"Worst Cities" ALL Share a Single Unifying Trait: You Will NOT Beleive It!

I have lived in many places, and my work has taken me to dozens of others.  Rather than sit in a hotel bar to bide time, I like to move around and get the "feel" of the places I visit.

I just returned from an extended visit, and found the city I'd been to featured in a "Worst Cities" list (deservedly so). Based upon my own observations and review of the local news and press, I found myself drawn to a certain gut-feeling about why this place had declined so badly from what I'd remembered of log-past visits.

I decided to look for similar recent compilations and dig a little to see if my feelings were borne out, or completely off base.

What I discovered was that over the period from 2010 to the present, several of these places were consistently among those listed as "worst."  Even more revealing was that they shared several of the usual criteria for inclusion frequently used for selection: crime, poverty, corruption, high taxes, housing and services; but, that the mix varied and was never consistent.

However, there was one single factor that these various "worst" places shared, and that it had not changed over time.

 What, you might ask, was the "one single factor" that among all the other criteria for inclusion, these terrible places shared between and among themselves?

Shockingly (?), the commonality they shared was that they were at present, or had just recently been, governed by Democrat administrations!

Here is my run-down, in alphabetical order, of the worst of the worst places to live with my notes and reference to this single unifying criterion.

CA (Jerry Brown, (D))

El Centro (Benjamin Solomon (D))
Los Angeles (Antonio Villaragosa (D))
Stockton (Anthony Silva ( R )defeated Ann Johnston (D), In Johnston's reign as mayor, Stockton twice topped Forbes magazine's "Most Miserable American Cities" list, as was about to become the largest US city to go bankrupt.)
Modesto (Garrad Marsh, (D))
San Bernardino (Pat Morris(D), largest city to file Ch 9 Bkcy.)
Oakland (Jean Quan (D), 3rd in US crime, catered to OWS and gangs)
Vallejo (Osby Davis (D))

IL (Pat Quinn, Democrat - 2 predecessors convicted of corruption)

Chicago (Rahm Emmanuel (D))
Rockford (Larry Morrissey (I))
Waukegan (Robert G. Sabonjian (D))

LA (Bobby Jindal ( R ),

New Orleans (Mitch Landrieu (D), predecessor indicted for corruption, highest murder rate in US.)

MD (Martin O’Malley (D))
Baltimore (Stephanie Blake (D), predecessor convicted of corruption, “on a path to financial ruin”)

MI (Rick Snyder ( R ), predecessor hosted [i]Current TV[/i] “War Room” )

Detroit (Dave Bing (D), predecessor convicted of corruption, no taxes paid by majority of owners)
Flint (Dayne Walling (non-partisan))
 
MO (Jay Nixon (D))
St Louis (Francis Slay (D))

NJ (Chris Christie ( R ), predecessor, Jon Corzine (D) accused of misapplication of customers’ money, theft, corruption, adultery; bankrupted MFGlobal hedge fund)
Atlantic City (Lorenzo Langford (D))
Camden (Dana Redd (D))
Newark (Cory Booker (D)

NY (Andrew Cuomo (D))
New York (Michael Bloomberg, got on ticket as ( R ), formerly/actually (D))

OH
Cleveland (Frank Jackson (D))
Toledo (Michael Bell (D))
Youngstown (Charles P. Sammarone (D))
 
PA (Tom Corbett ( R ))
Philadelphia (Michael Nutter (D))
Scranton (Christopher Doherty (D))

Here are the sources from which I obtained the lists:

 
http://www.coli.org/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/blog/2010/08/05/10-worst-places-to-live/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/americas-most-miserable-cities-business-beltway-miserable-cities_slide_3.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/23/forbes-lists-americas-20-most-miserable-cities-guess-what-vast-majority-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/02/21/detroit-tops-2013-list-of-americas-most-miserable-cities/

I started this inquiry with only a gut feeling; but what I found appears to have borne-out my suspicions.

I still haven't had enough time to see if this holds true over longer periods of time, or even  why it holds true at all. I will check to see if academics or peer-reviewed analyses have examined this phenomenon.

2/24/13 ETA:

I used only certain criteria for these selections: crime, housing, corruption, taxes/cost of living, housing, services.  Some people, using different criteria, have placed many of these cities on their own "Best Cities in America" lists.  The criteria you set greatly influences the outcomes of any survey, as Pew and Gallup will tell you.

If you're criteria is "best creole food" then New Orleans would be "The Best," by far.

Likewise, if you value "automotive industry employment, then Detroit becomes "The Best."
Those were not my criteria,

jw 

Sequestration Devastation? Not By a Long Shot!

Sequestration Devastation?

Not By a Long Shot!

If you've been exposed to any form of news media this month, you've been told that a looming disaster is approaching as March 1 approaches, and federal budget/spending "sequestration" takes effect.

From ajc.com News:

"The White House today released examples of what the Obama Administration says will happen if $85 billion in automatic budget cuts are allowed to go into effect on March 1, arguing the domestic spending cuts in the "sequester" would "threaten thousands of jobs and the economic security of the middle class."

In a fact sheet given to reporters, the Obama White House argues there would be damaging across the board cuts to education, small business, food safety and more ... ."

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/jamie-dupree-white-house-lays-out-sequest-impact/nWKPZ/

To emphasize the grave danger about to destroy America's economy and the lives of registered (and un-registered) voters, the Obama administration released a "Fact Sheet:" with a litany of the extent of the destruction about to sweep the Nation.

A summary of the horrific impact includes:

•           Cuts to education
•           Cuts to small business
•           Cuts to food safety
•           Cuts to research and innovation
•           Cuts to mental health
•           Security and Safety
•           Research and Innovation
•           Economic Growth
•           Government Services
•           Education
•           Economic Security
•           Public Health.

Unfortunately, what the White House and Congress fail to tell you, is that the "devastation" is NOT the result of draconian slashes to our lives, welfare and futures, but a 2% decrease in the rise of total government spending; which will inevitably exceed  the unprecedented  total $1,358,000,000,000.00 for FY 2012.

Of this total, "discretionary" spending ( the stuff that might be "cut") has exploded by 60% since 2008!

In case you're not sure just who's telling the truth, you could always look at the "letter of the law."

Since 99% of people will not take that step, and would rather listen to their favored "truth-teller" on the tube, here's the real deal:

Budget Control Act of 2011

 "CBO ESTIMATES.—As soon as practicable after Congress completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO, after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by that legislation.

OMB ESTIMATES AND EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES.—Not later than 7 calendar days … after the date of enactment of any discretionary appropriation, OMB shall transmit a report to the House of Representatives and to the Senate containing the CBO estimate of that legislation, an OMB estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by that legislation, and an explanation of any difference between the estimates.

(A) The term ‘nonsecurity category’ means all discretionary appropriations not included in the security category defined in subparagraph (B).

(B) The term ‘security category’ includes discretionary appropriations associated with agency budgets for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence community management account (95–0401–0–1–054), and all budget accounts in budget function 150 (international affairs).

‘‘with respect to fiscal year 2013— ‘‘(A) for the security category, $686,000,000,000 in new budget authority; and ‘‘(B) for the nonsecurity category, $361,000,000,000 in new budget authority"

The "report" that the CBO is required to publish, has been. It shows, clearly, there is no devastation on the horizon.

It reveals that the scare tactics of the right and the left are little more than flailing attempts to protect their favorite programs and take further advantage of the taxpayers who are being stuck with these ridiculous bills:

 

So, how does "total discretionary spending under "sequestration" compare to the planned spending increases for 2013?

From the Wall Street Journal:

"the sequester cuts the agencies' "budget authority" by about $85 billion between March 1 and Sept. 30,

The government spent $3.538 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September 2012. So [i][b]$85 billion is 2.4% of the federal budget[/i][/b]. … Depending on the agency, cuts are going to be in the ballpark of 5% and 13%, according to various estimates from government officials."

What's really happening?

The government will have to cut 2% of projected total spending in the coming years!

Now, I'm not rich, but I am certain that I can find two cents to save from each dollar I have to spend without feeling too much pain.

If I have to cut increasing my "discretionary spending" (Shiner Bock, Jack Daniels, movies, Pecan Sandies, Marlboros, et c.) by "between 5% and 13%, I'm pretty sure I can handle that , too.

 Why can't the idiots in Washington find 15% of waste in their departments, instead of whining and terrorizing the uninformed and credulous?

Are you terrified, too?  Or should we just expect "business as usual?"

2/24/13 ETA:
How about we cut fundung across the board to 2008 levels, when schools were full of teachers, no firefighters or other first-responders had been laid off, there were still construction jobs and job-training programs, and no banks or automakers had yet needed to be bailed out?

Things were working well as far as government-run programs/jobs were concerned until the housing bubble and financial bailouts; so, why not "reset" policy and funding to those levels and let the taxpayers spend the rest as they see fit?

We no longer have an Iraq war to pay for and Afghanistan is all but over. According to the Obama administration, Government Motors and Chrysler are flying high and do not need our help anymore. All the "bailouts" were paid back. Where's all that extra money now?

There should be tons of extra money to spend on social programs without the need for any other tax increases or spending increases!

Jw

Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

Australian scientists have published a paper in the peer-reviewed and prestigious journal,  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, that asserts that Earth climate forces are mainly driven by forestation and the related effects they have on water condensation and evaporation.  “Mainstream” climate scientists, have long neglected to consider such a factor in climate models and projections.

Needless to say, the paper is highly controversial, and deeply invested adherents to current modeling and “the settled science” are up in arms since their models almost completely fail to take into account water vapor’s influence on climate drivers such as wind and rain patterns.

From The Australian:

"The world’s great forests have long been recognised as the lungs of the earth, but the science establishment has been rocked by claims that trees may also be the heart of its climate. Not only do trees fix carbon and produce oxygen; a new and controversial paper says they collectively unleash forces powerful enough to drive global wind patterns and are a core feature in the circulation of the climate system.

If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper co-authored by Australian scientist Douglas Sheil will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom about what makes wind. And it will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based."

Scientists Anastasia Makarieva and Douglas Sheil faced vigorous opposition during the peer review process, with entrenched climate modelers clinging to the conventional wisdom; refusing to acknowledge that climate science is evolving, and that their models are imperfect.

 "The paper, lead authored by Anastasia Makarieva, sparked a long-running and furious debate about whether it should be published at all. At the end of a bruising assessment process the editorial panel of the prestigious journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics chose to publish and be damned.

In an accompanying statement the journal editorial board said: “The paper is highly controversial, proposing a fundamentally new view that seems to be in contradiction to common textbook knowledge. The majority of reviewers and experts in the field seem to disagree, whereas some colleagues provide support, and the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.

“The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.”"

Of course, basic science tells us that any theory should be verifiable and subject to disproof; something that AGW advocates have refused to consider, and harshly criticized; frequently resorting to disparaging those who challenge basic “climate science” assumptions and “the consensus” that adheres to the AGW party line.

This paper, however, has deep implicarions for current climate modeling, because current and popular models almost completely fail to consider or account for the effect of atmospheric pressure changes resulting from water vapor, evaporation and condensation.

 "Sheil says the key finding is that atmospheric pressure changes from moisture condensation are orders of magnitude greater than previously recognised. The paper concludes “condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics”.

“Climate scientists generally believe that they already understand the main principles determining how the world’s climate works,” says Sheil. “However, if our hypothesis is true then the way winds are driven and the way rain falls has been misunderstood. What our theory suggests is that forests are the heart of the earth, driving atmospheric pressure, pumping wind and moving rain.”

 “Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.

“The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”

 “Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.

 “The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”

“When we look at the Amazon and ask, is the forest there because there is a lot of rain, we are saying, no, it is the other way around: the rain is there because there is a lot of forest.

“It may sound strange – forests causing wind, forests causing rain – but the physics is quite convincing.”"

 Common sense would seem to dictate that the presence of desert in once-forested lands, such as northern Africa, indicates that the new theory has considerable merit.

 Unfortunately, the “consensus” clings to the basic tenets of the AGW faith and the funding-supported apologists for models that don’t and predictions that aren’t.

 Sheil and his colleagues are aware of the problem of those whose careers and wealth are tied to the conventional wisdom of current AGW, and the retrenching that will take place, instead of a reasoned assessment of these new findings.

 As noted in The Global Warming Policy Foundation website:
"Climate scientists, however, still say the significance is not as great as has been claimed.

“It has now gone from a discussion about mechanism to a discussion about magnitude,” Sheil says, adding that a key objective of his work is to make climate models more reliable.

“At present the models are incorrect,” he says, “because they are missing one the key mechanisms of how the global climate works. I know it does sound amazing to say this, but once you look at these models they are not as detailed and not as smart as you would think.

“A lot of it is, they are calibrated to fit. There is a little bit of people hiding the problems, and that is bad science.”"