I have answered all these questions before. But, I'll do it again in an effort to show you why I think the way I do.
"When are things at "crisis" so as to justify a fundamental reordering of the role, scope, reach & size of government?"
As I have said before... when the very government in question feels the national security situation is "dangerous" enough to warrant putting gun emplacements on the White House lawn, the roof of the Capitol Building, and the US Treasury. When protest demonstrations (the Bonus Army) were seen as such a "national security threat" (that's Douglas MacArthur's term... not mine) that 40,000 protesters were violently dispersed by armed military troops, under the command of MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton. When the mortgage foreclosure rate grows so high (nearly 50%) that enough people end up homeless and living in tent or shanty towns that the term "Hooverville" becomes part of the lexicon of American English. When the infant mortality rate climbs 250% in four years... entirely due to a lack of adequate housing and/or nutrition.
Like I said... I've said this a hundred times if I've said it once, but you continue to miss my point. I'm not saying that the need for a return to New Deal policies or programs will EVER occur again. I base this on the simple premise that it HASN'T returned in more than 80 years. It hasn't happened since 1929 (and you can continue to point at the 1937 Recession... the Roosevelt Recession... all you want, but 7 months of falling indicators does not a "depression" make), and the current recession isn't it either. I have not now, nor will I, call for a return to "New Deal" as envisioned by FDR in 1933... because there is no need. Your insistence on referencing this non sequitor in my argument is tantamount to my saying that States that refused to take stimulus money are in "defiance" of the Federal Government, and a return to Lincoln's policy of armed intervention in the maintaining of the Union is required. Its more than silly... its obtuse.
The reason I DON'T think "New Deal" works today is that we are not suffering from the same kind of economic crisis now as we were then. Disparate policies and agendas within the various arms of the Federal machine led to a US dollar that was artificially tied to a commodity whose market price was fixed... artificially. Gold was limited to a $35/oz price, regardless of what the actual supply/demand market price for the metal was globally. This meant that every dollar the US minted in gold was actually worth far more than the $1 value found in the global market. Thus, gold was being hoarded rather than traded... and to relieve this pressure on the value of the dollar, FDR and the Treasury STOPPED minting gold coins, collected the coins already held by banks and lenders, and DEREGULATED the dollar from "gold standard". Since that time, the dollar has become (and still remains) the benchmark currency of the world economic machine. It has weathered every single economic crisis since 1929, and retained far more of its value than any three other currencies combined. Look at what we have seen the Japanese Yen, the German Mark, the French Franc, and even the Euro go through in terms of contractions just in our adult lifetimes... and compare ALL of them to the dollar. THEN tell me that FDR's actions in removing the "gold standard" was a bad thing... a failure in economic planning and execution... an un-Constitutional power grab of unprecedented proportions.
"... given that the majority of New Deal either didnt survive the court purges or ended on its' own by 1941 (a point you've repeatedly made), how could it have been safe guarding us from a depression for the last 81 years?"
Besides what I've stated above, I find it hard to believe that I'd have to point to FDIC as another example. In 1933, America had seen one out of every two established banks FAIL, taking all their assets and holdings with them. 47% of all private savings and loan investments for John Q Public had vanished, and more than 64% of all commercial funds had turned to ashes. FDR and the Fed did not ask to "bail out" these failed banks. Instead, they established a means by which those surviving institutions could "buy" coverage for all deposits up to $100,000... building confidence in the public (and commercial) sectors to, once again, use banks as a means of protecting their money... and thus providing banks with the capital to invest in venture gains such as home loans, construction projects, business improvements and expansions, and all the other things that banks do in this country to pump funds that "traditionally" would be locked in a safe BACK into the economy. Its almost sad to have to state here (of all places) that, since its inception in Jan of '34, not one single dollar in private or commercial deposits has been lost as a result of a bank or institutional failure. 77 years of guaranteed security, with the DEPOSITOR covering all costs through a very (VERY) small charge levied by the banks for every $1000 in deposits made. FDIC has only had to increase premiums to institutions (and, by extension, to the depositor) ONCE in those 77 years, and that was in 2008, when the latest financial crisis saw the largest number of bank failures since 1930. Color me crazy... but that sounds like a successful program that is firmly rooted in "New Deal".
Reforms to the Federal Reserve system, the SEC, FDIC, ending the "gold standard"... any or all of these may have been the cure for our cycle of depression/boom prior to 1933, but I'm not an economist. I'm not an expert. I'm simply convinced by the overwhelming volume of evidence that once New Deal "reform" went into effect, the cycle of "depression" ended in the US.
This segues nicely into your next point:
"But your recent comments seem to defend New Deal as merely necessary "relief." Yes that was one of the 3 R's, but the idea that New Deal was simply relief meant tie us over until the economy recovered is much different then arguing it acted to actually bring about that recovery."
I'm not at all sure what you mean here... I thought I was pretty clear about exactly where the New Deal fell within FDR's "Three R's"... relief, recovery and reform. Relief was over and done within the first 100 days of FDR's first term. Recovery was over by 1940. Reform was what we see today, in such institutions as SSI, FDIC, SEC, etc. None have "failed"... all have been found "Constitutional" by the Supreme Court (numerous times, in fact)... and all have provided a service to millions of Americans, in one way or another. Yes, like any other government service or program, there are examples of abuse or mismanagement... but the same can be said of ANY government service or program, including the military, the Post Office, FBI... et al. We can't negate the New Deal ones without negating the rest, can we? There is a case to be made that none of the New Deal programs that exist today are enumerated in the Constitution... and we can have that discussion if you want... but there is no allowance in the Constitution for the FBI, or the CIA, or the Interstate Commerce Commission, or the US Coast Guard, or even for the United States Air Force or Marine Corps as independent branches of the US military. Do all of these constitute "un-Constitutional" expansions of government outside of the Framer's intentions? I don't think so...
Finally, let me ask you a question:
"... I want to see the smallest government possible..."
Where is YOUR cut-off point? At what dollar amount is a government budget small enough? At what percentage of GDP is spending too much? How many agencies and programs can a government have before it is "too big"? When did the US Government cross that threshold into the realm of "Big Government"?
I can't be any more exact that I have been when it comes to "why" the US hasn't had a "depression" in 77 years, but I'm pretty sure you can't put a number to my questions either. Many areas of study and knowledge can be labelled "exact sciences"... but politics is NOT one of them. Otherwise, you 'd be able to explain why you can decry the reforms of a "progressive" like FDR as "expansionist" and "un-Constitutional", but you will adamantly defend a President like Jackson and his place among the "pantheon" of Great American Presidents. Did FDR continue funding and using NRA after it was determined to be un-Constitutional? Did FDR actually draft an amendment calling for additional Supreme Court justices when he couldn't get around the Court's rulings? Or did he comply with the findings of the High Court, and end the programs and policies that were determined to be illegal?
If you can't answer my first question, then perhaps you can answer this one:
Who was the more "Constitutional" President, FDR or Andrew Jackson?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Gee wiz ...
I am not going to justify every action of every CIC in order to preserve the right to labelNew Deal an unconsitutional grab at power (especially when the Supreme Court confirmed that label decades before I was born); and neither does that angle of argument adress our dispute on whether the programs helped to end or prolong the era's woes.
You wrote: " ... whether or not deficit spending and extended governmental control and regulation can, temporarily, address a national crisis (war, economic free-fall, national disaster, etc). You seem to be of the opinion that, as long as the nation was at war, such policies should be seen as a matter of course, but in all other instances they are un-Constitutional. I am of the opinion that the actual definition of the "crisis" need not only be war... national disasters (the seven years of unprecedented drought that happened between 1930 and 1937, for example, and brought about the Dust Bowl), economic disasters (the Crash of '29 and resulting 36 months of fiscal free-fall), or any other sort of crisis that puts the entire nation at risk."
Our beef was not whether New Deal "temporarily" addressed symptoms of the era, it was whether it repaired the economy, but more on that in a moment. Here's my question on a more fundamental level first: what's the cut off? When are things at "crisis" so as to justify a fundamental reordering of the role, scope, reach & size of government? In your efforts to discern between New Deal and Obama, to provide justification for one and not the other, you seem to have a beef not with whether Obamanomics works or not, but rather with the idea that the Great Recession doesnt meet the needed threshold of "crisis", in order to justifiy his programs. Which brings me back to the question, when is it a "crisis?" I know you've answered this before as when an economic downfall is "tearing at the fiber of our nation", or words to that effect. But honestly, and I want you to toss this around in your head a bit - do you want to extend the sort of latitude to our government to "step in" that such a definition allows for? You see, as a limited government advocate (which I believe you are becoming), I want to seethe smallest government possible. And the idea that as a people we would say to our government that it has the right (or even duty) to engage in unprecedented expansions of its power, authority, and intervention - no matter how well intentioned - based on a criteria of justification such as "I'll know the crisis when I see it", rather then the criteria spelled out in the Consitution, is enough to cause me great worry.
As a further point, you can note that it's more than a coincidence that we've not seen a depression since New Deal, but explaining the reason as "something" in New Deal, without being able to name that mysterious something, I find to be a rather facile argument. And by the way, given that the majority of New Deal either didnt survive the court purges or ended on its' own by 1941 (a point you've repeatedly made), how could it have been safe guarding us from a depression for the last 81 years?
Beyond that our argument wasnt whether New Deal abated the symptoms and pains of the era. No one argues that if government hands a man a bowl of soup that government has ended that man's hunger for an afternoon (Al Capone was capable of that). The crux of our debate was whether New Deal worked as a sound economic plan to reverse the era's woes, whether it repaired the economy. I contend that deficit spending on government work programs, high taxes, the introduction of laborious regulations and agencies, and the various other identifiable aspects of New Deal all act contrary to a genuine (versus government propped) recovery. And I use the 38' Recession as one example of what happens when a government primed (via federal dollars) economy has the spigot turned off - and since we cant spend indefinitely the whole thing is doomed to failure. But your recent comments seem to defend New Deal as merely necessary "relief." Yes that was one of the 3 R's, but the idea that New Deal was simply relief meant tie us over until the economy recovered is much different then arguing it acted to actually bring about that recovery. The first line of your quote above seem to steer your argument towards the former ... which would represent a "fundamental transformation" of your argument. Interesting dear Watson ... very interesting.
You wrote: " ... whether or not deficit spending and extended governmental control and regulation can, temporarily, address a national crisis (war, economic free-fall, national disaster, etc). You seem to be of the opinion that, as long as the nation was at war, such policies should be seen as a matter of course, but in all other instances they are un-Constitutional. I am of the opinion that the actual definition of the "crisis" need not only be war... national disasters (the seven years of unprecedented drought that happened between 1930 and 1937, for example, and brought about the Dust Bowl), economic disasters (the Crash of '29 and resulting 36 months of fiscal free-fall), or any other sort of crisis that puts the entire nation at risk."
Our beef was not whether New Deal "temporarily" addressed symptoms of the era, it was whether it repaired the economy, but more on that in a moment. Here's my question on a more fundamental level first: what's the cut off? When are things at "crisis" so as to justify a fundamental reordering of the role, scope, reach & size of government? In your efforts to discern between New Deal and Obama, to provide justification for one and not the other, you seem to have a beef not with whether Obamanomics works or not, but rather with the idea that the Great Recession doesnt meet the needed threshold of "crisis", in order to justifiy his programs. Which brings me back to the question, when is it a "crisis?" I know you've answered this before as when an economic downfall is "tearing at the fiber of our nation", or words to that effect. But honestly, and I want you to toss this around in your head a bit - do you want to extend the sort of latitude to our government to "step in" that such a definition allows for? You see, as a limited government advocate (which I believe you are becoming), I want to seethe smallest government possible. And the idea that as a people we would say to our government that it has the right (or even duty) to engage in unprecedented expansions of its power, authority, and intervention - no matter how well intentioned - based on a criteria of justification such as "I'll know the crisis when I see it", rather then the criteria spelled out in the Consitution, is enough to cause me great worry.
As a further point, you can note that it's more than a coincidence that we've not seen a depression since New Deal, but explaining the reason as "something" in New Deal, without being able to name that mysterious something, I find to be a rather facile argument. And by the way, given that the majority of New Deal either didnt survive the court purges or ended on its' own by 1941 (a point you've repeatedly made), how could it have been safe guarding us from a depression for the last 81 years?
Beyond that our argument wasnt whether New Deal abated the symptoms and pains of the era. No one argues that if government hands a man a bowl of soup that government has ended that man's hunger for an afternoon (Al Capone was capable of that). The crux of our debate was whether New Deal worked as a sound economic plan to reverse the era's woes, whether it repaired the economy. I contend that deficit spending on government work programs, high taxes, the introduction of laborious regulations and agencies, and the various other identifiable aspects of New Deal all act contrary to a genuine (versus government propped) recovery. And I use the 38' Recession as one example of what happens when a government primed (via federal dollars) economy has the spigot turned off - and since we cant spend indefinitely the whole thing is doomed to failure. But your recent comments seem to defend New Deal as merely necessary "relief." Yes that was one of the 3 R's, but the idea that New Deal was simply relief meant tie us over until the economy recovered is much different then arguing it acted to actually bring about that recovery. The first line of your quote above seem to steer your argument towards the former ... which would represent a "fundamental transformation" of your argument. Interesting dear Watson ... very interesting.
Fair enough...
Reasonable questions from someone we don't hear from anymore... I'm ready to follow this for a bit.
I can't deny that the light rail system in WI is, in fact and figure, a "New Deal" sort of project... or at least that it is being billed as such by Democrats within the State of Wisconsin. Obama wants that label, and the Dems in WI that are in favor of it want it too... if for no other reason than to ensure that they don't have to justify higher State taxes to pay for it. I'm saying it isn't a "national" focus to make sure that commuters from Milwaukee and Madison have a safe, affordable means to travel... even given the high unemployment across the country. It should be paid for by the State and the cities involved, and not by the Federal government. Putting 5500 people to work over the course of three years isn't going to impact the economic future of anyone OUTSIDE of those 5500 people. New Deal put between 4 and 8 million unemployed people to work... people that hadn't worked for more than 24 months, and who had no alternative means to support their families. Thanks to New Deal, we have things like Unemployment Insurance, Living Assistance programs, welfare rolls, food stamps... all already available to those who need them NOW, but which were unheard of then.
This is the reason why I feel comparisons between the two events are unapplicable. We are not now, nor have we ever been since, at the same level of national crisis that we were in the years between 1929 and 1933... not even close.
I've never denied that FDR was a progressive, an avowed "reformer", and I've never attempted to defend his progressive political views. FDR's attitudes towards social reform and progressive thinking has never been the "focus" of our debate, though... it was whether or not New Deal policies implemented between 1933 and 1938 worked to end the era of the Great Depression. Whether or not deficit spending and extended governmental control and regulation can, temporarily, address a national crisis (war, economic free-fall, national disaster, etc). You seem to be of the opinion that, as long as the nation was at war, such policies should be seen as a matter of course, but in all other instances they are un-Constitutional. I am of the opinion that the actual definition of the "crisis" need not only be war... national disasters (the seven years of unprecedented drought that happened between 1930 and 1937, for example, and brought about the Dust Bowl), economic disasters (the Crash of '29 and resulting 36 months of fiscal free-fall), or any other sort of crisis that puts the entire nation at risk.
We've had other "progressive" leaders in this nation... Al Smith, Hughie Long, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter... but we've also had leaders in this nation that have circumvented or ignored Constitutionally provided limits on government control of individual freedoms. I doubt that you would argue with my list of "progressives", but why don't you refute my position that the policies instituted by FDR are no more "un-Constitutional" than those promoted by traditionally "conservative" Presidents like any of the ones found on our currency?
Lincoln did what "had to be done", regardless of the Constitutional nature of his policies and actions (suspended habeus corpus, instituted a "national draft" and an income tax, etc)... why is he no more "demonized" for ignoring the Constitutional limits of his office than FDR? Because "war" was immanent? To preserve the Union? Can't similar arguments be made concerning "national security" issues in 1933?
George Washington "broke" the letter of the law when he called up armed militias to enforce an "illegal" tax on the production of whiskey in Pennsylvania in 1794. According to the "law", Washington needed the approval of the Supreme Court to call the militia, but he had only the "approval" of ONE Justice of the Bench, and even that Judge saw no authority to direct the actions of that militia to suppress the right of the people of Pennsylvania to protest Government excesses.
Andrew Jackson actually ignored a Supreme Court decision that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was un-Constitutional, and continued to forcibly remove as many as 70,000 Native Americans from their established homes on recognized Treaty lands in a way that cost tens of thousands of them to die en route. How is THAT not the ultimate example of a President working outside of his Constitutional authority to move an agenda that was (obviously) contrary to what the Founders intended?
I list these examples to show that you DEFEND the actions, policies and agendas of Presidents whose views parallel yours, but you revile the Presidents whose views differ from yours, even though their actions, policies and agendas are no more "unprecedented" than the ones taken by those you support.
I'm not saying everything that FDR said or did was GOOD or RIGHT. I do not believe that every American has an inherent right to "a useful and remunerative job", or an inherent right to "a decent home", "adequate medical care ", "adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment ", or to the inherent right of "a good education"... (see, I have read the 1944 State of the Union Address!). These "rights" (if they exist at all) are already provided for in our society RIGHT NOW... in as much as we are all promised equal opportunity to these benefits through our own efforts and labors. That is GOOD. For the Government to provide these "rights" outright means they MUST (by the very definition of Government) take something from someone else to give to another. That would be BAD.
What I AM SAYING, and have said from the beginning, is that Government's reaction, in 1933, to the continuing economic crisis that began in 1929 was justified and worked to both alleviate the symptoms and conditions brought about by the Crash and reformed the systems in our society that allowed it to happen in the first place well enough to ensure that it did not repeat in the 81 years since. The "Great Recession" has been (and still is, for us here at the Chateaux de Lieteau...) a painful reminder that America needs to learn to live within her means, but it is NOT now, nor is it likely to become another "Great Depression". I am saying that it is more than mere coincidence that the cycle of boom-crash that the US saw prior to the 1930s ended with the New Deal era, and hasn't repeated since... and that amidst the many programs and policies that didn't work or were found to be un-Constitutional, something DID work to fix that particular problem in our society. Good things came from the New Deal... and because of that, labelling the entire effort as a failure is denying that which is simple, historical fact.
I can't deny that the light rail system in WI is, in fact and figure, a "New Deal" sort of project... or at least that it is being billed as such by Democrats within the State of Wisconsin. Obama wants that label, and the Dems in WI that are in favor of it want it too... if for no other reason than to ensure that they don't have to justify higher State taxes to pay for it. I'm saying it isn't a "national" focus to make sure that commuters from Milwaukee and Madison have a safe, affordable means to travel... even given the high unemployment across the country. It should be paid for by the State and the cities involved, and not by the Federal government. Putting 5500 people to work over the course of three years isn't going to impact the economic future of anyone OUTSIDE of those 5500 people. New Deal put between 4 and 8 million unemployed people to work... people that hadn't worked for more than 24 months, and who had no alternative means to support their families. Thanks to New Deal, we have things like Unemployment Insurance, Living Assistance programs, welfare rolls, food stamps... all already available to those who need them NOW, but which were unheard of then.
This is the reason why I feel comparisons between the two events are unapplicable. We are not now, nor have we ever been since, at the same level of national crisis that we were in the years between 1929 and 1933... not even close.
I've never denied that FDR was a progressive, an avowed "reformer", and I've never attempted to defend his progressive political views. FDR's attitudes towards social reform and progressive thinking has never been the "focus" of our debate, though... it was whether or not New Deal policies implemented between 1933 and 1938 worked to end the era of the Great Depression. Whether or not deficit spending and extended governmental control and regulation can, temporarily, address a national crisis (war, economic free-fall, national disaster, etc). You seem to be of the opinion that, as long as the nation was at war, such policies should be seen as a matter of course, but in all other instances they are un-Constitutional. I am of the opinion that the actual definition of the "crisis" need not only be war... national disasters (the seven years of unprecedented drought that happened between 1930 and 1937, for example, and brought about the Dust Bowl), economic disasters (the Crash of '29 and resulting 36 months of fiscal free-fall), or any other sort of crisis that puts the entire nation at risk.
We've had other "progressive" leaders in this nation... Al Smith, Hughie Long, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter... but we've also had leaders in this nation that have circumvented or ignored Constitutionally provided limits on government control of individual freedoms. I doubt that you would argue with my list of "progressives", but why don't you refute my position that the policies instituted by FDR are no more "un-Constitutional" than those promoted by traditionally "conservative" Presidents like any of the ones found on our currency?
Lincoln did what "had to be done", regardless of the Constitutional nature of his policies and actions (suspended habeus corpus, instituted a "national draft" and an income tax, etc)... why is he no more "demonized" for ignoring the Constitutional limits of his office than FDR? Because "war" was immanent? To preserve the Union? Can't similar arguments be made concerning "national security" issues in 1933?
George Washington "broke" the letter of the law when he called up armed militias to enforce an "illegal" tax on the production of whiskey in Pennsylvania in 1794. According to the "law", Washington needed the approval of the Supreme Court to call the militia, but he had only the "approval" of ONE Justice of the Bench, and even that Judge saw no authority to direct the actions of that militia to suppress the right of the people of Pennsylvania to protest Government excesses.
Andrew Jackson actually ignored a Supreme Court decision that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was un-Constitutional, and continued to forcibly remove as many as 70,000 Native Americans from their established homes on recognized Treaty lands in a way that cost tens of thousands of them to die en route. How is THAT not the ultimate example of a President working outside of his Constitutional authority to move an agenda that was (obviously) contrary to what the Founders intended?
I list these examples to show that you DEFEND the actions, policies and agendas of Presidents whose views parallel yours, but you revile the Presidents whose views differ from yours, even though their actions, policies and agendas are no more "unprecedented" than the ones taken by those you support.
I'm not saying everything that FDR said or did was GOOD or RIGHT. I do not believe that every American has an inherent right to "a useful and remunerative job", or an inherent right to "a decent home", "adequate medical care ", "adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment ", or to the inherent right of "a good education"... (see, I have read the 1944 State of the Union Address!). These "rights" (if they exist at all) are already provided for in our society RIGHT NOW... in as much as we are all promised equal opportunity to these benefits through our own efforts and labors. That is GOOD. For the Government to provide these "rights" outright means they MUST (by the very definition of Government) take something from someone else to give to another. That would be BAD.
What I AM SAYING, and have said from the beginning, is that Government's reaction, in 1933, to the continuing economic crisis that began in 1929 was justified and worked to both alleviate the symptoms and conditions brought about by the Crash and reformed the systems in our society that allowed it to happen in the first place well enough to ensure that it did not repeat in the 81 years since. The "Great Recession" has been (and still is, for us here at the Chateaux de Lieteau...) a painful reminder that America needs to learn to live within her means, but it is NOT now, nor is it likely to become another "Great Depression". I am saying that it is more than mere coincidence that the cycle of boom-crash that the US saw prior to the 1930s ended with the New Deal era, and hasn't repeated since... and that amidst the many programs and policies that didn't work or were found to be un-Constitutional, something DID work to fix that particular problem in our society. Good things came from the New Deal... and because of that, labelling the entire effort as a failure is denying that which is simple, historical fact.
Pardon the interruption ...
But can you run how this is not a "New Deal style" program by me again?
What does it matter if the employees for this program come from out of state in terms of Obama justifying spending federal dollars? Can't Obama claim that like FDR he is combating a national unemployment rate that is much too high? I get that it hurts WI politicians to fill these jobs out of state, but if combating a national unemployment rate justifies FDR's public works, why not Obama's? They held (hold) the same office, right? Barry isnt governor of WI, what does in or out of state have to do with the argument over whether or not federal programs/spending enhance a national economic recovery or hinder it?
Look, New Deal entailed more than public works, I get that, but in this instance how is this not nuts & bolts New Deal "back to work" programing? If we're talking what works and what doesnt to beat back an economic recession or depression the fundamentals are the same are they not? FDR spent bails of federal cash on public works, kept taxes artificially high, and ran the work projects from a federal rather then state level. Does that description not fit the instance you wrote of? In both instances the feds come in claiming (in word or deed) that the private sector isnt up to the task of job creation and we need a "fundamentally new" approach. FDR offers NEW Deal, Obama has his FUNDAMENTAL transformation. In either case the basic thought process is identical - the government is tasked with creating an economic recovery rather then the greedy, unscrupulous private sector; and furthermore that it's the governments job to provide direct relief until this grand central spending can prime the pump of our economy. The irony of course being that the high taxes, spending, and new regulation needed to conduct these government interventions are the very things that cause free market economies to contract. Call it New Deal, Barakanomics, "relief", public works, it all amounts to one giant government bail out. And what's worse, the strings attached to a federal bail out are rarely severed.
Have you read FDR's second bill of rights speech? Does it sound any less a radical or "fundamental" reordering of our society then what the Obama inner circle espouses? The biggest difference between Obama & FDR is Roosevelt went much, much farther then anything Obama has attempted to date, and was more honest about what he wanted.
And thats always the rub to me. Roosevelt makes Obama look like a piker when it comes to "fundamental change" via government. FDR went boldly into unprecedented territory, fundamentally shifting government's role in society & the expectations people have - a focus on government's responsibility to the individual rather then the other way around. Yet FDR is to be applauded, and Obama scorned? The multi phase, multi tiered, multi year monstrosity that was New Deal is to be defended to the last breath, protected as sacred until the last shield lay broken and muddied in the field, but let Obama build one little monorail with federal dollars & it's all hands on deck to protect such a clear and present danger to the Constitution!
Please ... a New Dealer biitching about the misappropriation of federal dollars via an intra city light train? That's priceless ... llike complaining about the teller service during a hold up.
Be it the mortgage or auto bail outs, unprecedented debt, Obama-care, or the new financial regulations bill, Obama is merely finishing FDR's thought ... or didnt you read the Roosevelt second bill of rights? At least Barry's behavior hasnt turned borderline criminal via court packing or the interning of American citizens.
What does it matter if the employees for this program come from out of state in terms of Obama justifying spending federal dollars? Can't Obama claim that like FDR he is combating a national unemployment rate that is much too high? I get that it hurts WI politicians to fill these jobs out of state, but if combating a national unemployment rate justifies FDR's public works, why not Obama's? They held (hold) the same office, right? Barry isnt governor of WI, what does in or out of state have to do with the argument over whether or not federal programs/spending enhance a national economic recovery or hinder it?
Look, New Deal entailed more than public works, I get that, but in this instance how is this not nuts & bolts New Deal "back to work" programing? If we're talking what works and what doesnt to beat back an economic recession or depression the fundamentals are the same are they not? FDR spent bails of federal cash on public works, kept taxes artificially high, and ran the work projects from a federal rather then state level. Does that description not fit the instance you wrote of? In both instances the feds come in claiming (in word or deed) that the private sector isnt up to the task of job creation and we need a "fundamentally new" approach. FDR offers NEW Deal, Obama has his FUNDAMENTAL transformation. In either case the basic thought process is identical - the government is tasked with creating an economic recovery rather then the greedy, unscrupulous private sector; and furthermore that it's the governments job to provide direct relief until this grand central spending can prime the pump of our economy. The irony of course being that the high taxes, spending, and new regulation needed to conduct these government interventions are the very things that cause free market economies to contract. Call it New Deal, Barakanomics, "relief", public works, it all amounts to one giant government bail out. And what's worse, the strings attached to a federal bail out are rarely severed.
Have you read FDR's second bill of rights speech? Does it sound any less a radical or "fundamental" reordering of our society then what the Obama inner circle espouses? The biggest difference between Obama & FDR is Roosevelt went much, much farther then anything Obama has attempted to date, and was more honest about what he wanted.
And thats always the rub to me. Roosevelt makes Obama look like a piker when it comes to "fundamental change" via government. FDR went boldly into unprecedented territory, fundamentally shifting government's role in society & the expectations people have - a focus on government's responsibility to the individual rather then the other way around. Yet FDR is to be applauded, and Obama scorned? The multi phase, multi tiered, multi year monstrosity that was New Deal is to be defended to the last breath, protected as sacred until the last shield lay broken and muddied in the field, but let Obama build one little monorail with federal dollars & it's all hands on deck to protect such a clear and present danger to the Constitution!
Please ... a New Dealer biitching about the misappropriation of federal dollars via an intra city light train? That's priceless ... llike complaining about the teller service during a hold up.
Be it the mortgage or auto bail outs, unprecedented debt, Obama-care, or the new financial regulations bill, Obama is merely finishing FDR's thought ... or didnt you read the Roosevelt second bill of rights? At least Barry's behavior hasnt turned borderline criminal via court packing or the interning of American citizens.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Another example of "Obama Deal"...
At the risk of another "New Deal" meltdown, let me give another current example of why I feel Obama is failing to justify his spending agenda at the expense of the nation.
I live in Northeast Pennsylvania (abbreviated here at the Bund to NEPA), but my "home" will always be Wisconsin. I grew up there, most of my family and many of my friends still live there, and it is our dream to someday be able to go back there to retire in our "twilight" years. As such, I try to stay abreast of the latest news in WI, hoping to hear good news that might usher our return to the Dairy State just a little sooner. That news is rarely good, lately, though...
With some of the highest taxes in the nation, and a cost of living that ranks 8th highest out of 50 States, Wisconsin is a State that was particularly hard-hit by the Great Recession, which still has a choke-hold on the economy of the region.
It is also a State in which the GOP hopes to make great gains in 2010... possibly beating Feingold out of his Senate seat, winning the Governor's Mansion, and at least two Congressional seats are showing themselves to be "in play". A State that has been solidly "blue" since Bush ran in '88, Wisconsin is getting more and more vocal in its conservative aims, it seems.
Therefore, it is no surprise that WI is the site of some serious Obama stumping. Yesterday, in front of more than 17,000 students, Obama and the Dems held a rally for Democratic candidates at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Part of the goal seemed to be to convince the crowd (and the State) that "change" was still coming, and "hope" was still alive... despite evidence to the contrary.
One of the topics that is being hotly debated by both sides is the construction of a high speed rail link between Milwaukee and Madison, which will need nearly $1 billion in Federal stimulus funds to be completed. The lowest estimate I have seen for the Federal cost of this train is $860 million, but most that I have seen add nearly 20% to that bill in cost overruns due to weather (always a challenge in chilly Wisconsin winters) and local labor issues (unions in WI are notoriously expensive organizations to work with).
I'm not opposed to public transportation at all... in fact, I'm in favor of it in most cases... but I do feel that, in most cases, it should be a State issue and NOT a Federal one. If the cities of Milwaukee and Madison really feel that both they and the State can benefit from such a railway, then they should pay for the bill in exactly the same way they pay for anything else... local and State bonds.
Let's face it... the chances of Ryan actually riding this railway is pretty slim, so why should he have to see even one penny of his tax money go towards the construction (and upkeep) of this link? If that were the case, and the Feds were to front the money (as opposed to simply giving it to the State of Wisconsin), then any revenues made off the link should be applied to paying it back in as short a time as possible... so that Ryan (and every other Federal tax payer outside of WI) doesn't feel their money is going into things they see no benefit from.
Now, many would argue that this is no different than the New Deal era agencies that built roads, dams and bridges in the '30s... but it is different. The main goal of those efforts in the Depression were to put many of the 23% unemployed to work, temporarily, and the most expedient way to do that was to put them to work building local or state projects that benefited both the State and local communities AND the workers themselves. Overblown Democratic estimates put the number of people employed on THIS construction project at 5500 over 3 years... but DON'T tell you that most of them would come from OUT OF THE STATE, and that these jobs would all cost far more than hiring locally due to the expense of union labor.
If this train is a good thing (and I'm not saying it isn't), then why not let the State of Wisconsin take the bids for its construction and maintenance, from local companies and firms, and hire local workers (union or otherwise) to do the construction? That way, the revenue generated by the link can stay in the State, and the benefits to the local economies feel the gains all that much quicker.
I'll tell you why not: Because the Federal tax bill that each and every resident in the State of Wisconsin is going to pay is NOT going to go down in relation to what they are paying in State and local taxes... thus, raising the State tax to pay for the construction will add an additional burden that the politicians in WI don't want attached to their record come November. Hell, even the comparison is biased... in 1934, the average (adjusted 2004 dollars) annual income was $11, 700 with an average marginal tax rate of 11% (up from 6% in 1930). In 2010, the average income is more than $48,000 and the marginal tax rate is 25% (and is going to go up in 2011). I don't have numbers, but I can assume that a corresponding increase in State and local taxes is also evident... and also makes the comparison even more skewed. This simply is NOT a "New Deal" program... and can't be compared to them.
Nope... Feingold and the other WI Democrats are going in front of crowds with Obama to show the Democratic voters in WI that they are working very hard to get someone else to pay for programs and projects within the State. Otherwise, they'd follow the same pattern of avoiding an unpopular Obama like the plague in these months leading up to the very critical November midterms. Otherwise, the only course of action open to them would be to call for LOWER Federal tax bills so that State taxes could be raised accordingly. I'm no fan of high State taxes either, but at least then I know that my tax dollars are staying local. That, at least, is something, isn't it?
I live in Northeast Pennsylvania (abbreviated here at the Bund to NEPA), but my "home" will always be Wisconsin. I grew up there, most of my family and many of my friends still live there, and it is our dream to someday be able to go back there to retire in our "twilight" years. As such, I try to stay abreast of the latest news in WI, hoping to hear good news that might usher our return to the Dairy State just a little sooner. That news is rarely good, lately, though...
With some of the highest taxes in the nation, and a cost of living that ranks 8th highest out of 50 States, Wisconsin is a State that was particularly hard-hit by the Great Recession, which still has a choke-hold on the economy of the region.
It is also a State in which the GOP hopes to make great gains in 2010... possibly beating Feingold out of his Senate seat, winning the Governor's Mansion, and at least two Congressional seats are showing themselves to be "in play". A State that has been solidly "blue" since Bush ran in '88, Wisconsin is getting more and more vocal in its conservative aims, it seems.
Therefore, it is no surprise that WI is the site of some serious Obama stumping. Yesterday, in front of more than 17,000 students, Obama and the Dems held a rally for Democratic candidates at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Part of the goal seemed to be to convince the crowd (and the State) that "change" was still coming, and "hope" was still alive... despite evidence to the contrary.
One of the topics that is being hotly debated by both sides is the construction of a high speed rail link between Milwaukee and Madison, which will need nearly $1 billion in Federal stimulus funds to be completed. The lowest estimate I have seen for the Federal cost of this train is $860 million, but most that I have seen add nearly 20% to that bill in cost overruns due to weather (always a challenge in chilly Wisconsin winters) and local labor issues (unions in WI are notoriously expensive organizations to work with).
I'm not opposed to public transportation at all... in fact, I'm in favor of it in most cases... but I do feel that, in most cases, it should be a State issue and NOT a Federal one. If the cities of Milwaukee and Madison really feel that both they and the State can benefit from such a railway, then they should pay for the bill in exactly the same way they pay for anything else... local and State bonds.
Let's face it... the chances of Ryan actually riding this railway is pretty slim, so why should he have to see even one penny of his tax money go towards the construction (and upkeep) of this link? If that were the case, and the Feds were to front the money (as opposed to simply giving it to the State of Wisconsin), then any revenues made off the link should be applied to paying it back in as short a time as possible... so that Ryan (and every other Federal tax payer outside of WI) doesn't feel their money is going into things they see no benefit from.
Now, many would argue that this is no different than the New Deal era agencies that built roads, dams and bridges in the '30s... but it is different. The main goal of those efforts in the Depression were to put many of the 23% unemployed to work, temporarily, and the most expedient way to do that was to put them to work building local or state projects that benefited both the State and local communities AND the workers themselves. Overblown Democratic estimates put the number of people employed on THIS construction project at 5500 over 3 years... but DON'T tell you that most of them would come from OUT OF THE STATE, and that these jobs would all cost far more than hiring locally due to the expense of union labor.
If this train is a good thing (and I'm not saying it isn't), then why not let the State of Wisconsin take the bids for its construction and maintenance, from local companies and firms, and hire local workers (union or otherwise) to do the construction? That way, the revenue generated by the link can stay in the State, and the benefits to the local economies feel the gains all that much quicker.
I'll tell you why not: Because the Federal tax bill that each and every resident in the State of Wisconsin is going to pay is NOT going to go down in relation to what they are paying in State and local taxes... thus, raising the State tax to pay for the construction will add an additional burden that the politicians in WI don't want attached to their record come November. Hell, even the comparison is biased... in 1934, the average (adjusted 2004 dollars) annual income was $11, 700 with an average marginal tax rate of 11% (up from 6% in 1930). In 2010, the average income is more than $48,000 and the marginal tax rate is 25% (and is going to go up in 2011). I don't have numbers, but I can assume that a corresponding increase in State and local taxes is also evident... and also makes the comparison even more skewed. This simply is NOT a "New Deal" program... and can't be compared to them.
Nope... Feingold and the other WI Democrats are going in front of crowds with Obama to show the Democratic voters in WI that they are working very hard to get someone else to pay for programs and projects within the State. Otherwise, they'd follow the same pattern of avoiding an unpopular Obama like the plague in these months leading up to the very critical November midterms. Otherwise, the only course of action open to them would be to call for LOWER Federal tax bills so that State taxes could be raised accordingly. I'm no fan of high State taxes either, but at least then I know that my tax dollars are staying local. That, at least, is something, isn't it?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Know what else Obama hasn't fixed?
Speculation pricing options for the crude oil market.
Wasn't he the one screaming for Bush's head on a platter when the gas spiked in price a couple a years ago? Didn't he blame it all on Bush?
Well... so did I (in a round-about way), but Obama has done nothing to fix the process at all. If Israel decides its had enough of Iran's nuclear plans and agendas, and greases the facilities... am I the only one that thinks crude oil prices will spike again, and probably far higher?
If you guys thought I was tough on Bush for the spikes... watch what happens when they spike again and Obama wants to cry "Not my fault!" It damn well is his fault... because he did nothing to put the curbs back in place that Bush removed in 2001.
Just popped into my head... wanted to share. Hehe.
Wasn't he the one screaming for Bush's head on a platter when the gas spiked in price a couple a years ago? Didn't he blame it all on Bush?
Well... so did I (in a round-about way), but Obama has done nothing to fix the process at all. If Israel decides its had enough of Iran's nuclear plans and agendas, and greases the facilities... am I the only one that thinks crude oil prices will spike again, and probably far higher?
If you guys thought I was tough on Bush for the spikes... watch what happens when they spike again and Obama wants to cry "Not my fault!" It damn well is his fault... because he did nothing to put the curbs back in place that Bush removed in 2001.
Just popped into my head... wanted to share. Hehe.
Israeli settlements...
Previously, I wrote a post about the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. In it, I was very critical of the position that the Palestinian leadership would ever meet its promised goals within the process, and that position hasn't changed much since.
I do have to say this, though... in past peace efforts between Israel and the PLO/PA, the focus of the Palestinians has been either security or sovereignty, or both. Today, the focus is settlements and their renewed construction beginning today. I can't but feel this is a significant change in the PA position, and one that Israel can ill afford to ignore. Israelis making op-ed articles on this Jewish news agency site seem to feel its a significant issue, as well.
With the 2,400 new housing units slated to be built in Ariel (and had been delayed due to the moratorium) all intended to be used through the subsidized relocation of low-income, "anti-Zionist" Israelis, the focus seems to have moved away from a "hands off" approach by the Netanyahu coalition into a more directed approach. This move (if it is as "subsidized" as the authors say) seems to contradict previously stated goals of only allowing those who voluntarily go into the occupied territories to "begin a better life".
I still feel that, until such time as Abbas can show a concerted control over the entire PA, promises made by him concerning the PA as a political body are almost mute. Hammas will not deal under a Fatah-led agreement, and the chances of a Fatah-Hammas coalition seem pretty thin right now. However, I would think that it is in the best interests of BOTH Fatah and Israel to work as hard as need be to keep the situation in the West Bank as close to "peaceful" as possible... and to let Hammas continue to drowned in its own sweat in Gaza. I really don't see how this happens if Tel Aviv allows the new construction to begin again.
Has anyone found a solid, rational defense of the position that the construction needs to start again? What is the rational behind the effort to end the moratorium, without knowing what the possible lines of control are going to be between what is controlled by Israel and what is controlled by the PA? How is this effort helping the Israeli position in any way, shape or form?
I do have to say this, though... in past peace efforts between Israel and the PLO/PA, the focus of the Palestinians has been either security or sovereignty, or both. Today, the focus is settlements and their renewed construction beginning today. I can't but feel this is a significant change in the PA position, and one that Israel can ill afford to ignore. Israelis making op-ed articles on this Jewish news agency site seem to feel its a significant issue, as well.
With the 2,400 new housing units slated to be built in Ariel (and had been delayed due to the moratorium) all intended to be used through the subsidized relocation of low-income, "anti-Zionist" Israelis, the focus seems to have moved away from a "hands off" approach by the Netanyahu coalition into a more directed approach. This move (if it is as "subsidized" as the authors say) seems to contradict previously stated goals of only allowing those who voluntarily go into the occupied territories to "begin a better life".
I still feel that, until such time as Abbas can show a concerted control over the entire PA, promises made by him concerning the PA as a political body are almost mute. Hammas will not deal under a Fatah-led agreement, and the chances of a Fatah-Hammas coalition seem pretty thin right now. However, I would think that it is in the best interests of BOTH Fatah and Israel to work as hard as need be to keep the situation in the West Bank as close to "peaceful" as possible... and to let Hammas continue to drowned in its own sweat in Gaza. I really don't see how this happens if Tel Aviv allows the new construction to begin again.
Has anyone found a solid, rational defense of the position that the construction needs to start again? What is the rational behind the effort to end the moratorium, without knowing what the possible lines of control are going to be between what is controlled by Israel and what is controlled by the PA? How is this effort helping the Israeli position in any way, shape or form?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
More on the Pledge...
The more I think about this Pledge, the less I like it... and the more I understand why Paul Ryan has had less-than-a-lot to do with its promotion.
It never touches or addresses the fact that SSI is a failing program, and doesn't provide the security in retirement that it intended to provide for the last 75 years, and never mentions Ryan's proposal to allow younger tax payers to allocate more of their deductions to private retirement funds while providing a reduced retirement benefit from SSI. He outlined this in his "Roadmap" plan, and nothing about it is mentioned in the Pledge.
There is a paragraph in the Pledge about requiring new bills to show their "Constitutionality"... but nothing about returning to the proven success of "Pay-as-you-Go", in which the proposed bill must show how it is going to be paid for. This is nothing more, in my opinion, than a token nod to the Tea Party movement and those calling for closer adherence to the Constitution. It does next to nothing to end the process of ever-growing Big Government.
A promise in the Pledge to "work with" State and local officials to curtail illegal immigration... but nothing about ending the problem, or completing the "fence" that the GOP had so fought for for nearly a decade, or denying illegals benefits and entitlements that have already been granted them across the country (health benefits, driver's licenses, housing allowances, etc). Now, if this sort of sentiment equates to giving States such as Arizona or Texas a "free hand" in dealing with the problem as they see fit, I think I could get behind it... but that is NOT what is implied in the Pledge, is it? It also does nothing to end States like California's overt effort to draw illegals to its doors and cities by declaring huge areas "sanctuary" zones where no prosecution can occur.
Even as simple a promise as ending earmarks is utterly lacking in the Pledge. What is it that they hope to achieve here? Is this how they intend to "water down" traditional GOP positions to make them more appealing to moderate and independent voters? When I said that the GOP had to "appeal" to moderates and independents, I didn't mean they had to dilute the platform, only that they needed to make the platform clear and totally understandable to the general public. If a particular portion of the platform was "outside" of the general public opinion poll, it should be spelled out in clearer, better defined terms... not softened or dropped entirely.
The more I look at this Pledge, the more I'm convinced that it is simply a response to perceived public opinion by the GOP. They want to touch concerns within the Tea Party movement while still seeming "compassionate" to liberal and progressive issues. They want to seem like they are addressing "conservative" concerns in a way that won't upset or frighten independent voters.
This defines the very term "counter productive", I feel. Present the GOP platform in a manner that is clear, concise and unambiguous to anyone reading it, and count on America's voters to best determine what direction they want to move in. Show them, in no uncertain terms, exactly what the benefits are to a conservative approach and what the costs are associated with a liberal, progressive approach... and the results will speak for themselves.
Want an example? Let's look at abortion...
The GOP position on abortion has been as fluid lately as anything you could hope to point to. We have seen it go from a call of no abortions... ever, to a ban on Federal funding of procedures or research. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The Pledge promises to make the Federal ban on abortion funding permanent (rather than the annual renewal that it requires now), but no longer calls for a "repeal" of Roe v Wade that we had only a few years ago. I still support the permanent ban on funding... but that ban should exist because the Fed has no authority to fund private, voluntary procedures at all... not because I am opposed to abortions, morally and ethically. I don't think the Fed should be funding breast implants, or face lifts, or dental veneers either... they are unnecessary and totally voluntary in nature, not life-threatening if left undone.
Want to avoid the "hot-topic" issue of abortion within the Pledge, or anywhere in the GOP agenda? Explain and detail the lack of Federal authority to fund or interfere in these sorts of procedures, and leave the legality of abortion to be decided by individual States.
No... I'm becoming more and more dissappointed with the whole "pledge" the more I look into it.
It never touches or addresses the fact that SSI is a failing program, and doesn't provide the security in retirement that it intended to provide for the last 75 years, and never mentions Ryan's proposal to allow younger tax payers to allocate more of their deductions to private retirement funds while providing a reduced retirement benefit from SSI. He outlined this in his "Roadmap" plan, and nothing about it is mentioned in the Pledge.
There is a paragraph in the Pledge about requiring new bills to show their "Constitutionality"... but nothing about returning to the proven success of "Pay-as-you-Go", in which the proposed bill must show how it is going to be paid for. This is nothing more, in my opinion, than a token nod to the Tea Party movement and those calling for closer adherence to the Constitution. It does next to nothing to end the process of ever-growing Big Government.
A promise in the Pledge to "work with" State and local officials to curtail illegal immigration... but nothing about ending the problem, or completing the "fence" that the GOP had so fought for for nearly a decade, or denying illegals benefits and entitlements that have already been granted them across the country (health benefits, driver's licenses, housing allowances, etc). Now, if this sort of sentiment equates to giving States such as Arizona or Texas a "free hand" in dealing with the problem as they see fit, I think I could get behind it... but that is NOT what is implied in the Pledge, is it? It also does nothing to end States like California's overt effort to draw illegals to its doors and cities by declaring huge areas "sanctuary" zones where no prosecution can occur.
Even as simple a promise as ending earmarks is utterly lacking in the Pledge. What is it that they hope to achieve here? Is this how they intend to "water down" traditional GOP positions to make them more appealing to moderate and independent voters? When I said that the GOP had to "appeal" to moderates and independents, I didn't mean they had to dilute the platform, only that they needed to make the platform clear and totally understandable to the general public. If a particular portion of the platform was "outside" of the general public opinion poll, it should be spelled out in clearer, better defined terms... not softened or dropped entirely.
The more I look at this Pledge, the more I'm convinced that it is simply a response to perceived public opinion by the GOP. They want to touch concerns within the Tea Party movement while still seeming "compassionate" to liberal and progressive issues. They want to seem like they are addressing "conservative" concerns in a way that won't upset or frighten independent voters.
This defines the very term "counter productive", I feel. Present the GOP platform in a manner that is clear, concise and unambiguous to anyone reading it, and count on America's voters to best determine what direction they want to move in. Show them, in no uncertain terms, exactly what the benefits are to a conservative approach and what the costs are associated with a liberal, progressive approach... and the results will speak for themselves.
Want an example? Let's look at abortion...
The GOP position on abortion has been as fluid lately as anything you could hope to point to. We have seen it go from a call of no abortions... ever, to a ban on Federal funding of procedures or research. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The Pledge promises to make the Federal ban on abortion funding permanent (rather than the annual renewal that it requires now), but no longer calls for a "repeal" of Roe v Wade that we had only a few years ago. I still support the permanent ban on funding... but that ban should exist because the Fed has no authority to fund private, voluntary procedures at all... not because I am opposed to abortions, morally and ethically. I don't think the Fed should be funding breast implants, or face lifts, or dental veneers either... they are unnecessary and totally voluntary in nature, not life-threatening if left undone.
Want to avoid the "hot-topic" issue of abortion within the Pledge, or anywhere in the GOP agenda? Explain and detail the lack of Federal authority to fund or interfere in these sorts of procedures, and leave the legality of abortion to be decided by individual States.
No... I'm becoming more and more dissappointed with the whole "pledge" the more I look into it.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thoughts on "Classic,"
Got out last night around 2, golf junket in with the D list Playboy Bunnies escorting, so trailer park trash pandemonium reigned for the entire shift. Had an hour to kill before having to pick up Leona (carpool) so I zipped home and read Titus' Bund post.
If we are talking time travel vehicle examples of classic, as in "I remember EXACTLY where I was and what was going on when I read this the first time," then you have to include the first three books of Stephen King's Dark Tower series. Which also made me think, as a big part of the time travel recollections were what music was playing. Had to root through my CD collection but I recovered a priceless gem... James Levine conducting the London Philharmonic performing Gustav Mahler's 6th Symphony.
The Kia Sorento, by the way, has one of the best factory installed sound systems for listening to that piece I have ever heard. I have never been a fan of listening to classical music in a vehicle, as most of the small details get lost in the ambient noise of traffic and such, but this was AWESOME. The Andante movement was spectacular, took me right back to college. Almost had to blink tears out of my eyes. So when Leona opens the door and gives me this glazed look because I've listened to the whole piece for this one climactic phrase and she's not in the mood for very loud classical music, my heartbreak is also classic.
Oh well.
If we are talking time travel vehicle examples of classic, as in "I remember EXACTLY where I was and what was going on when I read this the first time," then you have to include the first three books of Stephen King's Dark Tower series. Which also made me think, as a big part of the time travel recollections were what music was playing. Had to root through my CD collection but I recovered a priceless gem... James Levine conducting the London Philharmonic performing Gustav Mahler's 6th Symphony.
The Kia Sorento, by the way, has one of the best factory installed sound systems for listening to that piece I have ever heard. I have never been a fan of listening to classical music in a vehicle, as most of the small details get lost in the ambient noise of traffic and such, but this was AWESOME. The Andante movement was spectacular, took me right back to college. Almost had to blink tears out of my eyes. So when Leona opens the door and gives me this glazed look because I've listened to the whole piece for this one climactic phrase and she's not in the mood for very loud classical music, my heartbreak is also classic.
Oh well.
Examining the Pledge...
The Pledge to America has been released, and it isn't dauntingly long (48 pages of .pdf), but its long enough (and vague enough) to not be what I would have hoped.
The thing I had most longed to see isn't there... a call for a General Accounting, as provided for by the US Constitution (Art I, Sect 9), in which the size and scope of government can be clearly seen for anyone interested.
Now, I understand that even in a "conservative" model, our government is damn BIG... but to get the scope of what has been done in the last 25 years, I think a detailed general analysis of government size and cost is called for. Imagine the data that document (bound in thousands upon thousands of pages) would provide for bean-counters and geeks across the country! The GOP provided a chart of just how bloated and over-grown HHS Department is at the unveiling of the Pledge... and it truly is amazing. Imagine the same for the whole bureaucracy!
Does anyone else suspect that THIS is why Paul Ryan wasn't at the unveiling? Was it because he wasn't happy with the Pledge (even though his name is prominent in it, as is his photo)? Could the GOP machine be too focused on simply limiting the rate of growth in government, and not focused enough on reduction of the size of government to less than it was in 2000? Are they following the Reagan model too closely? Reagan didn't reduce the size of government by even one iota, but he did reduce the speed at which it grew (something Bush Sr. tried very hard to carry on, too).
One quarter of our national economy is now dedicated to Federal spending, in one form or another. That is up from less than 12% in 1980 (the end of the Carter era). The scope of this is staggering... one in every four dollars moving through our national economy stems from Federal tax dollars, while only a bit more than 2 out of every four comes from domestic commercial spending (groceries, housing, business profits, local and State revenues, etc). The balance is foreign investment and spending (export revenue, trade allowances, etc). How did this happen? When did our economy become so "centrally" managed as to see 25% of its makeup stem from the government? We honestly can't blame ALL that on Obama... so Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan must have something to do with it too... right? They are the ones that signed the spending into Law, right?
At it's height, New Deal constituted 14% of the national economy (prior to 1942, of course... when it went to 19%), and that was the biggest increase EVER from the pre-'29 level of 5.5%. When, over the course of the last 30 years, did we see the dependence of our national economy on the Federal dollars grow to 25%? And guess what? If left unchecked, that dependence will grow to nearly 40% by 2020! At which point, I think we can safely say, the US will have adopted the socialist platform that so much of Europe now utilizes. Our government will be the single greatest determining factor in the economic success or failure of the American economic machine.
I don't want that to be the case.
The thing I had most longed to see isn't there... a call for a General Accounting, as provided for by the US Constitution (Art I, Sect 9), in which the size and scope of government can be clearly seen for anyone interested.
Now, I understand that even in a "conservative" model, our government is damn BIG... but to get the scope of what has been done in the last 25 years, I think a detailed general analysis of government size and cost is called for. Imagine the data that document (bound in thousands upon thousands of pages) would provide for bean-counters and geeks across the country! The GOP provided a chart of just how bloated and over-grown HHS Department is at the unveiling of the Pledge... and it truly is amazing. Imagine the same for the whole bureaucracy!
Does anyone else suspect that THIS is why Paul Ryan wasn't at the unveiling? Was it because he wasn't happy with the Pledge (even though his name is prominent in it, as is his photo)? Could the GOP machine be too focused on simply limiting the rate of growth in government, and not focused enough on reduction of the size of government to less than it was in 2000? Are they following the Reagan model too closely? Reagan didn't reduce the size of government by even one iota, but he did reduce the speed at which it grew (something Bush Sr. tried very hard to carry on, too).
One quarter of our national economy is now dedicated to Federal spending, in one form or another. That is up from less than 12% in 1980 (the end of the Carter era). The scope of this is staggering... one in every four dollars moving through our national economy stems from Federal tax dollars, while only a bit more than 2 out of every four comes from domestic commercial spending (groceries, housing, business profits, local and State revenues, etc). The balance is foreign investment and spending (export revenue, trade allowances, etc). How did this happen? When did our economy become so "centrally" managed as to see 25% of its makeup stem from the government? We honestly can't blame ALL that on Obama... so Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan must have something to do with it too... right? They are the ones that signed the spending into Law, right?
At it's height, New Deal constituted 14% of the national economy (prior to 1942, of course... when it went to 19%), and that was the biggest increase EVER from the pre-'29 level of 5.5%. When, over the course of the last 30 years, did we see the dependence of our national economy on the Federal dollars grow to 25%? And guess what? If left unchecked, that dependence will grow to nearly 40% by 2020! At which point, I think we can safely say, the US will have adopted the socialist platform that so much of Europe now utilizes. Our government will be the single greatest determining factor in the economic success or failure of the American economic machine.
I don't want that to be the case.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Bund gathering... tomorrow.
That's right... if you can get here by 3 PM Friday, September 24, Liz and I will be hosting Mick and Marshall for the evening. Beer (stout and porter, mainly) for me and Mick, and 8 bottles of French wine for Liz and Marshall (courtesy of Marshall).
I'm looking forward to some serious unwind time... I've been a bit stressed lately... so if you're looking for laughs and old stories, this is the place to be.
I'm looking forward to some serious unwind time... I've been a bit stressed lately... so if you're looking for laughs and old stories, this is the place to be.
How do you define "Classic"?
The term has many definitions, its true... but the one I'm talking about is:
clas-sic: (adj) of enduring interest, quality or style; of literary or historic renown; definitive in nature and intent
I'm re-reading one of the "classics" from the Cold War era... right out of the Reagan 80s, in fact: Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy.
I have, literally, read this work dozens of times, cover to cover. Its characters are as familiar to me as old friends, and reading it again is an easy way to relieve some serious stress in my life right now. I can read this book, allow myself to fall into its story, close my eyes, and I can see myself back in my youth, in my old bedroom at my folk's house, or in my first apartment; I can recall talking to old friends about the scenarios detailed in the book, and how they would or would not play out in real life... it really does transport me back to my youth.
Add to that the simple and undeniable fact that this book is every bit as good as any of the best "classic" adventure stories you are likely to read... and I mean that sincerely. I rank it right up there with Starship Troopers, The Three Musketeers, Kidnapped, Battlefield Earth, and yes, dare I say it?... The Lord of the Rings.
If you haven't read it yet... go do it. Soon.
clas-sic: (adj) of enduring interest, quality or style; of literary or historic renown; definitive in nature and intent
I'm re-reading one of the "classics" from the Cold War era... right out of the Reagan 80s, in fact: Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy.
I have, literally, read this work dozens of times, cover to cover. Its characters are as familiar to me as old friends, and reading it again is an easy way to relieve some serious stress in my life right now. I can read this book, allow myself to fall into its story, close my eyes, and I can see myself back in my youth, in my old bedroom at my folk's house, or in my first apartment; I can recall talking to old friends about the scenarios detailed in the book, and how they would or would not play out in real life... it really does transport me back to my youth.
Add to that the simple and undeniable fact that this book is every bit as good as any of the best "classic" adventure stories you are likely to read... and I mean that sincerely. I rank it right up there with Starship Troopers, The Three Musketeers, Kidnapped, Battlefield Earth, and yes, dare I say it?... The Lord of the Rings.
If you haven't read it yet... go do it. Soon.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Good post...
It is almost scary when you think of the speed with which the Tea Party has manifested itself as a dominant movement in American politics. So scary, in fact, that it begs a question...
Are there historical parallels?
Could Beck have been right when he compared what he was doing on 8/28 with what Dr. King said on the same steps thirty seven years earlier? Has the Tea Party taken up the call to champion the power and dignity of the individual over the generalization and stratification of the ever growing and ever less accessible government bureaucracy?
King's speech called on America, and specifically the Federal government, to judge a man by the content of his character, rather than by the superficial methods typically employed in generations past. King was addressing racism... no question about it. But was that all you can apply his words and intent to? Does nothing in the modern world seem to call for the rights and dignity of the individual to be paramount to the stagnant, undignified status quo?
Collectivism, socialism, Marxism, liberalism... whatever label you choose to use means the same thing: reducing all of our society to the lowest common denominator. How can that be an acceptable outlook for America's future? Who doesn't want their children to do better in life than their parents did? Who doesn't want to succeed in business, finances, career, family, and faith? Why is it wrong to expect to be compensated for labor or assets sold to the highest bidder? When is it okay for a government to say "This is enough... you don't need any more"?
This is a time when we get to see America come back from the extreme. Liberalism has reached its limit here in the US, I think. When even someone as politically savy as a President of the United States must be can be as brazen as to feel comfortable discussing "collective salvation" while giving a commencement speech, or using terms like "spreading the wealth" when speaking ex tempore during a photo op... traditional American values are going to seem pretty threatened, and John Q Public on Main Street America isn't going to feel good about that threat.
Conservatives cannot squander what they win now, though. In 2000, George W. Bush had the White House, Trent Lott had the Senate, and Dennis Hastert ruled the House. A "conservative majority" sat the Bench of the Supreme Court. That conservative government lasted only 6 years... and very little "conservative" success can be seen from those six years. The deficit soared to new heights, domestic spending was three times what it had been in the 90's, and America saw little benefit to keeping the GOP control in place.
If the GOP really has the answers, then they better do everything in their power to SHOW us the answers and benefits... or the liberal agenda will again win out.
Are there historical parallels?
Could Beck have been right when he compared what he was doing on 8/28 with what Dr. King said on the same steps thirty seven years earlier? Has the Tea Party taken up the call to champion the power and dignity of the individual over the generalization and stratification of the ever growing and ever less accessible government bureaucracy?
King's speech called on America, and specifically the Federal government, to judge a man by the content of his character, rather than by the superficial methods typically employed in generations past. King was addressing racism... no question about it. But was that all you can apply his words and intent to? Does nothing in the modern world seem to call for the rights and dignity of the individual to be paramount to the stagnant, undignified status quo?
Collectivism, socialism, Marxism, liberalism... whatever label you choose to use means the same thing: reducing all of our society to the lowest common denominator. How can that be an acceptable outlook for America's future? Who doesn't want their children to do better in life than their parents did? Who doesn't want to succeed in business, finances, career, family, and faith? Why is it wrong to expect to be compensated for labor or assets sold to the highest bidder? When is it okay for a government to say "This is enough... you don't need any more"?
This is a time when we get to see America come back from the extreme. Liberalism has reached its limit here in the US, I think. When even someone as politically savy as a President of the United States must be can be as brazen as to feel comfortable discussing "collective salvation" while giving a commencement speech, or using terms like "spreading the wealth" when speaking ex tempore during a photo op... traditional American values are going to seem pretty threatened, and John Q Public on Main Street America isn't going to feel good about that threat.
Conservatives cannot squander what they win now, though. In 2000, George W. Bush had the White House, Trent Lott had the Senate, and Dennis Hastert ruled the House. A "conservative majority" sat the Bench of the Supreme Court. That conservative government lasted only 6 years... and very little "conservative" success can be seen from those six years. The deficit soared to new heights, domestic spending was three times what it had been in the 90's, and America saw little benefit to keeping the GOP control in place.
If the GOP really has the answers, then they better do everything in their power to SHOW us the answers and benefits... or the liberal agenda will again win out.
Not On My Watch
On February 19, 2009 a then little known CNBC analyst named Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and lit a fire under the feet of millions of Americans. Found here, his 4 minute 58 second explosion, amidst the stimulus, auto and mortgage bailout talk, contained two words that would go on to once again redefine America's identity: Tea Party. He urged one in Chicago, but he got one across the nation.
People began with sending envelopes to Washington, containing nothing more than a tea bag within. It's reported congressional aides had to carry them out by the trash bag full, quite a metaphor in imagery itself. These folks, whom had finally found a historical image to give shape to their mountains of frustration did not stop there. They began to gather. First in homes, car pooling to town meetings. They faced down professional politicians armed not with talking points, but with copies of their Constitution. Their Constitution. They went on ... Amazon soon reported an explosion in book purchases focusing on the Founding Fathers and original intent, these distraught patriots attempting to make sense of how and when we strayed from both. Conservative authors flooded the best seller lists, a tidal wave of newly self educated Constitutionalists overwhelmed the air waves on talk radio and TV. This was no average movement. Town Hall meetings were canceled out of fear of "looking bad" at the hands this newly engaged citizenry. The media attempted to paint them as fringe, as kooks for chanting such insane requests as "read the bill." Rallies were held in cities and municipalities across the nation, with not a single piece of trash left behind, not a single arrest. The crowds got bigger. They showed up with grandparents, came pushing strollers, with toddlers on their shoulders and poorly constructed signs whose slogans didn't really rhyme and acronyms that didn't really line up, and for a simple reason ... they hadn't done this before. At the 8/28 National Mall rally a group of anti Tea Party protesters infiltrated the gathered masses and began to shout down the speakers. Those gathered did not yell back, did not scream. They gathered in a circle surrounding the professional protesters, held hands, lowered their heads and prayed for those attempting to cause a confrontation ... these are good people. As the mid-terms edged closer all of this energy, activism and new found involvement could have easily been channeled into a third party. But with the savvy of a political veteran these citizen activists focused their attention on primary races. No longer would the establishment pick the candidate for them. And 18 short months from the moment the first tea bag was sealed inside the first envelope the Tea Party stamp of approval has become the most coveted endorsement in all of American politics. The opposition, both in the Democrat Party and traditional Republican power brokers, don't know how to stop them. Like so many Zulu streaming across their pittance of a Royal defense wall there is no flank left invulnerable, there is no untraveled angle of approach. The aptly named Ben Jealous of the NAACP called them racists. Simpatico media outlets painted them as unsophisticated rabble rousers. The president disregarded them, and Republican elites threw temper tantrums ... but they issued no press release in response. They would pick no official leader to retort on their behalf. They have chosen the time, they have chosen the place to respond ... election day, the sanctity of the voting booth.
Like a citizen soldier from history, watching the coast line for the nation they love, they have drawn a line in the sand of their shores and declared "here, and no further." And as they now see the sails of their opposition approaching, they are ready. The alarm has been sounded, the people ... awake. And in 42 short days they will grab the pitchfork of the ballot box and the lantern that is their God given right to choose their own destiny and they will alter the course of American, of world, history ... and all because they made one simple yet profound decision not more than a year and a half ago - NOT ON MY WATCH.
People began with sending envelopes to Washington, containing nothing more than a tea bag within. It's reported congressional aides had to carry them out by the trash bag full, quite a metaphor in imagery itself. These folks, whom had finally found a historical image to give shape to their mountains of frustration did not stop there. They began to gather. First in homes, car pooling to town meetings. They faced down professional politicians armed not with talking points, but with copies of their Constitution. Their Constitution. They went on ... Amazon soon reported an explosion in book purchases focusing on the Founding Fathers and original intent, these distraught patriots attempting to make sense of how and when we strayed from both. Conservative authors flooded the best seller lists, a tidal wave of newly self educated Constitutionalists overwhelmed the air waves on talk radio and TV. This was no average movement. Town Hall meetings were canceled out of fear of "looking bad" at the hands this newly engaged citizenry. The media attempted to paint them as fringe, as kooks for chanting such insane requests as "read the bill." Rallies were held in cities and municipalities across the nation, with not a single piece of trash left behind, not a single arrest. The crowds got bigger. They showed up with grandparents, came pushing strollers, with toddlers on their shoulders and poorly constructed signs whose slogans didn't really rhyme and acronyms that didn't really line up, and for a simple reason ... they hadn't done this before. At the 8/28 National Mall rally a group of anti Tea Party protesters infiltrated the gathered masses and began to shout down the speakers. Those gathered did not yell back, did not scream. They gathered in a circle surrounding the professional protesters, held hands, lowered their heads and prayed for those attempting to cause a confrontation ... these are good people. As the mid-terms edged closer all of this energy, activism and new found involvement could have easily been channeled into a third party. But with the savvy of a political veteran these citizen activists focused their attention on primary races. No longer would the establishment pick the candidate for them. And 18 short months from the moment the first tea bag was sealed inside the first envelope the Tea Party stamp of approval has become the most coveted endorsement in all of American politics. The opposition, both in the Democrat Party and traditional Republican power brokers, don't know how to stop them. Like so many Zulu streaming across their pittance of a Royal defense wall there is no flank left invulnerable, there is no untraveled angle of approach. The aptly named Ben Jealous of the NAACP called them racists. Simpatico media outlets painted them as unsophisticated rabble rousers. The president disregarded them, and Republican elites threw temper tantrums ... but they issued no press release in response. They would pick no official leader to retort on their behalf. They have chosen the time, they have chosen the place to respond ... election day, the sanctity of the voting booth.
Like a citizen soldier from history, watching the coast line for the nation they love, they have drawn a line in the sand of their shores and declared "here, and no further." And as they now see the sails of their opposition approaching, they are ready. The alarm has been sounded, the people ... awake. And in 42 short days they will grab the pitchfork of the ballot box and the lantern that is their God given right to choose their own destiny and they will alter the course of American, of world, history ... and all because they made one simple yet profound decision not more than a year and a half ago - NOT ON MY WATCH.
Hmmm...
Glenn Beck. What to do about Glenn Beck?
I've listened to his radio show for weeks now, and truly enjoy the humor and format... it's top-notch in that respect. I especially like the way they rip apart critical or opposition statements with nothing but rational, objective commentary and mountains of laughter.
I've never enjoyed the TV show though... it is far too confined to the Fox News format of 20-second sound bites and way too many commercials. Just too much like any other Fox program, i guess...
Now he has a news blog, called The Blaze. This is conservative-point-of-view only, mind you... nothing objective or middle-of-the-road here, and that is fine by me. They promise nothing else... but the videos are good and the insight is less than flattering for most liberals in the news today. Well, I added The Blaze to my list of Bund Favorites, and if you haven't seen it... check it out. I don't think Beck is a contributor (not of articles anyway... he pays for the site), but I believe Stu is, and Stu is damn funny.
Speaking of Glenn Beck...
I'd swear the man reads our blog.
In the past, Ryan and I have fought over whether or not Beck is too religious on his show. He is very religious... but even I would allow the man to do and say what he will, when he is paying the bills for the programing. None the less, as soon as we have that "beef" about his religion, Beck addresses the issue on the next day's show.
Lately, though, he seems to be doing a lot of harping on the Federal government's removal of the gold standard as one of the "progressive" errors of our history. He has nothing but disdain for FDR (among other Presidents), and routinely points to FDR's removal of gold currency as "Federal seizure" of American commodity assets.
Can we discuss this? Or will this be seen as more revisionism by Titus, a barely-reformed pinko-commie liberal?
Why are there so many repeated calls by "conservative" pundits to go back to the gold standard? Beck is not alone here... Mike Church used this as a rally call for years, as did Wilkow and Savage (although I haven't been able to listen to these guys in quite a while).
Just because the Fed used to regulate the price of gold (a hold-over from pre-WWI... not something you can blame FDR with) didn't mean that global gold prices didn't rise in times of economic hardship. In fact, actual value prices for gold in 1933 made the currency (gold coins) still in reserve or in circulation so much more valuable than their face value that people wouldn't (actually, COULDN'T) spend the money without taking a loss. That means that a significant amount of American dollars were not being used because to use them would cost the spender money... and the spenders in this case were banks that kept the gold on deposit against hard times, when customers could still come in and demand payment in gold.
The Federal Reserve needed the flexibility to print money for the purpose of deficit spending, and it couldn't do this while we were tied to the gold standard. Had we stayed on the gold standard beyond the Roosevelt era, we'd have been broke before the end of 1942 and could not have waged a winning campaign against the Axis powers.
After WWII, most industrialized nations fixed their currency value to the US Dollar, which was fixed to a $35/oz gold price... regardless of how much gold was in reserve. The larger the US economy grew, the less gold we had to back it with. There came a point where our money in circulation was greater than all the gold that had ever been mined in all of human history, at which point we could no longer sustain the gold standard (1971) and Nixon had to take us off the Bretton-Woods system, ending nearly a century of Federally-fixed gold prices.
How does Beck, or any other "conservative" pundit, defend a call for a return to the gold standard, knowing that it is (number one) impossible to achieve, with a current total of $8.3 trillion in circulation or deposit across the globe (more than all the gold currently on deposit everywhere), and (number two) counter to the very system advocated by such Presidents as Reagan himself... who understood that artificial price fixing and over-regulation of commodity-based value assets hurts America's economic engine more than it would ever help us? Stabilizing the value of the dollar is one thing, but it works both ways. the value of a dollar won't ever fall completely when backed by gold... but it won't reach the heights it has since 1972, either, because the cheaper gold gets in a strong economy, the less value to a dollar bill.
So, if I am going to work towards getting that vaunted "conservative" label that Ryan said I couldn't claim with my opinions right now, can someone explain to me what the reasoning is behind this plank in the conservative platform?
I've listened to his radio show for weeks now, and truly enjoy the humor and format... it's top-notch in that respect. I especially like the way they rip apart critical or opposition statements with nothing but rational, objective commentary and mountains of laughter.
I've never enjoyed the TV show though... it is far too confined to the Fox News format of 20-second sound bites and way too many commercials. Just too much like any other Fox program, i guess...
Now he has a news blog, called The Blaze. This is conservative-point-of-view only, mind you... nothing objective or middle-of-the-road here, and that is fine by me. They promise nothing else... but the videos are good and the insight is less than flattering for most liberals in the news today. Well, I added The Blaze to my list of Bund Favorites, and if you haven't seen it... check it out. I don't think Beck is a contributor (not of articles anyway... he pays for the site), but I believe Stu is, and Stu is damn funny.
Speaking of Glenn Beck...
I'd swear the man reads our blog.
In the past, Ryan and I have fought over whether or not Beck is too religious on his show. He is very religious... but even I would allow the man to do and say what he will, when he is paying the bills for the programing. None the less, as soon as we have that "beef" about his religion, Beck addresses the issue on the next day's show.
Lately, though, he seems to be doing a lot of harping on the Federal government's removal of the gold standard as one of the "progressive" errors of our history. He has nothing but disdain for FDR (among other Presidents), and routinely points to FDR's removal of gold currency as "Federal seizure" of American commodity assets.
Can we discuss this? Or will this be seen as more revisionism by Titus, a barely-reformed pinko-commie liberal?
Why are there so many repeated calls by "conservative" pundits to go back to the gold standard? Beck is not alone here... Mike Church used this as a rally call for years, as did Wilkow and Savage (although I haven't been able to listen to these guys in quite a while).
Just because the Fed used to regulate the price of gold (a hold-over from pre-WWI... not something you can blame FDR with) didn't mean that global gold prices didn't rise in times of economic hardship. In fact, actual value prices for gold in 1933 made the currency (gold coins) still in reserve or in circulation so much more valuable than their face value that people wouldn't (actually, COULDN'T) spend the money without taking a loss. That means that a significant amount of American dollars were not being used because to use them would cost the spender money... and the spenders in this case were banks that kept the gold on deposit against hard times, when customers could still come in and demand payment in gold.
The Federal Reserve needed the flexibility to print money for the purpose of deficit spending, and it couldn't do this while we were tied to the gold standard. Had we stayed on the gold standard beyond the Roosevelt era, we'd have been broke before the end of 1942 and could not have waged a winning campaign against the Axis powers.
After WWII, most industrialized nations fixed their currency value to the US Dollar, which was fixed to a $35/oz gold price... regardless of how much gold was in reserve. The larger the US economy grew, the less gold we had to back it with. There came a point where our money in circulation was greater than all the gold that had ever been mined in all of human history, at which point we could no longer sustain the gold standard (1971) and Nixon had to take us off the Bretton-Woods system, ending nearly a century of Federally-fixed gold prices.
How does Beck, or any other "conservative" pundit, defend a call for a return to the gold standard, knowing that it is (number one) impossible to achieve, with a current total of $8.3 trillion in circulation or deposit across the globe (more than all the gold currently on deposit everywhere), and (number two) counter to the very system advocated by such Presidents as Reagan himself... who understood that artificial price fixing and over-regulation of commodity-based value assets hurts America's economic engine more than it would ever help us? Stabilizing the value of the dollar is one thing, but it works both ways. the value of a dollar won't ever fall completely when backed by gold... but it won't reach the heights it has since 1972, either, because the cheaper gold gets in a strong economy, the less value to a dollar bill.
So, if I am going to work towards getting that vaunted "conservative" label that Ryan said I couldn't claim with my opinions right now, can someone explain to me what the reasoning is behind this plank in the conservative platform?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Good news?
Just read this evening that the "Great Recession" is now, officially, over as of June, 2010.
All I can say is "Thank God" I'm employed, because I don't want to have to look for a job in this "recovery" at all.
Nothing gives Ryan's claims that deficit spending is bad for a recovery real credibility like Obama's track record for the first two years of his Presidency, does it?
I'll tell you this... there are going to be real changes in the Chateaux de Lieteau-Foster from this point on, in regards to how money is spent and saved by all its residents. Never again will we be so dependant on credit... if we can't pay for an item or purchase in cash, we won't get it at all. Never again will this family be at the whim of creditors when it comes to whether or not we can pay our bills in a month, should the economy tank again (which is what I think will happen before the end of Obama's term).
I know we won't be doing any extraneous spending any time soon, but I hope someone does... and that those someones do it at the casino I work at.
All I can say is "Thank God" I'm employed, because I don't want to have to look for a job in this "recovery" at all.
Nothing gives Ryan's claims that deficit spending is bad for a recovery real credibility like Obama's track record for the first two years of his Presidency, does it?
I'll tell you this... there are going to be real changes in the Chateaux de Lieteau-Foster from this point on, in regards to how money is spent and saved by all its residents. Never again will we be so dependant on credit... if we can't pay for an item or purchase in cash, we won't get it at all. Never again will this family be at the whim of creditors when it comes to whether or not we can pay our bills in a month, should the economy tank again (which is what I think will happen before the end of Obama's term).
I know we won't be doing any extraneous spending any time soon, but I hope someone does... and that those someones do it at the casino I work at.
Seriously...
First of all, I admit you are correct, and I did use the term "legality" when I shouldn't have. There was no precedent in Western Law for what the Allies were doing at Nuremberg because it had never been attempted before... precedent-setting does not equate to illegal, and I admit to having used the wrong term in my argument. I apologize and retract the "legality" statement.
I wasn't trying to make the case that Nuremberg was null and void because it was unprecedented... far from. The US Constitution was "unprecedented", but it stands as a major milestone in the development and understanding of both formal government organization and the ideals behind what government actually is. Nuremberg was a milestone in that it reflected the recognition of participating nations (and those that came after or followed the example) of the fundamental evil that is inherent in all forms of "total warfare".
That all warfare carries a fundamental risk of "evil' does not mean that I don't recognize that there are also "necessary evils" that must be understood to exist. The reason I didn't use the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the extremes of modern warfare was that I am utterly convinced that the decision to use the bombs in the manner that they were used resulted in the saving of thousands (and yes, potentially millions) of lives. Who could rationally argue against the use of the bombs, when the US told the Japanese that we were going to destroy cities until such time as they surrendered unconditionally? The decision to risk the cost of a nuclear device was completely and totally in the hands of the Imperial Japanese government, and they chose to ignore that risk until both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed and hundreds of thousands were dead. Those two bombings ENDED the war with Japan and removed the necessity of invading the home islands and dragging the war on for another year (or more).
There are those, however, who feel that the strategic firebombing of Germany and Austria in '45 by the US and British was "overkill" (my term, not theirs). "Big Week" was a huge success in '44, because it targeted Luftwaffe production facilities and did so much damage that the Germans never again threatened Allied civilian areas with daylight bombing capabilities. Questions were asked about the Hamburg and Dresden bombings, though, because they specifically targeted civilian populations, rather than industrial, military or transportation facilities... enough questions, in fact, for George Marshall to convene a commission to investigate the campaigns and their planner's intentions. These were the same questions asked when discussing why the bombing of RAF facilities during the Battle of Britain were understood to be "acceptable" under the customs and laws of warfare, but the shift from RAF targets to civilian centers was a "war crime" for which Goering was charged and found guilty.
Personally, I am satisfied with what the Marshall Investigations found out: that the German military had a substantial presence in the cities, and were (in effect) using the civilians as "human shields" in the hopes of avoiding the strategic bombing that would have destroyed them anywhere else.
The tough point here is that Marshall would never have had to convene the inquiries if it hadn't been for the fact that we accused both Goering and Donitz of the exact same thing... and found them guilty of war crimes. They both used that fact in their defense, with the result that many in Germany still feel that the US efforts were "criminal" and some form of reparation should have been made to the cities effected.
Is it wrong for me to suggest that we learn from the mistakes that were made by the Allies in '45-'48 when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq? Our efforts in Germany and Japan post-WWII were based on our understanding that the effects of the Treaty of Versailles directly contributed to the horror that was WWII. Have we forgotten that lesson? Do we actually GAIN anything from supporting an effort to try OBL here in the US for "crimes against humanity"? Osama bin Laden, more than any other human being alive today, was responsible for the war that the Afghans have been living with for nine years or more... why not let THEM try OBL for the pain and suffering he has brought down on them? Why not convene another tribunal, consisting of "Allied" judges that INCLUDE Afghanis, Kenyans, Spanish, Iraqi, British, and American judges.. . since all of those nations were also attacked or terrorized by OBL at some point in the last 20 years?
THOSE are the questions I'm asking... not if the Nuremberg Trials were "immoral" or "wrong" for having been undertaken. No amount of effort can produce "perfect justice" in this world... that is God's alone to hand down... but Nuremberg was an attempt, and while it might not have been perfect, it was far better than leaving it untouched. It is unfair (of me, or anyone else) to look at Nuremberg ONLY from the view of today's understanding... it would be the ultimate case of "Monday night quarterbacking" and it isn't contextually fair to do so. If I gave the impression that this was my intent, I apologize.
Call it another case of my anxiety at "big government intervention" in matters best left to smaller authorities...
I wasn't trying to make the case that Nuremberg was null and void because it was unprecedented... far from. The US Constitution was "unprecedented", but it stands as a major milestone in the development and understanding of both formal government organization and the ideals behind what government actually is. Nuremberg was a milestone in that it reflected the recognition of participating nations (and those that came after or followed the example) of the fundamental evil that is inherent in all forms of "total warfare".
That all warfare carries a fundamental risk of "evil' does not mean that I don't recognize that there are also "necessary evils" that must be understood to exist. The reason I didn't use the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the extremes of modern warfare was that I am utterly convinced that the decision to use the bombs in the manner that they were used resulted in the saving of thousands (and yes, potentially millions) of lives. Who could rationally argue against the use of the bombs, when the US told the Japanese that we were going to destroy cities until such time as they surrendered unconditionally? The decision to risk the cost of a nuclear device was completely and totally in the hands of the Imperial Japanese government, and they chose to ignore that risk until both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed and hundreds of thousands were dead. Those two bombings ENDED the war with Japan and removed the necessity of invading the home islands and dragging the war on for another year (or more).
There are those, however, who feel that the strategic firebombing of Germany and Austria in '45 by the US and British was "overkill" (my term, not theirs). "Big Week" was a huge success in '44, because it targeted Luftwaffe production facilities and did so much damage that the Germans never again threatened Allied civilian areas with daylight bombing capabilities. Questions were asked about the Hamburg and Dresden bombings, though, because they specifically targeted civilian populations, rather than industrial, military or transportation facilities... enough questions, in fact, for George Marshall to convene a commission to investigate the campaigns and their planner's intentions. These were the same questions asked when discussing why the bombing of RAF facilities during the Battle of Britain were understood to be "acceptable" under the customs and laws of warfare, but the shift from RAF targets to civilian centers was a "war crime" for which Goering was charged and found guilty.
Personally, I am satisfied with what the Marshall Investigations found out: that the German military had a substantial presence in the cities, and were (in effect) using the civilians as "human shields" in the hopes of avoiding the strategic bombing that would have destroyed them anywhere else.
The tough point here is that Marshall would never have had to convene the inquiries if it hadn't been for the fact that we accused both Goering and Donitz of the exact same thing... and found them guilty of war crimes. They both used that fact in their defense, with the result that many in Germany still feel that the US efforts were "criminal" and some form of reparation should have been made to the cities effected.
Is it wrong for me to suggest that we learn from the mistakes that were made by the Allies in '45-'48 when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq? Our efforts in Germany and Japan post-WWII were based on our understanding that the effects of the Treaty of Versailles directly contributed to the horror that was WWII. Have we forgotten that lesson? Do we actually GAIN anything from supporting an effort to try OBL here in the US for "crimes against humanity"? Osama bin Laden, more than any other human being alive today, was responsible for the war that the Afghans have been living with for nine years or more... why not let THEM try OBL for the pain and suffering he has brought down on them? Why not convene another tribunal, consisting of "Allied" judges that INCLUDE Afghanis, Kenyans, Spanish, Iraqi, British, and American judges.. . since all of those nations were also attacked or terrorized by OBL at some point in the last 20 years?
THOSE are the questions I'm asking... not if the Nuremberg Trials were "immoral" or "wrong" for having been undertaken. No amount of effort can produce "perfect justice" in this world... that is God's alone to hand down... but Nuremberg was an attempt, and while it might not have been perfect, it was far better than leaving it untouched. It is unfair (of me, or anyone else) to look at Nuremberg ONLY from the view of today's understanding... it would be the ultimate case of "Monday night quarterbacking" and it isn't contextually fair to do so. If I gave the impression that this was my intent, I apologize.
Call it another case of my anxiety at "big government intervention" in matters best left to smaller authorities...
Seriously?
Titus comment of 9/20/10:
I did not, nor do I now, argue against the "legality" of the [Nuremberg] trials, because our legal system is based on statutory, precedent-based decisions founded on basic enumerated governmental authority. What I questioned was the "legitimacy" of our participation with other, less able "legal" partners and the taint that puts on both those procedings and all that stems from them.
Titus post of 9/19/10 entitled "What Movie":
I still question the "legality" of Nuremberg. Many of the charges levelled against the Nazi leadership were not "crimes" prior to November 20th, 1945, and thus the men on trial couldn't have knowingly committed crimes that didn't exist. Again, I'm not saying there wasn't culpability on the part of the Nazi leadership... there was, indeed... but the capital crimes they were accused of had never been codified prior to the end of WWII.
****
Titus post of 9/20/10 titled "Addendum":
One thing that still bothers me about Nuremberg is that we sat, side-by-side, with judges from the USSR (all Red Army generals or marshalls) who were probably just as guilty of crimes against humanity as any Nazi...
Titus post of 9/19/10 titled "What movie?":
All the Allied Powers waged war against civilian targets at some time during the course of the conflict (Curtis LeMay's fire-bombing campaign, for example), yet that was a leading crime in all the Nuremberg convictions.
****
Titus post of 9/20/10 titled "Addendum":
So, when I say "we" I say it because the US remained involved in Nuremberg in spite of the problematic nature of our less-than-likely partners, France and the USSR.
Titus post of 9/19/10 tiled "Why Am I Always The Bad Guy?":
There was a real question concerning the legitimate means by which the Allies (US, UK, USSR and France) could sit in judgement of 24 men and six national organizations (labeled "criminal" by the Nuremberg Court).
I'm going to bed now. I had a long night at work ... and an even longer one after.
I did not, nor do I now, argue against the "legality" of the [Nuremberg] trials, because our legal system is based on statutory, precedent-based decisions founded on basic enumerated governmental authority. What I questioned was the "legitimacy" of our participation with other, less able "legal" partners and the taint that puts on both those procedings and all that stems from them.
Titus post of 9/19/10 entitled "What Movie":
I still question the "legality" of Nuremberg. Many of the charges levelled against the Nazi leadership were not "crimes" prior to November 20th, 1945, and thus the men on trial couldn't have knowingly committed crimes that didn't exist. Again, I'm not saying there wasn't culpability on the part of the Nazi leadership... there was, indeed... but the capital crimes they were accused of had never been codified prior to the end of WWII.
****
Titus post of 9/20/10 titled "Addendum":
One thing that still bothers me about Nuremberg is that we sat, side-by-side, with judges from the USSR (all Red Army generals or marshalls) who were probably just as guilty of crimes against humanity as any Nazi...
Titus post of 9/19/10 titled "What movie?":
All the Allied Powers waged war against civilian targets at some time during the course of the conflict (Curtis LeMay's fire-bombing campaign, for example), yet that was a leading crime in all the Nuremberg convictions.
****
Titus post of 9/20/10 titled "Addendum":
So, when I say "we" I say it because the US remained involved in Nuremberg in spite of the problematic nature of our less-than-likely partners, France and the USSR.
Titus post of 9/19/10 tiled "Why Am I Always The Bad Guy?":
There was a real question concerning the legitimate means by which the Allies (US, UK, USSR and France) could sit in judgement of 24 men and six national organizations (labeled "criminal" by the Nuremberg Court).
I'm going to bed now. I had a long night at work ... and an even longer one after.
Just a quick question, as a follow up ...
"Does the fact that we did conduct active campaigns to turn cities like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and Kyoto into moonscapes of fused glass and charred brickwork mean we should have recused ourselves from judging the Wehrmacht leadership for doing the same thing (through alternate means) to the suburbs and ghettos of Krakow, Prague, Warsaw or Gdansk?"
I know that you were referencing the Soviets with "we", but lets replace the above sites with Hiroshima and Nagasaki - after all, the USA more effectively turned Japanese civilian populations into "fused glass" then the Ruskies did, didn't we? Do you truly believe the two are "the same thing?" Does the "alternate means" include "alternate motives", and "ends?" Does the role of aggressor or defender not play a part in discerning the difference?
These are the "hair pulling" statements I refer to - the attempt to draw a comparison between two drastically different operations (both in scope and intent) based on the technical definition of the Nuremberg charges. Proving that each of these happened is an "exact science", that's true. But I find your reasoning which describes them as "doing the same thing" to be a reprehensible misdiagnoses of those historical events.
I know that you were referencing the Soviets with "we", but lets replace the above sites with Hiroshima and Nagasaki - after all, the USA more effectively turned Japanese civilian populations into "fused glass" then the Ruskies did, didn't we? Do you truly believe the two are "the same thing?" Does the "alternate means" include "alternate motives", and "ends?" Does the role of aggressor or defender not play a part in discerning the difference?
These are the "hair pulling" statements I refer to - the attempt to draw a comparison between two drastically different operations (both in scope and intent) based on the technical definition of the Nuremberg charges. Proving that each of these happened is an "exact science", that's true. But I find your reasoning which describes them as "doing the same thing" to be a reprehensible misdiagnoses of those historical events.
See? Socialism works in Sweden...
Ever get tired of hearing THAT old chestnut fall from the tree of liberal knowledge?
Today, the Sweden Democrats (source HERE... sorry, couldn't find an English version of the party site) won 5.7% of the vote in their general election, and the most conservative, "right-wing" party in Sweden is now officially part of the parliamentary government.
These people are NOT "libertarians" by any stretch of the imagination, but they are NOT socialists, either... and the simple fact that they have made a 240% increase in their voter base in just 4 years is damn-near amazing. This is as close as Sweden gets to a "Tea Party", I guess... but it should go to show that the movement away from larger-than-life intrusive government taxation and massive spending is happening even in the much-vaunted European theater of "socialism-lite" that the liberals in this country so often employ as an example.
Today, the Sweden Democrats (source HERE... sorry, couldn't find an English version of the party site) won 5.7% of the vote in their general election, and the most conservative, "right-wing" party in Sweden is now officially part of the parliamentary government.
These people are NOT "libertarians" by any stretch of the imagination, but they are NOT socialists, either... and the simple fact that they have made a 240% increase in their voter base in just 4 years is damn-near amazing. This is as close as Sweden gets to a "Tea Party", I guess... but it should go to show that the movement away from larger-than-life intrusive government taxation and massive spending is happening even in the much-vaunted European theater of "socialism-lite" that the liberals in this country so often employ as an example.
This is why I've taken extended breaks from the site as of late ...
And I wish I were joking about that. But sometimes your zeal for devil's advocate turns into zealotry, and then it's just too maddening to participate.
Look, I used the phrase "military tactics" for a very simple reason. My impression of Jambo's and your thread (the Nuremberg aspect at least) was as follows: You questioned the legality, and by extension the legitimacy of the justice doled out, of the Nuremberg trials because our conscience wasn't exactly clean regarding civilian casualties during the war. Jambo's retort was that Goering wasn't in the dock due to collateral damage suffered as a result of battlefield/command decisions (which I couched as "military tactics"); but rather for the systematic attempted extermination of an entire race of peoples, which happened separate and away from the battlefield entirely, and didn't resemble any civilian casualties inflicted by the US.
Let me just momentarily extrapolate on that point. I'm not attempting to argue that every single motive and action taken by US forces in the Second World War was as pure as the wind driven snow. Nor am I blinded by a patriotism so fragile that to pull on a single thread would unravel the entire tapestry of our nation's history as I know it. I am simply saying that the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties at the hands of the US military were collateral damages born of legitimate military tactics and command decisions. Now you may bring forward an instance such as Hiroshima, when civilian centers were deliberately targeted. My answer would be that in such cases, in particular "the bomb", there is a measurable and specific argument to be made which says the demonstration of our ability to inflict maximum damages with minimal man power (in other words, flattening 2 cities with 2 bombs) was necessary in order to preserve lives. What were the casualty estimates on Operation Downfall, the mainland Japan invasion? 750,000 Allied soldiers? Perhaps millions of Japanese civilians?
Now let me hasten to add, separating battlefield operations from the Holocaust doesn't mean that certain German leaders didn't bare a criminal burden for those "purely military" actions, they were the aggressors after all. And separating the aggressor form those defending that aggression is paramount to begin any discussion of who the good guys and the bad guys were in one of history's most engulfing episodes.
Furthermore, I can think of no instance in which US grunts nor subordinate officers could be guilty of systematic/institutionalized "war crimes" for carrying out the orders of their commanders throughout the war. Most of the German soldiers fall within this "only following orders" scope as well. But not those participating in the Holocaust. From Himmler to the camp commandant down to the guards, everyone involved was guilty of ravenous criminal acts on some level and did not fall under the protective auspices of simply carrying out the assigned orders of their commander. This serves as a good demarcation line distinguishing legitimate military actions of subordinate ground forces and criminal behavior, in my estimation.
Oh, I almost forgot, the Soviets. Did pointing at Germany's hierarchy and screaming "murderers!" while enjoying a vodka with Russian generals make the US and the UK hypocrites? Yes. Almost certainly. But being a hypocrite in order to fend of the more clear and present danger doesn't qualify Churchill and FDR for Nuremberg gallows, in my opinion.
But it all boils down to this - what are you trying to achieve with this Titus? I can think of only two possibilities. Either you are playing pure devil's advocate, attempting through discussion to demonstrate that anyone whom thinks it plausible that Ike and Truman belong in the dock with Goering is a bit touched in the head - to which I'd ask, what's the point? We know that's a looney tunes argument already. Or you truly believe that argument is plausible given the technical definition of the charges leveled at Nuremberg, and YOU are the one touched in the head.
If it's the former I find this entire exercise a monumental waste of all our time. If it's the latter ... well ... added to your grossly inappropriate Holocaust satire of some weeks ago I would begin to have grave, grave concerns.
Look, I used the phrase "military tactics" for a very simple reason. My impression of Jambo's and your thread (the Nuremberg aspect at least) was as follows: You questioned the legality, and by extension the legitimacy of the justice doled out, of the Nuremberg trials because our conscience wasn't exactly clean regarding civilian casualties during the war. Jambo's retort was that Goering wasn't in the dock due to collateral damage suffered as a result of battlefield/command decisions (which I couched as "military tactics"); but rather for the systematic attempted extermination of an entire race of peoples, which happened separate and away from the battlefield entirely, and didn't resemble any civilian casualties inflicted by the US.
Let me just momentarily extrapolate on that point. I'm not attempting to argue that every single motive and action taken by US forces in the Second World War was as pure as the wind driven snow. Nor am I blinded by a patriotism so fragile that to pull on a single thread would unravel the entire tapestry of our nation's history as I know it. I am simply saying that the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties at the hands of the US military were collateral damages born of legitimate military tactics and command decisions. Now you may bring forward an instance such as Hiroshima, when civilian centers were deliberately targeted. My answer would be that in such cases, in particular "the bomb", there is a measurable and specific argument to be made which says the demonstration of our ability to inflict maximum damages with minimal man power (in other words, flattening 2 cities with 2 bombs) was necessary in order to preserve lives. What were the casualty estimates on Operation Downfall, the mainland Japan invasion? 750,000 Allied soldiers? Perhaps millions of Japanese civilians?
Now let me hasten to add, separating battlefield operations from the Holocaust doesn't mean that certain German leaders didn't bare a criminal burden for those "purely military" actions, they were the aggressors after all. And separating the aggressor form those defending that aggression is paramount to begin any discussion of who the good guys and the bad guys were in one of history's most engulfing episodes.
Furthermore, I can think of no instance in which US grunts nor subordinate officers could be guilty of systematic/institutionalized "war crimes" for carrying out the orders of their commanders throughout the war. Most of the German soldiers fall within this "only following orders" scope as well. But not those participating in the Holocaust. From Himmler to the camp commandant down to the guards, everyone involved was guilty of ravenous criminal acts on some level and did not fall under the protective auspices of simply carrying out the assigned orders of their commander. This serves as a good demarcation line distinguishing legitimate military actions of subordinate ground forces and criminal behavior, in my estimation.
Oh, I almost forgot, the Soviets. Did pointing at Germany's hierarchy and screaming "murderers!" while enjoying a vodka with Russian generals make the US and the UK hypocrites? Yes. Almost certainly. But being a hypocrite in order to fend of the more clear and present danger doesn't qualify Churchill and FDR for Nuremberg gallows, in my opinion.
But it all boils down to this - what are you trying to achieve with this Titus? I can think of only two possibilities. Either you are playing pure devil's advocate, attempting through discussion to demonstrate that anyone whom thinks it plausible that Ike and Truman belong in the dock with Goering is a bit touched in the head - to which I'd ask, what's the point? We know that's a looney tunes argument already. Or you truly believe that argument is plausible given the technical definition of the charges leveled at Nuremberg, and YOU are the one touched in the head.
If it's the former I find this entire exercise a monumental waste of all our time. If it's the latter ... well ... added to your grossly inappropriate Holocaust satire of some weeks ago I would begin to have grave, grave concerns.
Something Ryan said...
"History's defining moments"... that is what Ryan said I question on mere technicalities and cause people to pull out hair.
I still define history as an exact science. When I say that the Declaration of Independence was signed and accepted on July 4th, 1776... it is an exact fact, not something to be debated. As exact as the mathematical fact that two plus two equals four, or the astronomical fact that the earth's rotation around the sun causes our ability to see the sun to begin on the eastern horizon (meaning the sun will rise in the east).
Just because history is an exact science doesn't mean our understanding of history is exact, or that the exact facts of history are universally applicable to all people. "Defining moments" in history are relative to the society, nation... hell, sometimes to the individual himself. Certainly a defining moment in Ryan's life was the birth of his sons, but much of the rest of the world isn't going to feel the same way, are they?
If the trials at Nuremberg were, in fact, a defining moment in the history of the West, or even in the history of the US alone, why aren't the Tokyo trials accorded the same status in our (meaning as individual an opinion as those found here at the Bund) history books? If we take into account ALL the trials held by nations attacked or impacted by war with Japan, then we see more than 5,700 trials ending with the imprisonment, death or detention of more than 5,000 Japanese officials and officers for any one of three criminal indictments, ranging from crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes.
China held 13 tribunals, Korea had another two. Are these "defining moments" in history, or are they simply sidebars in the greater history of American interests towards justice? Why is it that when we discuss addressing "crimes against humanity" we automatically think of Nuremberg, but almost never consider Tokyo? Is it because the Nazis were worse than the Japanese? Were the Jews of Europe more valuable than the women and children of Nanking?
Of course, I'm NOT suggesting Ryan feels any of my questions are true... I'm being dramatic to make a point: history is an exact science that is relative to those that understand it. No one in the UK is going to have the same feelings about the Fourth of July as their American cousins, right? Even though the "defining" nature of the event is universal and undeniable... it is less than important to someone from outside the US.
Perhaps I was suggesting that an idealistic view of American participation in the Nuremberg Trials stemmed more from an over-developed sense of justice than of actual historical fact, but that is not always a bad thing, and something I am very prone to myself. Immediately discounting my "technicalities", though, as something brought up for no other reason than to cause my Bund Brothers hairline distress seems a bit unfair, too.
I still define history as an exact science. When I say that the Declaration of Independence was signed and accepted on July 4th, 1776... it is an exact fact, not something to be debated. As exact as the mathematical fact that two plus two equals four, or the astronomical fact that the earth's rotation around the sun causes our ability to see the sun to begin on the eastern horizon (meaning the sun will rise in the east).
Just because history is an exact science doesn't mean our understanding of history is exact, or that the exact facts of history are universally applicable to all people. "Defining moments" in history are relative to the society, nation... hell, sometimes to the individual himself. Certainly a defining moment in Ryan's life was the birth of his sons, but much of the rest of the world isn't going to feel the same way, are they?
If the trials at Nuremberg were, in fact, a defining moment in the history of the West, or even in the history of the US alone, why aren't the Tokyo trials accorded the same status in our (meaning as individual an opinion as those found here at the Bund) history books? If we take into account ALL the trials held by nations attacked or impacted by war with Japan, then we see more than 5,700 trials ending with the imprisonment, death or detention of more than 5,000 Japanese officials and officers for any one of three criminal indictments, ranging from crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes.
China held 13 tribunals, Korea had another two. Are these "defining moments" in history, or are they simply sidebars in the greater history of American interests towards justice? Why is it that when we discuss addressing "crimes against humanity" we automatically think of Nuremberg, but almost never consider Tokyo? Is it because the Nazis were worse than the Japanese? Were the Jews of Europe more valuable than the women and children of Nanking?
Of course, I'm NOT suggesting Ryan feels any of my questions are true... I'm being dramatic to make a point: history is an exact science that is relative to those that understand it. No one in the UK is going to have the same feelings about the Fourth of July as their American cousins, right? Even though the "defining" nature of the event is universal and undeniable... it is less than important to someone from outside the US.
Perhaps I was suggesting that an idealistic view of American participation in the Nuremberg Trials stemmed more from an over-developed sense of justice than of actual historical fact, but that is not always a bad thing, and something I am very prone to myself. Immediately discounting my "technicalities", though, as something brought up for no other reason than to cause my Bund Brothers hairline distress seems a bit unfair, too.
Post number 2000!
Our 2,000 post... couldn't pass up the morning without making this one!
Not much else to say right now... still waking up and drinking coffee. Just wanted to scoop the big #2000 before anyone else noticed.
Hehe.
Not much else to say right now... still waking up and drinking coffee. Just wanted to scoop the big #2000 before anyone else noticed.
Hehe.
Adendum...
Jambo called last night, and thought I should clarify a point I made, so here it is.
When Ryan reads my response, he'll undoubtedly get bent. I repeatedly said "we" when referring to the "Allies" at Nuremberg, not because I think the US had a predominant role, but because we were partners in the effort since the Tehran Conference in '45.
One thing that still bothers me about Nuremberg is that we sat, side-by-side, with judges from the USSR (all Red Army generals or marshalls) who were probably just as guilty of crimes against humanity as any Nazi, and at least one French alternate judge who was a Vichy-appointee and was still allowed to sit on the bench. We should never have agreed to partner with the Soviets (at all) and we should have fought the choice for the French judge.
So, when I say "we" I say it because the US remained involved in Nuremberg in spite of the problematic nature of our less-than-likely partners, France and the USSR.
When Ryan reads my response, he'll undoubtedly get bent. I repeatedly said "we" when referring to the "Allies" at Nuremberg, not because I think the US had a predominant role, but because we were partners in the effort since the Tehran Conference in '45.
One thing that still bothers me about Nuremberg is that we sat, side-by-side, with judges from the USSR (all Red Army generals or marshalls) who were probably just as guilty of crimes against humanity as any Nazi, and at least one French alternate judge who was a Vichy-appointee and was still allowed to sit on the bench. We should never have agreed to partner with the Soviets (at all) and we should have fought the choice for the French judge.
So, when I say "we" I say it because the US remained involved in Nuremberg in spite of the problematic nature of our less-than-likely partners, France and the USSR.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Now I'm mad...
Where on earth did you read that I was saying Nuremberg was about military tactics?
The indictments handed down at Nuremberg were (and this is not something I am making up):
1) Planning or conspiring towards crimes against peace.
This means making national efforts, as a governmental or authoritative body, to plan, prepare for, and mobilize a nation to wage war with no external or internal threat to warrant the actions. Not something I feel the US, UK or France was doing... and the Soviets did it as a matter of ideology, but did it so poorly I guess no one noticed.
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression or other crimes against peace.
Seems self explanatory.
3) War crimes.
This is much tougher, as it is vague in the best of times. However, as defined both prior to Nuremberg and after, it is not limited to those conducting wars of aggression. Regardless of who starts a war, this "statute" requires all nations to conduct their affairs according to the established "laws and customs of war". This is where the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials comes into question. Because Germany was waging wars against civilian populations and working actively to exterminate entire ethnic groups from existance... do we have the RIGHT to do the same to entire cities of civilian people? Does the fact that we did conduct active campaigns to turn cities like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and Kyoto into moonscapes of fused glass and charred brickwork mean we should have recused ourselves from judging the Wehrmacht leadership for doing the same thing (through alternate means) to the suburbs and ghettos of Krakow, Prague, Warsaw or Gdansk?
The fourth indictment was (obviously) "Crimes against humanity" and while I applaud what was trying to be accomplished with this indictment... again, our own conduct during and after the war made the nations who conducted the trial look less-than-likely for having made the judgments.
I hate being made to feel that I have to play devil's advocate against the Nuremberg Trials to men such as yourselves... much good did come from the trials, as Ryan said. What failed to come from the trials was what was most wanted by all involved: an end to future genocidal acts by nations or leaders of nations. In fact, the only figure that might ever have come to eclipse Hitler's Nazis was one of the "Allies" themselves... Uncle Joe Stalin.
What possible good could come from a repeat of that effort today? Nuremberg is seen in the light it is only because of the TOTAL victory that the Allies enjoyed. If we do not have the same degree of victory against terrorists and terrorism in general... what could we gain at all from trying bin Laden?
Honestly, I'm asking.
The indictments handed down at Nuremberg were (and this is not something I am making up):
1) Planning or conspiring towards crimes against peace.
This means making national efforts, as a governmental or authoritative body, to plan, prepare for, and mobilize a nation to wage war with no external or internal threat to warrant the actions. Not something I feel the US, UK or France was doing... and the Soviets did it as a matter of ideology, but did it so poorly I guess no one noticed.
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression or other crimes against peace.
Seems self explanatory.
3) War crimes.
This is much tougher, as it is vague in the best of times. However, as defined both prior to Nuremberg and after, it is not limited to those conducting wars of aggression. Regardless of who starts a war, this "statute" requires all nations to conduct their affairs according to the established "laws and customs of war". This is where the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials comes into question. Because Germany was waging wars against civilian populations and working actively to exterminate entire ethnic groups from existance... do we have the RIGHT to do the same to entire cities of civilian people? Does the fact that we did conduct active campaigns to turn cities like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and Kyoto into moonscapes of fused glass and charred brickwork mean we should have recused ourselves from judging the Wehrmacht leadership for doing the same thing (through alternate means) to the suburbs and ghettos of Krakow, Prague, Warsaw or Gdansk?
The fourth indictment was (obviously) "Crimes against humanity" and while I applaud what was trying to be accomplished with this indictment... again, our own conduct during and after the war made the nations who conducted the trial look less-than-likely for having made the judgments.
I hate being made to feel that I have to play devil's advocate against the Nuremberg Trials to men such as yourselves... much good did come from the trials, as Ryan said. What failed to come from the trials was what was most wanted by all involved: an end to future genocidal acts by nations or leaders of nations. In fact, the only figure that might ever have come to eclipse Hitler's Nazis was one of the "Allies" themselves... Uncle Joe Stalin.
What possible good could come from a repeat of that effort today? Nuremberg is seen in the light it is only because of the TOTAL victory that the Allies enjoyed. If we do not have the same degree of victory against terrorists and terrorism in general... what could we gain at all from trying bin Laden?
Honestly, I'm asking.
Briefly, on Nuremberg ...
( ... I've got to ready for work).
Jambo is right. Military tactics were not at all the cause or need for Nuremberg. The trial was unprecedented because the crimes were unprecedented. And yes, by definition any unprecedented legal proceeding can have it legality "questioned" ... technically. Enter Titus' specialty - questioning history's defining moments on a technicality, causing the subsequent ripping of hair out by the root.
And I'll just add that the trials also served as the most efficient way to expose the breadth and scope of Nazi atrocities, which was as necessary to humanity as the convictions themselves.
Jambo is right. Military tactics were not at all the cause or need for Nuremberg. The trial was unprecedented because the crimes were unprecedented. And yes, by definition any unprecedented legal proceeding can have it legality "questioned" ... technically. Enter Titus' specialty - questioning history's defining moments on a technicality, causing the subsequent ripping of hair out by the root.
And I'll just add that the trials also served as the most efficient way to expose the breadth and scope of Nazi atrocities, which was as necessary to humanity as the convictions themselves.
Why am I always the "bad guy"?
Pull your hair all you want... I still question the legitimacy of Nuremberg's convictions on the charges of "crimes against humanity".
Two of the nations sitting in judgement of the men accused (France and the USSR) were themselves guilty of the very persecutions, illegal transportation and incarceration, and (in the case of the USSR) actually killing Jews, Gypsies and gays. That alone shows me there was a real question concerning the legitimate means by which the Allies (US, UK, USSR and France) could sit in judgement of 24 men and six national organizations (labeled "criminal" by the Nuremberg Court).
That does NOT mean I have the same concerns about Wiesenthal or the West German trials (or the Eichmann Trial in Israel, which he was involved with, to a degree). Those were not nations sitting in judgement of individuals who are not participatory citizens of the judging states... they were states judging their own citizens (in the case of West Germany) or victims (in the case of Israel).
Now, ironically enough, I get to agree with Ryan's post (welcome back, by the way!). We have seen just what that kind of "trial" can do to the US. If bin Laden is to be tried, it cannot be by an American civilian court, and it shouldn't be by an American military tribunal. It should be conducted by a court in a "jurisdiction" supremely impacted by the acts of the accused... and as bad as 9/11 was, does it really compare to what has happened in Afghanistan over the last 9 years? We didn't invade Afghanistan because the Taliban were bad men... we did it because they were harboring, protecting and supporting Osama bin Laden in his efforts to wage terror wars across the globe. They paid the price for that association (in spades)... but the price still to be paid is by bin Laden himself, and it will never satisfy "justice" in any real sense of the word.
The Saddam trial is a pretty good example of what I am saying. Was it everything a defendant could have wanted in swift and fair justice? Normally, I'd say no... but we are talking about Saddam Hussien, here. He got the best he could possibly have hoped for... and a million times more than he would have gotten from his own regime prior to 2003. Was it justice for the 25 million people he crushed under his boots for 30 years or the million or more he had killed? Probably not... but (as you said) it was as close to closure as they were going to get.
Two of the nations sitting in judgement of the men accused (France and the USSR) were themselves guilty of the very persecutions, illegal transportation and incarceration, and (in the case of the USSR) actually killing Jews, Gypsies and gays. That alone shows me there was a real question concerning the legitimate means by which the Allies (US, UK, USSR and France) could sit in judgement of 24 men and six national organizations (labeled "criminal" by the Nuremberg Court).
That does NOT mean I have the same concerns about Wiesenthal or the West German trials (or the Eichmann Trial in Israel, which he was involved with, to a degree). Those were not nations sitting in judgement of individuals who are not participatory citizens of the judging states... they were states judging their own citizens (in the case of West Germany) or victims (in the case of Israel).
Now, ironically enough, I get to agree with Ryan's post (welcome back, by the way!). We have seen just what that kind of "trial" can do to the US. If bin Laden is to be tried, it cannot be by an American civilian court, and it shouldn't be by an American military tribunal. It should be conducted by a court in a "jurisdiction" supremely impacted by the acts of the accused... and as bad as 9/11 was, does it really compare to what has happened in Afghanistan over the last 9 years? We didn't invade Afghanistan because the Taliban were bad men... we did it because they were harboring, protecting and supporting Osama bin Laden in his efforts to wage terror wars across the globe. They paid the price for that association (in spades)... but the price still to be paid is by bin Laden himself, and it will never satisfy "justice" in any real sense of the word.
The Saddam trial is a pretty good example of what I am saying. Was it everything a defendant could have wanted in swift and fair justice? Normally, I'd say no... but we are talking about Saddam Hussien, here. He got the best he could possibly have hoped for... and a million times more than he would have gotten from his own regime prior to 2003. Was it justice for the 25 million people he crushed under his boots for 30 years or the million or more he had killed? Probably not... but (as you said) it was as close to closure as they were going to get.
We have a precedent, don't we?
I was going to start with the idea that it matters whom is in the Oval Office when Bin Laden is captured. But I don't think it matters. Even with a flaming left-wing ideologue like we have currently I don't think Bin Laden ever sees the inside of a US civilian court room. Case in point, Khalid Sheik Mohammad.
Mohammad Atta's uncle and mastermind of the 9/11 attack. It was just some months ago that the DOJ announced his trial to be set in New York, "near the tragedy", as Obama put it. Then all hell broke loose. Local and state politicians in New York (regardless of party affiliation) loudly (and publicly) opposed. Bloomberg raised safety concerns. 9/11 widows and orphans protested on television and in the street. Legal scholars scoffed at the idea that a man whom had not been marandized, had been subjected to military interrogations without the presence of counsel, and held indefinitely without offical charges brought, could ever be convicted if the letter of the law was to be applied. Not to mention the opportunity to spew propoganda, even those calling for attacks (plainly or in code), he would have when taking the stand. In addition, if Khalid was to get acquitted the CIA would be forced to summarily snatch him the moment he hit the street, eroding all the "we're a nation of just laws" karma the administration thought they were banking with the world. The move to try him outside a military tribunal is currently sitting in limbo. Can anyone even tell me where this guys sits, physically, as we debate this? Can anyone see this cluster-F bomb not occurring on a scale 100xs the Khalid fiasco were we to attempt to try Bin Laden in a civilian court? I believe far from closure it would rip open wounds, it's what happened with Atta's mass-murdering uncle and I can't begin to imagine the political, security, and legal logistics of going down that road with Bin Laden.
I understand the angle you're operating from Jambo, the idea of the public being able to "get their hands on him" so to speak via a public civilian trial, but either dead or a military tribunal, that's the only 2 options in my estimation.
Mohammad Atta's uncle and mastermind of the 9/11 attack. It was just some months ago that the DOJ announced his trial to be set in New York, "near the tragedy", as Obama put it. Then all hell broke loose. Local and state politicians in New York (regardless of party affiliation) loudly (and publicly) opposed. Bloomberg raised safety concerns. 9/11 widows and orphans protested on television and in the street. Legal scholars scoffed at the idea that a man whom had not been marandized, had been subjected to military interrogations without the presence of counsel, and held indefinitely without offical charges brought, could ever be convicted if the letter of the law was to be applied. Not to mention the opportunity to spew propoganda, even those calling for attacks (plainly or in code), he would have when taking the stand. In addition, if Khalid was to get acquitted the CIA would be forced to summarily snatch him the moment he hit the street, eroding all the "we're a nation of just laws" karma the administration thought they were banking with the world. The move to try him outside a military tribunal is currently sitting in limbo. Can anyone even tell me where this guys sits, physically, as we debate this? Can anyone see this cluster-F bomb not occurring on a scale 100xs the Khalid fiasco were we to attempt to try Bin Laden in a civilian court? I believe far from closure it would rip open wounds, it's what happened with Atta's mass-murdering uncle and I can't begin to imagine the political, security, and legal logistics of going down that road with Bin Laden.
I understand the angle you're operating from Jambo, the idea of the public being able to "get their hands on him" so to speak via a public civilian trial, but either dead or a military tribunal, that's the only 2 options in my estimation.
Juristiction
Osama bin Laden, if captured alive, will be tried by the State of New York, the United States Federal government, the State of New Jersey (under the Port Authority) and then any foreign government that wants him.
The precedent is set. Oklahoma tried and convicted Timothy McVay, but it was the feds that executed him for THEIR conviction. How these trials line up, (Feds first, New York second, New Jersey third, and so on) I have no idea.
Is this a good thing? I do not know. Will hundreds of radicals throw themselves at us with bombs strapped to their chests? A possibility. But with SO many legal steps to take, justice would without question prevail.
I used to think that a dead bin Laden was the best bin Laden, but I am hoping he is captured alive. With all the conflict, all the deaths associated with 9/11 and the subsequent wars following, his trial would offer the potential for closure and the opportunity to show the world justice instead of revenge.
The precedent is set. Oklahoma tried and convicted Timothy McVay, but it was the feds that executed him for THEIR conviction. How these trials line up, (Feds first, New York second, New Jersey third, and so on) I have no idea.
Is this a good thing? I do not know. Will hundreds of radicals throw themselves at us with bombs strapped to their chests? A possibility. But with SO many legal steps to take, justice would without question prevail.
I used to think that a dead bin Laden was the best bin Laden, but I am hoping he is captured alive. With all the conflict, all the deaths associated with 9/11 and the subsequent wars following, his trial would offer the potential for closure and the opportunity to show the world justice instead of revenge.
I understand what drives Ryan to yank his hair out...
Dude, the essence of Nuremberg was the prosecution of crimes against humanity. Whether or not LeMay's firebombing campaign, the British bombing of Dresden, the U-Boat campaign, American sub activity in the Pacific, and other acts of war against civilians constitutes crimes against humanity is not being argued here. It was the systematic extermination of millions of Jews and other ethnic minorities under the Nazi regime that brought about Nuremberg. Goring wasn't convicted of war crimes because he bombed London.
All of the Wiesenthal led cases after the War Crimes Dept was closed in the 1950s were prosecuted by West Germans in West Germany, a testimony to Germany's move towards atonement. Austria didn't embrace the same philosophy for almost three generations.
If we as Americans are not going to stay and prosecute, then we have to leave an infrastructure intact enough to do the job. I submit that Iraq could NOT have done that without a strong US presence remaining in the country. If we pull up stakes all willy-nilly in a hurry will Afghanistan be able to do the same? Probably not.
All of the Wiesenthal led cases after the War Crimes Dept was closed in the 1950s were prosecuted by West Germans in West Germany, a testimony to Germany's move towards atonement. Austria didn't embrace the same philosophy for almost three generations.
If we as Americans are not going to stay and prosecute, then we have to leave an infrastructure intact enough to do the job. I submit that Iraq could NOT have done that without a strong US presence remaining in the country. If we pull up stakes all willy-nilly in a hurry will Afghanistan be able to do the same? Probably not.
What movie?
I still question the "legality" of Nuremberg.
I know that makes me sound like a Nazi sympathizer or something, but I'm not at all. The questions raised about the trials at Nuremberg are as glaring today as they were in November of 1945.
Many of the charges levelled against the Nazi leadership were not "crimes" prior to November 20th, 1945, and thus the men on trial couldn't have knowingly committed crimes that didn't exist. Again, I'm not saying there wasn't culpability on the part of the Nazi leadership... there was, indeed... but the capital crimes they were accused of had never been codified prior to the end of WWII.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan Stone, the Allies were "guilty" of many of the same things that the Germans were being accused of. France had a notoriously bad record of POW abuse after the war, but it paled in comparison to what the Soviets were doing. All the Allied Powers waged war against civilian targets at some time during the course of the conflict (Curtis LeMay's fire-bombing campaign, for example), yet that was a leading crime in all the Nuremberg convictions.
In Iraq, we rounded up and arrested those "most wanted" from the leadership of the Ba'athist regime... but they were prosecuted, tried and defended, found guilty and executed by Iraqis... not by nations that had been attacked, wronged or threatened by Saddam and his cronies. Its difficult to say whether or not Saddam got his "fair trial"... I know he didn't think he did... but no one can accuse the US or UK of holding a "show trial" to blame Saddam (and by extention, Iraq) for wrongs and injustices.
What more can we hope to accomplish than that? If the day comes when Osama bin Laden is actually captured alive, who will judge him? Should it be a US judge? A panel of judges from nations bin Laden attacked? Or should it be the Afghani people that Osama brought so much pain and suffering down on by associating with the Taliban? Surely no one would suggest he go back to his native Saudi Arabia for trial... can you imagine that? My God, he'd be out in a year... probably with a check from the Saudi royal family, too.
I think our "responsibility" to Iraq and Afghanistan ends with our assitance in building a stable and secure government that can handle the process of legal justice by itself. Our doing it for someone is never a good idea...
I know that makes me sound like a Nazi sympathizer or something, but I'm not at all. The questions raised about the trials at Nuremberg are as glaring today as they were in November of 1945.
Many of the charges levelled against the Nazi leadership were not "crimes" prior to November 20th, 1945, and thus the men on trial couldn't have knowingly committed crimes that didn't exist. Again, I'm not saying there wasn't culpability on the part of the Nazi leadership... there was, indeed... but the capital crimes they were accused of had never been codified prior to the end of WWII.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan Stone, the Allies were "guilty" of many of the same things that the Germans were being accused of. France had a notoriously bad record of POW abuse after the war, but it paled in comparison to what the Soviets were doing. All the Allied Powers waged war against civilian targets at some time during the course of the conflict (Curtis LeMay's fire-bombing campaign, for example), yet that was a leading crime in all the Nuremberg convictions.
In Iraq, we rounded up and arrested those "most wanted" from the leadership of the Ba'athist regime... but they were prosecuted, tried and defended, found guilty and executed by Iraqis... not by nations that had been attacked, wronged or threatened by Saddam and his cronies. Its difficult to say whether or not Saddam got his "fair trial"... I know he didn't think he did... but no one can accuse the US or UK of holding a "show trial" to blame Saddam (and by extention, Iraq) for wrongs and injustices.
What more can we hope to accomplish than that? If the day comes when Osama bin Laden is actually captured alive, who will judge him? Should it be a US judge? A panel of judges from nations bin Laden attacked? Or should it be the Afghani people that Osama brought so much pain and suffering down on by associating with the Taliban? Surely no one would suggest he go back to his native Saudi Arabia for trial... can you imagine that? My God, he'd be out in a year... probably with a check from the Saudi royal family, too.
I think our "responsibility" to Iraq and Afghanistan ends with our assitance in building a stable and secure government that can handle the process of legal justice by itself. Our doing it for someone is never a good idea...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Further thoughts...
On last night's movie.
Or better yet further questions.
In a post war world, who's responsibility was it to apprehend, try and carry out sentencing on war criminals?
If it was the Allies, we did a fairly piss poor job. And before anyone argues, I have two words: Simon Wiesenthal.
That being said, fast forward three generations and we have another situation that is similar... Post Saddam Iraq. And a post Taliban Afghanistan. I'm not denying crimes against humanity perpetrated within the boundaries of both countries by the deposed regimes, but who goes after them?
If the answer for the WW2 question was ALLIES, then we have a post war responsibility to these two nations that no one is pondering as we leave a Tasmanian Devil sized dust storm in the region in our hurry to exit.
Thoughts?
Or better yet further questions.
In a post war world, who's responsibility was it to apprehend, try and carry out sentencing on war criminals?
If it was the Allies, we did a fairly piss poor job. And before anyone argues, I have two words: Simon Wiesenthal.
That being said, fast forward three generations and we have another situation that is similar... Post Saddam Iraq. And a post Taliban Afghanistan. I'm not denying crimes against humanity perpetrated within the boundaries of both countries by the deposed regimes, but who goes after them?
If the answer for the WW2 question was ALLIES, then we have a post war responsibility to these two nations that no one is pondering as we leave a Tasmanian Devil sized dust storm in the region in our hurry to exit.
Thoughts?
Tough call...
Palazzo sounds like a solid GOP candidate: conservative, Marine, Catholic, married with kids, small business owner.
I'm still convinced that the only thing that has kept Gene on the Democratic roster is the large percentage of Democrats registered in his district. Too many blacks in MS are registered Democrat when they shouldn't be... they are (rather like me) as conservative as the day is long, but cling to images and memories of Kennedy and LBJ as champions of the "Democratic Party". Neither Kennedy nor LBJ would recognize anything Pelosi/Reid have accomplished in the last four years as something they would have supported (both were Senators, lest we forget).
Gene's done a lot of good things for the Coast... and I say he's been a good Congressman. If you are facing the prospect of Gene getting beat in November, though... you could do a lot worse than having Palazzo beat him out.
I was coming home last night and listening to Liberal Left on the satellite radio. The disconnect between the liberal pundits and anything I would consider rational reality is staggering. I realize that there is no guaranty that the average Democratic voter in America feels anything they (the pundits) say is anymore reasonable then I do... but the attitudes towards conservative values and goals must be similar, since they are supporting the same agenda from politicians. They see terms and phrases like "lower taxes" as equating to nothing more than more money for the rich... when it is undeniably true that EVERYONE had a tax cut during the Bush era... everyone that paid taxes, that is. They see "less government" as less provided to them that they didn't earn, make or produce themselves (which, ironically, is how I see it too).
I may not agree with everything Beck or Hannity say, but their understanding of what is happening in America is far more in touch with what I see around me every day than ANYTHING coming from the left. I can agree to disagree with Glenn Beck on the benefits or costs involved in FDR taking us off the gold currency standard... but where is the proof of liberal statements that say that only the first $108,000 of income was EVER taxed under G W Bush? Do they actually expect me to believe that people making $216,000 didn't pay taxes on the upper 50% of their income in 2003?
ANY conservative politician, regardless of affiliation, needs to recognize that association with these kinds of thoughts and views are going to cost them dearly in the next two election cycles. If you can't PLAINLY show that you are a proponent of solid, measurable conservative values and principles, then you are going to have very tough, costly campaigns ahead of you. I'm not suggesting that Taylor is "associating" with the pundits on Liberal Left... but he has a big "D" behind his name, and the pundits in question are blindly calling for support to that quarter in November. That is just as true for GOP politicians who can't embrace the more conservative tones in their constituencies. The GOP can't afford to have a whole lot more of the Murkowski or Castle defeats without being seen by many as a "failing" party, which might lead to a divided vote in key states.
On a humorous note...
The same liberal pundits mentioned above were SCREAMING at the "biased" media for calling undue attention to the opinion polls now out showing such growing discontent with the Democratic Party over the last four years. Seems they feel that the "biased media" is creating a self-fullfilling prophecy by stating that "voters" in general are unhappy with Democrats, and this is causing many Democratic voters to stay home during key primary elections.
Oh, the irony...
I'm still convinced that the only thing that has kept Gene on the Democratic roster is the large percentage of Democrats registered in his district. Too many blacks in MS are registered Democrat when they shouldn't be... they are (rather like me) as conservative as the day is long, but cling to images and memories of Kennedy and LBJ as champions of the "Democratic Party". Neither Kennedy nor LBJ would recognize anything Pelosi/Reid have accomplished in the last four years as something they would have supported (both were Senators, lest we forget).
Gene's done a lot of good things for the Coast... and I say he's been a good Congressman. If you are facing the prospect of Gene getting beat in November, though... you could do a lot worse than having Palazzo beat him out.
I was coming home last night and listening to Liberal Left on the satellite radio. The disconnect between the liberal pundits and anything I would consider rational reality is staggering. I realize that there is no guaranty that the average Democratic voter in America feels anything they (the pundits) say is anymore reasonable then I do... but the attitudes towards conservative values and goals must be similar, since they are supporting the same agenda from politicians. They see terms and phrases like "lower taxes" as equating to nothing more than more money for the rich... when it is undeniably true that EVERYONE had a tax cut during the Bush era... everyone that paid taxes, that is. They see "less government" as less provided to them that they didn't earn, make or produce themselves (which, ironically, is how I see it too).
I may not agree with everything Beck or Hannity say, but their understanding of what is happening in America is far more in touch with what I see around me every day than ANYTHING coming from the left. I can agree to disagree with Glenn Beck on the benefits or costs involved in FDR taking us off the gold currency standard... but where is the proof of liberal statements that say that only the first $108,000 of income was EVER taxed under G W Bush? Do they actually expect me to believe that people making $216,000 didn't pay taxes on the upper 50% of their income in 2003?
ANY conservative politician, regardless of affiliation, needs to recognize that association with these kinds of thoughts and views are going to cost them dearly in the next two election cycles. If you can't PLAINLY show that you are a proponent of solid, measurable conservative values and principles, then you are going to have very tough, costly campaigns ahead of you. I'm not suggesting that Taylor is "associating" with the pundits on Liberal Left... but he has a big "D" behind his name, and the pundits in question are blindly calling for support to that quarter in November. That is just as true for GOP politicians who can't embrace the more conservative tones in their constituencies. The GOP can't afford to have a whole lot more of the Murkowski or Castle defeats without being seen by many as a "failing" party, which might lead to a divided vote in key states.
On a humorous note...
The same liberal pundits mentioned above were SCREAMING at the "biased" media for calling undue attention to the opinion polls now out showing such growing discontent with the Democratic Party over the last four years. Seems they feel that the "biased media" is creating a self-fullfilling prophecy by stating that "voters" in general are unhappy with Democrats, and this is causing many Democratic voters to stay home during key primary elections.
Oh, the irony...
Add this to the must see list...
I Have Not Forgotten You... On Netflix Instant View (already there, Titus, all you have to do is check, #52 on the list)
Absolutely a must see for anyone interested in WW2 history.
Absolutely a must see for anyone interested in WW2 history.
Friday, September 17, 2010
It breaks my FREAKING heart...
But more and more I am leaning towards voting for Steven Palazzo for the 4th District seat in the House of Representatives. The seat is currently held by Gene Taylor.
OUR man Gene Taylor. Home Depot checkout line Gene Taylor. Wal-Mart line Gene Taylor. Faithful e-mail correspondent Gene Taylor. Advocate for South Mississippi Gene Taylor.
At first I thought any vote AGAINST Gene Taylor would be a protest vote... Something I am philosophically against. Why give some unnamed loser Gene's seat because the economy sucks? But the more research I did into Steven... (Born in 1970, can't call him a kid) The more I liked him.
Damn it.
Google the guy, tell me what you think. I am not 100% decided yet and am VERY torn. But this kid is working ALL the right angles. His election game plan is right out of the Bund archives and frankly, Gene Taylor is in a LOT more trouble than I thought.
OUR man Gene Taylor. Home Depot checkout line Gene Taylor. Wal-Mart line Gene Taylor. Faithful e-mail correspondent Gene Taylor. Advocate for South Mississippi Gene Taylor.
At first I thought any vote AGAINST Gene Taylor would be a protest vote... Something I am philosophically against. Why give some unnamed loser Gene's seat because the economy sucks? But the more research I did into Steven... (Born in 1970, can't call him a kid) The more I liked him.
Damn it.
Google the guy, tell me what you think. I am not 100% decided yet and am VERY torn. But this kid is working ALL the right angles. His election game plan is right out of the Bund archives and frankly, Gene Taylor is in a LOT more trouble than I thought.
Today is a big day...
Say what you will, the last ten years have shown a real change in how America views itself.
No one here at the Bund knows more about how that view has changed than I, and we've all butted heads while determining which view is the "right" one. We all have issues with Obama, but to suggest that Obama's inauguration as the first black President isn't a significant milestone in American history is impossible.
More than his race or ethnicity, however, I think it was a milestone in that Obama was the first President to be elected after saying that he felt the Constitution was a charter of "negative liberties" and that a fundamental reform of our nation's founding principles needed to be undertaken. No other President has ever made those kind of campaign promises and still been elected.
"Reform" Presidents of the past promised to work to ensure that America lived up to the ideals and standards laid out in the Constitution, suggesting we were falling short of a goal in our nation's development as the leading democratic society on earth. Presidents like Lincoln, who felt that the Union as a whole was the greater good and fought to preserve it against those that would have watched it fall apart in the name of "state's rights"... or LBJ, who signed into law the very equality spelled out in our founding documents but never fully realized in our society until the end of the 20th Century.
Our "Hope and Change" President today ran on the promise of "fundamental reform" of the very concepts our nation was built upon. I'm not putting words into his mouth here... these are exactly what he has said, time and time again since he announced his candidacy for President in 2007. This sort of sentiment has had one very impacting result over the course of the last few years... it has brought a renewed interest in what is actually written in the Constitution, and what those words mean to us today.
September 17th is "Constitution Day". This day was made a national holiday in 2004 by an Act of Congress that George Bush signed into law, which required that today, of all days of the year, all public schools focus on teaching the Constitution to students. In a time when most Americans under the age of 35 have never read the Constitution, even once, I think this is an important step in educating our youth as to just how precious and transformative the Constitution was (and is) to the world in general. 223 years ago, 39 of 42 State delegates put their names to the Constitution, and it became the founding framework of the Grand Republic that we know and enjoy today. Why have so many people forgotten that fact, and what that means to us in the modern world?
Back in the late 70's (when I was just a lad), we had to memorize such fundamental statements as the Preamble to the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address. We knew the Bill of Rights, and what they represented to the country at the time. I'm no fan of Government dictating what can or can't be taught in schools... but in this case, I think it is a great idea. If you attend a school that gets money from the Government to operate, then you should have more than a basic understanding of how that government works and under what structure it is allowed to operate and function.
Our understanding of what the US Government is has changed over the centuries since its inception. In the early 1800s, many questioned just what the Government could and couldn't do. By the middle of the 19th Century, many saw it as a tyrannical oppressor bent on subjugating the individual States by force. By the turn of the 20th Century, many saw the Government as nothing more than an advocate of the wealthy and privileged against the poor and working members of our society. Today, we are told that the problems facing our society can only be fixed by the Government, and the individual is helpless without it, so we should surrender our individual rights and property to further the Government's efforts.
Obviously, none of the above were ever 100% true, and our society and nation have survived trial after trial in our efforts to achieve the goals set forth in the Constitution and the other founding documents... goals and ideals like "all men are created equal" and "justice for all" and "to form a more perfect Union". We aren't finished yet, but we are still more than capable of getting to our "goal"... and today's growing fascination with reading and re-reading the Constitution by so many of our citizens is a good thing.
Encouraging a new generation of Americans to understand just what the fundamental tenants of our government actually are can only help our nation, and I am convinced that it will be what brings the next generation that much closer to achieving the goals of those founding documents.
I, for one, am going to quiz my children on just what they did (or didn't) learn today in school about the Constitution. If I'm not satisfied, then additional "homework" (literally... home work) will be required before anyone gets on a Facebook page or the Wii console.
No one here at the Bund knows more about how that view has changed than I, and we've all butted heads while determining which view is the "right" one. We all have issues with Obama, but to suggest that Obama's inauguration as the first black President isn't a significant milestone in American history is impossible.
More than his race or ethnicity, however, I think it was a milestone in that Obama was the first President to be elected after saying that he felt the Constitution was a charter of "negative liberties" and that a fundamental reform of our nation's founding principles needed to be undertaken. No other President has ever made those kind of campaign promises and still been elected.
"Reform" Presidents of the past promised to work to ensure that America lived up to the ideals and standards laid out in the Constitution, suggesting we were falling short of a goal in our nation's development as the leading democratic society on earth. Presidents like Lincoln, who felt that the Union as a whole was the greater good and fought to preserve it against those that would have watched it fall apart in the name of "state's rights"... or LBJ, who signed into law the very equality spelled out in our founding documents but never fully realized in our society until the end of the 20th Century.
Our "Hope and Change" President today ran on the promise of "fundamental reform" of the very concepts our nation was built upon. I'm not putting words into his mouth here... these are exactly what he has said, time and time again since he announced his candidacy for President in 2007. This sort of sentiment has had one very impacting result over the course of the last few years... it has brought a renewed interest in what is actually written in the Constitution, and what those words mean to us today.
September 17th is "Constitution Day". This day was made a national holiday in 2004 by an Act of Congress that George Bush signed into law, which required that today, of all days of the year, all public schools focus on teaching the Constitution to students. In a time when most Americans under the age of 35 have never read the Constitution, even once, I think this is an important step in educating our youth as to just how precious and transformative the Constitution was (and is) to the world in general. 223 years ago, 39 of 42 State delegates put their names to the Constitution, and it became the founding framework of the Grand Republic that we know and enjoy today. Why have so many people forgotten that fact, and what that means to us in the modern world?
Back in the late 70's (when I was just a lad), we had to memorize such fundamental statements as the Preamble to the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address. We knew the Bill of Rights, and what they represented to the country at the time. I'm no fan of Government dictating what can or can't be taught in schools... but in this case, I think it is a great idea. If you attend a school that gets money from the Government to operate, then you should have more than a basic understanding of how that government works and under what structure it is allowed to operate and function.
Our understanding of what the US Government is has changed over the centuries since its inception. In the early 1800s, many questioned just what the Government could and couldn't do. By the middle of the 19th Century, many saw it as a tyrannical oppressor bent on subjugating the individual States by force. By the turn of the 20th Century, many saw the Government as nothing more than an advocate of the wealthy and privileged against the poor and working members of our society. Today, we are told that the problems facing our society can only be fixed by the Government, and the individual is helpless without it, so we should surrender our individual rights and property to further the Government's efforts.
Obviously, none of the above were ever 100% true, and our society and nation have survived trial after trial in our efforts to achieve the goals set forth in the Constitution and the other founding documents... goals and ideals like "all men are created equal" and "justice for all" and "to form a more perfect Union". We aren't finished yet, but we are still more than capable of getting to our "goal"... and today's growing fascination with reading and re-reading the Constitution by so many of our citizens is a good thing.
Encouraging a new generation of Americans to understand just what the fundamental tenants of our government actually are can only help our nation, and I am convinced that it will be what brings the next generation that much closer to achieving the goals of those founding documents.
I, for one, am going to quiz my children on just what they did (or didn't) learn today in school about the Constitution. If I'm not satisfied, then additional "homework" (literally... home work) will be required before anyone gets on a Facebook page or the Wii console.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
