own, an old fashioned notion to be sure, but certainly an honorable one (if you have any doubt, ask the survivors). Their instincts were to protect, not run away.
From all accounts, these young men were average, working men in their 20s. (We know a little about Jon Blunk, but not much, and we know even less about the others.) Like all men, they had their own struggles. After his death we learned that Blunk had an ex-wife and two children living in Nevada. He was scheduled to visit them to resolve marital issues. This isn't to take anything away from Blunk or the other two heroes, but to illustrate that, in spite of shortcomings, men can still recognize what it means to be a good man and act like one.
Frum: Fear drives gun debate
This is especially important given the state of many men today. Record numbers of men aren't working or even looking for work. Record numbers aren't marrying or even acting as fathers to their children. These men need heroes to imitate whom they can relate to in everyday life, not just make-believe superheroes who catch their imagination for an hour or two. They need heroes like the Aurora three.
While much of the media obsesses over the psychology and motivations of this deranged killer, we should hold the Aurora three high. It is only by telling their story that this code of honor will survive for future generations of men. "The world is forwarded by having its attention fixed on the best things," Matthew Arnold wrote.
In an age when traditional manhood has been increasingly relegated to fiction -- capes, masks and green screens -- these three men stand as real-life heroes. Their actions remind us that good triumphs over evil, not just in movies, but also in reality.
Twenty-five-year-old Jon Blunk was sitting next to his girlfriend, Jansen Young, at the midnight premiere of "The Dark Night Rises" when the gunman (who shall remain nameless) opened fire in the dark theater. Blunk instinctively pushed his girlfriend to the ground and threw his body on top of hers. Blunk, a security guard, served eight years in the Navy and was in the process of re-enlisting in hopes of becoming a Navy SEAL, family and friends said. He was killed in the gunfire; his girlfriend survived.
Twenty-four-year-old Alex Teves dived on top of his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, when the gunfire erupted. Covering her body, he took the bullets so they did not harm her. She survived the massacre; he did not.
Matt McQuinn, 27 years old, threw his body in front of his girlfriend, Samantha Yowler, as the shooting continued. Yowler survived with a gunshot wound to the knee; McQuinn's body absorbed the fatal shots.
William BennettThese men were three of the 12 innocent people killed early that morning. Their incredible sacrifice leaves us asking: Why? Why would a young man with his entire life ahead of him risk everything for a woman he has no legal, financial or marital obligations to?
Opinion: Looking into the minds of killers
As Hanna Rosin so eloquently pointed out in a recent article, calling it chivalry would be a tremendous understatement. By all appearances, these men believed that a man has a responsibility to protect a woman, even to the point of death. They believed that there are things in life worth dying for and the innocent woman sitting next to them was one.
Meet the man behind the Aurora crosses
Widow's kids struggle to understand
Babysitter tried to save youngest victim They believed, to put it simply, in a code of honor. They put the lives of the women before their own, an old fashioned notion to be sure, but certainly an honorable one (if you have any doubt, ask the survivors). Their instincts were to protect, not run away.
From all accounts, these young men were average, working men in their 20s. (We know a little about Jon Blunk, but not much, and we know even less about the others.) Like all men, they had their own struggles. After his death we learned that Blunk had an ex-wife and two children living in Nevada. He was scheduled to visit them to resolve marital issues. This isn't to take anything away from Blunk or the other two heroes, but to illustrate that, in spite of shortcomings, men can still recognize what it means to be a good man and act like one.
Frum: Fear drives gun debate
This is especially important given the state of many men today. Record numbers of men aren't working or even looking for work. Record numbers aren't marrying or even acting as fathers to their children. These men need heroes to imitate whom they can relate to in everyday life, not just make-believe superheroes who catch their imagination for an hour or two. They need heroes like the Aurora three.
While much of the media obsesses over the psychology and motivations of this deranged killer, we should hold the Aurora three high. It is only by telling their story that this code of honor will survive for future generations of men. "The world is forwarded by having its attention fixed on the best things," Matthew Arnold wrote.
In an age when traditional manhood has been increasingly relegated to fiction -- capes, masks and green screens -- these three men stand as real-life heroes. Their actions remind us that good triumphs over evil, not just in movies, but also in reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)