If America Was Invaded What Would You Do?

I'm sure the republicans would be hiding under heir beds quaking with fear.

 

What if the United States was attacked & occupied? What would you do?

Posted by AnArmyVeteran in General Discussion

What do you think would happen if another country invaded America and occupied it with a huge number of soldiers? 

 

Do you think a lot of Americans would sit and do nothing regardless of why the foreign military was here? 

 

Or would a lot of Americans shoot at the occupying force?

I'm sure that if the US was occupied it would mobilize a lot of people to strike back at the foreign military. Hell, there are a lot of Americans who belong to militias who want to strike at their own government, so it seems like a given they would constantly attack any foreign occupiers. And ironically, that foreign military would call Americans 'insurgents'.

Imagine the leader of the occupying country saying he will keep his country's military in the US until all of the insurgents are rounded up or destroyed. This is virtually the same scenario we are facing in Afghanistan. No matter how long we have our military there there will always be insurgents. There will always be groups of people in that country that will try to kill members of the invading army, our soldiers.

What I find ironic is that the more right wing a person is the more they want to stay in Afghanistan and kill as many people as they can. I've heard the 'Christian' Glenn Beck saying we should use nukes against them. But they don't ever think that if the tables were turned would they want another country to nuke entire towns in the US just to get a handful of American insurgents?

At the G 20 conference, President Obama left the door wide open to stay in Afghanistan for a long time. This is not just disturbing, it's wrong. No matter how long we stay in Afghanistan it will achieve absolutely nothing. And as soon as we leave, whether it's 1 year or 5,000 years, everything will resort back to the pre-invasion days.

Attacking Afghanistan with a conventional army to fight against unconventional forces was the stupid act by the buffoonish Bush. We couldn't win in Vietnam with a conventional army fighting the Viet Cong just as we won't win in Afghanistan fighting an endless supply of insurgents. 

.

.

.

When The Lunatcs Run The Asylum

Creepy: Utah AG’s Tweets During Execution had Religious Overtones

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/22/creepy-utah-ags-tweets-during-execution-had-religious-overtones/

I’m sure you saw something about this over the weekend, but today the WaPo’s on-faith looked at the language of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff’s tweets during last Friday’s execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner:

[Death penalty supporters believe that] executions are manifestly supposed to have an educative impact by affirming social values and the position of the state as the authorized protector of its citizens.

In his tweets, Attorney General Shurtleff implicitly references these views and combines them with portentous religious language. Recognizing that it is a “solemn day,” Shurtleff tweets, “Utah will use most extreme power & execute a killer. Mourn his victims: Justice.” Later, Shurtleff declares in reference to Gardner’s fate: “May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims.”

These tweets constitute a religious justification for capital punishment. The word “solemn” obviously recalls the sanctity of religious ceremony. The word “justice” and “mourn” evoke heavy responsibility with deep emotional affect. “Mercy” places the execution within the larger context of the Christian belief in a redeeming God. Here their content is vacuous.

Especially telling is when the Shurtleff tweets about Gardner’s victims but doesn’t mention any of them by name–there simply isn’t room for them given everything else that he wants to say.

Yeah, there’s no room to name victims in a 140-character tweet.

I find the whole kerfuffle a bit strange. The death penalty’s outdated, ineffective as a deterrent and generally reflective of a brutal and tacky society. That seems a bigger issue than whether some showboating AG took to Twitter to talk about it.

People tweet about the ham sandwich they had for lunch, why not an execution?
.
.
.

If Conservatives Hate Government Why Do They Love Government Help?

In Kentucky, the Lexington Herald-Leader had a good editorial the other day that an alert reader brought to my attention. It expressed a sentiment we’ve probably all heard more than a few times, but it’s nice to get a reminder now and then.

The editorial board highlighted the fact that Rand Paul, the bizarre Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, has ideas that sometimes “crash into reality” in awkward ways. For example, Paul hates “big government” programs like Medicaid and Medicare, but the health care programs nevertheless constitute about half of his professional income. Indeed, the right-wing ophthalmologist would like to eliminate most of the federal government, but he’s prepared to leave Medicare intact — the socialized-medicine program that’s helped him pay his mortgage.

Likewise, Paul wanted nothing to do with contributions from senators who support the financial industry bailout in 2008. The pledge suddenly disappeared when his campaign decided he needed the money.
For the Herald-Leader, the point for voters to ponder is “how Paul’s ideas and ideals would translate on the ground.”

In fairness, many of us are guilty of wanting the benefits of something — whether it’s board certification or full campaign coffers — without paying the price.
Like the Gulf Coast residents who want government off their backs, until a hurricane or oil spill comes along.

Or the Farm Bureau that wants government off the farm, except for the mailbox which is always open to subsidy checks.

Or politicians who rail against out-of-control spending but show up to take credit when a ribbon is cut or oversized check presented.

Or all the rest of us, who resent the chunk of change that government extracts from our pockets but want smooth roads, good schools, police and fire protection, national security, personal security in old age, free markets governed by laws, student loans, flood walls, lakes and parks and the list goes on.

The Tea Party movement, of which Paul is both a leader and beneficiary, feeds the comforting illusion that we can have all we’ve come to expect from government without paying for it. We buy into this illusion at our own peril.

I don’t have anything especially insightful to add; I just found this sentiment worth repeating.

This post appeared on Washington Monthly.
.
.

Killer Cops On The Rise

Cops Kill 21-Year-Old in Marijuana Raid

On Friday the government’s war on marijuana consumers claimed yet another victim.
In Las Vegas, Nevada, metro police shot and killed a 21-year-old father-to-be while serving a search warrant for marijuana.

Phil Smith at StoptheDrugWar.org has detailed coverage here.

A 21-year-old father-to-be was killed last Friday night by a Las Vegas Police Department narcotics officer serving a search warrant for marijuana. Trevon Cole was shot once in the bathroom of his apartment after he made what police described as “a furtive movement.”
Police have said Cole was not armed. Police said Monday they recovered an unspecified amount of marijuana and a set of digital scales. A person identifying herself as Cole’s fiancée, Sequoia Pearce, in the comments section in the article linked to above said no drugs were found.

Pearce, who is nine months pregnant, shared the apartment with Cole and was present during the raid. “I was coming out, and they told me to get on the floor. I heard a gunshot and was trying to see what was happening and where they had shot him,” Pearce told KTNV-TV.
According to police, they arrived at about 9 p.m. Friday evening at the Mirabella Apartments on East Bonanza Road, and detectives knocked and announced their presence. Receiving no response, detectives knocked the door down and entered the apartment. They found Pearce hiding in a bedroom closet and took her into custody. They then tried to enter a bathroom where Cole was hiding. He made “a furtive movement” toward a detective, who fired a single shot, killing Cole.

… According to Pearce and family members, Cole had no criminal record, had achieved an Associate of Arts degree, and was working as an insurance adjustor while working on a political science degree at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. He was not a drug dealer, Pearce said.

“Trevon was a recreational smoker. He smoked weed, marijuana. That’s what he did,” she told KTNV-TV. “They didn’t have to kill him. We were supposed to get married next year, plan a black and white affair,” she said. “He was all I ever knew, we were gonna make it.”

In May, I blogged about another sickening case — that one from Columbia, Missouri (you can watch the disturbing and graphic video here) — of ‘cops gone wild’ in the war on weed. But the similarities between the two cases go beyond narcotics officers breaking down the doors of private residences and discharging their weapons.

In both instances, these tragic raids took place in regions of the country that have ‘decriminalized’ marijuana possession. That’s right. In Nevada, lawmakers in 2001 enacted statewide legislation defelonizing minor marijuana possession — making the offense a fine-only misdemeanor. (Separately, Nevada voters in 2000 decided to amend the state’s constitution to exempt medical users from arrest.) And in 2004, some 60 percent of Columbia, Missouri voters approved a local ordinance that sought to prohibit local cops from from arresting anyone for simple marijuana possession.

Yet, as the above tragedies illustrate, neither of these ‘half-a-loaf’ changes in law (decriminalization and medicalization) ultimately corrects the core problem and that is this: Police and politicians still accept the premise that this level of deadly force is appropriate to keep people from using marijuana.

That is why, while on the one hand NORML (obviously) supports cannabis medicalization and decriminalization efforts, we also recognize that these efforts fall woefully short for many Americans. After all, police in Las Vegas, Columbia, and elsewhere are not forcefully entering private homes and terrorizing families while executing search warrants for alcohol. But they are engaging in such behavior in communities that have medicalized and/or decriminalized marijuana. And unfortunately, they will continue to do so.

In short, the only way to fully protect all our citizens from these kinds of abhorrent events is through the legalization and regulation of marijuana for all adults. 

Decriminalization and medicalization are first steps — not the end game. Ultimately only legalization and regulation can bring a long overdue end to the brutal war on marijuana consumers.
.
.
.

Are We Sick Of Hearing This Shit Yet?

Cop Punches 17-Year-Old Girl in the Face … Over Jay-Walking

According to Seattle Police, this poor cop’s fist was brutally assaulted by the face of a 17-year old girl:

Seattle police are investigating what they call an assault of an officer in South Seattle.
However, a police officer is seen punching a 17-year-old girl in the face during the incident captured by a video camera on Monday.

According to Seattle police, the incident began when an officer spotted a man jaywalking in the 3100 block of Martin Luther King, Jr. Way S. at approximately 3:10 p.m. The man was some 15 feet away from a pedestrian overpass, police said.

The officer was talking to the man when he saw four young women jaywalk across the same street at the same spot. The officer asked the women to step over to his patrol car, but the women were being “verbally antagonistic toward the officer,” according to officials…
The girl then “began to tense up her arm, and pull away from the officer while yelling at him,” investigators said.

So naturally he socked her. The video’s below.


People generally evaluate these incidents based only on the final moments. Did the cop feel threatened at the moment he threw the punch? I don’t think that’s the key issue here. As Radley Balko (who gets a hat-tip for the story) points out:

Seems to me that the mistake came earlier: This started as a jaywalking citation. Was it it really so important that the woman get a jaywalking fine that she needed to be chased down and thrown against the patrol car? Even if she was trying to avoid the fine, seems like at some point you realize what’s at stake here (a single incident of someone undermining your authority to get away with a petty crime), and just let it go.

Yet again I’ll ask (as I always do): might this cop have been hopped up on steroids? Update: here’s another video of a different cop (also white) punching another young woman (also black) 4 times in the face in 2009 for riding her bicycle on a sidewalk.
.
.
.

A Word About Immigration

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.

Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

 

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
.
.
.

Those Pain In The Ass Christian Assholes Are At It AGAIN!!!!

Madfloridian's Journal

Church adopts a public school. Pastor says by befriending students they can now convert the parents.

Posted by madfloridian in General Discussion
Tue Jun 15th 2010, 10:09 PM

In Lakeland, Florida, a Southern Baptist megachurch has adopted a public school whose budget was cut. There is a lot of freedom now in Florida apparently to mix public schools and religion. 

It may be a good thing that the church is providing tutors, catering school events with spaghetti dinners, buying sneakers for the students. But it doesn't sound like it will end there. 

From the WSJ:

Towns Tap Businesses, Churches to Shore Up Budgets


Edward Linsmier for The Wall Street Journal Combee Elementary School officials and Pastor Dave McClamma, center top, look on as students receive new shoes from the church, which has been helping out the budget-strapped school this year.

LAKELAND, Fla.—When his budget for pencils, paper, and other essential supplies was cut by a third this school year, the principal of Combee Elementary School worried children would suffer. Then, a local church stepped in and "adopted" the school. The First Baptist Church at the Mall stocked a resource room with $5,000 worth of supplies. It now caters spaghetti dinners at evening school events, buys sneakers for poor students, and sends in math and English tutors.

The principal is delighted. So are church pastors. "We have inroads into public schools that we had not had before," says Pastor Dave McClamma. "By befriending the students, we have the opportunity to visit homes to talk to parents about Jesus Christ."

You could almost call this faith-based schooling. Public funds are being cut or diverted to private religious schools and charter schools. 

That leaves the public schools floundering, needing help, and the churches can step in with help and attempts to convert. 

More than one way to skin a cat. 

Some former pastors show concern for this movement. 

In Florida, meanwhile, alliances between churches and schools are igniting debate about church-state boundaries. "I have great concerns about churches who see public schools as, well, what shall I say, church membership," says Harry Parrott, a retired Baptist minister who runs a local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

I agree. This Baptist church has a narrow agenda. They worked with the state legislature to pass anti-gay laws. They do not support a woman's right to choose. They believe a woman's place is in the home and being submissive to her husband. 

And now they get access to the parents of these school children. 

The principal openly said he hopes that there are conversions. The superintendent called him out on that. 

"If they want to come in and help, who am I to say no?" says Mr. Comparato, the principal.

He says he would welcome congregations of any faith as sponsors, but adds of his students, "My personal conviction is that I hope through this they'll know Jesus and they'll get saved."

Asked if the principal's comments indicated he was promoting one particular religion, Ms. McKinzie, the Polk County superintendent, says,"He personally can hope anything he wants, as long as he offers programs at the school for parents who don't believe in the Baptist faith or anything at all."

In Florida there is too much crossing over between school and religion. 

Eight Catholic schools converted to charter to get public funding.

And so, the Archdiocese of Miami will begin its experiment with charter schools this fall. What was intended as a pilot program at one parish – Corpus Christi in Wynwood – will become, for financial reasons, the norm at seven more. Charters also will open in August where five other Catholic schools closed this June: Sacred Heart, Our Lady of Divine Providence in Sweetwater, St. Francis Xavier in Overtown, St. Stephen in Miramar and St. Clement in Fort Lauderdale.

A seventh charter will open at St. Malachy in Tamarac, which opted to close its school before its financial situation deteriorated further. And an eighth charter will open in Miami Gardens, in the building used by St. Monica School until it closed in May 2008.

The First Baptist Church at the Mall now has too much access to the students and parents of that elementary school. 

And there is too much mixing of public and private money. Too much mixing of what should be secular and what is religious.

Why Abort It When You Can Wait A Few Years and Fuck It (Pt. 2)

They march into their dens willingly every week as they obediently give up their financial offerings - and their children. For more than thirty years the victims of sexual abuse have been coming forth and are being ignored by not only the church but also by law enforcement.

Church hierarchy all the way to the Vatican have compared the church with the secular world, arguing that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions. The difference being that “other institutions” found guilty of sexual abuse have been dealt with in the criminal courts. For some reason, the Catholics think of themselves as above the law. Case after case of child molestation by priests has been covered up – literally for centuries.

As Pope Benedict begs for forgiveness, he offers an empty promise of “better screening” of church volunteers and low level workers but again avoids actually punishing any pedophile priest.

Why is it that we are allowing this?

When does the abuser get to decide their fate?

The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002. The number 4,392 represents four percent of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Approximately:

• 56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.
• The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
• 50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.
• Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.
• Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.

There were approximately 10,667 reported minor victims of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

• Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
• 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.
• A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
• 9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
• More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
• For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
• In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There were also a large number of allegations of more grave abuse, including acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

It's easy to think that amid the all of the allegations of sexual abuse currently scarring the Catholic Church, the cover-ups that have followed have been locally driven. But as the current Pope Benedict scandal suggests, the church cover-ups appear to implicate its highest ranks including Ratzinger himself.

Revelations that the Vatican halted the investigation of a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys where 67 deaf men and women accused two dozen priests of raping and molesting children for years.

Church documents, official testimony, and victim interviews gathered over the past year paint an extraordinary picture of secrecy and deception in the Boston Archdiocese; a culture in which top church officials coddled abusive priests and permitted them to molest again, while stonewalling or paying off the victims of that abuse.

And this goes on ad on every day. When are people going to stop supporting these crimes?

.

.

.

A Letter From Our President

Fed Up --

The BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation's history. I am returning to the region today to review our efforts and meet with families and business owners affected by the catastrophe.

We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again.

But our work will not end with this crisis. That's one of the reasons why last week I invited lawmakers from both parties to join me at the White House to discuss what it will take to move forward on legislation to promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on foreign oil.

Today, we consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than two percent of the world's oil reserves. Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month -- including many in dangerous and unstable regions.

In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help.

Please stand with me today in backing clean energy. Adding your name will help Organizing for America create a powerful, public display of support for making this change happen.

The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a new future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything -- from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks -- more energy-efficient. It means rolling back billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development.

Many businesses support this agenda because shifting to clean energy creates opportunities for entrepreneurship. This is how we will reinvent our economy -- and create new companies and new jobs all across the country.

There will be transition costs and a time of adjustment. But if we refuse to heed the warnings from the disaster in the Gulf -- we will have missed our best chance to seize the clean-energy future we know America needs to thrive in the years and decades to come.

The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate -- a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans -- that would achieve the same goal. But this is an issue that Washington has long ignored in favor of protecting the status quo.

So I'm asking for your help today to show that the American people are ready for a clean-energy future.

Please add your name to mine:

http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

For All Of You Asshole War Monger Mother Fuckers

Conservative christian right wing republican straight white American males all live in some sort of alternate reality bizarro world and THIS is how they see things to justify their killings in the name of their tin god and some sort of war on terror excuse.


.
.
.
.

How To Win The 2010 Mid Term Elections

Dems Need to Exploit the GOP’s Support of Oil Companies

This post originally appeared on Booman Tribune.

There’s a lot of speculation over how the Senate is going to handle the energy bill, most of which is fueled by comments that Sen. Schumer made on Monday.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership and a close ally of Reid’s, said Monday that climate legislation would not be part of the bill that came to the Senate floor.Schumer said the climate proposal crafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would be offered as an amendment to an energy bill based largely on legislation devised by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).

The Bingaman proposal would be “the base bill upon which John Kerry will seek to add this bill,” Schumer said on MSNBC Monday morning.

Schumer, through his staff, has walked that prediction back a bit but his comments were at least a trial balloon and perhaps accurate. It’s probably a reaction to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s decision to oppose his own bill. Unless some Republicans are willing to cross the aisle, carbon caps aren’t happening. Consider that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is going to vote on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s amendment to strip the EPA of their authority to regulate emissions.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he would support Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution of disapproval to halt EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.“I intend to vote for Sen. Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia’s economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA,” Rockefeller said in a statement.

Now, a lot of the past year I’ve been willing to give a nod to the procedural obstacles to passing the best legislation possible, but with the oil spill in the Gulf, it really should be possible to make a frontal assault on Republican intransigence.

We’ll never have a better setting or a more compelling object lesson to help us make the case for strong anti-petrochemical legislation. On this particular issue, I believe it is a no-lose situation to go strong. We can always come back and pass something weak. But we ought to test the Republicans’ willingness to fight for the oil companies while there is an environmental apocalypse going on in the Gulf.
.
.
.

Say G'Bye To Full Time Jobs With Benefits

By Chris Isidore, senior writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Jobs may be coming back, but they aren't the same ones workers were used to.

Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.

In 2005, the government estimated that 31% of U.S. workers were already so-called contingent workers. Experts say that number could increase to 40% or more in the next 10 years.

James Stoeckmann, senior practice leader at WorldatWork, a professional association of human resource executives, believes that full-time employees could become the minority of the nation's workforce within 20 to 30 years, leaving employees without traditional benefits such as health coverage, paid vacations and retirement plans, that most workers take for granted today.

"The traditional job is not doomed. But it will increasingly have competition from other models, the most prominent is the independent contractor model," he said.

Doug Arms, senior vice president of Ajilon, a staffing firm, says about 90% of the positions his company is helping clients fill right now are on a contract basis.

"[Employers] are reluctant to bring on permanent employees too quickly," he said. "And the available candidate landscape is much different now. They're a little more aggressive to take any position."

Cathy, who asked that her last name not be used, lost her job as a recruiter for a financial services firm in February 2009. She started working on a contract basis four months later. She believes that many employers are taking improper advantage of the weak labor market.

"I work in HR, I understand that sometimes you need to hire a contractor because you have a project and you won't need the person when it's done in three months," she said. "But that's not what's happening here."
Cathy said her co-workers who had permanent jobs didn't treat her differently, but she still felt like a second-class citizen.

"At one job they were giving out H1N1 flu shots but the contract workers weren't eligible to receive them," she said. "I said 'You guys are still in trouble if I get the flu.'"

Much of the change is due to employers' desire to limit their costs. Stoechmann equates the shift to the one seen in retirement plans, in which employers moved away from the traditional pension plan toward defined contribution plans, which passes more of the burden onto the employee.

Demographic factors are feeding the shift as well. Stoechmann said many younger workers are more open to the idea of not tying themselves to a single employer.

And as baby boomers reach the age when they are eligible for Medicare and not dependent upon their employer for health insurance, many are more open to contract work.

Health care reform legislation passed earlier this year, which will create a mandate for employers to provide health benefits for employees but not contractors, will also feed the trend.

"Once you have an employer mandate in place, you create an incentive for employers to get around that mandate," said Susan Houseman, a senior economist studying labor issues at the W.E. Upjohn Institute.
Houseman also believes the jobs market could stay tilted in favor of employers for much of the coming decade, because of the depth of job losses and the lingering weakness in the economy.

Sara Horowitz, the founder and executive director of the Freelancers Union, an advocacy group for freelancers and independent contractors, said that employment laws and protections have been slow to recognize the shift. For example, independent contractors aren't eligible for unemployment benefits. And they have to pay both the employee and the employer match on their Social Security taxes.

But Horowitz said not everyone who works as a freelancer or independent contractor is unhappy with their situation.

She estimates about 30% are satisfied with the arrangement, about equal to the number who desperately want to find a full-time job with benefits. The other 40% are somewhere in the middle, feeling pleased by aspects of their job and unhappy about others.

"It's not that most want to be freelancers or don't want to be freelancers. They're just following the work, and the work itself is evolving," she said.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/01/news/economy/contract_jobs/index.htm?hpt=C2

.
.

18 States Come Up With Their Versions Of AZ Immigration Law

This is where my liberal brethren and I disagree. So be it.

I've seen more states coming on with plans to file versions of SB 1070 than I can count.

Time to get organized.

Please help me build the list. Please post article titles and links below. Ex.

New Jersey: Anti-Illegal legislation proposed in New Jersey
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196431.html

Only post state name and article title for STATES where people are announcing they will file versions of AZ SB 1070.

I will check your posts and build our master list here


# OF STATES ATTEMPTING VERSIONS OF AZ's SB 1070: 18

ARKANSAS
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-197465.html

IDAHO
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-199712.html

INDIANA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-198939.html

MARYLAND
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196969.html

MICHIGAN
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-198354.html

MINNESOTA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196774.html

MISSOURI
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196852.html

NEBRASKA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1063462.html#1063462

NEVADA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-197562.html

NEW JERSEY
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196431.html

NORTH CAROLINA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1067121.html#1067121

OHIO
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196379.html

OKLAHOMA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196972.html

PENNSYLVANIA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1052137.html#1052137

RHODE ISLAND
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-199918.html

SOUTH CAROLINA
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-197015-south.html+carolina

TEXAS
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196627.html

UTAH
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196365.html

WE ARE UP TO 18 STATES!
.
.
.