I have this friend at work whom I commute with in an effort to make the one hour drive (each way) a little cheaper for all of us. His name is Mark, and he's the sort of guy you guys would love... level headed, honest to a fault, fond of his brew and smokes, and a solid dealer for someone that has only been doing it since June.
So, we're driving home tonight, and discussing the coming winter storm that is slated to hit the area tonight. 3" to 6" inches of snow by sunrise, followed by a very heavy bout of freezing rain which will leave as much as 3/4 of an inch of ice on unprotected surfaces. He mentions that as soon as he drops me off, he has to turn back and go to Scranton to pick up his Jeep from his "shop". I tell him that crazy... just swap the vehicles now while we are on the way there. I don't mind being a few minutes late home, and neither does Liz.
So we stop at his shop...
Holy Mary, Mother of Christmas! The thing is a 40' by 40' steel building, with a huge (12' high?) rolling steel door. We enter through a side door, and here is a massive room that easily holds two vintage Corvettes (his brother's), his Jeep, a full-sized Ford pickup with a plow, a 1972 Jeep Wrangler (also vintage, and Mark's pride and joy). Outside of this "parking area" he also has a complete kitchenette, with fridge, table, chairs, two sinks, a fridge and a really good stereo system (all it was missing, in fact, was a stove). There was a beautiful tiled bathroom with a shower, all under a loft office that had an oak desk, leather chair, hide-a-bed couch, and a big screen TV. On the other wall was a big wood-burning furnace (with glass door) fronted by two HUGE easy chairs that Mark and his father use to enjoy their coffee on cold mornings.
Yes, there were some tools and equipment in the corners... a grinder here, a compressor there... but I am telling you straight up, if I had this "shop" as my own... Liz and the kids would NOT see a lot of me. I mean DAMN... all the comforts of home, with plenty of room (sans the Corvettes and other vehicles, which I'd never own anyway) for a pool table, a bar, a stove (and a microwave) and more comfy couches and chairs.
That's my kind of shop... I'll have to think about how I'm going to get mine that nice.
Monday, January 31, 2011
There is opportunity here...
Let's for a minute assume the Mubarak regime is doomed. This isn't a stretch...
Without even considering who takes control of the government, I think several possibilities present themselves in the region that might even be GOOD for the US.
1) Many regimes in Arab countries that have traditionally been closer to the US than anyone else in the last 25 years will have to pay very close attention to keeping those relations strong. In the case of Turkey and Jordan, this is especially true. Both will have to begin implementing changes NOW to avoid this sort of riotous action later... and that means coming to grips with anti-Israeli elements within their countries. Association with American interests in the region means association with Israel, in one form or another... and in maintaining those associations, which can only benefit all involved, the "people" see the actual benefits quicker than not.
2) Israel is going to be "forced" to work with the PA on a level not seen previously. This does not mean the PA will cooperate (although I think the Fatah-faction will) with Israel, but it does mean that issues that tend to be pretty one-sided in Israel (settlement construction, embargoes, road and rail closures, worker transit issues, etc) will be back on the table so that there is less to feed the fires already smoldering all around Israel's borders.
3) Europe is going to be "forced" to recognize Israeli reality versus European daydreaming, or face the consequences of seeing what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt happen again in Turkey, bringing the very real possibility of radical Islamic leadership to the very doors of Europe itself. Unrealistic expectations and gross hyperbole on the part of European leadership in regards to Israel policies towards the PA will simply have to be tempered, or the unrest will be fed in a country that can directly effect European security on a daily basis... and that can't possibly be a "good thing" given the growing numbers of Muslims living in Central Europe.
I do not deny that exactly the opposite of what I am suggesting here is more than possible... but if it should occur, then the worst possible scenario will already have begun to unfold. Leadership across the region (even globally) will have to drastically change, or this sort of unrest and uprising will spread like a plague across the Muslim world. This is the product that repressive, mono-chromatic regimes produce: radical reaction to authoritarian leadership when no popular opinion is able to be considered. The result however, is not always "good" either... the selection, even by democratic, popular means, of another repressive radical regime of the opposite view.
I find it terribly difficult to imagine any Western state intervening in the Egyptian crisis right now. Aid, support, calls for peaceful discussion, are all possible... but they are unlikely to produce anything substantially smoother in the area of transition than is likely to come from any other effort at all.
Without even considering who takes control of the government, I think several possibilities present themselves in the region that might even be GOOD for the US.
1) Many regimes in Arab countries that have traditionally been closer to the US than anyone else in the last 25 years will have to pay very close attention to keeping those relations strong. In the case of Turkey and Jordan, this is especially true. Both will have to begin implementing changes NOW to avoid this sort of riotous action later... and that means coming to grips with anti-Israeli elements within their countries. Association with American interests in the region means association with Israel, in one form or another... and in maintaining those associations, which can only benefit all involved, the "people" see the actual benefits quicker than not.
2) Israel is going to be "forced" to work with the PA on a level not seen previously. This does not mean the PA will cooperate (although I think the Fatah-faction will) with Israel, but it does mean that issues that tend to be pretty one-sided in Israel (settlement construction, embargoes, road and rail closures, worker transit issues, etc) will be back on the table so that there is less to feed the fires already smoldering all around Israel's borders.
3) Europe is going to be "forced" to recognize Israeli reality versus European daydreaming, or face the consequences of seeing what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt happen again in Turkey, bringing the very real possibility of radical Islamic leadership to the very doors of Europe itself. Unrealistic expectations and gross hyperbole on the part of European leadership in regards to Israel policies towards the PA will simply have to be tempered, or the unrest will be fed in a country that can directly effect European security on a daily basis... and that can't possibly be a "good thing" given the growing numbers of Muslims living in Central Europe.
I do not deny that exactly the opposite of what I am suggesting here is more than possible... but if it should occur, then the worst possible scenario will already have begun to unfold. Leadership across the region (even globally) will have to drastically change, or this sort of unrest and uprising will spread like a plague across the Muslim world. This is the product that repressive, mono-chromatic regimes produce: radical reaction to authoritarian leadership when no popular opinion is able to be considered. The result however, is not always "good" either... the selection, even by democratic, popular means, of another repressive radical regime of the opposite view.
I find it terribly difficult to imagine any Western state intervening in the Egyptian crisis right now. Aid, support, calls for peaceful discussion, are all possible... but they are unlikely to produce anything substantially smoother in the area of transition than is likely to come from any other effort at all.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Doth mine ears decieve me?
Without putting too fine a point to this discussion thus far, I simply must ask for some clarification:
Have I erred in coming to the conclusion that the REAL lesson here is the will of the people is NOT always the best course of action for a nation-state?
Let us assume that the current regime in Egypt concedes to the demands of the riotous protesters and holds free and open elections to ALL positions of government, and that Mubarak steps aside as soon as this is complete... which is the ONLY thing that will get the riots to stop, it seems.
Almost all opinion on this topic that I have heard over the course of the last two days is that the Muslim Brotherhood and its sympathizers would sweep into power through the only legitimate means available in the eyes of the Western world... and something Mubarak himself has never even attempted to under go... a free and open election by the people of Egypt.
This is what happened in Gaza, and we got Hamas. This is what happened in Iraq, and we got al Sadr supporters and lackeys. This is what happened in Syria, and we got the Ba'athists. This is what happened in Germany, and we got the National Socialists. Its happening now in Ankara, Amman, Tunis, Baghdad, Kabul, Islamabad, and Beirut.
Surely we are not advocating the best course of action for the US is to NOT support the will of the people to be governed? Surely, the Egyptians are the best suited to choose who their leadership and government is to be? If the Egyptian people want to hold free and open elections, can we honestly raise a voice in protest and hope to keep ANY semblance of honesty or integrity in ourselves? Isn't this exactly the sort of democratic society in action that we have supported and called for for the last 100 years in Egypt? In the entire region? How is it that we can support Mubarak when he is denying the very thing we say is needed in places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Cuba, et al?
I'm asking out of all sincerity... most conservatives, and many Democrats, are calling for a peaceful end to the crisis, but NONE are calling for the elections that the protesters are asking/demanding. Why not?
Have I erred in coming to the conclusion that the REAL lesson here is the will of the people is NOT always the best course of action for a nation-state?
Let us assume that the current regime in Egypt concedes to the demands of the riotous protesters and holds free and open elections to ALL positions of government, and that Mubarak steps aside as soon as this is complete... which is the ONLY thing that will get the riots to stop, it seems.
Almost all opinion on this topic that I have heard over the course of the last two days is that the Muslim Brotherhood and its sympathizers would sweep into power through the only legitimate means available in the eyes of the Western world... and something Mubarak himself has never even attempted to under go... a free and open election by the people of Egypt.
This is what happened in Gaza, and we got Hamas. This is what happened in Iraq, and we got al Sadr supporters and lackeys. This is what happened in Syria, and we got the Ba'athists. This is what happened in Germany, and we got the National Socialists. Its happening now in Ankara, Amman, Tunis, Baghdad, Kabul, Islamabad, and Beirut.
Surely we are not advocating the best course of action for the US is to NOT support the will of the people to be governed? Surely, the Egyptians are the best suited to choose who their leadership and government is to be? If the Egyptian people want to hold free and open elections, can we honestly raise a voice in protest and hope to keep ANY semblance of honesty or integrity in ourselves? Isn't this exactly the sort of democratic society in action that we have supported and called for for the last 100 years in Egypt? In the entire region? How is it that we can support Mubarak when he is denying the very thing we say is needed in places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Cuba, et al?
I'm asking out of all sincerity... most conservatives, and many Democrats, are calling for a peaceful end to the crisis, but NONE are calling for the elections that the protesters are asking/demanding. Why not?
One thing is certain ...
We can not encourage/allow the Egyptian military to be disbanded, we learned that lesson in Iraq. We should guarantee their salaries if necessary.
As far as your point, the healthiest economy in Europe at current is Germany. But lets be honest, even after 70 years no one wants to hear the phrase, "German troops are on the march." The UK is the only viable force projection amidst the EU alum, but PM Cameron, despite being a conservative,is new & unlikely to commit security forces while still trying to justify Afghanistan & Iraq. That leaves the US. Fortunately we have excellent military to military relations with Egypt. With the support of our carriers a "trusted" general overseeing a transition may be our best course. This allows for a more organized change of government, while lessening the possibility of a fundamentalist take over.
As far as your point, the healthiest economy in Europe at current is Germany. But lets be honest, even after 70 years no one wants to hear the phrase, "German troops are on the march." The UK is the only viable force projection amidst the EU alum, but PM Cameron, despite being a conservative,is new & unlikely to commit security forces while still trying to justify Afghanistan & Iraq. That leaves the US. Fortunately we have excellent military to military relations with Egypt. With the support of our carriers a "trusted" general overseeing a transition may be our best course. This allows for a more organized change of government, while lessening the possibility of a fundamentalist take over.
Put me in, Coach!
I've has a little time to place this Egyptian mess in some historical context. Tell me how crazy this sounds.
There are two historical factors that preempt direct United States involvement in this mess.
1) The economic engine that IS the EU is considerably, (albeit not exclusively) by the flow of goods through the Suez Canal. Granted, in this new era of global superpowers not necessarily residing on the European Continent, the military strategic importance of the Suez, while substantial, isn't what it was 25 years ago. Still... considerable. So having this resource threatened, the EU looks in the mirror to see who's going to "fix" it. Or at the very least secure the canal.
Checking the roll call, who in the EU can project that kind of force?
It is my humble opinion that Putin will NOT move, even if asked. The Russians do not need the canal, have never needed it, and benefit without it. So that leaves the French and the Brits.
The EU is already in serious, serious trouble. They CANNOT afford a hiccup. This intervention will come quickly and with uncharacteristic decisiveness, because option number two is less attractive to everyone involved.
2) If these riots lead to a Muslim Brotherhood controlled government in Jordan and Egypt, and IF the PA decides to climb on the band wagon, and Syria and Lebanon begin to shake a bit in the same direction, Israel will move. I am not sure what type of action they would take other than to eliminate direct military threats, the first of which would be the PA. And make no mistake. History shows us how this will go down. The PA will be left with NOTHING if it even survives. Egypt will be hurt in an unprecedented manner since in 67 and 74 they lacked a centralized infrastructure that was strategically vulnerable and Israel didn't possess the means to take out said infrastructure without unacceptable collateral damage. As a society in Africa Egypt would be set back a generation, which is TRAGIC.
None of this requires a Ph.D to figure out. But a question that stumps me at the moment is this: What other European power can project force other than those I've mentioned? And do you agree with any of this?
There are two historical factors that preempt direct United States involvement in this mess.
1) The economic engine that IS the EU is considerably, (albeit not exclusively) by the flow of goods through the Suez Canal. Granted, in this new era of global superpowers not necessarily residing on the European Continent, the military strategic importance of the Suez, while substantial, isn't what it was 25 years ago. Still... considerable. So having this resource threatened, the EU looks in the mirror to see who's going to "fix" it. Or at the very least secure the canal.
Checking the roll call, who in the EU can project that kind of force?
It is my humble opinion that Putin will NOT move, even if asked. The Russians do not need the canal, have never needed it, and benefit without it. So that leaves the French and the Brits.
The EU is already in serious, serious trouble. They CANNOT afford a hiccup. This intervention will come quickly and with uncharacteristic decisiveness, because option number two is less attractive to everyone involved.
2) If these riots lead to a Muslim Brotherhood controlled government in Jordan and Egypt, and IF the PA decides to climb on the band wagon, and Syria and Lebanon begin to shake a bit in the same direction, Israel will move. I am not sure what type of action they would take other than to eliminate direct military threats, the first of which would be the PA. And make no mistake. History shows us how this will go down. The PA will be left with NOTHING if it even survives. Egypt will be hurt in an unprecedented manner since in 67 and 74 they lacked a centralized infrastructure that was strategically vulnerable and Israel didn't possess the means to take out said infrastructure without unacceptable collateral damage. As a society in Africa Egypt would be set back a generation, which is TRAGIC.
None of this requires a Ph.D to figure out. But a question that stumps me at the moment is this: What other European power can project force other than those I've mentioned? And do you agree with any of this?
Even better ...
Having watched episode 2 of Spartacus:Gods of The Arena, I am prepared to say that the writers have topped themselves. And Titus did some first rate plot guessing after the first episode, I might add.
Another interesting bit... check the "stats" link on our menu wall. Is it just me or does the map (color coded in light to dark green) include Alaska, Britain, France, Germany, and the Ukraine?
Another interesting bit... check the "stats" link on our menu wall. Is it just me or does the map (color coded in light to dark green) include Alaska, Britain, France, Germany, and the Ukraine?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
History repeats?
This could get very, VERY bad.
What concerns me the most was Drudge's headline, a link to the UK Telegraph, which claims with some detailed first person & physical evidence that the US is backing the uprisings, wich of course is under the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood. I read the entire article (Im posting from my phone & its a pain to do a hyper link, just Google it, it's worth the read), and its shades of Iran's revolution. If we trade Mubarik for a fundamentalist regime, one in control of the Suez, not only have we repeated the Iranian debacle but the entire region could be set on fire, sending our fragile economy into a tail spin. Not to mention Egypt's value in our war on terror has been measurable and specific. Does anyone think that would continue under the Muslim Brotherhood? This covert US backing just doesn't add up to me ... read the article, am I wrong?
What concerns me the most was Drudge's headline, a link to the UK Telegraph, which claims with some detailed first person & physical evidence that the US is backing the uprisings, wich of course is under the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood. I read the entire article (Im posting from my phone & its a pain to do a hyper link, just Google it, it's worth the read), and its shades of Iran's revolution. If we trade Mubarik for a fundamentalist regime, one in control of the Suez, not only have we repeated the Iranian debacle but the entire region could be set on fire, sending our fragile economy into a tail spin. Not to mention Egypt's value in our war on terror has been measurable and specific. Does anyone think that would continue under the Muslim Brotherhood? This covert US backing just doesn't add up to me ... read the article, am I wrong?
Friday, January 28, 2011
How scary is this?
I worked tonight... 2 till 10 sitting box all day on a $15 dice game, with one big-screen TV showing sports, the other the news (which is never on... must have been an IT mistake, huh?). No sound, of course... but image after image of the disaster that is Egypt.
I discussed this today with the more astute associates in the dice pit, and I came to the following conclusions:
1) The American education system SUCKS. Of the four dealers on my crew today, only ONE even knew what continent Egypt was on, and none of them knew who its leader was or what was going on there that was causing him so much trouble. The oldest one on the crew was 33 (and he was the one that knew where Egypt is)... the rest are under 30. Because one of the dealers on our shift is FROM Egypt, one thought it was near Greece because Nashaadt is Coptic Christian (not that she knows what a Copt is, but that is another story). I had to give her partial credit for that... all that separates the two is nearly 900 miles of Mediterranean Sea... do you see how painful this is for me?
2) We can now expect at least a $0.35 hike in gasoline prices over the next week or so... possibly as much as $1. With Tunisia falling to radical protests led by this Muslim Brotherhood, and with the same rabble rioting in Egypt AND Jordan, things can only get worse. Add to this the fact that, if Mubarak doesn't lift the ban on the internet in Egypt by midnight local time in Cairo, the resulting financial loss to the nation's banking and financial institutions will cripple the Egyptian governments ability to function AT ALL... and this is the government that controls the vital Suez Canal that watches 68% of all surface ship traffic carrying crude oil out of the Persian Gulf and into the Mediterranean and North Atlantic lanes.
3) IF the radicals gain control of the Egyptian government, either through violence or free elections (which do NOT always deliver good results... there is the ruling Hamas-majority in Gaza for one example, and Barrak Obama as another here in the US), then we can expect gasoline to reach that $5/gallon rice far sooner than anyone expected... I'd say by the end of Feb. If the same happens in Jordan... God help us all.
Thoughts?
I discussed this today with the more astute associates in the dice pit, and I came to the following conclusions:
1) The American education system SUCKS. Of the four dealers on my crew today, only ONE even knew what continent Egypt was on, and none of them knew who its leader was or what was going on there that was causing him so much trouble. The oldest one on the crew was 33 (and he was the one that knew where Egypt is)... the rest are under 30. Because one of the dealers on our shift is FROM Egypt, one thought it was near Greece because Nashaadt is Coptic Christian (not that she knows what a Copt is, but that is another story). I had to give her partial credit for that... all that separates the two is nearly 900 miles of Mediterranean Sea... do you see how painful this is for me?
2) We can now expect at least a $0.35 hike in gasoline prices over the next week or so... possibly as much as $1. With Tunisia falling to radical protests led by this Muslim Brotherhood, and with the same rabble rioting in Egypt AND Jordan, things can only get worse. Add to this the fact that, if Mubarak doesn't lift the ban on the internet in Egypt by midnight local time in Cairo, the resulting financial loss to the nation's banking and financial institutions will cripple the Egyptian governments ability to function AT ALL... and this is the government that controls the vital Suez Canal that watches 68% of all surface ship traffic carrying crude oil out of the Persian Gulf and into the Mediterranean and North Atlantic lanes.
3) IF the radicals gain control of the Egyptian government, either through violence or free elections (which do NOT always deliver good results... there is the ruling Hamas-majority in Gaza for one example, and Barrak Obama as another here in the US), then we can expect gasoline to reach that $5/gallon rice far sooner than anyone expected... I'd say by the end of Feb. If the same happens in Jordan... God help us all.
Thoughts?
Okay, time to be fair...
Ron Reagan really WAS one of the most important and influential Presidents to sit in the Oval Office. I readily admit that, here and now.
He is the highest ranked President on my Report Card, for good reason. He completely changed the way the US Government saw its policy concerning communism and the Soviet Union... in fact, all of its foreign policy. Domestically he changed our entire nation's view of how taxes and the rate at which people are taxed... even the liberals and progressives can't argue that point. His tax cuts in 1981 and 1982 did more to grow our economy over the next 10 years than anything that had been done previously since 1955. Libs and lefties will argue that it wasn't Reagan... but it was. Facts are facts. Whatever the reasons behind the actions and policies that I consider "failures" of his administrations, the successes outnumber the mistakes.
If the text-book definition of a "Reagan Conservative" is someone who understands that less government intervention in economics and private industry is better for the entire country, and that personal responsibility should always trump government entitlement, then I can live with that definition... and probably count myself as one, as well.
But if the definition is penned to suggest that Reagan did it RIGHT, beginning to end, and that a move back to his policies and programs (domestic or international) is the best course of action because HE MADE THEM WORK IN THE PAST, then I'm afraid I will continue to critique the use of "rose-tinted glasses" well into the future.
I voice no support of Carter when I say the following:
In the past, Ryan stated that James Earl Carter directly contributed to the nightmare that has been US-Iranian relations since 1979 by cutting off aid and support for the Shah of Iran until such time as he could institute dramatic and sweeping reforms to his government. This end of support and aid led to the situation that removed the Shah from power, and put the Iranian Revolutionary Council in his place. THAT has, indeed, been a thorn in our paw for more than 30 years... but if Carter contributed to that thorn through his policies and actions, and needs to be seen as having contributed as much... what does that tell us of Iraq's role since 1981 in American foreign policy?
Saddam Hussein had no bigger supporter than Ron Reagan. It has been suggested that the only thing that kept Saddam from being removed or beaten entirely during the eight-year war with Iran was American aid and support. Diplomacy by proxy is a time-tried fact of East-West and Cold War politics, I know... but the consequences do not end with the end of the Cold War, and if Carter must answer for his policy on Iran prior to 1981, then Reagan must answer on his policy towards Iraq post-1988. I'm not saying Reagan was wrong for supporting Iraq over Iran... but he was supporting a despotic tyrant and that support cost the US untold billions and thousands of lives (just as Carter's lack of support cost the US billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and 944 days of captivity for those poor embassy workers in Tehran, too). That was a short-sighted, short term gain policy that cost the US far more than it benefited it.
See my point? I don't deny that Reagan changed the game entirely... and I don't deny that no one since has had the chutspah to do it again, conservatively speaking... but it does rankle sore when I hear pundits and friends wax nostalgic for the days of the Reagan era, like a bunch of Alex P. Keaton wannabes. He did what others either couldn't or wouldn't... but he did make mistakes, and some of them were pretty big. He did pull the Marines out of Lebanon immediately after 200+ of them were murdered in their barracks, and that sounds a lot like letting terrorists and terrorism dictate foreign policy to me. He got his blank check for defense spending (Ryan's words) by perpetuating policies and agendas that still haunt us today, when all evidence points to the simple fact that the status quo policy of containment was working, and that Afghanistan was enough of a fiscal bleed for the Soviets to have spelled their death without "star wars" ever being needed. He got it done faster... but the progressive/liberal agenda was furthered along the way, too, and it was all the more entrenched afterwards.
The upside is that, if I had to give name to the President that WAS working to change the way things are done in the White House and DC as much as Reagan did, it would be Obama... and his policies and agendas are so WRONG, and they are wrong at such a fundamental level, that the swing back to the right will occur all the faster because of them. Reagan showed what WORKED... and Obama is showing us what DOES NOT WORK.
He is the highest ranked President on my Report Card, for good reason. He completely changed the way the US Government saw its policy concerning communism and the Soviet Union... in fact, all of its foreign policy. Domestically he changed our entire nation's view of how taxes and the rate at which people are taxed... even the liberals and progressives can't argue that point. His tax cuts in 1981 and 1982 did more to grow our economy over the next 10 years than anything that had been done previously since 1955. Libs and lefties will argue that it wasn't Reagan... but it was. Facts are facts. Whatever the reasons behind the actions and policies that I consider "failures" of his administrations, the successes outnumber the mistakes.
If the text-book definition of a "Reagan Conservative" is someone who understands that less government intervention in economics and private industry is better for the entire country, and that personal responsibility should always trump government entitlement, then I can live with that definition... and probably count myself as one, as well.
But if the definition is penned to suggest that Reagan did it RIGHT, beginning to end, and that a move back to his policies and programs (domestic or international) is the best course of action because HE MADE THEM WORK IN THE PAST, then I'm afraid I will continue to critique the use of "rose-tinted glasses" well into the future.
I voice no support of Carter when I say the following:
In the past, Ryan stated that James Earl Carter directly contributed to the nightmare that has been US-Iranian relations since 1979 by cutting off aid and support for the Shah of Iran until such time as he could institute dramatic and sweeping reforms to his government. This end of support and aid led to the situation that removed the Shah from power, and put the Iranian Revolutionary Council in his place. THAT has, indeed, been a thorn in our paw for more than 30 years... but if Carter contributed to that thorn through his policies and actions, and needs to be seen as having contributed as much... what does that tell us of Iraq's role since 1981 in American foreign policy?
Saddam Hussein had no bigger supporter than Ron Reagan. It has been suggested that the only thing that kept Saddam from being removed or beaten entirely during the eight-year war with Iran was American aid and support. Diplomacy by proxy is a time-tried fact of East-West and Cold War politics, I know... but the consequences do not end with the end of the Cold War, and if Carter must answer for his policy on Iran prior to 1981, then Reagan must answer on his policy towards Iraq post-1988. I'm not saying Reagan was wrong for supporting Iraq over Iran... but he was supporting a despotic tyrant and that support cost the US untold billions and thousands of lives (just as Carter's lack of support cost the US billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and 944 days of captivity for those poor embassy workers in Tehran, too). That was a short-sighted, short term gain policy that cost the US far more than it benefited it.
See my point? I don't deny that Reagan changed the game entirely... and I don't deny that no one since has had the chutspah to do it again, conservatively speaking... but it does rankle sore when I hear pundits and friends wax nostalgic for the days of the Reagan era, like a bunch of Alex P. Keaton wannabes. He did what others either couldn't or wouldn't... but he did make mistakes, and some of them were pretty big. He did pull the Marines out of Lebanon immediately after 200+ of them were murdered in their barracks, and that sounds a lot like letting terrorists and terrorism dictate foreign policy to me. He got his blank check for defense spending (Ryan's words) by perpetuating policies and agendas that still haunt us today, when all evidence points to the simple fact that the status quo policy of containment was working, and that Afghanistan was enough of a fiscal bleed for the Soviets to have spelled their death without "star wars" ever being needed. He got it done faster... but the progressive/liberal agenda was furthered along the way, too, and it was all the more entrenched afterwards.
The upside is that, if I had to give name to the President that WAS working to change the way things are done in the White House and DC as much as Reagan did, it would be Obama... and his policies and agendas are so WRONG, and they are wrong at such a fundamental level, that the swing back to the right will occur all the faster because of them. Reagan showed what WORKED... and Obama is showing us what DOES NOT WORK.
Finally... some real substance!
I'll forgo the Reagan-bashing for now... fun as it can be to watch you freak out, there's more important things to discuss.
Ryan wrote:
"... you seem to think conservative/Tea Party demands, their litmus test, is so unrealistic it will leave them with no one to support, because no one could live up to it. My answer is this- they sure as hell found plenty of people to support for the midterms. Tea Party backed candidates won the nation over, and nobody promised to eliminate the Ed Dept. "
I do NOT think that, but I do worry that there will be enough of a field of candidates that more than one strong choice could emerge... and a divided vote could result. The possible scenarios are too numerous to voice, but just to bring one to the table would be Sarah Palin. She is the darling of the movement, and has become a voice for conservative people across this nation... but I sometimes think there are as many conservatives that hate her as there are liberals. I trust the American conservative voter to understand that a repeat of the mistakes that occurred in 1992 are bad for the country, and that they will avoid that now... but only in the general election.
THAT is the worry I have... the road leading to the general election. In 2008 we had a hell of a field, led by Ryan's favorite, Mitt Romney, with the aging and wishy-washy Senator from AZ a distant 3rd or 4th in the list... but look who ran! Who won the convention ballot?
The 2010 victory of the Tea Party candidates was real, valid and stunning... but it was NOT on a national level. This was a product of targeted local, state and regional campaigning that put conservative candidates in the Congress... and that is undeniably important (more so in 2012, too... the Senate is ripe to fall)... but it is a different process with a campaign for President.
First off, as Ryan has pointed out in the past... there IS NO TEA PARTY. There is no one body of conservatives, all carrying cards and tee shirts that label them as Tea Party members, nor will they seat a candidate in a debate or hold a convention. The entire movement is "grass-roots" and is comprised of lots of smaller parts scattered all across the land. The issue, in my eyes, is really a "Catch 22" problem: not enough time in the lime light, and a candidate isn't any better than any other; while too much time in the lime light and the public tires of the name/face/issue far before it is decided.
Still, a clear ROAD MAP... platform, direction, call it what you will... is VITAL for the effort. Paul Ryan recognizes this, but few others seem to want to get onboard. Where is the general consensus amongst conservative politicians and the GOP in general as to what the plan for 2012 is going to be? It can't simply be "less spending"... what the hell does THAT mean? What spending is going to be cut? How much LESS is ENOUGH?
Am I wrong for asking for details? Is it even possible to get them, at this stage in the game?
Ryan wrote:
"... you seem to think conservative/Tea Party demands, their litmus test, is so unrealistic it will leave them with no one to support, because no one could live up to it. My answer is this- they sure as hell found plenty of people to support for the midterms. Tea Party backed candidates won the nation over, and nobody promised to eliminate the Ed Dept. "
I do NOT think that, but I do worry that there will be enough of a field of candidates that more than one strong choice could emerge... and a divided vote could result. The possible scenarios are too numerous to voice, but just to bring one to the table would be Sarah Palin. She is the darling of the movement, and has become a voice for conservative people across this nation... but I sometimes think there are as many conservatives that hate her as there are liberals. I trust the American conservative voter to understand that a repeat of the mistakes that occurred in 1992 are bad for the country, and that they will avoid that now... but only in the general election.
THAT is the worry I have... the road leading to the general election. In 2008 we had a hell of a field, led by Ryan's favorite, Mitt Romney, with the aging and wishy-washy Senator from AZ a distant 3rd or 4th in the list... but look who ran! Who won the convention ballot?
The 2010 victory of the Tea Party candidates was real, valid and stunning... but it was NOT on a national level. This was a product of targeted local, state and regional campaigning that put conservative candidates in the Congress... and that is undeniably important (more so in 2012, too... the Senate is ripe to fall)... but it is a different process with a campaign for President.
First off, as Ryan has pointed out in the past... there IS NO TEA PARTY. There is no one body of conservatives, all carrying cards and tee shirts that label them as Tea Party members, nor will they seat a candidate in a debate or hold a convention. The entire movement is "grass-roots" and is comprised of lots of smaller parts scattered all across the land. The issue, in my eyes, is really a "Catch 22" problem: not enough time in the lime light, and a candidate isn't any better than any other; while too much time in the lime light and the public tires of the name/face/issue far before it is decided.
Still, a clear ROAD MAP... platform, direction, call it what you will... is VITAL for the effort. Paul Ryan recognizes this, but few others seem to want to get onboard. Where is the general consensus amongst conservative politicians and the GOP in general as to what the plan for 2012 is going to be? It can't simply be "less spending"... what the hell does THAT mean? What spending is going to be cut? How much LESS is ENOUGH?
Am I wrong for asking for details? Is it even possible to get them, at this stage in the game?
Sad really ...
Your pleasure in brow beating Reagan.Im sure one can find faults & inconsistencies with Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln (in fact I know we can). But like them, Reagan's impeccable record and the legacy it spawned has reached the heights of being unassailable. No matter your pin pricks, nudges, loose ends or dispersions about the man, America has decided, Reagan was one of the greats. They love him ... and yelling till you'r e hoarse that he didn't really cut down that cherry tree is a waste of energy. And given his accomplishments are deserving of the afore mentioned admiration, its also a waste of your talent.
Now ... I realize your point was that you think conservative intelligencia in the media are putting together a litmus test that either a.) is unrealistic in its' purity, b.) that Reagan couldnt even pass and c.) if anyone did pass it they would be by definition unelectable (you sure as sh** took the long route in saying it though, jeeez).
But I think you're wrong. The type of conservative garnering everyone from Levine's to my to blue blood Republican support needn't check every box on our wish list. Rather, candidate X needs to articulate his or her heart felt ideology, and apply it to the questions of the day - Obamacare, taxes, defense, job creation. They need to eliminate the Dept of Ed, etc to make my political dreams come true. But they needn't eliminate it to get my vote. We can fix the busted, leaky faucet later, let's put the house fire out first. Again, name a candidate & I'll tell you if I can support them. I cant possibly work it from the other side
... except to say this: you seem to think conservative/Tea Party demands, their litmus test, is so unrealistic it will leave them with no one to support, because no one could live up to it. My answer is this- they sure as hell found plenty of people to support for the midterms. Tea Party backed candidates won the nation over, and nobody promised to eliminate the Ed Dept. The Tea Party, conservative talk show hosts, rank and file conservatives like myself couldnt throw a stone & not hit someone vying to prove they passed our "litmus test." And dozens upon dozens were elected. No my friend, the Tea Party/conservative movement is where the votes are, where the momentum is. Far from it being tough to impossible to find a candidate we can support, our biggest problem will be sifting through the applications of all the candidates whom have suddenly found their conservative soul.
Now ... I realize your point was that you think conservative intelligencia in the media are putting together a litmus test that either a.) is unrealistic in its' purity, b.) that Reagan couldnt even pass and c.) if anyone did pass it they would be by definition unelectable (you sure as sh** took the long route in saying it though, jeeez).
But I think you're wrong. The type of conservative garnering everyone from Levine's to my to blue blood Republican support needn't check every box on our wish list. Rather, candidate X needs to articulate his or her heart felt ideology, and apply it to the questions of the day - Obamacare, taxes, defense, job creation. They need to eliminate the Dept of Ed, etc to make my political dreams come true. But they needn't eliminate it to get my vote. We can fix the busted, leaky faucet later, let's put the house fire out first. Again, name a candidate & I'll tell you if I can support them. I cant possibly work it from the other side
... except to say this: you seem to think conservative/Tea Party demands, their litmus test, is so unrealistic it will leave them with no one to support, because no one could live up to it. My answer is this- they sure as hell found plenty of people to support for the midterms. Tea Party backed candidates won the nation over, and nobody promised to eliminate the Ed Dept. The Tea Party, conservative talk show hosts, rank and file conservatives like myself couldnt throw a stone & not hit someone vying to prove they passed our "litmus test." And dozens upon dozens were elected. No my friend, the Tea Party/conservative movement is where the votes are, where the momentum is. Far from it being tough to impossible to find a candidate we can support, our biggest problem will be sifting through the applications of all the candidates whom have suddenly found their conservative soul.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Hell yes, again with Reagan...
"Fighting a war"... ? The only "war" Reagan "fought" was with a bunch of under-paid, over-worked Cubans that decided they needed another 78 miles of white sandy beaches so they invaded Grenada.
Look, I'm picking again, I know... yes, the Cold War was a real contest, and yes he did go into the White House with the promise of changing the status quo from "containment" to "confrontation". However, if MY over-simplification is too much, then yours is too.
Defense was NOT Ronnie's ONLY big-budget item... he spent billions of dollars and squandered tons of support in the then far more conservative Union/Labor votes by opening up US ports to steel from nations we hadn't bought steel from since WWII, and that started a 30 year "free trade" effort that we are still trying to come to terms with today in the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. He allowed the Education Department to GROW by more than 12% over the course of his two terms, after PROMISING to do away with it entirely in his election campaign. He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into questionable regimes and politicians in places like Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, Argentina, South Africa, Saudi Arabia... and more than one of those listed would come back to haunt us later.
I don't want you to tell me Reagan was human, and made mistakes... I already know that and LOVE to point it out to anyone that forgets it as often as I can... but I DO want you to see that much of what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity... any pundit from the right that you want to quote, really... has said is to be expected from the next GOP candidate (and especially Mark Levin) is not only unrealistic, it is probably patently impossible to achieve in even TWO terms of office. The "yardstick" I keep hearing used to determine who is going to be an acceptable candidate in 2012 and what they need to be willing to promise to win the entire broad, sweeping expanse of the CONSERVATIVE vote (I don't need to explain what will happen if a "third party" conservative runs, do I?) is that of the "GREAT AND POWERFUL RONALD WILSON REAGAN"... but the Reagan I recall didn't manage to live up to the very standard that bears his name in the handle "Reagan Conservative".
See my point? REAGAN himself couldn't pass the litmus test that people like Levin and Beck have determined to be needed for ANYONE hoping to win the entire conservative vote in America... and that vote has become pretty diverse now that the Tea Party is such an issue.
Look, I'm picking again, I know... yes, the Cold War was a real contest, and yes he did go into the White House with the promise of changing the status quo from "containment" to "confrontation". However, if MY over-simplification is too much, then yours is too.
Defense was NOT Ronnie's ONLY big-budget item... he spent billions of dollars and squandered tons of support in the then far more conservative Union/Labor votes by opening up US ports to steel from nations we hadn't bought steel from since WWII, and that started a 30 year "free trade" effort that we are still trying to come to terms with today in the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. He allowed the Education Department to GROW by more than 12% over the course of his two terms, after PROMISING to do away with it entirely in his election campaign. He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into questionable regimes and politicians in places like Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, Argentina, South Africa, Saudi Arabia... and more than one of those listed would come back to haunt us later.
I don't want you to tell me Reagan was human, and made mistakes... I already know that and LOVE to point it out to anyone that forgets it as often as I can... but I DO want you to see that much of what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity... any pundit from the right that you want to quote, really... has said is to be expected from the next GOP candidate (and especially Mark Levin) is not only unrealistic, it is probably patently impossible to achieve in even TWO terms of office. The "yardstick" I keep hearing used to determine who is going to be an acceptable candidate in 2012 and what they need to be willing to promise to win the entire broad, sweeping expanse of the CONSERVATIVE vote (I don't need to explain what will happen if a "third party" conservative runs, do I?) is that of the "GREAT AND POWERFUL RONALD WILSON REAGAN"... but the Reagan I recall didn't manage to live up to the very standard that bears his name in the handle "Reagan Conservative".
See my point? REAGAN himself couldn't pass the litmus test that people like Levin and Beck have determined to be needed for ANYONE hoping to win the entire conservative vote in America... and that vote has become pretty diverse now that the Tea Party is such an issue.
Again with Reagan?
Pressed for time today, but look ...
we've been over this. Deficit spending under Reagan, and I mean literally the budgets he sent up, were primarily manifested in Defense. I have routinely stated that to win wars (which Reagan was clearly waging) it is acceptable to deficit spend. In addition, Reagan offered budgets/proposals to decrease various spending, and Tip & the boys told him the only way he gets a blank check on defense was to sign in to law the Democrat domestic spending they wanted (or at least could live with). Reagan made the deal, seeing the Soviets and the possibility of thermo nuclear war as the greater threat. So between waging a winning Cold War strategy & Tip's conditions of compromise, yes Reagan deficit spent. The brilliance of Reagan, his true legacy, is he was able to accomplish so much with a hostile congress for all 8 years. Obama wasnt half as successful with twice as many Houses of congress.
But lets get to the heart of the matter on Ronnie - you are fascinated with our (self proclaimed conservatives) fascination with Reagan. We treat him like a God & you find pricking that notion until it bleeds mortal blood an enjoyable sport. So is that what you want me to say? That Reagan wasn't perfect? That he wasn't "conservative" in every instance, at every moment in his life? Fine, lets be done with it - Reagan was not perfect. You feel better now?
That being said, he was the most consistent, and if you add effective (eliminating Hoover with Smoot-Hawely), conservative president (or president period if you ask me) of the 20th century. And routinely polls in the top 5 greatest of all time according to the American people. And by the way, I don't mind your routine pin pricks of the Reagan legacy so long as you question liberal-progressives as to why they are so in love with JFK when, if he were to run today, they'd consider him a rabid right-winger.
As for your Goldie Locks question - when is a candidate I could sport too hot, too cold, or just right, look, give me a name, their positions on the issues & I'll tell you. To attempt to work it from the other end is futile. As you said, and I agree, anyone espousing my "dream platform" would be taken apart at the joints. Because we dont prize teaching Constitutionality, federalism,basic civics, or economics in this country, otherwise my proposals would be a slam dunk. And this is why we are in decline as the world's dominant force - we're piece by piece abandoning what got us there.
we've been over this. Deficit spending under Reagan, and I mean literally the budgets he sent up, were primarily manifested in Defense. I have routinely stated that to win wars (which Reagan was clearly waging) it is acceptable to deficit spend. In addition, Reagan offered budgets/proposals to decrease various spending, and Tip & the boys told him the only way he gets a blank check on defense was to sign in to law the Democrat domestic spending they wanted (or at least could live with). Reagan made the deal, seeing the Soviets and the possibility of thermo nuclear war as the greater threat. So between waging a winning Cold War strategy & Tip's conditions of compromise, yes Reagan deficit spent. The brilliance of Reagan, his true legacy, is he was able to accomplish so much with a hostile congress for all 8 years. Obama wasnt half as successful with twice as many Houses of congress.
But lets get to the heart of the matter on Ronnie - you are fascinated with our (self proclaimed conservatives) fascination with Reagan. We treat him like a God & you find pricking that notion until it bleeds mortal blood an enjoyable sport. So is that what you want me to say? That Reagan wasn't perfect? That he wasn't "conservative" in every instance, at every moment in his life? Fine, lets be done with it - Reagan was not perfect. You feel better now?
That being said, he was the most consistent, and if you add effective (eliminating Hoover with Smoot-Hawely), conservative president (or president period if you ask me) of the 20th century. And routinely polls in the top 5 greatest of all time according to the American people. And by the way, I don't mind your routine pin pricks of the Reagan legacy so long as you question liberal-progressives as to why they are so in love with JFK when, if he were to run today, they'd consider him a rabid right-winger.
As for your Goldie Locks question - when is a candidate I could sport too hot, too cold, or just right, look, give me a name, their positions on the issues & I'll tell you. To attempt to work it from the other end is futile. As you said, and I agree, anyone espousing my "dream platform" would be taken apart at the joints. Because we dont prize teaching Constitutionality, federalism,basic civics, or economics in this country, otherwise my proposals would be a slam dunk. And this is why we are in decline as the world's dominant force - we're piece by piece abandoning what got us there.
One more extraneous post...
Jambo's New Year's resolution is paying off.
We're on-pace to hit 1,100 posts in 2011, if Jan is any indicator. Nearly 90 posts in less than a month is pretty good.
We're on-pace to hit 1,100 posts in 2011, if Jan is any indicator. Nearly 90 posts in less than a month is pretty good.
Fair enough, Ryan...
Well said... you showed what you feel is extraneous and wasteful in our Federal government, and still managed to show that reality dictates that some of it is going to be with us until such time as it is used up or unneeded. Well done.
Now, let's take it one step further:
Can you honestly say that someone (you or anyone else) selling that list of cuts as a "platform" is going to be elected to the highest office in this land? It isn't an unreasonable list, mind you (at least in my eyes)... but as a platform for a political campaign or a reform strategy, I'd say its tantamount to a suicide declaration.
What would NEED to be said by a candidate for you to endorse them? I'm not talking about the obvious, either... any "conservative" candidate is going to promise to cut spending, end Obamacare, reduce government size and scope, yada yada yada. Bush promised it, too, back in 2000, but didn't... and you voted for him both times. Because there was no alternative, I know... but even you have said he wasn't your ideal candidate.
You've shown what YOU would do... but what would you VOTE for? How much compromise versus principle are you willing to take? Bush was the second GOP President since Reagan, and was a far cry from delivering on his conservative principles the way Reagan is remembered... are you willing to take another Bush Jr? Another "tax cut with increased spending" sort of leader? The kind that ends "Pay as you GO" but signs "No Child Left Behind"?
I keep thinking that, even if someone who really touts the conservative line... someone like Paul Ryan, Pawlenty, Barbour, or even Palin herself... wins the White House, they can't do what you listed as "necessary" by themselves, they need CONGRESS to do it, and your laundry list is long and full of both jobs AND entitlements that are going to shake up the monkey-tree something fierce. Is that even a sell that can be pitched in today's world?
Just to keep some perspective here... Reagan RAN on the promise of ending forever the Education Department. He did not deliver on that promise, nor did he reduce the size of government. He cut taxes, yes... but raised them again (against his will, I know) less than four years later. Until the Bush/Obama era began, no President since FDR had spent MORE deficit dollars than Reagan did... yet he is the model conservatives keep measuring new candidates by.
How does that work? I'm asking in all seriousness here... no sarcasm at all.
Now, let's take it one step further:
Can you honestly say that someone (you or anyone else) selling that list of cuts as a "platform" is going to be elected to the highest office in this land? It isn't an unreasonable list, mind you (at least in my eyes)... but as a platform for a political campaign or a reform strategy, I'd say its tantamount to a suicide declaration.
What would NEED to be said by a candidate for you to endorse them? I'm not talking about the obvious, either... any "conservative" candidate is going to promise to cut spending, end Obamacare, reduce government size and scope, yada yada yada. Bush promised it, too, back in 2000, but didn't... and you voted for him both times. Because there was no alternative, I know... but even you have said he wasn't your ideal candidate.
You've shown what YOU would do... but what would you VOTE for? How much compromise versus principle are you willing to take? Bush was the second GOP President since Reagan, and was a far cry from delivering on his conservative principles the way Reagan is remembered... are you willing to take another Bush Jr? Another "tax cut with increased spending" sort of leader? The kind that ends "Pay as you GO" but signs "No Child Left Behind"?
I keep thinking that, even if someone who really touts the conservative line... someone like Paul Ryan, Pawlenty, Barbour, or even Palin herself... wins the White House, they can't do what you listed as "necessary" by themselves, they need CONGRESS to do it, and your laundry list is long and full of both jobs AND entitlements that are going to shake up the monkey-tree something fierce. Is that even a sell that can be pitched in today's world?
Just to keep some perspective here... Reagan RAN on the promise of ending forever the Education Department. He did not deliver on that promise, nor did he reduce the size of government. He cut taxes, yes... but raised them again (against his will, I know) less than four years later. Until the Bush/Obama era began, no President since FDR had spent MORE deficit dollars than Reagan did... yet he is the model conservatives keep measuring new candidates by.
How does that work? I'm asking in all seriousness here... no sarcasm at all.
A quick note on Co-Op City...
Once again, Glenn Beck is all over the headlines because he called the Bronx's Co-Op City a remake of the failed Soviet system... and the hundred thousand people that live in Co-Op City are freaking out.
Beck made the comment on his TV show, and I don't watch that... but it seems that he compared the tax-break incentive that New York gave to developers in the 1960's to the centralized planning that brought about the high-rise developments that so typify Soviet-style architecture in what is now Russia and the former Soviet states.
Again, Beck can say what he wants... but his facts are a little fuzzy. Co-Op City was a purely (meaning 100%) New York State effort to build quality, long-term housing at lower-than-market prices. Most of these apartment and town homes are owned (not rented), and nearly all were sold at less than 60% of typical NYC real estate prices all through the 60s and 70s. This was accomplished by the STATE of NY giving tax breaks and low-cost permits to developers who agreed to keep prices below the market average, and through a state-sponsored assistance program that lowered the required down payment on the mortgages needed to buy the apartments.
New York may be going broke... but this "Great Society" effort was NOT the brain-child of the Federal system. This was a STATE program, and it kind of appears to have worked. Co-Op City has a lower-than-average crime rate, high rises are FULL of owners, not subsidized tenants, and the value of these apartments and town homes has stayed high (since the 60s anyway), giving some value to the owners in the later years.
Isn't that what he typically calls for... more State control of such developmental efforts, rather than Federal? This wasn't LBJ throwing millions of dollars of Federal funds into subsidized housing, like he did in the deep south or Chicago's Cabrini Green... this was the State of New York doing that, and while it might not have worked 100% (or hell, it might not have worked at ALL) as they thought it would... it IS the State's right to spend its money as it sees fit, isn't it?
Just a thought... wanted to comment on it, that's all.
Beck made the comment on his TV show, and I don't watch that... but it seems that he compared the tax-break incentive that New York gave to developers in the 1960's to the centralized planning that brought about the high-rise developments that so typify Soviet-style architecture in what is now Russia and the former Soviet states.
Again, Beck can say what he wants... but his facts are a little fuzzy. Co-Op City was a purely (meaning 100%) New York State effort to build quality, long-term housing at lower-than-market prices. Most of these apartment and town homes are owned (not rented), and nearly all were sold at less than 60% of typical NYC real estate prices all through the 60s and 70s. This was accomplished by the STATE of NY giving tax breaks and low-cost permits to developers who agreed to keep prices below the market average, and through a state-sponsored assistance program that lowered the required down payment on the mortgages needed to buy the apartments.
New York may be going broke... but this "Great Society" effort was NOT the brain-child of the Federal system. This was a STATE program, and it kind of appears to have worked. Co-Op City has a lower-than-average crime rate, high rises are FULL of owners, not subsidized tenants, and the value of these apartments and town homes has stayed high (since the 60s anyway), giving some value to the owners in the later years.
Isn't that what he typically calls for... more State control of such developmental efforts, rather than Federal? This wasn't LBJ throwing millions of dollars of Federal funds into subsidized housing, like he did in the deep south or Chicago's Cabrini Green... this was the State of New York doing that, and while it might not have worked 100% (or hell, it might not have worked at ALL) as they thought it would... it IS the State's right to spend its money as it sees fit, isn't it?
Just a thought... wanted to comment on it, that's all.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Ok, here's #10
10.) Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (& perhaps HUD in its entirety) - GONE. How many hundreds of billions has this monstrosity known as "Fannie & Freddie" cost us to date? Sell off any mortgages of value to private brokers, and allow those whose mortgages can't be sold (read: no one wants them) to continue to pay their debt to the Mae & Mac; but F&F issues no new loans. In effect they are out of the housing market, off the tax payer teet, and once the last payment on the last toxic loan is paid, Freddie & Fannie no longer exist.
11.) Reclaim all unspent "stimulus" dollars.
Ok ... NOW I'll take a break.
11.) Reclaim all unspent "stimulus" dollars.
Ok ... NOW I'll take a break.
"Holy rag on a stick Batman!"
I have to this say about that privy scene in the latest Spartacus - that reusable personal cleaning utensil sure took the edge off of any romantic notions one might have about living in that era ... no thank you sir.
If Ryan was king for a day, what would I cut?
Look, I can't go down the line of something as massive as the federal budget and tick off what stays and what goes. But if you want a few specifics, or an "in general" notion, here goes:
1.) A Constitutional Amendment that states our national debt can never surpass 20% of GDP, outside of a Congressional declaration of war.
2.) Obamacare - GONE.
3.) The Department of Education - GONE. The states will be provided education specific funds without constraint for 18 months, time enough for sate legislatures to enact appropriate measures, then the DOE closes its' doors, forever.
4.) The Department of Energy - GONE.
5.) Social Security - privatized. All those aged 55+ (as of now) receive their benefits from the government as paid in. All other contributions are seeded into private individual retirement accounts, as the government winds down its' involvment in the affair entirely. Are there voluminous aspects to this that could fill a dissertation? Yes. But as the PoTUS is so into space analogies let me say that if we can put a man on the moon, we can put SSI dollars into the private sector. At least when the private sector screws up with your money they're accountable. The government must retire from the retirement business, if you will. One can't argue on the one hand that the government doesn't have a right to force me to buy health insurance, but on the other that it does have the right to force me to buy retirement insurance.
6.) 80% of the IRS & 100% current tax code - GONE. Install a flat income tax, 12%. That is a "cut" in taxes and in the IRS bureaucracy.
7.) Across the board 20% reduction in government - ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, minus Veteran benefits entirely, and the military as a whole gets only a 10% haircut, focusing mostly in fraud, waste and abuse stemming from unnecessary or unwarranted programs/contracts.
8.) All "CZARS" retired. The position eliminated entirely. Get approval from congress, put them in the cabinet, or they don't head a damn thing. This isn't the Imperial Senate of George Lucas. The money they earn is a pittance. The money they spend/cost (especially the "Regulatory Czar") isn't.
9.) No federally funded "Green" initiatives. The government picks it's science winners and losers via the ideology of the controlling Party. In either case the politics leads the science, not the other way around. If the technology works, and is in demand, people will make and come to it on their own. I don't need the EPA or yet another Czar in the business of dictating to me the type of light bulb I'm allowed to use.
I was going to do a #10, but the point is there must be 10,000 more ways to give the government its needed hair cut, and new law/repeals that would unleash free enterprise and a wave of job growth (corporate and cap gains taxes for instance). And as I can't afford to quit my job and abandon my children in order to provide them to you, I will stop here, for now. Also a chief point to remember is NONE OF THIS MATTERS until we vote out this president. There are fantastic plans, measures and ideas all over Washington and the country on how to reduce the scope, size, and cost of government. But until we as a nation vote in a person willing to implement such measures on our behalf, the brilliance and plain effectiveness in the individual plans will be meaningless. In other words, I'd be much more willing to discuss precisely what's to get cut when we have someone in office that is willing to do the cutting. That's not to say the Paul Ryan's et al shouldn't make their case to the American people with measurable and specific examples of how they'd cut government, they should. That's a conversation the GOP needs to have with the voting public. But for me, personally (someone they needn't convince) this has all become a moot point until Obama has lost the presidency (well, and to weed out the GOP contenders for 2012).
If Ryan was king for a day, what would I cut?
Look, I can't go down the line of something as massive as the federal budget and tick off what stays and what goes. But if you want a few specifics, or an "in general" notion, here goes:
1.) A Constitutional Amendment that states our national debt can never surpass 20% of GDP, outside of a Congressional declaration of war.
2.) Obamacare - GONE.
3.) The Department of Education - GONE. The states will be provided education specific funds without constraint for 18 months, time enough for sate legislatures to enact appropriate measures, then the DOE closes its' doors, forever.
4.) The Department of Energy - GONE.
5.) Social Security - privatized. All those aged 55+ (as of now) receive their benefits from the government as paid in. All other contributions are seeded into private individual retirement accounts, as the government winds down its' involvment in the affair entirely. Are there voluminous aspects to this that could fill a dissertation? Yes. But as the PoTUS is so into space analogies let me say that if we can put a man on the moon, we can put SSI dollars into the private sector. At least when the private sector screws up with your money they're accountable. The government must retire from the retirement business, if you will. One can't argue on the one hand that the government doesn't have a right to force me to buy health insurance, but on the other that it does have the right to force me to buy retirement insurance.
6.) 80% of the IRS & 100% current tax code - GONE. Install a flat income tax, 12%. That is a "cut" in taxes and in the IRS bureaucracy.
7.) Across the board 20% reduction in government - ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, minus Veteran benefits entirely, and the military as a whole gets only a 10% haircut, focusing mostly in fraud, waste and abuse stemming from unnecessary or unwarranted programs/contracts.
8.) All "CZARS" retired. The position eliminated entirely. Get approval from congress, put them in the cabinet, or they don't head a damn thing. This isn't the Imperial Senate of George Lucas. The money they earn is a pittance. The money they spend/cost (especially the "Regulatory Czar") isn't.
9.) No federally funded "Green" initiatives. The government picks it's science winners and losers via the ideology of the controlling Party. In either case the politics leads the science, not the other way around. If the technology works, and is in demand, people will make and come to it on their own. I don't need the EPA or yet another Czar in the business of dictating to me the type of light bulb I'm allowed to use.
I was going to do a #10, but the point is there must be 10,000 more ways to give the government its needed hair cut, and new law/repeals that would unleash free enterprise and a wave of job growth (corporate and cap gains taxes for instance). And as I can't afford to quit my job and abandon my children in order to provide them to you, I will stop here, for now. Also a chief point to remember is NONE OF THIS MATTERS until we vote out this president. There are fantastic plans, measures and ideas all over Washington and the country on how to reduce the scope, size, and cost of government. But until we as a nation vote in a person willing to implement such measures on our behalf, the brilliance and plain effectiveness in the individual plans will be meaningless. In other words, I'd be much more willing to discuss precisely what's to get cut when we have someone in office that is willing to do the cutting. That's not to say the Paul Ryan's et al shouldn't make their case to the American people with measurable and specific examples of how they'd cut government, they should. That's a conversation the GOP needs to have with the voting public. But for me, personally (someone they needn't convince) this has all become a moot point until Obama has lost the presidency (well, and to weed out the GOP contenders for 2012).
On Ryan's points...
You have said this time and time again, I know... but it leads me to ask another question that has been asked a dozen times already:
WHAT WOULD YOU CUT, AND WHAT WOULD YOU KEEP?
You keep saying that entire departments and agencies need to be eliminated, but can't tell me which ones, or how you'll do it. There are those that advocate simply firing everyone that works for the Department of Education... fire every last mother's child of them... and put the responsibility for what that department was doing back into the hands of the individual States. Perhaps that is a course you'd follow?
I can tell you right now that doing that in a State like California, Illinois... hell, even Pennsylvania... would probably cause it to fall right into bankruptcy just by knowing that the funds that WERE coming from the Fed will now have to be collected and distributed at a State level. No State in the Union has an Education Department that is capable of picking up the slack should the Federal Department close its doors... there isn't the manpower, resources or infrastructure in place to do it and there hasn't been for nearly 30 years.
The closest thing to what you are describing has been proposed in the past by former Governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson... but even his proposal that all welfare and medicare issues be turned over to the individual States would have taken 6 years. Is that TOO long a wait?
Look, AGAIN, I'm not saying you are wrong... its just that I'd love to see how far you'd go to reduce government. So, how far is it?
WHAT WOULD YOU CUT, AND WHAT WOULD YOU KEEP?
You keep saying that entire departments and agencies need to be eliminated, but can't tell me which ones, or how you'll do it. There are those that advocate simply firing everyone that works for the Department of Education... fire every last mother's child of them... and put the responsibility for what that department was doing back into the hands of the individual States. Perhaps that is a course you'd follow?
I can tell you right now that doing that in a State like California, Illinois... hell, even Pennsylvania... would probably cause it to fall right into bankruptcy just by knowing that the funds that WERE coming from the Fed will now have to be collected and distributed at a State level. No State in the Union has an Education Department that is capable of picking up the slack should the Federal Department close its doors... there isn't the manpower, resources or infrastructure in place to do it and there hasn't been for nearly 30 years.
The closest thing to what you are describing has been proposed in the past by former Governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson... but even his proposal that all welfare and medicare issues be turned over to the individual States would have taken 6 years. Is that TOO long a wait?
Look, AGAIN, I'm not saying you are wrong... its just that I'd love to see how far you'd go to reduce government. So, how far is it?
On Lenin...
As Jambo stated, the fact that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was one of the five most influential men in the last two hundred years of human history is undeniable... but it certainly doesn't make him a "hero".
Yes, there are tens of thousands of people in the former Soviet Union that think he brought the "Golden Age" to Mother Russia and her millions of people... but it is simply not fact.
Lenin preached an ideology focused on a centralized economic and political system, wherein the Party (which utterly controlled the State) determined what was best for the nation in all matters political, economical, military and socially. Every facet of that society was driven by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)... from crime and punishment to education at every level. All aspects of medicine, infrastructure, government (local, regional and national), communications, entertainment, foreign relations, trade (domestic and international), agriculture, industry, labor... everything was controlled and dictated by a single political body known as the PARTY.
Where Lenin truly and utterly FAILED is that the ideology he preached, from beginning to end, was WRONG. Not only in principle... but in practical fact, too. In the nearly ten years he ran the nation, he had to fall back to a limited, almost feudal, economic plan to keep the government and the party functioning... something he called his "New Economic Policy". He did this not once... not twice... but three times. Three times in his short tenure as "Premier" he had to fall back to the evils of "capitalism" and "free market" pricing because his utopian "socialism" was failing so monumentally that the entire nation was on the brink of failure and collapse... far worse than what was experienced prior to the Red Revolution in 1917, too.
I have gazed upon that waxy, shrunken corpse and can honestly say to anyone that wants to know... the man needs to be put six feet under, as soon as possible. Hell, bury him in the Kremlin wall with the rest of the former Soviet Premiers, if that seems fitting... but this semi-religious veneration that continues to be played out to a man who was so completely mistaken about nearly everything he believed to be true is a national stain on an otherwise proud and determined people.
Bury him, and perhaps his memory will fade all the quicker.
Yes, there are tens of thousands of people in the former Soviet Union that think he brought the "Golden Age" to Mother Russia and her millions of people... but it is simply not fact.
Lenin preached an ideology focused on a centralized economic and political system, wherein the Party (which utterly controlled the State) determined what was best for the nation in all matters political, economical, military and socially. Every facet of that society was driven by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)... from crime and punishment to education at every level. All aspects of medicine, infrastructure, government (local, regional and national), communications, entertainment, foreign relations, trade (domestic and international), agriculture, industry, labor... everything was controlled and dictated by a single political body known as the PARTY.
Where Lenin truly and utterly FAILED is that the ideology he preached, from beginning to end, was WRONG. Not only in principle... but in practical fact, too. In the nearly ten years he ran the nation, he had to fall back to a limited, almost feudal, economic plan to keep the government and the party functioning... something he called his "New Economic Policy". He did this not once... not twice... but three times. Three times in his short tenure as "Premier" he had to fall back to the evils of "capitalism" and "free market" pricing because his utopian "socialism" was failing so monumentally that the entire nation was on the brink of failure and collapse... far worse than what was experienced prior to the Red Revolution in 1917, too.
I have gazed upon that waxy, shrunken corpse and can honestly say to anyone that wants to know... the man needs to be put six feet under, as soon as possible. Hell, bury him in the Kremlin wall with the rest of the former Soviet Premiers, if that seems fitting... but this semi-religious veneration that continues to be played out to a man who was so completely mistaken about nearly everything he believed to be true is a national stain on an otherwise proud and determined people.
Bury him, and perhaps his memory will fade all the quicker.
Here's the problem with your proposals ...
They don't go far enough.
Any proposal that attempts to tackle the deficit without dealing with entitlements is simply playing around the edges. That's why Paul Ryan is a rising star, his Road Map for America does just that. Like it or not, at least he has the stones to address SSI, Medicaid, Medicare and the like.
Look, I'm fine with a 12% reduction in military spending for a trade in a 12% reduction in discretionary spending, etc. However, we are now borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend. Our overall debt to GDP ratio is hovering at 80%. This isn't the time for half measures. Entire agencies and programs need to be eliminated. And yet last night the president proposed spending another trillion dollars in order to do the "green jobs" and infrastructure improvements he promised to do with the first trillion (well, $787 billion, but what's a couple hundred billion between friends?). It's madness, plain and simple.
By the way, does anyone notice that when he speaks of ending tax cuts or reducing government (such as he defines a reduction) he refers to that as "spending", yet when he proposes spending he refers to that as investments?
With straight face he told us that repealing his mammoth new health care bill would add to the deficit, and in short that was his fiscal message - we have to spend money in order to save it. Who takes that seriously? It's laughable. It's not the thoughts of a serious man, or at least not an honest one. In addition, every "positive" aspect of achievement he used as an example in that speech was prefaced with a reference to a government loan, program or agency that made that achievement possible. He even reached back to the 50's to make this case for goodness sake.
Particularly maddening to me was that Sputnik reference. Had he tortured that metaphor any further he'd be in front of a court at the Hauge. The primary "leg up" China (serving as the USSR in this model) has is they are debtors (their Sputnik craft), while we are stuck on earth, as debtees. Yet his answer to regaining our footing is to increase that debt. That's like saying to win the space race we have to borrow money from the Soviets and use it to build a faster car. A REAL Sputnik moment would be proposing to eliminate the deficit in 2 years, that's putting a man on the moon. Such a "moment" requires bold commitments never before imagined, articulated by a president willing to take risks and address tough choices. And what we got was a story about two brothers whom converted their roofing business into a solar power panel company. WOW, that ought to send chills down the spine of Beijing.
I just can't take him seriously anymore. He looks me in the eye and says the only way to get spending under control is to increase spending. As I said, it's madness, a sham, a snake oil pitch. I know what he's going to say before he says it, no matter the flowery prose it's couched within.Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes and spend more. Always has, always will. He'll play around the margins so he can use the words "cut spending" in a speech, but in that same speech he'll propose to increase "investments" ten fold over what the cuts represent, all while telling you the increased spending will reduce the deficit. And why? Because the man, TO HIS CORE, holds the fundamental belief that man is best served by unleashing the power of government rather then the power of the individual.
My message to the GOP or the Bund is yes, fine, go ahead and present your Road Map, your alternatives, etc, etc. But your number 1 message needs to be that the best and surest way to create jobs and reduce the deficit is to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. There will not be change in America until we change presidents, so make that simple case and make it often - this president's agenda will bakrupt us. Done, end of message. The American people get that, they understand it, and what's more, they'll side with you. Taking the House was a critical first step in slowing his plans while we catch our breath. But he must be defeated or we go bankrupt, that's the message. Until that all our plans of specificty, clever arguments, and bright suggestions are academic. Until then, to borrow the presidents analogy, we are simply sucking on the solar fumes of a Soy Sauce Sputnik.
Any proposal that attempts to tackle the deficit without dealing with entitlements is simply playing around the edges. That's why Paul Ryan is a rising star, his Road Map for America does just that. Like it or not, at least he has the stones to address SSI, Medicaid, Medicare and the like.
Look, I'm fine with a 12% reduction in military spending for a trade in a 12% reduction in discretionary spending, etc. However, we are now borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend. Our overall debt to GDP ratio is hovering at 80%. This isn't the time for half measures. Entire agencies and programs need to be eliminated. And yet last night the president proposed spending another trillion dollars in order to do the "green jobs" and infrastructure improvements he promised to do with the first trillion (well, $787 billion, but what's a couple hundred billion between friends?). It's madness, plain and simple.
By the way, does anyone notice that when he speaks of ending tax cuts or reducing government (such as he defines a reduction) he refers to that as "spending", yet when he proposes spending he refers to that as investments?
With straight face he told us that repealing his mammoth new health care bill would add to the deficit, and in short that was his fiscal message - we have to spend money in order to save it. Who takes that seriously? It's laughable. It's not the thoughts of a serious man, or at least not an honest one. In addition, every "positive" aspect of achievement he used as an example in that speech was prefaced with a reference to a government loan, program or agency that made that achievement possible. He even reached back to the 50's to make this case for goodness sake.
Particularly maddening to me was that Sputnik reference. Had he tortured that metaphor any further he'd be in front of a court at the Hauge. The primary "leg up" China (serving as the USSR in this model) has is they are debtors (their Sputnik craft), while we are stuck on earth, as debtees. Yet his answer to regaining our footing is to increase that debt. That's like saying to win the space race we have to borrow money from the Soviets and use it to build a faster car. A REAL Sputnik moment would be proposing to eliminate the deficit in 2 years, that's putting a man on the moon. Such a "moment" requires bold commitments never before imagined, articulated by a president willing to take risks and address tough choices. And what we got was a story about two brothers whom converted their roofing business into a solar power panel company. WOW, that ought to send chills down the spine of Beijing.
I just can't take him seriously anymore. He looks me in the eye and says the only way to get spending under control is to increase spending. As I said, it's madness, a sham, a snake oil pitch. I know what he's going to say before he says it, no matter the flowery prose it's couched within.Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes and spend more. Always has, always will. He'll play around the margins so he can use the words "cut spending" in a speech, but in that same speech he'll propose to increase "investments" ten fold over what the cuts represent, all while telling you the increased spending will reduce the deficit. And why? Because the man, TO HIS CORE, holds the fundamental belief that man is best served by unleashing the power of government rather then the power of the individual.
My message to the GOP or the Bund is yes, fine, go ahead and present your Road Map, your alternatives, etc, etc. But your number 1 message needs to be that the best and surest way to create jobs and reduce the deficit is to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. There will not be change in America until we change presidents, so make that simple case and make it often - this president's agenda will bakrupt us. Done, end of message. The American people get that, they understand it, and what's more, they'll side with you. Taking the House was a critical first step in slowing his plans while we catch our breath. But he must be defeated or we go bankrupt, that's the message. Until that all our plans of specificty, clever arguments, and bright suggestions are academic. Until then, to borrow the presidents analogy, we are simply sucking on the solar fumes of a Soy Sauce Sputnik.
Damn it, THIS is my orginial motivation for posting!
They're discussing burying Vlad!
Everyone's favorite mummy, V.I. Lenin, may go underground finally. A three-quarter's majority of the public voting on the issue say its time to put Vlad in the ground. The opposition comes from the Communists...
I don't know. I don't have a problem either way... If Washington or Lincoln were lying in state to be viewed by all and the option came to bury them... What would we do? AND, is Vlad a hero? Does he DESERVE the hoopla?
A complete side note and unrelated to the current drama, but still worthy of note.
Everyone's favorite mummy, V.I. Lenin, may go underground finally. A three-quarter's majority of the public voting on the issue say its time to put Vlad in the ground. The opposition comes from the Communists...
I don't know. I don't have a problem either way... If Washington or Lincoln were lying in state to be viewed by all and the option came to bury them... What would we do? AND, is Vlad a hero? Does he DESERVE the hoopla?
A complete side note and unrelated to the current drama, but still worthy of note.
I am SPARTACUS!
Watched it... It was cool, just like you guys said it would be.
They have a lot of loose ends to tie in six episodes, five now. And whatever crack those writers are smoking is PRIMO stuff... it is amazing. And just the goofy little day to day aspects of Roman life, (the conversation in the privy, for example) is almost a distraction! I'm watching crap in the background and missing the action right in front of me. Thank God for the rewind button.
Had to throw that in...
They have a lot of loose ends to tie in six episodes, five now. And whatever crack those writers are smoking is PRIMO stuff... it is amazing. And just the goofy little day to day aspects of Roman life, (the conversation in the privy, for example) is almost a distraction! I'm watching crap in the background and missing the action right in front of me. Thank God for the rewind button.
Had to throw that in...
Defense Cuts
Even with two shooting wars, the 12% cut is doable...
Crafty bean counters can shave the far ends of long term contracts, slow down appropriations of system deliveries, (instead of getting 20 stealth jets this year we get 17) and remove from the budget the allowance for inflation and increased spending with one exception: veteran benefits and payroll. This is a doable thing, and not nearly as painful as it seems at first. And the cuts can be made without hurting the people in the system... Payroll for active service people, benefits for veterans, the like.
Crafty bean counters can shave the far ends of long term contracts, slow down appropriations of system deliveries, (instead of getting 20 stealth jets this year we get 17) and remove from the budget the allowance for inflation and increased spending with one exception: veteran benefits and payroll. This is a doable thing, and not nearly as painful as it seems at first. And the cuts can be made without hurting the people in the system... Payroll for active service people, benefits for veterans, the like.
State of the Union
Did you guys read or hear the Republican response?
You know what I liked most about it? It was short. I know, that seems juvenile, but Paul Ryan was measurable, specific, non-inflammatory, and direct concerning fiscal responsibility and the growth of the Federal Government. Someone link it here ok? I read the whole thing, 11 pages on the Blackberry. Takes a fraction of the time compared to the damned speech.
Must read.
You know what I liked most about it? It was short. I know, that seems juvenile, but Paul Ryan was measurable, specific, non-inflammatory, and direct concerning fiscal responsibility and the growth of the Federal Government. Someone link it here ok? I read the whole thing, 11 pages on the Blackberry. Takes a fraction of the time compared to the damned speech.
Must read.
Deep into the pickle barrel...
I was interrupted while ending my last post, but I wanted to make one more point on the subject:
I called it "compromise"... but it is NOT compromise. It is REALITY. There is no aspect of our national political machine that isn't going to be effected or impacted by the state of our economic troubles right now, and well into the future. Freezing defense and military spending while TWO shooting wars are being fought on the other side of the planet seems like a huge thing to ask... but it is simply coming down to simple, one-plus-two arithmetic: this government cannot continue to spend money that it does not have now, nor will have later. END OF STORY.
Paul Ryan said it best: We are ALL going to have to bite the bullet here, and we're going to have to do it soon. Neither side of this debate can have its cake and eat it too... so from the conservative perspective, reducing "conservative" spending needs by no more than they rose 12 months ago seems the least painful of the options to take, and forces the Left to accept the balance of the reductions.
If this means that we can no longer afford to support the security and military efforts of the new Afghan and Iraqi regimes... then so be it. Both have publicly (and very loudly) called for a rapid end to US involvement in their countries, and if that is what saves THIS country, then I am for an immediate withdrawal of forces from BOTH theaters. Ten years in Afghanistan and 7 in Iraq is more than enough proof that the US is dedicated to helping to establish and support free and democratic governments... but not at the fiscal and economic safety of THIS country.
See my point?
I called it "compromise"... but it is NOT compromise. It is REALITY. There is no aspect of our national political machine that isn't going to be effected or impacted by the state of our economic troubles right now, and well into the future. Freezing defense and military spending while TWO shooting wars are being fought on the other side of the planet seems like a huge thing to ask... but it is simply coming down to simple, one-plus-two arithmetic: this government cannot continue to spend money that it does not have now, nor will have later. END OF STORY.
Paul Ryan said it best: We are ALL going to have to bite the bullet here, and we're going to have to do it soon. Neither side of this debate can have its cake and eat it too... so from the conservative perspective, reducing "conservative" spending needs by no more than they rose 12 months ago seems the least painful of the options to take, and forces the Left to accept the balance of the reductions.
If this means that we can no longer afford to support the security and military efforts of the new Afghan and Iraqi regimes... then so be it. Both have publicly (and very loudly) called for a rapid end to US involvement in their countries, and if that is what saves THIS country, then I am for an immediate withdrawal of forces from BOTH theaters. Ten years in Afghanistan and 7 in Iraq is more than enough proof that the US is dedicated to helping to establish and support free and democratic governments... but not at the fiscal and economic safety of THIS country.
See my point?
The art of compromise...
I heard this last night on AM talk radio coming home (my car pool doesn't have satellite radio unless I'm driving):
If the GOP can agree to a 12% reduction in the planned budget for the Defense Department (something DNC leadership has called for for more than two years now), then it seems logical and "bipartisan" to expect an equal reduction in ALL areas of government spending (meaning discretionary spending, mind you... the "budgetary stuff")... right?
Cutting 12% from the 2010 defense budget would save the taxpayer $115 billion, and wouldn't cost the military anything more than the amount the budget INCREASED from 2009 to 2010 (12.1%). We did pretty well for ourselves in 2009 spending-wise... I think we could make it another year at that level, too.
Cutting 12% from the REST of the Federal discretionary budget saves an additional $85 billion... but more importantly, that $200 billion in overall "savings" that would never have to come out of the general fund at all would save the "mandatory spending budget" (the money that MUST be spent, regardless) a whopping $608 billion... because it wouldn't have to remove funds that are already allocated to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national debt interest, etc. That kind of savings ALONE, if maintained for more than one year, can keep SSI and the rest solvent for 6 years... just that one year of savings keeps everything else "solvent" for another (meaning ADDITIONAL) six years.
Now, to completely pay off our debt, we'd have to do this for another 17 years... and that simply isn't going to happen. To balance the budget, however (or, in other words, to spend no more than we take in at current unadjusted dollars), we'd need to do this for only 3 years... ONLY THREE YEARS!!!!!!!! Three years of no more tax increases, three years of no additional spending, and we are flush in spending versus income. Imagine how much faster that could happen if we actually INCREASED our revenue by following the Reagan example of lowering taxes across the board! An 8% overall tax cut (meaning top to bottom brackets... which is basically what Reagan did... when it was all averaged out) could increase revenue over those same three years by 9% (8.8% in the Reagan example)... and if the rate of inflation stays at 1.5%, then our revenue increases faster than the cost of business climbs and the US is better off each and every year.
Reid and the rest call this "Reagan-omics" or trickle-down economics... worn out chestnuts from an old, cold fire if ever there was any... but it isn't. This is measurable and specific action with historical precedent and tangible cause-and-effect policies... and since the Dems have NO counter for this sort of argument, WHY AM I MAKING IT AND NOT THE GOP????
If the GOP can agree to a 12% reduction in the planned budget for the Defense Department (something DNC leadership has called for for more than two years now), then it seems logical and "bipartisan" to expect an equal reduction in ALL areas of government spending (meaning discretionary spending, mind you... the "budgetary stuff")... right?
Cutting 12% from the 2010 defense budget would save the taxpayer $115 billion, and wouldn't cost the military anything more than the amount the budget INCREASED from 2009 to 2010 (12.1%). We did pretty well for ourselves in 2009 spending-wise... I think we could make it another year at that level, too.
Cutting 12% from the REST of the Federal discretionary budget saves an additional $85 billion... but more importantly, that $200 billion in overall "savings" that would never have to come out of the general fund at all would save the "mandatory spending budget" (the money that MUST be spent, regardless) a whopping $608 billion... because it wouldn't have to remove funds that are already allocated to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national debt interest, etc. That kind of savings ALONE, if maintained for more than one year, can keep SSI and the rest solvent for 6 years... just that one year of savings keeps everything else "solvent" for another (meaning ADDITIONAL) six years.
Now, to completely pay off our debt, we'd have to do this for another 17 years... and that simply isn't going to happen. To balance the budget, however (or, in other words, to spend no more than we take in at current unadjusted dollars), we'd need to do this for only 3 years... ONLY THREE YEARS!!!!!!!! Three years of no more tax increases, three years of no additional spending, and we are flush in spending versus income. Imagine how much faster that could happen if we actually INCREASED our revenue by following the Reagan example of lowering taxes across the board! An 8% overall tax cut (meaning top to bottom brackets... which is basically what Reagan did... when it was all averaged out) could increase revenue over those same three years by 9% (8.8% in the Reagan example)... and if the rate of inflation stays at 1.5%, then our revenue increases faster than the cost of business climbs and the US is better off each and every year.
Reid and the rest call this "Reagan-omics" or trickle-down economics... worn out chestnuts from an old, cold fire if ever there was any... but it isn't. This is measurable and specific action with historical precedent and tangible cause-and-effect policies... and since the Dems have NO counter for this sort of argument, WHY AM I MAKING IT AND NOT THE GOP????
SOTU 2011
There are more than 11,000 articles and blog posts on the President's speech last night, and almost none of them are good. In an event that was geared to show bipartisan effort and cooperation with Republicans and Democrats sitting side-by-side throughout the chamber, the after effects are more divided than ever. The only thing that really seems uniformly understood is that the speech had no real substance whatsoever.
6800+ words of nothing but promises of more spending (if the President gets what he wants) for a brighter, stronger future. No concrete plans, no definite goals, and no outlines for how any of this is going to be accomplished with a split Congress and an increasingly angry electorate.
Ryan sent a barrage of texts as the speech rolled on about how "investments" in the future equaled greater and greater spending on the part of the Fed. He, anyway, seemed utterly unimpressed with the whole affair. I can't say I was any more happy with it. I had heard odd rumors that the President was going to announce a five-year Federal spending freeze, which I had taken to mean as the Fed spending not one penny more than they had budgeted for in their last fiscal submission in 2009-10. That was NOT what was mentioned in the speech, even though many ranking members of the new GOP House majority promise a return to 2006 spending levels (which would equal a more than 22% reduction in Federal spending in the first year alone). This promise seems just as unlikely to materialize as those made by the left, because they'll never get that kind of legislation past the Democratically controlled Senate. Reid has all but promised this himself.
I was a bit more upset at the prospect of Obama actually following through on his promise to "simplify" the Federal tax code. No mention was made of tax hikes... but he mentioned a simplified code more than once, and if that means (as I fear it does) the end of such deductions and loopholes as mortgage interest deductions, earned income credits, and medical expense credit schedules... then I'm looking at a $4400 tax INCREASE next year alone, because that is EXACTLY how much I'm going to lose in deductions if my fears prove true. And I am NOT in the "upper-middle-class" range by any stretch of the imagination. Liz and I combined are looking at less than $50k in gross income, and I'm staring a $4400 increase by 2012 right in the face. Is there any wonder why I'm starting to panic?
Nothing that the President said will do ANYTHING to simplify government, reduce spending, or increase revenue. NOTHING. Aside from the bitter fact that there was no real substance to the speech at all anyway, I saw nothing to give me even a slight hope of improvement from the White House, and nothing since that has led me to believe that the Dems have a "plan" that will deliver what they have continually promised.
6800+ words of nothing but promises of more spending (if the President gets what he wants) for a brighter, stronger future. No concrete plans, no definite goals, and no outlines for how any of this is going to be accomplished with a split Congress and an increasingly angry electorate.
Ryan sent a barrage of texts as the speech rolled on about how "investments" in the future equaled greater and greater spending on the part of the Fed. He, anyway, seemed utterly unimpressed with the whole affair. I can't say I was any more happy with it. I had heard odd rumors that the President was going to announce a five-year Federal spending freeze, which I had taken to mean as the Fed spending not one penny more than they had budgeted for in their last fiscal submission in 2009-10. That was NOT what was mentioned in the speech, even though many ranking members of the new GOP House majority promise a return to 2006 spending levels (which would equal a more than 22% reduction in Federal spending in the first year alone). This promise seems just as unlikely to materialize as those made by the left, because they'll never get that kind of legislation past the Democratically controlled Senate. Reid has all but promised this himself.
I was a bit more upset at the prospect of Obama actually following through on his promise to "simplify" the Federal tax code. No mention was made of tax hikes... but he mentioned a simplified code more than once, and if that means (as I fear it does) the end of such deductions and loopholes as mortgage interest deductions, earned income credits, and medical expense credit schedules... then I'm looking at a $4400 tax INCREASE next year alone, because that is EXACTLY how much I'm going to lose in deductions if my fears prove true. And I am NOT in the "upper-middle-class" range by any stretch of the imagination. Liz and I combined are looking at less than $50k in gross income, and I'm staring a $4400 increase by 2012 right in the face. Is there any wonder why I'm starting to panic?
Nothing that the President said will do ANYTHING to simplify government, reduce spending, or increase revenue. NOTHING. Aside from the bitter fact that there was no real substance to the speech at all anyway, I saw nothing to give me even a slight hope of improvement from the White House, and nothing since that has led me to believe that the Dems have a "plan" that will deliver what they have continually promised.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Even the Soviets could have done that...
... land troops almost at will on a global map, I mean. Why would the Russians not be able to as well?
Think about it... the Soviets left the Russians with the largest, most advanced submarine fleet ever to exist, and no fewer than 41 of those boats are amphibious-capable platforms that can put as much as a company of crack troops on any salt-water beach they can approach. The Soviets also had an impressive list of long-range transport-capable aircraft that were more than able to reach across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Even the vaunted Tu-95 Bear could be fitted to drop 35 airborne troopers from a high altitude onto any continent on earth with nothing more than a single mid-air refueling.
No, I'm not saying they are a match for us (the US, I mean)... but I think they could give any other NATO member a run for their money, and that includes the UK, at least in their ability to project force. Only the US and UK have more surface vessels, and only the US has better carrier capability. They flat out lose in a shooting war with the US or Royal Navies... but they are a strong contender for #3 if we're looking at force projection capacity, I'd say.
Think about it... the Soviets left the Russians with the largest, most advanced submarine fleet ever to exist, and no fewer than 41 of those boats are amphibious-capable platforms that can put as much as a company of crack troops on any salt-water beach they can approach. The Soviets also had an impressive list of long-range transport-capable aircraft that were more than able to reach across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Even the vaunted Tu-95 Bear could be fitted to drop 35 airborne troopers from a high altitude onto any continent on earth with nothing more than a single mid-air refueling.
No, I'm not saying they are a match for us (the US, I mean)... but I think they could give any other NATO member a run for their money, and that includes the UK, at least in their ability to project force. Only the US and UK have more surface vessels, and only the US has better carrier capability. They flat out lose in a shooting war with the US or Royal Navies... but they are a strong contender for #3 if we're looking at force projection capacity, I'd say.
The Red Menace
It really is NOT applicable when speaking in terms of force projection.
The Russian's ability to get troops from A to B within their own borders are as good as they ever were, the Russian rail system and highway system being what they are. But to project their force globally, against threats to Russian interests extending beyond their borders? Maybe not so much.
This applies to their Chinese neighbors as well. Last week there was a big stink about their "stealth" fighter being deployable in the next few years... Sabre rattling AT BEST... At worst a good diversion for their GDP and American interest payments. The technology itself is 40 years old, it's only a matter of time, really... But then, all things being equal, you have a pilot versus a pilot. Bar none, argument cold and dead before it leaves one's lips, name a nation that can beat the United States name your branch of the armed forces pilot. Anyone?
Whatever the Russians are calling their Spetsnaz (sp?) teams nowadays, I'm sure they'll do fine against their home grown separatists... And it is VERY interesting how these nameless, faceless attacks from within Russian territories accomplish more to consolidate Putin's power. The school attacks essentially give Putin the authority to appoint regional governors instead of having them elected... And that is just the latest. Imagine all these attacks being a Sith Lord plot or a Maskirovka on a scale even Clancy would balk at. I believe Ryan has mentioned that possibility in the past.
Ah... It is nice having someone writing their name in Cyrilic standing in the OpFor line for a change.
The Russian's ability to get troops from A to B within their own borders are as good as they ever were, the Russian rail system and highway system being what they are. But to project their force globally, against threats to Russian interests extending beyond their borders? Maybe not so much.
This applies to their Chinese neighbors as well. Last week there was a big stink about their "stealth" fighter being deployable in the next few years... Sabre rattling AT BEST... At worst a good diversion for their GDP and American interest payments. The technology itself is 40 years old, it's only a matter of time, really... But then, all things being equal, you have a pilot versus a pilot. Bar none, argument cold and dead before it leaves one's lips, name a nation that can beat the United States name your branch of the armed forces pilot. Anyone?
Whatever the Russians are calling their Spetsnaz (sp?) teams nowadays, I'm sure they'll do fine against their home grown separatists... And it is VERY interesting how these nameless, faceless attacks from within Russian territories accomplish more to consolidate Putin's power. The school attacks essentially give Putin the authority to appoint regional governors instead of having them elected... And that is just the latest. Imagine all these attacks being a Sith Lord plot or a Maskirovka on a scale even Clancy would balk at. I believe Ryan has mentioned that possibility in the past.
Ah... It is nice having someone writing their name in Cyrilic standing in the OpFor line for a change.
35 dead and counting...
The bombing at Domodedovo Airport in Russia has a tally of 35 dead and as many as 70 injured. No "official" claim of responsibility as been made, but North Caucus separatists seem to be the suspects of choice, if not convenience.
The open battle against these separatists has been going on now for more than 15 years, and the terror that this "war" has produced has taken the lives of nearly 1,000 noncombatants. Two airliners have been blown out of the sky, four airport bombings and a metro attack have occurred and at least one very large grade school full of children have been targeted as victims.
Spanning the entire expanse of the Putin/Medvedev era in Russian political rule, this fight has shown that the Russians still are unable to maintain order in their own "house"... but are very good at criticizing others for failing to maintain it in their countries.
More importantly, this "running battle" in the Caucus region gives the Russian military a means by which to test and better its counter-terrorist tactics and equipment. I'm not making light of a bad situation, please understand... I'm simply saying that we can't count out Russia's ability to learn from and adapt to these sorts of combat environments in the future, for good or bad. What has given the US, British and Israeli forces their "edge" in fighting terror for the last 20 years is rapidly becoming the same hone for the Russians.
Even a cursory look at the stories coming out of Moscow show that Medvedev is pretty serious about bringing some "justice" out of this mess... he's pulled out all the stops and authorized the use of "any means necessary" to bring those responsible to justice. All the tools at the Russian military's disposal are now going to be employed against those responsible, and that means that we (meaning the West) can see a bit of how good the improvements to the Russian "special forces" that have been going on for the last 10 years really are. These aren't going to be beat cops walking the Moscow streets, for civil servants punching a clock while tracking down terrorists... these will be the best rapid deployment forces available to the Russians, moving against suspected terror cells both inside and outside the Caucus regions.
These won't be hush-hush operations, either... I'm convinced that since these terrorists have made Putin/Medvedev look bad to the global public, they are going to want to show the global public that their response is fast, effective and final. We don't often think of the "Red Army" anymore... but it is still there, under a new name and wearing a new insignia. They have state-of-the-art equipment, unlimited transportation and deployment capabilities, and tactics that have been practiced and perfected (hopefully) for the last 15 years. Their training is every bit as difficult and dangerous as ours (perhaps even more so... safety standards being somewhat more loose there than here), and the rapid deployment forces of the Russian Military are no longer "conscript based"... they are 100% volunteer and pretty well paid (by Russian standards).
The open battle against these separatists has been going on now for more than 15 years, and the terror that this "war" has produced has taken the lives of nearly 1,000 noncombatants. Two airliners have been blown out of the sky, four airport bombings and a metro attack have occurred and at least one very large grade school full of children have been targeted as victims.
Spanning the entire expanse of the Putin/Medvedev era in Russian political rule, this fight has shown that the Russians still are unable to maintain order in their own "house"... but are very good at criticizing others for failing to maintain it in their countries.
More importantly, this "running battle" in the Caucus region gives the Russian military a means by which to test and better its counter-terrorist tactics and equipment. I'm not making light of a bad situation, please understand... I'm simply saying that we can't count out Russia's ability to learn from and adapt to these sorts of combat environments in the future, for good or bad. What has given the US, British and Israeli forces their "edge" in fighting terror for the last 20 years is rapidly becoming the same hone for the Russians.
Even a cursory look at the stories coming out of Moscow show that Medvedev is pretty serious about bringing some "justice" out of this mess... he's pulled out all the stops and authorized the use of "any means necessary" to bring those responsible to justice. All the tools at the Russian military's disposal are now going to be employed against those responsible, and that means that we (meaning the West) can see a bit of how good the improvements to the Russian "special forces" that have been going on for the last 10 years really are. These aren't going to be beat cops walking the Moscow streets, for civil servants punching a clock while tracking down terrorists... these will be the best rapid deployment forces available to the Russians, moving against suspected terror cells both inside and outside the Caucus regions.
These won't be hush-hush operations, either... I'm convinced that since these terrorists have made Putin/Medvedev look bad to the global public, they are going to want to show the global public that their response is fast, effective and final. We don't often think of the "Red Army" anymore... but it is still there, under a new name and wearing a new insignia. They have state-of-the-art equipment, unlimited transportation and deployment capabilities, and tactics that have been practiced and perfected (hopefully) for the last 15 years. Their training is every bit as difficult and dangerous as ours (perhaps even more so... safety standards being somewhat more loose there than here), and the rapid deployment forces of the Russian Military are no longer "conscript based"... they are 100% volunteer and pretty well paid (by Russian standards).
Finally...
I got to watch Gods of the Arena last night when I got home. A DAMN good episode, too. These writers are really kicking ass... I was as surprised by the first few minutes as I was the last!
The next Spartacus is going to be an Aussie named Liam McIntyre... near as I can tell, his only familiar role was a small spot in the Iwo episode of Pacific. The down-side is that his "role" isn't even produced yet, so it won't be on screen till the 2012 season.
Even if this is a short season (the prequel series is only six episodes, I think), it is SO worth it... I had forgotten how much I liked watching the old series till the gladiator scene in Past Transgressions came up... every bit as good as anything last year. While I'm on the topic... did anyone think that the guy playing Gannicus (Dustin Clare... I don't think I'd ever heard of him before this) could have been a pretty good replacement of Whitfield all by himself? I mean, haircut and some makeup... they have similar builds and if Clare/Gannicus doesn't smile so much, he'd have fit pretty well.
Some things to watch for:
I think Oenomaus kills his wife. He mentioned something about this in past episodes, and prayed to her statuettes even though he seems agnostic in these early shows. She seems enamored with Gannicus... and he to her. That can't possibly end well.
Ashur seems to be building his role into much more of a back-stabbing blackguard then he led us to think in the early episodes of Blood and Sand. His view was that Crixus and Barca betrayed him, and that is how he became lame and without honor... but he has shown no propensity for honor or courage thus far, either. Ashur will be the villain grande of the new series, too... just watch.
I'm beginning to think that Batiatus kills his father... his attitude about his "daddy" in these shows is far from what it is later, and to get what he wants he is rapidly learning that the ends justify ANY means taken. He already doesn't trust his "dad's" doctore... prefering instead the advice and council of Oenomaus.
This is going to be a good series...
The next Spartacus is going to be an Aussie named Liam McIntyre... near as I can tell, his only familiar role was a small spot in the Iwo episode of Pacific. The down-side is that his "role" isn't even produced yet, so it won't be on screen till the 2012 season.
Even if this is a short season (the prequel series is only six episodes, I think), it is SO worth it... I had forgotten how much I liked watching the old series till the gladiator scene in Past Transgressions came up... every bit as good as anything last year. While I'm on the topic... did anyone think that the guy playing Gannicus (Dustin Clare... I don't think I'd ever heard of him before this) could have been a pretty good replacement of Whitfield all by himself? I mean, haircut and some makeup... they have similar builds and if Clare/Gannicus doesn't smile so much, he'd have fit pretty well.
Some things to watch for:
I think Oenomaus kills his wife. He mentioned something about this in past episodes, and prayed to her statuettes even though he seems agnostic in these early shows. She seems enamored with Gannicus... and he to her. That can't possibly end well.
Ashur seems to be building his role into much more of a back-stabbing blackguard then he led us to think in the early episodes of Blood and Sand. His view was that Crixus and Barca betrayed him, and that is how he became lame and without honor... but he has shown no propensity for honor or courage thus far, either. Ashur will be the villain grande of the new series, too... just watch.
I'm beginning to think that Batiatus kills his father... his attitude about his "daddy" in these shows is far from what it is later, and to get what he wants he is rapidly learning that the ends justify ANY means taken. He already doesn't trust his "dad's" doctore... prefering instead the advice and council of Oenomaus.
This is going to be a good series...
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Its a damn small world these days...
Hows this for a story?
I work with an Egyptian named Nashaadt at this casino. Very nice, chronically polite, sporting fairly good English and remarkably good taste in suits, I never had much of an opportunity to speak with him before this last week.
Turns out that Nashaadt is Christian, not Muslim. Coptic Christian, in fact, and he was a parishioner of the same church in Alexandria that has been on the news lately, because it is the one that got bombed by the Gaza-terror group "Army of Islam" that killed 21 people and wounded dozens more.
This guy hasn't said a harsh word about anyone or anything since I've met him last June... but he is very unhappy with the current Egyptian leadership, I can tell you that. Seems he feels that people of his religious persuasion have never been treated in a manner they feel is fair or just, and this attack is simply the culmination of many years of neglect and disdain Egyptian society throws at them in general. His church (the physical structure, I mean) is more than 1,000 years old, built on the ruins of an even older Christian structure that (he says) dates back to the days of St. Mark the Evangelist. Far older, he told me, than the Muslim faith that has supplanted so much of what was Christian in Alexandria.
Anyway... just a note to show how amazing the people you meet in this business are, and how small the world is getting. It's simply mind-blowing to me that I am no more than "two degrees" from the Battle of Belleau Wood (Frank Buckles) on one hand and "two degrees" from the most recent terrorist bombings in Egypt (Nashaadt), all because I worked in some casinos in PA.
Damn, I love this job.
I work with an Egyptian named Nashaadt at this casino. Very nice, chronically polite, sporting fairly good English and remarkably good taste in suits, I never had much of an opportunity to speak with him before this last week.
Turns out that Nashaadt is Christian, not Muslim. Coptic Christian, in fact, and he was a parishioner of the same church in Alexandria that has been on the news lately, because it is the one that got bombed by the Gaza-terror group "Army of Islam" that killed 21 people and wounded dozens more.
This guy hasn't said a harsh word about anyone or anything since I've met him last June... but he is very unhappy with the current Egyptian leadership, I can tell you that. Seems he feels that people of his religious persuasion have never been treated in a manner they feel is fair or just, and this attack is simply the culmination of many years of neglect and disdain Egyptian society throws at them in general. His church (the physical structure, I mean) is more than 1,000 years old, built on the ruins of an even older Christian structure that (he says) dates back to the days of St. Mark the Evangelist. Far older, he told me, than the Muslim faith that has supplanted so much of what was Christian in Alexandria.
Anyway... just a note to show how amazing the people you meet in this business are, and how small the world is getting. It's simply mind-blowing to me that I am no more than "two degrees" from the Battle of Belleau Wood (Frank Buckles) on one hand and "two degrees" from the most recent terrorist bombings in Egypt (Nashaadt), all because I worked in some casinos in PA.
Damn, I love this job.
Man...
Ryan's pushy... three texts, all wondering why I haven't posted about Spartacus.
Anyway, I'm sorry I got tied up. My commute to work is two hours a day, and there is just as much work to do here at the house when I'm not at work as ever. Makes for busy days, sometimes.
I had heard about Whitfield's cancer return. Truly sad... the man is a fantastic actor and a genuinely good man (coming from the Hollywood scene, that's saying something)... and I too hope he makes a full recovery, not just because of this series. He did a couple of other really good shows, and if you get a chance, watch Gabriel, where Andy plays the Archangel of the same name who has to battle against other "fallen" angels in a plane where they can actually die. It might not be theologically accurate when it comes to angels... but it is a damn good show, and Whitfield makes the whole thing.
It goes without saying that I am looking forward to watching the new episode... but I'm not sure when I'll get to see it. Before the next one airs, I'm sure... but it's tough to try and sneak the show with an 8-year-old in the room, as I'm sure Ryan's last show reference makes pretty clear. Jacob is a little to prone to picking up on that kind of language, and I'd hate to hear that he used a rough reference to some portion of Jove's anatomy while riding on the bus.
Anyway, I'm sorry I got tied up. My commute to work is two hours a day, and there is just as much work to do here at the house when I'm not at work as ever. Makes for busy days, sometimes.
I had heard about Whitfield's cancer return. Truly sad... the man is a fantastic actor and a genuinely good man (coming from the Hollywood scene, that's saying something)... and I too hope he makes a full recovery, not just because of this series. He did a couple of other really good shows, and if you get a chance, watch Gabriel, where Andy plays the Archangel of the same name who has to battle against other "fallen" angels in a plane where they can actually die. It might not be theologically accurate when it comes to angels... but it is a damn good show, and Whitfield makes the whole thing.
It goes without saying that I am looking forward to watching the new episode... but I'm not sure when I'll get to see it. Before the next one airs, I'm sure... but it's tough to try and sneak the show with an 8-year-old in the room, as I'm sure Ryan's last show reference makes pretty clear. Jacob is a little to prone to picking up on that kind of language, and I'd hate to hear that he used a rough reference to some portion of Jove's anatomy while riding on the bus.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Just watched "Past Transgressions."
Friggin' fantastic. Well written, acted, and woven together with Blood & Sand. Its every bit as good in my estimation.
Only down side is I know there's only 5 more episodes - JUPITER'S C***!
Only down side is I know there's only 5 more episodes - JUPITER'S C***!
Spartacus: Blood and Sand, Season 2?
There is news on this front. Not all of it good. This from an online entertainment news site:
Fans of the breakout series Spartacus: Blood and Sand will be delighted to know that the show will have its second season come fall of 2011. However, the lead role will no longer be given to actor Andy Whitfield.
Whitfield was diagnosed with early-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma last March 2010. He went to treatment and was declared with a clean bill of health by June. The hopes of shooting for the second season were dashed however when the cancer returned September. Due to this event, the production for the second season was delayed putting into question as to whether the series will go back to the small tube or not.
Starz network is said to be currently trimming down the list of actors who will replace Whitfield. Network President Chris Albrecht said, “We’re very confident where we are in the casting process of finding a lead actor to step into Spartacus’ sandals, though we will never be able to truly replace Andy Whitfield.”
A six episode prequel series entitled Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, which was shot while Whitfield was undergoing the initial treatment, will be shown for the meantime while waiting for season 2. Gods of Arena will start January 21.
Check your calenders kiddies, that was last night! Apparently they shot this prequel in the knowledge that they wanted to satisfy fan thirst given there was clearly going to be a delay of Season 2.
And good news, I just checked. The first episode is in the Netflix instant queue, they'll all be there as they air on Starz each Friday night in fact (same as the original series). Here's what the plot is (no spoilers, don't worry; and by the way, it's the same actors playing Batiatus, Lucretia, etc).
The House of Batiatus is on the rise, basking in the glow of its infamous champion Gannicus, whose skill with a sword is matched only by his thirst for wine and women. These are the times a young Batiatus has been waiting for. Poised to overthrow his father and take control, he’ll freely betray anyone to ensure his gladiators are in the highest demand. And he’ll have his loyal and calculating wife Lucretia by his side for every underhanded scheme, drawing on the brazen talents of her seductive friend Gaia when it counts. Together, they will stop at nothing to deceive the masses, seize power, and bleed Capua dry in this audacious prequel to “Spartacus: Blood and Sand.” (Source: Starz/Spartacus)
Well? What are you waiting for? GO WATCH !!!!
(Ryan comes through again with the series we just have to see ... hehehe)
Fans of the breakout series Spartacus: Blood and Sand will be delighted to know that the show will have its second season come fall of 2011. However, the lead role will no longer be given to actor Andy Whitfield.
Whitfield was diagnosed with early-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma last March 2010. He went to treatment and was declared with a clean bill of health by June. The hopes of shooting for the second season were dashed however when the cancer returned September. Due to this event, the production for the second season was delayed putting into question as to whether the series will go back to the small tube or not.
Starz network is said to be currently trimming down the list of actors who will replace Whitfield. Network President Chris Albrecht said, “We’re very confident where we are in the casting process of finding a lead actor to step into Spartacus’ sandals, though we will never be able to truly replace Andy Whitfield.”
I truly feel bad for Whitfield. Here he lands, and OWNS this breakout, intensely popular role, only to contract a disease that could end his life, let alone his career. Very unfortunate. Quite sad. I hope he makes it. And by the way, I can't imagine anyone else inhabiting that role the way he did. Those are HUGE sandals to fill.
Oh ya, I'm truly bad. I left out the last paragraph of that article. Here you go ...A six episode prequel series entitled Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, which was shot while Whitfield was undergoing the initial treatment, will be shown for the meantime while waiting for season 2. Gods of Arena will start January 21.
Check your calenders kiddies, that was last night! Apparently they shot this prequel in the knowledge that they wanted to satisfy fan thirst given there was clearly going to be a delay of Season 2.
And good news, I just checked. The first episode is in the Netflix instant queue, they'll all be there as they air on Starz each Friday night in fact (same as the original series). Here's what the plot is (no spoilers, don't worry; and by the way, it's the same actors playing Batiatus, Lucretia, etc).
The House of Batiatus is on the rise, basking in the glow of its infamous champion Gannicus, whose skill with a sword is matched only by his thirst for wine and women. These are the times a young Batiatus has been waiting for. Poised to overthrow his father and take control, he’ll freely betray anyone to ensure his gladiators are in the highest demand. And he’ll have his loyal and calculating wife Lucretia by his side for every underhanded scheme, drawing on the brazen talents of her seductive friend Gaia when it counts. Together, they will stop at nothing to deceive the masses, seize power, and bleed Capua dry in this audacious prequel to “Spartacus: Blood and Sand.” (Source: Starz/Spartacus)
Well? What are you waiting for? GO WATCH !!!!
(Ryan comes through again with the series we just have to see ... hehehe)
IN BOSS TWEED'S FEVERED DREAMS
... a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Keith Oberhman is off the air.
Last night he ended his Friday night show, by, well ending his show, finite.
I found him to be more then competent on ESPN, and a miserable excuse for a political commentator. How many retractions? How many awful dialogues based on blogger rumors? And how many times can Sarah Palin be "the worst person in the world?" Quite honestly I could think of at least a half dozen ear penetrating, deafening, skin crawling noises I'd prefer to subject myself to rather then his voice. And the fact that he'll be remembered more for my description rather then Jambo's, is no one's fault but his own.
More interesting to me, truth be told, is the recent developments with his former boss. The current, not former, but sitting CEO of GE (NBC's parent company) is now President Obama's most senior economic advisor and replaced Paul Volker as head of the "Economic Recovery Commission." Is this man not a walking conflict of interest in his wearing of both hats? He kept Oberhman on all these years, getting his brains beaten in by O'Reilly in the ratings, even losing to CNN. Most cases the network changes line ups when they lose, night after night, year after year, but not MSNBC. And now that the CEO has achieved the ultimate "contact" in the business world, Keith is tossed aside not more then 48 hours later. Perhaps he served his purpose?
I can tell you this. This creeps me out a bit. Foreshadowing of the Chinese model of "State Capitalism." GE is was the largest single corporate contributor to the Obama 2008 campaign. They have a 24 hour Left wing PR firm in MSNBC. And now the most senior advisor to the PoTUS is the sitting CEO of the whole shebang. A "shebang" which included a multi-million dollar turbine deal to India that the president himself brokered for GE on that trip. No worries though. I'm sure if Ol' Dubya had named Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News parent company News Corp) to a similar position, or say the sitting CEO of Haliburton, MSNBC would have been fine with it.
I'm curious which direction the influence peddling will advance in more. Will GE continue to get sweetheart deals given they now have the ultimate celebrity agent hawking their wares, or will White House Chief of Staff Dailey be consulting on NBC news division's programming and content? It seems to me that these are precisely the types of relationships that end on live TV with the words, "I have no recollection of that senator."
There's the difference...
Olbermann lost his ability to be objective when he gave up his career as a sports caster. Back then, his wit and humor were a perfect counter to his spot-on analysis, where as now his wit and humor is all he has going for him. Much like Bill Maher, his comedy is the only thing keeping him even remotely relevant in today's political environment.
Some of the best commentary he ever gave was when he was guest-hosting the Dan Patrick Show... objective, rational commentary on topics he was intimately familiar with: sports. Since then, he has given popular sentiment about liberal politics a witty and humorous voice on MSNBC... but has thrown away any rational or objective position he may have ever held.
His cries against conservative "hypocrisy" are as hypocritical as anything that could be heard or seen... his calls against conservative rhetoric in the public political arena fly in the face of anyone that has ever seen his "Worst Person in the World" segment, or his use of such endearing terms of description as "fascists", "Nazis", "totalitarian" when describing the former President's administration and its policies.
Its telling, isn't it? He recognizes the "right thing to do" in the actions of Kirby Puckett at the end of his career and life... but can't apply the same rules to his own views, words and actions while doing his show.
Very sad.
Some of the best commentary he ever gave was when he was guest-hosting the Dan Patrick Show... objective, rational commentary on topics he was intimately familiar with: sports. Since then, he has given popular sentiment about liberal politics a witty and humorous voice on MSNBC... but has thrown away any rational or objective position he may have ever held.
His cries against conservative "hypocrisy" are as hypocritical as anything that could be heard or seen... his calls against conservative rhetoric in the public political arena fly in the face of anyone that has ever seen his "Worst Person in the World" segment, or his use of such endearing terms of description as "fascists", "Nazis", "totalitarian" when describing the former President's administration and its policies.
Its telling, isn't it? He recognizes the "right thing to do" in the actions of Kirby Puckett at the end of his career and life... but can't apply the same rules to his own views, words and actions while doing his show.
Very sad.
In the interests of fairness...
I have to say this about Keith Obherman.
In the mid-90's, I believe one of the last regular season games the Twins played in 95, to be exact, we were playing Cleveland. A future Hall of Famer by the name of Dennis Martinez was pitching against Minnesota. Completely meaningless game, both teams not involved in the post season. But Dennis was a pro, and so was the kid he was pitching against, number 3 in our line-up, playing center field, #34, Kirby Puckett.
Martinez was a skinny Latino who routinely hummed the fastball inside in the mid to upper 90s. One got away and hit Kirby, (a home plate crowder) in the face, shattering his left cheekbone. After being released from the hospital, Kirby, laughing, blew off any hard feelings or controversy, as was Puckett's style.
Obherman commented on it that night on SportsCenter. Made a point of bringing a meaningless game out of a sea of meaningless games and identifying a true baseball hero for doing something every day heroic: not making a big thing out of a legitimate big thing.
In the spring of 96, Kirby woke up at the Lee County Sports Complex where the Twins do their Spring Training blind in his left eye. The story Kirby told till the end, with one exception, was that his retina detached because of glaucoma. While covering his retirement speech Obherman gave a brilliant five minute summary of Kirby's career and why the man should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.
A few years later, as Dennis Martinez is receiving retirement awards, Kirby and Dennis meet at a charity event, where Dennis is throwing a game of catch with some Make a Wish Foundation kids. Kirby makes some jokes, one of which is, "Dennis, if you had this much control when we played I'd STILL be playing right now!" This comment caused Dennis to stop because he was laughing so hard, and the picture of them hugging is priceless. Obherman was on it that night... The smoking gun. It WAS Martinez's pitch that ended Puckett's career, not glaucoma. And again, a five minute speech praising Puckett for the hero he was, and absolving Martinez for doing his job. He cited Puckett for being what was BEST about not just baseball, but SPORTS, in that competitive people didn't need to be complete asses off the field, or on them, for that matter.
Dan Patrick interviewed Bob Costas and Keith Obherman after Kirby passed away on his radio show. Costas (who's son has like four middle names, one of them Kirby) spoke at length about the qualities of Kirby. Keith spoke for about a minute, in the end simply saying "He was my favorite player."
I don't have a lot of personal heroes, but Kirby Puckett was one of them. And as far as Keith Obherman fell after his SportsCenter days into the quagmire of liberal opinion broadcasting, his time on top of the mountain I will always remember because from its peak he correctly cited the heroic virtues of my favorite baseball player.
It's late and I'm tired, so if I misspelled Obherman throughout this post... Sue me.
In the mid-90's, I believe one of the last regular season games the Twins played in 95, to be exact, we were playing Cleveland. A future Hall of Famer by the name of Dennis Martinez was pitching against Minnesota. Completely meaningless game, both teams not involved in the post season. But Dennis was a pro, and so was the kid he was pitching against, number 3 in our line-up, playing center field, #34, Kirby Puckett.
Martinez was a skinny Latino who routinely hummed the fastball inside in the mid to upper 90s. One got away and hit Kirby, (a home plate crowder) in the face, shattering his left cheekbone. After being released from the hospital, Kirby, laughing, blew off any hard feelings or controversy, as was Puckett's style.
Obherman commented on it that night on SportsCenter. Made a point of bringing a meaningless game out of a sea of meaningless games and identifying a true baseball hero for doing something every day heroic: not making a big thing out of a legitimate big thing.
In the spring of 96, Kirby woke up at the Lee County Sports Complex where the Twins do their Spring Training blind in his left eye. The story Kirby told till the end, with one exception, was that his retina detached because of glaucoma. While covering his retirement speech Obherman gave a brilliant five minute summary of Kirby's career and why the man should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.
A few years later, as Dennis Martinez is receiving retirement awards, Kirby and Dennis meet at a charity event, where Dennis is throwing a game of catch with some Make a Wish Foundation kids. Kirby makes some jokes, one of which is, "Dennis, if you had this much control when we played I'd STILL be playing right now!" This comment caused Dennis to stop because he was laughing so hard, and the picture of them hugging is priceless. Obherman was on it that night... The smoking gun. It WAS Martinez's pitch that ended Puckett's career, not glaucoma. And again, a five minute speech praising Puckett for the hero he was, and absolving Martinez for doing his job. He cited Puckett for being what was BEST about not just baseball, but SPORTS, in that competitive people didn't need to be complete asses off the field, or on them, for that matter.
Dan Patrick interviewed Bob Costas and Keith Obherman after Kirby passed away on his radio show. Costas (who's son has like four middle names, one of them Kirby) spoke at length about the qualities of Kirby. Keith spoke for about a minute, in the end simply saying "He was my favorite player."
I don't have a lot of personal heroes, but Kirby Puckett was one of them. And as far as Keith Obherman fell after his SportsCenter days into the quagmire of liberal opinion broadcasting, his time on top of the mountain I will always remember because from its peak he correctly cited the heroic virtues of my favorite baseball player.
It's late and I'm tired, so if I misspelled Obherman throughout this post... Sue me.
Friday, January 21, 2011
They're reading our blog, you know...
I'm riding in to work today after a six-inch show fall last night, taking my time and making sure the roads are okay... and I'm listening to the Wilkow Majority while I drive.
Mr. Wilkow's topic for the intro to his show?
The very same AP article I linked in my initial Kennedy Inauguration post. His thoughts and conclusions? Identical to ours... the left is completely out of touch ("liberal revisionists" was the term he used) with what the historical Kennedy actually believed to be the role of government in our lives.
He did it better than us, of course... he had audio clips of the actual speech, and other speeches and interviews that Jack did before he died, which clearly detailed a far more conservative view of government's role and authority than is pandered about today.
We'd love a plug, if you guys are actually reading this...
Thank you for your support.
Mr. Wilkow's topic for the intro to his show?
The very same AP article I linked in my initial Kennedy Inauguration post. His thoughts and conclusions? Identical to ours... the left is completely out of touch ("liberal revisionists" was the term he used) with what the historical Kennedy actually believed to be the role of government in our lives.
He did it better than us, of course... he had audio clips of the actual speech, and other speeches and interviews that Jack did before he died, which clearly detailed a far more conservative view of government's role and authority than is pandered about today.
We'd love a plug, if you guys are actually reading this...
Thank you for your support.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Prestige Level One...
Jake and I (we share an account) are now at Lvl 50 on COD:BO and we'll decide if we're ready to go for the next Prestige level. This (seemingly) calls for us to go back to Level One and start over with out any equipment, but with new stuff unlocked to get the next go around.
I'm game... but I'll have to check with my partner when he gets off the bus in about 20 minutes.
Either way, we'll be fighting global tyranny and communism by 1 PM.
Tah.
I'm game... but I'll have to check with my partner when he gets off the bus in about 20 minutes.
Either way, we'll be fighting global tyranny and communism by 1 PM.
Tah.
It doesn't end... it's almost maddening!
This article in the Guardian has many points that I think sum up the general opinion of today's media about Kennedy's speech and his administration as a whole.
Contrasting Kennedy and his inaugural promises to what was actually delivered and the efforts of his Vice President's administrations that followed, the author notes that Kennedy promised to bring civil rights to the front and to fight poverty everywhere, but it was Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act and Johnson who waged the War on Poverty. This does NOT take into account that 1) Kennedy was killed before his first term was up (and his speech said the effort would take more than 100 days, even more than 1000 days), and 2) that Kennedy was NOT the progressive/liberal that Johnson was. He did NOT think it government's role to dictate how much a man can make before he makes too much, nor that the "excess" be turned over to the government so that it could be more fairly spread amongst those who needed it more.
While I am sure Kennedy would have agreed that every man, regardless of color or creed, has the same inherent rights given to him by God, I am convinced he balked only at making the Federal Government the sole arbitrator of that protection, rather than sharing that role with the individual States. Hindsight tells us that this was a bit naive in its trust and understanding of Southern politics... but it doesn't negate facts, and even Johnson saw much violence and bloodshed in the implementation of his civil rights legislation, didn't he?
This article voices a very common and very prevalent conception about Kennedy: that he was a failed progressive/liberal who promised the world and delivered nothing. What he delivered was a promise of hope and a renewed trust in American government and leadership that was sadly crushed by his assassination and the corresponding confusion and mistrust that followed, even to this day. The man made mistakes, yes... but we are not beating him up today for those, we are beating him up today for things that I really feel were utterly out of his ability to control or change in any sort of good conscience. He wanted to lead America down the path to universal civil rights... not force it down the path at gunpoint. That was a lesson learned during Reconstruction, and one I think Kennedy understood to be a problematic one, at best.
Of course, these are only my opinions... the man is dead less than three years after giving this speech, and no one can know for sure what would have happened, can they?
Contrasting Kennedy and his inaugural promises to what was actually delivered and the efforts of his Vice President's administrations that followed, the author notes that Kennedy promised to bring civil rights to the front and to fight poverty everywhere, but it was Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act and Johnson who waged the War on Poverty. This does NOT take into account that 1) Kennedy was killed before his first term was up (and his speech said the effort would take more than 100 days, even more than 1000 days), and 2) that Kennedy was NOT the progressive/liberal that Johnson was. He did NOT think it government's role to dictate how much a man can make before he makes too much, nor that the "excess" be turned over to the government so that it could be more fairly spread amongst those who needed it more.
While I am sure Kennedy would have agreed that every man, regardless of color or creed, has the same inherent rights given to him by God, I am convinced he balked only at making the Federal Government the sole arbitrator of that protection, rather than sharing that role with the individual States. Hindsight tells us that this was a bit naive in its trust and understanding of Southern politics... but it doesn't negate facts, and even Johnson saw much violence and bloodshed in the implementation of his civil rights legislation, didn't he?
This article voices a very common and very prevalent conception about Kennedy: that he was a failed progressive/liberal who promised the world and delivered nothing. What he delivered was a promise of hope and a renewed trust in American government and leadership that was sadly crushed by his assassination and the corresponding confusion and mistrust that followed, even to this day. The man made mistakes, yes... but we are not beating him up today for those, we are beating him up today for things that I really feel were utterly out of his ability to control or change in any sort of good conscience. He wanted to lead America down the path to universal civil rights... not force it down the path at gunpoint. That was a lesson learned during Reconstruction, and one I think Kennedy understood to be a problematic one, at best.
Of course, these are only my opinions... the man is dead less than three years after giving this speech, and no one can know for sure what would have happened, can they?
Fifty years later...
I woke up this morning to find article after article stating that the country I love has changed SO much as to render President John Kennedy's Inaugural Address nearly meaningless in today America.
What a load of horse crap!
John Kennedy's words, penned himself in the day prior to the speech, are as important and applicable today as they were 50 years ago. Were most Americans to hear them for the first time today, I think the weight of those ideas would be just as moving and influential as they were in 1961.
Here's why:
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. " This quote, from the opening lines of the speech, is every bit as important today as it ever was in 1961... Kennedy knew that individual freedom and man's ability to provide for himself far outweighed the benefits gained from government handouts or limitations in his life.
"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Far from being meaningless or outdated in today's political climate, I dare anyone to tell me you would EVER hear a modern liberal (President or otherwise) say THESE words to today's global audience.
Next, Kennedy spoke of his "Pledge" for America to the world:
"To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. " Does this sentiment have no meaning today? Have we not heard from the mouths of liberals that diplomacy and foreign policy must be rebuilt? Can this happen if we do not support and help to protect those that need it or call for it? It can't only be when floods occur, or hurricanes happen... we must be ready and willing when bullets fly and bombs explode, too. Is the call for UNITY any less important simply because there is no USSR? Does not the growth and expansion of terrorism across the globe not constitute an even greater threat?
"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run. " Here, sadly, we may see the one bit of out-dated sentiment. Kennedy's hope for a rational, functional UN seems to have never materialized and the prospects for it happening in the future are more bleak than even he could have imagined. The ideal is sound, but I'm afraid his worry that it would become "merely a forum for invective" was far more true than anyone could have wished.
"So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
What a load of horse crap!
John Kennedy's words, penned himself in the day prior to the speech, are as important and applicable today as they were 50 years ago. Were most Americans to hear them for the first time today, I think the weight of those ideas would be just as moving and influential as they were in 1961.
Here's why:
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. " This quote, from the opening lines of the speech, is every bit as important today as it ever was in 1961... Kennedy knew that individual freedom and man's ability to provide for himself far outweighed the benefits gained from government handouts or limitations in his life.
"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Far from being meaningless or outdated in today's political climate, I dare anyone to tell me you would EVER hear a modern liberal (President or otherwise) say THESE words to today's global audience.
Next, Kennedy spoke of his "Pledge" for America to the world:
"To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. " Does this sentiment have no meaning today? Have we not heard from the mouths of liberals that diplomacy and foreign policy must be rebuilt? Can this happen if we do not support and help to protect those that need it or call for it? It can't only be when floods occur, or hurricanes happen... we must be ready and willing when bullets fly and bombs explode, too. Is the call for UNITY any less important simply because there is no USSR? Does not the growth and expansion of terrorism across the globe not constitute an even greater threat?
"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run. " Here, sadly, we may see the one bit of out-dated sentiment. Kennedy's hope for a rational, functional UN seems to have never materialized and the prospects for it happening in the future are more bleak than even he could have imagined. The ideal is sound, but I'm afraid his worry that it would become "merely a forum for invective" was far more true than anyone could have wished.
"So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."
Of course he was speaking to a Cold War national audience, and of course the "science" he spoke of was the arsenal of nuclear weapons that both the US and the USSR were building up at such an alarming rate... but is it meaningless even now? What is the fear of North Korea or Iran if not nuclear weapons production and proliferation? What cooperation does he mean if not the joint effort to stop tyranny and terror from ruling the lives of millions, as it did under Saddam in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan? Has the nature and definition of TYRANNY, OPPRESSION, SUSPICION changed so much in 50 years? I think not.
"Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?" If I had heard these words today, rather than read them in a historical context, I can solemnly assure you my answer would be YES.
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. " Kennedy said no more powerful and influential words than these in his short political life. His vision of an America where the focus was not on what could be gained by government, but what could be gained by service, charity and civility in action is one that I think has placed him in the ranks of great Presidents. Obama would not say these words... he has promised that Government ("your country") is the ONLY answer to the problems facing us, and more expectations from that government are not only good and right, but promised from the start. Kennedy did not see it thus... not at all.
So, that's my take... Kennedy's words are just as important today as they were in 1961. We've just forgotten them, that's all.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Fillin' Station = Adventures
And was right next to Upstairs/Downstairs.
Can't say I was as big a fan/as nostalgic as Titus... Back in the day the Fillin' Station had decent food, but without exception every time I went there someone was in a brawl and cops were involved. Not the post work sanctuary I need. The same thing happened to Famous Joe's... Turned into a kids joint with Friday Night Fights and Xstacy sales... I remember going there after work with Bund Friend Jeff Rouse, watching the combat on the other side of the bar drift our way, with Jeff slowly looking at me saying, "I would HATE to have to kill one of these punks but I will if they come over here." They didn't. I still laugh about it. If you know Jeff in his classic Sam Elliot delivery, you'll laugh too.
Nope. Give me the Project. I'm fine. :-) Speaking of which, Baddboy, holler Thursday or sometime next week, we can grab lunch there or maybe a bite after you get off work!
Can't say I was as big a fan/as nostalgic as Titus... Back in the day the Fillin' Station had decent food, but without exception every time I went there someone was in a brawl and cops were involved. Not the post work sanctuary I need. The same thing happened to Famous Joe's... Turned into a kids joint with Friday Night Fights and Xstacy sales... I remember going there after work with Bund Friend Jeff Rouse, watching the combat on the other side of the bar drift our way, with Jeff slowly looking at me saying, "I would HATE to have to kill one of these punks but I will if they come over here." They didn't. I still laugh about it. If you know Jeff in his classic Sam Elliot delivery, you'll laugh too.
Nope. Give me the Project. I'm fine. :-) Speaking of which, Baddboy, holler Thursday or sometime next week, we can grab lunch there or maybe a bite after you get off work!
Remember the Fillin' Station?
I'm not sure, but I thought that whole block got erased in the storm. Did it ever rebuild? I always liked that bar, and it was damn close to the Grand so it was super convenient, too. Am I wrong, wasn't it just off of Howard on the east end of the Vieux Marche? It didn't have any decent parking out front, so we always parked in back, by the "caboose" that was parked back there. Or am I actually thinking of the Upstairs/Downstairs?
Damn... why does it seem like that was SOOOO long ago? Have I been gone that long?
Damn... why does it seem like that was SOOOO long ago? Have I been gone that long?
Historical Fires
Just a little note from the great Mississippi Gulf Coast. The Vieux Marche caught fire last night and the Upstairs/Downstairs, Adventures and the Old Spanish Trail book store burned to the ground. For alot of us especially in the swing shift casino community these places hold some good but I would imagine strange memories, especially the Upstairs/Downstairs and Adventures.
Just one more sad note in Gulf Coast history.
http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=13866651
Just one more sad note in Gulf Coast history.
http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=13866651
Let me just add ...
The reason we dont talk on the phone that much is quite simple - it's one thing for you & Jambo, or Jambo & I to hash things out on the phone; but if you and I start solving the world's problems via the ol' cell, the blog is FINISHED. I'm just spit balling, and this is no slight towards Jambo (afterall, there are no posting frequency guidelines), but I have to assume that 80% of the disagreement,or contrasting "Bund buzz" if you will, is a result of our friction, no matter who or what ignites it. Oddly enough, in person, Jambo is by far the more confrontational of the group.
Now this is not to complain, quite the contrary. It is funny though, that we can produce so much argument out of that 10% we disagree on. Jambo assigns it to our being the eldest siblings of our respective clans, seeing being right & having the last word as part of our birthright ... hehe ... maybe he's right.
I'll say this, the primary reason I will relentlessly gnaw at an argument with you like an OCD plagued lab rat on amphetamines is because when you disagree with me I'm convinced that you're too smart not to see my point, so I must not be presenting it adequately - up goes another post, and another, and ... well you get the picture. Of course, sometimes the reason you dont agree is I happen to be wrong. Which I readily admit seldom occurs to me until all other options have been exhausted (hehe).
Now this is not to complain, quite the contrary. It is funny though, that we can produce so much argument out of that 10% we disagree on. Jambo assigns it to our being the eldest siblings of our respective clans, seeing being right & having the last word as part of our birthright ... hehe ... maybe he's right.
I'll say this, the primary reason I will relentlessly gnaw at an argument with you like an OCD plagued lab rat on amphetamines is because when you disagree with me I'm convinced that you're too smart not to see my point, so I must not be presenting it adequately - up goes another post, and another, and ... well you get the picture. Of course, sometimes the reason you dont agree is I happen to be wrong. Which I readily admit seldom occurs to me until all other options have been exhausted (hehe).
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Hahaha!
Wise women, all.
If you are asking, no I dont feel personally maligned, and do not recall any jabs in our last discussion.
However, if the women are asking, or you're asking in their presence, I will immediately agree with them 100%.
(hehe)
If you are asking, no I dont feel personally maligned, and do not recall any jabs in our last discussion.
However, if the women are asking, or you're asking in their presence, I will immediately agree with them 100%.
(hehe)
A point of order...
Ryan and I don't really talk much on the phone... not sure why, but we don't. When we do have those rare calls, it almost never fails that we argue about something political... even though 90% of our views are the same. That last 10% must be some touchy stuff, huh?
My point is that Liz commented to me upon hearing about out "discussion" yesterday... and said I am not fair to Ryan. I asked why, and she said I get myself into a corner in one of these arguments and then hurl insults at Ryan about his religion, or his personal grooming habits (which are, I admit, hilarious in my eyes).
I don't actually do this, do I? Barbs, jokes and hyperbole aside, I'm not slandering you when we meet or talk, am I? I don't think I made one comment yesterday that could be construed as even remotely "personal" during our whole talk... even with all the yelling that was done (on both parts, by the way).
Personally, I think all the "girls" here in NEPA look at Ryan like the cute "little brother" that turns all the girls heads at slumber parties... he made quite an impression when he was here for the wedding in '08... and anytime I make angry or disparaging remarks about Ryan's opinions or views, they ALL (and I do mean ALL) gather to his immediate defense.
If I do do this... tell me and I will never do it again. I just don't think I do it, that's all...
My point is that Liz commented to me upon hearing about out "discussion" yesterday... and said I am not fair to Ryan. I asked why, and she said I get myself into a corner in one of these arguments and then hurl insults at Ryan about his religion, or his personal grooming habits (which are, I admit, hilarious in my eyes).
I don't actually do this, do I? Barbs, jokes and hyperbole aside, I'm not slandering you when we meet or talk, am I? I don't think I made one comment yesterday that could be construed as even remotely "personal" during our whole talk... even with all the yelling that was done (on both parts, by the way).
Personally, I think all the "girls" here in NEPA look at Ryan like the cute "little brother" that turns all the girls heads at slumber parties... he made quite an impression when he was here for the wedding in '08... and anytime I make angry or disparaging remarks about Ryan's opinions or views, they ALL (and I do mean ALL) gather to his immediate defense.
If I do do this... tell me and I will never do it again. I just don't think I do it, that's all...
No, I meant it... believe me.
I'm more than willing to concede my argument that there might have been a real benefit to pundits and hosts that have cashed in on the AM radio "boom"... it is unarguable that Limbaugh and the rest have made their fortunes (at least initially) in deregulated AM talk radio.
What I found so tragically painful was the inability of Ryan to even try and see what I was saying... all he could focus on was what he (and I assume the rest of AM talk personalities) thought would happen if the doctrine were magically reinstated as it stood in 1980. The Reagan Administration removed the Fairness Doctrine from the books, yes... but not to make radio (or any other information medium) more "open". They did it through necessity because the sheer volume of cable television channels and programs that were flooding the American homes made the regulation too costly and ponderous to enforce. The easiest-to-read source for that is HERE. Thus, it is my contention that cable television and community access broadcasting is what killed the Fairness Doctrine... not outrage over government regulations overbearing the talk radio genre.
My point was NEVER that the return of the Fairness Doctrine would be a GOOD THING... not once did I ever say that. All I EVER said was that it wasn't the "doom and gloom" end of free speech that I so often hear from talk radio personalities (and the Supreme Court upheld this opinion TWICE, in fact). I don't BLAME them for saying this... because I also can't argue that it is undeniable that a return to the regulations would effect their bottom line. Thus, arguing for a maintaining of the status quo only makes sense for them... they stand to make the most money with the least effort if nothing changes. They gain nothing from objectively questioning whether or not the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with a "lack" of media bias prior to its removal... which is all I was ever asking in my initial posts.
Remember that? All I asked was "When did the media bias become so prevalent as to damn near render mainstream broadcast media irrelevant?" Neither of you responded, so I looked into it myself and thought this a viable explanation... Ryan disagreed, it seems, but offered no responses to my initial question.
It was my genitive opinion that prior to the Fairness Doctrine, biased media was so profound in this nation as to have almost forced the nation into a war with Spain that need never have been fought. This isn't a solid defense of the regulation, of course... I do not say it as such... only that it is evidenced by historical fact. Furthermore, once the regulation went into place, the problem went away almost entirely... but there was no opportunity for break-out, multi-million dollar careers to be made there, either (at least in AM radio). Since the demise of the regulation, AM radio has proven itself a "king maker" of the first order... but traditional prime time broadcast television and much of its cable equivalents are as biased as anything we've seen in 40 years.
I whole-heartedly agree that AM radio, the internet, and cable television are the last bastions of true conservative political views... but at the expense of all other mediums available to pundits and hosts. This is the status quo, and not being able to argue a negative position I concede all points in this matter. I cannot make the case that AM radio would survive intact should the regulation go back into place any better than Ryan can say it would not... thus it is a moot effort in the extreme.
What I found so tragically painful was the inability of Ryan to even try and see what I was saying... all he could focus on was what he (and I assume the rest of AM talk personalities) thought would happen if the doctrine were magically reinstated as it stood in 1980. The Reagan Administration removed the Fairness Doctrine from the books, yes... but not to make radio (or any other information medium) more "open". They did it through necessity because the sheer volume of cable television channels and programs that were flooding the American homes made the regulation too costly and ponderous to enforce. The easiest-to-read source for that is HERE. Thus, it is my contention that cable television and community access broadcasting is what killed the Fairness Doctrine... not outrage over government regulations overbearing the talk radio genre.
My point was NEVER that the return of the Fairness Doctrine would be a GOOD THING... not once did I ever say that. All I EVER said was that it wasn't the "doom and gloom" end of free speech that I so often hear from talk radio personalities (and the Supreme Court upheld this opinion TWICE, in fact). I don't BLAME them for saying this... because I also can't argue that it is undeniable that a return to the regulations would effect their bottom line. Thus, arguing for a maintaining of the status quo only makes sense for them... they stand to make the most money with the least effort if nothing changes. They gain nothing from objectively questioning whether or not the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with a "lack" of media bias prior to its removal... which is all I was ever asking in my initial posts.
Remember that? All I asked was "When did the media bias become so prevalent as to damn near render mainstream broadcast media irrelevant?" Neither of you responded, so I looked into it myself and thought this a viable explanation... Ryan disagreed, it seems, but offered no responses to my initial question.
It was my genitive opinion that prior to the Fairness Doctrine, biased media was so profound in this nation as to have almost forced the nation into a war with Spain that need never have been fought. This isn't a solid defense of the regulation, of course... I do not say it as such... only that it is evidenced by historical fact. Furthermore, once the regulation went into place, the problem went away almost entirely... but there was no opportunity for break-out, multi-million dollar careers to be made there, either (at least in AM radio). Since the demise of the regulation, AM radio has proven itself a "king maker" of the first order... but traditional prime time broadcast television and much of its cable equivalents are as biased as anything we've seen in 40 years.
I whole-heartedly agree that AM radio, the internet, and cable television are the last bastions of true conservative political views... but at the expense of all other mediums available to pundits and hosts. This is the status quo, and not being able to argue a negative position I concede all points in this matter. I cannot make the case that AM radio would survive intact should the regulation go back into place any better than Ryan can say it would not... thus it is a moot effort in the extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
