I still have received no response to my postings or e-mail messages, nor any correspondence about the issues I raised.

As I announced in my previous entry here, the new posts of The Playful Walrus will be at http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com Please join me there and bookmark, follow, etc. and comment. I will continue to contribute at The Opine Editorials, too.

Please join me at the new location, and on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you for reading, and thanks to Townhall for giving me a soapbox for all of these years.

I reluctantly announce that I am moving. From now until further notice, the new posts of The Playful Walrus will be at http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com Please join me there and bookmark, follow, etc. and comment. I will continue to contribute at The Opine Editorials, too.

I did not make this decision lightly. I like Townhall. I was the original Townhall.com user blogger, posting the first entry Wednesday, July 05, 2006 at 12:42:34 PM. It was exciting to be part of the new Townhall.com, which was energizing people with conservative ideas. One of my entries was published in the first or second issue of Townhall Magazine. Some of my stuff was read on top national talk radio shows (including what was the #3 show at the time). I was featured on the page dedicated to the user blogs. That page hasn't been updated in ages, which is a symptom of why I am moving. I have also garnered the attention of Leftists, gender confusion types, and marriage neutering advocates, who have cited me as they wailed and gnashed their teeth. I even got an award from one.

As I said, the page dedicated to user blogs hasn't been updated in ages. This is a symptom of why I am leaving: a lack of support for the user blogs. There used to be someone on staff dedicated to us, but I don't think that has been the case in a long time. My e-mails through the Contact page have gone unanswered. I have wanted to make changes to this blog and haven't been able to due to some technical issues.  A change in format on the Tipsheet, the columns, and other content no longer means when we comment, someone can click on our username to see our blog. So traffic suffers.

It looks as those most of my fellow bloggers here have abandoned their Townhall blogs for other venues. I am on Facebook and Twitter, and I'd hoped that changes would be made here so as to connect our blogs to such sites. Since it hasn't happened yet, I'm going to a venue that does.

Please join me at the new location, and on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you for reading, and thanks to Townhall for giving me a soapbox for all of these years.

Some professing Christians do so much to give others one more excuse to mock God. Something I've known about for a while now is now making the rounds in MSM, giving Christendom a back eye. Tom Breen of the Associated Press reports on those who are setting dates for the "end of the world".

If there had been time, Marie Exley would have liked to start a family. Instead, the 32-year-old Army veteran has less than six months left, which she'll spend spreading a stark warning: Judgment Day is almost here.

Exley is part of a movement of Christians loosely organized by radio broadcasts and websites, independent of churches and convinced by their reading of the Bible that the end of the world will begin May 21, 2011.

How is Marie going to feel when she realizes she made major life decisions based on false prophecies?

In August, Exley left her home in Colorado Springs, Colo., to work with Oakland, Calif.-based Family Radio Worldwide, the independent Christian ministry whose leader, Harold Camping, has calculated the May 21 date based on his reading of the Bible.

Yes, and Harold Camping also wrote a book that claimed that 1994 was going to be the year. Look it up. If we were living in a certain time and place, Camping would have been stoned to death as a false prophet. Instead, dupes send him money.

Camping, 89, believes the Bible essentially functions as a cosmic calendar explaining exactly when various prophecies will be fulfilled.

The Bible documents God's love for us, and teaches us how to have fellowship with God. It isn't there so we will guess about the dates of future events.

The retired civil engineer said all his calculations come from close readings of the Bible, but that external events like the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 are signs confirming the date.

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment," he said.

Camping and everyone who believes this should be willing to sign a legal document right now that transfers ownership of all of their worldly possessions as of May 22, 2011 to those who don’t believe this.

The doctrine known as the Rapture teaches that believers will be taken up to heaven, while everyone else will remain on earth for a period of torment, concluding with the end of time. Camping believes that will happen in October.

The doctrine of pretribulational premillennialism (on which the Left Behind series is based) is just one of many models to explain what the future holds. The non-negotiable in orthodox Christian doctrine is that things will not continue as they are now – Jesus Christ will return in visible, bodily form, bringing judgment and an end to this age. Some people are going to have eternal life in fellowship with Him, and others will spend eternity without that fellowship. Other than that, some Christians believe nothing else has to happen before that moment arrives, others think there is going to a special future Tribulation period, and some of those people believe that also believe that Christians will be taken away at the beginning of that period, to return later with Christ.

One important thing is that the Bible teaches nobody knows the day or the hour. Camping tries to get around this, but there is no getting around it.

"If May 21 passes and I'm still here, that means I wasn't saved. Does that mean God's word is inaccurate or untrue? Not at all," Warden said.

Think of how many people are going to be disillusioned. It has happened may times before.

The Book of Revelation, which comes last in the New Testament, describes this conclusion in vivid language that has inspired Christians for centuries.

Some Christians believe that the book, except for the last couple of chapters, is more about what was going on in the first century Church and what the Church was facing in the coming years.

For me, the bottom line is to focus on God like today could be my last day of this life – because it could be, even if it is the end of my life but not the end of the world. But I also need to plan and work as though I’ll have to take care of myself and my family for the rest of the century. I have thrown myself on His mercy, because I have sinned against Him. I look to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, recognizing that He paid for my sins on the cross.

For intelligent Christian teaching and analysis that isn't alarmist nor based on false prophecies, I recommend these websites, among others. And not all of these websites agree on everything, by the way:

Stand to Reason
Christian Think Tank
Please Convince Me
J.P. Moreland
William Lane Craig
Walter Martin
Christian Research Institute
Reasons to Believe
R.C. Sproul
Norm Geisler
Answers in Action

(This is a repost.)

Ten percent is a lie.

A Sincere Mormon Can Be a Better President Than a Lukewarm "Christian"

I'm a follower of Christ – a Christian that some would identify as an evangelical Protestant.  I believe the core essentials of the historic Christian faith – the authority of the Bible, the Triune God, the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the reality of sin and what it has done to our relationship with God, and that Jesus Christ lived the perfect life and was crucified in my place, and was resurrected to everlasting life as Lord and Savior, and that He will return at the end of the world as we know it.

The Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints) teaches things counter to the historic Christian faith.  I wouldn't recommend the Mormon church to anyone, because their theological philosophy is entirely different, including believing in the existence of many gods, believing that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods, believing that men can become gods, that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross wasn't enough to make us right with God, and that the Bible is one of four books of holy scripture, the Book of Mormon being the "most correct".

All of that being said, I could support a sincere Mormon for President.  Why?  Because it is the office of President, not my church pastor.  While I think the LDS church leadership is dead wrong about Jesus Christ and the nature of God, it promotes conservative values, clean living, thinking about eternal consequences, being prepared for the future, and American exceptionalism.  For those reasons, I would prefer a sincere Mormon who believed in limiting government to a liberal Protestant churchgoer (or someone steeped in "Black Liberation" theology) who either doesn’t "get it" when it comes to a personal relationship with Jesus or simply refuses to commit to Jesus as Lord and Savior. What good is sitting in church every week if you refuse to sincerely seek God's guidance and holiness, or if you see the government as a better way to solve social ills than churches?

I want a President who truly believes he or she is accountable to God for their actions, and can't really ever "get away" with anything. I want a President who understands that personal morality matters, and more moral we all are, the better off we'll be. I want a President who sees the U.S.A. as special and seeks to keep the country special through excellence. I want a President who knows what the role of government should and should not be in our lives.

Will I support Romney? That depends on who else runs. Republicans, especially those who are evangelical Christians, needs to ask what they want to accomplish with this next election cycle. Would we rather have a candidate for President who shares our theology, religious practices, and every major political viewpoint at the expense of losing? Or do we want to replace Obama with someone who is more capable, more conservative, and who believes more in American ideals and the American people, at the expense of ideological or theological purity?

Jesus did not call perfect men who would always agree with Him to be His close disciples, and He was building a church. We should not expect a perfect person to take the political position of Presidential candidate. And make no mistake - someone needs to be a great Presidential candidate before they can be a good President, and a great candidate attracts and inspires more than just conservative Republicans. They get the votes of others, too.

The MSM once again demonstrates they'll do whatever they can to promote marriage neutering. See the latest at The Opine Editorials.

Not one of my patients takes this decision lightly. Many travel more than 100 miles to see me and my colleagues.

So that means they should be able to get my tax dollars to kill their babies?

I see women who agonize over feeding and clothing the children they already have, who are striving to break the cycle of poverty by getting an education, who are fleeing from abuse, and who have health problems that make pregnancy life-threatening.

How many truly fall into that last category? As for the rest... if only we had...

...government welfare programs

...private charities

..."free" education through high school and "cheap" community colleges

...programs for pregnant mothers

...programs for mothers with children

...programs and places for abused women

...a dozen different forms of contraception

...the ability to abstain from intercourse

...the ability to choose when to have intercourse

...the ability to choose sexual partners

...various forms of adoption

Robert H. Dahl of Los Angeles got it right:

In all fairness, your editorial regarding the "unprecedented attack on women's reproductive rights" should have mentioned that the so-called right results in the killing of a baby.

Michael L. Friedman, MD

Torrance

Michael L. Friedman, MD

Torrance

Michael L. Friedman, MD

Torrance

Michael L. Friedman, MD of Torrance wrote:

As an OB-GYN physician, I can still remember the mangled women who were victims of untrained abortionists.

Yeah, people sometimes get injured murder other people, too. If only they could trained by hitmen.

 

The real answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and easy access to birth control.

 

We already have that! And remember how abortion-on-demand was going to eradicate child abuse and poverty? Yeah, that worked out, right?

Gordon Engh of Mission Viejo wrote into the Orange County Register:

My wife and I are third-generation residents and do not want to leave California. But we are now convinced that it will be necessary to leave if we want to maintain a good lifestyle in our retirement.

Moving to any of our neighboring states would mean a “pay increase” (less costs and taxes) of between 8 percent and 12 percent, over a 20-year retirement period. That could make a big difference in quality of life. We can always return to visit family and friends for extended periods.

Apparently the unions that run the state will stop at nothing to feather their own beds. We will not be here and will not needlessly endure limits to our lifestyle to pay the bill.

There are a lot of Gordons leaving California. He's right. The government employee unions own the Governor, the state legislature, and many local offices as well. They want to keep their unusually generous benefits and high salaries along with unusually strong job security. Those unions have a clear interest in growing the size of the government. Their answer to recession? Raise tax rates and impose new taxes in a state that is already high taxed! Working with environuts, victicrats, gender confusion activists, and racist illegal alien leaders, they make the state hostile to small business, property owners, taxpayers, parents, and Americans. As the responsible, independent, productive Gordons of the state leave, they are replaced with a Babel of illegal aliens gangsters with allegiances south of the border and accustomed to a culture of corruption, and others dependent on government assistance. The state can't continue to function this way.

Did I miss the memo? Has Salem given up on the Townhall.com user blogs? Was there some other Salem property to which we were all supposed to migrate?

Normally, I wouldn't do a "behind-the-scenes" post like this on this blog, but seeing as how my e-mails to Townhall.com have gone unanswered, I don't know what else to to.

I get the impression that the user blogs aren't the priority they once were for Townhall.com/Salem, probably due to belt-tightening. This is sad to me, in part because I was the first user blogger here, but more importantly because I like Townhall.com.

I use Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Blogger. But I want to keep blogging at Townhall. So I want to see things get better for the user blogs here:

1. Overhauling the layout in a way that will more strongly promote other Townhall/Salem (TS) content. For example, the blog can be framed with displays of/links to TS advertisers, as well as selections from all of the other Townhall/Salem content, most of which is listed in the current navigation bar: columnists/columns, Tiphseet postings, Hotair postings, News, Political Cartoons, Talk Radio, Video, Photos. Preferably, when going to publish a post, a blogger would be asked to choose X choices of each from recent list (except for the ads). For example, “Please choose at least three recent columns from this list to be featured in the left column framing your blog. Please choose three political cartoons... etc,” That way, when readers are directed to the user blog, it may draw them further in to Townhall.com. There's Salem's incentive.

2. In exchange for this little bit of extra work on the part of the user and having "their" blog framed by Townhall content and ads, the user will get a working and easier blogger interface. Last I checked, I couldn’t update my blog roll or other aspects of my blog. It would be nice to get that back. It would also be nice for it to be easier to quote, embed pictures/audio/video, and link.

3. Make it easier for people to quote, link to, and otherwise share posts from user blogs.

4. Make it easier to interact the user blogs with Twitter, Facebook, etc. For example, it would be great if when I posted something to my blog, I could have it automatically post links to that entry on my Twitter and Facebook accounts.

5. Make it easier to find content on the user blog with a search, tags, and more featured posts.

6. Make it easy for people to "subscribe" to or follow the blog, and the comments of any given posts.

7. Go back to featuring different user blogs on the page with the list of recently updated blogs, and quoting user blogs on the Tipsheet.

8. Go back to having a link to our blog in our username when we comment on the Tipsheet, columns, etc.

9. Allow us to see data of visits to our blog, so we can determine what most interest readers.

Because California public schools are doing so well teaching basic academic skills, state Senator Mark D. Leno of San Francisco (of course), is once against pushing for students to be taught that the sexual orientation of historical figures somehow matters. I like it when certain homosexuality advocates insist that guys who were married with lots of children were actually homosexuals. You know, because in their minds nobody can have any male friends without them getting each other off. Patrick McGreevy reports in the Los Angeles Times.

As the battle over [neutering] marriage makes its way through California's courts, another gay rights fight is smoldering in the Legislature.

This is not an issue of gay rights. It is an issue of social engineering.

Democratic lawmakers have revived a plan to require state schools to teach about the contributions of gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.

This is written as though significant contributions by homosexual people, crossdressers, and those who have had adadictomies are being ignored now.

They are reigniting a movement that halted five years ago when legislators approved such a requirement only to run into opposition from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger wasn't entirely worthless. But now Moonbeam is back.

If implemented, the measure, which would revise social science textbooks, could have effects beyond California. The state is a major purchaser of educational texts, and publishers often produce books tailored to California that other states use as well.

Hey rest-of-the-country: you're welcome.

The proposal would require that social science texts and other instruction include "a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans … to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."

What about women who like to be on top? Auto-erotic asphyxiators? Left-handers? Drinkers? Smokers? Obese-Americans? Chubby-chasers?

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) who introduced the bill, SB 48, said it addresses a glaring oversight in educating young people that has led to harassment of gays by their classmates.

Oh, sure. The reason why Johnny calls Timmy a f----t is because Johnny wasn't taught all of the wonderful contributions made by homosexual people. If Johnny had been, he would never call Timmy a f----t. No, wait, I thought Johnny was doing that because he himself is secretly a homosexual. Oh, this is so hard to keep… straight. Or by "harassment" do you include, "No, I will not sign your petition calling for weekly lunchtime viewings of ‘Glee’?"

"In light of the ongoing and ever-threatening phenomenon of bullying and the tragic result of suicides, it seems to me that better informed students might be more welcoming in their approach to differences among their classmates," Leno said in an interview.

The Left foolishly thinks "education" will solve all social ills. Because goodness knows, nobody who is educated ever commits crime. We could do a lot to fight bullying if we focused on bullying and allowed kids to defend themselves against bullies.

"Students would better understand that we are talking about a civil rights movement."

I'm sorry, but people use to torture and murder black people with no legal consequences in this country. That's a little different than not being able to get a state marriage license when there's no bride involved. You want to fight for civil rights, then fight for the rights of property owners, parents, and gun owners.

The measure is backed by California Church Impact, a group whose members include the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Greek Orthodox Church and others.

So much for "separation of church and state!" Do you know where your church donations are?

But lawmakers have been flooded with letters of opposition from groups including the California Catholic Conference, the First Southern Baptist Church and the Thousand Oaks Christian Fellowship.

You don't have to be religious at all to have a problem with this.

Although some teachers have testified against the change, it is supported by the California Teachers Assn. and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Do you know where your union dues are?

Can we please, please, please split California? Please? Let the Left have Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, and the coastal counties between. Let the Left keep their money within that state. Raise the taxes as high as you want. Teach the school kids that there is no difference between boys and girls (yet, somehow, someone has to be homosexual... even though there's no difference). Smoke all the dope you want. Let's see how well things turn out. Apparently, the disaster California is in right now isn't enough of a clue.

Ten years of netuered marriage in the Netherlands. You knew the anniversary wouldn't slip by quietly. Read about it at The Opine Editorials.

It will be easier to get your liberal friends than your Leftist friends to see why we oppose big government, but it will still be difficult either way.

This will have more chance of working if your friend has just complained about a large corporation.

Here is the mental exercise to give your friend:
 

Imagine the biggest, most powerful corporation you can think of.

Imagine that it has exclusive control over vast land holdings, and the power to grab more.

Imagine that it spends and buys, seemingly with no concern about being shut down.

Imagine that even employees who are very poor at customer service are rarely fired for being bad at the job.

Imagine a history of dysfunction and botches.

Now, give that company a monopoly in several lines of business.

Give it taxation power, policing powers, the power to detain people for years.

That is big government.

Now, your friend might cite the ability to vote out legislators and executives and even some judges. But is that really easier than 1) not buying any given company's products or services; 2) not investing in any given company? Your friend might say that government agencies are there to help us and the people in them really care about us, while the company is there to make a profit. But the government agency often runs on funds forcibly collected from other people, while a company must please customers enough that customers voluntarily buy its goods or services.

(This is a repost.)

Michael McGough at the LATimes.com opinion blog apparently cites the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a reason to support ENDA for "civilian" employers. So much for slippery slopes not existing. Of course, if ENDA had passed first, it would have been cited as a reason to repeal DADT.

Given changing attitudes toward homosexuality, this would seem to be a no-brainer.

Nope, no slippery slopes here.

Even opponents of same-sex marriage oppose discrimination. Or do they?

Not all discrimination. After all, all laws discriminate. I oppose government discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, like, say, giving preference to hiring one person over another to be a firefighter because of the person's skin color. I also oppose private employers using such discrimination. But the latter should no longer be illegal. I can boycott a private employer. I can't boycott the government.

"Mitchell Young" March 30, 2011 at 09:38 AM hit the nail on the head:

Private businesses should be able to hire, not hire, or dismiss whomever they want, for pretty much whatever reason.

Amen. It's silly, really. It is perfectly legal for an employer to say "I'm firing you because I don't like you", but not for them to say, "I'm firing you because I don't like you because you are black."

As it is, 'employment discrimination' law sees to only operate to the benefit of 'protected' groups. Take construction sites that are 100% 'Latino' , 100% immigrant; it is likely that discrimination and ethnic networks are operating to keep whites, blacks, and 'old stock' Latinos out of those jobs, yet you won't see the USDOJ investigating.

Hmmmm.

Under this proposed legislation, it is likely that industries and businesses that are disproportionately gay and 'gay-friendly' will remain so (see, for example, the director of the California Theatre who was forced out of his job for the temerity of making a contribution to pro-Prop 8 causes. On the other hand orthodox (small 'O') Christian and Jewish business owners would be forced to employ those who openly flaunt their values.

Yes. The goal here is ultimately to force everyone to advocate homosexual behavior, crossdressing, and pretending that a man who has had his genitals purposely mutilated is somehow now a woman.

"Stacey" March 30, 2011 at 10:50 AM was very telling:

This comment board needs more common sense average people to participate. As it is, it seems overrun by wingnut, conservative biggots with nothing better to do with their time. Discrimination regardless of the group it is directed at is just a bad idea whose time has come and gone.

"Joe" March 30, 2011 at 12:03 PM calls her(?) on it:

Nice one Stacey. I was trying to figure out a way to highlight the hypocrisy of the left-wing nuts and liberal bigots and then you posted your comment.

As does “Mitchell Young” March 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM:

Calling people 'wingnut' and 'bigot' is, well, simply calling people names.

Now saying 'discrimination is bad' is sort of an argument, but one easily shot down. Should PETA be forced to hire an 'out and proud' meat eater? Should the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be forced continue employing a person who discovered a love of bullfighting and displayed pictures of his favorite matadors on his work desk?

"Natalie Russell" March 30, 2011 at 01:13 PM:

As a manager of a business unit, the company - and myself - do not discriminate against (or for) anyone.

You probably do, just not in a way that you are thinking as you write words like that.

We are interested in finding the right people to perform particular job functions, fit with our company culture, and can grow with our business.

Great! That does involve discrimination, though.

It is my personal experience and opinion that same-sex marriages, sexual orientation and gender identity have nothing to do with our hiring practices, the same as race, religious choice, or educational background.

That's your organization. It isn't true for all organizations.

A business that discriminates against people due to same-sex marriages, sexual orientation, or gender identity, is a business that by choice removes some of its top employment applicants.

Let's grant that this is true. Who suffers? The discriminating business! Who benefits? The homosexual person who is instead hired where he or she is appreciated and wanted. And the business that hires them benefits.

See for example:

I often find it difficult to find the right applicants, so from my point of view, reducing the field of applicants is not a good business decision to make.

And…

Excluding employment applicants based upon sexual orientation or gender identity is just not a good business decision to make for any business.

Then ENDA doesn't need to apply to non-government employers, does it? This is something the market will take care of, right? The "bigots" will go out of business as the LGBT-cheering businesses thrive, right?

The rationale for ENDA isn't hard to understand. 1) It is illegal for employers to discriminate in most cases based on someone's inborn traits or First Amendment rights; 2) Being "gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered" (LGBT)  is an inborn trait, or at the least freedom of expression. Therefore, it should be illegal for employers to discriminate against someone for being LGBT.

However, I don’t think #1 should be true any longer. Pseudosexual behavior or bad disguises aren't skin color, though. Behavior is what is at stake here. Homosexual behavior needs to be treated distinctly from whether or not a man should be able to come to work in a dress and high heels. Regardless of internal feelings, both are behavior choices the person makes. I also believe that religious practice is a choice, and I do believe that non-government employers, as a matter of freedom of association and property rights, should be able to discriminate against me based on my religion. But unlike homosexual behavior, religion is specifically cited in the First Amendment.

Mainline churches have been dealing with infiltration by homosexuality advocates, who necessarily deny the authority of the Bible in matters like sexuality and marriage. This is just the latest news about an ongoing issue. Maria L. LaGanga reports at LATimes.com:

A Presbyterian Church appeals court has affirmed an earlier ruling that the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr violated the Presbyterian constitution and her ordination vows for marrying more than a dozen same-sex couples during the brief window when it was legal to do so in California.

Spahr, 68, was found guilty in August after a four-day ecclesiastical trial in Napa, Calif. She appealed that verdict to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific, which ruled that she violated church policy, which does not allow clergy to “state, imply or represent” that same-sex wedding ceremonies are church marriages.

The Bible, literally from the first book to the last, presents marriage as something that unites a bride and a groom. A minister claiming to be a Christian minister goes against the Bible when they claim to be performing a Christian wedding and there is no bride or there is no groom.

The Los Angeles Times has discovered that many people who are poor one year are no longer poor in other years. Duh! Ari Bloomekatz reports on census data.

Using interviews from more than 43,000 households over 36 months, researchers found that of those who were impoverished in 2004, 42% did not remain so in 2006.

Surprise, surprise.

Chris Tilly, director of UCLA's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, said the report represents a glass that can be viewed as either half full or half empty.

"I wouldn't say that's a stunningly positive result. Poverty is dynamic; not everybody stays in poverty long term," he said. "We've always known that people move in and out of poverty, [but] there are people who tend to get stuck."

Yes, people tend to get stuck, especially ones who make babies out of wedlock, abuse substances, commit crimes, and spend more money than they make.

"Alfred.Brock" at 4:16 AM March 28, 2011:

Poverty is not a temporary state.

Not for people who keep doing things that will keep them poor.

Lack of food, insecurity about housing, government corruption and international trade agreements that crush American business are a mess and must be cleared up.

There is no lack of food. If you want security about housing, buy some outright. We do what we can about government corruption; it would help to keep government decentralized and accountable and under checks and balances, especially Constitutional limitations. International trade agreements may or may not be a problem, depending on what is in them. Free trade is not a problem.

"leadbone53" at 8:10 AM March 28, 2011:

NO melvin, we have a 24 Billion shortfall because corporations and the rich pay nothing.

Oh really now. The "rich" pay most of the taxes, actually. And corporations pass along their tax bills to investors, customers, and employees.

"gomarj" at 10:19 AM March 28, 2011:

The report suggests that poverty is temporary state but what should be taken from it is that 1) the poverty line is extremely low.

Not in comparison to most of the world. But this writer wants more Americans to be called poor.

2) That incomes fluctate between this line from say 21 to 23 thousand fairly regularly which suggests the unsteady income of those at the bottom of the our class based system.

The wealthy often have unsteady income, too. It is about choices in education, training, and professions.

The social welfare system as a safety net for the poor is under constant attack.  In fact, it's quite normal to find look at this sytem as the source of social problems.

It is, when it keeps people dependent on government.

Corporate tax breaks to supposely create jobs or bulding a stadium for millionaire sports owners is never seriously considered as areas to attack, blame or go after.

I'm against corporate welfare. I'm also for reducing the restrictions placed on property owners.

So lets continue to be the wealthest country on the planet (or even in the history of the world)while maintaining a social system that favors the well-connected and resourced

You mean centralized, intrusive, socialistic government?

and in doing so turn the Unitied States into a two-tiered society--have and have-nots, those living in gated communities and those imprisoned in other ways.

What's with the resentment towards people living in gated communities? Why is it a bad thing that these people want to protect their families and guests from criminals who act like savages? Anyone who can afford it should live in a gated, guarded community, drive in an armored vehicle, and work in a guarded facility.

"Rev Tom" at 11:25 AM March 28, 2011:

I get about $600. a month through Social Security. And the government expects me to live on that?

No. You are expected to work, save, insure, invest, and network so as to provide for yourself through your own means and your friends and family.

It is not the government's role to make sure you have a job, get paid a certain amount, or are being wise with your resources. Free markets allow for upward mobility.