I applaud your determination. I can't imagine a better State to begin such a career, either. Nevada is rapidly following in the "Liberal-West" tradition of California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and others... but still has a bit of the independent, individualistic "Old West" mentality too. It might not be too late to save the Silver State from the likes of Pelosi and Reid.
Your political aspirations aside, let's ponder something a bit...
As you quoted in your last post, Reagan was the loudest Presidential voice of the "individual first" movement that we have come to call modern conservatism, at least in the 20th Century. Only Teddy Roosevelt could compare, in my opinion... and that voice is 100 years gone. He wasn't the only voice, simply the loudest. SOME of those voices even belonged to Democrats, over the last century or so, believe it or not...
There is no question, though, that the Party of Kennedy, Truman, and FDR is very nearly UNRECOGNIZABLE from the Party of Carter, Clinton and Obama. Where the Democrats really did constitute the party of "fiscal responsibility" and "social justice"... they have now become the party of "fiscal equality" and "social dependence".
What is the root of this change in perspective? Why did the ideology of an entire American political party go from center-left (it was always a bit left, after all) to far-left?
The "elders" of the party are in their 60s and 70s... which means they "broke" into the game during the 1960s. They fought through the Nixon years, Watergate, Vietnam (although much of that war was Johnson's doing) and the recession of '74. They saw their hopes dashed in the failings of Carter, the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Oil Crisis, and the landslide election of 1980. They participated in (or learned from ) the opposition politics the Dems were forced to play during the Reagan years. They thought they had their "Golden Age" with the re-election of Clinton, only to see his Presidency become a global "joke" after the Ken Star investigation.
In short, the party has simply become SO entrenched in playing the polar opposite to everything the GOP stands for, that nothing else matters... they MUST oppose what the GOP supports! For all the fighting, arguing, debating and ranting that went on within the Bund prior to the '03 invasion of Iraq... no "rational" reasoning has EVER come from the Democratic-side of the aisle AGAINST finishing the job we started in Iraq! I will argue the reasoning FOR the invasion till I'm blue in the face, and I'll do it with the most raging liberals you care to find... but I still maintain that the job MUST BE FINISHED! We cannot leave Iraq one minute before there is a stable and functional Iraqi government that can defend itself and its people, or we will simply be forced to return to Iraq AGAIN in 10 or 20 years.
I am a Democrat (still!), but even I was rational enough to recognize that what the effort needed more than anything else was MORE boots on the ground... not less. 60% of the GOP understood that (although Bush, Rummy and Cheney were NOT among them)... but only 11 Democrats understood that (judging by their voting records). ALL the rest of the Democratic Congressmen and Senators spoke against the "surge" as more wasted lives and resources in an effort that was already lost (Reid among them).
The efforts of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Clinton (both of them), Carter... and now Obama and Biden... have all been focused on alienating the minority of Democrats that still feel that national defense is every bit as important as affordable health care coverage, or that agree that the USA is at war with international terrorism as much as they agree that the Federal government has a responsibility to our education system. They want NOTHING more than a total focus on removing "conservative" thought from the political arena, regardless of party affiliation. They don't want Christian Democrats, or Blue-Dog Democrats, or Dixie-crats (they are REALLY avoiding that label, huh?)... they simply want Liberal Democrats that will support with blind but wild abandon the policies and legislation of the select few at the top of the Party hierarchy.
What I wonder is just how far to the "left" do we have to watch our society go before we realize that socialism doesn't work? How long before we see that "equal opportunity" does not equal "guaranteed opportunity"? How long before we see that the Government CAN'T promise "results" without "effort" or "rewards" without "risk"?
{sigh}
Thursday, October 30, 2008
"What was grandma doing at the flippin' sand dunes?"
"I have read the constitutions of a number of countries - including the Soviet Union's. Now some people are surprised to hear they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional?
The difference is so small, that it almost escapes you; but it's so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: we the people.
In those other constitutions, the government tells the people of those countries what they're allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the government what it can do only those things listed in that document and no others.
Virtually every other revolution in history just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters, and the government is their servant. And, you young people out there, don't ever forget that. Some day, you could be in this room - but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best - because here in America, we the people are in charge ..."
-President Ronald Reagan
From the State of the Union
January 27th, 1987
That excerpt from his address was on the back of a picture my mother recently sent me. The picture on the front? The classic Howard Chandler Christy painting, "Scene at the signing of the U.S. Constitution."
How could a nation whom embraced such a man and the ideology he routinely espoused, only a single generation ago, be on the precipitous of electing his antithesis? A man whom sees that sacred of documents, our Constitution, insufficient because it lists, "Only negative liberties, what the government can't do to you, rather then what it must do for you..." (2001 Chicago NPR interview). I am left dumbstruck at how many Americans I overhear in cafes, gyms, at work, and about town who think this new candidate's interpretation of the US is a "purer" form of Americanism. As if it is a return to her greatness and a fulfilment of her true promise ... when it is anything but.
I spoke to an interesting individual at the NV RNC State Party Headquarters this afternoon. They have what was described to me as "a program" administered by a particular woman. This woman, through her "program", decides who and who will not be accepted as a Republican primary candidate for congressional districts in Nevada. My district is currently held by a Democrat. The GOP opposition won his right to run against her by beating 4 other candidates, including a professor and a bail bondsman. He will be crushed at a rate of about 70% to 30% in 5 days ... again.
The description of whom the primary candidates were for 2008 lead me to believe only one thing - the threshold this "program" employs can simply not be that high. I assume this is so because the incumbent Democrat is seen as unbeatable, so why not throw every and anybody at her, right?
I have an appointment with this woman, who runs the "program", after election day. Now I don't know if I will ever achieve my ultimate dream to serve in "this room", as Reagan described it. But one thing is certain ... I sure as hell am going to TRY and fulfill our 40th president's eloquent request: "America is counting on you to reach your highest and be your best ..." Because we can, we MUST, do better then this.
The difference is so small, that it almost escapes you; but it's so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: we the people.
In those other constitutions, the government tells the people of those countries what they're allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the government what it can do only those things listed in that document and no others.
Virtually every other revolution in history just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters, and the government is their servant. And, you young people out there, don't ever forget that. Some day, you could be in this room - but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best - because here in America, we the people are in charge ..."
-President Ronald Reagan
From the State of the Union
January 27th, 1987
That excerpt from his address was on the back of a picture my mother recently sent me. The picture on the front? The classic Howard Chandler Christy painting, "Scene at the signing of the U.S. Constitution."
How could a nation whom embraced such a man and the ideology he routinely espoused, only a single generation ago, be on the precipitous of electing his antithesis? A man whom sees that sacred of documents, our Constitution, insufficient because it lists, "Only negative liberties, what the government can't do to you, rather then what it must do for you..." (2001 Chicago NPR interview). I am left dumbstruck at how many Americans I overhear in cafes, gyms, at work, and about town who think this new candidate's interpretation of the US is a "purer" form of Americanism. As if it is a return to her greatness and a fulfilment of her true promise ... when it is anything but.
I spoke to an interesting individual at the NV RNC State Party Headquarters this afternoon. They have what was described to me as "a program" administered by a particular woman. This woman, through her "program", decides who and who will not be accepted as a Republican primary candidate for congressional districts in Nevada. My district is currently held by a Democrat. The GOP opposition won his right to run against her by beating 4 other candidates, including a professor and a bail bondsman. He will be crushed at a rate of about 70% to 30% in 5 days ... again.
The description of whom the primary candidates were for 2008 lead me to believe only one thing - the threshold this "program" employs can simply not be that high. I assume this is so because the incumbent Democrat is seen as unbeatable, so why not throw every and anybody at her, right?
I have an appointment with this woman, who runs the "program", after election day. Now I don't know if I will ever achieve my ultimate dream to serve in "this room", as Reagan described it. But one thing is certain ... I sure as hell am going to TRY and fulfill our 40th president's eloquent request: "America is counting on you to reach your highest and be your best ..." Because we can, we MUST, do better then this.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I didn't think I did ...
... fall into that trap. If you reread my description of it I essentially explained it the way you did (with as many specifics), and I didn't use words such as "seized" or "distributed as the feds see fit." I simply described the specifics as I know them and drew the same conclusion you did - it's by definition, socialism.
By the way, I fancy myself MUCH more articulate, specific & measurable, and informed both historically and in terms of contemporary news then Hannity (I don't know Wilkow enough to comment on him). I prefer the observations of Hugh Hewitt, Micheal Medved and Glenn Beck. Rush ain't bad but he doesn't research specifics as much as the afore mentioned names, in my view - which is a shame, because as you (and I) have aptly pointed out, there is enough to dislike about these and other forms of Democrat proposals when being specific, without any exaggerations.
By the way, I fancy myself MUCH more articulate, specific & measurable, and informed both historically and in terms of contemporary news then Hannity (I don't know Wilkow enough to comment on him). I prefer the observations of Hugh Hewitt, Micheal Medved and Glenn Beck. Rush ain't bad but he doesn't research specifics as much as the afore mentioned names, in my view - which is a shame, because as you (and I) have aptly pointed out, there is enough to dislike about these and other forms of Democrat proposals when being specific, without any exaggerations.
First things first...
I just have to throw this out NOW, before I get into my Obama rant...
Since the story about this "new Social Security" broke on the conservative radio circuit, I have heard the "spin" played as this:
"Liberal elements in Congress are considering the implementation of a plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, whereby all your 401k and IRA savings would be seized and nationalized by the Federal Government, to be distributed as the Feds see fit to ALL retiring Americans."
As much as I am NOT a fan of this woman, or her plan... at least I have READ THE PLAN. No conservative pundit has, and I'd bet my bottom dollar Ryan hasn't either. The "plan" (or a reasonable summation of it) can be found HERE, dating from the spring of '06.
Her plan is to end government-sponsored incentives for private citizens to save for their own retirement, especially if it creates a measurable divide between the poorest retirees and the rest of retirees. In other words, no more tax-free allowances for savings made into a long-term account that would only be accessible after age 65 or older. No more incentives to companies to match 401k allocations by employees, if they ALSO have to pay for a mandatory national plan (as her plan does).
To be fair, though... the money in an EXISTING account would remain safe and sound, and the option to save money with traditional savings plans and Roth IRAs remain, with the traditionally LOWER return rates and no company matched funds. The call is only to END Federal incentives where the PRIMARY responsibility for retirement income resides with the Citizen rather than the Federal Government.
The crime here (again) is that this plan reduces the MEANS of generating this "retirement income" to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. No amount of effort or study on the part of the potential retiree can have the slightest effect on the REVENUE that retiree will receive once he retires. What WILL effect the revenue that can be expected by the retiree is how many non-productive or non-contributing retirees will ALSO be drawing on it. If retirement is available to me at age 65, and no amount of additional work FROM ME will increase what I make in retirement, then you can COUNT on my staying home (or at my government-subsidized dwelling) FULL TIME from the first day of my eligibility to the last breath I draw.
It IS socialism... by it's very definition. Thus, the failing of the plan is defined within it AND Ryan's title: "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need." How many "functional" workers does it take to contribute to a system by which THEY will be adequately maintained in their retirement, while also providing the SAME retirement for someone who has NOT contributed to the system? Ten? Twenty? More? At what point does the system begin to suffer due to ZERO incentive to contribute more than the minimum?
So, you can see I am NOT defending the plan of Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci (far from), but if I have to listen to people rant about it... I want them to know what they are talking about. Hannity, Wilkow and Limbaugh DO NOT. Don't fall into that trap...
Since the story about this "new Social Security" broke on the conservative radio circuit, I have heard the "spin" played as this:
"Liberal elements in Congress are considering the implementation of a plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, whereby all your 401k and IRA savings would be seized and nationalized by the Federal Government, to be distributed as the Feds see fit to ALL retiring Americans."
As much as I am NOT a fan of this woman, or her plan... at least I have READ THE PLAN. No conservative pundit has, and I'd bet my bottom dollar Ryan hasn't either. The "plan" (or a reasonable summation of it) can be found HERE, dating from the spring of '06.
Her plan is to end government-sponsored incentives for private citizens to save for their own retirement, especially if it creates a measurable divide between the poorest retirees and the rest of retirees. In other words, no more tax-free allowances for savings made into a long-term account that would only be accessible after age 65 or older. No more incentives to companies to match 401k allocations by employees, if they ALSO have to pay for a mandatory national plan (as her plan does).
To be fair, though... the money in an EXISTING account would remain safe and sound, and the option to save money with traditional savings plans and Roth IRAs remain, with the traditionally LOWER return rates and no company matched funds. The call is only to END Federal incentives where the PRIMARY responsibility for retirement income resides with the Citizen rather than the Federal Government.
The crime here (again) is that this plan reduces the MEANS of generating this "retirement income" to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. No amount of effort or study on the part of the potential retiree can have the slightest effect on the REVENUE that retiree will receive once he retires. What WILL effect the revenue that can be expected by the retiree is how many non-productive or non-contributing retirees will ALSO be drawing on it. If retirement is available to me at age 65, and no amount of additional work FROM ME will increase what I make in retirement, then you can COUNT on my staying home (or at my government-subsidized dwelling) FULL TIME from the first day of my eligibility to the last breath I draw.
It IS socialism... by it's very definition. Thus, the failing of the plan is defined within it AND Ryan's title: "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need." How many "functional" workers does it take to contribute to a system by which THEY will be adequately maintained in their retirement, while also providing the SAME retirement for someone who has NOT contributed to the system? Ten? Twenty? More? At what point does the system begin to suffer due to ZERO incentive to contribute more than the minimum?
So, you can see I am NOT defending the plan of Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci (far from), but if I have to listen to people rant about it... I want them to know what they are talking about. Hannity, Wilkow and Limbaugh DO NOT. Don't fall into that trap...
The gift that keeps on giving ...
... 95 FM WBEZ in Chcago, again that same program, Odyssey, 2001. I'm going to list a link of video that lasts approximately 4 minutes. It is when in this same interview (as the redistribution of wealth commentary was made) the discussion turned to WWII era racism, Jim Crow and the struggle to correct those practices. The first speaker has a rather responsible, brief dissertation on that struggle; then Obama explains how he saw the US during that era. Follow the link .... Nazi Germany. (oh yes he did).
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Syrian raid.
Jambo complained, quite appropriately so, that he hasn't seen any coverage of the US special forces raid into Syria, along their side of the Iraqi border. So here is a link from Sky News. Apparently we killed a major smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq - one Abu Ghadiya, a former lieutenant to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi. We landed forces on the roof, they fired on the building, well ... I'll let you follow the link and read about it. Any wonder why we haven't seen what is certainly "breaking" news in any of the press coverage (outside of FOX that is)? I'm of the opinion that the last thing the mainstream press wants is a focus on national security in the final 7 days of the election.
"From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs."
Ok, this thing is really starting to catch fire. First, a couple of points ...
It's Sun Tzu (the spelling that is). It's sitting on a book shelf just to the left of my screen next to Machiavelli and Frederick The Great (and YES Titus, I have taken it off the shelf and read it already ... he, he).
I played Risk countless times in my youth. Actually my step father introduced it to me. As for the other games you've mentioned (NATO, 6th Fleet), I've never even heard of them. I know, GASP! But now we have an all new reason to again be joined in NEPA for another live Driveway round - playing each of these games. And as the 14 year old will undoubtedly have the nick-name of "Ol blood and guts" by the time Jambo and I get there, then the quorum will be set. Seriously though, that would be serious FUN on Titus's deck, fireside, dominating the globe. Dammit! Will one of us just please get ridiculously rich so time and space cease being obstacles to such gatherings (or perhaps elected to congress, staff allowances for jr congressmen are well over 350k per year!).
The second point ... I was astounded to rise the other morning, activate the monitor with my space bar, and find out that I agree with one George W. Bush 80% of the time. I realize you do in fact "know" me Titus (not in the Biblical sense, don't get happy), but you occasionally assign these arbitrary and somewhat stereotypical numbers and opinions to me as if I'm a Republican first and a conservative second, when it is the reverse. My number? Roughly, off the top of my head I agree with "Dubya" 40 to 50% of the time. And nearly every bit of that is wrapped up in national security, tax policy (note I didn't write "economic policy" as a whole) and of course, abortion. And in terms of his legacy we are in agreeance - if he is to one day be viewed positively (as a majority of Americans see it) that "one day" will indeed be 50-75 years from now. This is the precise reason I used the phrase "generations", plural (being a generation is defined as 25 years).
****
So I whipped out my handy Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary 4th Edition, and page to the following:
SOCIALISM n. - public ownership of the means of production.
This is the word that can pull off a McCain victory, period. And it's already having an effect. Let me explain. I have a friend in Biloxi. He owns his own hair salon. He has always trended towards the Democrat Party due to social issues (abortion, etc) and he's certainly always been a bit "quirky" in terms of how he sees politics. The other day I get a text from him excoriating this Joe the Plumber guy. "He's not even a real plumber, he's wanted for tax fraud and he doesn't make 250k a year like he claimed" etc, etc. None of which are true by the way. But knowing this guy has gone from quirky to a flat out whack-job politically (conspiracy theories etc) wasn't what got my attention. I know him and he doesn't do "research" of the Bund brand. He has been spoon fed this information on ol' Joe the Plumber. Which can only mean that Obama 08' knows how poisonous the "spread the wealth around" comment was, and has gone after Joe as a distraction.
Date, mid October, 2008. Place - Orlando FL. You may have seen this interview by a local Florida anchorwoman with Joe Biden on FOX et al. This is the one in which she literally quotes Marx and asks Biden if the "spread the wealth around" mentality of Barak isn't in sync with Marx. Joe was condescending and evasive, then declared, and I quote, "NO! The bottom line is that people making 1.4 million dollars a year will see another 86 billion dollar tax cut next year and we think that it [the US economy] doesn't work if you continue to distribute that wealth upwards."
Astonishing. "Distribute that wealth upwards." What? The only way this approach, and that statement, makes sense is if you consider the earnings of the private sector first and foremost the property of the US government rather then that of the EARNER! It's their money! And keeping their own money (or more of it) is "distribution?" Only to a socialist-Marxist-Leninist, I would argue. It's an astonishing momentary revelation. Watch the entire 5 minute interview HERE.
Now get this article:
"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York ..." (source HERE).
That's the woman whom testified before them, and who authored the plan they're looking at. Basically, it would take your 401k (by liquidating it, taking it out of the stock market) and put it into the hands of the Social Security Administration. They would then invest it in government bonds at a 3% annual yield. They would then require you to contribute 5% of your income each year, and INSTEAD of the size of that contribution dictating the tax incentive (in other words the larger dollar amount you contribute, the better it is for your tax burden because it's deducted from your income as nontaxable wages) EVERYONE would instead get a flat $600 a year, adjusted annually for inflation. Meaning the tax deduction of the contribution is gone and in its place every person gets $600. This way the government gets its hands on a new source of tax revenue by now counting the contribution as a part of your taxable income. So say right now you contribute (if you're wealthy) $100,000 a year. That 100k is deducted from your taxable income amount, thus saving you money and incentivizing the investment. If you contribute $1000 dollars, you get a $1000 removed from your taxable wages, follow me? No more. All contributions are taxed, and instead of getting a tax burden reduction based on the size of your contribution, you get a flat $600 each - making us all EQUAL. And in her testimony, this Teresa professor actually used the phrase, "so we can spread that wealth around." Then, when you retire you get the dividends back in your monthly social security check. Oh, and the sweetener, to sell it to the public? The feds would start your initial "nest egg" at the level it was in August 2008 - before the economic panic. Whose "wealth" will they distribute to get the nest egg back up? Unbelievable - they are not ashamed, and they are no longer hiding their rather radical ideology.
You might think, "well, they'll never get away with such a scheme." Really? Majorities in both Houses and an Obama presidency ... this could become reality my friends.
Now, the crescendo, my 9th symphony if you will in terms of my laying out their unabashed, unapologetic desire to remake America into a socialist Utopia ... Barak's own words. In 2001, as then state senator, he appeared on Chicago's NPR in a program entitled Odyssey 91.5 WBEZ FM, in which "redistribution of wealth" policies were discussed (you can also listen to it yourself, HERE).
OBAMA: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterise the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organising and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
HOST: Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.
CALLER:: Hi, um, the gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is, with economic changes, my question is: Is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
HOST: You mean the Court?
CALLER: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator here as well as a law professor, but you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change, uh, through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You know, just look, with very rare examples, during the desegregation era, the Court was willing, for example, to order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. And the Court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the Court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and - and takes a lot of time.
You know, the Court's just not very good at it. And politically, it's just, it's very hard to legitimise opinions from the Court in that regard.
And so I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, and I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts ....
Gentlemen. This is not a discussion on the validity of wealth redistribution. It's not whether it is right or wrong in this conversation. This is a discussion on the best way to get it done. And I might add, this is not some flippant slip of the tongue in the driveway of a plumber. Rather this is a methodical, deliberative, well thought out argument for how "we" can best go about redistributing wealth.
NOW, after having read or listened to this look through those lenses at his so-called "tax rebate" check plan for 95% of Americans - when the bottom 30% of tax payers already pay zero income taxes and already recoup external taxes (sales, etc) through the EITC. NOW look at his health care plan payed for by tax payers. NOW look at this 401k scheme House Democrats are looking at.
Today's USA Today/Gallup Tracking Poll now has Barak leading Mac by only 2 points. 49% to 47%. THIS is why. I fully believe that if the majority of voting Americans even get a whiff of socialist policy, blatant socialism in this case, coming from Obama, they will reject it. It's now up to McCain in these final 7 days to make sure they get that "whiff." Otherwise we will see what started with The Great Society brought to its logical next step (which is why you don't "start it" in the first place .... *sigh*).
It's Sun Tzu (the spelling that is). It's sitting on a book shelf just to the left of my screen next to Machiavelli and Frederick The Great (and YES Titus, I have taken it off the shelf and read it already ... he, he).
I played Risk countless times in my youth. Actually my step father introduced it to me. As for the other games you've mentioned (NATO, 6th Fleet), I've never even heard of them. I know, GASP! But now we have an all new reason to again be joined in NEPA for another live Driveway round - playing each of these games. And as the 14 year old will undoubtedly have the nick-name of "Ol blood and guts" by the time Jambo and I get there, then the quorum will be set. Seriously though, that would be serious FUN on Titus's deck, fireside, dominating the globe. Dammit! Will one of us just please get ridiculously rich so time and space cease being obstacles to such gatherings (or perhaps elected to congress, staff allowances for jr congressmen are well over 350k per year!).
The second point ... I was astounded to rise the other morning, activate the monitor with my space bar, and find out that I agree with one George W. Bush 80% of the time. I realize you do in fact "know" me Titus (not in the Biblical sense, don't get happy), but you occasionally assign these arbitrary and somewhat stereotypical numbers and opinions to me as if I'm a Republican first and a conservative second, when it is the reverse. My number? Roughly, off the top of my head I agree with "Dubya" 40 to 50% of the time. And nearly every bit of that is wrapped up in national security, tax policy (note I didn't write "economic policy" as a whole) and of course, abortion. And in terms of his legacy we are in agreeance - if he is to one day be viewed positively (as a majority of Americans see it) that "one day" will indeed be 50-75 years from now. This is the precise reason I used the phrase "generations", plural (being a generation is defined as 25 years).
****
So I whipped out my handy Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary 4th Edition, and page to the following:
SOCIALISM n. - public ownership of the means of production.
This is the word that can pull off a McCain victory, period. And it's already having an effect. Let me explain. I have a friend in Biloxi. He owns his own hair salon. He has always trended towards the Democrat Party due to social issues (abortion, etc) and he's certainly always been a bit "quirky" in terms of how he sees politics. The other day I get a text from him excoriating this Joe the Plumber guy. "He's not even a real plumber, he's wanted for tax fraud and he doesn't make 250k a year like he claimed" etc, etc. None of which are true by the way. But knowing this guy has gone from quirky to a flat out whack-job politically (conspiracy theories etc) wasn't what got my attention. I know him and he doesn't do "research" of the Bund brand. He has been spoon fed this information on ol' Joe the Plumber. Which can only mean that Obama 08' knows how poisonous the "spread the wealth around" comment was, and has gone after Joe as a distraction.
Date, mid October, 2008. Place - Orlando FL. You may have seen this interview by a local Florida anchorwoman with Joe Biden on FOX et al. This is the one in which she literally quotes Marx and asks Biden if the "spread the wealth around" mentality of Barak isn't in sync with Marx. Joe was condescending and evasive, then declared, and I quote, "NO! The bottom line is that people making 1.4 million dollars a year will see another 86 billion dollar tax cut next year and we think that it [the US economy] doesn't work if you continue to distribute that wealth upwards."
Astonishing. "Distribute that wealth upwards." What? The only way this approach, and that statement, makes sense is if you consider the earnings of the private sector first and foremost the property of the US government rather then that of the EARNER! It's their money! And keeping their own money (or more of it) is "distribution?" Only to a socialist-Marxist-Leninist, I would argue. It's an astonishing momentary revelation. Watch the entire 5 minute interview HERE.
Now get this article:
"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York ..." (source HERE).
That's the woman whom testified before them, and who authored the plan they're looking at. Basically, it would take your 401k (by liquidating it, taking it out of the stock market) and put it into the hands of the Social Security Administration. They would then invest it in government bonds at a 3% annual yield. They would then require you to contribute 5% of your income each year, and INSTEAD of the size of that contribution dictating the tax incentive (in other words the larger dollar amount you contribute, the better it is for your tax burden because it's deducted from your income as nontaxable wages) EVERYONE would instead get a flat $600 a year, adjusted annually for inflation. Meaning the tax deduction of the contribution is gone and in its place every person gets $600. This way the government gets its hands on a new source of tax revenue by now counting the contribution as a part of your taxable income. So say right now you contribute (if you're wealthy) $100,000 a year. That 100k is deducted from your taxable income amount, thus saving you money and incentivizing the investment. If you contribute $1000 dollars, you get a $1000 removed from your taxable wages, follow me? No more. All contributions are taxed, and instead of getting a tax burden reduction based on the size of your contribution, you get a flat $600 each - making us all EQUAL. And in her testimony, this Teresa professor actually used the phrase, "so we can spread that wealth around." Then, when you retire you get the dividends back in your monthly social security check. Oh, and the sweetener, to sell it to the public? The feds would start your initial "nest egg" at the level it was in August 2008 - before the economic panic. Whose "wealth" will they distribute to get the nest egg back up? Unbelievable - they are not ashamed, and they are no longer hiding their rather radical ideology.
You might think, "well, they'll never get away with such a scheme." Really? Majorities in both Houses and an Obama presidency ... this could become reality my friends.
Now, the crescendo, my 9th symphony if you will in terms of my laying out their unabashed, unapologetic desire to remake America into a socialist Utopia ... Barak's own words. In 2001, as then state senator, he appeared on Chicago's NPR in a program entitled Odyssey 91.5 WBEZ FM, in which "redistribution of wealth" policies were discussed (you can also listen to it yourself, HERE).
OBAMA: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterise the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organising and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
HOST: Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.
CALLER:: Hi, um, the gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is, with economic changes, my question is: Is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
HOST: You mean the Court?
CALLER: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator here as well as a law professor, but you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change, uh, through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You know, just look, with very rare examples, during the desegregation era, the Court was willing, for example, to order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. And the Court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the Court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and - and takes a lot of time.
You know, the Court's just not very good at it. And politically, it's just, it's very hard to legitimise opinions from the Court in that regard.
And so I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, and I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts ....
Gentlemen. This is not a discussion on the validity of wealth redistribution. It's not whether it is right or wrong in this conversation. This is a discussion on the best way to get it done. And I might add, this is not some flippant slip of the tongue in the driveway of a plumber. Rather this is a methodical, deliberative, well thought out argument for how "we" can best go about redistributing wealth.
NOW, after having read or listened to this look through those lenses at his so-called "tax rebate" check plan for 95% of Americans - when the bottom 30% of tax payers already pay zero income taxes and already recoup external taxes (sales, etc) through the EITC. NOW look at his health care plan payed for by tax payers. NOW look at this 401k scheme House Democrats are looking at.
Today's USA Today/Gallup Tracking Poll now has Barak leading Mac by only 2 points. 49% to 47%. THIS is why. I fully believe that if the majority of voting Americans even get a whiff of socialist policy, blatant socialism in this case, coming from Obama, they will reject it. It's now up to McCain in these final 7 days to make sure they get that "whiff." Otherwise we will see what started with The Great Society brought to its logical next step (which is why you don't "start it" in the first place .... *sigh*).
Monday, October 27, 2008
I choose to view this as an Opportunity.
And this is absolutely vital.
Whatever the transient monetary costs, you MUST get NATO and 6th Fleet for that boy.
There are few, if any, things in life that will guide that child (and not just the boy, the girl can use this too) as a comprehensive understanding and a mastery of those skills. I am not proud of my ability to shamelessly manipulate any person within my sphere of influence but it is a skill which has assisted me more times than I can count. And that ability was honed in the cigarette smoke filled rooms of our youth trying every conventional means available of stopping 3rd Shock Army from penetrating the indefensible Northern Germany and the Ruhr Valley. (Twice we tried tactical nukes... every time it failed. The same way chemical weapons never really worked out for Warsaw Pact troops... And God Bless Reforger!)
Trust me. I've been in organized sports. I've played a musical instrument with prodigious skill in my youth, and neither have given me the real life Sun Zsu (sp?) advantage that the games Titus mentioned earlier have.
Do you remember the war game we made from scratch with those domino like things? In fact, I think we called it War Game. It was almost as cool as the Civil War board game we made out of those broken pieces of kindling and the scrap piece of plywood. Were we too poor to get our own games? No. The games in the store were too boring so we had to make better ones.
Whatever the transient monetary costs, you MUST get NATO and 6th Fleet for that boy.
There are few, if any, things in life that will guide that child (and not just the boy, the girl can use this too) as a comprehensive understanding and a mastery of those skills. I am not proud of my ability to shamelessly manipulate any person within my sphere of influence but it is a skill which has assisted me more times than I can count. And that ability was honed in the cigarette smoke filled rooms of our youth trying every conventional means available of stopping 3rd Shock Army from penetrating the indefensible Northern Germany and the Ruhr Valley. (Twice we tried tactical nukes... every time it failed. The same way chemical weapons never really worked out for Warsaw Pact troops... And God Bless Reforger!)
Trust me. I've been in organized sports. I've played a musical instrument with prodigious skill in my youth, and neither have given me the real life Sun Zsu (sp?) advantage that the games Titus mentioned earlier have.
Do you remember the war game we made from scratch with those domino like things? In fact, I think we called it War Game. It was almost as cool as the Civil War board game we made out of those broken pieces of kindling and the scrap piece of plywood. Were we too poor to get our own games? No. The games in the store were too boring so we had to make better ones.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
A real tragedy in our midst...
Today, the boys came home from spending the weekend with their father. The 14 year old brought home a very impressively boxed edition of that table-top strategy classic... Risk.
As he is showing me the game board and pieces (all exactly as I recall them from the HUNDREDS of hours I spent hunched over the game), I tell him that we'll have to play a game the next time his friend "D" is over. "14" then raises the question that brings to light the scope of the tragedy facing our world today...
"How do you play it?"
{GASP} Did I hear correctly? Did a child, nay... a young man... in my OWN household admit to not knowing the game of Risk? No, not possible... not for a boy that LOVES games the way he does. So, I ask him,
"What do you mean?"
"I've never played it." he utters bluntly.
My wife, Liz, loves to compare me to the nerds and geeks that so populate modern culture through the all-powerful medium of TELEVISION. Perhaps she isn't far off the mark, in some regards... but she is SPOT ON when it comes to my fascination with strategy and tactical skills games. From those ancient classics like drafts, chess, and go to more modern classics like Stratego, Othello, and Diplomacy (man, did we kill DAYS with that game!). With the more modern "paper simulators" we fought for nearly 40 CONTINUOUS hours over a war-ravaged Europe with NATO: The Next War in Europe, and spent days learning the ins and outs of every addition to the Victory Games series of Sixth Fleet naval simulators (2nd Fleet was my favorite!).
That said, I took a few moments to recover from my initial shock at 14's confession (thank goodness the brown bags were out for school lunches tomorrow... I was hyperventilating!), and then made all plans to introduce the boy to the wonderful world of the "armchair general" and his efforts to conquer and dominate the globe.
So, if you fail to see me here at the Bund for a couple of days, it may be that I am focusing all attention to the PROPER and dilligent education of one 14-year-old FUTURE champion of all things strategic at a gaming table. I will spend the rest of the evening looking for old versions of classic games for sale on-line (someone once told me you can by just about any game at eBay, really cheap). No video, no PC (other than to purchase)... just a BIG table, a LOT of coffee, and lots of TIME.
What I REALLY need is Jambo, Cramey and Gurski (a real blast from the past there, huh?) and a still-in-the-box version of NATO... but that migh tintimidate the boy and put me into divorce court sooner than I had ever anticipated.
We'll have to crawl before we walk, I guess...
As he is showing me the game board and pieces (all exactly as I recall them from the HUNDREDS of hours I spent hunched over the game), I tell him that we'll have to play a game the next time his friend "D" is over. "14" then raises the question that brings to light the scope of the tragedy facing our world today...
"How do you play it?"
{GASP} Did I hear correctly? Did a child, nay... a young man... in my OWN household admit to not knowing the game of Risk? No, not possible... not for a boy that LOVES games the way he does. So, I ask him,
"What do you mean?"
"I've never played it." he utters bluntly.
My wife, Liz, loves to compare me to the nerds and geeks that so populate modern culture through the all-powerful medium of TELEVISION. Perhaps she isn't far off the mark, in some regards... but she is SPOT ON when it comes to my fascination with strategy and tactical skills games. From those ancient classics like drafts, chess, and go to more modern classics like Stratego, Othello, and Diplomacy (man, did we kill DAYS with that game!). With the more modern "paper simulators" we fought for nearly 40 CONTINUOUS hours over a war-ravaged Europe with NATO: The Next War in Europe, and spent days learning the ins and outs of every addition to the Victory Games series of Sixth Fleet naval simulators (2nd Fleet was my favorite!).
That said, I took a few moments to recover from my initial shock at 14's confession (thank goodness the brown bags were out for school lunches tomorrow... I was hyperventilating!), and then made all plans to introduce the boy to the wonderful world of the "armchair general" and his efforts to conquer and dominate the globe.
So, if you fail to see me here at the Bund for a couple of days, it may be that I am focusing all attention to the PROPER and dilligent education of one 14-year-old FUTURE champion of all things strategic at a gaming table. I will spend the rest of the evening looking for old versions of classic games for sale on-line (someone once told me you can by just about any game at eBay, really cheap). No video, no PC (other than to purchase)... just a BIG table, a LOT of coffee, and lots of TIME.
What I REALLY need is Jambo, Cramey and Gurski (a real blast from the past there, huh?) and a still-in-the-box version of NATO... but that migh tintimidate the boy and put me into divorce court sooner than I had ever anticipated.
We'll have to crawl before we walk, I guess...
Historical perspectives aside...
If we want to really debate the "legacy" of past Presidents, let's break out the "Report Card" again and see what we think of our numbers there... I really liked the Report Cards, by the way. We did that right.
Let's talk about the magic number... 60. 60 seats in the Senate gives the Dems complete control of one half of Congress (basically). They now have 49. All they need is 11 seats... but there are 13 seats in play that are leaning Dem rather than GOP!
Places like MS, where former Governor Musgrove is LEADING the Lott-replacement (can't recall his name) BECAUSE no one can recall his name! Same is true in VA, where former Dem Governor Warner is leading. Of the 13 races I have been hearing about (VA, TX, OR, NC, NM, NH, MS, MN, KY, GA, CO, and AK)... only LA has the incumbent Dem down against a GOP rival. Even Al Franken is beating Norm Coleman in MN!
What is THAT going to do to Ryan's blood pressure?
Let's talk about the magic number... 60. 60 seats in the Senate gives the Dems complete control of one half of Congress (basically). They now have 49. All they need is 11 seats... but there are 13 seats in play that are leaning Dem rather than GOP!
Places like MS, where former Governor Musgrove is LEADING the Lott-replacement (can't recall his name) BECAUSE no one can recall his name! Same is true in VA, where former Dem Governor Warner is leading. Of the 13 races I have been hearing about (VA, TX, OR, NC, NM, NH, MS, MN, KY, GA, CO, and AK)... only LA has the incumbent Dem down against a GOP rival. Even Al Franken is beating Norm Coleman in MN!
What is THAT going to do to Ryan's blood pressure?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Brass balls and legacies
I, being a practicing Catholic surrounded by heathens, pagans and secularists (present company included!), heard this very letter read aloud from the ambo of my local parish by Father Rick three Sundays ago. Jacob (the 5-year-old) heard it explained in his CCD class right after Mass. The tragedy here isn't that these kinds of words and ideas aren't forwarded by the mainstream media... the tragedy here is that people aren't IN THE PEWS to hear them discussed each and every Sunday!
I'm not in the mood to quibble with you about Bush's legacy. You like 80% of everything he did... I don't like 80% of everything he did. I DO want to get one thing straight, though...
Your conviction that Bush's legacy will be that we "kicked ass" on the perpetrators of 9/11 is a far cry from "sure and certain". As you used an historical example, let's follow that track...
Legacies are the perception of a President's time in office as seen by the people following after him. Very rarely do you see an objective view of ANY President in the first few years after the end of the term. This is JUST as true for Republicans as it is for Democrats... so no pissing and moaning about "bias" either...
You used Truman as an example, but I feel he is on the cusp of that "historical objectivity" that only time can bring. Let's look to CICs of a more recent vintage...
I have heard both Wilkow and Hannity use the "Carter years" as an example of an economic downturn that was worse than now, but far more recent than the Great Depression... and they were accurate in that assessment. Where they erred was in the numbers they used to back up their interpretation of Carter's legacy.
From Jan 1977 (Jimmy's inauguration) to Jan 1981 (Ron's inauguration), they BOTH (Wilkow and Hannity) claimed that unemployment was over 9%. The highest it got was 8.2% and that was in Dec of 1980. The fact is, unemployment FELL every month for the first 3 years he was in office, and only climbed again (measurably, at least) in the last 6 months he was in office.
Over the next 8 years, Ronald Wilson Reagan never saw a national unemployment average LOWER than Carter had during his first three years! Not ONE MONTH! In fact, the highest unemployment has been EVER since 1968 is 10.8% and that was in Nov-Dec of '83.
All sources found HERE.
Why is Carter remembered as the Pres with the highest unemployment figures? Why does no one recall the "recession of '83" as a negative on Reagan's legacy? Because it is the VICTOR that writes the history... and Reagan won. In fact, Reagan is STILL winning...
We have had two GOP Presidents since Reagan (ironically, father and son... what are the odds, I wonder? Really?) and neither lived up to the "conservative" footprint made by Ronnie. No GOP candidate has yet even come close (although Dole had the principals... he just lacked the personality)... so why do we imagine that Bush will fair any better, ESPECIALLY in an environment where everything associated with him draws hatred and disgust from such a large facet of the population (and it doesn't matter if they know what they are talking about or not... they still respond to polls and surveys, and that is what legacies are based on)?
Maybe 50 or 75 years from now, people will be able to "objectively" look at Bush and see his success for what it was, and understand his failings for what they were. We'll just have to wait for 90% of everyone living today to DIE first, that's all...
I'm not in the mood to quibble with you about Bush's legacy. You like 80% of everything he did... I don't like 80% of everything he did. I DO want to get one thing straight, though...
Your conviction that Bush's legacy will be that we "kicked ass" on the perpetrators of 9/11 is a far cry from "sure and certain". As you used an historical example, let's follow that track...
Legacies are the perception of a President's time in office as seen by the people following after him. Very rarely do you see an objective view of ANY President in the first few years after the end of the term. This is JUST as true for Republicans as it is for Democrats... so no pissing and moaning about "bias" either...
You used Truman as an example, but I feel he is on the cusp of that "historical objectivity" that only time can bring. Let's look to CICs of a more recent vintage...
I have heard both Wilkow and Hannity use the "Carter years" as an example of an economic downturn that was worse than now, but far more recent than the Great Depression... and they were accurate in that assessment. Where they erred was in the numbers they used to back up their interpretation of Carter's legacy.
From Jan 1977 (Jimmy's inauguration) to Jan 1981 (Ron's inauguration), they BOTH (Wilkow and Hannity) claimed that unemployment was over 9%. The highest it got was 8.2% and that was in Dec of 1980. The fact is, unemployment FELL every month for the first 3 years he was in office, and only climbed again (measurably, at least) in the last 6 months he was in office.
Over the next 8 years, Ronald Wilson Reagan never saw a national unemployment average LOWER than Carter had during his first three years! Not ONE MONTH! In fact, the highest unemployment has been EVER since 1968 is 10.8% and that was in Nov-Dec of '83.
All sources found HERE.
Why is Carter remembered as the Pres with the highest unemployment figures? Why does no one recall the "recession of '83" as a negative on Reagan's legacy? Because it is the VICTOR that writes the history... and Reagan won. In fact, Reagan is STILL winning...
We have had two GOP Presidents since Reagan (ironically, father and son... what are the odds, I wonder? Really?) and neither lived up to the "conservative" footprint made by Ronnie. No GOP candidate has yet even come close (although Dole had the principals... he just lacked the personality)... so why do we imagine that Bush will fair any better, ESPECIALLY in an environment where everything associated with him draws hatred and disgust from such a large facet of the population (and it doesn't matter if they know what they are talking about or not... they still respond to polls and surveys, and that is what legacies are based on)?
Maybe 50 or 75 years from now, people will be able to "objectively" look at Bush and see his success for what it was, and understand his failings for what they were. We'll just have to wait for 90% of everyone living today to DIE first, that's all...
A set that clanks.
First to Titus ... we are certainly within the realm of opinion here, but I think you are dead wrong on the "legacy" of GW Bush. Sorry pal, but I find it laughable that in future generations, when "common place" legacy sets in during casual conversation, that cabinet appointments, Rumsfeld et al will be a part of what is mentioned when his name is bandied about. Truman again serves as an example. For all of the problems at the end of his term that made him unpopular, that people of that day would assume would forever be associated with his "legacy", what stuck? "The buck stops here." Dropping the A-bomb and winning in the Pacific. Korea. And if they actually have a head on their shoulders the average "Joe" will note that he relieved MacArthur. With Bush in a generation or two it will be noted, "hey, isn't he the guy that kicked some ass after 9/11?" And if there is functioning democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will be synonymous with his name as well. Now in terms of the future books, for history and policy wonks, yes "no WMD's found" will forever follow the Iraq conversation (less so if those democracies fourish I might add). And guys like us (what are we, in the one half of one percent range in terms of self-fed knowledge?) we will certainly discuss Rummy et al. But the broad strokes of history (what I F. Ryan think of when I hear the term "legacy" especially in terms of the casual conversation of the masses) will paint a picture of him standing on that rubble with the bull horn and cracking some heads after we were attacked, period.
****
Jambo - BRAVO! I know you, and you were BEGGING for that cell to chirp. And what's tragic is they had instilled in your little girl's head that she should be hesitant to display a WWII shirt! An unfortunate development I have every faith you immediately corrected with more then the polo over the head. I'll have my guy, the principal who put together the American Memorial (with the German and Japanese Instruments of surrender), give that school a call ... he, he.
And whooooah! This turn of approach to schooling (via the feds that is) is a long cry from the morning I sat on your couch and you described to me how to federalize the whole "shabang" and thus break the back of the teacher's union. You will note I always resisted such a move (even though I drooled over the prospect of ending the teacher's union in its current form). I welcome the change ... although we still need to figure out how to apply the appropriate snap inducing pressure to the vertebrae of that union.
****
Now, as to my header ...
Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, PA. This is important on a couple of fronts. One, I have grown tired of the timidness that much of the traditional Christian leadership in America has become accustomed to in regards to the politics of their faith's positions. It seems to me that "Reverend" Wright can spew his vile hatred from the pulpit without consequence, yet Mormon, Catholic, Baptist preachers all must be careful at the lectern less they either offer "offense" or endanger their tax exempt status. And ALL mainstream Christian Faiths that would be regarded as "traditional" or "on the right" have developed this noticeable timidness, in my opinion. So, that's why I make a point of mentioning one Cardinal Rigali, in Titus's neck of the woods no less. On October 23rd, the Year of Our Lord 2008, he issued the following letter regarding abortion. And I know, I know - Titus and Jambo will be quick to point out that the Church's stance on life has been consistent even in the PC times we live. And they're right. However, rarely, from any traditional Christian quarter, do I hear it articulated with both such eloquence AND brutal candor... for your reading pleasure, the good Cardinal's letter to Pennsylvania Catholics:
The Challenge of Our Own times ...
Our own common sense tells us that not every issue is of the same importance. At various times in history, a people or nation is confronted with an issue that transcends others in importance and that demands a courageous response.
The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.
We bishops of Pennsylvania quoted from the late Pope John Paul II’s Post Synodal Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful and I quote him again here: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 38).
At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”
The human dignity that we proclaim works two ways: it affords us a great privilege but it also demands a responsibility. The feeble defense “I did not know” cannot be used by any responsible person in our time when confronted with the reality of abortion. We do know. We know because we can reason and think and see. Along with this position, which is confirmed by modern science, comes a command: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is not a question of politics but a question of the gravest of intrinsic evils; and just as the reality of what it is cannot be explained away, neither can our responsibility.
Throughout our history, Catholics have earned their right to call themselves patriotic Americans. Faithful citizenship not only includes dying for one’s country or working towards its prosperity, it also includes being faithful to a law which is higher than the expediency of the moment with the same generosity of body and heart, and the same courage that is given on the battlefield and in the workplace. We remind ourselves of this as we continue to be called to faithful citizenship and respect for life in the “earthly city” without forgetting that we are ultimately called to live as citizens of heaven forever.
If you wish you can read his entire letter of 10/23/08, including portions other then abortion HERE.
Now I just wonder to whom he was referring when he mentioned the baby "on the shelf?" Like I said ... a set that clanks.
****
Jambo - BRAVO! I know you, and you were BEGGING for that cell to chirp. And what's tragic is they had instilled in your little girl's head that she should be hesitant to display a WWII shirt! An unfortunate development I have every faith you immediately corrected with more then the polo over the head. I'll have my guy, the principal who put together the American Memorial (with the German and Japanese Instruments of surrender), give that school a call ... he, he.
And whooooah! This turn of approach to schooling (via the feds that is) is a long cry from the morning I sat on your couch and you described to me how to federalize the whole "shabang" and thus break the back of the teacher's union. You will note I always resisted such a move (even though I drooled over the prospect of ending the teacher's union in its current form). I welcome the change ... although we still need to figure out how to apply the appropriate snap inducing pressure to the vertebrae of that union.
****
Now, as to my header ...
Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, PA. This is important on a couple of fronts. One, I have grown tired of the timidness that much of the traditional Christian leadership in America has become accustomed to in regards to the politics of their faith's positions. It seems to me that "Reverend" Wright can spew his vile hatred from the pulpit without consequence, yet Mormon, Catholic, Baptist preachers all must be careful at the lectern less they either offer "offense" or endanger their tax exempt status. And ALL mainstream Christian Faiths that would be regarded as "traditional" or "on the right" have developed this noticeable timidness, in my opinion. So, that's why I make a point of mentioning one Cardinal Rigali, in Titus's neck of the woods no less. On October 23rd, the Year of Our Lord 2008, he issued the following letter regarding abortion. And I know, I know - Titus and Jambo will be quick to point out that the Church's stance on life has been consistent even in the PC times we live. And they're right. However, rarely, from any traditional Christian quarter, do I hear it articulated with both such eloquence AND brutal candor... for your reading pleasure, the good Cardinal's letter to Pennsylvania Catholics:
The Challenge of Our Own times ...
Our own common sense tells us that not every issue is of the same importance. At various times in history, a people or nation is confronted with an issue that transcends others in importance and that demands a courageous response.
The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.
We bishops of Pennsylvania quoted from the late Pope John Paul II’s Post Synodal Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful and I quote him again here: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 38).
At this moment in our country’s history, defense of innocent human life is a moral responsibility for all of us. The same God who thundered from Mount Sinai: “Thou shalt not kill,” thunders still. When life in the womb is destroyed, God thunders: “This is a child!” When by the most barbaric means, unworthy of any civilized people, the brain of a child is sucked out of his or her head by a vacuum, God thunders: “This is a child!” When a baby is left to die of exposure on a shelf because of a failed abortion, and this is considered a “right” by any leader, God, the Source of all law and authority, thunders: “This is a child!” When we are faced with every modern means of education and communication, in addition to the law placed in our hearts at creation, no one, and most especially, no Catholic, can ever say: “I did not know.”
The human dignity that we proclaim works two ways: it affords us a great privilege but it also demands a responsibility. The feeble defense “I did not know” cannot be used by any responsible person in our time when confronted with the reality of abortion. We do know. We know because we can reason and think and see. Along with this position, which is confirmed by modern science, comes a command: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is not a question of politics but a question of the gravest of intrinsic evils; and just as the reality of what it is cannot be explained away, neither can our responsibility.
Throughout our history, Catholics have earned their right to call themselves patriotic Americans. Faithful citizenship not only includes dying for one’s country or working towards its prosperity, it also includes being faithful to a law which is higher than the expediency of the moment with the same generosity of body and heart, and the same courage that is given on the battlefield and in the workplace. We remind ourselves of this as we continue to be called to faithful citizenship and respect for life in the “earthly city” without forgetting that we are ultimately called to live as citizens of heaven forever.
If you wish you can read his entire letter of 10/23/08, including portions other then abortion HERE.
Now I just wonder to whom he was referring when he mentioned the baby "on the shelf?" Like I said ... a set that clanks.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Drumroll Please!!!
Well as we were discussing so long ago, the length to which a member of the armed services can be involved in the political arena, I finally have the answer.
1. Personnel may not:
* Send e-mails supporting or opposing candidates while on duty or
using government system
* Wear partisan political buttons, hats, t-shirts, etc., while on
duty or in uniform
* Have a sign or bumper sticker for or against a candidate in your
office or cubicle
* Have a large sign for or against a candidate when you come on
base
* Do anything which supports or opposes a candidate while on duty,
on a government installation, wearing a government uniform, or while using a government vehicle
* Run for office in partisan elections
* Solicit or receive political contributions at any time, even off
duty. If you have a personal web site or blog, don't add a link, button, etc., to send contributions to a campaign
* Solicit or discourage political activity by anyone with business
with the Air Force
* Don't use position or authority to influence an election.
Specifically, don't encourage or discourage a subordinate to vote for or against a candidate. This does not prevent encouragement of voting generally.
NOTE: The candidate's name does not have to be on an item or in an e-mail if it is reasonably clear which candidate is intended.
2. Personnel may (when not on duty):
* Register and vote and assist in voter registration drives
* Be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections. Note:
military members can't be candidates, except that enlisted members may be elected to nonpartisan offices in their personal capacity if it doesn't interfere with duty.
* Express opinions about candidates and issues (in your personal
capacity and not as a representative of the Government) Note: military members may only write letters to the editor expressing personal views on a candidate or issues as long as it doesn't solicit votes for or against a partisan cause or candidate. No other letters may be written by military members.
* Have a bumper sticker on your personal vehicle
* Have a sign in front of your off-base home. Note: no signs are
permitted at on-base housing, even if privatized.
* Contribute money to political candidates and organizations
* Attend political fundraising functions (when not in uniform)
* Attend and be active at political rallies and meetings. Note:
military members may attend when not in uniform, but cannot participate in a role greater than spectator.
* Join and be an active member of a political party or club
(including holding office). Note: military members may only join. They can't serve in an official capacity.
* Sign nominating petitions
* Campaign for or against referendum questions and constitutional
amendments
* Campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections (in
personal capacity without identifying yourself as government employee).
Note: military members can't do this at any time.
* distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
this was from a talking points paper I received today so it is current and accurate.
Sorry for the absence of late but I have been kinda busy. Hopefully life will slow down a little bit here and I can get more involved again.
Badboy
1. Personnel may not:
* Send e-mails supporting or opposing candidates while on duty or
using government system
* Wear partisan political buttons, hats, t-shirts, etc., while on
duty or in uniform
* Have a sign or bumper sticker for or against a candidate in your
office or cubicle
* Have a large sign for or against a candidate when you come on
base
* Do anything which supports or opposes a candidate while on duty,
on a government installation, wearing a government uniform, or while using a government vehicle
* Run for office in partisan elections
* Solicit or receive political contributions at any time, even off
duty. If you have a personal web site or blog, don't add a link, button, etc., to send contributions to a campaign
* Solicit or discourage political activity by anyone with business
with the Air Force
* Don't use position or authority to influence an election.
Specifically, don't encourage or discourage a subordinate to vote for or against a candidate. This does not prevent encouragement of voting generally.
NOTE: The candidate's name does not have to be on an item or in an e-mail if it is reasonably clear which candidate is intended.
2. Personnel may (when not on duty):
* Register and vote and assist in voter registration drives
* Be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections. Note:
military members can't be candidates, except that enlisted members may be elected to nonpartisan offices in their personal capacity if it doesn't interfere with duty.
* Express opinions about candidates and issues (in your personal
capacity and not as a representative of the Government) Note: military members may only write letters to the editor expressing personal views on a candidate or issues as long as it doesn't solicit votes for or against a partisan cause or candidate. No other letters may be written by military members.
* Have a bumper sticker on your personal vehicle
* Have a sign in front of your off-base home. Note: no signs are
permitted at on-base housing, even if privatized.
* Contribute money to political candidates and organizations
* Attend political fundraising functions (when not in uniform)
* Attend and be active at political rallies and meetings. Note:
military members may attend when not in uniform, but cannot participate in a role greater than spectator.
* Join and be an active member of a political party or club
(including holding office). Note: military members may only join. They can't serve in an official capacity.
* Sign nominating petitions
* Campaign for or against referendum questions and constitutional
amendments
* Campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections (in
personal capacity without identifying yourself as government employee).
Note: military members can't do this at any time.
* distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
this was from a talking points paper I received today so it is current and accurate.
Sorry for the absence of late but I have been kinda busy. Hopefully life will slow down a little bit here and I can get more involved again.
Badboy
It's early and I don't mean to stir the pot...
... but my oldest is challenging a school policy this morning with a little civil disobedience and it brought to mind a couple of thoughts.
First off, the civil disobedience. Turns out my nephew purchased a polo shirt from our last visit to the D-Day Museum (now, of course, the National WWII in New Orleans) that was too small for him and it was left. It found its way here during my move out of my house and Claire stumbled across it in the back of my closet. Turns out it fits her perfectly. It's a nice polo, khaki with the WWII Museum emblem on the left breast. She tells me she can't wear it to school because of a rule stating no references to war or violence can ornate the clothing. To which I told her to wear the shirt and have my cell number handy if any fuss comes from it. More than likely it won't but I'm ready.
I was kind of mumbling to myself about tax dollars supporting revisionism in our schools when it struck me again: What IS the fed's responsibility in education?
Now not all that long ago I would have cried from the mountain in a loud clear voice "EVERYTHING!" But since, and for reasons I cannot fully articulate, I've changed my position. While never a believer that throwing money at a problem makes it get better, the federalization of the American Educational system is just that: throwing money at a problem on a colossal scale. How many federal domestic dollars has G.W. spent with his "Left Behind" policy and done just that? Yet the district I'm most proud of, my Biloxi School District, is a superb example of local funding done right.
Keep in mind, as MS is officially in a recession and budget cuts are falling left and right, my school district is sitting rather well because of:
1) Independent revenue base. This district is not solely dependent on local bond votes, property taxes, or most perilously, state sales tax revenue. The casinos within the city of Biloxi pay a tax directly to the school district. Now the casinos may not be all that happy about it, but let me tell you, it is amazing the difference between my school system and D'Iberville, which happens to be right across the bay, a community with no casino revenue. Night and day difference. Could federal funding help that? No.
I was going to crack out a longer list, but I have to drive the kids to school and I'm pressed for time. Federal money could be far better spent in the form of low interest guaranteed student loans for college students, money the govt would eventually be recouped. I'm not saying a college education is a right, but the opportunity for one is, and an expanded student loan program would go a long way to expand that opportunity base. Then in the greatest American tradition, the individual could sink or swim by their own efforts and designs.
Sorry this post didn't go the way I wanted. I'll try and add more later.
First off, the civil disobedience. Turns out my nephew purchased a polo shirt from our last visit to the D-Day Museum (now, of course, the National WWII in New Orleans) that was too small for him and it was left. It found its way here during my move out of my house and Claire stumbled across it in the back of my closet. Turns out it fits her perfectly. It's a nice polo, khaki with the WWII Museum emblem on the left breast. She tells me she can't wear it to school because of a rule stating no references to war or violence can ornate the clothing. To which I told her to wear the shirt and have my cell number handy if any fuss comes from it. More than likely it won't but I'm ready.
I was kind of mumbling to myself about tax dollars supporting revisionism in our schools when it struck me again: What IS the fed's responsibility in education?
Now not all that long ago I would have cried from the mountain in a loud clear voice "EVERYTHING!" But since, and for reasons I cannot fully articulate, I've changed my position. While never a believer that throwing money at a problem makes it get better, the federalization of the American Educational system is just that: throwing money at a problem on a colossal scale. How many federal domestic dollars has G.W. spent with his "Left Behind" policy and done just that? Yet the district I'm most proud of, my Biloxi School District, is a superb example of local funding done right.
Keep in mind, as MS is officially in a recession and budget cuts are falling left and right, my school district is sitting rather well because of:
1) Independent revenue base. This district is not solely dependent on local bond votes, property taxes, or most perilously, state sales tax revenue. The casinos within the city of Biloxi pay a tax directly to the school district. Now the casinos may not be all that happy about it, but let me tell you, it is amazing the difference between my school system and D'Iberville, which happens to be right across the bay, a community with no casino revenue. Night and day difference. Could federal funding help that? No.
I was going to crack out a longer list, but I have to drive the kids to school and I'm pressed for time. Federal money could be far better spent in the form of low interest guaranteed student loans for college students, money the govt would eventually be recouped. I'm not saying a college education is a right, but the opportunity for one is, and an expanded student loan program would go a long way to expand that opportunity base. Then in the greatest American tradition, the individual could sink or swim by their own efforts and designs.
Sorry this post didn't go the way I wanted. I'll try and add more later.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Fair?
I take nothing away from his post 9/11 appearance on the pile of rubble... it was truly inspiring. I take nothing away from the "ink-stained" fingers raised in triumph from one end of Iraq to another... it is an image that has left an indelible mark on all rational-thinking people. I would NEVER think to detract from his efforts in the realm of pro-life... he is the ONLY President to make the efforts, EVER!
His "legacy" however, won't focus on either of these events. His legacy will focus (right or wrong) on the FACT that he was unable to show a connection between the two (9/11 and Saddam). He legacy will focus on "WMDs" and there failure to appear when and where he said they would. His legacy will focus on such Cabinet choices as Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell, Gonzales, and Ridge (I won't include Cheney in this list, but many will).
He won't be remembered as a "conservative" President... only as a Republican who pandered to public opinion polls rather than the party platform.
His "legacy" however, won't focus on either of these events. His legacy will focus (right or wrong) on the FACT that he was unable to show a connection between the two (9/11 and Saddam). He legacy will focus on "WMDs" and there failure to appear when and where he said they would. His legacy will focus on such Cabinet choices as Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell, Gonzales, and Ridge (I won't include Cheney in this list, but many will).
He won't be remembered as a "conservative" President... only as a Republican who pandered to public opinion polls rather than the party platform.
Well, I found that hardly fair.
Funny you should recall that conversation, I recalled it myself just recently and used your ominous warnings from that time in recent discussions with Obama supporters.
But ... come on Titus, were we to interview a GOP policy wonk I'm sure he could name, or go down the list, of one admirable piece of legislation the Bush White House got through, after another. It is hardly sufficient to sum up an entire 2 term presidency, 6 years with Party control of congress, in a single, brief post.
And just off the top of my head, to add to your rather short list of accomplishments ... 49 million people liberated in Iraq (and its becoming a very stable nation at present, a severely under reported story I might add). Several million liberated in Afghanistan. Also, partial birth abortion - the GOP ended it as a practice in the US. That never occurs in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Tax cuts - sticking to his guns (at least during his time in office, they have sunset clauses) on that policy (rectifying his father's mistake). And his post 9/11 behavior is the stuff of US history's most moving moments, in my opinion. The Patriot Act, and the leadership shown in its application ... and were I to do a little research I'm sure I could go on.
Now, I will be the first to lament on the missed opportunities - securing our borders; gratuitous spending in forms too numerous to mention; and the complete inability to of this administration to wage a PR war as effectively as it (eventually in Iraq) waged real wars. Reagan conservatism was applied only in terms of national security strength and tax policy. Besides that, spending, government growth, etc - forget it. "Throwing money at it" became as much the solution for Bush as we conservatives once complained was the sole purview of Democrats. The "movement" Reagan began and Gingrich continued, Bush allowed to simply stall out. But again, trying to sum up the overall pros and cons of a two term presidency in a single post, even my hubris doesn't have that level of sustainment. I DO think, however, (as I have said before), the "Truman effect" could come into play for Dubya. IF Iraq and Afghanistan become flourishing democracies and export that theme to their neighbors, Bush could get a monumental historical "bump" the way Harry did. Everybody from McCain to Bush to Guliani invoke Truman's name to represent their own supposed "no nonsense, the buck stops here" traits. Also in terms of strength (the Atom bomb employed) his name is routinely thrown around by pols of all stripes to represent their own ability to make tough decisions (Mac may be counting on his name once more ... Obama=Dewey?). Little do most of them know Truman left office with an approval rating beneath Nixon's! And one of the reasons he did not seek a second term (of his own) was because he might not of even won his own Party's nomination, as a sitting PoTUS.
So, my point is this: YES, I remember that conversation. You noted to me, in a warning like fashion, "Ok, you've got 4 years, lets see what they can do because there will be no excuses, no one to blame but themselves this time." At the time I thought, "ya, ya, you'll see. It will be Reagan on steroids because THIS TIME we even have the congress!" So ... how do I feel now, at its conclusion 8 years later? Hmmmm .... that's a good question. Well, even though (as I stated) it's grossly unfair to attempt to sum up a presidency in a few paragraphs, I will say this: Bush, in my opinion, was far and away a better choice then either Gore or Kerry would have turned out to be. And hey, we had some fine moments - partial birth abortion banned; the ink stained thumbs of those Iraqis on election day; his post 9/11 strength etc, etc, and I am surely missing a ton. However, it's sort of like an old girlfriend you always have a soft spot for but know it would have never worked out had you stayed. It wasn't the relationship of your dreams, the communication sucked, and you HAD to move on, but ... you were better off for the experience.
And I think on the whole, given the modern ideology of the Democrat Party, Bush was a much sounder choice for America, thus making her better off for the experience.
And for any Obama supporters out there I have that same warning: Ok, you're probably about to get what you want. You've got 4 years (with at least 2 in control of congress). And you'd better hope you don't muck it up because when that pendulem swings back, and you've left us in collective tatters, it will swing hard right ...
But ... come on Titus, were we to interview a GOP policy wonk I'm sure he could name, or go down the list, of one admirable piece of legislation the Bush White House got through, after another. It is hardly sufficient to sum up an entire 2 term presidency, 6 years with Party control of congress, in a single, brief post.
And just off the top of my head, to add to your rather short list of accomplishments ... 49 million people liberated in Iraq (and its becoming a very stable nation at present, a severely under reported story I might add). Several million liberated in Afghanistan. Also, partial birth abortion - the GOP ended it as a practice in the US. That never occurs in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Tax cuts - sticking to his guns (at least during his time in office, they have sunset clauses) on that policy (rectifying his father's mistake). And his post 9/11 behavior is the stuff of US history's most moving moments, in my opinion. The Patriot Act, and the leadership shown in its application ... and were I to do a little research I'm sure I could go on.
Now, I will be the first to lament on the missed opportunities - securing our borders; gratuitous spending in forms too numerous to mention; and the complete inability to of this administration to wage a PR war as effectively as it (eventually in Iraq) waged real wars. Reagan conservatism was applied only in terms of national security strength and tax policy. Besides that, spending, government growth, etc - forget it. "Throwing money at it" became as much the solution for Bush as we conservatives once complained was the sole purview of Democrats. The "movement" Reagan began and Gingrich continued, Bush allowed to simply stall out. But again, trying to sum up the overall pros and cons of a two term presidency in a single post, even my hubris doesn't have that level of sustainment. I DO think, however, (as I have said before), the "Truman effect" could come into play for Dubya. IF Iraq and Afghanistan become flourishing democracies and export that theme to their neighbors, Bush could get a monumental historical "bump" the way Harry did. Everybody from McCain to Bush to Guliani invoke Truman's name to represent their own supposed "no nonsense, the buck stops here" traits. Also in terms of strength (the Atom bomb employed) his name is routinely thrown around by pols of all stripes to represent their own ability to make tough decisions (Mac may be counting on his name once more ... Obama=Dewey?). Little do most of them know Truman left office with an approval rating beneath Nixon's! And one of the reasons he did not seek a second term (of his own) was because he might not of even won his own Party's nomination, as a sitting PoTUS.
So, my point is this: YES, I remember that conversation. You noted to me, in a warning like fashion, "Ok, you've got 4 years, lets see what they can do because there will be no excuses, no one to blame but themselves this time." At the time I thought, "ya, ya, you'll see. It will be Reagan on steroids because THIS TIME we even have the congress!" So ... how do I feel now, at its conclusion 8 years later? Hmmmm .... that's a good question. Well, even though (as I stated) it's grossly unfair to attempt to sum up a presidency in a few paragraphs, I will say this: Bush, in my opinion, was far and away a better choice then either Gore or Kerry would have turned out to be. And hey, we had some fine moments - partial birth abortion banned; the ink stained thumbs of those Iraqis on election day; his post 9/11 strength etc, etc, and I am surely missing a ton. However, it's sort of like an old girlfriend you always have a soft spot for but know it would have never worked out had you stayed. It wasn't the relationship of your dreams, the communication sucked, and you HAD to move on, but ... you were better off for the experience.
And I think on the whole, given the modern ideology of the Democrat Party, Bush was a much sounder choice for America, thus making her better off for the experience.
And for any Obama supporters out there I have that same warning: Ok, you're probably about to get what you want. You've got 4 years (with at least 2 in control of congress). And you'd better hope you don't muck it up because when that pendulem swings back, and you've left us in collective tatters, it will swing hard right ...
And, as reality sets in...
I recall a conversation that Ryan and I had way back in 2000. He knew I had voted for Gore, and he wanted to gloat at the Bush win. My response was that we now had four years (it ended up being six) to see the Republican agenda played out through a conservative White House, a GOP-controlled Congress, and a (marginally) conservative Supreme Court.
In the past eight years, we have gained a new (and Catholic!) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (a GREAT pick by Bush); an executive branch of Government that has very nearly DOUBLED in size; a new education plan that has become a catch-phrase for wasted tax dollars; a global war where we are committed on two fronts, in two regions; a new Fed Chairman that NO ONE seems to have the slightest confidence in (especially when he publicly endorses OBAMA!); a financial bail-out plan that will further increase the size and scope of government control of private banking; NO discernible progress made in making the US less dependant on foreign oil imports; a really impressive new Sec Def that understands that there is more to the job than press conferences and time in the lime-light; a NEW and IMPROVED military that is more than anything Rummy could have hoped for in the 5 years he was Sec Def...
The list is long, but not terribly distinguished. I am the first to say that no further terror attacks have happened since 9/11 in the US, and we are probably a safer, stronger, and more secure nation than we were in 1999 (this is certainly true of our military!)... but any gains Bush might have made in safety and security have been squandered (in terms of his legacy) in the questions that are STILL surrounding the choices he made in his Cabinet picks.
My point is that the GOP WASTED an opportunity to promote ITS agenda through programs, legislation and in-your-face facts that SHOULD have been spewing out of the Capitol and White House from 2001 to 2007... but never really did. That opportunity is now gone for the foreseeable future.
So, IF Obama wins in November... we will have four years of a Democratic White House, and at least two more years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, and (very probably) a liberal majority on the bench of the Supreme Court. That's six years of legislation and policy from the far left-leaning DNC.
Undoubtedly, Ryan's only hope is that the Dems are as INCAPABLE of actually getting anything done as the GOP has been since 1998!
In the past eight years, we have gained a new (and Catholic!) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (a GREAT pick by Bush); an executive branch of Government that has very nearly DOUBLED in size; a new education plan that has become a catch-phrase for wasted tax dollars; a global war where we are committed on two fronts, in two regions; a new Fed Chairman that NO ONE seems to have the slightest confidence in (especially when he publicly endorses OBAMA!); a financial bail-out plan that will further increase the size and scope of government control of private banking; NO discernible progress made in making the US less dependant on foreign oil imports; a really impressive new Sec Def that understands that there is more to the job than press conferences and time in the lime-light; a NEW and IMPROVED military that is more than anything Rummy could have hoped for in the 5 years he was Sec Def...
The list is long, but not terribly distinguished. I am the first to say that no further terror attacks have happened since 9/11 in the US, and we are probably a safer, stronger, and more secure nation than we were in 1999 (this is certainly true of our military!)... but any gains Bush might have made in safety and security have been squandered (in terms of his legacy) in the questions that are STILL surrounding the choices he made in his Cabinet picks.
My point is that the GOP WASTED an opportunity to promote ITS agenda through programs, legislation and in-your-face facts that SHOULD have been spewing out of the Capitol and White House from 2001 to 2007... but never really did. That opportunity is now gone for the foreseeable future.
So, IF Obama wins in November... we will have four years of a Democratic White House, and at least two more years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, and (very probably) a liberal majority on the bench of the Supreme Court. That's six years of legislation and policy from the far left-leaning DNC.
Undoubtedly, Ryan's only hope is that the Dems are as INCAPABLE of actually getting anything done as the GOP has been since 1998!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Not to be a downer, but...
With only 2 weeks left before the election, is it time to begin to imagine what will happen if Obama wins?
Worse than that... what if they win the BIG prize? What if they win the vaunted "super majority" in Congress? With the Senate split even and the House in control of the DNC by 54%... it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
I bring this up because of what I heard recently about Obama's fund-raising accomplishments. Not only did he RAISE more money that Bush and Kerry SPENT during the entire '04 campaign, but the average donation is only $86.00! Seems like Obama listened to big Howie Dean, where John Kerry didn't, because Barry sure did learn to raise some grass-roots support, huh?
If there is THAT much support behind Obama, that literally MILLIONS of people will donate to his campaign, then how secure is the prospect that the 6 House seats in close races will REMAIN in the hands of the GOP? How safe should the GOP feel knowing 6 Republican Senate seats are being VACATED by retiring Senators? Both VA and NE seats are in tight races... in fact, both are DNC picks, right now, and neither are States the GOP can afford to lose.
Food for thought, huh?
Worse than that... what if they win the BIG prize? What if they win the vaunted "super majority" in Congress? With the Senate split even and the House in control of the DNC by 54%... it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
I bring this up because of what I heard recently about Obama's fund-raising accomplishments. Not only did he RAISE more money that Bush and Kerry SPENT during the entire '04 campaign, but the average donation is only $86.00! Seems like Obama listened to big Howie Dean, where John Kerry didn't, because Barry sure did learn to raise some grass-roots support, huh?
If there is THAT much support behind Obama, that literally MILLIONS of people will donate to his campaign, then how secure is the prospect that the 6 House seats in close races will REMAIN in the hands of the GOP? How safe should the GOP feel knowing 6 Republican Senate seats are being VACATED by retiring Senators? Both VA and NE seats are in tight races... in fact, both are DNC picks, right now, and neither are States the GOP can afford to lose.
Food for thought, huh?
This electorate needs an enema!
Look, there is a reason "Joe the Plumber" became a household name. For one fleeting moment he successfully made Obama be specific about his approach to taxes and economics (and btw, these attacks that he hasn't a plumber's license - he's an apprentice - etc, are sickening and demonstrate to me just how vulnerable Obama apologists know there man is on this issue, but I digress ...). The results of that momentary specificity were not surprising to me. Non partisan groups rank Obama as "the most liberal U.S. Senator" for a reason. And the fact that McCain is only NOW exploiting that liberal agenda, by asking Obama to simply be specific, has been a whopper of a mistake.
Now on those "specifics", or lack there of. "95% of Americans will get a tax cut." If I hear that intellectually fraudulent phrase even one more time my eyes will shoot fountains of blood. But even with that rather nonspecific phrase we can see much of what Obama believes. We had an inkling when Charlie Gibson pressed Barak in a debate with Hillary. Obama claimed our markets could sustain doubling the capital gains tax in order to pay for health care etc. Gibson pressed him with the historical fact that receipts to the US Treasury actually went UP each time time that rate has been cut. Three times Gibson pressed him until Obama finally lamented, "It's not just about tax revenue Charlie, it's about basic fairness." WHAT??? The US treasury ISNT about raising revenue, but rather an instrument for dolling out an ideological brand of social justice? Mac should be creaming him on that. But, back to this 95% ...
The "tax cut", as Obama explains, will be in the form of a "rebate check." Uh huh ... I see. That's great right? That's moderate, even if it's not for those taxed the highest, at least it's a "cut" in taxes ... right? The problem is that the bottom 40% of employed adults (almost half of his targeted rebate group) pay an effective income tax rate of ZERO, Nada, nothing. What do you call a rebate check that was never "bated" in the first place? Answer: WELFARE. Mac finally hit Barry on that very point today ( 14 days outside of the election ... ugggh) and Obama responded by explaining that it is NOT welfare or a handout, because these bottom 40% pay "other" taxes, like sales tax etc. The problem there is that the tax code already rebates that form of taxation to those lower economic earners - it's what the EITC or Earned Income Tax Credit does!
They've redefined the language. Its verbal ninjitsu. Ideologically liberal members of congress don't "spend" anymore, they "invest." McGovern proposed this same form of welfare as a mass appeal in 1972, and it was laughed off the national stage. He called it a "grant" however. No longer ... it's now a "tax refund check" ... even though the money was never "funded" in the first place.
The classic "tax and spend liberals" are most effectively dealt with when they are identified as tax and spend liberals! So do it already Mac. Because whatever Obama wants to call it - an extended EITC, rebate, refund, WHATEVER, what is fantastically evident is he wasn't lying to ol' Joe the Plumber. He literally is going to "spread the wealth around." This is text book wealth redistribution. So say so McCain ... and hurry up about it.
Now on those "specifics", or lack there of. "95% of Americans will get a tax cut." If I hear that intellectually fraudulent phrase even one more time my eyes will shoot fountains of blood. But even with that rather nonspecific phrase we can see much of what Obama believes. We had an inkling when Charlie Gibson pressed Barak in a debate with Hillary. Obama claimed our markets could sustain doubling the capital gains tax in order to pay for health care etc. Gibson pressed him with the historical fact that receipts to the US Treasury actually went UP each time time that rate has been cut. Three times Gibson pressed him until Obama finally lamented, "It's not just about tax revenue Charlie, it's about basic fairness." WHAT??? The US treasury ISNT about raising revenue, but rather an instrument for dolling out an ideological brand of social justice? Mac should be creaming him on that. But, back to this 95% ...
The "tax cut", as Obama explains, will be in the form of a "rebate check." Uh huh ... I see. That's great right? That's moderate, even if it's not for those taxed the highest, at least it's a "cut" in taxes ... right? The problem is that the bottom 40% of employed adults (almost half of his targeted rebate group) pay an effective income tax rate of ZERO, Nada, nothing. What do you call a rebate check that was never "bated" in the first place? Answer: WELFARE. Mac finally hit Barry on that very point today ( 14 days outside of the election ... ugggh) and Obama responded by explaining that it is NOT welfare or a handout, because these bottom 40% pay "other" taxes, like sales tax etc. The problem there is that the tax code already rebates that form of taxation to those lower economic earners - it's what the EITC or Earned Income Tax Credit does!
They've redefined the language. Its verbal ninjitsu. Ideologically liberal members of congress don't "spend" anymore, they "invest." McGovern proposed this same form of welfare as a mass appeal in 1972, and it was laughed off the national stage. He called it a "grant" however. No longer ... it's now a "tax refund check" ... even though the money was never "funded" in the first place.
The classic "tax and spend liberals" are most effectively dealt with when they are identified as tax and spend liberals! So do it already Mac. Because whatever Obama wants to call it - an extended EITC, rebate, refund, WHATEVER, what is fantastically evident is he wasn't lying to ol' Joe the Plumber. He literally is going to "spread the wealth around." This is text book wealth redistribution. So say so McCain ... and hurry up about it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
That's NOT why I pointed it out ...
I wasn't trying to infer a "landslide" that Biden was on the wrong side of. I was pointing out that EVEN when there was CLEAR aggression by a belligerent enemy towards an "ally" of ours (read: NO quasi clear arguments on WMD's, just a good ol' fashioned invasion of a friend), that Biden didn't have the judgment in terms of national security to respond with the strength the situation called for. It was an overwhelming success (as you know) & he STILL won't recant his decision to this day. And my response to Gene Taylor's vote - SO WHAT? I never claimed he was the national security standard for which vice presidents should be measured. I think he does a decent job in South MS, and he certainly isn't part of the "Move On" left, but I wouldn't support him for PoTUS over McCain/Palin, with or without that vote.
You're right about the Biden commercials though - "The presidency doesn't lend itself to on the job training." "I'd be honored to serve as Vice President to McCain ...", "Anyone that would vote for defunding the troops in action, to make a political stand, doesn't have the judgment to be the commander-in-chief." Each and every statement was made by Joseph Biden (referring to Obama in the 1st and 3rd quote) not more then 4 months ago during the Democrat primary. It should be in a commercial, no question. SUDDENLY, after 4 months of campaign experience Obama is suddenly qualified ... it's sheer buffoonery, and Mac & co should ensure the public knows it.
You're right about the Biden commercials though - "The presidency doesn't lend itself to on the job training." "I'd be honored to serve as Vice President to McCain ...", "Anyone that would vote for defunding the troops in action, to make a political stand, doesn't have the judgment to be the commander-in-chief." Each and every statement was made by Joseph Biden (referring to Obama in the 1st and 3rd quote) not more then 4 months ago during the Democrat primary. It should be in a commercial, no question. SUDDENLY, after 4 months of campaign experience Obama is suddenly qualified ... it's sheer buffoonery, and Mac & co should ensure the public knows it.
In regards to "One last thing..."
Biden voted against the '91 Senate Resolution to defend Kuwait?
Dude, so did Gene Taylor (on the House side)... and so did 46 OTHER Senators. The vote was 52 to 47... that's hardly the landslide you make it out to be. 1/3 of the YEA votes in the House were Democrats (although Taylor wasn't one of them)... which seems a little more reasonable than what we saw on the Senate side of the building.
Just wanted to clear that up. Biden is an idiot for saying what he said... and I can't for the LIFE of me figure out why NO ONE from the McCain campaign is airing the tapes of Biden saying that Obama SHOULDN'T be President because "it isn't a job that lends itself to on-the-job training"... which only reinforces MY point since the primary... BIDEN WAS A TERRIBLE PICK FOR VP.
None the less... he votes the party line, which is far more than McCain can be credited with, isn't it?
Dude, so did Gene Taylor (on the House side)... and so did 46 OTHER Senators. The vote was 52 to 47... that's hardly the landslide you make it out to be. 1/3 of the YEA votes in the House were Democrats (although Taylor wasn't one of them)... which seems a little more reasonable than what we saw on the Senate side of the building.
Just wanted to clear that up. Biden is an idiot for saying what he said... and I can't for the LIFE of me figure out why NO ONE from the McCain campaign is airing the tapes of Biden saying that Obama SHOULDN'T be President because "it isn't a job that lends itself to on-the-job training"... which only reinforces MY point since the primary... BIDEN WAS A TERRIBLE PICK FOR VP.
None the less... he votes the party line, which is far more than McCain can be credited with, isn't it?
The mafia, sour grapes, and Limbaugh ...
Feds announced a major 3 year RICO investigation here in Vegas with the handing down of dozens of indictments. I think that's the BEST PR the Vegas tourism department could have gotten ... he, he.
****
Regarding radio ...
Interesting. Funny enough my radio exposure has turned to solidly that of the Marchony persuasion. My Sirius subscription expired 6 mos after the purchase of my vehicle and I haven't renewed it. Why? Because of the market I'm in now. I get Rush, Beck (my favorite now), Hannity, Levine, Ingraham, O'Reilly, Savage, Hewitt, Humphries, Medved, Cunningham, Doyle, and even Matt Drudge's once a week program, ALL free. And of course NPR as my left-wing source (All Things Considered and the BBC, which makes NBC look like a Dubya rally).
That being said, I have in fact listened to Rush over the last 24 months up to and including today. I assume your point Titus was to "almost" compliment Rush et al by demonstrating that when compared to their leftist competition they (conservative radio) at least engage in adult conversations and articulate real ideas and commentary in between their "femiNazi" jousts. Just a word about those jousts. They are ALL done tongue-in-cheek. There is no vitriol involved, just good natured ribbing like the kind we all give each other (without the swear words and homosexual inferences that is ... Titus). And yes, they ARE done for the entertainment value (Beck regularly describes his program as "the fusion of entertainment and information" and named his monthly periodical: FUSION MAGAZINE); but I think entertainment commentary is injected in between serious discussion for the listener's emotional state as well. In other words, after 35 continual minutes of deep discussion about what the financial bail out means for the direction of our nation, I almost NEED Glen Beck to play a 30 second parody in which he announces "Comrade Barak's" economic plan over a Mother Russia theme song. It's to comically delight the listener, not necessarily to "attack" the poltical opposition. And from what you've described the opposite is happening on leftist radio. Instead of light hearted, sometimes clever little parodies, they seem to be engaging in pure vitriol ... and you know what? The ratings demonstrate which America prefers. Limbaugh has 22 million listeners a week. Compare that to say Larry King's television program at 3.5 million in that same 5 days. And I wouldn't even hazard to guess the disparage in numbers between Rush and that leftist cat you mentioned. Probabaly on the order of a 1000 to 1, listener for listener.
One other thing - no internal group (on their level) has been more critical of certain Bush policies (especially the bail out) and McCain's failings (McCain/Feingold, illegal immigration etc) then Rush, Beck & Hannitty and Levine. With the possible exception of Savage, who takes Bush's skin off an inch at a time. There is a VERY noticeable shift occurring within the conservative talk radio lexicon. They are fed up with the abandonment of what they see as the "true" course of the GOP - Reagan conservatism. And they are saying so routinely (and knocking the hell out of Bush in the process). And it is a level of intellectual honesty that I appreciate.
****
Sour grapes? We discussed Powell's endorsement when it was unofficial. Now that it is official I stand by my statements as to why he did what he did ... One, I feel this is his version of squaring himself with history via Iraq. HE was the face of the invasion at the UN, and he wants a caveat to follow every time someone says: "Powell was an invasion advocate .... BUT, he DID turn around and endorse Obama." Secondly, I don't think he can pass up - as a history making African American himself - using whatever influence his endorsement can bring to help the first viable African American candidate ascend to the US presidency. I don't think it's any more complicated then those two reasons. I certainly don't think he did it just because he has sour grapes left over from his time in the administration, he's not that petty. I do find it unfortunate that he used the opportunity to go after Palin, the GOP (which MADE his career), and even Mac (his friend for goodness sake). Equally unfortunate was his flimsy reasoning as to the endorsement. "Obama has a steady hand" regarding foreign policy ... PLEASE. And Palin is too inexperienced, while you endorse a first term senator that voted in the last presidential election cycle as a IL state representative? Seriously good sir, how do you keep a straight face? Hell of a poker player this guy must be.
****
One last thing ... Biden made headlines recently by "guaranteeing" Obama would be tested by a "generated crisis meant to test his meddle in the first 6 months." Joe, I don't think you want to close the election with that argument. Particularly disturbing though was what he followed with: " ... and it won't be clear that our response is the RIGHT thing to do at first. So we will need you [the American electorate] to stick with us." What? I can only interpret that to mean that it will be a non traditional response, i.e. WEAK. Well that's just grand coming from a Senator whom opposed war with Iraq ... in 1991 (yes, Biden actually voted against the resolution to defend Kuwait). God help us ... he's the only one that can.
****
Regarding radio ...
Interesting. Funny enough my radio exposure has turned to solidly that of the Marchony persuasion. My Sirius subscription expired 6 mos after the purchase of my vehicle and I haven't renewed it. Why? Because of the market I'm in now. I get Rush, Beck (my favorite now), Hannity, Levine, Ingraham, O'Reilly, Savage, Hewitt, Humphries, Medved, Cunningham, Doyle, and even Matt Drudge's once a week program, ALL free. And of course NPR as my left-wing source (All Things Considered and the BBC, which makes NBC look like a Dubya rally).
That being said, I have in fact listened to Rush over the last 24 months up to and including today. I assume your point Titus was to "almost" compliment Rush et al by demonstrating that when compared to their leftist competition they (conservative radio) at least engage in adult conversations and articulate real ideas and commentary in between their "femiNazi" jousts. Just a word about those jousts. They are ALL done tongue-in-cheek. There is no vitriol involved, just good natured ribbing like the kind we all give each other (without the swear words and homosexual inferences that is ... Titus). And yes, they ARE done for the entertainment value (Beck regularly describes his program as "the fusion of entertainment and information" and named his monthly periodical: FUSION MAGAZINE); but I think entertainment commentary is injected in between serious discussion for the listener's emotional state as well. In other words, after 35 continual minutes of deep discussion about what the financial bail out means for the direction of our nation, I almost NEED Glen Beck to play a 30 second parody in which he announces "Comrade Barak's" economic plan over a Mother Russia theme song. It's to comically delight the listener, not necessarily to "attack" the poltical opposition. And from what you've described the opposite is happening on leftist radio. Instead of light hearted, sometimes clever little parodies, they seem to be engaging in pure vitriol ... and you know what? The ratings demonstrate which America prefers. Limbaugh has 22 million listeners a week. Compare that to say Larry King's television program at 3.5 million in that same 5 days. And I wouldn't even hazard to guess the disparage in numbers between Rush and that leftist cat you mentioned. Probabaly on the order of a 1000 to 1, listener for listener.
One other thing - no internal group (on their level) has been more critical of certain Bush policies (especially the bail out) and McCain's failings (McCain/Feingold, illegal immigration etc) then Rush, Beck & Hannitty and Levine. With the possible exception of Savage, who takes Bush's skin off an inch at a time. There is a VERY noticeable shift occurring within the conservative talk radio lexicon. They are fed up with the abandonment of what they see as the "true" course of the GOP - Reagan conservatism. And they are saying so routinely (and knocking the hell out of Bush in the process). And it is a level of intellectual honesty that I appreciate.
****
Sour grapes? We discussed Powell's endorsement when it was unofficial. Now that it is official I stand by my statements as to why he did what he did ... One, I feel this is his version of squaring himself with history via Iraq. HE was the face of the invasion at the UN, and he wants a caveat to follow every time someone says: "Powell was an invasion advocate .... BUT, he DID turn around and endorse Obama." Secondly, I don't think he can pass up - as a history making African American himself - using whatever influence his endorsement can bring to help the first viable African American candidate ascend to the US presidency. I don't think it's any more complicated then those two reasons. I certainly don't think he did it just because he has sour grapes left over from his time in the administration, he's not that petty. I do find it unfortunate that he used the opportunity to go after Palin, the GOP (which MADE his career), and even Mac (his friend for goodness sake). Equally unfortunate was his flimsy reasoning as to the endorsement. "Obama has a steady hand" regarding foreign policy ... PLEASE. And Palin is too inexperienced, while you endorse a first term senator that voted in the last presidential election cycle as a IL state representative? Seriously good sir, how do you keep a straight face? Hell of a poker player this guy must be.
****
One last thing ... Biden made headlines recently by "guaranteeing" Obama would be tested by a "generated crisis meant to test his meddle in the first 6 months." Joe, I don't think you want to close the election with that argument. Particularly disturbing though was what he followed with: " ... and it won't be clear that our response is the RIGHT thing to do at first. So we will need you [the American electorate] to stick with us." What? I can only interpret that to mean that it will be a non traditional response, i.e. WEAK. Well that's just grand coming from a Senator whom opposed war with Iraq ... in 1991 (yes, Biden actually voted against the resolution to defend Kuwait). God help us ... he's the only one that can.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Partisan Radio
Something Ryan said recently has had me thinking...
In more than one recent post, Ryan has commented on my "dislike" of Rush Limbaugh and his radio program. While I am the first to admit that I have had serious issues with what the man has said in the past, I can't say that I have heard his show in the last 24 months at all. I am almost exclusively a Sirius listener now, and if the host doesn't have a show on Sirius or the local ESPN station, chances are I don't hear them at all.
However, I did hear the comments he made about Powell endorsing Obama.
For EVERY reason Ryan, Rush, or even I have to NOT vote for Obama, someone else is going to name a reason TO vote for Obama. Charismatic. New ideas. Reform of the system. Responsible government. Popular with the public. Friendly with the world. The list goes on and on, I'm sure.
And YES, there are going to be people casting their vote for Obama BECAUSE he is BLACK, and they feel it is the RIGHT TIME to cast the vote for an African American. Do you know what?
That's fine.
I mean, when it comes right down to it... what difference does it make? Is Rush going to respect the decision to vote for Obama any MORE if the reason is given clearly, plainly and without hesitation? I find it very difficult to believe that any conservative is going to be any more "understanding" of an Obama vote than a liberal is of someone casting for McCain. Let's face it, in the eyes of people like Rush... if you are NOT voting GOP, you're an idiot. Do you know what?
That's fine, too.
As Ryan has explained to me countless times, Rush gives OPINION, not NEWS. Thus, he can't be expected to uphold any degree of objectivity, right? It is antithetical to "opinion". MY beef with Limbaugh has always been in his derogatory manner that he delivers his opinion about those he disagrees with.
Femi-Nazis, SoccerMoms, the Looney Left... all make great attention-grabbers, but do little to further the cause of driving home the irrefutable message of "conservatism". Instead, they make ratings.
That, too, is fine.
The crux of my post was to say that I also spent 3 hours listening to the Sirius Left Channel (146), to see if I could find anything to relate to anymore from the liberal path the Party of my youth has taken.
I was shocked to a degree that I am really not sure I can relate here. I wouldn't know where to begin to list the things I found offensive during those 3 hours of airtime. The most shocking use of racist language, employed to show how "tollerant" the host was. Language even I wouldn't use in front of strangers (and I have a notoriously foul mouth, believe me) employed to describe ELECTED officials of this nation. To top it all off, referrences to violence and criminal acts SO vile that even the DNC called out Clinton for HINTING at it during the primary. ALL this rolled up into ONE show called the Mike Malloy Show.
In all the years I have heard Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Ingrahm, or Wilkow, or Mark Levin... they have USUALLY kept referrences to Dems and liberals within the bounds of decency. If I had to point to a "conservative" that took the debate format of modern political commentary out of the realm of REASONABLE and into the realm of DESTRUCTIVE... I'd use names like Coulter and Savage. But not even these two have ever said what Malloy has said, to the best of my knowledge... at least not over the radio.
I really have yet to hear ANY conservative commentator or pundit spew even a portion of the pure, enadulaterated HATE this man can share in his 3 hours slot. I can see why no fewer than 3 mainstream (and prestigious) terrestrial radio giants (one of them WLS in Chicago) FIRED his ass, and his only option now is to hope he can keep a job on satellite radio, where his hate won't get him canned (at least as long as Stern is on the same station!).
In the long-ago days of the ACTUAL Driveway Bund... when I would argue with Ryan about the validity of Limbaugh's rants... my "liberal" radio experience was limited to Jim Bohannon, by far the most out-spoken radio critic of the Bush Administration that I had heard to that point.
I honestly had no concept that the VOLUME of the Left had been turned up so HIGH.
In more than one recent post, Ryan has commented on my "dislike" of Rush Limbaugh and his radio program. While I am the first to admit that I have had serious issues with what the man has said in the past, I can't say that I have heard his show in the last 24 months at all. I am almost exclusively a Sirius listener now, and if the host doesn't have a show on Sirius or the local ESPN station, chances are I don't hear them at all.
However, I did hear the comments he made about Powell endorsing Obama.
For EVERY reason Ryan, Rush, or even I have to NOT vote for Obama, someone else is going to name a reason TO vote for Obama. Charismatic. New ideas. Reform of the system. Responsible government. Popular with the public. Friendly with the world. The list goes on and on, I'm sure.
And YES, there are going to be people casting their vote for Obama BECAUSE he is BLACK, and they feel it is the RIGHT TIME to cast the vote for an African American. Do you know what?
That's fine.
I mean, when it comes right down to it... what difference does it make? Is Rush going to respect the decision to vote for Obama any MORE if the reason is given clearly, plainly and without hesitation? I find it very difficult to believe that any conservative is going to be any more "understanding" of an Obama vote than a liberal is of someone casting for McCain. Let's face it, in the eyes of people like Rush... if you are NOT voting GOP, you're an idiot. Do you know what?
That's fine, too.
As Ryan has explained to me countless times, Rush gives OPINION, not NEWS. Thus, he can't be expected to uphold any degree of objectivity, right? It is antithetical to "opinion". MY beef with Limbaugh has always been in his derogatory manner that he delivers his opinion about those he disagrees with.
Femi-Nazis, SoccerMoms, the Looney Left... all make great attention-grabbers, but do little to further the cause of driving home the irrefutable message of "conservatism". Instead, they make ratings.
That, too, is fine.
The crux of my post was to say that I also spent 3 hours listening to the Sirius Left Channel (146), to see if I could find anything to relate to anymore from the liberal path the Party of my youth has taken.
I was shocked to a degree that I am really not sure I can relate here. I wouldn't know where to begin to list the things I found offensive during those 3 hours of airtime. The most shocking use of racist language, employed to show how "tollerant" the host was. Language even I wouldn't use in front of strangers (and I have a notoriously foul mouth, believe me) employed to describe ELECTED officials of this nation. To top it all off, referrences to violence and criminal acts SO vile that even the DNC called out Clinton for HINTING at it during the primary. ALL this rolled up into ONE show called the Mike Malloy Show.
In all the years I have heard Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Ingrahm, or Wilkow, or Mark Levin... they have USUALLY kept referrences to Dems and liberals within the bounds of decency. If I had to point to a "conservative" that took the debate format of modern political commentary out of the realm of REASONABLE and into the realm of DESTRUCTIVE... I'd use names like Coulter and Savage. But not even these two have ever said what Malloy has said, to the best of my knowledge... at least not over the radio.
I really have yet to hear ANY conservative commentator or pundit spew even a portion of the pure, enadulaterated HATE this man can share in his 3 hours slot. I can see why no fewer than 3 mainstream (and prestigious) terrestrial radio giants (one of them WLS in Chicago) FIRED his ass, and his only option now is to hope he can keep a job on satellite radio, where his hate won't get him canned (at least as long as Stern is on the same station!).
In the long-ago days of the ACTUAL Driveway Bund... when I would argue with Ryan about the validity of Limbaugh's rants... my "liberal" radio experience was limited to Jim Bohannon, by far the most out-spoken radio critic of the Bush Administration that I had heard to that point.
I honestly had no concept that the VOLUME of the Left had been turned up so HIGH.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Good teachers...
I don't have a lot of time to spend blogging... I'm hijacking someone else's computer while at work at the casino. If their filter throws up a flag because they are BLOGGING at work... at least it won't be me that gets pinched! Hehe...
Sorry, Holly! (my admin)
Anyway, your comments about the principal of your son's school are very interesting. I thought I'd add one point you may have overlooked:
Most school ADMINISTRATORS are employed by the school board, and not by the DISTRICT itself... thus, they are NOT members of the local teacher's union. At least, that is the case here in PA. So, while I wouldn't dream of taking away any of the aplomb you are giving the administrator... it should be noted that he probably isn't a dues-paying, card-carrying union member (or isn't anymore). He's EARNING his salary!
HA! Take THAT and the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Act and see which gets you farther!
Sorry, Holly! (my admin)
Anyway, your comments about the principal of your son's school are very interesting. I thought I'd add one point you may have overlooked:
Most school ADMINISTRATORS are employed by the school board, and not by the DISTRICT itself... thus, they are NOT members of the local teacher's union. At least, that is the case here in PA. So, while I wouldn't dream of taking away any of the aplomb you are giving the administrator... it should be noted that he probably isn't a dues-paying, card-carrying union member (or isn't anymore). He's EARNING his salary!
HA! Take THAT and the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Act and see which gets you farther!
"IMMEDIATE"
"Senator Government" was hilarious. In fact, your buddy Rush exclaimed the exact same thing not more then an hour ago - "use it!" I know you don't like him but I find it humorous that you two arrived at the same quip on the same morning (happening more and more often this election cycle I might add ... just to twist the knife). Which brings me to my next point ..."Frustrated Trumanite" ... "newly converted conservative" = nearly the same thing in US politics circa 2008. Or AT LEAST you are closer to the modern conservative agenda then you are the modern Democrat Party. I think it's just stubborn loyalty (not always a bad quality) that has you occasionally issuing these caveats regarding Party labels and conservative icons. Drop the charade man - in terms of what it means in 2008 (abortion, gay marriage, anti-Christian hostility, taxes, guns, victory strategies versus exit strategies), YOU, TITUS, ARE A CONSERVATIVE! Embrace it, like it, love it ... deal with it my friend. OK, now that I have sufficiently broken the knife's handle off in the wound ... he, he ...
****
I met with my son's teacher this morning. He is a straight A student and he came home with an ominous "C" glaring on his progress report (in between report cards) in mathematics. Curious as to the cause I of course set a meeting with his teacher. It turns out he was missing an assignment, which she offered to let him make up thus get his "A", and that was that. So on my way out I noticed something astonishing on the wall of a public school ... astonishing for the year 2008. Let me preface this by my own acknowledgement that I am more then a little suspicious about public educators via the teacher's union, and especially PhD's. Now, I consider myself an "intellectual enthusiast", so their level of education is not the beef. It's just every poll has them voting 85-90% Democrat, for years. And you add that to stories like eliminating the celebration of Mother's Day in some New York schools so as not to offend male gay couples with kids (still not sure about the biology on that, but whatever). As well as a 1st grade field trip in San Fransisco last week to City Hall ... no, not to teach about civics, but rather to witness the gay marriage of their teacher in a lesson in "tolerance." Nice huh? I mean, we all realize that there has been a concerted effort in too much of the public school curriculum to indoctrinate social morals (of the liberal orientation) and secular PC (Christmas Break is replaced with the words "winter celebration") rather then just teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. So basically, for me, every public educator is guilty until proven innocent in my mind.
Well, I couldn't get a clear read on this school's principal. I mean, the district compels him to celebrate "Earth Day", but he only puts up signs and gives talks about littering. Hmmm? No global warming? Ok. Also a district mandated "day" is "Peace Day." During war time?, I thought. Yet, he focused solely on being "kind" to your neighbor classmate (almost Biblical). No talks railing against wars or war making. Again, hmmm? You might remember my post about the problem student whom pulled a box cutter in class (and I mean an upscale neighborhood and brand new school!). He (the principal) smiled as I voiced my concerns and nodded his head in agreement with me and I felt as if I was being "handled" a bit during my meeting with him to insist on the child's expulsion. Yet several days later the kid was in fact expelled. Well, today solidified my sneaking suspicion of, let's call him "Dr. A."
As I was exiting the school in the main hallway I noticed a huge plaque over several eloquent, glassless oak frames (roughly 35 or so total ) containing black and white writings, which extended down the entire length of this main hall. The plaque read: FREEDOM SHRINE, Created by the National Exchange Club to Strengthen Citizen Appreciation of Our American History. "Great" I thought. What's this now? Probably the only worthy document will be a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation, with the rest being some receipts for slave auction's, and probably a dissertation or two on how many Indians Columbus slaughtered. Do you want to know what the first frame contained? General McCauliffe's hand written Christmas letter to the troops, 1944. I mean an authenticated, exact replica. That's what this Exchange company does. They sell and sometimes donate exact replicas of historical documents found in the Smithsonian and history museums across the nation. Next up, in order of how they appeared on the wall, in the original type writer set or hand written, which I will delineate with a (hw): The Monroe Doctrine; Washington's Inaugural and Farewell address (hw); The Mayflower Compact; The Japanese Instrument of Surrender; The German Instrument of Surrender; The Constitution including all Articles (hw); The Declaration of Independence (hw); Jefferson's Inaugural Address (hw); The Emancipation Proclamation; Lincoln's 2nd inaugural Address; Robert E. Lee's letter of acceptance as president of Washington College (hw); Washington's letter to Col Nicola (hw); An account of the proceedings of the Susan B. Anthony trials (hw); JFK's Inaugural Address; and my personal favorite in terms of rarity - A small hand written note by General George C. Marshall, written for FDR (to sign). It was a message to "Marshal Stalin" informing him of the installation of D.D. Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander, with particular emphasis on OPERATION OVERLORD. FDR wrote with his own hand in only two places: his signature, and he drew an up arrow (^), in between the words "the installation" and wrote above that arrow the word "IMMEDIATE." And that's not even half of what's there.
Now how do you like that? On an elementary school house wall ... in 2008, with all the PC concerns and social moral espousing, this principal, this educator "gets it."
Oh ya, I was so enthralled with all these handwritten notes and replicas of original documents that it wasn't until the end that I noticed all 50 state flags (just above a hand held size) aligning the top of the wall. And guess what, the Mississippi flag, with the confederate battle flag in the upper left corner, right there with the rest of them. Not that I'm a huge proponent of that flag (especially after 9/11 when I felt one flag was enough for us all, baring in mind it's a state right not to be infringed upon), but rather I mention that flag because the flat out BALLS of a public educator in 2008, the principal no less, to be willing to put ACTUAL history on the wall and say "NO", "I will not pretend like the Japanese weren't war mongers in 1941 because we have 2 Japanese-American students and it might offend them; I will not pretend like that's not a real state flag"; and I will not pretend like WAR is never neccessary", is something I am sincerely impressed with.
I asked the office manager on my way out if those things were donated. She replied, "No." It turns out that not only did this principal have to cut out school funds in order to PURCHASE the items, but given this company reproduces literally hundreds of documents, he must have gone through and hand selected the ones to hang on his school's wall! And he sees the Monroe Doctrine, McAuliffe's Christmas letter, the Japanese Surrender and Eisenhower's appointment and says: "Oh ya, I gotta have those." Hmmm ... I think I like this guy. And I called him and told him just that.
****
I met with my son's teacher this morning. He is a straight A student and he came home with an ominous "C" glaring on his progress report (in between report cards) in mathematics. Curious as to the cause I of course set a meeting with his teacher. It turns out he was missing an assignment, which she offered to let him make up thus get his "A", and that was that. So on my way out I noticed something astonishing on the wall of a public school ... astonishing for the year 2008. Let me preface this by my own acknowledgement that I am more then a little suspicious about public educators via the teacher's union, and especially PhD's. Now, I consider myself an "intellectual enthusiast", so their level of education is not the beef. It's just every poll has them voting 85-90% Democrat, for years. And you add that to stories like eliminating the celebration of Mother's Day in some New York schools so as not to offend male gay couples with kids (still not sure about the biology on that, but whatever). As well as a 1st grade field trip in San Fransisco last week to City Hall ... no, not to teach about civics, but rather to witness the gay marriage of their teacher in a lesson in "tolerance." Nice huh? I mean, we all realize that there has been a concerted effort in too much of the public school curriculum to indoctrinate social morals (of the liberal orientation) and secular PC (Christmas Break is replaced with the words "winter celebration") rather then just teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. So basically, for me, every public educator is guilty until proven innocent in my mind.
Well, I couldn't get a clear read on this school's principal. I mean, the district compels him to celebrate "Earth Day", but he only puts up signs and gives talks about littering. Hmmm? No global warming? Ok. Also a district mandated "day" is "Peace Day." During war time?, I thought. Yet, he focused solely on being "kind" to your neighbor classmate (almost Biblical). No talks railing against wars or war making. Again, hmmm? You might remember my post about the problem student whom pulled a box cutter in class (and I mean an upscale neighborhood and brand new school!). He (the principal) smiled as I voiced my concerns and nodded his head in agreement with me and I felt as if I was being "handled" a bit during my meeting with him to insist on the child's expulsion. Yet several days later the kid was in fact expelled. Well, today solidified my sneaking suspicion of, let's call him "Dr. A."
As I was exiting the school in the main hallway I noticed a huge plaque over several eloquent, glassless oak frames (roughly 35 or so total ) containing black and white writings, which extended down the entire length of this main hall. The plaque read: FREEDOM SHRINE, Created by the National Exchange Club to Strengthen Citizen Appreciation of Our American History. "Great" I thought. What's this now? Probably the only worthy document will be a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation, with the rest being some receipts for slave auction's, and probably a dissertation or two on how many Indians Columbus slaughtered. Do you want to know what the first frame contained? General McCauliffe's hand written Christmas letter to the troops, 1944. I mean an authenticated, exact replica. That's what this Exchange company does. They sell and sometimes donate exact replicas of historical documents found in the Smithsonian and history museums across the nation. Next up, in order of how they appeared on the wall, in the original type writer set or hand written, which I will delineate with a (hw): The Monroe Doctrine; Washington's Inaugural and Farewell address (hw); The Mayflower Compact; The Japanese Instrument of Surrender; The German Instrument of Surrender; The Constitution including all Articles (hw); The Declaration of Independence (hw); Jefferson's Inaugural Address (hw); The Emancipation Proclamation; Lincoln's 2nd inaugural Address; Robert E. Lee's letter of acceptance as president of Washington College (hw); Washington's letter to Col Nicola (hw); An account of the proceedings of the Susan B. Anthony trials (hw); JFK's Inaugural Address; and my personal favorite in terms of rarity - A small hand written note by General George C. Marshall, written for FDR (to sign). It was a message to "Marshal Stalin" informing him of the installation of D.D. Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander, with particular emphasis on OPERATION OVERLORD. FDR wrote with his own hand in only two places: his signature, and he drew an up arrow (^), in between the words "the installation" and wrote above that arrow the word "IMMEDIATE." And that's not even half of what's there.
Now how do you like that? On an elementary school house wall ... in 2008, with all the PC concerns and social moral espousing, this principal, this educator "gets it."
Oh ya, I was so enthralled with all these handwritten notes and replicas of original documents that it wasn't until the end that I noticed all 50 state flags (just above a hand held size) aligning the top of the wall. And guess what, the Mississippi flag, with the confederate battle flag in the upper left corner, right there with the rest of them. Not that I'm a huge proponent of that flag (especially after 9/11 when I felt one flag was enough for us all, baring in mind it's a state right not to be infringed upon), but rather I mention that flag because the flat out BALLS of a public educator in 2008, the principal no less, to be willing to put ACTUAL history on the wall and say "NO", "I will not pretend like the Japanese weren't war mongers in 1941 because we have 2 Japanese-American students and it might offend them; I will not pretend like that's not a real state flag"; and I will not pretend like WAR is never neccessary", is something I am sincerely impressed with.
I asked the office manager on my way out if those things were donated. She replied, "No." It turns out that not only did this principal have to cut out school funds in order to PURCHASE the items, but given this company reproduces literally hundreds of documents, he must have gone through and hand selected the ones to hang on his school's wall! And he sees the Monroe Doctrine, McAuliffe's Christmas letter, the Japanese Surrender and Eisenhower's appointment and says: "Oh ya, I gotta have those." Hmmm ... I think I like this guy. And I called him and told him just that.
The last debate...
Thank God!
Neither of these men are "leaders", neither inspire me with their passion or vision, and both are just as bad at unprompted, unpracticed speaking as GW is. I guess in that regard, if Mac wins, we WILL have four more years of the same fumbling, stumbling, and bumbling use of catch-phrases and hot-topic terms.
Mac got a bit tougher, and hammered home a few points... but the way he brings them to the table (literally, this time) makes him sound like a whiney, snivelling loser, not an indignant but superior candidate.
Obama loves to hedge... he avoids answering direct questions that require him to state a position as catagorically "black or white" and where his position lies. Free trade, domestic energy production, the War in Iraq and the War on Terror... no direct answers to direct questions.
In fact, the BEST bit of the debate was a gaff on Mac's part... he referred to Obama as "Senator Government". I hope his campaign picks up on THAT gem!
Neither of these men are "leaders", neither inspire me with their passion or vision, and both are just as bad at unprompted, unpracticed speaking as GW is. I guess in that regard, if Mac wins, we WILL have four more years of the same fumbling, stumbling, and bumbling use of catch-phrases and hot-topic terms.
Mac got a bit tougher, and hammered home a few points... but the way he brings them to the table (literally, this time) makes him sound like a whiney, snivelling loser, not an indignant but superior candidate.
Obama loves to hedge... he avoids answering direct questions that require him to state a position as catagorically "black or white" and where his position lies. Free trade, domestic energy production, the War in Iraq and the War on Terror... no direct answers to direct questions.
In fact, the BEST bit of the debate was a gaff on Mac's part... he referred to Obama as "Senator Government". I hope his campaign picks up on THAT gem!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Fire down, Mr. Ego-maniac...
Look, I stand by what I said previously, but please don't lump me into the "Reagan-ite" crowd just yet... I still have many issues with the "Reagan years" that no conservative has managed to explain away.
None the less, even FDR would see that with more than 93% of the American workforce gamefully employed, but watching their savings/retirement/income dwindle in an environment that is rapidly trending towards recession (where the same dollar amount buys less and less of what it did the fiscal period past), RAISING taxes is NOT the right thing to do. KEEP the money in the hands of those MOST likely to use it to the benefit of the economy, and only spend money where it will have the most BENEFICIAL impact on fiscal issues. WHEN (not IF) the economy turns around, you can begin to find the happy "medium" that CAN be found between unneeded deficit spending due to low tax revenues and a stagnant economy due to high tax rates.
These aren't the words of a newly-converted conservative... just a frustrated Truman-ite!
None the less, even FDR would see that with more than 93% of the American workforce gamefully employed, but watching their savings/retirement/income dwindle in an environment that is rapidly trending towards recession (where the same dollar amount buys less and less of what it did the fiscal period past), RAISING taxes is NOT the right thing to do. KEEP the money in the hands of those MOST likely to use it to the benefit of the economy, and only spend money where it will have the most BENEFICIAL impact on fiscal issues. WHEN (not IF) the economy turns around, you can begin to find the happy "medium" that CAN be found between unneeded deficit spending due to low tax revenues and a stagnant economy due to high tax rates.
These aren't the words of a newly-converted conservative... just a frustrated Truman-ite!
Yowzers!
Man alive! I haven't had so many compliments fly at me so fast since the last time Ang and I ....
At any rate, I hope by my last few posts I have officially established my "non-partisan" bonifides once and for all. In as much that "partisan" is defined as loyalty to a Party. I am NOT, any longer, loyal to the Republican Party as it stands today. I even considered switching to "Independent", so as to demonstrate to the GOP that conservatives are feeling less and less represented. Its a mostly symbolic gesture, I know, given I will still vote for their candidate - BUT - that's only because he is running against a flat out socialist! A Phyrric Victory for the GOP if there ever was one.
You know the amazing thing here? Here you have intellectuals like ourselves, A.M. talk radio, and the overwhelming number of American voters from the 1980's (presumably a great number still kicking around today) all clearly pointing to Reagan as the type of direction we would like our president to lead in. Yet NO ONE in the entire political landscape, on a level to seriously be considered a presidential contender, has stepped up and assumed the Reagan model, i.e. authentic conservatism. Why is that? It clearly worked. And I'm not talking about enacting the "exact" same policies, but operating off of the exact same principles. I mean here is a blue print for economic AND political success, and Mac says, "no thanks." Bush 43, "no thanks." Bush 41, "no thanks" (and he was his VP for crying out loud!). And I could say the same to the UK about Margaret Thatcher. They haven't reproduced another Iron Lady either.
And what is most troubling, as I pointed out and Titus reaffirmed, authentic conservatism as practiced in the 80's, in my ("our") opinion, is the ONLY answer to curbing these problematic trends. Yet Reagan's name is invoked by men whose policies he would have never supported (Mac) as if merely saying his name along side your policy makes the thing "Reaganesque." It does not.
Which brings me to an interesting question: if we agree that such a leader is needed, and one clearly isn't "on the scene" now, which victory come November has the better chance of producing an authentic conservative more rapidly? If Mac wins, we won't get him in 2012. If he wins then we may get "her" in 2016, but that's assuming she bucks her former boss (not to mention wins) during the election year. Not bloody likely. Oddly enough the election of a rabid socialist of the European model may be the quickest route to producing an authentic US conservative in 2012 ... just a thought.
(and if "Carl" Obama does win, Bobby Jindal, you should start making speeches around the country at about 7 a.m. on 11/5/08!)
At any rate, I hope by my last few posts I have officially established my "non-partisan" bonifides once and for all. In as much that "partisan" is defined as loyalty to a Party. I am NOT, any longer, loyal to the Republican Party as it stands today. I even considered switching to "Independent", so as to demonstrate to the GOP that conservatives are feeling less and less represented. Its a mostly symbolic gesture, I know, given I will still vote for their candidate - BUT - that's only because he is running against a flat out socialist! A Phyrric Victory for the GOP if there ever was one.
You know the amazing thing here? Here you have intellectuals like ourselves, A.M. talk radio, and the overwhelming number of American voters from the 1980's (presumably a great number still kicking around today) all clearly pointing to Reagan as the type of direction we would like our president to lead in. Yet NO ONE in the entire political landscape, on a level to seriously be considered a presidential contender, has stepped up and assumed the Reagan model, i.e. authentic conservatism. Why is that? It clearly worked. And I'm not talking about enacting the "exact" same policies, but operating off of the exact same principles. I mean here is a blue print for economic AND political success, and Mac says, "no thanks." Bush 43, "no thanks." Bush 41, "no thanks" (and he was his VP for crying out loud!). And I could say the same to the UK about Margaret Thatcher. They haven't reproduced another Iron Lady either.
And what is most troubling, as I pointed out and Titus reaffirmed, authentic conservatism as practiced in the 80's, in my ("our") opinion, is the ONLY answer to curbing these problematic trends. Yet Reagan's name is invoked by men whose policies he would have never supported (Mac) as if merely saying his name along side your policy makes the thing "Reaganesque." It does not.
Which brings me to an interesting question: if we agree that such a leader is needed, and one clearly isn't "on the scene" now, which victory come November has the better chance of producing an authentic conservative more rapidly? If Mac wins, we won't get him in 2012. If he wins then we may get "her" in 2016, but that's assuming she bucks her former boss (not to mention wins) during the election year. Not bloody likely. Oddly enough the election of a rabid socialist of the European model may be the quickest route to producing an authentic US conservative in 2012 ... just a thought.
(and if "Carl" Obama does win, Bobby Jindal, you should start making speeches around the country at about 7 a.m. on 11/5/08!)
Speaking of Tricky Dicky...
In case you missed it, HERE is the link to Nixon's proposed Health Care Provision Plan (then called the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP). It is a brief outline of a plan, sent to Congress in 1974... where it was shot down in a really spectacular manner by the Democrat-controlled 93rd Congress, which was led by such patently familiar names as Mike Mansfield, Bob "KKK" Byrd, Tip O'Neill, and Carl Albert (the most ineffective Speaker of the House until Pelosi took office... he spent his entire career basking in the glory of having forced both a President and a Vice President out of office!).
Now, if you take the time to READ the proposal, you'll see that it is SHOCKINGLY similar to what Jambo suggested only a few short weeks ago. Obviously, some of the numbers need adjustment (imagine a time when having a BABY cost the average American $1,000!!!), but the premise is SOUND, and while it does increase government's role in health care... it doesn't raise taxes beyond the first TWO YEARS of implementation. It is self-sustaining after that!
Now, any one of you might question how I can get behind ANY piece of legislation stemming from the Nixon White House... but who was the main author of this work? Who was Nixon's LAST Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare?
Caspar Weinberger.
A damn fine Sec of Defense, and the ONLY Cabinet-level appointee to resign (on principal) BEFORE the Iran-Contra hearings started in '87. SMART and HONEST... not an easy combination to find in Washington, now or then.
Follow the link... it's worth the read.
Now, if you take the time to READ the proposal, you'll see that it is SHOCKINGLY similar to what Jambo suggested only a few short weeks ago. Obviously, some of the numbers need adjustment (imagine a time when having a BABY cost the average American $1,000!!!), but the premise is SOUND, and while it does increase government's role in health care... it doesn't raise taxes beyond the first TWO YEARS of implementation. It is self-sustaining after that!
Now, any one of you might question how I can get behind ANY piece of legislation stemming from the Nixon White House... but who was the main author of this work? Who was Nixon's LAST Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare?
Caspar Weinberger.
A damn fine Sec of Defense, and the ONLY Cabinet-level appointee to resign (on principal) BEFORE the Iran-Contra hearings started in '87. SMART and HONEST... not an easy combination to find in Washington, now or then.
Follow the link... it's worth the read.
Ryan has a good point, here...
As much as Obama and Biden have been telling us this is the WORST crisis since October, 1929... this ISN'T the Great Depression. Ryan is right.
This is NOT the failing of our national stock and commodities markets. In fact, even with last week's losses, they are STILL pretty strong. 48% stronger than they were in 1929, with adjusted dollars.
Unemployment is very nearly a NON factor. No figures point to a rate higher than 6.5%... and by 1930, we were looking at 22% of America out-of-work. It was twice it's current level in 1979, and that wasn't a "depression" at all.
This is a crisis based in imaginary money. With at least 1 out of every ten mortgages in this nation on the verge of default, and more than 75% of America holding more than the accepted 25% debt-to-income ratio (I think the average now is more than 50%)... no one WANTS to lend money... PERIOD!
Since 1969, credit availability in this country has been based on "future income" rather than actual savings. This is the same process by which the Federal Reserve calls on the Treasury Dept to simply print more bills if the economy strengthens, and take more out of circulation if it slows down... all based on the "future" strength of our economy. No actual "wealth" is EVER a factor in either topic.
With so much DEBT outstanding in this nation, the ability to continue to LEND money is stretching beyond reasonable limits... and the system is cracking. Local or regional banks are not able to get the "loans" they depend on from other banks, because other banks don't want to prop up bad mortgages... but the small banks NEED the loans to conduct ALL their business, not just the bad or risky mortgages. This is the money that is loaned to small businesses to make payroll, or to make SECURED, low-risk loans to parents so their kids can go to college, or to buy a new car (technically, ALSO a secured loan).
If it were simply a matter of putting people to work, then I'd probably be more inclined to agree with James. However, unemployment isn't the issue, credit is. If 10 to 18% of all credit in this nation is BAD credit... what is the bail-out really going to accomplish other than putting the burden of SWALLOWING the bad credit on the backs of tax payers rather than banks and lending companies?
The problem goes deeper, though...
Let's look at Jambo's example of FDR in the '30s. With the New Deal, FDR made the Federal Government the LARGEST borrower in the nation (and that percentage of credit extended nearly tripled by the end of WWII). From government bonds to T-bills, the Feds borrowed money (the easy-to-read version of history, here) to build Hoover Dam, the TVA, the "New Navy", the Golden Gate, the Tri-Borough, the WPA, the CCC... the list goes on and on. Confidence that the Government would PAY BACK the loans was high... thus, the economy came back (albeit, slowly) so that the Depression ENDED by 1937 (I'm NOT starting another fight... simply stating facts, here). This is the ROOT of the policy behind deficit spending and its impact on an economy... lots of people working, lots of the PEOPLE'S money safely tied up in very LOW RISK-low return investments. If, worst-case scenario, the Feds COULDN'T pay back the loans based on federal revenue... with the institution of the Federal Reserve, they could simply PRINT MORE MONEY, which would (obviously) impact the economy adversely, at least to a small degree, but the influx of cash TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR has always proven to be a short-term problem, not a long-term one.
Since 1984, when the Feds (meaning Reagan) de-regulated the stock market to a point where ANYONE could be a player, the economy has been almost a reflection of Wall Street ups and downs. Like it or not, more than 60% of Americans have money tied up in the stock market (401k, IRA, corporate retirement, Federal retirement, etc). The REALLY shocking fact is that less than 11% of ALL US banking assets are tied to the markets! By my math, that means that 89% of the REST of America's "banked" money is invested in LOANS. And as many as 1 in 5 of those same loans may now be BAD.
Then we see the $700 BILLION bail out... making the Federal Government the largest LENDER and CREDITOR in the nation! 180 degrees from the situation that Jambo advocates with "New Deal" politics, because the Feds will have nothing to show for the bad loans.
THAT is the root of this crisis. Banks have always been in the "loan" business... just watch "It's a wonderful life!" if you doubt me... but if the cash reserves aren't enough to cover the amount out in loans, then the bank is at risk, and loose lending laws (mostly stemming from the Carter years) have PUSHED banks to make more and more risky loans since 1980. THIS is the reason why "Farm Aid" was a factor in our culture... and a contributor to the Reagan-legacy of "government equals BAD". Risky farm and small business loans made during the last years of the Carter Administration went default... and did Reagan bail them out? No, he watched the banks foreclose and tapped his feet as the music world wasted 12 hours of our lives putting on a shitty concert that did next to NOTHING to solve the problem.
This brings me to my last point... ANOTHER area where Ryan is (surprisingly enough) right on the mark... Reagan was the ONLY conservative President since Hoover.
Not the only Republican, but the only CONSERVATIVE President, as it is defined today. This is a big part of the reason why I hate the term "Reagan-conservative"... he was the ONLY one! Anything more is simply gratuitous redundancy... sheesh.
I hear you now...
"But WAIT!" you say. "What about Ike? Nixon? Ford? Bush Sr.? THEY were conservatives!"
My response?
Bullshit. Pure, uncut, unadulterated bovine fecal matter.
Ike spent more, and BORROWED more, than Truman did in TWO TERMS! Nixon was the FIRST President to advocate National Health Care! Doubt me? Proof is HERE.
Facts are facts, and Bush Jr. is damn-near as "New Deal" as Nixon or Ford were. If you define "conservative" in a way that conjures images of Reagan (and the talk-radio crowd does JUST that... every one of them), then he stands alone as the ONE and ONLY in US history.
The more I see and TRY to understand the problems the nation is facing right now, the more I am inclined to think that the FIX for the problem lies with the true "conservatives" and NOT with the more moderate Republican crowd... and we won't even discuss the liberal's plans.
This is NOT the failing of our national stock and commodities markets. In fact, even with last week's losses, they are STILL pretty strong. 48% stronger than they were in 1929, with adjusted dollars.
Unemployment is very nearly a NON factor. No figures point to a rate higher than 6.5%... and by 1930, we were looking at 22% of America out-of-work. It was twice it's current level in 1979, and that wasn't a "depression" at all.
This is a crisis based in imaginary money. With at least 1 out of every ten mortgages in this nation on the verge of default, and more than 75% of America holding more than the accepted 25% debt-to-income ratio (I think the average now is more than 50%)... no one WANTS to lend money... PERIOD!
Since 1969, credit availability in this country has been based on "future income" rather than actual savings. This is the same process by which the Federal Reserve calls on the Treasury Dept to simply print more bills if the economy strengthens, and take more out of circulation if it slows down... all based on the "future" strength of our economy. No actual "wealth" is EVER a factor in either topic.
With so much DEBT outstanding in this nation, the ability to continue to LEND money is stretching beyond reasonable limits... and the system is cracking. Local or regional banks are not able to get the "loans" they depend on from other banks, because other banks don't want to prop up bad mortgages... but the small banks NEED the loans to conduct ALL their business, not just the bad or risky mortgages. This is the money that is loaned to small businesses to make payroll, or to make SECURED, low-risk loans to parents so their kids can go to college, or to buy a new car (technically, ALSO a secured loan).
If it were simply a matter of putting people to work, then I'd probably be more inclined to agree with James. However, unemployment isn't the issue, credit is. If 10 to 18% of all credit in this nation is BAD credit... what is the bail-out really going to accomplish other than putting the burden of SWALLOWING the bad credit on the backs of tax payers rather than banks and lending companies?
The problem goes deeper, though...
Let's look at Jambo's example of FDR in the '30s. With the New Deal, FDR made the Federal Government the LARGEST borrower in the nation (and that percentage of credit extended nearly tripled by the end of WWII). From government bonds to T-bills, the Feds borrowed money (the easy-to-read version of history, here) to build Hoover Dam, the TVA, the "New Navy", the Golden Gate, the Tri-Borough, the WPA, the CCC... the list goes on and on. Confidence that the Government would PAY BACK the loans was high... thus, the economy came back (albeit, slowly) so that the Depression ENDED by 1937 (I'm NOT starting another fight... simply stating facts, here). This is the ROOT of the policy behind deficit spending and its impact on an economy... lots of people working, lots of the PEOPLE'S money safely tied up in very LOW RISK-low return investments. If, worst-case scenario, the Feds COULDN'T pay back the loans based on federal revenue... with the institution of the Federal Reserve, they could simply PRINT MORE MONEY, which would (obviously) impact the economy adversely, at least to a small degree, but the influx of cash TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR has always proven to be a short-term problem, not a long-term one.
Since 1984, when the Feds (meaning Reagan) de-regulated the stock market to a point where ANYONE could be a player, the economy has been almost a reflection of Wall Street ups and downs. Like it or not, more than 60% of Americans have money tied up in the stock market (401k, IRA, corporate retirement, Federal retirement, etc). The REALLY shocking fact is that less than 11% of ALL US banking assets are tied to the markets! By my math, that means that 89% of the REST of America's "banked" money is invested in LOANS. And as many as 1 in 5 of those same loans may now be BAD.
Then we see the $700 BILLION bail out... making the Federal Government the largest LENDER and CREDITOR in the nation! 180 degrees from the situation that Jambo advocates with "New Deal" politics, because the Feds will have nothing to show for the bad loans.
THAT is the root of this crisis. Banks have always been in the "loan" business... just watch "It's a wonderful life!" if you doubt me... but if the cash reserves aren't enough to cover the amount out in loans, then the bank is at risk, and loose lending laws (mostly stemming from the Carter years) have PUSHED banks to make more and more risky loans since 1980. THIS is the reason why "Farm Aid" was a factor in our culture... and a contributor to the Reagan-legacy of "government equals BAD". Risky farm and small business loans made during the last years of the Carter Administration went default... and did Reagan bail them out? No, he watched the banks foreclose and tapped his feet as the music world wasted 12 hours of our lives putting on a shitty concert that did next to NOTHING to solve the problem.
This brings me to my last point... ANOTHER area where Ryan is (surprisingly enough) right on the mark... Reagan was the ONLY conservative President since Hoover.
Not the only Republican, but the only CONSERVATIVE President, as it is defined today. This is a big part of the reason why I hate the term "Reagan-conservative"... he was the ONLY one! Anything more is simply gratuitous redundancy... sheesh.
I hear you now...
"But WAIT!" you say. "What about Ike? Nixon? Ford? Bush Sr.? THEY were conservatives!"
My response?
Bullshit. Pure, uncut, unadulterated bovine fecal matter.
Ike spent more, and BORROWED more, than Truman did in TWO TERMS! Nixon was the FIRST President to advocate National Health Care! Doubt me? Proof is HERE.
Facts are facts, and Bush Jr. is damn-near as "New Deal" as Nixon or Ford were. If you define "conservative" in a way that conjures images of Reagan (and the talk-radio crowd does JUST that... every one of them), then he stands alone as the ONE and ONLY in US history.
The more I see and TRY to understand the problems the nation is facing right now, the more I am inclined to think that the FIX for the problem lies with the true "conservatives" and NOT with the more moderate Republican crowd... and we won't even discuss the liberal's plans.
Man that was fast....
...But in no way was I advocating MORE government.
Since the money has already been SPENT, I was using it as an example of what COULD have been done. New Deal FDR or 2008 isn't about bigger federal government, it's about visible, reassuring leadership on the executive level. And that's what faith is all about in this political landscape. Something measurable, specific, visible and reassuring. The creation of more jobs isn't the primary goal. The infrastructure needs to be worked on. These things need to be done. The fact that they are being done now, in a time of uncertainty, restores the faith. The fact that these plans create jobs is great, but not the primary reason. You see?
It's THIS kind of plan people should be touting, not the redistribution of wealth or the nationalization of the banking industry and related financial fields.
Since the money has already been SPENT, I was using it as an example of what COULD have been done. New Deal FDR or 2008 isn't about bigger federal government, it's about visible, reassuring leadership on the executive level. And that's what faith is all about in this political landscape. Something measurable, specific, visible and reassuring. The creation of more jobs isn't the primary goal. The infrastructure needs to be worked on. These things need to be done. The fact that they are being done now, in a time of uncertainty, restores the faith. The fact that these plans create jobs is great, but not the primary reason. You see?
It's THIS kind of plan people should be touting, not the redistribution of wealth or the nationalization of the banking industry and related financial fields.
Maybe not ...
I like the genie back in the bottle post, but as to your other ... unemployment is NOT the issue now. Credit lending is, i.e. the dry up of investment in lending houses by those with the capital to do so. Which is why the government declared they "must" do it with tax dollars.
Public works projects, no matter the hundreds of billions, will not address this problem. Putting faith back into the American lending and financial house WILL. And you do that not by printing more money, public works, or federal bailouts; but by stimulating private capital into US markets: repeal Zarbanes-Oxly. Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. Reduce corporate taxes significantly. And put forth a REAL energy plan. THEN you will see both foreign and domestic capital flood US markets with the cash needed not only to sustain credit lenders, but enhance them.
Sorry my friend, but LESS government is the answer here (and I fixed the link in the original post, so you can now listen to the first political soundbite, as well as HERE).
Public works projects, no matter the hundreds of billions, will not address this problem. Putting faith back into the American lending and financial house WILL. And you do that not by printing more money, public works, or federal bailouts; but by stimulating private capital into US markets: repeal Zarbanes-Oxly. Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. Reduce corporate taxes significantly. And put forth a REAL energy plan. THEN you will see both foreign and domestic capital flood US markets with the cash needed not only to sustain credit lenders, but enhance them.
Sorry my friend, but LESS government is the answer here (and I fixed the link in the original post, so you can now listen to the first political soundbite, as well as HERE).
Putting the genie back in the bottle.
Ryan made a point a couple of posts back about Reagan corking the genie in the bottle that LBJ and Carter had released in the sixties and seventies. And maybe there's the blueprint for help.
If the new executive, or a future executive faced with the consequences of the socialistic policies of his/her predecessors, were to clearly delineate state and federal fiscal responsibilities, and realign spending along said lines, the genie could get pushed back.
That was Reagan's first massive federal cut. One could call him a heartless bastard for slashing federal social programs, or one could simply say, "This isn't the Fed's job. It's the state's job. They pay for it." Which is exactly what Reagan did. If one wants to see the success/failure of "welfare states" vs. non-welfare states, then compare California to Alaska.
I know this isn't a comforting idea, being that McCain won't do this if he wins, but we can save the idea for 2016 or 2020. It's small comfort being right now and saying I told you so a generation later, but it is a small bit of sunshine.
If the new executive, or a future executive faced with the consequences of the socialistic policies of his/her predecessors, were to clearly delineate state and federal fiscal responsibilities, and realign spending along said lines, the genie could get pushed back.
That was Reagan's first massive federal cut. One could call him a heartless bastard for slashing federal social programs, or one could simply say, "This isn't the Fed's job. It's the state's job. They pay for it." Which is exactly what Reagan did. If one wants to see the success/failure of "welfare states" vs. non-welfare states, then compare California to Alaska.
I know this isn't a comforting idea, being that McCain won't do this if he wins, but we can save the idea for 2016 or 2020. It's small comfort being right now and saying I told you so a generation later, but it is a small bit of sunshine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
