Author: webuiltitblog

CHILD CYBER BULLYING.

A 13 year old girl who had sent a nude photo of herself to a boy she liked commits suicide after said photo was circulated in cyber space. A 17 year old girl commits suicide after receiving threats in her “My Space” account. An 18 year old college student jumps off the GW Bridge. A 16 year old high school student commits suicide after being cyber bullied even after she had transferred to another school. These are but a few recent examples of the devastating affect of cyber bullying on our kids.

Surveys conducted by the I-SAFE Foundation and the Cyber Bullying Research Center both report that approximately 50% of teens have been the victim of cyber bullying. Only a small percentage of them reported the bullying to a parent. The most common method for bullying was the cell phone, which was used in approximately 80% of the cases, but other favorite methods include texting, emails, identity theft, and creating false web pages, among others. Shocking? You bet!

Kids have always bullied other kids. Why? Because they can. To be sure, some bullies are being malicious or vindictive, but others do it because they’re bored or they think it is funny. They don’t always realize the consequences. Often, the victims have a low self-esteem to begin with. Consequently, even victims that don’t commit suicide may be scarred for life by the experience.

Anyone who is different in any way, short, fat, ugly, shy, by race, religion, sexual orientation or by any other countless ways can and will be victimized. In my school days it was simpler to deal with. There was no email, no texting, no facebook. Bullying was generally face-to-face. If one was being bullied, belittled or teased he was able to deal with his accuser directly (not unlike in a court of law, where the accused is entitled to confront his accuser). Bullies and their victims settled the matter man to man, as it were, either physically or by other direct means. But, it was all out in the open. In addition, often, teachers and school administrators interceded to resolve the matter before it went too far.

Now, bullies are able to hide in cyber space behind their emails, tweets and facebook account often with devastating results. It’s a lot easier to bully, belittle or tease someone when you don’t have to have the courage face them directly. Sometimes bullies remain anonymous. Also, they can disseminate their poison to an infinite audience.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Cyber bullying is a pervasive problem among our youth. Every parent strives to keep their children safe and to provide them with a secure and nurturing environment. Most responsible parents do a good job in the physical sense, but many fail to realize the need to protect their children from cyber bullying.

So, what can parents do? (1) Convey unconditional support. Be a source of strength and maturity. Let your child know that you will always be there for him or her. Be aware of your childrens’ cyber activities. If necessary, limit or restrict them. (2) Tell school officials. (3) If you know the identity of the bully, contact the parents. They may not be aware of what’s happening, and, once informed, responsible parents will act to put an end to it. (4) Consider contacting the police. The bullying in question may very well be illegal.

These suggestions may seem overly obvious or simplistic, but, as stated above, part of the problem is that parents are not involved. They are not cognizant of their kids’ cyber activities, both bullies and victims.

Schools have a responsibility here too, although many of them do not acknowledge it. Their responsibilities are education and discipline. Even though the cyber bullying may have occurred outside the school physically, the bullies may be other students, and the school has an obligation to provide education and promulgate and enforce guidelines. As a preventative, they should make students cognizant of the devastating affects of cyber bullying, for example, as part of the curriculum in technology class and/or by promulgating a written policy. Moreover, when they have been notified of an instance, they should discipline the bully, particularly if the school’s equipment was used and/or the information was disseminated at school. Afterall, someone who bullies another student physically is suspended; why not a cyber bully?

Unfortunately, child cyber bullying has been in the news a lot lately. It is on the rise. Adults, including parents, school officials and law enforcement are playing catch-up. Hopefully, they will join forces to get the problem under control. After all, our children are our most precious asset.

We have seen this movie before. We didn’t like the original or the previous sequels, and the current sequel, like most of them, is tiresome, predictable and unnecessary. Yes, we are in the midst of another government shutdown and are heading toward another crisis over the extension of the debt ceiling. As that noted 20th Century philosopher, Yogi Berra, is reputed to have said “Deja Vu all over again.”

Some people have commented that the current crisis is all about the defunding of Obamacare. Not true. Obamacare is a sideshow, an appetizer, the undercard. Even most Republicans know that any measure to repeal or defund Obamacare is DOA. The Senate Dems would block it, and President Obama would veto it. So, continuing to focus on it is a big waste of time. Senator Cruz and his cohorts have made their point. They have now reached the point of political diminishing returns. Polls show that most Americans agree that Obmacare is a seriously flawed law that simply will not work. I have delineated these flaws in previous blogs, and there is no need to repeat them here. I say, let it go. Once the (Un)Affordable Healthcare Act, AKA Obamacare, is fully functional, Americans will experience its flaws firsthand. They will then express their dissatisfaction at the polls in 2014 and 2016.

It is time to focus on the real issue, the debt ceiling, which is scheduled for extension on October 17. The debt ceiling extension is part of an ongoing battle between the supporters of big government, big spending, and entitlements expansion and those of small government, spending reduction, and control over entitlements. Depending on your political point of view, one can blame the GOP, the Dems, the Congress as a whole and/or the President or any combination of the above.

I choose to blame all of the above. This situation is yet another example of the dysfunctional Congressional leadership with which we have been saddled in recent years. These leaders of both parties simply cannot control the fringe elements in their own parties. They are incapable of building a consensus in order to get anything done. Instead of Ted Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Tip O’Neill, Everett Dirksen and Bob Dole, we have Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Boehner. Need I say more?

Lack of leadership is, by no means, limited to the Congress. President Obama, rather than trying to build a consensus through the bully pulpit of his office, has, instead, chosen to engage in partisan politics. It seems he is more amenable to negotiating with and granting concessions to Russia or Iran than Congressional Republicans. Can you imagine Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan, among other presidents of recent vintage, acting this way?

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

I think we all know how this will end. Obamacare will stand, and there is will be a last minute deal to avert a default. Even Wall Street believes there will be a deal. Otherwise, the stock market would have declined substantially by now. The alternative is simply unfathomable. Perhaps, Obama will agree to delay the full implementation of Obamacare for individuals for a year like he did for businesses in order to work out some of the kinks, but that is as far as he appears willing to go. In the meantime, try not to be too bored as you watch the latest sequel unfold.

When you hear the phrase “9/11,” what comes to mind? The terrorist attack that brought down the World Trade Center, right? That was truly a heinous, cowardly act and a tragedy for America in more ways than one. But, there was another heinous, cowardly act perpetrated against America on 9/11, which the Administration seems to have placed on the back burner hoping it will be forgotten. I’m referring to the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the Ambassador, on 9/11/2012.

A whole year has passed, and we are no closer to bringing the perpetrators to justice. How can this be? How could the US, with its vast resources, have failed so utterly and completely to identify, locate and punish the perpetrators? Furthermore, how can it be that despite a lengthy internal investigation and various Congressional hearings no one in the Administration or the State Department has been held accountable? I don’t want to repeat everything I said last year in my initial Benghazi blog, but we should remember the highlights (or, if you prefer, the lowlights). This tragedy was mishandled from the beginning.

1. Before the attack, security at the consulate was insufficient and was not beefed up despite repeated requests from embassy personnel on location and the impending symbolic 9/11 date.

2. Special forces based in Tripoli could have been tasked to counterattack and could have arrived in time to save some or all of the four who were murdered, but the commander of those forces, Colonel Gibson, has reported he was ordered to “stand down.” This account is supported by Mr. Gregory Hicks, the former Deputy of Mission in Libya, who testified before Congress that he was standing next to Colonel Gibson when Gibson was given the order. The person who gave the “stand down” order has never been identified, and in point of fact, the Pentagon and the Administration have denied such an order was ever given.

3. The Administration, including the State Department, claimed for months that the attack was just a demonstration that got out of hand. In addition, they claimed that the demonstration was set off by an anti-Muslim video. The dissemination of this preposterous assertion was aided and abetted by most of the media, which wanted to support Mr. Obama’s claim that it was not a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack resulting in the death of four Americans would have damaged his re-election prospects, particularly since he had claimed that under his Administration the US had “gutted the core” of Al Qaeda and that they “no longer had the capacity or resources to wage another 9/11-style attack.”

4. Mr. Romney failed to pursue this aggressively during the final Presidential debate and the final weeks of the campaign, an error which, I believe, cost him the election.

5. Neither the Congress nor the Pickering-Mullen Special Panel has been able to get to the bottom of this.

6. Most puzzling of all is the fact that one of alleged leaders of the attack, Ahmed Abu Khattalah, has been giving interviews to the media, yet the Administration has claimed it cannot apprehend him.

7. In January 2013 Hillary Clinton, while testifying before Congress on this tragedy, stated callously “… the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MATTER?” To me, that careless, heartless comment, shows how she feels about the matter and her personality, in general.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

The Administration has failed not only the American people, but also the family members of the murdered diplomats. The safety of diplomats serving in foreign countries is supposed to be sacrosanct. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, the FBI and others have told the family members that finding their relatives’ murders and bringing them to justice would be a “top priority.” Yet, one year later, no arrests have been made despite the fact that Khattalah has been out in the open socializing in coffee houses, giving interviews to the media, “hiding in plain site,” as it were. Why can’t the Administration pressure the Libyan government to give him up, or failing that just go in and get him? Your guess is as good as mine, but it is consistent with the pattern I have outlined above. It is also consistent with Mr. Obama’s failure to resolve any of the other scandals and embarrassments of his Administration – Fast and Furious, IRS, NSA, to name a few.

The Day of Reckoning is approaching – Election Day 2014, followed by 2016. I believe the voters will speak loudly and clearly. One can only hope.

Does the situation in Syria concern you? It should. If you are not one of the 50% of Americans who are oblivious to world events, it should concern you very much. It doesn’t matter if you are a liberal or conservative, a Republican or Democrat, young or old, black or white. We have been painted into a corner, and there is no easy way out.

Simply put, whether or not we launch an attack to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons the ramifications are unknown and could result in a broader conflict and/or enhanced terrorist attacks prospectively. Proponents of an attack say that if we don’t respond it will embolden Iran, North Korea and various terrorist groups. They will conclude that we are a paper tiger, a weakling and not to be feared or respected. History has shown that appeasement does not work.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that an attack, as proposed by the Administration, will accomplish anything meaningful. The administration has promised a very limited response. What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine, but they have promised “no boots on the ground.” A very limited attack would not depose Assad, nor strike fear and respect into the hearts of our enemies. It would not reassure our allies in the region. It would not even destroy the CWs or significantly degrade their effectiveness. By now, surely they have been disseminated and well hidden. Basically, it would only enable us to say “see, we did respond. Assad crossed our president’s ‘red line,’ but we showed him.”

Furthermore, many people question whether Assad was even responsible for the CW attack in the first place. Finally, it is known that Assad’s opponents include some elements of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other militant Islamic groups, which have been committing atrocities of their own for many years. These groups are bitter enemies of ours. So, why help them. Let them kill each other. Why risk American money and materiel when it not our fight? Wrong time, wrong place, wrong reasons.

According to the latest polls, approximately 60% of Americans agree with the latter position, saying it is not in our national interest to be involved in Syria. There are many reasons for this poll result. To wit:

1. After over a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans are war weary.
2. It is not our job or responsibility to be the world’s policeman, especially when it is not appreciated.
3. We should only become involved in foreign conflicts when our security is threatened directly.
4. Our money, men and assets could be used better elsewhere.
5. Why aide terrorists?
6. Israel, our most reliable and staunchest ally in the region, is fully capable of protecting itself in this situation. Their enemies may hate them, but at least they fear and respect them militarily.
7. But, the most compelling reason is a pervasive lack of confidence in Mr. Obama to execute it successfully. Many Americans feel strongly that somehow, someway, he would “screw it up.”

Unfair, you say? Well consider that President Obama and the State Department have mishandled this situation all along.

1. They did nothing while Assad murdered over 100,000 of his own people, most of which were women, children and other non-combatants.
2. Mr. Obama labeled the use of CWs a personal “red line,” which would trigger a response from the US. He practically made it personal. When Assad subsequently used CWs, we think, in some people’s minds this forced us to respond, even if such a response would be symbolic.
3. Always the leader from behind, Mr. Obama, rather then acting decisively on his own, sought Congressional approval before acting. In the process, he effectively gave advanced warning to Assad. How dumb was that? When he realized he would likely not get it, he delayed further.
4. Vladimir Putin offered a cockamamie diplomatic solution. That is, Russia would confiscate the CWs from Syria and keep them secure, subject to UN inspection. In return, O must promise never to attack Syria. How ridiculous is that? Aside from the fact that Putin cannot be trusted and the UN is incompetent and useless in these types of matters, the logistics of transporting the CWs to Russian control while maintaining strict security and keeping them safe and secure at some location while a rebellion is in progress are enormous. This proposal makes no sense, yet O is entertaining it, grasping at it as if it were a lifeline to a drowning man.
5. Putin has outmaneuvered O at every turn. He is playing chess while O is playing checkers.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

The US has lost all credibility and influence in the region. We are now faced with a “Hobson’s Choice.” We can either back down from O’s ill advised “red line” and do nothing, or we can respond in a very limited way, which would accomplish nothing and, perhaps, be worse. Either course will embolden our enemies and increase the level of fear and uncertainty in our allies. My prediction is O will delay further, perhaps, do nothing ever and then blame others (Republicans, Congress, Putin) for the consequences.

The latest crisis of the moment in the Middle East is in Syria. The Syrian government has reportedly used chemical weapons against its own citizens, killing about 1,400, including hundreds of children. Supposedly, the US government has proof of this. What does the US do about this mess? No one wants to see innocent, defenseless women and children slaughtered. Do we intervene in some manner, and indirectly aid militant rebels that are backed by Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Gods knows who else or do we do nothing and let them all kill each other. We would like to see Assad deposed, but would he be replaced by someone worse, or would a protracted civil war result? No one knows.

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. President Obama, in his infinite non-wisdom and consistent with his historically inept foreign policy decisions over the last five years, has done neither. Instead he has remained on the sidelines blustering, like some 16 year schoolyard tough guy, about Assad needing to be punished for having crossed a “red line.” He has threatened some retaliation at some point either with a coalition of the willing or alone. I’m sure Assad, who has the backing of both Russia and Iran, is quaking in his boots.

Mr. Obama’s foreign policy track record is abysmal. Some of the lowlights: (1) He has been bullied by Vladimir Putin continually, the latest being Russia’s sheltering of Eric Snowden. (2) We intervened in Libya. How did that work out? Hint, see Benghazi. (3) We intervened in Egypt. How did that work out? We ended up with the Muslim Brotherhood. (4) We continue to dither about Iran and its nuclear capabilities. (5) We ignore North Korea, which openly thumbs its nose at us. (6) We have treated Israel, our only true friend and ally in the region, in such a cavalier manner that it has become wary and suspicious of our motives and strength of commitment to it. Mr. Obama has already demonstrated that he did not study history and economics at Harvard. Now, it appears that he did not study geopolitics either.

Mr. Obama’s style has been to lead from behind. Leak what you are planning to the press. Appear on a talk show with a sympathetic interviewer. Gauge the reaction. Prepare the public (and our enemies). Develop a coalition of the willing. Then and only then, act. This approach has backfired this time. Mr. Obama has appeared indecisive and weak. Furthermore, the British Parliament has refused to support intervention. Congress is not in session, and support from that body is in doubt anyway. Today, the New York Times reported that Mr. Obama is hoping that an unspecified Arab country will publicly join us in a military response. Good luck with that. Does any rational person think that an Arab country will make such a public commitment? (Joe Biden doesn’t count; I said “rational.”)

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

The Syria situation is partly the result of 5 years of ineptitude by Mr. Obama. In trying to become everyone’s friend, he has become no one’s friend and has no one’s respect. Countries no longer feel they have to be concerned about an American response to their actions. Mr. Obama does not realize that certain countries and people will hate us no matter what we do, so stop worrying about it, and do what is in America’s best interests.

In this particular situation, we are faced with a Hobson’s choice. My inclination would be not to intervene. We cannot be the world’s policeman any longer. America does not have the resources, and Americans do not have the will. We have to pick and choose when and where to commit American money, materiel and lives. Our recent interventions have met with mixed results if not abject failure. Often, they result in our involvement in prolonged land wars in which thousands of American lives are lost for dubious benefit, e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. We risk a similar fate in Syria.

There is ample precedent. We did not intervene in Rwanda; we have stood by while Iran has developed nuclear weapons; and we have stood by while North Korea tests nuclear weapons and has repeatedly committed atrocities against its own citizens. Arguably, those situation were and are worse.

Unfortunately, my prediction is that Mr. Obama will intervene in some way, primarily to save face after his ill advised “red line” comment. Hopefully, he will limit his response to missile strikes and not commit troops. This will likely have a dubious benefit, but it will enable Mr. Obama to spin the situation by saying he took some action. After all, 2014 is an election year.

This week we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Dr. King delivered the speech during the “March for Jobs and Freedom” on August 28, 1963 in Washington D. C. in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It was one of several speeches, but it is the one we all remember. There were upwards of 250,000 persons in attendance that day. The rally was a great success in that it brought attention to the plight of African Americans, and helped influence the Federal government to pass the Voting Rights Act and other laws designed to foster racial equality. MLK was unquestionably one of the most outstanding leaders of the 20th Century. It is a shame that his life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet in 1968.

The 50th anniversary celebration gave us all an opportunity to reflect on the progress made since 1963. Incidentally, it would have been more appropriate for the sponsors to include conservative black leaders, such as Ben Carson, Allan Webb and/or Herman Cain as speakers. That would have made the event fair and balanced, as it should have been.

So, are African Americans better off today than they were 50 years ago? The African American unemployment rate is roughly double that of whites; the high school and college graduation rates are lower; they are much more likely to be the victim of a crime; and, most significantly, 72% of African American babies are born out of wedlock. With respect to leadership, African Americans have many leaders, but, unfortunately, none of them can hold a candle to Dr. King. An objective observer, however, would have to admit that African Americans have come a long way since 1963. Although much more needs to be done, by many measurements they are considerably better off than they were 50 years ago. For example:

1. We all acknowledge the importance of education to success in America. Their high school graduation rate, though less than for Whites, is 85% compared to 26% in 1963. The college graduation rate is 21% versus 4% in 1963.

2. We have comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, which are designed to prevent discrimination against many classes of individuals, including African Americans, in situations, such as jobs and education, among others. Although there are still some instances of overt discrimination, they are few and far between, and are usually redressed in the courts. In fact, the biggest controversy in this area is that in an age of political correctness, some people maintain that “reverse discrimination” exists in some cases.

3. The country has elected an African American President and a bevy of Congressmen, governors and mayors. This was inconceivable in 1963.

4. There are numerous examples of successful African Americans in business, entertainment and sports who, intentionally or not, act as role models.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

Success in America requires hard work, self-reliance, accepting responsibility for your own actions and the will to overcome any and all obstacles in order to achieve. This formula holds true for both Whites and minorities. Yes, the path to success is easier if one is born into a family with caring, nurturing parents and wealth, but there have been countless cases of individuals who have overcome poverty and other obstacles to succeed. President Obama, himself, is a prime example.

In my opinion, many African American leaders and role models prefer to create controversy and “stir the pot” for their own reasons. In point of fact, sometimes they do more harm than good. Mr. Sharpton is guilty of that, but he is not the only one, just one of the most prominent. Influential African American entertainers, sports figures and politicians (we all know who they are) should be speaking out about the really important issues, such the out-of-wedlock birth rate, absentee fathers, poor parenting, gratuitous crime and violence and reliance on entitlements. The Bill Cosbys of the world are few and far between. The government cannot lift you up; you must do it yourself, and accept responsibility for your own actions or inactions.

President Obama is uniquely positioned to speak out – raised by a single parent, Harvard educated, President of the country. He is the role model of role models. He has tremendous influence and credibility, which he can use in a positive way, if only he would do so. Why hasn’t he? Your guess is as good as mine.

So, I challenge African American leaders and role models that if you REALLY want to help, speak up in a positive, constructive way, not in an inflammatory, divisive way. After all, to paraphrase what Congressman John Lewis said in his speech on Tuesday: “We are all in the same house, the same boat. We are living together in AMERICA’S house.”

Hope and change. Remember how we felt on Election Night in 2008. We were feeling so good about ourselves. We had just elected the first African American President of the United States. We had confirmed that old adage that anyone can succeed in America; under our way of life anything is possible. Mr. Obama was going to bring us all closer together: black and white, rich and poor, young and old. He was going to make America a better place, economically and socially. As a bright, young, vibrant African American with superb communicative skills he was uniquely positioned to do so. Sure, he had a liberal background as a community organizer and U. S. senator, but now he would be the president of ALL the people and broaden his perspective accordingly, much as many other presidents had before him. Or, so we thought.

Now it is 2013. Five years have passed, and none of that optimism has come to pass. If anything, we are worse off than before he took office. Consider the following negative affects of Obama-nomics:

1. Unemployment has remained stubbornly high. Overall unemployment is 7.4% versus 7.8% in January 2009 when Mr. Obama took office. Approximately 80% of jobs created have been part time as employers seek to minimize expenses for employee healthcare (more on this later). Furthermore, a disproportionate percentage of the jobs created have been at the low end of the wage scale. Many college graduates, unable to find jobs in the field for which they were educated, at great cost I might add, are waiting tables or working at low salaries, if they can find a job at all. Also, not included in the unemployment rate are the 8 million or so discouraged persons who have given up and stopped looking for work. Unemployment among blacks is 12.6%, about the same as in January 2009.

2. The average duration of a person receiving unemployment benefits has risen to 37 weeks compared to 20 in 2009. This is consistent with the fact that jobs are not as plentiful as the Administration would have you believe.

3. Despite Mr. Obama’s aggressive attempts to redistribute income and wealth, the poverty rate is 16%, which is higher than it was in 1965 when the “War on Poverty” began.

4. Over half of Americans earn less than $54,000 a year and the number of Americans on food stamps is increasing by 11,000 per day.

5. The average price of a gallon of gas at the pump is $3.53 compared to $1.85 in 2009.

6. Even Mr. Obama’s signature legislation, the (Un)Affordable Healthcare Act, has had negative unintended consequences. Healthcare costs are already rising as the insurance companies anticipate their increased costs when the law takes effect in 2014. Moreover, many employers have been reducing their employees’ hours below 30 per week. That way, they will be considered to be part time and ineligible for healthcare coverage under employer-sponsored plans.

7. Yes, the stock market is booming and corporate profits are up, which bodes well for the future. But, so far the primary beneficiaries of this have been the wealthy as they are the ones who own stocks. So, the supreme irony is that Mr. Obama’s policies have been hurting the very people that he wants to help and helping the very people he wants to hurt.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Mr. Obama, as the first black president, had a rare, if not unique, opportunity to bring us all closer together. However, instead of being the “Great Unifier,” he has been the “Great Divider.” His anti-capitalist, Robin Hood-esque economic policies have been an abject failure. His partisan politics have pitted rich against poor (tax increases and growth of entitlements), black against white (defending Trayvon Martin before the trial even began, while ignoring the slaying of an Australian citizen by three “bored” youths,” the school bus beat-down of a 14 year old by three black youths and the random slaying of an 88 year old war veteran), women against men (exaggerated “war on women” election issue), young against old and the haves against the have-nots.

Furthermore, he has failed to come clean on several scandals: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS investigations and Eric Snowden’s disclosure of NSA activities, to name a few. Where is the leadership and accountability. Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave.

In my opinion, there is more social discord now than at any other time in the last 40 years (since the end of the Viet Nam War). I believe America is strong and resilient enough to survive the next three years, but it won’t be easy.

According to the 1960 US census, Detroit was the richest city in the US on a per capita basis. In August it filed for bankruptcy. Detroit was not the first US city to file for bankruptcy, but it is by far the largest. For the record, others that share that dubious distinction include San Bernardino, CA, Stockton, CA and Central Falls, RI, among others.

What happened? How did Detroit get from point A to point B? Is its situation an isolated case or a portent? The answers are disturbing and do not bode well for the future.

Some of the factors over the last 50 years that have led to Detroit’s current situation are as follows. Note, many of these are interrelated.

1. The precipitous decline of the auto industry, which was Detroit’s bread and butter. There were many factors that contributed to this decline, but, simply put, the Big 3 could not compete with foreign manufacturers. Their operations were more inefficient and more costly, and their cars were qualitatively inferior. By 2009 the US auto industry was on the verge of extinction. The Federal bailouts in 2009 saved the Big 3, but not the city.

2. White, middle class flight to the suburbs. Detroit’s population has declined from 1.85 million in 1950 to approximately 700,000 in 2013. Many of those fleeing the city have simply abandoned their homes or businesses because they were severely underwater. This has eroded the tax base further.

3. Political corruption, which was exacerbated by the fact that the voters continually voted Democratic.

4. Exorbitant debt. This includes substantial underfunded pension and healthcare benefits for public employees. Even under the best case scenario these workers are likely to endure significant reductions in their retirement benefits. Furthermore, to add insult to injury Federal law dictates that bondholders’ claims would have priority over those of retired workers.

5. Crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise. The homicide rate is the highest its been since the 1970s. The police are stretched so thinly that it takes 58 minutes, on average, to respond to calls for help compared to the nationwide average of 11 minutes. Only 1/3 of the city’s ambulances are operative.

Under these circumstances, the chances of a reversal of fortune are slim and none.

I don’t mean to single out Detroit. Most US cities are heading toward the same fate. Detroit just got there first. There are common threads running through most of these cities. The following factors are present in varying degrees:

1. Substantial debt.
2. High taxes.
3. Declining population.
4. Generous entitlement programs.
5. Strong, often implacable, unions.
6. High compensation to public employees.
7. Substantial pension and healthcare commitments to retired public employees.
8. Non-right-to-work laws.
9. High crime rate

Want more bad news? When the stock market advances slow or reverse themselves, as they inevitably will, the debt and underfunding will increase accordingly. Additionally, the states in which these cities are located are not financially able to bail them out as they, themselves, are often in financial straits. California leads the pack, but New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania are right behind it. Moreover, if you’re think that the Feds will come to the rescue, forget it.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

I don’t see any relief on the horizon. In my view, this is one mess that the Feds will not be able to spend us out of. There are simply too many municipalities that need assistance and not enough money. Bailouts would not be popular among the voters. Remember the unpopularity of a prospective bailout of New York City in the 1970s? Remember the famous newspaper headline – “(President) Ford to NYC: Drop Dead.” Besides, why reward bad behavior? I believe people should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Other municipalities should take heed and put their own house in order. They will need to change their modus operandi substantially – control expenses, reduce debt, incentivise businesses and middle class folks to stay, maintain a reasonable tax structure, reduce crime, etc. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be corrected overnight. It will require a significant shift in policies. But, it must be done or the consequences will be dire.

Americans’ fascination with British royalty is perplexing to me. It seems that many people cannot get enough of it. We put their lives under a microscope, like rock stars, elite athletes or movie stars. The birth of a new heir was particularly interesting to many people and served as a nice diversion from the world’s problems.

America was founded on the principle that “we are all created equal.” It says so in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, many of us are in awe of people who have done nothing to deserve it other than being born in the right bed. Anyway, I accept that I am outvoted. So, below please find my “Royalty Quiz.” All you royalty watchers,see how much you really know. No peeking at the internet.

1. The heir’s name is:

a. George Alexander Louis
b. George Michael
c. Charles James
d. Henry James

2. The heir is what number in the line of succession to the throne.

a. 1st
b. 2nd
c. 3rd
d. 4th

3. Identify the royal family’s “house.”

a. House of Stuart
b. Royal House
c. House of Elizabeth
d. House of Windsor

4. Which monarch had the longest reign?

a. Elizabeth I
b. Elizabeth II
c. Henry VIII
d. Victoria

5. Who was king during the Revolutionary War?

a. George II
b. George III
c. Edward V
d. Edward VII

6. Who was the king depicted in the “Robin Hood?”

a. Richard I
b. James I
c. Edward I
d. John II

7. Who became king following the Battle of Hastings (1066)?

a. James I
b. George I
c. William I
d. Henry IV

8. Who was king immediately before the current monarch.

a. Henry I
b. Henry II
c. George VI
d. Edward VIII

9. Who is the current monarch?

a. Elizabeth I
b. Elizabeth II
c. Elizabeth III
d. Elizabeth IV

10. Who was the only king to abdicate the throne?

a. James II
b. William III
c. Henry VI
d. Edward VIII

11. Why did he do so?

a. He had a bad speech impediment.
b. He wanted to marry a “commoner.”
c. He was very ill.
d. He wanted to become a professional rugby player.

12. Which monarch had the shortest reign (7 months, 7 days)?

a. Edmund II
b. James III
c. Anne I
d. Richard II

13. Who was the king depicted in the movie “Braveheart?

a. Richard I
b. Edward I
c. William I
d. Henry I

14. Where did Kate and William meet?

a. College
b. A pub
c. Blind date
d. Dating service

15. Who was famous for his 6 wives?

a. James III
b. George IV
c. George V
d. Henry VIII

Answers: (1) a; (2) c; (3) d; (4) d; (5) b; (6) a; (7) c; (8) c; (9) b; (10) d; (11) b; (12) a; (13) b; (14) a; (15) d

Remember: No peeking! Don’t be reticent about posting your score. I would be interested in the results. Ten right is a good score. Less than five right and you may not be smarter than a 5th grader.