I'm not talking about Baghdad, or Kabul... I'm talking about Chicago, IL. There are now at least two IL Legislators calling for the Governor of IL to call up select Illinois National Guard units to help keep the "peace" in Chicago's most violent and dangerous neighborhoods... and more people are signing on to this sort of thinking every day as the death toll mounts in the Windy City.
Is this the results we can expect from other major cities were there are gun bans in place? Is this the inevitable result of denying law-abiding citizens their right to carry the means to protect themselves and their property when confronted with violence? To have armed troops patrolling the streets is preferable to allowing those that wish to take part in securing their own safety and security by owning and carrying the means to stop criminals before they can complete the crimes they are committing?
The number of people that have been killed this year in Chicago by criminals with guns now exceeds the number of troops killed in Iraq in the same time period, yet Chicago insists that the gun ban works and is contributing to the effort to reduce gun violence. Furthermore, they insist that the ban is within their right as a municipality to enact and enforce, even while hundreds of victims lay dead at the hands of criminals WITH GUNS. That's right, despite the ban, there are thousands of handguns and long weapons on the streets and in the hands of those who would willingly use them to commit crimes... yet a family living in Ravenswood, or Canaryville, or Calumet Heights cannot have a firearm on their person, in their car or even in their home for the purpose of protecting themselves from these criminals.
Furthermore, if you take the time to read any of the hundreds of articles concerning this tragedy, you see that the media focus is consistently on the topic of how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, rather than getting the criminals off the streets all together. It's tantamount to removing the ability of typical, law-abiding citizens to keep fire extinguishers in their homes in an effort to end arson... or removing the privilege of driving from everyone in an effort to stop people from driving drunk. What greater deterrent is there for a criminal to participate in a home invasion or a car jacking than the real and measurable probability that the people in the home or car have a weapon and are ready to defend themselves? With the average response time for a 911 call in Chicago running more than 9 minutes, what are the chances that any other action on the part of the victim will have an effect anyway? I can drive a long way in 9 minutes, and be quite far from the scene of a crime before the police even show up, and in the situation where a home invasion is taking place (perhaps similar to what Jambo experienced not that long ago?), how much damage can be done even before the phone is picked up to call the police?
This is absolutely perfect evidence that gun bans only hurt the citizenry, and do nothing to curb or prevent criminals from acquiring and using weapons against honest people. This is the result... the need to put armed troops on American streets to keep the peace.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
One more thing...
I have time to kill before I take Nolan to karate, and I'm still thinking about the AZ immigration topic, so I thought I'd share my thoughts here.
I recall vivid and very animated discussions with Ryan on his back patio in MS concerning a topic that touches on this same issue (in my opinion) and that is the hot-topic term "racial profiling". Expecting any Latino-looking American to be able to produce proof of citizenship and/or residency status with no reasonable suspicion of participation or involvement in a crime is nothing more than abridging the rights and freedoms of any American that might be considered "Latino" in appearance. That, it seems to me, is the big problem with the AZ legislation. It was also the root of my problem with the issue of racial profiling during the heightened security checks at airports across the land in the post-9/11 world.
Terrorism is a serious and real threat in America today, no question. So is illegal immigration. Many curbs and impediments have been made over the years to make the possible solutions to these problems and threats very difficult to employ, I will also admit. However, the "goal" of both the terrorists and the chronic illegals and anti-American elements that support them within the country are bent on the same goal... to end the America that has always been, and to institute an America more to their liking and tastes.
Simply taking the most expedient route to the solutions that might present themselves to these threats is NOT ALWAYS the best answer, however. By selectively targeting for examination, questioning, or detention ONLY those of certain specific ethnic, racial or religious origins we are ACCOMPLISHING the goals these radicals and terrorists have set for themselves to accomplish. If we forgo the fundamental freedoms that this nation was founded on and grew to greatness with simply to achieve a possible degree of safety or security that otherwise might not be there and ONE innocent citizen suffers because of it, then we have failed utterly in our defense of those freedoms.
When Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" I don't think he meant that the patriots needed to suffer as a matter of course. In other words, our freedoms define us and when they are lost, we are lost. Jefferson also said "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." If we ignore the rights of the minority, we relinquish the rights of the majority, and our system of government and society fails as well.
To sacrifice freedom and liberty in even a few cases is to allow our founding principles to fail in the name of expedient justice. Freedom is never free, but in this country it is guaranteed to all citizens, and those bearing and paying the price of that universal freedom shouldn't be limited to those defined by race or creed. If freedom does have a price, then we ALL pay the price equally. That is the beauty of our society, not it's short-coming.
Let me take it a step further...
If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are wrong for compelling all Americans to carry the mandated amount of government-approved health insurance, why is it okay to mandate that Americans of Latino origins in AZ be required to "prove" their status as Americans without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime? Insurance only works if the cost incurred by the few is offset by the contributions of the many, so as to ensure coverage for all there is a legitimate claim that all need to be contributing, right? I'm as "white" as the day is long, yet I could go to AZ and never face the prospect of having to prove my residency status while someone equally as "American" as I am (a Puerto Rican, for example) would only be smart to make sure his status was clearly and readily able to be determined on demand by local law enforcement. How is that any more "fair" than my being compelled to contribute to an insurance fund regardless of whether or not I wanted to?
Why is the marginalization of those holding a "conservative" political view in modern American politics "wrong", but the marginalization of anyone in this nation because of "less-than-ordinary" appearances (for lack of a better term), be they ethnic, linguistic, religious or otherwise, perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those that feel safety and security are more important than basic and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? This is an extreme statement, I'm sure... but this whole topic makes my head ring with the phrase "slippery slope". How far down the slope are we willing to risk sliding before safety and security are no longer worth the price that needs to be paid?
It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): There simply MUST be another way for us to secure our borders and/or fix the immigration issues that DOES NOT cause the nation to risk even ONE incident of civil rights abuse or neglect. I'm not asking for additional rights that need to be guaranteed for illegals or criminals... I'm asking that we don't step on the rights of existing law-abiding citizens to find short-cuts to our safety and security goals.
I recall vivid and very animated discussions with Ryan on his back patio in MS concerning a topic that touches on this same issue (in my opinion) and that is the hot-topic term "racial profiling". Expecting any Latino-looking American to be able to produce proof of citizenship and/or residency status with no reasonable suspicion of participation or involvement in a crime is nothing more than abridging the rights and freedoms of any American that might be considered "Latino" in appearance. That, it seems to me, is the big problem with the AZ legislation. It was also the root of my problem with the issue of racial profiling during the heightened security checks at airports across the land in the post-9/11 world.
Terrorism is a serious and real threat in America today, no question. So is illegal immigration. Many curbs and impediments have been made over the years to make the possible solutions to these problems and threats very difficult to employ, I will also admit. However, the "goal" of both the terrorists and the chronic illegals and anti-American elements that support them within the country are bent on the same goal... to end the America that has always been, and to institute an America more to their liking and tastes.
Simply taking the most expedient route to the solutions that might present themselves to these threats is NOT ALWAYS the best answer, however. By selectively targeting for examination, questioning, or detention ONLY those of certain specific ethnic, racial or religious origins we are ACCOMPLISHING the goals these radicals and terrorists have set for themselves to accomplish. If we forgo the fundamental freedoms that this nation was founded on and grew to greatness with simply to achieve a possible degree of safety or security that otherwise might not be there and ONE innocent citizen suffers because of it, then we have failed utterly in our defense of those freedoms.
When Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" I don't think he meant that the patriots needed to suffer as a matter of course. In other words, our freedoms define us and when they are lost, we are lost. Jefferson also said "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." If we ignore the rights of the minority, we relinquish the rights of the majority, and our system of government and society fails as well.
To sacrifice freedom and liberty in even a few cases is to allow our founding principles to fail in the name of expedient justice. Freedom is never free, but in this country it is guaranteed to all citizens, and those bearing and paying the price of that universal freedom shouldn't be limited to those defined by race or creed. If freedom does have a price, then we ALL pay the price equally. That is the beauty of our society, not it's short-coming.
Let me take it a step further...
If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are wrong for compelling all Americans to carry the mandated amount of government-approved health insurance, why is it okay to mandate that Americans of Latino origins in AZ be required to "prove" their status as Americans without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime? Insurance only works if the cost incurred by the few is offset by the contributions of the many, so as to ensure coverage for all there is a legitimate claim that all need to be contributing, right? I'm as "white" as the day is long, yet I could go to AZ and never face the prospect of having to prove my residency status while someone equally as "American" as I am (a Puerto Rican, for example) would only be smart to make sure his status was clearly and readily able to be determined on demand by local law enforcement. How is that any more "fair" than my being compelled to contribute to an insurance fund regardless of whether or not I wanted to?
Why is the marginalization of those holding a "conservative" political view in modern American politics "wrong", but the marginalization of anyone in this nation because of "less-than-ordinary" appearances (for lack of a better term), be they ethnic, linguistic, religious or otherwise, perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those that feel safety and security are more important than basic and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? This is an extreme statement, I'm sure... but this whole topic makes my head ring with the phrase "slippery slope". How far down the slope are we willing to risk sliding before safety and security are no longer worth the price that needs to be paid?
It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): There simply MUST be another way for us to secure our borders and/or fix the immigration issues that DOES NOT cause the nation to risk even ONE incident of civil rights abuse or neglect. I'm not asking for additional rights that need to be guaranteed for illegals or criminals... I'm asking that we don't step on the rights of existing law-abiding citizens to find short-cuts to our safety and security goals.
And again, and again...
Now the texts are flying about FNC commentator Father Jonathan Morris, LC, who seems to have made some critical comments concerning AZ's new illegal immigration policies and procedures. I couldn't find reference to the comments that Ryan heard or read, but with any luck, I'll have his panties in enough of a bundle to actually get him to POST on this site.
As said, I don't know what Fr. Jonathan said exactly, but I can tell you that any legislation that has the potential to marginalize even small portions of the population (legal citizens, I mean), then I think you can expect the position of the Catholic Church to be one that reflects charity in action over force in reaction. In short, they will choose to err on the side of charity rather than security.
More importantly, though, I want it clear that I am not 100% comfortable with most of the AZ legislation, either... as I have stated in recent posts. I shudder at the thought of an American citizen being REQUIRED to produce proof of citizenship for nothing more than having Latino features or for speaking Spanish as a first language. If a crime has been committed, or there is evidence to suspect that a crime has been committed, then identification can be requested as allowed under current law... but there is no Constitutional grounds for demanding that anyone in this nation that might be suspected of being an illegal alien be able to prove their status without violating both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
Now, I can just hear those that are in favor of this sort of crack-down shouting at the top of their lungs, "But the Supreme Court upheld a State's right to enact and enforce "Stop and Identify" statutes as far back as 2004!!!" Very true, but for anyone that thinks this qualifies under that protection, you need to explain to me why the actual OPINION of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which is the case that determined "stop and identify" as legal and constitutional, states very clearly that the statute is satisfied with the submission of nothing more than the individual's name... nothing more need be delivered. So, if Mr. Juan Torres, DA for the City of San Antonio, TX, gets stopped on the highway by BP agents in Tuscon, AZ and suddenly realizes he has left his ID in a roadside cafe 275 miles away... he gets arrested for not being able to prove his citizenship? Or is the fact that he has provided his name (which is what the SCOTUS says satisfies the legal requirement for ID upon demand) enough to secure his safety and freedom from persecution, while still keeping America safe from "barbarian hordes" streaming across the Rubicon/Rio Grande?
I'm all in favor of State's taking the lead in the effort to curb illegal immigration, but as has been said a thousand times right here in this forum, by Ryan himself... we don't need NEW RULES to make us safer, we simply need the rules we have enforced adequately. We have a law on the books right now (another one I didn't like) that calls for the building of a fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico. Still not done. Deportation laws exist at every level for felons convicted within the US... Federal, State and local jurisdictions all know they are in force, yet they are applied and enforced only 7% of the time in this country, and almost NEVER for felons. WHY? If the Feds choose NOT to deport, then the State should. If the Feds don't want to make non-citizen criminals elligible for work-time incarceration (the new term for "chain gangs", I guess), then the State's should. I don't even have a problem with AZ Sheriffs that wish to make the convicts work out-of-doors, as long as they are provided with enough water and adequate rest time to make sure no one dies that hasn't been handed the death penalty... road crews and construction workers do it all the time, all year round.
The cries against illegal immigration in this country are about the cost these illegals are bring to the American tax payer, right? The cost in health care, housing, security risks, crime rates... all paid by the legal citizenry of the USA, and not by the illegals. So why is it alright to make tax paying citizens of this country run even the smallest risk of having their rights violated one iota further? I call this "cutting off the nose to spite the face"... and it never fixes anything.
As said, I don't know what Fr. Jonathan said exactly, but I can tell you that any legislation that has the potential to marginalize even small portions of the population (legal citizens, I mean), then I think you can expect the position of the Catholic Church to be one that reflects charity in action over force in reaction. In short, they will choose to err on the side of charity rather than security.
More importantly, though, I want it clear that I am not 100% comfortable with most of the AZ legislation, either... as I have stated in recent posts. I shudder at the thought of an American citizen being REQUIRED to produce proof of citizenship for nothing more than having Latino features or for speaking Spanish as a first language. If a crime has been committed, or there is evidence to suspect that a crime has been committed, then identification can be requested as allowed under current law... but there is no Constitutional grounds for demanding that anyone in this nation that might be suspected of being an illegal alien be able to prove their status without violating both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
Now, I can just hear those that are in favor of this sort of crack-down shouting at the top of their lungs, "But the Supreme Court upheld a State's right to enact and enforce "Stop and Identify" statutes as far back as 2004!!!" Very true, but for anyone that thinks this qualifies under that protection, you need to explain to me why the actual OPINION of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which is the case that determined "stop and identify" as legal and constitutional, states very clearly that the statute is satisfied with the submission of nothing more than the individual's name... nothing more need be delivered. So, if Mr. Juan Torres, DA for the City of San Antonio, TX, gets stopped on the highway by BP agents in Tuscon, AZ and suddenly realizes he has left his ID in a roadside cafe 275 miles away... he gets arrested for not being able to prove his citizenship? Or is the fact that he has provided his name (which is what the SCOTUS says satisfies the legal requirement for ID upon demand) enough to secure his safety and freedom from persecution, while still keeping America safe from "barbarian hordes" streaming across the Rubicon/Rio Grande?
I'm all in favor of State's taking the lead in the effort to curb illegal immigration, but as has been said a thousand times right here in this forum, by Ryan himself... we don't need NEW RULES to make us safer, we simply need the rules we have enforced adequately. We have a law on the books right now (another one I didn't like) that calls for the building of a fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico. Still not done. Deportation laws exist at every level for felons convicted within the US... Federal, State and local jurisdictions all know they are in force, yet they are applied and enforced only 7% of the time in this country, and almost NEVER for felons. WHY? If the Feds choose NOT to deport, then the State should. If the Feds don't want to make non-citizen criminals elligible for work-time incarceration (the new term for "chain gangs", I guess), then the State's should. I don't even have a problem with AZ Sheriffs that wish to make the convicts work out-of-doors, as long as they are provided with enough water and adequate rest time to make sure no one dies that hasn't been handed the death penalty... road crews and construction workers do it all the time, all year round.
The cries against illegal immigration in this country are about the cost these illegals are bring to the American tax payer, right? The cost in health care, housing, security risks, crime rates... all paid by the legal citizenry of the USA, and not by the illegals. So why is it alright to make tax paying citizens of this country run even the smallest risk of having their rights violated one iota further? I call this "cutting off the nose to spite the face"... and it never fixes anything.
Again with the texts...
So Ryan is again texting (rather than Bunding), this time about the remake of the classic 80's film "Red Dawn". I grew up with Red Dawn, and saw it as a defining statement on America's independent spirit living into the start of the 21st Century. We have to be able to do for ourselves before we can do for others, and in doing for others (without governmental obligation) we are doing for ourselves... that sort of thing. What I recall most was the thoughts of "What would I do?" that the movie inspired in me. My friends at the time spent hours with me over coffee or Coca Cola, discussing how we would handle an insurrection-like environment should the Russians ever invade (lest we forget, I'm old enough to remember the Cold War as the status quo, and not as a footnote in a history text).
Now, I'm no Swayze fan... not at all... and I never did care for the cast selection in the 1984 version, but the story was good enough to carry the actors. I'm slightly more optomistic about the 2010 cast and their abilities... but my concern now is in the script writers losing the message that carried so well in the original.
Examples of news that hightens my concerns:
The movie seems to be taking place in Michigan rather than Colorado... and we all know that modern America seems to see Michigan in the light of a breeding ground for armed resistance movements against the government (i.e. militias). That might not be the case at all, but the possibility occurred to me, none the less.
Many of the remake cast are young and idealistic enough to make me think they are participating in the project because it suits their perception of what makes America "great", and that perception is undoubtedly miles from mine. I find it difficult to believe that Josh from Drake and Josh Nickelodeon fame is going to be all that excited about making a movie that promotes the importance of gun ownership and armed resistance to aggressive compulsory socialistic institutions like the People's Liberation Army that is occupying large portions of the US in the movie, when the rest of Hollywood is using Communist China as a shining example of a humanitarian, socially-conscientious and progressive society.
There are no stand-out actors on the cast that make me think this is going to be anything special... but the actors in the original were all basically "no names" in '84, as well, so who knows?
I'll keep an open mind, and my fingers crossed, that this remake is worth the time and effort to see... but I'm not getting my hopes up at all. I've yet to see a remake that was as-good or better than the original, and that is saying something. I was mildly (not hugely) disappointed in the Star Trek remake, couldn't finish any of the horror/slasher genre films (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes) and I was crushingly dissappointed in the apocolyptic films (I am Legend-Omega Man, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Invasion, The Omen, Planet of the Apes ((a turd of epic proportions!)), Village of the Damned)... the list is long indeed.
In fact, the only remakes that I can say I have really thought went well were the made-for-TV (or cable) stuff like Battlestar Gallactica, V, Tin Man and a very select few movies like Gladiator, Thin Red Line, Oceans Eleven, etc. I'd list Spartacus, but I don't equate that show with a remake so much as it is a whole new genre... in the same way Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is not a remake of the animated version from the 70's.
Well, we can hope huh?
Now, I'm no Swayze fan... not at all... and I never did care for the cast selection in the 1984 version, but the story was good enough to carry the actors. I'm slightly more optomistic about the 2010 cast and their abilities... but my concern now is in the script writers losing the message that carried so well in the original.
Examples of news that hightens my concerns:
The movie seems to be taking place in Michigan rather than Colorado... and we all know that modern America seems to see Michigan in the light of a breeding ground for armed resistance movements against the government (i.e. militias). That might not be the case at all, but the possibility occurred to me, none the less.
Many of the remake cast are young and idealistic enough to make me think they are participating in the project because it suits their perception of what makes America "great", and that perception is undoubtedly miles from mine. I find it difficult to believe that Josh from Drake and Josh Nickelodeon fame is going to be all that excited about making a movie that promotes the importance of gun ownership and armed resistance to aggressive compulsory socialistic institutions like the People's Liberation Army that is occupying large portions of the US in the movie, when the rest of Hollywood is using Communist China as a shining example of a humanitarian, socially-conscientious and progressive society.
There are no stand-out actors on the cast that make me think this is going to be anything special... but the actors in the original were all basically "no names" in '84, as well, so who knows?
I'll keep an open mind, and my fingers crossed, that this remake is worth the time and effort to see... but I'm not getting my hopes up at all. I've yet to see a remake that was as-good or better than the original, and that is saying something. I was mildly (not hugely) disappointed in the Star Trek remake, couldn't finish any of the horror/slasher genre films (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes) and I was crushingly dissappointed in the apocolyptic films (I am Legend-Omega Man, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Invasion, The Omen, Planet of the Apes ((a turd of epic proportions!)), Village of the Damned)... the list is long indeed.
In fact, the only remakes that I can say I have really thought went well were the made-for-TV (or cable) stuff like Battlestar Gallactica, V, Tin Man and a very select few movies like Gladiator, Thin Red Line, Oceans Eleven, etc. I'd list Spartacus, but I don't equate that show with a remake so much as it is a whole new genre... in the same way Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is not a remake of the animated version from the 70's.
Well, we can hope huh?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Today...
Today I woke up early after a long, anxious night. A pretty average morning in that kids had to be dressed, fed and ushered onto the bus for school, and the obligatory Bund posts had to be made. Coffee drunk, gurts smoked, dog relieved... it was a typical start to any one of hundreds of my "days".
But tonight...
Tonight, I put my son to bed for the very first time.
I don't love the child any more than I did this morning, and I don't love the other two children any less... but I can't say that I don't feel differently, either. Not about them... but about me. Tonight, I am putting to bed a child that I will be responsible for, in one way or another, for the rest of my life. He is my son, and it is impossible not to think of that as I kiss him goodnight in his bed, all wrapped up in his jammas and blankets and half-a-dozen pillows.
The adoption will take at least 45 days to complete, but the Court has said I am responsible for the child. The rest is simply paperwork. I feel I was always responsible for Jacob, but now that it is official, putting that boy to bed will never be quite the same again.
But tonight...
Tonight, I put my son to bed for the very first time.
I don't love the child any more than I did this morning, and I don't love the other two children any less... but I can't say that I don't feel differently, either. Not about them... but about me. Tonight, I am putting to bed a child that I will be responsible for, in one way or another, for the rest of my life. He is my son, and it is impossible not to think of that as I kiss him goodnight in his bed, all wrapped up in his jammas and blankets and half-a-dozen pillows.
The adoption will take at least 45 days to complete, but the Court has said I am responsible for the child. The rest is simply paperwork. I feel I was always responsible for Jacob, but now that it is official, putting that boy to bed will never be quite the same again.
Homeland Security
I'm on a roll, and I can't get done what I need to do yet, so I'll play one more hand...
Department of Homeland Security is intended to be the domestic answer to what the Department of Defense abroad. Neither is tasked solely and exclusively inside or outside the US border, but one is primarily a military department (but not exclusively) while the other is primarily a civilian department (but not exclusively).
It is the third largest Cabinet department, behind DoD and the VA, with a budget of $43 billion and more than 200,000 employees. It is tasked with border security, immigration, customs enforcement and regulation, and disaster preparation and response. I'm not 100% sure that this Department is the "failure" that ED and EPA are... but in the eight years that the DHS has existed, I can't say I've seen a whole lot accomplished. The borders are not secure, the illegal immigrant issue is bigger than ever, there are routine incidents of incursions across our borders by Mexican drug lords to have gun-fights in our towns and cities (by the way, the LAST time that happened with any regularity, Gen. "Blackjack" Pershing took an entire infantry corps south across the border to chase Poncho Villa down and finish him off), and I have seen no conclusive proof that this nation is any better prepared for another Hurricane Katrina, 1906 San Fransisco earthquake or 9-11-01 than it was before November of 2002. I was NOT impressed by the DHS "suggestion" that the best preparation for a terrorist attack that a private citizen could take was to buy sheet plastic and duct tape and start filling containers with tap water... so anyone that uses that as a "defense" of DHS had better be ready to argue.
In my opinion, this Department is either grossly under-funded, or it is completely redundant and needs to be done away with entirely. However, I'm not in favor of throwing good money away, so simply increasing DHS budgets isn't the answer, either. I'd LOVE to see President Ryan appoint a Secretary of DHS that can give the nation a clear, concise statement as to what he/she intends to do to achieve the goals that the DHS is intended to meet... because no one has done that yet.
Department of Homeland Security is intended to be the domestic answer to what the Department of Defense abroad. Neither is tasked solely and exclusively inside or outside the US border, but one is primarily a military department (but not exclusively) while the other is primarily a civilian department (but not exclusively).
It is the third largest Cabinet department, behind DoD and the VA, with a budget of $43 billion and more than 200,000 employees. It is tasked with border security, immigration, customs enforcement and regulation, and disaster preparation and response. I'm not 100% sure that this Department is the "failure" that ED and EPA are... but in the eight years that the DHS has existed, I can't say I've seen a whole lot accomplished. The borders are not secure, the illegal immigrant issue is bigger than ever, there are routine incidents of incursions across our borders by Mexican drug lords to have gun-fights in our towns and cities (by the way, the LAST time that happened with any regularity, Gen. "Blackjack" Pershing took an entire infantry corps south across the border to chase Poncho Villa down and finish him off), and I have seen no conclusive proof that this nation is any better prepared for another Hurricane Katrina, 1906 San Fransisco earthquake or 9-11-01 than it was before November of 2002. I was NOT impressed by the DHS "suggestion" that the best preparation for a terrorist attack that a private citizen could take was to buy sheet plastic and duct tape and start filling containers with tap water... so anyone that uses that as a "defense" of DHS had better be ready to argue.
In my opinion, this Department is either grossly under-funded, or it is completely redundant and needs to be done away with entirely. However, I'm not in favor of throwing good money away, so simply increasing DHS budgets isn't the answer, either. I'd LOVE to see President Ryan appoint a Secretary of DHS that can give the nation a clear, concise statement as to what he/she intends to do to achieve the goals that the DHS is intended to meet... because no one has done that yet.
The perfect scenario...
Stop making excuses... you are President of the United States, your party holds a simple majority in the House and Senate, and the SCOTUS is basically the same as it is now. I can't offer any more than that. To look for any more (super majority in the Senate is a rare thing, and if you are doing something so radical that it needs that, we are back to defeating the purpose, right?) is to move into the realm of fantasy rather than intellectual exercise.
What I am looking for is a discussion of the means to an end. We all know the end we'd like to see achieved is a smaller, less intrusive and less costly Federal government. We all know that there are some areas of government that we are not going to agree should be removed or reduced, or others that should be saved or expanded. I'm not looking for the 100% fix-it-all budget that has eluded actual elected officials for more than half this nation's history, I'm simply looking for details that explain President Ryan's position more clearly. I know he wants to cut spending... I want to know where he is going to cut it, and how those cuts can be achieved.
I'll even give an example to start things off:
The Department of Education (ED) is the smallest Cabinet-position department in the Executive Branch with only about 5,400 employees... but it has the 7th largest budget in the entire Cabinet at just under $47 billion dollars for 2010. It has been a controversial institution since it was given its first Secretary in 1979 by Carter, and Reagan ran on the promise of eliminating the Department completely (something he never managed to do, by the way). He reduced its budget by more than 40% for most of his terms, funneling the funds back to programs and Departments that he though needed the money more, and so (to a lesser degree) did Bush Sr.
What bothers me about the ED is that its primary stated purpose in our Government is NOT to establish, foster and promote a national standard of education goals and guidelines for the State and local districts to follow (that isn't even part of its "mission statement"), it is to determine who gets what portions of Federal funds (Pell grants, etc) and to protect and preserve the privacy and civil rights of students within the American education system.
That to me is a prime example of redundancy in Government, and we don't need it. If a student's civil rights are being violated, call the Department of Justice. If there is money to be awarded to districts, universities and students, then it shouldn't take 5,400 people to spread it around and they certainly don't need $47 billion to do it. Roll what is required into another Department (HHS, Treasury, or down to a State-level), and reduce the need and cost for redundant services.
Speaking of redundancy, let's talk about the Environmental Protection Agency. With a 2010 budget of more than $10 billion (which is 35% MORE than they got last year), it isn't as big as the ED... but it is even more of a waste of money that the ED. There are 17 Executive Departments (meaning Cabinet-positions) with the same authority to regulate environmental policy on a national level (DoD, DoE, Interior, Agriculture, etc), and more than 20 Congressional Committees with the same power... so why are we throwing $10+ BILLION dollars at the EPA? 18,000 full-time employees and regional offices spread across the land... all to manage an Executive agency that shares its regulatory and enforcement powers with as many as 37 other Federal departments, Agencies, Committees and Subcommittees? How utterly stupid is that? What the hell was Nixon thinking of when he signed this turd into the punch bowl? The icing on the cake though, is this: EPA regulation applies ONLY to areas where the 37+ other departments/agencies/committees don't have jurisdiction. So, by my calculations (carried out on the fingers of one hand), I can conclude that the EPA has NO REAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. There isn't a single square mile of this nation that isn't already regulated, in one way or another, by the policies of another Federal department like the DoD, DoE, Interior, Agriculture, etc... so what the hell do we need EPA for again?
There, see how easy that was? In just a few minutes and two cups of coffee, I have eliminated $57 billion dollars from the budget, and reduced the size and scope of the Fed by 23,000 jobs and two redundant departments.
Who's next?
What I am looking for is a discussion of the means to an end. We all know the end we'd like to see achieved is a smaller, less intrusive and less costly Federal government. We all know that there are some areas of government that we are not going to agree should be removed or reduced, or others that should be saved or expanded. I'm not looking for the 100% fix-it-all budget that has eluded actual elected officials for more than half this nation's history, I'm simply looking for details that explain President Ryan's position more clearly. I know he wants to cut spending... I want to know where he is going to cut it, and how those cuts can be achieved.
I'll even give an example to start things off:
The Department of Education (ED) is the smallest Cabinet-position department in the Executive Branch with only about 5,400 employees... but it has the 7th largest budget in the entire Cabinet at just under $47 billion dollars for 2010. It has been a controversial institution since it was given its first Secretary in 1979 by Carter, and Reagan ran on the promise of eliminating the Department completely (something he never managed to do, by the way). He reduced its budget by more than 40% for most of his terms, funneling the funds back to programs and Departments that he though needed the money more, and so (to a lesser degree) did Bush Sr.
What bothers me about the ED is that its primary stated purpose in our Government is NOT to establish, foster and promote a national standard of education goals and guidelines for the State and local districts to follow (that isn't even part of its "mission statement"), it is to determine who gets what portions of Federal funds (Pell grants, etc) and to protect and preserve the privacy and civil rights of students within the American education system.
That to me is a prime example of redundancy in Government, and we don't need it. If a student's civil rights are being violated, call the Department of Justice. If there is money to be awarded to districts, universities and students, then it shouldn't take 5,400 people to spread it around and they certainly don't need $47 billion to do it. Roll what is required into another Department (HHS, Treasury, or down to a State-level), and reduce the need and cost for redundant services.
Speaking of redundancy, let's talk about the Environmental Protection Agency. With a 2010 budget of more than $10 billion (which is 35% MORE than they got last year), it isn't as big as the ED... but it is even more of a waste of money that the ED. There are 17 Executive Departments (meaning Cabinet-positions) with the same authority to regulate environmental policy on a national level (DoD, DoE, Interior, Agriculture, etc), and more than 20 Congressional Committees with the same power... so why are we throwing $10+ BILLION dollars at the EPA? 18,000 full-time employees and regional offices spread across the land... all to manage an Executive agency that shares its regulatory and enforcement powers with as many as 37 other Federal departments, Agencies, Committees and Subcommittees? How utterly stupid is that? What the hell was Nixon thinking of when he signed this turd into the punch bowl? The icing on the cake though, is this: EPA regulation applies ONLY to areas where the 37+ other departments/agencies/committees don't have jurisdiction. So, by my calculations (carried out on the fingers of one hand), I can conclude that the EPA has NO REAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. There isn't a single square mile of this nation that isn't already regulated, in one way or another, by the policies of another Federal department like the DoD, DoE, Interior, Agriculture, etc... so what the hell do we need EPA for again?
There, see how easy that was? In just a few minutes and two cups of coffee, I have eliminated $57 billion dollars from the budget, and reduced the size and scope of the Fed by 23,000 jobs and two redundant departments.
Who's next?
"Show me your papers!"
First ... your last was a fine question (it's funny, at this point I can see your mood change mid post, hacked off to tempered as you go through the therapeutic - if you ask me - act of turning emotion into proffered prose). Basically, what does a budget look like that balances our federal books (pick your amount of years)? If you sit back with the prospect of answering this question you quickly realize how monumental a task it is. Undoubtedly doctorates are being awarded, books, multi-volume books, are being written suggesting such an answer. This will take considerable time. And even if I come up with the "President Ryan" (a damn fine ring to that I might add) budget, it will still fall under the "perfect scenario" heading, for I would need a simpatico congress (both houses) to achieve it. Hmmm ... to paraphrase that wise shaman, that historical philosopher known the world over, Yoda: ponder specifics I will.
Now as to the Arizona question, which seems to be dominating political discussion within the nation at present. Something occurred to me. Opponents of this law portray its' logical end as one reminiscent of Indiana Jones on a Zeppelin, hiding his face while black uniform clad, squared jawed authorities demand papiers und tickets! That comparison, of Gestapo thugs being backed by the law of the land when demanding you produce proper documentation, got me thinking . . . how many IRS agents are provided for in the new health care bill? 10,000? 16,000 is it? And under penalty of law, including fines up to imprisonment, I will be forced to "show them my papers" proving I have health care, as a US citizen, whether I want to or not, just by virtue of my being here. Is that not right? So Mr. President, one more time - exactly what is your beef with Arizona?
Now as to the Arizona question, which seems to be dominating political discussion within the nation at present. Something occurred to me. Opponents of this law portray its' logical end as one reminiscent of Indiana Jones on a Zeppelin, hiding his face while black uniform clad, squared jawed authorities demand papiers und tickets! That comparison, of Gestapo thugs being backed by the law of the land when demanding you produce proper documentation, got me thinking . . . how many IRS agents are provided for in the new health care bill? 10,000? 16,000 is it? And under penalty of law, including fines up to imprisonment, I will be forced to "show them my papers" proving I have health care, as a US citizen, whether I want to or not, just by virtue of my being here. Is that not right? So Mr. President, one more time - exactly what is your beef with Arizona?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
For Pete's sake...
Let's play another pretend-game...
Let say that tomorrow, April 28th 2010, Ryan becomes President of the United States (reasons unknown, but pretend, okay?). With no aspect of "Obama-care" actually in place yet, he still sits down behind the "big desk" in the Oval Office to find that the US is spending $1.42 trillion MORE than it is making in revenue. Ryan, being Ryan, insists on "fixing this problem" in the manner and means that he sees fit: cut spending.
Now, I have made the point in the past (one I won't revisit here in detail) that if President Ryan simply placed a complete moratorium in new spending, we'd see the revenue column of our balance sheets catch up to the spending column in about 10 years (the average rate of growth in revenue figures is between 7% and 11%). This is not a difficult thing to imagine happening, is it? Stop the spending of anything more than we are spending right now for a period of a complete Presidential term (unprecedented, but it is possible). This would make Ryan the FIRST PRESIDENT in history to actually STOP the growth of Government during his watch. Quite the accomplishment, huh?
Problems arise, however, when we see that programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already running a very nearly $500 billion dollar deficit all by themselves, AND they average a growth in spending of more than 7% annually. In other words, these programs (left alone with no reform or changes to operation) will out-spend the growth in revenues all by themselves, and never allow for any actual reduction in the deficit. Perhaps, with reduced spending in one area providing savings that can be applied somewhere else, vital areas of budgetary cost can be maintained (Defense, Federal infrastructure, etc). But not nearly enough to lower the budgeted deficit by any significant amount.
I guess my point is that my proposal for an imported oil tariff (inspired by Friedman, but not actually put forward by him with any seriousness, I think) is not, nor could it ever be, the "fix-it-all" solution to our spending problem. The intended $40.1 billion wouldn't even catch up our short-comings in Social Security spending, no matter how long we waited. My point is that it would generate a source of Federal revenue that could (in a perfect scenario) be used to further reduce the debt when coupled with a rational redefinition of what the role of the Federal government is in the modern world.
Perhaps the question was too ambiguous, though. Let's run with the scenario above: What would Ryan do? How would Ryan balance the budget while still keeping the government working in a manner that didn't cause a general shut-down through Congress' inability to pass a budget into law. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure the moratorium itself wouldn't cause a Federal closure before something was signed into law... but perhaps it would pass with the right leadership behind the effort.
Seriously, this was something Jambo and I talked about in the past, but I think this a do-able exercise. What would YOU do to fix what is wrong with the Federal government? What spending is "ok" and what isn't? Which taxes are necessary, and which aren't?
Let say that tomorrow, April 28th 2010, Ryan becomes President of the United States (reasons unknown, but pretend, okay?). With no aspect of "Obama-care" actually in place yet, he still sits down behind the "big desk" in the Oval Office to find that the US is spending $1.42 trillion MORE than it is making in revenue. Ryan, being Ryan, insists on "fixing this problem" in the manner and means that he sees fit: cut spending.
Now, I have made the point in the past (one I won't revisit here in detail) that if President Ryan simply placed a complete moratorium in new spending, we'd see the revenue column of our balance sheets catch up to the spending column in about 10 years (the average rate of growth in revenue figures is between 7% and 11%). This is not a difficult thing to imagine happening, is it? Stop the spending of anything more than we are spending right now for a period of a complete Presidential term (unprecedented, but it is possible). This would make Ryan the FIRST PRESIDENT in history to actually STOP the growth of Government during his watch. Quite the accomplishment, huh?
Problems arise, however, when we see that programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already running a very nearly $500 billion dollar deficit all by themselves, AND they average a growth in spending of more than 7% annually. In other words, these programs (left alone with no reform or changes to operation) will out-spend the growth in revenues all by themselves, and never allow for any actual reduction in the deficit. Perhaps, with reduced spending in one area providing savings that can be applied somewhere else, vital areas of budgetary cost can be maintained (Defense, Federal infrastructure, etc). But not nearly enough to lower the budgeted deficit by any significant amount.
I guess my point is that my proposal for an imported oil tariff (inspired by Friedman, but not actually put forward by him with any seriousness, I think) is not, nor could it ever be, the "fix-it-all" solution to our spending problem. The intended $40.1 billion wouldn't even catch up our short-comings in Social Security spending, no matter how long we waited. My point is that it would generate a source of Federal revenue that could (in a perfect scenario) be used to further reduce the debt when coupled with a rational redefinition of what the role of the Federal government is in the modern world.
Perhaps the question was too ambiguous, though. Let's run with the scenario above: What would Ryan do? How would Ryan balance the budget while still keeping the government working in a manner that didn't cause a general shut-down through Congress' inability to pass a budget into law. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure the moratorium itself wouldn't cause a Federal closure before something was signed into law... but perhaps it would pass with the right leadership behind the effort.
Seriously, this was something Jambo and I talked about in the past, but I think this a do-able exercise. What would YOU do to fix what is wrong with the Federal government? What spending is "ok" and what isn't? Which taxes are necessary, and which aren't?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Ol' Jed's a millionaire ...
First, that was a disgusting display of hostility, strike that, flat out bigotry towards the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Ideas of political correctness in Western nations are so narrow that it leaves one speechless to think its' practitioners view it as "open minded." Were this done in reference to a local Muslim cleric, let alone a recognized world leader, not only would British officials be sacked, but threatening screams that London be sacked (circa 10th century) would be heard from the Thames to the Dover Cliffs. As I noted a post or two ago, the English government is a Godless bunch ... they reserve displays of reverence for the "environment."
Your oil tariff ... Friedman is one of these Shaman the left adores because he portends some mystical knowledge that exists exclusively "outside the box." Listening to him speak one gets the distinct impression of being in attendance at a sweaty Saturday afternoon $29, "you can get rich in real estate too" seminar. His overly passionate tones and copious use of multi-syllable adjectives are meant to convey "wisdom." Yet in every interview, appearance, and essay its' conclusion leaves Macbeth echoing in my ears:
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
The phrase "too clever by half" was coined to service just this type of man.
Look, I'm not dismissing this out of hand, not in the way you think anyway. It's a noble endeavour, thinking laterally on how to remedy our national debt. But it is maddening to hear intelligent people discuss this without the first notion being, "stop spending."
Some time back I confided in Jambo a frustration I was having with my then wife. I explained to her how damaging it would be to take the profit motive out of pharmaceuticals. She retorted (if you can call it that) that perhaps then "people who just want to help will come up with cures." Upon recounting this conversation to Jambo he answered, "Yes. And maybe Leprechauns will lead us to pots of gold at the end of a rainbow." I got a much needed laugh.
The second of two points I'm making here is that while you acknowledged that Obama and company would never agree to your narrowly defined uses for the tariff revenue, I don't think this exercise properly addresses the reality of where we are. And yes, you can justly answer with, "I know that, it's an intellectual exercise", and that's fine, I get that. But things (the Obama agenda) at the federal level so far remove this idea from the realm of possibility (i.e. they would spend the $40 bil a year on green initiatives like subsidies to weatherize low income homes), that it is hardly palatable for me to contemplate. Not to mention, the GOP's message from now through 2012 should be just plain, common sense conservatism - you don't spend more than you have, the government shouldn't run 1/6th of the economy, we shouldn't have tea with Iran, etc - making your proposal for this type of election cycle ... well ... a little too clever by half.
And don't get your knickers in a bind. I salute the direction you're headed in - hands in the air frustration over government spending is causing you to try and come up with something, anything that could reconcile this debt with the least impact on the average American, I get that too. It's just that the lack of funds to service this debt isn't the problem, the debt is. Thus any attempt at a remedy addressing the former rather than the latter will ultimately prove insufficient.
By the way - I have my own brainstorming ideas for his Highness and the Brits, were Prince Charles to visit the States:
- Do PSA's about the dangers of adultery.
- Attend a dental seminar so as to introduce England to proper oral hygiene.
- Tour Irish neighborhoods so as to discover proper port.
- Lastly, do the Tonight Show. And as soon as your Lilly white, pampered, royal tush hits Jay's couch, look into the camera and open with: "You know the difference in how the Irish and English pray? The Irish pray on their knees ... the English prey on their neighbors."
Just a thought ...
Your oil tariff ... Friedman is one of these Shaman the left adores because he portends some mystical knowledge that exists exclusively "outside the box." Listening to him speak one gets the distinct impression of being in attendance at a sweaty Saturday afternoon $29, "you can get rich in real estate too" seminar. His overly passionate tones and copious use of multi-syllable adjectives are meant to convey "wisdom." Yet in every interview, appearance, and essay its' conclusion leaves Macbeth echoing in my ears:
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
The phrase "too clever by half" was coined to service just this type of man.
Look, I'm not dismissing this out of hand, not in the way you think anyway. It's a noble endeavour, thinking laterally on how to remedy our national debt. But it is maddening to hear intelligent people discuss this without the first notion being, "stop spending."
Some time back I confided in Jambo a frustration I was having with my then wife. I explained to her how damaging it would be to take the profit motive out of pharmaceuticals. She retorted (if you can call it that) that perhaps then "people who just want to help will come up with cures." Upon recounting this conversation to Jambo he answered, "Yes. And maybe Leprechauns will lead us to pots of gold at the end of a rainbow." I got a much needed laugh.
The second of two points I'm making here is that while you acknowledged that Obama and company would never agree to your narrowly defined uses for the tariff revenue, I don't think this exercise properly addresses the reality of where we are. And yes, you can justly answer with, "I know that, it's an intellectual exercise", and that's fine, I get that. But things (the Obama agenda) at the federal level so far remove this idea from the realm of possibility (i.e. they would spend the $40 bil a year on green initiatives like subsidies to weatherize low income homes), that it is hardly palatable for me to contemplate. Not to mention, the GOP's message from now through 2012 should be just plain, common sense conservatism - you don't spend more than you have, the government shouldn't run 1/6th of the economy, we shouldn't have tea with Iran, etc - making your proposal for this type of election cycle ... well ... a little too clever by half.
And don't get your knickers in a bind. I salute the direction you're headed in - hands in the air frustration over government spending is causing you to try and come up with something, anything that could reconcile this debt with the least impact on the average American, I get that too. It's just that the lack of funds to service this debt isn't the problem, the debt is. Thus any attempt at a remedy addressing the former rather than the latter will ultimately prove insufficient.
By the way - I have my own brainstorming ideas for his Highness and the Brits, were Prince Charles to visit the States:
- Do PSA's about the dangers of adultery.
- Attend a dental seminar so as to introduce England to proper oral hygiene.
- Tour Irish neighborhoods so as to discover proper port.
- Lastly, do the Tonight Show. And as soon as your Lilly white, pampered, royal tush hits Jay's couch, look into the camera and open with: "You know the difference in how the Irish and English pray? The Irish pray on their knees ... the English prey on their neighbors."
Just a thought ...
Sunday, April 25, 2010
I need honest answers for this question...
So, I'm doing my normal morning routine... reading the articles and news of the day as I drink my standard pot-o-coffee breakfast while waiting for Liz and the 7-year-old to roll out of bed after a late Saturday night of fun and excitement at our friend's party... and I come across an article from Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Thomas Friedman of the NY Times.
I'm not a fan of Friedman, by any stretch of the imagination. He is far too liberal in his views for my tastes, so I can only imagine what Ryan must think of him. None the less, living as I do in the Northeast US (or at least in the Atlantic States), the man has a following here in PA that is undeniable and many of my friends here are huge fans, indeed.
His latest editorial was about the failings of the Tea Party, and how he would fix them, if he were so inclined. It is this thought that prompted my post.
He suggests a $10 per barrel tax on all imported crude oil into the US, and that the revenue from this tax be used to pay down the national debt and decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources.
Now, like anyone else that calls themselves "conservative", I automatically begin to dismiss the idea as just another "tax and spend" plan by liberals to generate revenue for a Government that is already far too intrusive and expensive for its own good. When I took a break from my reading and went to the porch to have another cup-o-joe and a "gurt" (that's a cigarette, for those that don't know Mr. C. Joe White), I pondered the thought some more.
The US imports 11 million barrels of crude oil every single day. The math here is relatively simple: 11 million barrels times $10 comes to $110 million per day, or just over $40.1 billion dollars every year. That is a LOT of revenue, isn't it? Staggering, in fact.
Now, we all know who pays this sort of tax: the consumer. We know that the ratio of crude oil prices to gasoline prices is pretty nearly .035 per barrel of crude cost, so at yesterday's national average for oil prices of $81 per barrel, we see a gasoline average of $2.86. Raising the price of crude to $91 dollars takes the price of gas to $3.18 or so. That's high, no question... far more than I want to pay at the pump. But let's consider for a moment more...
With the increased price of gasoline in the past, we have seen a contraction in the national economy... but it has never NOT been strictly temporary and quickly adjusted for, relatively speaking. Furthermore, with increased gas prices, we have typically seen a reduction in crude oil demands in the US (also temporary in nature, but measurable).
If this oil tariff were to become reality (and a tariff it would be), two important factor would come into play that we have NOT seen with past increases in gasoline prices: increased demand for domestic sources of oil and increased viability of such sources as profitable resources. When the global price of a barrel of crude alone dictated the cost of domestic production, it couldn't compete with what the rest of the world was selling oil for... domestic production wasn't instantly profitable, thus it wasn't a course oil companies were willing to follow. Who can blame them for not wanting to throw away money on the very real chance that global crude prices would fall of their own accord before the first NEW domestic well pumped its first barrel of oil? With an artificially inflated oil price, coupled with vast new sources of instantly-available revenue, real progress could be made to substantially increase our domestic energy production.
I would also propose that by implementing such a tariff, we would lower our demand for foreign oil, initially because of the higher price, but in a more long term sense through the reduced need of supplemental sources outside of our own production. This shortage in global demand would require that foreign sources reduce their price per barrel to maintain current or projected revenue levels, which eases the burden (relatively speaking) on the American consumer.
Now, given what I have said here, I need to clarify something: I am NOT advocating a new tax simply for the purpose of giving the Feds more dollars to spend. However, imagine what could happen if this tariff-generated revenue were bound by law to be applied ONLY to increasing our own domestic ability to produce energy AND/OR reducing the Federal deficit. That is a cool $40 BILLION every single year that is going exclusively towards solid, long-term investment in America's future ability to remain economically sound and safe no matter what the global environment dictates. By my estimations, even with what Obama has already carved into stone here in the US, we would see a balanced budget (obviously depending on how much we spent on domestic energy production year-to-year) well before the end of THIS decade.
This is a purely intellectual exercise, I understand. Our current administration would never allow that much revenue to be that limited in how it can be spent, although it would JUMP at the chance to implement that kind of revenue-generating tax, I'm sure. My question is simply this:
What are the down-sides to a tariff such as the one I describe above, given that all my requirements are met (limiting spending to energy production/deficit relief, etc.)? Are the short-term costs in increased consumer costs (say a 10% increase in the average cost of gasoline) enough to negate the long-term benefits? Have I missed something in my musings that makes the whole idea worthless? Is this the sort of tariff/tax that a conservative agenda can support, given that it will reduce the need for future tax costs by reducing the deficit and/or limiting our risk of foreign pricing impacting our economy negatively?
I am really looking for input here... please don't dismiss this out-of-hand.
I'm not a fan of Friedman, by any stretch of the imagination. He is far too liberal in his views for my tastes, so I can only imagine what Ryan must think of him. None the less, living as I do in the Northeast US (or at least in the Atlantic States), the man has a following here in PA that is undeniable and many of my friends here are huge fans, indeed.
His latest editorial was about the failings of the Tea Party, and how he would fix them, if he were so inclined. It is this thought that prompted my post.
He suggests a $10 per barrel tax on all imported crude oil into the US, and that the revenue from this tax be used to pay down the national debt and decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources.
Now, like anyone else that calls themselves "conservative", I automatically begin to dismiss the idea as just another "tax and spend" plan by liberals to generate revenue for a Government that is already far too intrusive and expensive for its own good. When I took a break from my reading and went to the porch to have another cup-o-joe and a "gurt" (that's a cigarette, for those that don't know Mr. C. Joe White), I pondered the thought some more.
The US imports 11 million barrels of crude oil every single day. The math here is relatively simple: 11 million barrels times $10 comes to $110 million per day, or just over $40.1 billion dollars every year. That is a LOT of revenue, isn't it? Staggering, in fact.
Now, we all know who pays this sort of tax: the consumer. We know that the ratio of crude oil prices to gasoline prices is pretty nearly .035 per barrel of crude cost, so at yesterday's national average for oil prices of $81 per barrel, we see a gasoline average of $2.86. Raising the price of crude to $91 dollars takes the price of gas to $3.18 or so. That's high, no question... far more than I want to pay at the pump. But let's consider for a moment more...
With the increased price of gasoline in the past, we have seen a contraction in the national economy... but it has never NOT been strictly temporary and quickly adjusted for, relatively speaking. Furthermore, with increased gas prices, we have typically seen a reduction in crude oil demands in the US (also temporary in nature, but measurable).
If this oil tariff were to become reality (and a tariff it would be), two important factor would come into play that we have NOT seen with past increases in gasoline prices: increased demand for domestic sources of oil and increased viability of such sources as profitable resources. When the global price of a barrel of crude alone dictated the cost of domestic production, it couldn't compete with what the rest of the world was selling oil for... domestic production wasn't instantly profitable, thus it wasn't a course oil companies were willing to follow. Who can blame them for not wanting to throw away money on the very real chance that global crude prices would fall of their own accord before the first NEW domestic well pumped its first barrel of oil? With an artificially inflated oil price, coupled with vast new sources of instantly-available revenue, real progress could be made to substantially increase our domestic energy production.
I would also propose that by implementing such a tariff, we would lower our demand for foreign oil, initially because of the higher price, but in a more long term sense through the reduced need of supplemental sources outside of our own production. This shortage in global demand would require that foreign sources reduce their price per barrel to maintain current or projected revenue levels, which eases the burden (relatively speaking) on the American consumer.
Now, given what I have said here, I need to clarify something: I am NOT advocating a new tax simply for the purpose of giving the Feds more dollars to spend. However, imagine what could happen if this tariff-generated revenue were bound by law to be applied ONLY to increasing our own domestic ability to produce energy AND/OR reducing the Federal deficit. That is a cool $40 BILLION every single year that is going exclusively towards solid, long-term investment in America's future ability to remain economically sound and safe no matter what the global environment dictates. By my estimations, even with what Obama has already carved into stone here in the US, we would see a balanced budget (obviously depending on how much we spent on domestic energy production year-to-year) well before the end of THIS decade.
This is a purely intellectual exercise, I understand. Our current administration would never allow that much revenue to be that limited in how it can be spent, although it would JUMP at the chance to implement that kind of revenue-generating tax, I'm sure. My question is simply this:
What are the down-sides to a tariff such as the one I describe above, given that all my requirements are met (limiting spending to energy production/deficit relief, etc.)? Are the short-term costs in increased consumer costs (say a 10% increase in the average cost of gasoline) enough to negate the long-term benefits? Have I missed something in my musings that makes the whole idea worthless? Is this the sort of tariff/tax that a conservative agenda can support, given that it will reduce the need for future tax costs by reducing the deficit and/or limiting our risk of foreign pricing impacting our economy negatively?
I am really looking for input here... please don't dismiss this out-of-hand.
Here is a classic example...
This is the sort of article that shows the world exactly by what light the Catholic Church is seen in our modern era.
To imagine that the highest authorities in the British Foreign Service, and all of Whitehall itself, would circulate such a document (even in jest) knowing the state of the world's view of the Church and the Pope is staggering, but to know it is fact is almost heartbreaking.
This sort of juvenile, bigoted humor could be expected from a modern newspaper... or even a Third World government lackey... but from "senior officials" within the Government of the United Kingdom? It is nauseating. It is inexcusable.
Want to know what is REALLY upsetting? This would NEVER have happened if the upcoming trip being planned had been a senior Muslim cleric, or an ancient Rabbi from Eastern Europe who had somehow survived the Holocaust, or even if the subject of the memo had been the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams (who agrees with the Pope on many of the same issues that the memo mocked). Even if it had happened in one of these manners, those responsible wouldn't have been "reassigned" to other duties... they'd have been fired immediately. The public outcry would have shaken the halls of British government from one end of the kingdom to the other.
But, it was Benedict that they were mocking... no one else. There will be no public outcry, no masses taking to the streets crying out for justice, no boycotts, no one will be dismissed. This kind of bigotry is a direct reflection on the faith and belief of 1.1 billion people across the globe (that's more than 20% of every man, woman and child living today)... but the story will be forgotten tomorrow.
How much do you want to bet that people like Salman Rushdie or the cartoonists from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have passionately wished they had picked on the Pope rather than Mohammad, just for the sake of their family's safety?
To imagine that the highest authorities in the British Foreign Service, and all of Whitehall itself, would circulate such a document (even in jest) knowing the state of the world's view of the Church and the Pope is staggering, but to know it is fact is almost heartbreaking.
This sort of juvenile, bigoted humor could be expected from a modern newspaper... or even a Third World government lackey... but from "senior officials" within the Government of the United Kingdom? It is nauseating. It is inexcusable.
Want to know what is REALLY upsetting? This would NEVER have happened if the upcoming trip being planned had been a senior Muslim cleric, or an ancient Rabbi from Eastern Europe who had somehow survived the Holocaust, or even if the subject of the memo had been the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams (who agrees with the Pope on many of the same issues that the memo mocked). Even if it had happened in one of these manners, those responsible wouldn't have been "reassigned" to other duties... they'd have been fired immediately. The public outcry would have shaken the halls of British government from one end of the kingdom to the other.
But, it was Benedict that they were mocking... no one else. There will be no public outcry, no masses taking to the streets crying out for justice, no boycotts, no one will be dismissed. This kind of bigotry is a direct reflection on the faith and belief of 1.1 billion people across the globe (that's more than 20% of every man, woman and child living today)... but the story will be forgotten tomorrow.
How much do you want to bet that people like Salman Rushdie or the cartoonists from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have passionately wished they had picked on the Pope rather than Mohammad, just for the sake of their family's safety?
My pithy response...
Honestly, man... your last post is too good to even allow me to poke jabs. You've got two great boys there, and you are doing a great job raising them by yourself. Those two are going to make you proud, and I am confident that they are damn proud of you, too.
You and the boys haven't had it easy, no question... but you never let the hard times get in the way of what was really important, no matter how hard the times got. These boys have seen the end of their parents marriage and all the confusion and tension that comes with that, a devastating hurricane, a move to a far distant land very different from what they knew and far away from family and friends... but they still know what is important: family. Their idea of a big night is "movie night" with Dad, or "game night" with Dad, or a trip to a book signing with Dad (that still makes me giggle).
For those that don't know, Ryan hates the casino business. As someone who was once responsible for assigning Ryan his place on the casino floor routinely, I can tell you that Ryan has a very narrow and specific "comfort zone" when it comes to working the casino schedule, and any deviation from that zone means Ryan is an unhappy camper. More importantly, though, I think Ryan has always resented how "trapped" one can feel in the business. Dealing in a casino is a career that requires skill, and that skill can foster and nurture a sense of personal pride that is very real and typically well deserved for really, really good dealers... but that pride can only give an intelligent person with a lot of imagination and vision so much satisfaction before the rigours of the "front line" customer-care duties begin to wear it down. Ryan's were worn to nearly nothing long ago, believe me.
Still, Ryan continues to work the floor. Not because he is a slave to the "almighty dollar"... which admittedly does flow with great volume and regularity in our business, especially in one of the premier jobs like Ryan has... but because it provides the boys with a lifestyle and a comfort-zone of their own that Ryan feels is at least adequate, while still providing him with enough "at home" time to appreciate his own hard-work and effort in watching his boys live their lives.
You can piss and moan all you want, my friend... but you're doing a good job raising those boys. I might pick on you for not posting (or for posting even...), but in the end if the reason you can't post is because you're wrapped up in those young men of yours, then I'll wait for your dribble to be posted when you have time.
That being said, I want to make sure Jambo isn't feeling left out here. He, too, is doing a damn fine job raising his kids, and I won't criticize him for posting infrequently either. At least, not seriously.
So, now that my maudlin moment is passed, I'm going to go back to ignoring the pleas and cries from my own children and wife while I surf the web for hours waiting for my unemployment check to arrive in the mail so I can spend it on smokes, beer and Doritos in preparation for another Netflix movie night all by myself.
You and the boys haven't had it easy, no question... but you never let the hard times get in the way of what was really important, no matter how hard the times got. These boys have seen the end of their parents marriage and all the confusion and tension that comes with that, a devastating hurricane, a move to a far distant land very different from what they knew and far away from family and friends... but they still know what is important: family. Their idea of a big night is "movie night" with Dad, or "game night" with Dad, or a trip to a book signing with Dad (that still makes me giggle).
For those that don't know, Ryan hates the casino business. As someone who was once responsible for assigning Ryan his place on the casino floor routinely, I can tell you that Ryan has a very narrow and specific "comfort zone" when it comes to working the casino schedule, and any deviation from that zone means Ryan is an unhappy camper. More importantly, though, I think Ryan has always resented how "trapped" one can feel in the business. Dealing in a casino is a career that requires skill, and that skill can foster and nurture a sense of personal pride that is very real and typically well deserved for really, really good dealers... but that pride can only give an intelligent person with a lot of imagination and vision so much satisfaction before the rigours of the "front line" customer-care duties begin to wear it down. Ryan's were worn to nearly nothing long ago, believe me.
Still, Ryan continues to work the floor. Not because he is a slave to the "almighty dollar"... which admittedly does flow with great volume and regularity in our business, especially in one of the premier jobs like Ryan has... but because it provides the boys with a lifestyle and a comfort-zone of their own that Ryan feels is at least adequate, while still providing him with enough "at home" time to appreciate his own hard-work and effort in watching his boys live their lives.
You can piss and moan all you want, my friend... but you're doing a good job raising those boys. I might pick on you for not posting (or for posting even...), but in the end if the reason you can't post is because you're wrapped up in those young men of yours, then I'll wait for your dribble to be posted when you have time.
That being said, I want to make sure Jambo isn't feeling left out here. He, too, is doing a damn fine job raising his kids, and I won't criticize him for posting infrequently either. At least, not seriously.
So, now that my maudlin moment is passed, I'm going to go back to ignoring the pleas and cries from my own children and wife while I surf the web for hours waiting for my unemployment check to arrive in the mail so I can spend it on smokes, beer and Doritos in preparation for another Netflix movie night all by myself.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
By the by ...
I was kidding of course about being with sorted women. Just feeding the Vegas stereotype for a cheap laugh.
Truth be told, I haven't gone on a date in the 8 months since the break up. Not pining for my ex (outside of that occasional backslide into old habits with her - which ended months ago), I just haven't had the occasion. Each of my nights off I (happily) have my sons, and I guess I just didn't want to be "that guy." Ok boys, I know you expected to have fun with Dad tonight, but hurry and finish your homework, Daddy has a hot date tonight, off to the sitter." It seems so slimy. And I don't want to make another mistake in my choice in women. And unlike my ex I don't feel this impending "need" to be with somebody all the time. I kinda like me, I like the time I have with my sons, and introducing another person into that scenario will have to happen naturally, so as not to disrupt it. Thus, no dates as of yet ...
Truth be told, I haven't gone on a date in the 8 months since the break up. Not pining for my ex (outside of that occasional backslide into old habits with her - which ended months ago), I just haven't had the occasion. Each of my nights off I (happily) have my sons, and I guess I just didn't want to be "that guy." Ok boys, I know you expected to have fun with Dad tonight, but hurry and finish your homework, Daddy has a hot date tonight, off to the sitter." It seems so slimy. And I don't want to make another mistake in my choice in women. And unlike my ex I don't feel this impending "need" to be with somebody all the time. I kinda like me, I like the time I have with my sons, and introducing another person into that scenario will have to happen naturally, so as not to disrupt it. Thus, no dates as of yet ...
Forgive me Father, for I have not posted ...
... it's been 24 days since my last post. And in that time, rather than attend to my duties here, I have instead ...
- watched a documentary upon return from my vacation to unwind.
- twice kept company with a woman of questionable moral fiber (her pasties and gross of prophylactics should have been a red flag).
- no less than three times slayed the Huns on XBox 360's Call To Duty, with my son of course.
- and on at least four different occasions forced myself to attend the gym, but for reasons of vanity, not health, I assure you.
Aaaahh, sipping the sweet nectar of an unburdened conscience ... that's better.
Now, where shall we begin?
Let us start with this: God bless Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Today she signed into law the most sweeping anti illegal immigration bill in the nation. Now being historically aware, as I am, the idea of uniformed officers asking, "show me your papers", conjures up unpleasant images to say the least (especially when done with a German or Russian accent). But, lets consider the plight of Arizona, shall we?
They are facing a $3 Billion dollar budget short fall. The effects of illegal immigration cost the state an estimated $800 million to $1.5 billion ... annually. The emergency rooms of border town hospitals are over run. Health costs to the state are exploding. Mexican drug cartels routinely cross over in order to carry out "hits" on targets. Gun battles have erupted within Arizona nightclubs, foreign nationals being the chief gunmen among them. In one case severed heads were rolled into a bar to serve as a warning to certain rivals within the establishment. A third of all federal crime is committed by aliens with an illegal status. Both federal Senators McCain and Kyle have been requesting for over a year now that the President assign 3000 US troops along the Arizona border. Ranchers are being overrun and intimidated by gangs that threaten death if not allowed to pass. Kidnappings of US citizens for ransom has grown - in short it is an absolute disaster. The new Arizona law, supported by 70% of Arizona residents (and I have to believe that number represents an awful lot of Arizonan Latinos), is a direct result of a catastrophic federal policy from G.W. Bush to Barak Obama. I name them specifically for the situation has grown especially acute in recent years. Border states have been clamoring, screaming, pleading that federally mandated fences be built, and federal law enforced. All of which has fallen on deaf ears. So what was Arizona to do? Do they not have a sovereign right, nay duty, to protect themselves and manage their own state border?
What I find particularly disturbing, if not predictable, is that upon Googling, or picking up a paper, one finds the following headlines: "Arizona Enacts Tough New Immigration Law." Does any one else see a problem in this? Whether it is that headline or the argument that immigration is solely the purview of the federal government, it all misses a vital point. This is NOT a law regarding, regulating nor establishing any action on IMMIGRATION. "Immigration" is the lawful relocation of a foreign national. This is a law to deal with what is already a crime in Arizona and throughout the nation - ILLEGAL entry into the US. The following is a link to the pdf version of the new law, and the text which is at its' heart:
Senate Bill 1070 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
D. NOT WITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
Now the president's reaction was predictable. He referred to the law as "misguided." However, he got something very right, "This is a result of the inability of Washington to act on the federal level." What Gauls me (my tribute pun to Crixus) is what followed. Did he order his Justice Department to go after employers of illegals? No. Did he request a doubling of the INS budget? No. Did he direct the FBI to make a poignant investigation into border cartels? Grant the Senators Kyle and McCain the 3,000 troops? Expedite the real and virtual fence building process? No, no and no. What he did was publicly announce that he has directed the D.O.J to monitor and investigate any instances of Civil Rights violation by Arizona law enforcement as a result of this new law. Now lets set aside how disgusting, in my view, a reaction that is from the federal government and the CiC in particular, and focus on a separate paradigm that occurred to me as the president spoke these words. Within Senate Bill 1070 there is an explicit provision that allows (if not encourages) any private citizen to sue an officer or department as a whole for NOT enforcing this law. Does that not speak to how serious the problem is in border states? Now consider that you are a patrolman, getting up at 5a.m., slapping on your badge and side arm. On the one hand the D.O.J may sue and go after your job if you enforce the law "too vigorously." And on the other any of the state's millions of legal residents may sue, and go after your job, if you do not pursue it vigorously enough! This is untenable. And this cluster f*** is a direct result of the absolute failure of the federal government to fulfill their sworn duty.
Put plainly, this is a reasonable and responsible act. What else are they to do? I ask sincerely? And as I watch these protests from a small percentage of the 30% that oppose the law I ask myself if these individuals even realize that they aren't "pro-immigrant" in this opposition at all, but rather "pro-crime?" And that's what it comes down to - the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And as long as it is illegal to enter the US without proper documentation, the states that encompass those ports of entry have a right to enforce that law on their own behalf.
****
Lt. Winters and Navy SEALS ...
You may remember some time back that employees of the Blackwater Security Group were captured by terrorist insurgents and strung up, naked and mutilated, on a bridge in Iraq. Our military leaders subsequently sent an elite team of Navy SEALS (that's a redundancy if I ever wrote one, SEALS are by definition "elite"), to recover the mastermind behind the heinous act. SEALS are good at what they do, to put it mildly, and they caught the guy. Sometime later 3 of the SEALS were called into their CO's office and informed that a "black mark" would appear on their record for maltreatment of a prisoner in their custody - namely punching the guy in the stomach & giving him a fat lip. They refused, TO THE MAN, to accept the mark and insisted on a Courts Martial (that would be "Marshall" for you B.o.B fans out there, hehe). Today marks the second of the SEALS to be acquitted on all charges. The third is forthcoming.
I must say, the first 2 were not only acquitted, but in rapid fashion. Which leads me to believe that the military brass should have never brought these charges. They should have never (admittedly I posit this as an outsider) insisted on a reprimand in my estimation. This man wasn't mutilated, tortured, it wasn't even an Abu Grab style debasement. The guy got a fat lip, literally. Given the lethality prowess of a SEAL, I'd say that terrorist should be thanking his lucky stars he got away with only that. And I do believe that setting this precedent - you can be hung out to dry over giving a real hangmen a fat lip, will cause undo hesitation by soldiers in combat, and cost American lives. It was a bad move, and one that on the face of it was instigated by PR & PC concerns rather than a need to instill discipline and enforce military codes of behavior.
****
The Castle Doctrine. Obviously I fully support the Mississippi version. Ironically it is the capital of England which has wholly abandoned this founding principle of Western civilization. Private use handguns are illegal, and there is at least one case in which a farmer fired upon intruders into his barn, which he was occupying, and the farmer was convicted of unlawful discharge of his hunting rifle. And this from the nation whom made "Castles" famous throughout Western history and literature.
And while on England ... I viewed the first half of the PM debate, which was billed as the only second ever televised PM debate (I assume its because they elect a "Party" to power, versus an individual so such a debate in the past would have seemed presumptuous if not unnecessary).
They have The left of center Labour, the VERY left Social Democrats, and the "conservative" Party. Albeit their version of conservative is more akin to our moderate Republicans. They debated the obvious issues, terror, sovereignty of the UK versus control form Brussels via the EU. And 2 things struck me. 1.) Gordon Brown & the SD candidate both exclaimed how vital it was to remain in the EU so they could, "Punch above their wait", economically and in terms of foreign affairs. And I thought to myself, Dear Lord, your realm once consisted of nearly the entire known world and now you tremble at the though of not being in league, literally, with France & Germany. 2.) They truly are a Godless bunch. The SD candidate openly admitted. "he is no man of faith", and hastened to add, "but my wife is Catholic and so are my children." Any one else see an inherent flaw with the man's household? But all three, including the "conservative" candidate, when asked about a Papal visit, were quick to point out where they disagree with the Church. Homosexuality and abortion being chief among them. Then went a step further, and again this from the Conservative's candidate for PM, that they, "disagree with the Church on science. I think we need to pursue science." That was it! Not the science of stem cell research, etc. No specifics, just "science." Yes, you're right England. The Pope has the Swiss Guard poised to seize any Brit with a telescope pointed towards the Heavans, and a steaming cup of Hemlock awaits you at the Vatican. Fancy the rack? Sheeeeeesh ...
****
Kudos on having the NY Times echo your thoughts only days later. But I assumed you were brighter than the lot of them even before, so in response I'll just give you my favorite Lombardi quote, one I have plastered just to the right of my computer screen: "The dictionary is the only place where SUCCESS comes before WORK."
****
Fantastic statistics recited Titus. I make mention of course of your numbers on sexual abuse within the public school system versus that of the Catholic Church. We all know why the Church's sins are promoted while the public school's are not - the abuse scandal fits the template of those opposed ideologically, socially, and psychologically in ways too numerous to examine in a single post. And let me add, the Catholic sex abuse scandal percentages includes not just catholic Schools, but the entire scope of the Church. The public numbers that already dwarf those of the Church's that you cited are solely within the public school system. Were we to broaden the numbers to include EVERY facet of government bureaucracy and institution they would be staggering.
But take solace in this my friend ... no one is on a waiting list to place their child in a public school.
****
The Wikileak footage ... I saw this. Of course I knew right away, as you did, what the press would do with it. Watching that small black and white screen, the AK clad hands of some of the men on the ground, combined with the fact that insurgents do not wear uniforms and the fact that this action was taken in the midst of an offensive, within a reasonable geographical point of the fighting and you quickly realize just how tough the job is of our fighting men (and women). I can only imagine if we had footage of Normandy, or pick you WWII battle, what the reaction would have been, or say the bombing of Berlin to bring a civilian component into it. It's unfortunate ... but so is war.
****
On the diet ... I hesitate to add this, given a no wine memorandum has been issued to your household. I have done extensive research into alcohol as it relates to health. As you mentioned, my Gold's Gym membership is one that gets its' mileage. It is undeniable that spirits such as vodka are considered low/no carb drinks; however, in terms of weight loss, it is near impossible to include them in your diet. The body burns fat when there is a caloric deficit. And or when there is a carbohydrate deficit. Your body burns its' stored amounts when it is denied either of these, burns them as fuel. Unfortunately once alcohol is introduced into the system it is burned as fuel prior to any fat storage. So while you wont technically "gain" weight from the alcohol itself, because it is acts as a fuel source, it will prevent your body from accessing stored sources until the alcohol is depleted. In other words, you're making it that much harder on yourself if alcohol is part of your diet. Not to mention, the average beer is between 100-150 calories depending on your preference (and I assure you Guinness is on the higher end of that scale). And given we (as a society) typically drink at night, the mere act of killing off a 6 pack means an additional 600-900 calories just before bed, with no chance of burning them off. This is a diet killer. So I suppose you could drink in the morning, but a better resolution would be to avoid alcohol all together until you hit your target weight, as unpalatable (literally & figuratively) as that option may seem.
****
NPR & pre-Revolution taxes ... you basically made the point that was unable to via text. The NPR pundits were snickering as if they had found a way to prove the Founders & their fellow revolters weren't as clever as they thought, stating that taxes were higher post versus pre Revolution. This of course skated right by the fact that "taxation without representation" was the cry, not simply "taxation." As I said in the text, only an NPR pundit could mine "wisdom" from such a technical truth on taxation levels.
Now let me say this about NPR. They had a program produced by Independent Minds: The War in The Pacific. I would urge you to find this online and listen. It is co produced by HBO to highlight their series, The Pacific, but being an audio presentation it is ripe with interviews with the surviving main characters (of the series) and detailed bios on how each met their heroic fate or handled post war life. I rip them continuously, but in this NPR production there is but one excerpt from Hanks, one from Spielberg, and the rest is either the men themselves, or period news excerpts. Good stuff. The picture painted by Eldridge of prying gold teeth from dead Japanese and flicking pebbles into a half intact skull will grab your attention to say the least. My favorite line of his was: "My biggest adjustment post war was getting used to hearing people complain about trivial things. I would think to myself, hell, what are you so worried about? You can go put on dry socks whenever you want!"
****
Your thoughts on Confederate History Month ... I must say, I went into this post expecting full well to leap out of my chair in objection (mostly I admit because your text message on the post read as follows: "This is a biggie."). Having said that I confess it was a well thought out, well put position. I knew this about Lincoln from various sources, (such as a book entitled: "Presidential Ambition"), so I understood him not to be a "saint" on the issue of race. But your post was able to weave both sides, with an historically accurate tone, minus ambiguity and platitudes. Well done.
****
On Claire's medals ...
A very sweet account. I had much the same instance in 2 years of coaching my son. I was a less than average athlete at football, quite a bit better at basketball, but excelled and won my various trophies, medals & mvp awards at soccer (I even made the high school team in 8th grade - not too shabby). But soccer isn't where the glory is, not in the States. So when my son tried out for football I crossed my fingers, and said a Hail Mary (couldn't resist). It turns out he wasn't that bad. And with practice, over 2 years, became a team leader. In his championship game this year he scored a touchdown. As coach I was ecstatic, it gave us the lead going into the half. But as a father, I could barely muster a word as he ran off the field high fiving his teammates. So I simply high fived him as well, announcing. "hell yeah!" To be honest I was afraid he'd spot a bit of very real of wetness in my eye - my boy had scored a touchdown in the "big game." And at that moment it was the only thing going on in the world, nothing else existed. It meant more to me than I could possibly express.
****
The volcano. First, kudos on actually writing that name out. Outside of that we must come to accept that global warming fanatics or no different than any other religious cult. They draw conclusions in spite of facts, not because of them. And we must continually expose that - it will be their downfall.
****
Spartacus: Blood and Sand ... a season in review.
This is the without question the best thing on television (leaving room for The Pacific, which I have not seen fully). They have done so much with so little. STARZ isn't a mega network like an HBO, or Cinemax or even Showtime, so I can only assume their budget reflects that. But their close quarter camera angles, sprinkled with just a hint of CGI when prudent, gives this program a very intimate feel. As a viewer, when proper Romans enter the House of Baatiatus, you feel as if you know that den of wolves better than the newly arrived guest of the time period. The battle scenes are spectacular to be sure, but the only thing more well defined than the gladiator's pecs and the slave women's bosoms are the character's personalities. And that's the secret to the program, its writing. When a secret or event is revealed one can not wait until Crixus, or Spartacus or Doctore finds out. Each episode was better then the last, each new week became my instant "favorite." The season finale was spectacular as I found myself in danger of waking my sleeping off spring as I shouted, "D-A-M-N!", at nearly every kill stroke. At this point my only concern is that Netflix users will become a victim of the show's success. Spartacus is breathing rarified air in that it alone could cause a consumer to purchase the Starz network in its' entirety just to view one show. Joining such hits as the Sopranos, B.o.B and The Pacific. It was sharp of the Starz execuitive to stream instantly new espisodes (and a full day before they aired) in order to spread the popularity of their new darling. But now I fear we will be purchasing Starz come season 2. But that's fine, their success is well deserved.
You were wrong about one thing though Titus, it was more than Illithia whom survived (although yes, you're technically correct in that she's the only "Roman" whom survived). Let us not forget Asher ... that forked tounge devil managed to slither his way out, literally, under a dead Centurion, and will surely rasie his head once again. But this time Doctore will succeed in lopping it off! Like I said, I love this series.
And by the way, I have been for a year now (roughly) been watching/streaming movies instantly from Netflix via my son's Xbox 360 (Spartacus chief among the viewings). It is phenomenal technology, as Titus noted, and the future of move rentals if you ask me. And here's a bonus nugget of information - if Titus has less than 5 devices linked to his Netflix account, he can include Jambo (with his Xbox), free of charge. I use my sister's account at present.
***
Speaking of my sister .... we traveled to the coast for an afternoon and were treated to cold beer, and deliscious hot steaks (and a great salad) at Casa de Jambo. Thanks for the hospitality brother! As we noted, next time we'll make it a multi day event. The overall trip to Mississippi was fantastic. On the first day I woke up to the sound of roosters crowing and shotgun rounds friring, and thought to myself ... yep, I'm home. As I am here, at the Bund.
- watched a documentary upon return from my vacation to unwind.
- twice kept company with a woman of questionable moral fiber (her pasties and gross of prophylactics should have been a red flag).
- no less than three times slayed the Huns on XBox 360's Call To Duty, with my son of course.
- and on at least four different occasions forced myself to attend the gym, but for reasons of vanity, not health, I assure you.
Aaaahh, sipping the sweet nectar of an unburdened conscience ... that's better.
Now, where shall we begin?
Let us start with this: God bless Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Today she signed into law the most sweeping anti illegal immigration bill in the nation. Now being historically aware, as I am, the idea of uniformed officers asking, "show me your papers", conjures up unpleasant images to say the least (especially when done with a German or Russian accent). But, lets consider the plight of Arizona, shall we?
They are facing a $3 Billion dollar budget short fall. The effects of illegal immigration cost the state an estimated $800 million to $1.5 billion ... annually. The emergency rooms of border town hospitals are over run. Health costs to the state are exploding. Mexican drug cartels routinely cross over in order to carry out "hits" on targets. Gun battles have erupted within Arizona nightclubs, foreign nationals being the chief gunmen among them. In one case severed heads were rolled into a bar to serve as a warning to certain rivals within the establishment. A third of all federal crime is committed by aliens with an illegal status. Both federal Senators McCain and Kyle have been requesting for over a year now that the President assign 3000 US troops along the Arizona border. Ranchers are being overrun and intimidated by gangs that threaten death if not allowed to pass. Kidnappings of US citizens for ransom has grown - in short it is an absolute disaster. The new Arizona law, supported by 70% of Arizona residents (and I have to believe that number represents an awful lot of Arizonan Latinos), is a direct result of a catastrophic federal policy from G.W. Bush to Barak Obama. I name them specifically for the situation has grown especially acute in recent years. Border states have been clamoring, screaming, pleading that federally mandated fences be built, and federal law enforced. All of which has fallen on deaf ears. So what was Arizona to do? Do they not have a sovereign right, nay duty, to protect themselves and manage their own state border?
What I find particularly disturbing, if not predictable, is that upon Googling, or picking up a paper, one finds the following headlines: "Arizona Enacts Tough New Immigration Law." Does any one else see a problem in this? Whether it is that headline or the argument that immigration is solely the purview of the federal government, it all misses a vital point. This is NOT a law regarding, regulating nor establishing any action on IMMIGRATION. "Immigration" is the lawful relocation of a foreign national. This is a law to deal with what is already a crime in Arizona and throughout the nation - ILLEGAL entry into the US. The following is a link to the pdf version of the new law, and the text which is at its' heart:
Senate Bill 1070 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
D. NOT WITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
Now the president's reaction was predictable. He referred to the law as "misguided." However, he got something very right, "This is a result of the inability of Washington to act on the federal level." What Gauls me (my tribute pun to Crixus) is what followed. Did he order his Justice Department to go after employers of illegals? No. Did he request a doubling of the INS budget? No. Did he direct the FBI to make a poignant investigation into border cartels? Grant the Senators Kyle and McCain the 3,000 troops? Expedite the real and virtual fence building process? No, no and no. What he did was publicly announce that he has directed the D.O.J to monitor and investigate any instances of Civil Rights violation by Arizona law enforcement as a result of this new law. Now lets set aside how disgusting, in my view, a reaction that is from the federal government and the CiC in particular, and focus on a separate paradigm that occurred to me as the president spoke these words. Within Senate Bill 1070 there is an explicit provision that allows (if not encourages) any private citizen to sue an officer or department as a whole for NOT enforcing this law. Does that not speak to how serious the problem is in border states? Now consider that you are a patrolman, getting up at 5a.m., slapping on your badge and side arm. On the one hand the D.O.J may sue and go after your job if you enforce the law "too vigorously." And on the other any of the state's millions of legal residents may sue, and go after your job, if you do not pursue it vigorously enough! This is untenable. And this cluster f*** is a direct result of the absolute failure of the federal government to fulfill their sworn duty.
Put plainly, this is a reasonable and responsible act. What else are they to do? I ask sincerely? And as I watch these protests from a small percentage of the 30% that oppose the law I ask myself if these individuals even realize that they aren't "pro-immigrant" in this opposition at all, but rather "pro-crime?" And that's what it comes down to - the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And as long as it is illegal to enter the US without proper documentation, the states that encompass those ports of entry have a right to enforce that law on their own behalf.
****
Lt. Winters and Navy SEALS ...
You may remember some time back that employees of the Blackwater Security Group were captured by terrorist insurgents and strung up, naked and mutilated, on a bridge in Iraq. Our military leaders subsequently sent an elite team of Navy SEALS (that's a redundancy if I ever wrote one, SEALS are by definition "elite"), to recover the mastermind behind the heinous act. SEALS are good at what they do, to put it mildly, and they caught the guy. Sometime later 3 of the SEALS were called into their CO's office and informed that a "black mark" would appear on their record for maltreatment of a prisoner in their custody - namely punching the guy in the stomach & giving him a fat lip. They refused, TO THE MAN, to accept the mark and insisted on a Courts Martial (that would be "Marshall" for you B.o.B fans out there, hehe). Today marks the second of the SEALS to be acquitted on all charges. The third is forthcoming.
I must say, the first 2 were not only acquitted, but in rapid fashion. Which leads me to believe that the military brass should have never brought these charges. They should have never (admittedly I posit this as an outsider) insisted on a reprimand in my estimation. This man wasn't mutilated, tortured, it wasn't even an Abu Grab style debasement. The guy got a fat lip, literally. Given the lethality prowess of a SEAL, I'd say that terrorist should be thanking his lucky stars he got away with only that. And I do believe that setting this precedent - you can be hung out to dry over giving a real hangmen a fat lip, will cause undo hesitation by soldiers in combat, and cost American lives. It was a bad move, and one that on the face of it was instigated by PR & PC concerns rather than a need to instill discipline and enforce military codes of behavior.
****
The Castle Doctrine. Obviously I fully support the Mississippi version. Ironically it is the capital of England which has wholly abandoned this founding principle of Western civilization. Private use handguns are illegal, and there is at least one case in which a farmer fired upon intruders into his barn, which he was occupying, and the farmer was convicted of unlawful discharge of his hunting rifle. And this from the nation whom made "Castles" famous throughout Western history and literature.
And while on England ... I viewed the first half of the PM debate, which was billed as the only second ever televised PM debate (I assume its because they elect a "Party" to power, versus an individual so such a debate in the past would have seemed presumptuous if not unnecessary).
They have The left of center Labour, the VERY left Social Democrats, and the "conservative" Party. Albeit their version of conservative is more akin to our moderate Republicans. They debated the obvious issues, terror, sovereignty of the UK versus control form Brussels via the EU. And 2 things struck me. 1.) Gordon Brown & the SD candidate both exclaimed how vital it was to remain in the EU so they could, "Punch above their wait", economically and in terms of foreign affairs. And I thought to myself, Dear Lord, your realm once consisted of nearly the entire known world and now you tremble at the though of not being in league, literally, with France & Germany. 2.) They truly are a Godless bunch. The SD candidate openly admitted. "he is no man of faith", and hastened to add, "but my wife is Catholic and so are my children." Any one else see an inherent flaw with the man's household? But all three, including the "conservative" candidate, when asked about a Papal visit, were quick to point out where they disagree with the Church. Homosexuality and abortion being chief among them. Then went a step further, and again this from the Conservative's candidate for PM, that they, "disagree with the Church on science. I think we need to pursue science." That was it! Not the science of stem cell research, etc. No specifics, just "science." Yes, you're right England. The Pope has the Swiss Guard poised to seize any Brit with a telescope pointed towards the Heavans, and a steaming cup of Hemlock awaits you at the Vatican. Fancy the rack? Sheeeeeesh ...
****
Kudos on having the NY Times echo your thoughts only days later. But I assumed you were brighter than the lot of them even before, so in response I'll just give you my favorite Lombardi quote, one I have plastered just to the right of my computer screen: "The dictionary is the only place where SUCCESS comes before WORK."
****
Fantastic statistics recited Titus. I make mention of course of your numbers on sexual abuse within the public school system versus that of the Catholic Church. We all know why the Church's sins are promoted while the public school's are not - the abuse scandal fits the template of those opposed ideologically, socially, and psychologically in ways too numerous to examine in a single post. And let me add, the Catholic sex abuse scandal percentages includes not just catholic Schools, but the entire scope of the Church. The public numbers that already dwarf those of the Church's that you cited are solely within the public school system. Were we to broaden the numbers to include EVERY facet of government bureaucracy and institution they would be staggering.
But take solace in this my friend ... no one is on a waiting list to place their child in a public school.
****
The Wikileak footage ... I saw this. Of course I knew right away, as you did, what the press would do with it. Watching that small black and white screen, the AK clad hands of some of the men on the ground, combined with the fact that insurgents do not wear uniforms and the fact that this action was taken in the midst of an offensive, within a reasonable geographical point of the fighting and you quickly realize just how tough the job is of our fighting men (and women). I can only imagine if we had footage of Normandy, or pick you WWII battle, what the reaction would have been, or say the bombing of Berlin to bring a civilian component into it. It's unfortunate ... but so is war.
****
On the diet ... I hesitate to add this, given a no wine memorandum has been issued to your household. I have done extensive research into alcohol as it relates to health. As you mentioned, my Gold's Gym membership is one that gets its' mileage. It is undeniable that spirits such as vodka are considered low/no carb drinks; however, in terms of weight loss, it is near impossible to include them in your diet. The body burns fat when there is a caloric deficit. And or when there is a carbohydrate deficit. Your body burns its' stored amounts when it is denied either of these, burns them as fuel. Unfortunately once alcohol is introduced into the system it is burned as fuel prior to any fat storage. So while you wont technically "gain" weight from the alcohol itself, because it is acts as a fuel source, it will prevent your body from accessing stored sources until the alcohol is depleted. In other words, you're making it that much harder on yourself if alcohol is part of your diet. Not to mention, the average beer is between 100-150 calories depending on your preference (and I assure you Guinness is on the higher end of that scale). And given we (as a society) typically drink at night, the mere act of killing off a 6 pack means an additional 600-900 calories just before bed, with no chance of burning them off. This is a diet killer. So I suppose you could drink in the morning, but a better resolution would be to avoid alcohol all together until you hit your target weight, as unpalatable (literally & figuratively) as that option may seem.
****
NPR & pre-Revolution taxes ... you basically made the point that was unable to via text. The NPR pundits were snickering as if they had found a way to prove the Founders & their fellow revolters weren't as clever as they thought, stating that taxes were higher post versus pre Revolution. This of course skated right by the fact that "taxation without representation" was the cry, not simply "taxation." As I said in the text, only an NPR pundit could mine "wisdom" from such a technical truth on taxation levels.
Now let me say this about NPR. They had a program produced by Independent Minds: The War in The Pacific. I would urge you to find this online and listen. It is co produced by HBO to highlight their series, The Pacific, but being an audio presentation it is ripe with interviews with the surviving main characters (of the series) and detailed bios on how each met their heroic fate or handled post war life. I rip them continuously, but in this NPR production there is but one excerpt from Hanks, one from Spielberg, and the rest is either the men themselves, or period news excerpts. Good stuff. The picture painted by Eldridge of prying gold teeth from dead Japanese and flicking pebbles into a half intact skull will grab your attention to say the least. My favorite line of his was: "My biggest adjustment post war was getting used to hearing people complain about trivial things. I would think to myself, hell, what are you so worried about? You can go put on dry socks whenever you want!"
****
Your thoughts on Confederate History Month ... I must say, I went into this post expecting full well to leap out of my chair in objection (mostly I admit because your text message on the post read as follows: "This is a biggie."). Having said that I confess it was a well thought out, well put position. I knew this about Lincoln from various sources, (such as a book entitled: "Presidential Ambition"), so I understood him not to be a "saint" on the issue of race. But your post was able to weave both sides, with an historically accurate tone, minus ambiguity and platitudes. Well done.
****
On Claire's medals ...
A very sweet account. I had much the same instance in 2 years of coaching my son. I was a less than average athlete at football, quite a bit better at basketball, but excelled and won my various trophies, medals & mvp awards at soccer (I even made the high school team in 8th grade - not too shabby). But soccer isn't where the glory is, not in the States. So when my son tried out for football I crossed my fingers, and said a Hail Mary (couldn't resist). It turns out he wasn't that bad. And with practice, over 2 years, became a team leader. In his championship game this year he scored a touchdown. As coach I was ecstatic, it gave us the lead going into the half. But as a father, I could barely muster a word as he ran off the field high fiving his teammates. So I simply high fived him as well, announcing. "hell yeah!" To be honest I was afraid he'd spot a bit of very real of wetness in my eye - my boy had scored a touchdown in the "big game." And at that moment it was the only thing going on in the world, nothing else existed. It meant more to me than I could possibly express.
****
The volcano. First, kudos on actually writing that name out. Outside of that we must come to accept that global warming fanatics or no different than any other religious cult. They draw conclusions in spite of facts, not because of them. And we must continually expose that - it will be their downfall.
****
Spartacus: Blood and Sand ... a season in review.
This is the without question the best thing on television (leaving room for The Pacific, which I have not seen fully). They have done so much with so little. STARZ isn't a mega network like an HBO, or Cinemax or even Showtime, so I can only assume their budget reflects that. But their close quarter camera angles, sprinkled with just a hint of CGI when prudent, gives this program a very intimate feel. As a viewer, when proper Romans enter the House of Baatiatus, you feel as if you know that den of wolves better than the newly arrived guest of the time period. The battle scenes are spectacular to be sure, but the only thing more well defined than the gladiator's pecs and the slave women's bosoms are the character's personalities. And that's the secret to the program, its writing. When a secret or event is revealed one can not wait until Crixus, or Spartacus or Doctore finds out. Each episode was better then the last, each new week became my instant "favorite." The season finale was spectacular as I found myself in danger of waking my sleeping off spring as I shouted, "D-A-M-N!", at nearly every kill stroke. At this point my only concern is that Netflix users will become a victim of the show's success. Spartacus is breathing rarified air in that it alone could cause a consumer to purchase the Starz network in its' entirety just to view one show. Joining such hits as the Sopranos, B.o.B and The Pacific. It was sharp of the Starz execuitive to stream instantly new espisodes (and a full day before they aired) in order to spread the popularity of their new darling. But now I fear we will be purchasing Starz come season 2. But that's fine, their success is well deserved.
You were wrong about one thing though Titus, it was more than Illithia whom survived (although yes, you're technically correct in that she's the only "Roman" whom survived). Let us not forget Asher ... that forked tounge devil managed to slither his way out, literally, under a dead Centurion, and will surely rasie his head once again. But this time Doctore will succeed in lopping it off! Like I said, I love this series.
And by the way, I have been for a year now (roughly) been watching/streaming movies instantly from Netflix via my son's Xbox 360 (Spartacus chief among the viewings). It is phenomenal technology, as Titus noted, and the future of move rentals if you ask me. And here's a bonus nugget of information - if Titus has less than 5 devices linked to his Netflix account, he can include Jambo (with his Xbox), free of charge. I use my sister's account at present.
***
Speaking of my sister .... we traveled to the coast for an afternoon and were treated to cold beer, and deliscious hot steaks (and a great salad) at Casa de Jambo. Thanks for the hospitality brother! As we noted, next time we'll make it a multi day event. The overall trip to Mississippi was fantastic. On the first day I woke up to the sound of roosters crowing and shotgun rounds friring, and thought to myself ... yep, I'm home. As I am here, at the Bund.
Immigration...
Its the name of the game today, judging by the number of headlines that are connected with the topic. Jambo sent me a text from his work asking if the new law was "unconstitutional", and since I hadn't followed the story much before that, I went looking.
The "meat-and-potatoes" of the AZ law are as follows:
1) Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.
This one is far tougher than it looks, I think. The very definition of the term means that being in the country (and specifically, in the State of Arizona) "illegally" is a crime already. What AZ has done is to require honest, law-abiding citizens to "prove" their status on demand, since an illegal immigrant couldn't do that anyway. When liberals and pro-illegal elements in our society fight this sort of legislation, and this legislation in particular, it will be this portion that they focus on.
I think the wording is alright, in that it specifies that the alleged illegal must provide proof, not the upstanding citizen, but the application of this law is what is going to cause the grief. The first time an actual citizen is hassled for "looking like an illegal" and then finding he left his ID in his other pants, there is going to be some serious fallout. I can already see the media flashing images of shadowy men wearing dark leather trench coats and fedoras saying "Papiere, bitte!" to elicit memories of the Gestapo in the 30's and 40's.
2) Requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation. Exceptions can be made if the attempt would hinder an investigation, but I can't find what sort of investigations these exemptions would apply to.
This seems the most problematic of the laws components, since the court system will have to very clearly define what "reasonable" means in this context, and since no one can foresee all the variables, and the traditional burden of proof always lays with the investigative agency, I'm not seeing how this is going to stand very long under appellate or supreme court scrutiny.
3) Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500. This one surprised me... I mean, its much the same as saying "If you don't think we, the State of Arizona or your local law enforcement agencies, are doing the job right, feel free to file suit." Hindering enforcement could be as simple as failure to report possible violations in a timely manner, and even AZ is a large enough government establishment to have conflicting interests between agencies and departments, not to mention simple breakdowns in communication between the same.
4) Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.
This last is one I think I can support, especially at a local or state level. The bulk of the illegal immigrant problem can be addressed best by making life for those that employ them very, very expensive... so expensive that hiring illegals is simply too risky to be worth the possible savings to the company. I'm not sure that such specific means of targeting these employers as limiting it to those that would drive up in a stake-bed truck is such a good idea, but it might be a start.
My thoughts can be summed up as such: I don't think this will stand up to court scrutiny... but as a supporter of the Tenth Amendment, I think it is the right and duty of the individual States to manage their own affairs as they see fit, and to allow the Courts to determine, through the course of established legal means, when such management and enforcement is "unconstitutional". It certainly isn't the role of media and the press to determine the legality of such efforts.
The "meat-and-potatoes" of the AZ law are as follows:
1) Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.
This one is far tougher than it looks, I think. The very definition of the term means that being in the country (and specifically, in the State of Arizona) "illegally" is a crime already. What AZ has done is to require honest, law-abiding citizens to "prove" their status on demand, since an illegal immigrant couldn't do that anyway. When liberals and pro-illegal elements in our society fight this sort of legislation, and this legislation in particular, it will be this portion that they focus on.
I think the wording is alright, in that it specifies that the alleged illegal must provide proof, not the upstanding citizen, but the application of this law is what is going to cause the grief. The first time an actual citizen is hassled for "looking like an illegal" and then finding he left his ID in his other pants, there is going to be some serious fallout. I can already see the media flashing images of shadowy men wearing dark leather trench coats and fedoras saying "Papiere, bitte!" to elicit memories of the Gestapo in the 30's and 40's.
2) Requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation. Exceptions can be made if the attempt would hinder an investigation, but I can't find what sort of investigations these exemptions would apply to.
This seems the most problematic of the laws components, since the court system will have to very clearly define what "reasonable" means in this context, and since no one can foresee all the variables, and the traditional burden of proof always lays with the investigative agency, I'm not seeing how this is going to stand very long under appellate or supreme court scrutiny.
3) Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500. This one surprised me... I mean, its much the same as saying "If you don't think we, the State of Arizona or your local law enforcement agencies, are doing the job right, feel free to file suit." Hindering enforcement could be as simple as failure to report possible violations in a timely manner, and even AZ is a large enough government establishment to have conflicting interests between agencies and departments, not to mention simple breakdowns in communication between the same.
4) Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.
This last is one I think I can support, especially at a local or state level. The bulk of the illegal immigrant problem can be addressed best by making life for those that employ them very, very expensive... so expensive that hiring illegals is simply too risky to be worth the possible savings to the company. I'm not sure that such specific means of targeting these employers as limiting it to those that would drive up in a stake-bed truck is such a good idea, but it might be a start.
My thoughts can be summed up as such: I don't think this will stand up to court scrutiny... but as a supporter of the Tenth Amendment, I think it is the right and duty of the individual States to manage their own affairs as they see fit, and to allow the Courts to determine, through the course of established legal means, when such management and enforcement is "unconstitutional". It certainly isn't the role of media and the press to determine the legality of such efforts.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Couch-potato review...
If you haven't already seen or used Netflix in action, here's what I have to say: It is the best thing to hit the lazy-man's entertainment center since the invention of the DVR.
At first, we just took advantage of the ease and convenience of the through-the-mail DVD selection, which is massive and really is quite fast in its turn around time. Then, I discovered the "Watch Instantly" option on my computer... a fantastic option, no question. Then we found that we can do the same thing by using the kid's Wii console so that the instant watch programs and movies were something we could watch in comfort and style.
If a movie is out in DVD format, but not on the instant-view list, we get the disk sent to us. Otherwise, the Wii is the way. And, on those rare occasions when the Wii or TV is occupied and I can't simply flop down and start browsing for a classic flick, I can always belly-up to the 'puter and watch from there.
I was on a George Romero kick for awhile, and that led me to watching complete seasons of Buffy and Angel (no small accomplishment, that... those were big series). Of course, because of the association between Starz and Netflix (both owned by the same parent company), I get to watch Spartacus: Blood and Sand first thing Friday while the rest of the world waits till prime time slots.
It's tough to be a modern couch-potato and NOT have this valuable and timely service at your fingertips. I know Ryan agrees with me on this, so if anyone is looking for a review of this particular service... mine is a two-thumbs WAY UP.
At first, we just took advantage of the ease and convenience of the through-the-mail DVD selection, which is massive and really is quite fast in its turn around time. Then, I discovered the "Watch Instantly" option on my computer... a fantastic option, no question. Then we found that we can do the same thing by using the kid's Wii console so that the instant watch programs and movies were something we could watch in comfort and style.
If a movie is out in DVD format, but not on the instant-view list, we get the disk sent to us. Otherwise, the Wii is the way. And, on those rare occasions when the Wii or TV is occupied and I can't simply flop down and start browsing for a classic flick, I can always belly-up to the 'puter and watch from there.
I was on a George Romero kick for awhile, and that led me to watching complete seasons of Buffy and Angel (no small accomplishment, that... those were big series). Of course, because of the association between Starz and Netflix (both owned by the same parent company), I get to watch Spartacus: Blood and Sand first thing Friday while the rest of the world waits till prime time slots.
It's tough to be a modern couch-potato and NOT have this valuable and timely service at your fingertips. I know Ryan agrees with me on this, so if anyone is looking for a review of this particular service... mine is a two-thumbs WAY UP.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Interesting side note:
While reading what I have about the Icelandic eruption (I'm sick of typing Eyjafjallajökull... really sick), I came across this little tid-bit:
In 1815, Tambora erupts and spews the equivalent of 40 square miles of earth into the atmosphere, with the ash column estimated at more than 35,000 feet high. The final explosion was so huge, it could be heard (clearly) as far as 1,700 miles away, and the pressure wave it released circled the globe and effected barometers on the other side of the world SEVEN TIMES. This was a big eruption, to say the least.
The effects of this eruption were so huge, that it caused snow to fall in the month of July, 1816 right here in Pennsylvania, and every single state in the American North East saw massive crop devastation due to killer frosts hitting all through the spring and summer months. Ice formed on the Thames River in June, and hundreds of thousands of people starved as famine swept through post-Napoleonic War Europe (which was already suffering from massive economic depression brought on by the war itself). Brown snow fell in Hungary as late as August, 1816, physical evidence of the SO2 excess in the upper atmosphere.
Back here in the US, the State of Vermont was particularly touched by the climate change. Massive crop failures swept the State, and entire communities were forced to pack up and move to regions less effected by the changing weather. Many of these families found the distress and heart-ache of such forced migration so painful that they sought renewed hope and inspiration from their Puritan-religious roots, and the Great Revival of American Protestant fundamentalism found its beginnings. One family moved to western New York State, specifically to the town of Palmyra, where a young treasure hunter and visionary (and convicted felon, shockingly enough) named Joseph Smith would found the Mormon faith after finding the "Golden Plates" at the direction of an archangel.
Who says that events in the distant past have no bearing on today's world? Right here, in this topic of volcanic eruptions, we find a contributing effect nearly 200 years old that indirectly led to the foundation of one of the faiths that has molded one of our own Bund members, and directly effected tens of millions of people, both then AND now.
THAT is why I love history!
In 1815, Tambora erupts and spews the equivalent of 40 square miles of earth into the atmosphere, with the ash column estimated at more than 35,000 feet high. The final explosion was so huge, it could be heard (clearly) as far as 1,700 miles away, and the pressure wave it released circled the globe and effected barometers on the other side of the world SEVEN TIMES. This was a big eruption, to say the least.
The effects of this eruption were so huge, that it caused snow to fall in the month of July, 1816 right here in Pennsylvania, and every single state in the American North East saw massive crop devastation due to killer frosts hitting all through the spring and summer months. Ice formed on the Thames River in June, and hundreds of thousands of people starved as famine swept through post-Napoleonic War Europe (which was already suffering from massive economic depression brought on by the war itself). Brown snow fell in Hungary as late as August, 1816, physical evidence of the SO2 excess in the upper atmosphere.
Back here in the US, the State of Vermont was particularly touched by the climate change. Massive crop failures swept the State, and entire communities were forced to pack up and move to regions less effected by the changing weather. Many of these families found the distress and heart-ache of such forced migration so painful that they sought renewed hope and inspiration from their Puritan-religious roots, and the Great Revival of American Protestant fundamentalism found its beginnings. One family moved to western New York State, specifically to the town of Palmyra, where a young treasure hunter and visionary (and convicted felon, shockingly enough) named Joseph Smith would found the Mormon faith after finding the "Golden Plates" at the direction of an archangel.
Who says that events in the distant past have no bearing on today's world? Right here, in this topic of volcanic eruptions, we find a contributing effect nearly 200 years old that indirectly led to the foundation of one of the faiths that has molded one of our own Bund members, and directly effected tens of millions of people, both then AND now.
THAT is why I love history!
The "Eyjafjallajökull" factor...
That is what I am going to call the effect that the recent eruptions in Iceland have had in the global warming debate. I think it has a nice ring to it, don't you? Really rolls off the tongue, huh?
Now keep in mind that I am not talking about the suffering and frustration that was suffered by all those travelers that were trapped for nearly a week in strange and foreign airports due to the ash cloud and the various airlines that couldn't fly through it. I'm talking about the known, measured effects of the eruption (thus far) on the "science" that has been forced on us by the global warming supporters.
There is a scale used to measure and compare eruptions by those that study them called the VEI. It is much like a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale for volcanoes, and it seems (to the best of my understanding) to increase by a factor of 10 times with each numeric increase on the scale. The current Icelandic eruption is a 1 on this VEI scale, so a 2 would have to be 10 times as big as this one is now, and so on and so on. Some readers here may remember the Mt St Helen's eruption of 1980, and that eruption was a 5 (it is also called a "Plinian" eruption because of its comparable nature to the Vesuvian eruption that destroyed Pompey in 79AD, which was also a 5). Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 at a 6, as did Krakatoa in 1883. The largest volcanic eruption in modern recorded history is the Tambora eruption of 1815, which is listed as a 7 on the VEI scale. This eruption is known to have effected the global weather patterns, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, for more than 3 years, and was the cause of the Year without a Summer (1816). No eruption bigger than a 7 has occurred in the last 50,000 years.
So, back to my point... We know that the Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures by as much as 1.5 degrees over the course of 18 months, and effected levels of sunlight and acid rain for more than a year across the globe. We know that Pinatubo belched as much CO2 into the atmosphere in 12 days as the entire United States created in more than one year. We know that Pinatubo spewed more SO2 into the upper atmosphere than all previous volcanic eruptions for the 20th Century combined, and it was this SO2 that lowered temps across the globe and made for such spectacular red and orange sunsets from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego. It is this influx of gases, aerosols and particulates that the "Global Warmers" use to add grey-area to their magic numbers and global measurements for the entire decade of the 1990's. When they say temps are rising because of man-made CO2 emissions, and I question the facts, they use Pinatubo as the factor that explains the inconsistencies in data.
Eyjafjallajökull will now fill that role for the "Global Warmers". The current eruption isn't near the grand scale of Pinatubo, and it isn't going to bring about another "Year without a Summer" like Tambora did, but there is the possibility that the fissure will continue to spew gas, aerosols and ash for weeks, even months. There are known historical examples of that same fissure erupting almost continually for two years (admittedly, hundreds of years ago), so the possibility is there for a continued effect on European weather and commerce. If nothing else, it poses a real threat to the single largest agricultural business in Iceland... sheep farming. The ash and particulate produced by the eruption is loaded with toxic levels of fluoride, which kills sheep and grass (which sheep eat) at half the concentration currently seen by this eruption. It is also producing vast amounts of SO2, which (as I already explained) is a major contributor to the decrease in both temperature and ozone levels in the atmosphere. So, whenever someone like me questions the "facts and figures" of global warming coming from Europe for the next five to ten years, the "Eyjafjallajökull" effect will come into play and my questions will be dismissed as utterly ignorant and not-worth-the-time-to-explain from the elitist liberals who take for granted that which they see coming from UC Berkeley and Columbia University studies. It has already been estimated that Eyjafjallajökull has produced more CO2 in 7 days than all of the UK did in 7 months... the equivalent of 2,000 cars burning a tank of gas every hour!
What will that do to their arguments?
Now keep in mind that I am not talking about the suffering and frustration that was suffered by all those travelers that were trapped for nearly a week in strange and foreign airports due to the ash cloud and the various airlines that couldn't fly through it. I'm talking about the known, measured effects of the eruption (thus far) on the "science" that has been forced on us by the global warming supporters.
There is a scale used to measure and compare eruptions by those that study them called the VEI. It is much like a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale for volcanoes, and it seems (to the best of my understanding) to increase by a factor of 10 times with each numeric increase on the scale. The current Icelandic eruption is a 1 on this VEI scale, so a 2 would have to be 10 times as big as this one is now, and so on and so on. Some readers here may remember the Mt St Helen's eruption of 1980, and that eruption was a 5 (it is also called a "Plinian" eruption because of its comparable nature to the Vesuvian eruption that destroyed Pompey in 79AD, which was also a 5). Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 at a 6, as did Krakatoa in 1883. The largest volcanic eruption in modern recorded history is the Tambora eruption of 1815, which is listed as a 7 on the VEI scale. This eruption is known to have effected the global weather patterns, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, for more than 3 years, and was the cause of the Year without a Summer (1816). No eruption bigger than a 7 has occurred in the last 50,000 years.
So, back to my point... We know that the Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures by as much as 1.5 degrees over the course of 18 months, and effected levels of sunlight and acid rain for more than a year across the globe. We know that Pinatubo belched as much CO2 into the atmosphere in 12 days as the entire United States created in more than one year. We know that Pinatubo spewed more SO2 into the upper atmosphere than all previous volcanic eruptions for the 20th Century combined, and it was this SO2 that lowered temps across the globe and made for such spectacular red and orange sunsets from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego. It is this influx of gases, aerosols and particulates that the "Global Warmers" use to add grey-area to their magic numbers and global measurements for the entire decade of the 1990's. When they say temps are rising because of man-made CO2 emissions, and I question the facts, they use Pinatubo as the factor that explains the inconsistencies in data.
Eyjafjallajökull will now fill that role for the "Global Warmers". The current eruption isn't near the grand scale of Pinatubo, and it isn't going to bring about another "Year without a Summer" like Tambora did, but there is the possibility that the fissure will continue to spew gas, aerosols and ash for weeks, even months. There are known historical examples of that same fissure erupting almost continually for two years (admittedly, hundreds of years ago), so the possibility is there for a continued effect on European weather and commerce. If nothing else, it poses a real threat to the single largest agricultural business in Iceland... sheep farming. The ash and particulate produced by the eruption is loaded with toxic levels of fluoride, which kills sheep and grass (which sheep eat) at half the concentration currently seen by this eruption. It is also producing vast amounts of SO2, which (as I already explained) is a major contributor to the decrease in both temperature and ozone levels in the atmosphere. So, whenever someone like me questions the "facts and figures" of global warming coming from Europe for the next five to ten years, the "Eyjafjallajökull" effect will come into play and my questions will be dismissed as utterly ignorant and not-worth-the-time-to-explain from the elitist liberals who take for granted that which they see coming from UC Berkeley and Columbia University studies. It has already been estimated that Eyjafjallajökull has produced more CO2 in 7 days than all of the UK did in 7 months... the equivalent of 2,000 cars burning a tank of gas every hour!
What will that do to their arguments?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Bund news...
In an attempt to cut down on the latest comments that focus solely on the most recent "Bollywood" film releases, cheap antibiotics, super-cool language learning tools, affordable home refinancing packages, and all the rest of the "spam" that our blog has been inundated with recently, I have changed the manner in which we allow comments to be posted.
As much as I hate having to do them myself, I have enabled the word verification feature on Blogger so that automated programs can't post to our site. Like I said, I hate having to fill them in... but as a moderator and author of this blog, I don't have to. Neither will Jambo, Ryan or Baddboy.
The rest of our fans will have to, however, and I hope this doesn't discourage comments and thoughts from being shared.
As much as I hate having to do them myself, I have enabled the word verification feature on Blogger so that automated programs can't post to our site. Like I said, I hate having to fill them in... but as a moderator and author of this blog, I don't have to. Neither will Jambo, Ryan or Baddboy.
The rest of our fans will have to, however, and I hope this doesn't discourage comments and thoughts from being shared.
Do you trust the Government?
I found this chart from the Pew Research Center that I thought was terribly interesting...
It's an interactive chart, so by clicking certain categories and scrolling over certain areas, you see new and refined details to the data. If you're going to follow my post here, you'll need to spend some time going over the information.
With the data on the charts going back as far as 1958, I think we can pretty clearly see that we are at a near-all-time-low in confidence and trust in the Federal government for the last 50 years... and that is really saying something. Taking into account such historical landmarks as Vietnam, Watergate,the OPEC oil crisis, the Carter Recession, Iran-Contra, the Clinton Impeachment, and the debacle that was the Bush Administration's exit ratings in 2008... we are talking about some impressively low confidence and trust levels, aren't we?
A point I wanted to make in particular was the "incumbent losses" graph. Looking at the 50 year scope of the polls, I'd say that we are, indeed, poised for a rather broad change in the spectrum of the House (there are no available figures for the Senate in this graph). With any dip in the public trust of more than 15-17 points, we see a corresponding jump in the number of incumbent losses that averages around 26 seats or better. Since Bush left office, we have seen exactly 17% less trust in government than 2006 (and that was a rating following close on the heels of Katrina, mind you... when very little of the public thought the Feds were doing anything right!). Now, I understand that getting a 40-seat sweep is asking a lot (and we'd need exactly that to take a conservative majority again and seize control of the House away from the Dems), but if the direction that public opinion is moving continues for even another three years, then I'd say that by the next Presidential election cycle, we could see a conservative majority in the House. Regardless, surely even a 47% minority gives the conservative voice a far greater boost given the propensity of such "Blue Dogs" as Taylor, Holden, Murphy, et al to follow a conservative agenda would mean a break with the strangle-hold that the liberals have maintained for nearly four years now.
On a side note: Look at the trust and confidence rating the polls give the end of the Bush Sr. years, and mark that against what most Americans have come to see as a successful Presidency (his post-Presidential ratings are higher than 60% overall, and our "Report Cards" gave him high marks, as well). The end of Bush's term saw the fastest drop in public confidence in Government over the whole 50+ year span, and while I blame a good portion of this on Congress, it can't but have been effected in some way by Bush himself. His raising of taxes in spite of the "Read My Lips" promise hurt him, as did his perceived "out-of-touch" attitude towards the American economy... but it surprises me that so much of the distrust evaporated so quickly when using the "hindsight" glasses. Does anyone else think that this is a good example of a failing Congress more than a failing White House? After all, we were only 24 months from the Conservative Revolution of 1994 when the GOP gained nearly 60 seats. It seems like a lot of drop for a relatively good Presidential term, and seeing as how Clinton didn't lose as much (by half) while suffering his impeachment, it can't be something we can only attribute to the White House, right?
Anyway... I thought it was a cool tool.
It's an interactive chart, so by clicking certain categories and scrolling over certain areas, you see new and refined details to the data. If you're going to follow my post here, you'll need to spend some time going over the information.
With the data on the charts going back as far as 1958, I think we can pretty clearly see that we are at a near-all-time-low in confidence and trust in the Federal government for the last 50 years... and that is really saying something. Taking into account such historical landmarks as Vietnam, Watergate,the OPEC oil crisis, the Carter Recession, Iran-Contra, the Clinton Impeachment, and the debacle that was the Bush Administration's exit ratings in 2008... we are talking about some impressively low confidence and trust levels, aren't we?
A point I wanted to make in particular was the "incumbent losses" graph. Looking at the 50 year scope of the polls, I'd say that we are, indeed, poised for a rather broad change in the spectrum of the House (there are no available figures for the Senate in this graph). With any dip in the public trust of more than 15-17 points, we see a corresponding jump in the number of incumbent losses that averages around 26 seats or better. Since Bush left office, we have seen exactly 17% less trust in government than 2006 (and that was a rating following close on the heels of Katrina, mind you... when very little of the public thought the Feds were doing anything right!). Now, I understand that getting a 40-seat sweep is asking a lot (and we'd need exactly that to take a conservative majority again and seize control of the House away from the Dems), but if the direction that public opinion is moving continues for even another three years, then I'd say that by the next Presidential election cycle, we could see a conservative majority in the House. Regardless, surely even a 47% minority gives the conservative voice a far greater boost given the propensity of such "Blue Dogs" as Taylor, Holden, Murphy, et al to follow a conservative agenda would mean a break with the strangle-hold that the liberals have maintained for nearly four years now.
On a side note: Look at the trust and confidence rating the polls give the end of the Bush Sr. years, and mark that against what most Americans have come to see as a successful Presidency (his post-Presidential ratings are higher than 60% overall, and our "Report Cards" gave him high marks, as well). The end of Bush's term saw the fastest drop in public confidence in Government over the whole 50+ year span, and while I blame a good portion of this on Congress, it can't but have been effected in some way by Bush himself. His raising of taxes in spite of the "Read My Lips" promise hurt him, as did his perceived "out-of-touch" attitude towards the American economy... but it surprises me that so much of the distrust evaporated so quickly when using the "hindsight" glasses. Does anyone else think that this is a good example of a failing Congress more than a failing White House? After all, we were only 24 months from the Conservative Revolution of 1994 when the GOP gained nearly 60 seats. It seems like a lot of drop for a relatively good Presidential term, and seeing as how Clinton didn't lose as much (by half) while suffering his impeachment, it can't be something we can only attribute to the White House, right?
Anyway... I thought it was a cool tool.
Parenting
Had one of those moments this last five day period. The kind that make the world stop spinning.
Thursday was the last day the kids were spending the night with me before Claire, my oldest, had her solo-ensemble competition. She plays flute. She had a solo and a duet with one of her best friends, a trumpet player. So she brings home her duet music and asks me to practice the duet with her.
Back in the day I was better than average playing trumpet, but that day was 20 years ago. She's insistant and hopeful and stressed about the upcoming competition so I open the case and play the music.
I'm rusty, she's a seventh grader, so this is by no means an RCA recording moment, but after the third time she loosens up and starts to PLAY... And her father got goose bumps the size of grapefruit. She nails this phrase she was having problems with, then nails it again and again... And after about forty minutes tells me thank you. I tell her THANK YOU because it was the first time I'd played the damned horn in a year and the first time I'd looked at sheet music in two decades.
Fast forward two days and I'm sound asleep at noon, having worked the night before, when the cell phone rings Claire's ringtone. I pick up out of instinct and have a five minute conversation I still can't remember. So when I'm aware of my surroundings I call her back and replay the converation and her excitement is such that it doesn't seem to matter that she just TOLD me about getting two gold medals, one for each of her performances. She gladly retold all the nervous details, the cold stomach, the shakes, the dry mouth, and the euphoria of knowing that not only was it OVER but it was TRIUMPHANT. It was one of those things that I thought no one else understood, just how I dealt with performing and competition, and here was my oldest doing the same thing in the same way with no coaching from dad.
Fast forward to today and Claire is digging through my junk drawer, looking for something. She yells "Woohoo!" when she finds my medals, my solo-ensemble medals from 20+ years ago I keep in a zip lock bag. She looks at me as she lays them out on the couch cushion and says, "I get this now, Dad." Her band teacher had asked them to wear their medals to school today so they could be recognized, so she asked me, "How did you wear all these things?" So I showed her one of a handful of surviving high school pics I have, of me playing my horn in concert in full uniform with my medals on. She laughed and repeated herself. "I totally get this now, Dad."
I'm telling you. Thought I was going to fall over when this whole planet stopped spinning there.
Thursday was the last day the kids were spending the night with me before Claire, my oldest, had her solo-ensemble competition. She plays flute. She had a solo and a duet with one of her best friends, a trumpet player. So she brings home her duet music and asks me to practice the duet with her.
Back in the day I was better than average playing trumpet, but that day was 20 years ago. She's insistant and hopeful and stressed about the upcoming competition so I open the case and play the music.
I'm rusty, she's a seventh grader, so this is by no means an RCA recording moment, but after the third time she loosens up and starts to PLAY... And her father got goose bumps the size of grapefruit. She nails this phrase she was having problems with, then nails it again and again... And after about forty minutes tells me thank you. I tell her THANK YOU because it was the first time I'd played the damned horn in a year and the first time I'd looked at sheet music in two decades.
Fast forward two days and I'm sound asleep at noon, having worked the night before, when the cell phone rings Claire's ringtone. I pick up out of instinct and have a five minute conversation I still can't remember. So when I'm aware of my surroundings I call her back and replay the converation and her excitement is such that it doesn't seem to matter that she just TOLD me about getting two gold medals, one for each of her performances. She gladly retold all the nervous details, the cold stomach, the shakes, the dry mouth, and the euphoria of knowing that not only was it OVER but it was TRIUMPHANT. It was one of those things that I thought no one else understood, just how I dealt with performing and competition, and here was my oldest doing the same thing in the same way with no coaching from dad.
Fast forward to today and Claire is digging through my junk drawer, looking for something. She yells "Woohoo!" when she finds my medals, my solo-ensemble medals from 20+ years ago I keep in a zip lock bag. She looks at me as she lays them out on the couch cushion and says, "I get this now, Dad." Her band teacher had asked them to wear their medals to school today so they could be recognized, so she asked me, "How did you wear all these things?" So I showed her one of a handful of surviving high school pics I have, of me playing my horn in concert in full uniform with my medals on. She laughed and repeated herself. "I totally get this now, Dad."
I'm telling you. Thought I was going to fall over when this whole planet stopped spinning there.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Ryan's feeling guilty...
Seems Ryan is feeling a bit neglectful of his Bund duties, and promises to rectify the problem as soon as possible. In the mean time...
He poses a very interesting question stemming from the Tea Party debate: What percentage of this country is, actually, racist in its outlook and opinion?
Ponder this thought a while, and you begin to see the scope of the question... but if we are going to discuss the question, I want to get a few definitions straight, first.
How shall we define "racist"?
The official Webster's definition is:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I think that #3 is the most applicable to our question, even more than #1... for no other reason than because it does not require one race to act in a superior manner, but rather to assume that such superiority is fact.
I also think that there is another factor that needs to be considered: Can Americans be guilty of "prejudice" without being "racist", and is that a contributing aspect of the question posed?
I would define "prejudice" as: unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Both positions stem from a foundation of ignorance... "prejudice" in the manner by which preconceived notions and opinions are developed a priori as opposed to a posteriori, and "racist" from the continued belief that there is an inherent (biological, genetic, intellectual, et al) ability or capability within one race that sets it above all others despite clear proof to the contrary from every facet of modern science and philosophy. That doesn't mean they don't exist and abound in plenty in the minds and thoughts of Americans across the nation.
I think that there is far more "prejudice" in the nation than there is actual, measurable "racism"... but racism does exist. I'm sure we have all met it face to face in our lives... I know I have, and at a very early age, too.
Ryan postulated that 5% of the population is "racist". I think that is a low number, but I haven't had the time to back up my thoughts with facts, yet. I would postulate that far more than 50% of the population is guilty of some form of racial prejudice on an almost daily basis, even if it is not overtly evident in words and actions. I think that my postulation is true, whether we speak of the prejudices held by the white ethnic populations of the US, or the minority ethnic populations, be they African American, Asian American, Latino, Eastern European, or Middle Eastern. This majority-held tendency towards racial prejudice is true for immigrants, first-generation Americans and even several generations removed from the first. They are perpetuated and reinforced through cultural and religious means just as much as they are through society itself, and may constitute a basic, almost fundamental, impediment to the development of a real, functional multi-cultural and multi-racial society.
Ryan's estimate may be very accurate when discussing those who openly declare their racist opinions, though. If that were, in fact, the case, then I'd say that America is in far more trouble than anyone here had thought. I don't think it is impossible, though, that the number is that high. I recall being very surprised at the response I got from a very good, close friend in the casinos on the coast prior to the storm, when I asked him if he felt he experienced racism routinely in his life (he was born in Vietnam, but was raised in the US and was a citizen). He said no, not routinely, but could recall isolated instances where he had experienced it in a very real manner. What surprised me the most, however, was his response and reaction when I asked him what he would feel if his daughter came home and said she was marrying a "white" man. He did not hesitate in saying that he would forbid the marriage, and would do all in his power to separate the two from ever seeing each other again. I asked him why he felt this way, and he really couldn't answer other than to say that Asians shouldn't "mix" with whites... or any other race, it seems. He wasn't virulent, or violent or offensive in his comments, and I tried my best not to pass judgement with my reaction. I still consider the man a close, personal friend... but I also consider him to harbor some racist views, too.
Since all who post here routinely are poster-child examples of white-European-Christian-descended Americans, I'm not sure we are going to get many examples of racism being perpetrated on us that would lend us any credibility with the various "anti-defamation leagues" that exist across the spectrum... but I'd love to hear the rest of your opinions on this topic.
He poses a very interesting question stemming from the Tea Party debate: What percentage of this country is, actually, racist in its outlook and opinion?
Ponder this thought a while, and you begin to see the scope of the question... but if we are going to discuss the question, I want to get a few definitions straight, first.
How shall we define "racist"?
The official Webster's definition is:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I think that #3 is the most applicable to our question, even more than #1... for no other reason than because it does not require one race to act in a superior manner, but rather to assume that such superiority is fact.
I also think that there is another factor that needs to be considered: Can Americans be guilty of "prejudice" without being "racist", and is that a contributing aspect of the question posed?
I would define "prejudice" as: unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Both positions stem from a foundation of ignorance... "prejudice" in the manner by which preconceived notions and opinions are developed a priori as opposed to a posteriori, and "racist" from the continued belief that there is an inherent (biological, genetic, intellectual, et al) ability or capability within one race that sets it above all others despite clear proof to the contrary from every facet of modern science and philosophy. That doesn't mean they don't exist and abound in plenty in the minds and thoughts of Americans across the nation.
I think that there is far more "prejudice" in the nation than there is actual, measurable "racism"... but racism does exist. I'm sure we have all met it face to face in our lives... I know I have, and at a very early age, too.
Ryan postulated that 5% of the population is "racist". I think that is a low number, but I haven't had the time to back up my thoughts with facts, yet. I would postulate that far more than 50% of the population is guilty of some form of racial prejudice on an almost daily basis, even if it is not overtly evident in words and actions. I think that my postulation is true, whether we speak of the prejudices held by the white ethnic populations of the US, or the minority ethnic populations, be they African American, Asian American, Latino, Eastern European, or Middle Eastern. This majority-held tendency towards racial prejudice is true for immigrants, first-generation Americans and even several generations removed from the first. They are perpetuated and reinforced through cultural and religious means just as much as they are through society itself, and may constitute a basic, almost fundamental, impediment to the development of a real, functional multi-cultural and multi-racial society.
Ryan's estimate may be very accurate when discussing those who openly declare their racist opinions, though. If that were, in fact, the case, then I'd say that America is in far more trouble than anyone here had thought. I don't think it is impossible, though, that the number is that high. I recall being very surprised at the response I got from a very good, close friend in the casinos on the coast prior to the storm, when I asked him if he felt he experienced racism routinely in his life (he was born in Vietnam, but was raised in the US and was a citizen). He said no, not routinely, but could recall isolated instances where he had experienced it in a very real manner. What surprised me the most, however, was his response and reaction when I asked him what he would feel if his daughter came home and said she was marrying a "white" man. He did not hesitate in saying that he would forbid the marriage, and would do all in his power to separate the two from ever seeing each other again. I asked him why he felt this way, and he really couldn't answer other than to say that Asians shouldn't "mix" with whites... or any other race, it seems. He wasn't virulent, or violent or offensive in his comments, and I tried my best not to pass judgement with my reaction. I still consider the man a close, personal friend... but I also consider him to harbor some racist views, too.
Since all who post here routinely are poster-child examples of white-European-Christian-descended Americans, I'm not sure we are going to get many examples of racism being perpetrated on us that would lend us any credibility with the various "anti-defamation leagues" that exist across the spectrum... but I'd love to hear the rest of your opinions on this topic.
Tax Day protests...
I can't express how sick and tired I am of hearing the liberal media and my liberal acquaintances tell me that the "Tea Party" is an extremist movement against high taxes.
While I haven't attended or helped organize a Tea Party, I did go to watch one unfold in Scranton, PA back in 2008. It was very calm, very friendly, and focused almost exclusively on "fiscal responsibility" and not on the elimination, or even the reduction of taxes. I understand the necessity of taxes, and while I don't support every tax I'm asked to pay, I know that many are vital and necessary for the society I live in. Since its inception during the election run of '08, the Tea Party movement has called for an accountability in government spending and an adherence to Constitutional guidelines for the structuring and running of our government.
What is "extremist" about that? What is so wrong with asking that the government stop interfering with business and financial matters at the most basic and fundamental levels? What is wrong with asking the President and Congress to explain and detail the manner and means by which the money the Feds get from my taxes is spent? Furthermore, what is wrong with my exercising my First Amendment right to voice my opinions in the manner I see fit about how that money is being spent?
Even a cursory glance at the news that is reported about the tax day protests shows that no actual calls for the elimination of taxes, or even stark and loud complaints about current tax levels, can be found. People aren't upset at the prospect of paying taxes on April 15th (at least not anymore than they have been since the institution of the IRS). They are complaining about the direction the nation is taking under liberal leadership, and the prospect that our already high taxes will be forced higher in the future because of unwise or unwanted spending now.
So, Mr. Obama can deride the Tea Party ideals in his speeches all he wants, but I did NOT see a reduction in my tax bill this year, my return was NOT 10% larger than it was in 2008, and I am still waiting for a detailed, comprehensive explanation as to WHY the Federal deficit has very nearly tripled in size since the end of fiscal year '08, with no clear and measurable means to pay that debt off. I want someone to explain to me why my tax bill next year WILL increase, by as much as 7%, but I will receive no benefit from that increase until 2013, by which time I hope and pray that the entire fiasco has been repealed and put to bed.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here... I expect no actual rebuttal or debate. What I am doing is voicing my frustration at the prospect of having to continue to listen to the smug and dismissive language coming from the leadership in the White House and Congress about how my opinions are "extremist" and "out-of-touch" with reality, while the fantasy-based schemes of the liberal Left continue to keep the nation from the level of prosperity that it should be experiencing even now.
That's HOPE and CHANGE, I guess...
While I haven't attended or helped organize a Tea Party, I did go to watch one unfold in Scranton, PA back in 2008. It was very calm, very friendly, and focused almost exclusively on "fiscal responsibility" and not on the elimination, or even the reduction of taxes. I understand the necessity of taxes, and while I don't support every tax I'm asked to pay, I know that many are vital and necessary for the society I live in. Since its inception during the election run of '08, the Tea Party movement has called for an accountability in government spending and an adherence to Constitutional guidelines for the structuring and running of our government.
What is "extremist" about that? What is so wrong with asking that the government stop interfering with business and financial matters at the most basic and fundamental levels? What is wrong with asking the President and Congress to explain and detail the manner and means by which the money the Feds get from my taxes is spent? Furthermore, what is wrong with my exercising my First Amendment right to voice my opinions in the manner I see fit about how that money is being spent?
Even a cursory glance at the news that is reported about the tax day protests shows that no actual calls for the elimination of taxes, or even stark and loud complaints about current tax levels, can be found. People aren't upset at the prospect of paying taxes on April 15th (at least not anymore than they have been since the institution of the IRS). They are complaining about the direction the nation is taking under liberal leadership, and the prospect that our already high taxes will be forced higher in the future because of unwise or unwanted spending now.
So, Mr. Obama can deride the Tea Party ideals in his speeches all he wants, but I did NOT see a reduction in my tax bill this year, my return was NOT 10% larger than it was in 2008, and I am still waiting for a detailed, comprehensive explanation as to WHY the Federal deficit has very nearly tripled in size since the end of fiscal year '08, with no clear and measurable means to pay that debt off. I want someone to explain to me why my tax bill next year WILL increase, by as much as 7%, but I will receive no benefit from that increase until 2013, by which time I hope and pray that the entire fiasco has been repealed and put to bed.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here... I expect no actual rebuttal or debate. What I am doing is voicing my frustration at the prospect of having to continue to listen to the smug and dismissive language coming from the leadership in the White House and Congress about how my opinions are "extremist" and "out-of-touch" with reality, while the fantasy-based schemes of the liberal Left continue to keep the nation from the level of prosperity that it should be experiencing even now.
That's HOPE and CHANGE, I guess...
Friday, April 16, 2010
"Kill Them All"...
Ryan sent me a text this morning after he watched the season finale of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and while it was short and to the point, it was spot-on.
I've finished it, and Jambo is DVR'ing it, and I know Ryan has seen it twice... so if this is a spoiler for the rest of our readers, STOP READING NOW!
It was fantastic. Gorey, yes... violent, definately... but as I explained to my wife who was asking why I was so excited to watch blood and fighting at 7 AM, it is every bit as plausible a scenario as anything modern historians could come up with to explain the historical actions that led to the legend of Spartacus.
The title said it all, didn't it? They did kill them all... Batiatus, Lucretia, all the ruling elite of Capua and the Campanian district, even young Numerius died at the hands of Varo's wife. Every guard, every legionare, every representative of Roman society that these slaves could lay their hands on died by the end of the show.
With one exception...
Ilythia still lives, and is undoubtedly on her way to her husband, Claudius Glaber, legatus and member of the Senate, but as history tells us where Glaber ends up, it is a small thing to simply wait for the inevitable.
The absolute best part of this finale, though, was the manner in which we found out who the long-awaited Oenomaus is... none other than the doctore himself. Now, I admit to typically being a "purist" when it comes to history... but I can forget my insistance on details simply because the character so far developed in Doctore/Oenomaus is so unbelievably cool (there is no other word to describe him), so the fact that the current character couldn't possibly hail from Gaul (or anywhere north of the Sahara, in fact) is not going to stop my cheering him on as he leads the rebel slaves to their first major victory in Campania against Glaber himself... on the very slopes of Vesuvius itself. I say this because history says it happened, and Oenomaus was the leader of the men who wiped out the cohorts that Glaber had camped on the volcano.
God speed the recovery of Mr. Whitfield... no one should suffer that sort of disease. I'm not going to lie, though... I want a speedy recovery so the show can go on. Selfish, I know... but I'm being honest.
I've finished it, and Jambo is DVR'ing it, and I know Ryan has seen it twice... so if this is a spoiler for the rest of our readers, STOP READING NOW!
It was fantastic. Gorey, yes... violent, definately... but as I explained to my wife who was asking why I was so excited to watch blood and fighting at 7 AM, it is every bit as plausible a scenario as anything modern historians could come up with to explain the historical actions that led to the legend of Spartacus.
The title said it all, didn't it? They did kill them all... Batiatus, Lucretia, all the ruling elite of Capua and the Campanian district, even young Numerius died at the hands of Varo's wife. Every guard, every legionare, every representative of Roman society that these slaves could lay their hands on died by the end of the show.
With one exception...
Ilythia still lives, and is undoubtedly on her way to her husband, Claudius Glaber, legatus and member of the Senate, but as history tells us where Glaber ends up, it is a small thing to simply wait for the inevitable.
The absolute best part of this finale, though, was the manner in which we found out who the long-awaited Oenomaus is... none other than the doctore himself. Now, I admit to typically being a "purist" when it comes to history... but I can forget my insistance on details simply because the character so far developed in Doctore/Oenomaus is so unbelievably cool (there is no other word to describe him), so the fact that the current character couldn't possibly hail from Gaul (or anywhere north of the Sahara, in fact) is not going to stop my cheering him on as he leads the rebel slaves to their first major victory in Campania against Glaber himself... on the very slopes of Vesuvius itself. I say this because history says it happened, and Oenomaus was the leader of the men who wiped out the cohorts that Glaber had camped on the volcano.
God speed the recovery of Mr. Whitfield... no one should suffer that sort of disease. I'm not going to lie, though... I want a speedy recovery so the show can go on. Selfish, I know... but I'm being honest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
