Thank you so much for the touchingly rational and well-defined comments you made on the post titled "Yes, let's discuss this further...". I thought of NOT publishing them on the off chance that someone with just a bit of character and taste might read them here on our little blog and think we all shared your mannerisms and rapier-like repartee... but it is so rare that we get to actively engage with people like you that I couldn't pass up the opportunity.
I'd first like to address your opening comment...
" What a moron you guys are. "
Man, I simply can't adequately explain how much I struggle to take seriously anyone that opens their argument with that kind of a grammatical handicap. I'm not sure how far along you are in your grade school career, but I'd like to recommend some additional study time in remedial English next time you decide to attend that class.
Moving on...
I find it difficult (and, frankly, embarrassing) to directly quote your diatribe on my comments concerning eminent domain again here, so I'll let those that wish to read them again if the want. I will simply respond by saying that I wasn't defending the "Libertarian" position on the evils of eminent domain... I was defining them as I understand them to be. I am NOT a Libertarian, so I might be quite wrong in my assessment of the position, but I got my basic understanding from their own publications, so the Libertarians will have to share some of that blame with me.
I would add, however, that your point: "Yes, there are OFTEN disputes about what the land is worth, no s**t sherlock. People almost always want five times what it's worth, because we are all selfish greedy bastards if we can be. So courts have to get appraisals, and then disputes are settled by various means, including juries. " seems to ignore a very basic and simple fact... courts, even courts that include juries, are NOT the equivalent to a "free market" and if there is no choice BUT to sell to the Government, then there is no freedom of choice. In fact, I'd say that there is a solid argument to be made that there is no "private property" at all, if that is a de facto legal position for the Government to be able to take.
The seller of a property (in this case, the owner) sets the PRICE of the property, but the actual VALUE of that property is established when someone else PAYS FOR IT. If the value is determined by the prospective buyer to be less than the price asked, then no sale should take place and the owner, for good or bad, keeps the property. That is the essence of a free market system, and if you doubt me please read (I'm forced to assume you haven't already) Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. I'm sure you can find it at your local library, should you care to try.
If the Government has the authority (and there are solid arguments that ours DOES NOT) to both determine the VALUE of a piece of property and force the sale of that property against the will of the owner, well then, my friend... we find not a free market system but a centralized economic plan formulated by a governing body. That is also known as socialism. It is very clearly defined in another popular book written by Karl Marx called The Communist Manifesto. I have no doubt that you can find that book in your high school library (probably just down the hall from where you posted your comments).
"Oh, I see you bird brains like the so called Fairtax. I should have known you morons would.
Why doesn't that surprise me."
Without putting too much of a strain on the conversation, at no point in my post did I say I "liked" the "Fair Tax". The entire premise of my post was that the Libertarians seems to support it, since it is listed on their website and in numerous other publications as a viable alternative to the income tax we now utilize. To the best of my knowledge, very few prominent GOP members that are front-runners in the 2012 election cycle favor this alternative at all, and thus I thought it a good point of difference between the two parties and their platforms.
In all seriousness, I do apologize if my sarcasm and hyperbole have given offense. I found your comments to be rambling, inarticulate and amusingly droll, even taking your juvenile use of expletives into account. What little success you might have seen in making your points was completely over-shadowed by your inability to actually read what I had written and see it for what it was. All of us here have had episodes in our lives where we have indulged ourselves and followed the path you chose, but we also recognized that no good came from the indulgence and we did nothing to further our point of view.
If, in the future, you choose to make comments in a more rational, mature manner, then perhaps we can compare opinions and views and actually learn from each other. If, however, you choose to comment with more of the same adolescent, immature, expletive-filled rants... then know that they will be deleted out of hand until such time as you choose to make your point just a little bit clearer. If the latter is the choice you make, it might be better for all involved if you simply didn't bother at all.
Good luck with the therapy, okay?
Monday, February 28, 2011
God rest your soul, Mr. Buckles...
I commented on Baddboy's last, but wanted to say this in a full post:
I am honored to have been able to say I met with, shook hands with, and had a conversation with Frank Buckles, Private in the US Army 2nd Infantry Division in WWI and Merchant Marine POW during WWII. The last living veteran of WWI is now passed.
I can't forget that he told me he "saw the bullets" going by him a Belleau Woods, and I know my face must have shown doubt... but when he told me he was seeing bullets that had passed through Marines in front of him, I almost cried. He told me I was "shaking the hand that shook the hand of" a Marine that won two Medals of Honor in two different actions, and the same Marine that is credited with having said "Come on, sons of bitches... do you want to live forever?" to prompt his men to go "over the top" of the trenches.
Yep... I got to shake hands with living history, and hear from his own lips some of what he experienced. For that honor, I'm damn grateful.
I am honored to have been able to say I met with, shook hands with, and had a conversation with Frank Buckles, Private in the US Army 2nd Infantry Division in WWI and Merchant Marine POW during WWII. The last living veteran of WWI is now passed.
I can't forget that he told me he "saw the bullets" going by him a Belleau Woods, and I know my face must have shown doubt... but when he told me he was seeing bullets that had passed through Marines in front of him, I almost cried. He told me I was "shaking the hand that shook the hand of" a Marine that won two Medals of Honor in two different actions, and the same Marine that is credited with having said "Come on, sons of bitches... do you want to live forever?" to prompt his men to go "over the top" of the trenches.
Yep... I got to shake hands with living history, and hear from his own lips some of what he experienced. For that honor, I'm damn grateful.
I thought Titus might want to read this
The last veteran of WWI Died and I believe this may be the gentleman you had an opportunity to speak with. I can't seem to get the link to work in the post so you'll have to cut and paste.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/28/veteran-wwi-dies-w-va-age-110/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Gigya_Last_living_US_WWI_vet_dies_in_W._Va._at_age_110
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/28/veteran-wwi-dies-w-va-age-110/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Gigya_Last_living_US_WWI_vet_dies_in_W._Va._at_age_110
Yes, let's discuss this further...
Ryan is right... more and more we see "Libertarian" tags on TV, radio and in print, and more and more they are touting the virtues of the conservative viewpoint.
However, there is a real and measurable difference between what is the platform of the GOP today and what the Libertarian Party stands for. Does everyone agree about what it is that separates them? Lets detail the differences before the discussion goes any further...
The GOP wants to maintain the ability to intervene in foreign affairs (military, economic and political) to ensure US interests are protected. The GOP favors a position where the US takes a leading role within existing alliances and treaty organizations, and is routinely looking for involvement in more of them to further that same goal.
The Libertarians want an end to US involvement in international treaty organizations, and a very limited ability to ally the nation to foreign states. No American lives or treasure is to be risked except in the defense of American liberties and freedoms.
Since the beginning of the last century, the GOP has taken a position where the regulation of certain substances and personal practices that are deemed "harmful" to the individual or society. From Prohibition to the War on Drugs, the Twentieth Century was riddled with policy and practice in GOP platforms where the individual choices available to the citizens of these United States was determined by the Government, and not by the individual.
The Libertarians support a policy wherein there is no regulation, for or against, the use of recreational drugs, alcohol or the use of the same by consenting individual adults. The manufacture, trade and sale of such items and substances would be taxable by the States alone, but the States could not stop such sale or use, because to do so would be to limit personal freedom of choice, which is the sole purpose of the Federal Government to protect.
Both Parties support the Second Amendment, with the Libertarians going so far as the removal ALL regulations on the personal possession of firearms and the manner in which they are kept. Concealed or openly displayed, carried on a person or within a vehicle, no regulations could be put in place that kept someone (anyone) from carrying a legally purchased firearm into such places as a school, playground, bank, post office, government building.
The GOP (at least lately) has been calling for a secure border to the South, specifically in response to the growing number of "illegals" crossing to the North from Mexico. Since 1991, $279 billion dollars have been spent on "securing" this border, and the results have been an increase in the number of illegals each and every year since.
The Libertarians believe that a notion of "free trade" means nothing if it isn't coupled with a notion of "free migration" and call for an end to immigration quotas, limits and regulations. Open borders where new "future citizens" can cross at will is the goal of the Libertarian Party, wherein immigrants will fill demands for entry-level or manual labor positions and create a competitive market environment that will "create wealth" through the lowest levels of income in the country. Certain criteria will exist for citizenship (as the Constitution requires), but for entry into the country, only known criminals or threats to American safety would be refused the status of "prospective citizen".
The GOP has maintained a position since WWII that the government can "trump" the owner of private property if the property in question is deemed of "national significance". This policy of supporting eminent domain is 100% contrary to the Libertarian position, in which the ownership of property is ranked right up there with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Government will NEVER be allowed to seize property, or even use property, without the express consent of the owner, nor will the Government be allowed to assess the value of such property (for the purposes of taxes, say) outside of a fair and free market determination.
Any sort of compulsory service to the Government is antithetical to the Libertarians, and that includes an income tax. All such actions are described as "force" by them in their Party Manifesto, in fact. You cannot institute a tax on the people of this nation without also providing a means by which those that choose NOT to participate in the tax can avoid paying it. Thus, the LP supports a system of taxation like the National Sales Tax, or the Fair Tax, where individuals can consciously avoid the tax, if they so choose.
Since the end of WWI, both the GOP and the Democrats have supported a system of taxation where the more you earn means the more you pay, regardless of whether or not the person paying more gets more benefits. The GOP has long asked that the standards by which such taxes are determined be as low as possible (especially since 1980), but has never seriously looked at changing the means or manner by which it is collected and determined.
Seeing the two side-by-side, surely we must hearken back to what Machiavelli said in Il Principe, right? Realism over idealism, always.
We can say that we'd like to see a 35% reduction in the size, scope and cost of Government in this country, but is it realistic to think that it will happen? Complete deregulation of every single major industry, from drugs and pharmaceuticals to alcohol, tobacco and firearms manufacturing and sales. National speed limits eliminated. Child protection standards to be determined State by State (which seems benign enough, until one realizes that 88% of all pornography regulation is at the Federal level, so what most "conservatives" think of as moral regulations (NOT regulations on morality, mind you) would be out the window. No Federal regulations on what is or is not a "controlled substance".
Imagine 70% of the ACTIVE US military disbanded, and all that remains is the Reserve and National Guard units standing next to what is left of the Army, Navy and Marines (and an almost untouched Coast Guard, it seems)... because the means that such military units would be used is solely and exclusively for the defense of the nation, NEVER for intervention in foreign conflicts. Is THAT something Reagan (or Ryan) could EVER support? Is that what Jefferson envisioned when he sent the US Navy to North Africa to free captive Americans from the Barbary States and protect American trade ships? Is that what Madison thought when he asked for a declaration of war against Great Britain? Is this truly the position that history shows us that the "Founding Fathers" actually held as right and true?
I can see the merit in much of what they (Libertarians) support (smaller, less intrusive government, fair taxation, primary defense of property and wealth, etc), but I question the means by which they hope to see it achieved AND the viability of candidates that operate under their banner. Ryan himself has called Ron Paul (the only nationally known Libertarian candidate in the modern era) a "crack pot" on this very website, and dismissed his calls for change as meaningless dribble more than once.
The popularity of programing that is presented by Libertarians (and the Fox shows aren't the only ones... Mike Church is a Libertarian, as is Glenn Beck... and they are BIG names in talk radio) does not equal support, I know, and maybe it is a harbinger of things to come in the American political arena. However, I don't know that I could ever support (seriously, anyway) a Libertarian candidate.
I do NOT think cocaine, heroine, LSD or even marijuana should be "legally" available to the consenting public in this country.
I do NOT think that the military, political or economic intervention in foreign countries is un-Constitutional nor do I think it morally wrong in every case.
I do NOT think that any candidate can win an election in this country vowing to end Social Security forever, or by doing away with the VA, or ending Federal regulations of immigration policies. To do so is to end a campaign before it ever reaches the ballot.
I do NOT think all Federal regulation outside of the enumerated powers is wrong, but I do agree that too much has been left on the "books" from years gone by, and that not enough has been determined to be "necessary enough" to warrant a Constitutional amendment effort. Knowing that once something is "law" it is very difficult to remove or change should be ENOUGH to make sure that lawmakers are very careful about what passes and what doesn't... or they will not remain lawmakers very long.
It is my biggest problem with people like Beck... there is a degree of naivety and stubbornness in their views that I think makes me not want to take what they say and see as valid serious at all.
However, there is a real and measurable difference between what is the platform of the GOP today and what the Libertarian Party stands for. Does everyone agree about what it is that separates them? Lets detail the differences before the discussion goes any further...
The GOP wants to maintain the ability to intervene in foreign affairs (military, economic and political) to ensure US interests are protected. The GOP favors a position where the US takes a leading role within existing alliances and treaty organizations, and is routinely looking for involvement in more of them to further that same goal.
The Libertarians want an end to US involvement in international treaty organizations, and a very limited ability to ally the nation to foreign states. No American lives or treasure is to be risked except in the defense of American liberties and freedoms.
Since the beginning of the last century, the GOP has taken a position where the regulation of certain substances and personal practices that are deemed "harmful" to the individual or society. From Prohibition to the War on Drugs, the Twentieth Century was riddled with policy and practice in GOP platforms where the individual choices available to the citizens of these United States was determined by the Government, and not by the individual.
The Libertarians support a policy wherein there is no regulation, for or against, the use of recreational drugs, alcohol or the use of the same by consenting individual adults. The manufacture, trade and sale of such items and substances would be taxable by the States alone, but the States could not stop such sale or use, because to do so would be to limit personal freedom of choice, which is the sole purpose of the Federal Government to protect.
Both Parties support the Second Amendment, with the Libertarians going so far as the removal ALL regulations on the personal possession of firearms and the manner in which they are kept. Concealed or openly displayed, carried on a person or within a vehicle, no regulations could be put in place that kept someone (anyone) from carrying a legally purchased firearm into such places as a school, playground, bank, post office, government building.
The GOP (at least lately) has been calling for a secure border to the South, specifically in response to the growing number of "illegals" crossing to the North from Mexico. Since 1991, $279 billion dollars have been spent on "securing" this border, and the results have been an increase in the number of illegals each and every year since.
The Libertarians believe that a notion of "free trade" means nothing if it isn't coupled with a notion of "free migration" and call for an end to immigration quotas, limits and regulations. Open borders where new "future citizens" can cross at will is the goal of the Libertarian Party, wherein immigrants will fill demands for entry-level or manual labor positions and create a competitive market environment that will "create wealth" through the lowest levels of income in the country. Certain criteria will exist for citizenship (as the Constitution requires), but for entry into the country, only known criminals or threats to American safety would be refused the status of "prospective citizen".
The GOP has maintained a position since WWII that the government can "trump" the owner of private property if the property in question is deemed of "national significance". This policy of supporting eminent domain is 100% contrary to the Libertarian position, in which the ownership of property is ranked right up there with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Government will NEVER be allowed to seize property, or even use property, without the express consent of the owner, nor will the Government be allowed to assess the value of such property (for the purposes of taxes, say) outside of a fair and free market determination.
Any sort of compulsory service to the Government is antithetical to the Libertarians, and that includes an income tax. All such actions are described as "force" by them in their Party Manifesto, in fact. You cannot institute a tax on the people of this nation without also providing a means by which those that choose NOT to participate in the tax can avoid paying it. Thus, the LP supports a system of taxation like the National Sales Tax, or the Fair Tax, where individuals can consciously avoid the tax, if they so choose.
Since the end of WWI, both the GOP and the Democrats have supported a system of taxation where the more you earn means the more you pay, regardless of whether or not the person paying more gets more benefits. The GOP has long asked that the standards by which such taxes are determined be as low as possible (especially since 1980), but has never seriously looked at changing the means or manner by which it is collected and determined.
Seeing the two side-by-side, surely we must hearken back to what Machiavelli said in Il Principe, right? Realism over idealism, always.
We can say that we'd like to see a 35% reduction in the size, scope and cost of Government in this country, but is it realistic to think that it will happen? Complete deregulation of every single major industry, from drugs and pharmaceuticals to alcohol, tobacco and firearms manufacturing and sales. National speed limits eliminated. Child protection standards to be determined State by State (which seems benign enough, until one realizes that 88% of all pornography regulation is at the Federal level, so what most "conservatives" think of as moral regulations (NOT regulations on morality, mind you) would be out the window. No Federal regulations on what is or is not a "controlled substance".
Imagine 70% of the ACTIVE US military disbanded, and all that remains is the Reserve and National Guard units standing next to what is left of the Army, Navy and Marines (and an almost untouched Coast Guard, it seems)... because the means that such military units would be used is solely and exclusively for the defense of the nation, NEVER for intervention in foreign conflicts. Is THAT something Reagan (or Ryan) could EVER support? Is that what Jefferson envisioned when he sent the US Navy to North Africa to free captive Americans from the Barbary States and protect American trade ships? Is that what Madison thought when he asked for a declaration of war against Great Britain? Is this truly the position that history shows us that the "Founding Fathers" actually held as right and true?
I can see the merit in much of what they (Libertarians) support (smaller, less intrusive government, fair taxation, primary defense of property and wealth, etc), but I question the means by which they hope to see it achieved AND the viability of candidates that operate under their banner. Ryan himself has called Ron Paul (the only nationally known Libertarian candidate in the modern era) a "crack pot" on this very website, and dismissed his calls for change as meaningless dribble more than once.
The popularity of programing that is presented by Libertarians (and the Fox shows aren't the only ones... Mike Church is a Libertarian, as is Glenn Beck... and they are BIG names in talk radio) does not equal support, I know, and maybe it is a harbinger of things to come in the American political arena. However, I don't know that I could ever support (seriously, anyway) a Libertarian candidate.
I do NOT think cocaine, heroine, LSD or even marijuana should be "legally" available to the consenting public in this country.
I do NOT think that the military, political or economic intervention in foreign countries is un-Constitutional nor do I think it morally wrong in every case.
I do NOT think that any candidate can win an election in this country vowing to end Social Security forever, or by doing away with the VA, or ending Federal regulations of immigration policies. To do so is to end a campaign before it ever reaches the ballot.
I do NOT think all Federal regulation outside of the enumerated powers is wrong, but I do agree that too much has been left on the "books" from years gone by, and that not enough has been determined to be "necessary enough" to warrant a Constitutional amendment effort. Knowing that once something is "law" it is very difficult to remove or change should be ENOUGH to make sure that lawmakers are very careful about what passes and what doesn't... or they will not remain lawmakers very long.
It is my biggest problem with people like Beck... there is a degree of naivety and stubbornness in their views that I think makes me not want to take what they say and see as valid serious at all.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Libertarian night on FOX ...
"It is the natural progress of things for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-Thomas Jefferson
An ominous warning.
I'm assuming most of us here work Sunday evenings. If you can though, via DVR or at work, try and catch two back to back new(er) programs Saturday nights on Fox. They are each hosted by a Libertarian. The first is "Freedom Watch", hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano. The second is hosted by John Stossel, "The Battle for America's Future."
These are 2 of the most informative programs I've seen on the growth in size and scope of government. Their stats, stories, and interviews are breathtaking, and I mean that sincerely. Stossel interviewed Van Jones, the man is a hardcore wealth redistributionist, who's plain admissions on what he advocates caused my jaw to stand motionless, gaping. From Fanni Mae, to "nameless warrants", to the war on drugs, to ripping Gov Scott Walker for not including police & fire in his public union battles, I'm telling you these guys are unhesitatingly Libertarian and their consistency in thought alone is refreshing enough to garner viewers. Napolitano even praised Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA, not because he advocates gay marriage, but because he doesn't want the government to regulate marriage whatsoever. Stossel's stats on what the government spends per person - on average in the hundreds of dollars from 1776 to the 1930's, to a whopping $10,000 per person today, now constituting 40% of the US economy - is just staggering. And he juxtaposed that against a question he put to Van Jones: "Isn't the government big enough already?" Answer, "No, the government is not big enough. Life liberty and happiness is really code for housing, education and healthcare." I immediately noticed he left out "pursuit" ... so did Stossel.
At any rate, as conservatives all here I think it worth while to challenge where we draw the line between Conservatism and Libertarianism by giving hearing to articulate, informed Libertarians as they present their argument. And given these are the only 2 programs I know of to be hosted by practicing Libertarians, check it out if you have the time.
-Thomas Jefferson
An ominous warning.
I'm assuming most of us here work Sunday evenings. If you can though, via DVR or at work, try and catch two back to back new(er) programs Saturday nights on Fox. They are each hosted by a Libertarian. The first is "Freedom Watch", hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano. The second is hosted by John Stossel, "The Battle for America's Future."
These are 2 of the most informative programs I've seen on the growth in size and scope of government. Their stats, stories, and interviews are breathtaking, and I mean that sincerely. Stossel interviewed Van Jones, the man is a hardcore wealth redistributionist, who's plain admissions on what he advocates caused my jaw to stand motionless, gaping. From Fanni Mae, to "nameless warrants", to the war on drugs, to ripping Gov Scott Walker for not including police & fire in his public union battles, I'm telling you these guys are unhesitatingly Libertarian and their consistency in thought alone is refreshing enough to garner viewers. Napolitano even praised Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA, not because he advocates gay marriage, but because he doesn't want the government to regulate marriage whatsoever. Stossel's stats on what the government spends per person - on average in the hundreds of dollars from 1776 to the 1930's, to a whopping $10,000 per person today, now constituting 40% of the US economy - is just staggering. And he juxtaposed that against a question he put to Van Jones: "Isn't the government big enough already?" Answer, "No, the government is not big enough. Life liberty and happiness is really code for housing, education and healthcare." I immediately noticed he left out "pursuit" ... so did Stossel.
At any rate, as conservatives all here I think it worth while to challenge where we draw the line between Conservatism and Libertarianism by giving hearing to articulate, informed Libertarians as they present their argument. And given these are the only 2 programs I know of to be hosted by practicing Libertarians, check it out if you have the time.
moved to purpose
Let me just say something ...
I was suspicious of it when engrossed in The Sopranos. It became undeniable when I was watching Band of Brothers. And having just concluded Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, I am convinced that the extremely talented writer/directors of these premium cable TV outlets have more talent in their little pinky then then most of Hollywood's feature film makers, combined. I could be offered free movie tickets for myself and children, for life, on the condition I could never watch Spartacus again, and I would unhesitatingly say "NO!."
Consider this the perfunctory "spoiler alert."
It would seem both Jambo and I were right, to a degree. It was in fact a rouse sale of Gannicus that saw Tellius meet his end. And although Gannicus and Onemaeus saw their swords through his body, it was by Battiatus' steel that Tallius received the initial, and in all reality fatal (not like they could rush him to Biloxi Regional) run through.
The Primus battle was exquisite. Nothing more can nor need be said.
Gannicus ending with his freedom, superb twist that I did not see coming. Only right that he should retire undefeated (even Crixus would contend his one "loss" didn't count).
All this being said I must admit the idea of Spartacus Season 2 not including Quintas Battiatus seems, well, wanting. I assume that Legatos Claudius Glabber (sp?) will assume the role of chief villain for season 2, I hope he can measure up.
Now 2 things that did catch my eye near the end - 1) Lucretia's finger twitching at the end scene seemed more pronounced then in the final scene of "Kill Them All", which ended season 1. I did hear (& subsequently text you guys) that Lawless was set to reprise her role in season 2, and now I'm sure of it. Interestingly enough, according to her own lips' recitation of Roman law, she will have to remarry to maintain any property or wealth left behind (such as it is amidst the wrecking ball that was the last episode of season 1), given she has no heir. It won't be Selonius, he fell near Tellius body (as it turns out). Perhaps she will contrive a way to become the wife of the Legatos? #2) was among the last few words of Gannicus to Crixus. As Gannicus bids the brotherhood farewell, set to go and claim his freedom, Crixus notes that they never met in "proper battle." And Gannicus' answer is, "Win your freedom as well, then seek me out." I think one of the first recruits among Spartacus' new slave army in season 2 will be none other then Gannicus.
Alright, off to sleep for me. That was one hell of a 6 episode series. By the way, on that note - Netflix experienced technical difficulties in affording its members episode 6. It wasn't up Saturday morning. And it wasn't up this morning (I couldn't take it anymore and sought the episode out by other means). But before that I called the netfilx 1-800 number. I asked them about the delay, wanting to know if it were just me or a larger problem. Apparently the formatting from Starz to Netflix, due to the unusual time it aired on Starz, caused a 24-48 hour delay. I jokingly asked the fella how many complaints had been registered. He rather seriously responded, "More then 10,000 ... so far." And that's just the small percentage of people that watch it via Netflix, and felt inconvenienced enough within the first few hours to call. And as I write this, they still don't have it.
It'll be a long day at the Netflix customer care center to be sure ... hehehe.
I was suspicious of it when engrossed in The Sopranos. It became undeniable when I was watching Band of Brothers. And having just concluded Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, I am convinced that the extremely talented writer/directors of these premium cable TV outlets have more talent in their little pinky then then most of Hollywood's feature film makers, combined. I could be offered free movie tickets for myself and children, for life, on the condition I could never watch Spartacus again, and I would unhesitatingly say "NO!."
Consider this the perfunctory "spoiler alert."
It would seem both Jambo and I were right, to a degree. It was in fact a rouse sale of Gannicus that saw Tellius meet his end. And although Gannicus and Onemaeus saw their swords through his body, it was by Battiatus' steel that Tallius received the initial, and in all reality fatal (not like they could rush him to Biloxi Regional) run through.
The Primus battle was exquisite. Nothing more can nor need be said.
Gannicus ending with his freedom, superb twist that I did not see coming. Only right that he should retire undefeated (even Crixus would contend his one "loss" didn't count).
All this being said I must admit the idea of Spartacus Season 2 not including Quintas Battiatus seems, well, wanting. I assume that Legatos Claudius Glabber (sp?) will assume the role of chief villain for season 2, I hope he can measure up.
Now 2 things that did catch my eye near the end - 1) Lucretia's finger twitching at the end scene seemed more pronounced then in the final scene of "Kill Them All", which ended season 1. I did hear (& subsequently text you guys) that Lawless was set to reprise her role in season 2, and now I'm sure of it. Interestingly enough, according to her own lips' recitation of Roman law, she will have to remarry to maintain any property or wealth left behind (such as it is amidst the wrecking ball that was the last episode of season 1), given she has no heir. It won't be Selonius, he fell near Tellius body (as it turns out). Perhaps she will contrive a way to become the wife of the Legatos? #2) was among the last few words of Gannicus to Crixus. As Gannicus bids the brotherhood farewell, set to go and claim his freedom, Crixus notes that they never met in "proper battle." And Gannicus' answer is, "Win your freedom as well, then seek me out." I think one of the first recruits among Spartacus' new slave army in season 2 will be none other then Gannicus.
Alright, off to sleep for me. That was one hell of a 6 episode series. By the way, on that note - Netflix experienced technical difficulties in affording its members episode 6. It wasn't up Saturday morning. And it wasn't up this morning (I couldn't take it anymore and sought the episode out by other means). But before that I called the netfilx 1-800 number. I asked them about the delay, wanting to know if it were just me or a larger problem. Apparently the formatting from Starz to Netflix, due to the unusual time it aired on Starz, caused a 24-48 hour delay. I jokingly asked the fella how many complaints had been registered. He rather seriously responded, "More then 10,000 ... so far." And that's just the small percentage of people that watch it via Netflix, and felt inconvenienced enough within the first few hours to call. And as I write this, they still don't have it.
It'll be a long day at the Netflix customer care center to be sure ... hehehe.
Ouch...
You don't say much, but when you do... damn tough question, my friend.
You are correct when you say that our intervention in both the Serbian and Hutu genocides were minimalist (at the very best), especially when compared to what we did in Somalia, where at least we had troops on the ground (few as they were, and as handicapped as they were).
I'd have to say that our ability and willingness to intervene in a foreign conflict in defense of the defenseless would be a noble, and perhaps necessary thing, but that it probably shouldn't be an Executive only decision. Presidential powers over the last 100 years have grown enormously, no doubt... but some of our more memorable foreign policy disasters stem from just such "single-handed" decisions. Presidents that send troops or ships first, then ask Congress to extend spending in order to keep them there or increase their numbers is a piss poor manner in which to conduct foreign policy. It is so rare that a President has a friendly Congress anyway... what are the chances that such will ever work out for the best anyway?
The President has a degree of authority with Congress that simply isn't exercised anymore. Take December 8th,1941... less than 36 hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, all of Congress was together to hear FDR's speech and vote on a Declaration of War... so arguing that the delay and red-tape is too much is simple crap. If the President is privy to intelligence that there is something going on in the world on the order of what Baddboy has listed, then making sure he has the full support of Congress and the people of the United States prior to sending troops or ships (in short, putting American military lives in danger) is the RIGHT thing to do.
Now, to be fair (but not to argue the points Baddboy made about Clinton... I tend to agree with him), had Clinton actually followed this course in the Sudan, or Chad, or Somalia during his terms, especially anything post '95... I don't think he'd have gotten anything done at all either. There was very little that I think the GOP controlled Congress was going to allow that might have distracted from the impeachment fever that swept the House. Does that mean he shouldn't have intervened anyway? He does still have the War Powers Act to give him the 60 days to wage almost unlimited war across the globe, after all...
Tough call, these sorts of "what if" questions...
You are correct when you say that our intervention in both the Serbian and Hutu genocides were minimalist (at the very best), especially when compared to what we did in Somalia, where at least we had troops on the ground (few as they were, and as handicapped as they were).
I'd have to say that our ability and willingness to intervene in a foreign conflict in defense of the defenseless would be a noble, and perhaps necessary thing, but that it probably shouldn't be an Executive only decision. Presidential powers over the last 100 years have grown enormously, no doubt... but some of our more memorable foreign policy disasters stem from just such "single-handed" decisions. Presidents that send troops or ships first, then ask Congress to extend spending in order to keep them there or increase their numbers is a piss poor manner in which to conduct foreign policy. It is so rare that a President has a friendly Congress anyway... what are the chances that such will ever work out for the best anyway?
The President has a degree of authority with Congress that simply isn't exercised anymore. Take December 8th,1941... less than 36 hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, all of Congress was together to hear FDR's speech and vote on a Declaration of War... so arguing that the delay and red-tape is too much is simple crap. If the President is privy to intelligence that there is something going on in the world on the order of what Baddboy has listed, then making sure he has the full support of Congress and the people of the United States prior to sending troops or ships (in short, putting American military lives in danger) is the RIGHT thing to do.
Now, to be fair (but not to argue the points Baddboy made about Clinton... I tend to agree with him), had Clinton actually followed this course in the Sudan, or Chad, or Somalia during his terms, especially anything post '95... I don't think he'd have gotten anything done at all either. There was very little that I think the GOP controlled Congress was going to allow that might have distracted from the impeachment fever that swept the House. Does that mean he shouldn't have intervened anyway? He does still have the War Powers Act to give him the 60 days to wage almost unlimited war across the globe, after all...
Tough call, these sorts of "what if" questions...
Shake Hands with the Devil
A lot of the posts lately have been about the protests around North Africa and the Middle East. My thoughts on the whole problem came to a startling realization while I was reading a book that I had just ordered from Amazon. I started reading it because there is very little I am impassioned about but the human ability to impose unfathomable destruction and pain on its own kind tends to be one of my pet peeves and is one of the only things in this world that will and does bring tears to my eyes (my wife will attest to this).
The book is “Shake Hands with the Devil” by LtGen Romeo Dallaire who was the Force Commander of the UN Assistance Mission to Rowanda (UNAMIR) 1993-1994. I now have a much more clear understanding of the issues that engulfed Rowanda during that period and I now have an example of Leadership that I’m not sure even the members of the Allied effort to liberate Europe after WWII could relate to. I will not go into detail about the book but I would like to post some numbers that will help give some reference to the horrific experience that this great man had to witness and endure.
11-17 million people lost their lives as a result of the Nazi’s final solution
1.7 million people lost their lives as a result of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979
40,000 to 70,000 people lost their lives at the hands of the Serbs (including Military) 1992-1995
800,000 civilians lost their lives to Hutu extremists in Rowanda between March and June (100 days) 1994
What brings this all together is we may be witnessing several countries that will be dealing with power vacuums in the near future. With all of the Ethnic/religious hatred that exists in a lot of these countries it is very possible to end up with another case of extremist ethnic genocide once again. Christians in Egypt, Christians in Southern Sudan or even sunni vs Shiite in any of the other major middle eastern countries. There are many other examples but you get my drift.
The question I am posing to you is, When is a humanitarian disaster in a country that has no specific benefit to the United States worthy of our intervention? When is the life of an American Soldier worth risking on behalf of a civilian population that cannot defend themselves even though we have no particular financial or political interest? We failed in Somalia due to Bill Clinton being unwilling to supply the required assets requested by the commander on the ground and his cowardice in the face of adversity. We failed Rowanda by never showing up or assisting in any meaningful way. In my opinion we failed the people of Bosnia also by not allowing troops on the ground soon enough to intervene where the French cowards could not or would not protect places like Srebrenica and earlier accounts of ethnic cleansing on behalf of the Serbian Government (the one thing that all of these areas have in common are Bill Clinton and the French Government). We continue to ignore places like Darfur even though we have the assets, the ability and in my opinion the money to stop the massacres that have occurred there. Why are we not willing to put ourselves in between the personnel that are committing such heinous acts and the innocent civilian populations that are being targeted?
The book is “Shake Hands with the Devil” by LtGen Romeo Dallaire who was the Force Commander of the UN Assistance Mission to Rowanda (UNAMIR) 1993-1994. I now have a much more clear understanding of the issues that engulfed Rowanda during that period and I now have an example of Leadership that I’m not sure even the members of the Allied effort to liberate Europe after WWII could relate to. I will not go into detail about the book but I would like to post some numbers that will help give some reference to the horrific experience that this great man had to witness and endure.
11-17 million people lost their lives as a result of the Nazi’s final solution
1.7 million people lost their lives as a result of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979
40,000 to 70,000 people lost their lives at the hands of the Serbs (including Military) 1992-1995
800,000 civilians lost their lives to Hutu extremists in Rowanda between March and June (100 days) 1994
What brings this all together is we may be witnessing several countries that will be dealing with power vacuums in the near future. With all of the Ethnic/religious hatred that exists in a lot of these countries it is very possible to end up with another case of extremist ethnic genocide once again. Christians in Egypt, Christians in Southern Sudan or even sunni vs Shiite in any of the other major middle eastern countries. There are many other examples but you get my drift.
The question I am posing to you is, When is a humanitarian disaster in a country that has no specific benefit to the United States worthy of our intervention? When is the life of an American Soldier worth risking on behalf of a civilian population that cannot defend themselves even though we have no particular financial or political interest? We failed in Somalia due to Bill Clinton being unwilling to supply the required assets requested by the commander on the ground and his cowardice in the face of adversity. We failed Rowanda by never showing up or assisting in any meaningful way. In my opinion we failed the people of Bosnia also by not allowing troops on the ground soon enough to intervene where the French cowards could not or would not protect places like Srebrenica and earlier accounts of ethnic cleansing on behalf of the Serbian Government (the one thing that all of these areas have in common are Bill Clinton and the French Government). We continue to ignore places like Darfur even though we have the assets, the ability and in my opinion the money to stop the massacres that have occurred there. Why are we not willing to put ourselves in between the personnel that are committing such heinous acts and the innocent civilian populations that are being targeted?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Domino Effect...
There are many observers who are now taking a long look at the position that Ryan posted just a few days ago about the situation in the Middle East... that each successive regime to fall will face the prospect of becoming another Iran circa 1979.
Mubarak's removal from power in Egypt is an excellent example. He was "forced out" by the military... but the military has been in control since 1988 in all reality, and it has done nothing to put opposition party members in key Cabinet positions in the interim. Add to this that nothing has been done to forward the effort of free and open elections by the said military, and you see that the military is perfectly content to maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.
Moderate, secularist leaders in Tunis are feeling the same concerns. They have been pushed right out of the picture of a "new government" by radical Islamists who want a repressive, sharia-based regime in place before an election can even be held. Gaddafi's regime is working itself into a frenzy, with talk of massive reprisals against protesters and the use of deadly force at every opportunity.
Even I gave in to the temptation to think that some of this might lead to real reform in the region, but the more I watch, the more I am convinced that this is history repeating itself again. Inter-Nicene fighting and tribal rivalries are what is feeding the fighting now... not a drive for real democratic reform. Yemeni tribal fighting, Egyptian sectarian confrontation, Iranian power struggles, Jordanian ethnic conflict... these are the sparks of the current fire, not the desire to see real popular governments established.
These are the same conflicts that kept such Muslim leaders as Saladin, Babar, Mehmet II, and even the modern leaders like Nasser and Khomeini, from consolidating power and making a unified Muslim populous that could actually threaten the stability and safety of places like Europe, Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the New World.
I was talking to Jambo the other night, and mentioned (again) the narrative history book 1453, which is a fantastic little book about the efforts leading up to the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in the same year. The political situation faced by Constantine XI of Constantinople in the mid-15th Century, and the trials and tribulations that Mehmet II of the Ottomans each faced in order to see their respective situations maintained or improved is so chillingly similar to today's regional picture that I'm beginning to think the work should be required reading.
If we imagine Israel as the modern equivalent of Constantinople, and modern radical Islamic efforts as mirroring those of Mehmet II... then we see the landscape of the region in a whole new light. The apparent perceptions and views of 15th Century Muslim leadership is so unbelievably close to what modern radical Islamists voice that the parallels can't simply be coincidence. Mehmet II achieved what he did in 1453 because the effort to take the Red Apple (the Ottoman nickname for Constantinople) was the single greatest unifying factor in the age that could bring the various tribes, sects and ethnicity of the region together against "The City" (which, by the way, is pronounced "ista Nopolii" in the Greek of the day, which the Muslims shortened to Istanbul).
Constantinople had "allies" in the West, but by 1450, they were tired of crusades and raising armies to defend far-away foreigners who spoke a different language and followed a foreign religion. The Papacy had become "indifferent" to the calls for aid by Constantine XI, and the Italian states like Genoa and Venice were concerned only in what such efforts could profit them. France and England were embroiled in the last years of the Hundred Years War, and no effort, money or men could be spared on either side for the defense of the "Greek" Emperor and his City. Spain was still wrapping up the 200 year effort to drive the Muslims off the Iberian peninsula (the Reconquista) and wouldn't see a unified "crown" until 1469. These distractions in the West are mirrored in the multitude of excuses that the West gives today for its lack of support to Israel... bad economies, hot wars elsewhere, political instability at home, etc. Many "pundits" of the 1450s even thought letting the Muslims take Constantinople would "keep them happy" and end the expansionist efforts of the Ottomans or that Constantinople's defeat was inevitable and a sign of God's divine Providence working on heretical Greeks who didn't know their place. Shocking similar to what many anti-Israel pundits say today, isn't it? Blame Israel for what is happening since 1948...
All that is lacking here is a charismatic popular leader to bring it all together with the means and ability to utilize the vast resources such a region has at its disposal. Mehmet II made mistakes, but he made way less mistakes than Constantine XI did, and he didn't have blatant indifference and ignorance of fact sapping his energies and resources on HIS side of the question, as both Constantine did then and the West does today.
Mubarak's removal from power in Egypt is an excellent example. He was "forced out" by the military... but the military has been in control since 1988 in all reality, and it has done nothing to put opposition party members in key Cabinet positions in the interim. Add to this that nothing has been done to forward the effort of free and open elections by the said military, and you see that the military is perfectly content to maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.
Moderate, secularist leaders in Tunis are feeling the same concerns. They have been pushed right out of the picture of a "new government" by radical Islamists who want a repressive, sharia-based regime in place before an election can even be held. Gaddafi's regime is working itself into a frenzy, with talk of massive reprisals against protesters and the use of deadly force at every opportunity.
Even I gave in to the temptation to think that some of this might lead to real reform in the region, but the more I watch, the more I am convinced that this is history repeating itself again. Inter-Nicene fighting and tribal rivalries are what is feeding the fighting now... not a drive for real democratic reform. Yemeni tribal fighting, Egyptian sectarian confrontation, Iranian power struggles, Jordanian ethnic conflict... these are the sparks of the current fire, not the desire to see real popular governments established.
These are the same conflicts that kept such Muslim leaders as Saladin, Babar, Mehmet II, and even the modern leaders like Nasser and Khomeini, from consolidating power and making a unified Muslim populous that could actually threaten the stability and safety of places like Europe, Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the New World.
I was talking to Jambo the other night, and mentioned (again) the narrative history book 1453, which is a fantastic little book about the efforts leading up to the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in the same year. The political situation faced by Constantine XI of Constantinople in the mid-15th Century, and the trials and tribulations that Mehmet II of the Ottomans each faced in order to see their respective situations maintained or improved is so chillingly similar to today's regional picture that I'm beginning to think the work should be required reading.
If we imagine Israel as the modern equivalent of Constantinople, and modern radical Islamic efforts as mirroring those of Mehmet II... then we see the landscape of the region in a whole new light. The apparent perceptions and views of 15th Century Muslim leadership is so unbelievably close to what modern radical Islamists voice that the parallels can't simply be coincidence. Mehmet II achieved what he did in 1453 because the effort to take the Red Apple (the Ottoman nickname for Constantinople) was the single greatest unifying factor in the age that could bring the various tribes, sects and ethnicity of the region together against "The City" (which, by the way, is pronounced "ista Nopolii" in the Greek of the day, which the Muslims shortened to Istanbul).
Constantinople had "allies" in the West, but by 1450, they were tired of crusades and raising armies to defend far-away foreigners who spoke a different language and followed a foreign religion. The Papacy had become "indifferent" to the calls for aid by Constantine XI, and the Italian states like Genoa and Venice were concerned only in what such efforts could profit them. France and England were embroiled in the last years of the Hundred Years War, and no effort, money or men could be spared on either side for the defense of the "Greek" Emperor and his City. Spain was still wrapping up the 200 year effort to drive the Muslims off the Iberian peninsula (the Reconquista) and wouldn't see a unified "crown" until 1469. These distractions in the West are mirrored in the multitude of excuses that the West gives today for its lack of support to Israel... bad economies, hot wars elsewhere, political instability at home, etc. Many "pundits" of the 1450s even thought letting the Muslims take Constantinople would "keep them happy" and end the expansionist efforts of the Ottomans or that Constantinople's defeat was inevitable and a sign of God's divine Providence working on heretical Greeks who didn't know their place. Shocking similar to what many anti-Israel pundits say today, isn't it? Blame Israel for what is happening since 1948...
All that is lacking here is a charismatic popular leader to bring it all together with the means and ability to utilize the vast resources such a region has at its disposal. Mehmet II made mistakes, but he made way less mistakes than Constantine XI did, and he didn't have blatant indifference and ignorance of fact sapping his energies and resources on HIS side of the question, as both Constantine did then and the West does today.
Friday, February 25, 2011
On teacher unions ...
You aptly described the inherit nature of the teacher union - to grow the union, not educate children, but let me add this crucial element (& it applies to all public sector unions, but teacher unions in particular): its the "unholy alliance" factor. Teacher unions also spend their millions on candidates. Candidates to state legislature, governors, what have you. And if elected these same candidates then become DIRECTLY responsible for negotiating the contracts of the union which funded his or her campaign. That is a quid pro quo of the highest order in my estimation. So, in any union reform, I would advocate the ability of the individual member to opt out of seeing his dues used as campaign contributions; and if candidate A, B or C receives union contributions, there needs be an independent arbiter conducting those contract negotiations. Isn't to do otherwise a conflict of interest on the most basic level?
By the way - I've heard VERY good things about the public school documentary, "Waiting For Superman." Perhaps as parents all, each with kids in public school, we should take a gander.
By the way - I've heard VERY good things about the public school documentary, "Waiting For Superman." Perhaps as parents all, each with kids in public school, we should take a gander.
I guess I was wrong...
Iraq is facing a public protest numbering in the thousands because of poor government services and corruption... they have even stockpiled rocks to throw at police and security forces.
So much for my ideal model, huh?
So much for my ideal model, huh?
Remember when we asked this question?
When did education in this country start to take a "nose dive"?
I finally think I've found at least one contributor to the problem... and that, a major contributor, too.
Public sector unions.
Now, this is no big revelation, I know... especially not here at the Bund... but I think the connection is legit. Follow me a while...
According to the US Department of Labor, private sector union membership in this country is down from its peak of roughly 26% to less than 7% across the nation, and in industrial work, it is down from a peak of 45% to less than 15%. There is no corresponding reduction in industrial work force, mind you... only the membership has dropped. This is because unions drive the cost of operations UP, and only survive if the cost increase is offset by comparable profit increases. There are still areas of the country's economy where the two can work together, it seems.
The average annual wage for a union member in this country is just over $60,000 per year in the private sector, and this is very comparable to the average annual wage for a non-union employee (but it is a little higher). All perfectly acceptable in my eyes, since most union jobs are considered "skilled" positions and wouldn't follow the minimum wage schedule anyway.
The issue facing us now (and the one that has Wisconsin in such a tizzy) is that public sector unions do not face the prospect of their "employers" going out of business due to higher costs of operations. There is no "bankruptcy" for the Government... if costs run up, they simply tax at a higher rate to pay the difference.
The teachers unions that currently hold so much attention in Wisconsin are the NEA and the AFT, which are also the two largest teachers unions in the country (combined, boasting a membership of nearly 5 million members). These unions charge an annual membership fee of $1,000 and have nearly 60% of all school employees in the State of Wisconsin as members, which means that in the event of a "strike" by these unions, Wisconsin schools cannot operate. The average annual wage for members of these unions is more than $68,000... substantially more than the average for private sector union members, and they do not pay anything towards their benefits and retirement plans (an additional $19k in unfunded benefits for each employee over the course of a year).
These unions actually BOAST of the progress they have made in keeping such reform measures as "performance-based incentives" out of the contracts they've signed since 1978... yes, that's 33 years ago... and THAT is the big contributor to the failure of education in this country.
By keeping good teachers bound to collective bargaining agreements that keep bad teachers from having to address their failings, they keep the membership rolls full and the dues rolling in... but the average performance level of any school district involved with these unions falls markedly with each passing year. It has been the focus of these unions since the early 80s to make sure that millions of dollars is spent on media propaganda which blames the lack of funds from the government for the school performance failings rather than the teachers themselves.
What's more, the membership averages for these unions is still above 35% nationally, while the national average for private sector membership is 7% (15% for industrial workers only)... do you see the disparity there?
Walker and the other Governors are right in thinking they need to reform the manner in which each State (and the Fed) deals with unions, but it needs to be across-the-board reform, and it needs to guaranty each employee the ability to decide membership every two years (at the very longest)... so that if circumstances change and the State can make an offer for individual performance benefits and bonuses, they can opt out of the "union card" and take the individual bargaining option.
I finally think I've found at least one contributor to the problem... and that, a major contributor, too.
Public sector unions.
Now, this is no big revelation, I know... especially not here at the Bund... but I think the connection is legit. Follow me a while...
According to the US Department of Labor, private sector union membership in this country is down from its peak of roughly 26% to less than 7% across the nation, and in industrial work, it is down from a peak of 45% to less than 15%. There is no corresponding reduction in industrial work force, mind you... only the membership has dropped. This is because unions drive the cost of operations UP, and only survive if the cost increase is offset by comparable profit increases. There are still areas of the country's economy where the two can work together, it seems.
The average annual wage for a union member in this country is just over $60,000 per year in the private sector, and this is very comparable to the average annual wage for a non-union employee (but it is a little higher). All perfectly acceptable in my eyes, since most union jobs are considered "skilled" positions and wouldn't follow the minimum wage schedule anyway.
The issue facing us now (and the one that has Wisconsin in such a tizzy) is that public sector unions do not face the prospect of their "employers" going out of business due to higher costs of operations. There is no "bankruptcy" for the Government... if costs run up, they simply tax at a higher rate to pay the difference.
The teachers unions that currently hold so much attention in Wisconsin are the NEA and the AFT, which are also the two largest teachers unions in the country (combined, boasting a membership of nearly 5 million members). These unions charge an annual membership fee of $1,000 and have nearly 60% of all school employees in the State of Wisconsin as members, which means that in the event of a "strike" by these unions, Wisconsin schools cannot operate. The average annual wage for members of these unions is more than $68,000... substantially more than the average for private sector union members, and they do not pay anything towards their benefits and retirement plans (an additional $19k in unfunded benefits for each employee over the course of a year).
These unions actually BOAST of the progress they have made in keeping such reform measures as "performance-based incentives" out of the contracts they've signed since 1978... yes, that's 33 years ago... and THAT is the big contributor to the failure of education in this country.
By keeping good teachers bound to collective bargaining agreements that keep bad teachers from having to address their failings, they keep the membership rolls full and the dues rolling in... but the average performance level of any school district involved with these unions falls markedly with each passing year. It has been the focus of these unions since the early 80s to make sure that millions of dollars is spent on media propaganda which blames the lack of funds from the government for the school performance failings rather than the teachers themselves.
What's more, the membership averages for these unions is still above 35% nationally, while the national average for private sector membership is 7% (15% for industrial workers only)... do you see the disparity there?
Walker and the other Governors are right in thinking they need to reform the manner in which each State (and the Fed) deals with unions, but it needs to be across-the-board reform, and it needs to guaranty each employee the ability to decide membership every two years (at the very longest)... so that if circumstances change and the State can make an offer for individual performance benefits and bonuses, they can opt out of the "union card" and take the individual bargaining option.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Il Principe
I really did love that book...
One of the things that many scholars attribute to the work's success is that he wrote it in the vernacular Italian of the day, rather than the more scholarly (and less read) Latin. However, be that as it may... I really doubt very much that Obama, or anyone else in the White House has read the work.
Machiavelli broke new ground with this work because he was writing of the sort of monarch that would act with an eye towards realism, rather than idealism. There is nothing about the Obama Administration that makes me think anyone within it even knows what the textbook definition of "realism" actually is... they all are so wrapped up in ideals and day-dreams that it is a wonder anything gets accomplished at all, good or bad. Machiavelli also felt that it was far better (and far safer for the state and the Prince) to be "feared rather than loved". That isn't something I think Obama would admit to... nor would any Democratic politician since Johnson, I think.
Nicco was a real visionary... he thought a strong military meant nothing if that strength wasn't tested and proven (and that fairly often) with carefully planned and executed conquests of neighboring states. He thought that the main "heartbeat" of a state wasn't with the Prince himself, but instead with the "prosperity" that Prince brought to his people... which is 15th Century-speak for good economic planning on the part of the government. He was convinced that the people look to the Prince for protection and justice ONLY, and that honor and prosperity would flow from them, but when the people turned to the Prince for more than protection and justice, tyranny and abuse were sure to follow.
Had the medium been around 500 years ago... I'd say the man was perfect for a talk radio show of his very own.
I'll give you this, though... one thing that both Machiavelli and Obama seem to agree on: republican government fails each and every time. Lest we forget, Niccollo only knew of the "republics" that had gone before him: Rome (first and foremost), classical Athens (more a true democracy, really) and Venice (which he hated... he was a Florentine). All of these had faded into obscurity and tyranny within only a century (or four, in the case of Rome). So, if you're looking for Machiavelli quotes to fall from Obama's lips... it will be those concerning the death and corruption inherent in a republic.
Prince's of Europe, take heart!
Do you think The Prince is available in paper back? I hope so. The idea of taking a highlighter to a hard cover book just seems wrong to me, on a gut level.
First - my point wasn't that he opposed Mubarak prior to stepping down (and neither did I say so, not quite sure why you assumed such). My point, rather, is that he held press conferences and released statements on Egypt from the onset. It took him 13 days to comment on Libya, and he still hasn't made any comments such as he did about Mubarak (prior to his stepping down). For instance: "President Mubarak must understand, and I think he does understand, that Egypt can not go back to the way it was." He also had more then one telephone conversation with Mubarak himself, prior to his step down. I just don't see that level of involvement regarding Libya (& certainly not Iran, even with his campaign promise to "talk to these tiny countries") given TODAY was his first press conference on the Libyan issue.
Now back to my Niccolo Machiavelli post ...
Is this the "fundamental change" we were promised? I sincerely think he is now treading on impeachable actions.
The Attorney General of the United States released a statement today that has set the political talking head class on fire. You can find the entire release HERE, at the Justice website. But here's the beef:
"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit."
A duly passed, signed into law (by William Jefferson Clinton no less) federal statute, and the PoTUS has decided not to enforce it because he doesn't like it. Does anyone get the profound impact this has? Forget "DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act) for a second. The president has struck at the very heart of 3 separate coequal branches of government. He has usurped the courts in declaring the law unconstitutional - not in theory, not in word, but ENFORCEMENT. And he has put congress on notice that they can pass any bill into law (with a past president or via veto override), and it doesn't matter, HE, and HE alone will decide what's law. What is he, Judge Dread? This is beyond comprehension.
And what particularly worries me is that he could have done this covertly. Not conspiracy laden, secret agents covertly, just a plain nod and a winlk, "hey, lets not throw too many resources at defending DOMA" sorta thing. Instead he went LOOKING for a fight.
Why?
Distract from budget issues? I doubt it. For why pick an issue that 70+ % of the American public oppose you on?
Personally I see this as a set up for Obamacare. In the event it's ruled unconstitutional WITH an accompanying injunction to cease and desist its' implementation (which has yet to occur), I think he wants the precedent of simply acting on his own authority to move forward. Again, it can't be simple wedge politics, the numbers of gay voters/support doesn't bare that out. Nor could it be distraction politics, the budget problem is simply TOO big to be pushed aside by this (even the Mid East on fire with revolution hasn't pushed that issue off the front page).
I'm telling you, everything in my gut screams "Principe" ... this guy doesn't see the Constitution an essential document, but rather a document to be overcome. He's delivering as promised - the attempt to fundamentally change that which he fundamentally opposes (as constituted) - America.
First - my point wasn't that he opposed Mubarak prior to stepping down (and neither did I say so, not quite sure why you assumed such). My point, rather, is that he held press conferences and released statements on Egypt from the onset. It took him 13 days to comment on Libya, and he still hasn't made any comments such as he did about Mubarak (prior to his stepping down). For instance: "President Mubarak must understand, and I think he does understand, that Egypt can not go back to the way it was." He also had more then one telephone conversation with Mubarak himself, prior to his step down. I just don't see that level of involvement regarding Libya (& certainly not Iran, even with his campaign promise to "talk to these tiny countries") given TODAY was his first press conference on the Libyan issue.
Now back to my Niccolo Machiavelli post ...
Is this the "fundamental change" we were promised? I sincerely think he is now treading on impeachable actions.
The Attorney General of the United States released a statement today that has set the political talking head class on fire. You can find the entire release HERE, at the Justice website. But here's the beef:
"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit."
A duly passed, signed into law (by William Jefferson Clinton no less) federal statute, and the PoTUS has decided not to enforce it because he doesn't like it. Does anyone get the profound impact this has? Forget "DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act) for a second. The president has struck at the very heart of 3 separate coequal branches of government. He has usurped the courts in declaring the law unconstitutional - not in theory, not in word, but ENFORCEMENT. And he has put congress on notice that they can pass any bill into law (with a past president or via veto override), and it doesn't matter, HE, and HE alone will decide what's law. What is he, Judge Dread? This is beyond comprehension.
And what particularly worries me is that he could have done this covertly. Not conspiracy laden, secret agents covertly, just a plain nod and a winlk, "hey, lets not throw too many resources at defending DOMA" sorta thing. Instead he went LOOKING for a fight.
Why?
Distract from budget issues? I doubt it. For why pick an issue that 70+ % of the American public oppose you on?
Personally I see this as a set up for Obamacare. In the event it's ruled unconstitutional WITH an accompanying injunction to cease and desist its' implementation (which has yet to occur), I think he wants the precedent of simply acting on his own authority to move forward. Again, it can't be simple wedge politics, the numbers of gay voters/support doesn't bare that out. Nor could it be distraction politics, the budget problem is simply TOO big to be pushed aside by this (even the Mid East on fire with revolution hasn't pushed that issue off the front page).
I'm telling you, everything in my gut screams "Principe" ... this guy doesn't see the Constitution an essential document, but rather a document to be overcome. He's delivering as promised - the attempt to fundamentally change that which he fundamentally opposes (as constituted) - America.
I don't know about that...
When did Obama ever "say" he supported the protesters in Egypt? I heard him call for calm and reasonable discourse between the two parties... but never favored one over the other, never said one is right and the other wrong. He's a "fence-sitter" of the first order... he wouldn't have said anything that might have put him in a bad light with Mubarak, on the chance that Mubarak could have remained in power; and he certainly wasn't going to say anything that might put him in conflict with the "public" screaming for Mubarak's head, lest his own "public" think him less than liberal in his views.
Perhaps you did hear him say those words... but I'd bet a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that he said it AFTER Mubarak stepped down, with every intention of making the world think he was supporting the people in the streets with all his heart and soul from the start. This guy is "spin master" of Jedi proportions... do not under estimate his powers there.
Perhaps you did hear him say those words... but I'd bet a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that he said it AFTER Mubarak stepped down, with every intention of making the world think he was supporting the people in the streets with all his heart and soul from the start. This guy is "spin master" of Jedi proportions... do not under estimate his powers there.
I find it curious ...
The president was all over supporting the Egyptian uprising, yet the Iranian & Libyan revolts get a luke warm response (he hasnt even mentioned Qaddafi by name, how many times did we hear the name "Mubarak?").
Similarly, the PoTUS expresses support for the multitudes protesting in WI, OH et al. Yet the Tea Party, thats a hate group and something he barely acknowledges.
Im curious as to what his barometer is for measuring the validity of these groups whom "speak truth to power." The Tea Party paradigm is one thing, it directly opposes his domestic agenda; but what formula is he using when deciding which Mid Eastern revolution to throw the considerable weight of the White House behind? Because it CLEARLY isn't consistent.
Similarly, the PoTUS expresses support for the multitudes protesting in WI, OH et al. Yet the Tea Party, thats a hate group and something he barely acknowledges.
Im curious as to what his barometer is for measuring the validity of these groups whom "speak truth to power." The Tea Party paradigm is one thing, it directly opposes his domestic agenda; but what formula is he using when deciding which Mid Eastern revolution to throw the considerable weight of the White House behind? Because it CLEARLY isn't consistent.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
On brush-fire political reform...
Ryan's posts about OH and IN budgetary reforms weren't news to me... but it is interesting to see the dominoes lining up to fall, isn't it?
Will's article summed it up nicely... the DNC has simply become the party of government. Their mantra, their entire platform, is based on the premise that only Government can fix what is broken... they have forgotten or ignore the FACT that history shows that government isn't the answer, it is the problem. Just as Reagan said, all the way back in 1980. The size and scope of government that they advocate necessitates a level of "centralization" that rivals that of any European socialist system still functioning, and that is contrary to economic and fiscal freedom that the US has traditionally enjoyed prior to the turn of the century (the 21st Century, I mean).
Will made another point that I thought interesting: he said that the leadership that shows through in the coming months and years is what is going to provide the best yardstick for a strong President, and that leadership is going to come from Governors and not Senators or Representatives. I'm not saying Congress doesn't have good candidates (and neither is Will, I think), but the strength will lay with the executive experience that the candidates have... not with the ability to ignore compromise that defines a legislative leader. Veterans of Congress have the luxury of sticking to partisan lines of thought... but governors (at least good governors) have shown an ability to weigh both sides and find what works best for the whole. Governors that have won successive terms must have shown an ability to articulate plans and agendas to the voting public well enough for them to be able to see success in 30-second blocks... or they'd never be re-elected in the first place.
I can't think of a better example of this than the State of Mississippi, where all of us lived for so long. MS became a State in 1817, and from that time till today, there have only been 23 years of non-Democratic control of the Governor's mansion (and six of those years were during Reconstruction, when the military was in control). They have had 5 GOP Governors (three of which were Reconstructionists) and one Whig (who was in office for exactly one month). Kirk Fordice and Haley Barbour are the only TWO GOP Governors that weren't associated with Reconstruction... and they account for 16+ years of the 23 I mention.
Even with that said... the State of Mississippi is a RED STATE! The last Democratic Presidential candidate to win MS was Carter in 1976... but how can this be?
Because the "Blue Dog" movement began in MS, and the party was leaving behind its "conservative" roots as long ago as the Carter Administration. With the campaign of Mondale/Ferraro, we saw the end of traditional conservative "Truman" Democrats and the rise of the liberal agenda, the likes of which even FDR couldn't have imagined.
This sort of "reawakening" that is happening across the States is what is going to usher in the end of the radical liberal agenda in Washington DC... or nothing is.
Will's article summed it up nicely... the DNC has simply become the party of government. Their mantra, their entire platform, is based on the premise that only Government can fix what is broken... they have forgotten or ignore the FACT that history shows that government isn't the answer, it is the problem. Just as Reagan said, all the way back in 1980. The size and scope of government that they advocate necessitates a level of "centralization" that rivals that of any European socialist system still functioning, and that is contrary to economic and fiscal freedom that the US has traditionally enjoyed prior to the turn of the century (the 21st Century, I mean).
Will made another point that I thought interesting: he said that the leadership that shows through in the coming months and years is what is going to provide the best yardstick for a strong President, and that leadership is going to come from Governors and not Senators or Representatives. I'm not saying Congress doesn't have good candidates (and neither is Will, I think), but the strength will lay with the executive experience that the candidates have... not with the ability to ignore compromise that defines a legislative leader. Veterans of Congress have the luxury of sticking to partisan lines of thought... but governors (at least good governors) have shown an ability to weigh both sides and find what works best for the whole. Governors that have won successive terms must have shown an ability to articulate plans and agendas to the voting public well enough for them to be able to see success in 30-second blocks... or they'd never be re-elected in the first place.
I can't think of a better example of this than the State of Mississippi, where all of us lived for so long. MS became a State in 1817, and from that time till today, there have only been 23 years of non-Democratic control of the Governor's mansion (and six of those years were during Reconstruction, when the military was in control). They have had 5 GOP Governors (three of which were Reconstructionists) and one Whig (who was in office for exactly one month). Kirk Fordice and Haley Barbour are the only TWO GOP Governors that weren't associated with Reconstruction... and they account for 16+ years of the 23 I mention.
Even with that said... the State of Mississippi is a RED STATE! The last Democratic Presidential candidate to win MS was Carter in 1976... but how can this be?
Because the "Blue Dog" movement began in MS, and the party was leaving behind its "conservative" roots as long ago as the Carter Administration. With the campaign of Mondale/Ferraro, we saw the end of traditional conservative "Truman" Democrats and the rise of the liberal agenda, the likes of which even FDR couldn't have imagined.
This sort of "reawakening" that is happening across the States is what is going to usher in the end of the radical liberal agenda in Washington DC... or nothing is.
On the Miracle...
Jambo's post made me chuckle... "the Fellas"... man, THAT was a while ago, huh?
One small point... you mentioned no one ever talking about the defense/second stringers, but I wanted to make a point there: Some of those players, while key parts of the whole team, never saw ice at all... let alone that match. Janisec (sp?) was the back up goalie... and a stud player from UM with a NCAA championship under his belt... but never saw even a minute of ice time through the whole Olympics. Craig played it all. I don't want to take anything away from guys like Jannie, but what does that say about Craig? Seven matches... only 16 points on goal allowed? Against the best in the world? Wow... with starters like that, there isn't much room for backups, is there.
Some of the careers these kids had after are a bit amazing, too. Their win at Lake Placid was enough to gain them a spot at the Hockey Hall of Fame... but some earned them from professional play, too. Mark Johnson (UW) had a career with the Stars that saw more than 970 points made, with more than 1000 assists... not very many people even know his name today.
Ryan might be right... Reagan's "Morning in America" might have actually started that February day in 1980 (even though that phrase was from his second campaign). The US had faced so many political set backs since... well, forever, really. 1968: MLK/Kennedy Assasinated, Tet Offensive; 1972 Nixon's Cabinet is rocked with the resignation of Vice President Agnew; 1973 Watergate story breaks; 1974 Nixon resigns; 1977 OPEC embargo begins, US falls into another recession; 1979 Embassy in Tehran is taken, USSR invades Afghanistan, Carter gives his infamous "malaise" speech... we were SO ready for something good and wholesome to come along that the entire nation could get behind and cheers till we were horse.
Those boys gave us that something, and they did it with grace and style... and if their names live on because of it, well... they earned that, at least.
One small point... you mentioned no one ever talking about the defense/second stringers, but I wanted to make a point there: Some of those players, while key parts of the whole team, never saw ice at all... let alone that match. Janisec (sp?) was the back up goalie... and a stud player from UM with a NCAA championship under his belt... but never saw even a minute of ice time through the whole Olympics. Craig played it all. I don't want to take anything away from guys like Jannie, but what does that say about Craig? Seven matches... only 16 points on goal allowed? Against the best in the world? Wow... with starters like that, there isn't much room for backups, is there.
Some of the careers these kids had after are a bit amazing, too. Their win at Lake Placid was enough to gain them a spot at the Hockey Hall of Fame... but some earned them from professional play, too. Mark Johnson (UW) had a career with the Stars that saw more than 970 points made, with more than 1000 assists... not very many people even know his name today.
Ryan might be right... Reagan's "Morning in America" might have actually started that February day in 1980 (even though that phrase was from his second campaign). The US had faced so many political set backs since... well, forever, really. 1968: MLK/Kennedy Assasinated, Tet Offensive; 1972 Nixon's Cabinet is rocked with the resignation of Vice President Agnew; 1973 Watergate story breaks; 1974 Nixon resigns; 1977 OPEC embargo begins, US falls into another recession; 1979 Embassy in Tehran is taken, USSR invades Afghanistan, Carter gives his infamous "malaise" speech... we were SO ready for something good and wholesome to come along that the entire nation could get behind and cheers till we were horse.
Those boys gave us that something, and they did it with grace and style... and if their names live on because of it, well... they earned that, at least.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
I was 4 years old ...
But even I am familiar with the Miracle on Ice. Tragically Ive only born witness to all the highlights (in truth the entire thing was a highlight). I am also familiar with the national impact. Reagan's morning in America probably started there, before he was even president - national pride & hope realized in a single afternoon after 4 years of demoralizing malaise.
Two quick things - I published a comment under Jambo's Spartacus post, & the author claims Lucy Lawless will return for season II.
Second, Gov Kasich of Ohio (part of the fiscal hawk class elected in 2010, & former Contract with America alum) realized Walker's error & has proposed a bill that in fact eliminates ALL collective bargaining for state employees, cops & all. Im even more convinced then when I wrote it a few days ago. These union protests will turn one or more of these governors into rock stars ... just in time for 2012.
Alright,. Im off to read George Will ... better get my baseball analogy thesaurus ready, hehe.
Two quick things - I published a comment under Jambo's Spartacus post, & the author claims Lucy Lawless will return for season II.
Second, Gov Kasich of Ohio (part of the fiscal hawk class elected in 2010, & former Contract with America alum) realized Walker's error & has proposed a bill that in fact eliminates ALL collective bargaining for state employees, cops & all. Im even more convinced then when I wrote it a few days ago. These union protests will turn one or more of these governors into rock stars ... just in time for 2012.
Alright,. Im off to read George Will ... better get my baseball analogy thesaurus ready, hehe.
Don't let it get buried!
Read that article Titus linked in his post a couple of titles down... MUST READ!
Holy Crap I'm getting old...
31 years ago? For real?
One of my clearest memories of the Miracle on Ice was ten years later, in college. We were in my dorm room, the entire assemblage of the Fellas minus Titus talking about hockey. We had a very animated conversation going (keep in mind, the North Stars were still playing in Minnesota so we did have relevant NHL topics) about some of the greatest hockey we'd seen. Lots were mentioned, including the UMD teams of 84 and 85, Lake Superior St., and some other obscure hockey references no one will get (and even I didn't fully appreciate at the time) but when the conversation turned to Lake Placid everyone got quiet.
To a man we remembered where we were, to the point of what commercials played. To a man we complained about crappy announcers, (which NO ONE speaks of, really, because Al Michaels is immortalized for ten seconds of work) and how Team USA's defense and second/third lines were NEVER MENTIONED... just Jim Craig and Mike Eruzioni. The conversation became so animated our dorm Nazi, a loser named Joel, had to break us up with the threat of campus security.
I was nine years old Feb 22, 1980. My YOUNGEST child today is older than I was when we won the Gold. Where has the time gone?
One of my clearest memories of the Miracle on Ice was ten years later, in college. We were in my dorm room, the entire assemblage of the Fellas minus Titus talking about hockey. We had a very animated conversation going (keep in mind, the North Stars were still playing in Minnesota so we did have relevant NHL topics) about some of the greatest hockey we'd seen. Lots were mentioned, including the UMD teams of 84 and 85, Lake Superior St., and some other obscure hockey references no one will get (and even I didn't fully appreciate at the time) but when the conversation turned to Lake Placid everyone got quiet.
To a man we remembered where we were, to the point of what commercials played. To a man we complained about crappy announcers, (which NO ONE speaks of, really, because Al Michaels is immortalized for ten seconds of work) and how Team USA's defense and second/third lines were NEVER MENTIONED... just Jim Craig and Mike Eruzioni. The conversation became so animated our dorm Nazi, a loser named Joel, had to break us up with the threat of campus security.
I was nine years old Feb 22, 1980. My YOUNGEST child today is older than I was when we won the Gold. Where has the time gone?
And I CAN'T forget this...
February 22, 1980, at 5 PM EST, one of the greatest events in sporting history began in front of 8,600 screaming fans and changed the face of the sport forever.
Do you remember what it was?
It was the first leg of the medal round of the Olympic Men's Ice Hockey play, in which the United States Olympic hockey team beat the Soviet Union team in a stunning 4-3 upset. The vaunted "Miracle on Ice" was today, 33 years ago.
Even today, looking at the stats of the game, they amaze me to no end.
Shots on goal: USA 16, USSR 39... more than 2 to 1, and Craig (the goalie) with 36 saves throughout the match. Tretiak, the highest rated goalie on earth, prior to that match, had only 6 saves... and his replacement, Myshkin, had another 6.
Scoring: Leading up to the medal rounds, the USA had a scoring record of 25-10 and a match record of 4-0-1. The Soviets had a scoring record of 51-11, and a match record of 5-0-0. Soviet team Captain Mikhailov had out-scored the entire USA team in Olympic play by himself, with 26 points in five games. Mikhailov didn't score even one goal against the Americans that afternoon... not even one.
The win in the final medal match against Finland meant that the USA team Captain, Mike Eruzione, got to stand on the podium under the American flag as the National Anthem was played... but he called his fellow skaters up onto the podium with him, and ever since that day, podiums have been built large enough to accommodate the entire team, rather than a single player.
This is, without a doubt in my mind, the greatest sporting event in the last century, and very possibly in the entire modern era. I cannot think of another match up where the odds were so stacked against the underdogs... and the underdogs winning so completely.
31 years later, and it still chokes me up to remember it.
Do you remember what it was?
It was the first leg of the medal round of the Olympic Men's Ice Hockey play, in which the United States Olympic hockey team beat the Soviet Union team in a stunning 4-3 upset. The vaunted "Miracle on Ice" was today, 33 years ago.
Even today, looking at the stats of the game, they amaze me to no end.
Shots on goal: USA 16, USSR 39... more than 2 to 1, and Craig (the goalie) with 36 saves throughout the match. Tretiak, the highest rated goalie on earth, prior to that match, had only 6 saves... and his replacement, Myshkin, had another 6.
Scoring: Leading up to the medal rounds, the USA had a scoring record of 25-10 and a match record of 4-0-1. The Soviets had a scoring record of 51-11, and a match record of 5-0-0. Soviet team Captain Mikhailov had out-scored the entire USA team in Olympic play by himself, with 26 points in five games. Mikhailov didn't score even one goal against the Americans that afternoon... not even one.
The win in the final medal match against Finland meant that the USA team Captain, Mike Eruzione, got to stand on the podium under the American flag as the National Anthem was played... but he called his fellow skaters up onto the podium with him, and ever since that day, podiums have been built large enough to accommodate the entire team, rather than a single player.
This is, without a doubt in my mind, the greatest sporting event in the last century, and very possibly in the entire modern era. I cannot think of another match up where the odds were so stacked against the underdogs... and the underdogs winning so completely.
31 years later, and it still chokes me up to remember it.
Here's one I found...
One of Jambo's favorite authors, too...
George Will wrote an article in the Washington Post about what I was talking about earlier... and it is much better than my comments. Read it HERE.
George Will wrote an article in the Washington Post about what I was talking about earlier... and it is much better than my comments. Read it HERE.
The "brush fire" analogy seems apt...
Wisconsin's dramatic fight over collective bargaining for State employees is now spilling over into both Indiana and Ohio, and other states have promised to change the manner in which such efforts are met across the country.
I read article after article about the nature of the fight, and the concerns of the unions versus the concerns of the taxpayers, but I really can't seem to find a detailed analysis of WHY such collective bargaining is beneficial in the first place.
Seems to me that the most influence that these unions had was during the era of segregation, when black sanitation workers in Memphis sued the State for civil rights violations happening while they were on the job. These workers won their suit, and justice was served.
But that was in 1968... what about today?
Unions representing employees in the private sector are bargaining for the rights of workers against the interests of shareholders and corporate ownership... in short, they (the unions) threaten the profit margin of ownership and agreement is reached between the two that benefits both as much as possible. If this isn't the case, then the company folds and the union workers are out of work anyway, right? That is the essence of "compromise" so necessary in collective bargaining, right?
Unions representing employees in the public sector are bargaining against the interests of taxpayers, via the "monopoly" of State-run operations. They are bargaining with politicians, whom by their very definition, have a vested interest in keeping the unions happy and content if their own jobs are to remain safe. Their is a conflict inherent in this formula, I think...
For example, the union employees protesting in Madison right now are calling for greater and greater support from their private sector "brothers and sisters" (auto, transportation, construction and hospitality union members)... but far less support is coming than they want or expect. Why is it that so many "union members" from the private sector are supporting (or at least not joining in the protests against) Walker and the GOP-members of the Wisconsin Congress?
Because the budget shortfall that the State faces means higher taxes for ALL residents of Wisconsin... and that means less money in the pockets of private-sector union members, and that means more impetus to get more from their collective bargaining agreements, too... which won't be forthcoming if the economy remains slow or stagnant.
I'm not saying Walker can't budge, either, though...
Walker has vowed to not compromise on "his bill", but his bill excluded collective bargaining agreements with local and State police forces from benefit cuts, and as anyone can see, traditionally, cops tend to vote conservatively (yes, even in Wisconsin)... and while I don't know exactly what Walker's reason was for excluding cuts to these union member's benefits, what it looks like to the rest of the country is Walker is playing favorites with the unions that support him. This can do nothing but HURT his efforts and prolong the debate.
If collective bargaining is bad for State taxpayers... then the cuts he is asking for need to be across-the-board cuts to all unions bargaining with the State. How else can the budget be truly "fixed"?
I read article after article about the nature of the fight, and the concerns of the unions versus the concerns of the taxpayers, but I really can't seem to find a detailed analysis of WHY such collective bargaining is beneficial in the first place.
Seems to me that the most influence that these unions had was during the era of segregation, when black sanitation workers in Memphis sued the State for civil rights violations happening while they were on the job. These workers won their suit, and justice was served.
But that was in 1968... what about today?
Unions representing employees in the private sector are bargaining for the rights of workers against the interests of shareholders and corporate ownership... in short, they (the unions) threaten the profit margin of ownership and agreement is reached between the two that benefits both as much as possible. If this isn't the case, then the company folds and the union workers are out of work anyway, right? That is the essence of "compromise" so necessary in collective bargaining, right?
Unions representing employees in the public sector are bargaining against the interests of taxpayers, via the "monopoly" of State-run operations. They are bargaining with politicians, whom by their very definition, have a vested interest in keeping the unions happy and content if their own jobs are to remain safe. Their is a conflict inherent in this formula, I think...
For example, the union employees protesting in Madison right now are calling for greater and greater support from their private sector "brothers and sisters" (auto, transportation, construction and hospitality union members)... but far less support is coming than they want or expect. Why is it that so many "union members" from the private sector are supporting (or at least not joining in the protests against) Walker and the GOP-members of the Wisconsin Congress?
Because the budget shortfall that the State faces means higher taxes for ALL residents of Wisconsin... and that means less money in the pockets of private-sector union members, and that means more impetus to get more from their collective bargaining agreements, too... which won't be forthcoming if the economy remains slow or stagnant.
I'm not saying Walker can't budge, either, though...
Walker has vowed to not compromise on "his bill", but his bill excluded collective bargaining agreements with local and State police forces from benefit cuts, and as anyone can see, traditionally, cops tend to vote conservatively (yes, even in Wisconsin)... and while I don't know exactly what Walker's reason was for excluding cuts to these union member's benefits, what it looks like to the rest of the country is Walker is playing favorites with the unions that support him. This can do nothing but HURT his efforts and prolong the debate.
If collective bargaining is bad for State taxpayers... then the cuts he is asking for need to be across-the-board cuts to all unions bargaining with the State. How else can the budget be truly "fixed"?
What do you call the offspring of Qaddafi?
Dictator-tots!
Click on this map to enlarge (source found HERE from the BBC).
We'll get to the stats on the right in a moment. This is a map of the the nations within the Middle East experiencing "unrest", as of 2/21/11 (Egypt is merely highlighted, they are all included). Libya is at the forefront right now - 233 dead and Qaddafi's son appearing on Libyan state TV promising quote, "a river of blood" if the protesters insist on the attempted over throw of his father. But more then the individual countries I want to point out something I find worrisome. Follow the list of nations from right to left: Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, into North Africa proper with Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, then ending with Morocco. Keep Morocco in mind as we enter those stats on Egypt that accompanies this map. The site provided similar numbers for each of these nations experiencing unrest. The lethal combination of high unemployment (or a bad economy) and the noticeably young, male, median age becomes rather obvious as you go down the list. And as history has shown us, this is the perfect primer for revolution.
Now, reenter Morocco. Do you know where else there exists large populations of largely self-segregated North Africans (predominately Muslim), whom reside in nations in which the government is seen as "corrupt" in the eyes of Allah, and whose economies are on the brink (due to lavish welfare states) in the eyes of anyone willing to open them?
And you can multiply it North from Spain. For decades the indigenous populations of Western Europe have been reducing their birth rates. The European birth rate (minus immigrants) stands at 1.8. Spain is the lowest in all of Western Europe at 1.1. And demographers will tell you the sustainability rate for any society is 2.1. In lieu of producing fresh new workers, who's tax money is needed to maintain the ever growing social service state, Europeans have opted to outsource Man's most basic work of all - procreation. Europeans import worker bees from North Africa the way we do from Mexico. And while both nations have seen a cultural balkanization due to the overwhelmed assimilation (or lack thereof) process, at the very least we know that Mexican Nationals are by and large Catholics.
Lets also remind ourselves that both Western Europe and most Muslim majority nations have something else in common - socialist economies. One may have embraced the religion of secularism, the other a religion that decries it, but their economic models do seem to mesh on a fundamental level. Both also prize the good of the collective over the individual. Be it a caliphate or a central planning government, money goes up this pyramid scheme, and sh*t rolls down.
Much like Creedence Clearwater Revival I see a bad moon rising. I'm not talking shadowy figures of a grand puppeteer behind closed doors maneuvering us into a Orwellian one world government. On the contrary, be it the left-wing Euro-elitists gathering in Brussels, or Sheik X, Y or Z speaking at Arab city square X, Y or Z, these leaders are very much in the open. And they are aligned against us. It seems only natural to me that they will eventually realize they can align together, against us.
And at the very least, we should take notice of this.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Old Man Winter...
... can bite me.
I just got done shoveling the most recent foot of snowfall here in NEPA, and I can tell you I'm damn sick of it. Just three days ago, 68 degree weather... today? High 20's with a foot of wet, heavy snow.
Jambo might be right about Crixus and Gannicus... I just recently re-watched "Party Favors" and I do recall that line from Crixus, about how he "brought honor back to the House of Batiatus". It would explain his inflated ego and his dedication to a dominus who was less than worthy of it.
Well, now that two hours of shoveling is done, I have to go to work for ten hours... tah tah.
I just got done shoveling the most recent foot of snowfall here in NEPA, and I can tell you I'm damn sick of it. Just three days ago, 68 degree weather... today? High 20's with a foot of wet, heavy snow.
Jambo might be right about Crixus and Gannicus... I just recently re-watched "Party Favors" and I do recall that line from Crixus, about how he "brought honor back to the House of Batiatus". It would explain his inflated ego and his dedication to a dominus who was less than worthy of it.
Well, now that two hours of shoveling is done, I have to go to work for ten hours... tah tah.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Cutting the cheese in Wisconsin
We may as well settle in... These scenes from Wisconsin are going to be repeated in 29 other states within the next two years.
The Biloxi Sun-Herald ran an interesting AP article this morning about 30 years worth of warning that states were not banking their money to pay unemployment insurance. The major culprit for this monetary shortfall was a tax cut for businesses that paid the unemployment fund. So the recession hits, and thirty states borrow $41.5 billion from the feds to cover their unemployment insurance costs.
Short term issues? Have to pay the interest of the loans. Long term issues? Have to pay the principle, AND replenish the general fund for the unemployment insurance.
Three guesses where THAT money comes from?
Walker is looking big picture, long term. And he RAN on these issues, fiscal responsibility, getting state spending under control, etc. I haven't checked, but was his election close? Contested? Hanging chad kind of close? Or did the vast number of these "rank and file" decide their vote didn't matter and the democracy they're screaming for required too much effort?
The Biloxi Sun-Herald ran an interesting AP article this morning about 30 years worth of warning that states were not banking their money to pay unemployment insurance. The major culprit for this monetary shortfall was a tax cut for businesses that paid the unemployment fund. So the recession hits, and thirty states borrow $41.5 billion from the feds to cover their unemployment insurance costs.
Short term issues? Have to pay the interest of the loans. Long term issues? Have to pay the principle, AND replenish the general fund for the unemployment insurance.
Three guesses where THAT money comes from?
Walker is looking big picture, long term. And he RAN on these issues, fiscal responsibility, getting state spending under control, etc. I haven't checked, but was his election close? Contested? Hanging chad kind of close? Or did the vast number of these "rank and file" decide their vote didn't matter and the democracy they're screaming for required too much effort?
I must apologize...
But my participation this month has been horrible. I've done what I can but I'm sure I'm way below the seven a week quota. I have time today so I'll contribute what I can. This should be post 48 for the month (total) but the three a day average should have us at 60... Yikes.
Again... My apologies.
Again... My apologies.
You're both wrong...
Gannicus dies in the arena. Crixus takes him. This is the "honor Crixus brought to this house, not all that long ago," that Quintas spoke to Spartacus in "Party Favors." This is not just the crowning of the hero of Batiatus, but the crowning of the Hero of Capua.
Tullius will die DIRECTLY by the hand of Quintas. Knife, cliff fall, more than likely a head bashing in direct retaliation for Gia, but no poison, and no Magistrate.
I liked Titus Batiatus, too... He let Tullius know in NO UNCERTAIN terms about how he felt about Gia. And that's saying something, especially for someone as devoted to class as Titus, to chastise one above his station.
The bad news? One episode left. The worse news? Andy Whitfield isn't coming back, and the more one listens to the commentary the more one cannot see ANYONE ELSE bringing it like Andy. Damn it.
I'll miss the Batiatus clan in Season Two as well... Lucy Lawless certainly shined!
Tullius will die DIRECTLY by the hand of Quintas. Knife, cliff fall, more than likely a head bashing in direct retaliation for Gia, but no poison, and no Magistrate.
I liked Titus Batiatus, too... He let Tullius know in NO UNCERTAIN terms about how he felt about Gia. And that's saying something, especially for someone as devoted to class as Titus, to chastise one above his station.
The bad news? One episode left. The worse news? Andy Whitfield isn't coming back, and the more one listens to the commentary the more one cannot see ANYONE ELSE bringing it like Andy. Damn it.
I'll miss the Batiatus clan in Season Two as well... Lucy Lawless certainly shined!
Woops...
My bad... sorry.
Anyway...
How about that Scott Walker, huh? Is this guy toeing the line or what? Where did he come from? With no effort on his part other than to stick to his campaign promises, he has vaulted himself into the national limelight and gained the attention and support of nearly the entire national Tea Party movement... and while there are plenty of people that don't like him, there seem to be plenty more that do.
He is accused of being a media hound... and perhaps he is a bit at that... but let's face it, every time he gets in front of a camera or microphone, he's detailing (at length) WHY he is doing what he is doing and WHY the liberal opposition to his agendas is wrong. More to the point, people seem to be listening to him. Not just those in Wisconsin, either... he has supporters in Indiana, Florida and Washington State, too, where people are sending him money and encouragement by the basket full.
Are we seeing a contender for the 2012 GOP nomination here? A one-term wonder who can walk in at a tender age and win a Presidential election? When has that ever happened before?
Anyway...
How about that Scott Walker, huh? Is this guy toeing the line or what? Where did he come from? With no effort on his part other than to stick to his campaign promises, he has vaulted himself into the national limelight and gained the attention and support of nearly the entire national Tea Party movement... and while there are plenty of people that don't like him, there seem to be plenty more that do.
He is accused of being a media hound... and perhaps he is a bit at that... but let's face it, every time he gets in front of a camera or microphone, he's detailing (at length) WHY he is doing what he is doing and WHY the liberal opposition to his agendas is wrong. More to the point, people seem to be listening to him. Not just those in Wisconsin, either... he has supporters in Indiana, Florida and Washington State, too, where people are sending him money and encouragement by the basket full.
Are we seeing a contender for the 2012 GOP nomination here? A one-term wonder who can walk in at a tender age and win a Presidential election? When has that ever happened before?
Spoiler Alert ...
THAT is how you start out ANY POST ABOUT SPARTACUS! You dork! Ive told you that. I pull up the site having not seen episode 5, & there you are spouting off. Luckily I froze, stopped & turned off my phone at "Lucretia kills...." Now, to follow my own advice - WARNING - I am about to make some predictions about the final episode, based on 5:
Gannicus kills Tullius. Either Quintas proceeds with the sale as a rouse for Gannicus to get close enough, or Gannicus simply seizes his own opportunity. Either way Gannicus gets Tullius as revenge for the poisoned wine that killed Mellita (really Lucretia's doing of course), & either way Gannicus is crucified as punishment. We know Gannucus can not survive, & we know Quintas would never willingly sell him, especially to Tullias. So its either freedom or death, & no Gladiator has seen freedom from the House of Battiatus yet. And my gut tells me Onamaeus never finds out about the the two closest to him and lives out his days honoring both their memories.
Well, now we know why Crixus always had a chip on his shoulder, he never took "champion" from Gannicus ... it was given to him.
One other thought - I wonder who Quintas suspects more of poisoning his father, Tullius or Lucretia. Either way, we know where he'll direct his rather lethal appetite for revenge.
By the way - I had considered titling this post, "Titus Died" (Titus Battiatus of course), but that seemed a tad cruel, even for us ... hehe.
Gannicus kills Tullius. Either Quintas proceeds with the sale as a rouse for Gannicus to get close enough, or Gannicus simply seizes his own opportunity. Either way Gannicus gets Tullius as revenge for the poisoned wine that killed Mellita (really Lucretia's doing of course), & either way Gannicus is crucified as punishment. We know Gannucus can not survive, & we know Quintas would never willingly sell him, especially to Tullias. So its either freedom or death, & no Gladiator has seen freedom from the House of Battiatus yet. And my gut tells me Onamaeus never finds out about the the two closest to him and lives out his days honoring both their memories.
Well, now we know why Crixus always had a chip on his shoulder, he never took "champion" from Gannicus ... it was given to him.
One other thought - I wonder who Quintas suspects more of poisoning his father, Tullius or Lucretia. Either way, we know where he'll direct his rather lethal appetite for revenge.
By the way - I had considered titling this post, "Titus Died" (Titus Battiatus of course), but that seemed a tad cruel, even for us ... hehe.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
It's official...
I could not have been more wrong about my predictions for the Spartacus episode.
Wow... Lucretia kills Titus AND Melitta (while she is doing Gannicus, too... nice touch)? Who saw THAT coming?
Damn I love that show...
Wow... Lucretia kills Titus AND Melitta (while she is doing Gannicus, too... nice touch)? Who saw THAT coming?
Damn I love that show...
On the "fire" that is burning in the Middle East...
Ryan's analogy is apt... damn-near poetic... and worth comment.
Muammar al-Gaddafi is the longest reigning ruler in the last 500 years of Libyan history and the longest reigning ruler of any modern Muslim state... and he must be sweating bullets and crapping his pants right now. His nation is sandwiched between the first two Muslim countries to fall to popular protests, and as the death toll rises from his crackdowns, the prospects for his actually supressing this mess grow smaller and smaller.
Using Libya as an example, we have an opportunity to see what MIGHT happen in the Middle East (admittedly this is a best-case scenario... I'm feeling optomistic this morning):
Gaddafi is removed from power (his well-being a matter of no consequence to my example, mind you), and a power vacuum is created. In ANY Middle Eastern state, this is a definite possiblity (a certainty, in fact) and the chance that a repressive, fundamentalist regime taking hold is very, very real. The UP SIDE is that the people will have seen, first-hand, the power of popular action (the power of vox populi, to use the Latin phrase) and no future regime will be safe from the same protests and riots. So, what are the chances that we will see a "democratic", popularly elected "Islamist" regime? If the freedoms and rights of the population aren't promoted outside the state, then what are the chances they will be protected within the state?
Furthermore... lets take just a moment and look at where these kinds of protests and mass riots are NOT happening?
Iraq, that's where.
The most violent anti-Americans on the face of the planet can't deny that every single Iraqi that wanted to vote since 2004 has had every opportunity to do so... and the Iraqis are the first to say this when the opportunity presents itself. Functional or not, corrupt or not... the Iraqi government is chosen, top to bottom, by the people of Iraq... and they KNOW THIS. They accept it and are willing to make it work. Radicals next to republicans... they are ready and WILLING to do whatever it takes to make the new government work. Everyone from al-Sadr to Malaki are doing what they feel needed to make Iraq a "good place to live".
Perhaps the inherent nature of freedom and liberty will present itself to the people of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, as well?
Muammar al-Gaddafi is the longest reigning ruler in the last 500 years of Libyan history and the longest reigning ruler of any modern Muslim state... and he must be sweating bullets and crapping his pants right now. His nation is sandwiched between the first two Muslim countries to fall to popular protests, and as the death toll rises from his crackdowns, the prospects for his actually supressing this mess grow smaller and smaller.
Using Libya as an example, we have an opportunity to see what MIGHT happen in the Middle East (admittedly this is a best-case scenario... I'm feeling optomistic this morning):
Gaddafi is removed from power (his well-being a matter of no consequence to my example, mind you), and a power vacuum is created. In ANY Middle Eastern state, this is a definite possiblity (a certainty, in fact) and the chance that a repressive, fundamentalist regime taking hold is very, very real. The UP SIDE is that the people will have seen, first-hand, the power of popular action (the power of vox populi, to use the Latin phrase) and no future regime will be safe from the same protests and riots. So, what are the chances that we will see a "democratic", popularly elected "Islamist" regime? If the freedoms and rights of the population aren't promoted outside the state, then what are the chances they will be protected within the state?
Furthermore... lets take just a moment and look at where these kinds of protests and mass riots are NOT happening?
Iraq, that's where.
The most violent anti-Americans on the face of the planet can't deny that every single Iraqi that wanted to vote since 2004 has had every opportunity to do so... and the Iraqis are the first to say this when the opportunity presents itself. Functional or not, corrupt or not... the Iraqi government is chosen, top to bottom, by the people of Iraq... and they KNOW THIS. They accept it and are willing to make it work. Radicals next to republicans... they are ready and WILLING to do whatever it takes to make the new government work. Everyone from al-Sadr to Malaki are doing what they feel needed to make Iraq a "good place to live".
Perhaps the inherent nature of freedom and liberty will present itself to the people of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, as well?
It's not even as "easy" as most people think...
My dad used to get the annual Wisconsin State government journal-brief, called the "Blue Book" because of its cover. These books detailed the legislative processes and actions taken over the course of the previous years. I haven't seen one of these in a long time (the last I recall reading was 1985), but I know they are still produced and available for those that want to see how things work in Madison.
What reading these books as a child has taught me (and that many others who have not might not know) is that Wisconsin does its budget based on a two-year cycle, not an annual one. This current fiscal year is part of the 2010-2011 budgetary year for Wisconsin, and the budget was for just under $28 billion dollars. The budgetary shortfall that has so much grabbed the attention of protesters and the national media is $3.9 billion dollars.
This is what America in general, and the protesters specifically, are ignoring: the $3.9 billion shortage is within a budget that was passed and spent more than 12 months ago! The next budget won't come online until Jan of 2012! Without the cuts in spending NOW, Wisconsin's State government won't be able to operate through the rest of this (2011) year. The Governor is calling for a 12% reduction in spending and operational costs... and this is to mitigate what, by my math, is a 13.9% shortage of funds. Teachers facing a $200/month increase in their retirement/benefits contribution have the alternative of being furloughed outright if nothing is done to fix the problem. Overtime compensation reverting back to Federal standards rather than the collective bargaining settlements made a six years ago means State workers working more than 40 hours a week make 2.5 times their hourly wage, instead of 2.5 times their wage for anything over 8 hours... hardly an impossible cross to bear, in my mind.
To take the point to its logical conclusion, let's look at what would happen if these unions refuse to accept the cuts in budgets (assuming that the Democratic members of the State Houses actually gather to do their jobs)...
Teachers, highway workers, State health administrators, et al, can go to their unions and call for a general strike... which would do the same for the State of Wisconsin as cutting the benefits and wages in the first place: save the State millions of dollars. Wisconsin is ranked in the Top 15 States with regards to high taxes already... the population isn't going to like the idea of increased taxes in the MIDDLE of a budget, with the prospect of even higher taxes next year. If the teachers want to strike, then give the kids and college students an extended vacation NOW and make them go to school all summer. If you need people to move snow off the highways, higher NON UNION drivers NOW and avoid the issue in the future... Wisconsin is still a Right to Work State and needs no reason for State level employment termination (even though most of these jobs could be determined by the Governor to be "vital" for the State and make a "strike" grounds for termination, too).
Wisconsin is a small version of what this entire nation is going to see happen: EVERYONE is going to have to bite a bullet and accept some tough choices in the very near future if we hope to see a real and measurable recovery of our economy and livelihood. EVERYONE is going to have to accept that Government can be TOO BIG, and that it must be reduced before it fails utterly.
What reading these books as a child has taught me (and that many others who have not might not know) is that Wisconsin does its budget based on a two-year cycle, not an annual one. This current fiscal year is part of the 2010-2011 budgetary year for Wisconsin, and the budget was for just under $28 billion dollars. The budgetary shortfall that has so much grabbed the attention of protesters and the national media is $3.9 billion dollars.
This is what America in general, and the protesters specifically, are ignoring: the $3.9 billion shortage is within a budget that was passed and spent more than 12 months ago! The next budget won't come online until Jan of 2012! Without the cuts in spending NOW, Wisconsin's State government won't be able to operate through the rest of this (2011) year. The Governor is calling for a 12% reduction in spending and operational costs... and this is to mitigate what, by my math, is a 13.9% shortage of funds. Teachers facing a $200/month increase in their retirement/benefits contribution have the alternative of being furloughed outright if nothing is done to fix the problem. Overtime compensation reverting back to Federal standards rather than the collective bargaining settlements made a six years ago means State workers working more than 40 hours a week make 2.5 times their hourly wage, instead of 2.5 times their wage for anything over 8 hours... hardly an impossible cross to bear, in my mind.
To take the point to its logical conclusion, let's look at what would happen if these unions refuse to accept the cuts in budgets (assuming that the Democratic members of the State Houses actually gather to do their jobs)...
Teachers, highway workers, State health administrators, et al, can go to their unions and call for a general strike... which would do the same for the State of Wisconsin as cutting the benefits and wages in the first place: save the State millions of dollars. Wisconsin is ranked in the Top 15 States with regards to high taxes already... the population isn't going to like the idea of increased taxes in the MIDDLE of a budget, with the prospect of even higher taxes next year. If the teachers want to strike, then give the kids and college students an extended vacation NOW and make them go to school all summer. If you need people to move snow off the highways, higher NON UNION drivers NOW and avoid the issue in the future... Wisconsin is still a Right to Work State and needs no reason for State level employment termination (even though most of these jobs could be determined by the Governor to be "vital" for the State and make a "strike" grounds for termination, too).
Wisconsin is a small version of what this entire nation is going to see happen: EVERYONE is going to have to bite a bullet and accept some tough choices in the very near future if we hope to see a real and measurable recovery of our economy and livelihood. EVERYONE is going to have to accept that Government can be TOO BIG, and that it must be reduced before it fails utterly.
Obama miscalculated ...
Its been revealed now that the President's political action committee, "Organizing For America", assisted in organizing these union protests in WI, OH, and so on. The DNC is now vested in the movment to kill these budget proposals with both boots & money on the ground. The miscalculation is this - the mid term massacre was about 1 thing - government over/deficit spending was not creating jobs. And the more these groups coordinate large scale protests, organize and shout, then the more they turn these otherwise anonymous conservative governors into rock stars. These governors are being introduced to the national scene as principled, scrappy, fiscal hawks, making the GOP 2012 pool only that much stronger. One of these guys from WI, OH, NJ, NV and so on could easily emerge as a new, national contender, and with none of the baggage of the current crop ... mark my words.
Friday, February 18, 2011
"Jordan is on fire!"
There was a more innocent time when hearing that phrase meant Marv Albert was calling a Bulls game.
The "Egyptian Kohlmeni", Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has arrived in Cairo. He's a fundamentalist of the first order. Helped to found the Muslim Brotherhood, still serves as their "spiritual leader." Espouses admiration for the Holocaust, has publicly prayed for Allah to grant him the strength to kill all the Jews ("from my wheelchair" - his words), and suggests men strike women as a means of marriage counseling. Nice guy, huh? He's also considered the 9th most influential man in Islam. He has an estimated following of 60 million people throughout the Muslim world, and 250,000 (& counting, as I write this) have gathered in the famed Tahir Square in Cairo to hear his big return speech/rally when he leads Friday prayers today. Hmmm. Who else has Friday afternoon rallies in that neighborhood?
I'm telling you, this looks, smells, walks, talks, and acts like the Iranian moment.
In addition, Baharain (where our 5th Fleet is stationed), Yemen, Lybia and Jordan are all on fire with protests, clashes with police, the military on the streets, etc. People dead, injured, arrested. And rumors of Saudi Arabia going next abound.
Simultaneously Wisconsin union protesters, in the tens of thousands, are swarming the state capitol. Their Democrat law makers are being hounded by State Troopers, bent on returning the fleeing legislators who took refuge, to avoid a roll call and vote on the cuts, in Illinois. The protests have spread to Ohio now. Each of these states with new governors elected on the promise of fiscal responsibility are seeing near riots. The US House today is voting to defund Obamacare and every last Obama Czar. What happens when these cuts, state and federal, are attempted in places like Oakland? Detroit? Atalanta? Las Vegas? Our new governor's proposed cuts make Winsconsin's 12% look like peanuts, I assure you (he's awesome!). Nearly every state in the union is on the edge of the fiscal abyss. And the cuts are coming because tax hikes (which wouldn't work anyway) are unthinkable in this quasi-recession, at least to politicians looking to get reelected (which encompasses all of them, save Joe Lieberman).
But I'm sure these groups taking to the streets virtually simultaneously - the activist "burn it all down, give us social justice, string up Clearence Thomas" Left, and the Islamist rioters is pure coincidence. They don't have a traditional common foe do they? I'm sure Israelis and capitalist-Westerners have nothing to fear in the fact that these groups seem to be "rising up" at the same time ...
The "Egyptian Kohlmeni", Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has arrived in Cairo. He's a fundamentalist of the first order. Helped to found the Muslim Brotherhood, still serves as their "spiritual leader." Espouses admiration for the Holocaust, has publicly prayed for Allah to grant him the strength to kill all the Jews ("from my wheelchair" - his words), and suggests men strike women as a means of marriage counseling. Nice guy, huh? He's also considered the 9th most influential man in Islam. He has an estimated following of 60 million people throughout the Muslim world, and 250,000 (& counting, as I write this) have gathered in the famed Tahir Square in Cairo to hear his big return speech/rally when he leads Friday prayers today. Hmmm. Who else has Friday afternoon rallies in that neighborhood?
I'm telling you, this looks, smells, walks, talks, and acts like the Iranian moment.
In addition, Baharain (where our 5th Fleet is stationed), Yemen, Lybia and Jordan are all on fire with protests, clashes with police, the military on the streets, etc. People dead, injured, arrested. And rumors of Saudi Arabia going next abound.
Simultaneously Wisconsin union protesters, in the tens of thousands, are swarming the state capitol. Their Democrat law makers are being hounded by State Troopers, bent on returning the fleeing legislators who took refuge, to avoid a roll call and vote on the cuts, in Illinois. The protests have spread to Ohio now. Each of these states with new governors elected on the promise of fiscal responsibility are seeing near riots. The US House today is voting to defund Obamacare and every last Obama Czar. What happens when these cuts, state and federal, are attempted in places like Oakland? Detroit? Atalanta? Las Vegas? Our new governor's proposed cuts make Winsconsin's 12% look like peanuts, I assure you (he's awesome!). Nearly every state in the union is on the edge of the fiscal abyss. And the cuts are coming because tax hikes (which wouldn't work anyway) are unthinkable in this quasi-recession, at least to politicians looking to get reelected (which encompasses all of them, save Joe Lieberman).
But I'm sure these groups taking to the streets virtually simultaneously - the activist "burn it all down, give us social justice, string up Clearence Thomas" Left, and the Islamist rioters is pure coincidence. They don't have a traditional common foe do they? I'm sure Israelis and capitalist-Westerners have nothing to fear in the fact that these groups seem to be "rising up" at the same time ...
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Here's a story that isn't in the headlines...
The leader of Hezbollah has made an announcement (via a video filmed in a hidden bunker... the man's an idiot, but he isn't stupid) that all Hezbollah fighters should be ready for the day that war is "forced on them" so they can occupy the Galilee.
Obviously, Netanyahu blew this off as a bunch of hot air (which it was)... but it got me to thinking:
What would happen if Beirut would become as embroiled in this "protest" fever as Egypt, Tunisia and the rest of the Middle East? How much of a destabilizer would Hezbollah be then? Do you think they'd actually try to occupy the Galilee? Have they got that much chutzpah? Are they that dumb that they'd actually try?
If the day should come, it would help thin the ranks of the Hezbollah fighters, wouldn't it?
Obviously, Netanyahu blew this off as a bunch of hot air (which it was)... but it got me to thinking:
What would happen if Beirut would become as embroiled in this "protest" fever as Egypt, Tunisia and the rest of the Middle East? How much of a destabilizer would Hezbollah be then? Do you think they'd actually try to occupy the Galilee? Have they got that much chutzpah? Are they that dumb that they'd actually try?
If the day should come, it would help thin the ranks of the Hezbollah fighters, wouldn't it?
Wow...
100 lbs of salt later, and the drive STILL needs more. Thank God its only $7 per 50 lbs.
Man, I'm really looking forward to the end of winter...
Man, I'm really looking forward to the end of winter...
The "Honey Do" list is getting long...
Warmer weather has finally come to NEPA, and we're slated to have temps in the high 40s and even 50s today and tomorrow. I've got a mountain of stuff to get done, but NONE is more important than getting the 2+ inches of ICE off my driveway by any means I can. The damn thing looks like a glacier flowing downhill to the road, and if it doesn't get cleaned up soon, I'm going to have dig an alternate route for the vehicles to take to get them off the road.
If anyone is bored or looking for a work-out... I have some extra spades and sledgehammers that you can use on the ice. Just stop over today or tomorrow... I'll be the guy busting his ass out front.
(sigh)
If anyone is bored or looking for a work-out... I have some extra spades and sledgehammers that you can use on the ice. Just stop over today or tomorrow... I'll be the guy busting his ass out front.
(sigh)
Agreed...
First off, I'm sorry I misread the 2012 post. Jambo so rarely comments on politics anymore, I simply assumed the observations were Ryan's.
I'm a fan of Public Broadcasting, but I agree that the "public" needs to pick up the slack right now... completely in fact. If viewer support isn't enough, then they need to sell more to corporate sponsors and gain some revenue that way. No more Federal funding, even if it is only a portion of the cost to broadcast.
Now that this has been said by me, I'll take it further and say that all Federal dollars being pumped into such "dead horses" as Amtrack need to be cut out, too. In fact...
Amtrak is a classic oportunity for the Fed to find a way to "privatize" a Federal corporation. In 2008, nearly 30 million people used the company's trains to travel, setting another record in rail travel in the US... and the system came in another $59 million OVER budget in the same fiscal period. It employs 19,000 people and serves 30 million... but can't turn a profit. The reasons for this are obvious... it is competing with commercial operations that are getting subsidized by the same bankroll that is paying for Amtrak!
With train travel becoming more and more "commercially" viable in the eyes of the American consumer, finding a way to allow private companies or existing railways to take over the lines that are most utilized seems the best way to save the taxpayers money AND bring much needed improvements to the services (the Fed never fixes itself fast enough for American consumers, we all know that). The cost of this corporation to the taxpayer is $2.6 billion per year until 2013, when the Congress will get the obligatory request for more money... which has historically been an increase of no less than 12% per anum. The major corridors of this company move millions of people per year... especially the Pacific Coast corridors and the North East corridors... and these individual lines DO make money, but the less-frequented ones cannot compete with subsidized competition.
These are both (NPR and Amtrak) great examples of areas where the Federal Government just doesn't need to be running things. If this isn't something private industry can do better and cheaper (which I'm sure it is), then the States that benefit from these corporations can pick up the bill. Its not a question of whether or not it is a necessary expense or effort... but instead it is a question of why the Fed is doing it at all?
I'm a fan of Public Broadcasting, but I agree that the "public" needs to pick up the slack right now... completely in fact. If viewer support isn't enough, then they need to sell more to corporate sponsors and gain some revenue that way. No more Federal funding, even if it is only a portion of the cost to broadcast.
Now that this has been said by me, I'll take it further and say that all Federal dollars being pumped into such "dead horses" as Amtrack need to be cut out, too. In fact...
Amtrak is a classic oportunity for the Fed to find a way to "privatize" a Federal corporation. In 2008, nearly 30 million people used the company's trains to travel, setting another record in rail travel in the US... and the system came in another $59 million OVER budget in the same fiscal period. It employs 19,000 people and serves 30 million... but can't turn a profit. The reasons for this are obvious... it is competing with commercial operations that are getting subsidized by the same bankroll that is paying for Amtrak!
With train travel becoming more and more "commercially" viable in the eyes of the American consumer, finding a way to allow private companies or existing railways to take over the lines that are most utilized seems the best way to save the taxpayers money AND bring much needed improvements to the services (the Fed never fixes itself fast enough for American consumers, we all know that). The cost of this corporation to the taxpayer is $2.6 billion per year until 2013, when the Congress will get the obligatory request for more money... which has historically been an increase of no less than 12% per anum. The major corridors of this company move millions of people per year... especially the Pacific Coast corridors and the North East corridors... and these individual lines DO make money, but the less-frequented ones cannot compete with subsidized competition.
These are both (NPR and Amtrak) great examples of areas where the Federal Government just doesn't need to be running things. If this isn't something private industry can do better and cheaper (which I'm sure it is), then the States that benefit from these corporations can pick up the bill. Its not a question of whether or not it is a necessary expense or effort... but instead it is a question of why the Fed is doing it at all?
What, no more tote bags?
Report out tonight that the new House majority, looking to curb spending in every direction, is targeting the federal NPR & PBS subsidy for elimination.
Look, I'm a fan of A Prairie Home Companion (well, some of its more headline bits to be exact). But did you know that Garrison Keilor's salary is 7 figures? And more power to him, but if the 900+ NPR stations around the country & PBS were allowed to sink or swim on their own then perhaps we would get MORE Frontlines & News From Lake Wobagon, & other commercially viable / quality programing & less BBC filler & multi hour segments on multiculturalism by grad students whom think their trip through Greenwich Village to find a fruit stand selling out-of-season plantains is a clever commentary on the homophobic nature of America ... I'm just saying, we're 14 trillion in debt, maybe for now we can skip funding such forays to find windows on the soul of man.
Look, I'm a fan of A Prairie Home Companion (well, some of its more headline bits to be exact). But did you know that Garrison Keilor's salary is 7 figures? And more power to him, but if the 900+ NPR stations around the country & PBS were allowed to sink or swim on their own then perhaps we would get MORE Frontlines & News From Lake Wobagon, & other commercially viable / quality programing & less BBC filler & multi hour segments on multiculturalism by grad students whom think their trip through Greenwich Village to find a fruit stand selling out-of-season plantains is a clever commentary on the homophobic nature of America ... I'm just saying, we're 14 trillion in debt, maybe for now we can skip funding such forays to find windows on the soul of man.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Hey cheetoh, check the author section ...
I didn't make the 2012 presidential post, Jambo did.
I like a Bachman-Barbour ticket. The JFK/LBJ comparison was good. By the way Titus, she's a second term congresswomen, and the first Republican woman elected to the House in the history of MN. And while you see her "identifying with the far Right" as a liability, I see it as an asset. The country is trending towards some hard core fiscal responsibility. And lets bare in mind something when discussing her viability among moderates/Independents - she got elected in Minnesota, twice (the first being in 06' amidst the Democrat land slide).
Now, if you guys can tear yourself away from video games, I have as question: President Obama said yesterday (at the news there are renewed Iranian protests in the streets of Tehran): "Leaders across the Mid East must realize their peoples thirst for freedom, and provide a peaceful path forward. . . We all know that terrorism, killing innocents, will not change things." That last bit aimed at communicating to the Muslim youth that peaceful protests are a quicker way to reform then Jihad. And that's fine. But I thought this phrase he's oft repeated, "killing innocents" to be a bit off putting.
So my simple question is, who are the non innocents?
I like a Bachman-Barbour ticket. The JFK/LBJ comparison was good. By the way Titus, she's a second term congresswomen, and the first Republican woman elected to the House in the history of MN. And while you see her "identifying with the far Right" as a liability, I see it as an asset. The country is trending towards some hard core fiscal responsibility. And lets bare in mind something when discussing her viability among moderates/Independents - she got elected in Minnesota, twice (the first being in 06' amidst the Democrat land slide).
Now, if you guys can tear yourself away from video games, I have as question: President Obama said yesterday (at the news there are renewed Iranian protests in the streets of Tehran): "Leaders across the Mid East must realize their peoples thirst for freedom, and provide a peaceful path forward. . . We all know that terrorism, killing innocents, will not change things." That last bit aimed at communicating to the Muslim youth that peaceful protests are a quicker way to reform then Jihad. And that's fine. But I thought this phrase he's oft repeated, "killing innocents" to be a bit off putting.
So my simple question is, who are the non innocents?
Could the "inter regnum" be coming to an end?
I have seen an awful lot of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi lately. He is the heir to the Peacock Throne of the Iranian monarchy, and has championed democracy and self-determination in Iran since his exile began in 1979.
Interestingly, he makes no claim to the throne, or even the title of Shahanshah (King of Kings). He works instead to guaranty a peaceful, internal (meaning no foreign intervention) overthrow of the Islamic Revolutionary government currently in power in Tehran. He is a huge advocate of passive, peaceful protests and broad, general strikes against government and infrastructure in Iran as the best means to reduce and remove the current regime from power, and is a loud and regular proponent of a clear and measurable seperation between sharia-based law and the government of Iran. With the popular unrest of the people now returning to Tehran, and protests and demonstrations becoming more and more frequent, I think his words and opinions are going to be heard more and more.
I don't know much about him, personally, but everything I've heard and read so far seems to tell me that he could very well be the "rallying point" around which a movement such as we saw in Egypt and Tunisia might well develop in Iran. It appears that about 20% of the Iranian population still considers him to be the "Shah" of Iran, and the rightful, ordained ruler of the Iranian people (as the heir to the Persian Imperial house). I will look harder, but it would seem at this point that he is the IDEAL moderate, Western-friendly leader that the US could support in such an effort... and his commitment to open, general elections and a new democratic constitution clearly seperating the spiritual from the secular is well documented. Even if he never assumes his titled position on the throne... his voice and face could very well be just what the doctor ordered for an internal revolution against the repressive regime of Ahmedidntshave.
The last round of protests stemmed around a questionable opposition politician/cleric who didn't have the support to keep the effort going... but a one-in-five opinion that Allah has determined Reza to be Shah would appear to be better than nothing, wouldn't it?
Interestingly, he makes no claim to the throne, or even the title of Shahanshah (King of Kings). He works instead to guaranty a peaceful, internal (meaning no foreign intervention) overthrow of the Islamic Revolutionary government currently in power in Tehran. He is a huge advocate of passive, peaceful protests and broad, general strikes against government and infrastructure in Iran as the best means to reduce and remove the current regime from power, and is a loud and regular proponent of a clear and measurable seperation between sharia-based law and the government of Iran. With the popular unrest of the people now returning to Tehran, and protests and demonstrations becoming more and more frequent, I think his words and opinions are going to be heard more and more.
I don't know much about him, personally, but everything I've heard and read so far seems to tell me that he could very well be the "rallying point" around which a movement such as we saw in Egypt and Tunisia might well develop in Iran. It appears that about 20% of the Iranian population still considers him to be the "Shah" of Iran, and the rightful, ordained ruler of the Iranian people (as the heir to the Persian Imperial house). I will look harder, but it would seem at this point that he is the IDEAL moderate, Western-friendly leader that the US could support in such an effort... and his commitment to open, general elections and a new democratic constitution clearly seperating the spiritual from the secular is well documented. Even if he never assumes his titled position on the throne... his voice and face could very well be just what the doctor ordered for an internal revolution against the repressive regime of Ahmedidntshave.
The last round of protests stemmed around a questionable opposition politician/cleric who didn't have the support to keep the effort going... but a one-in-five opinion that Allah has determined Reza to be Shah would appear to be better than nothing, wouldn't it?
Wow... lots of posts this morning!
To reply to Jambo...
In fact, that WAS the same box! I asked him "Hey, what are you working?" as I tapped him off a HUGE game (the entire bankroll of black and purple OUT, and only one stack of orange left), and he looks at me and says... "Twelve to eight, same as you." How do people like this get jobs?
Oh, and yes, the stacked dice question. It's a no roll here, as is dice on the money, in the rail, off the game, shot by the wrong shooter, or if the fall is interfered with by another player (like caught and dropped). We all double checked, and a short roll is ALWAYS a roll.
To Ryan...
I've thought about this quite a bit, and if I had to name my dream ticket, I think it would be Jindal-Ryan. Bobby Jindal is a proven executive, a minority, comes from humble stock, is Southern (even has a nice accent), solidly conservative and he's Roman Catholic. Paul Ryan is from the Midwest, a lawyer, a Catholic, is just 40 years old, and if he isn't on top of the ticket I think his lack of Executive experience isn't a handicap. In fact, the only thing my dream ticket is missing is ANY military experience... and that is a big minus.
Now, I know Jindal said he wouldn't run... and that's fine. I'm just giving you my "dream" scenario. I'm not a fan of a Palin ticket... I don't like her chances after losing last time. Bachmann is a first-time Representative (GOP) from MN, and she is pretty controversial across the country. I think she's a bigger liability than a benefit... at least now. She'd have to win a bigger election than she has to get my vote for the general Presidential bid.
My fear is that Palin and Bachmann have so aligned themselves with the far right in this country that they are as unelectable as Ron Paul. Speaking of which, there is a new conservative host (from FOX I believe) on the Sirius Patriot channel, and she was on Beck's show last week. They asked her a bunch of questions geared to gauge whether or not she was more or less "libertarian" in her views, and one of the questions was who was a potential candidate in the 2012 election that was most like the Founding Fathers. The Beck crew all said Ron Paul, but all agreed that he had no chance of winning. I agreed with the latter, but had issues with the former.
Ron Paul is a libertarian... might even opitimse the term. However, it is a stretch to say that the first four Presidents were "libertarian" as well. They all seemed to shun active, aggressive foreign policy, and most were hesitant to over-step the perceived limits of their office, but all DID expand the scope and role of government and all took steps outside of what the Constitution specified as their "enumerated powers". All four faced huge deficits, all four raised existing taxes, and three of the four instituted new (and hugely unpopular) taxes as well. One fought a foreign war with no Congressional declaration (Jefferson's Quasi-War), one invaded a foreign country on executive order alone (Jefferson's Barbary War), one marched a standing army against US citizens (Washington's Whiskey Rebellion), and one completely reversed his "founding father" positions while in office during a declared war (Madison's War) by expanding executive authority far beyond the Constitutional boundries that had been recognized previously.
My point is that candidates that promise to return the role of President to a "constitutional" framework are promising the moon. There are engines in place that cannot be removed if the country wants to run... and all that can conceivably be done to fix what is broken is to put into place the means to eliminate the extreaneous over the course of a short decade or so. The bullets that will have to be bitten by BOTH sides of the aisle to fix what is wrong are so many and so big... the tasks seems impossible, but it isn't. The means simply cannot be "instant".
Let me give you an example of what I'm saying...
Implementing a flat tax is possible in the next four years, but its impact on the US economy and the government in supports will be huge and very far reaching. A flat tax would necessitate a budget that could accomodate slumps in the economy like we just experienced, because if the average tax rate is based on income, and the average income per taxpayer falls by even as much as 7% (and it has fallen by 8.1% since 2007, after inflation adjustments), then the government won't even be able to survive the cost of its own growth at the average rate since 1968 (6.9%).
A fair tax (one based on a sales tax-style of revenue) is better, because the years we'd need it the strongest are the ones that the tax base would still be spending money as always. In other words, we'd still not be used to buying things "used" as opposed to "new" in order to save on our tax bill. In fact, there is a strong argument that the implementation of such a tax system NOW would pay off all our debts and deficits in far shorter a length of time than any other means we know... because the US is the largest spending economy on the planet. The first years of the systems implementation would see tons of money rolling into the Federal coffers, and it would taper off as we all learned how best to spend our money and save on our tax bills. The down side is a fair tax would decimate industries like housing, new auto sales, commercial real estate, big-ticket items sales, and petroleum production. A fair tax would drive the cost of a gallon of gas UP at least another 4%... right off the bat. This would be a HUGE adjustment for the American economy to grow into... I'm not saying we couldn't, but it wouldn't be as easy as many make it out to be.
This has to be compared to the "cost" of simply reforming what we already have... and in my example it would mean lowering tax rates, reducing the cost to collect and manage the revenue (meaning the IRS), and slowing the rate at which government grows in scope and cost. Surely, THIS is easier than starting from scratch, right?
Do not think I am saying it all has to STAY in place... the DoE, the ED, the Interior, Agriculture... all these need to be MAJORLY reformed or eliminated entirely, and this is a doable deal if the STATES can pick up the slack where the Fed leaves off, but some "net" must remain in place until ALL the States can accomodate what the Fed is already doing. This is especially true in regards to Education and Agriculture/Interior... nothing more than guidelines and safety regulations should stem from a Federal level, in my opinion, in either of these realms... yet 9% of our Federal budget is taken up with these three departments alone (and most of THAT is probably payroll and operational expenses for Federal employees).
I'll say this for a ticket with Bachmann on it: It will probably be the ticket that gives the clearest, most in-your-face description of what the GOP will try and deliver if they win the White House. She is pretty good about spelling out what she wants to do, and she isn't too bad at getting that massage to the people (when given the opportunity).
Finally, to Baddboy:
I've played Modern Warfare, but don't own it. The maps on COD:BO are small, but they came out with much larger maps in the first expansion module (First Strike) and this has opened up a bit more of the game, in my opinion. Not being an expert gamer, I can't say how the play stacks up against other game names, but it is fast and smooth so far (which is far more than I can say for any PC game I've EVER played online).
I'm hoping that before summer hits, we'll have an opporunity to buy Modern Warfare since it is so much cheaper now that it is out so long... and that will give me a real chance to compare the two. It's a bit sad that the ONLY game we have for XBox is COD:BO, isn't it?
In fact, that WAS the same box! I asked him "Hey, what are you working?" as I tapped him off a HUGE game (the entire bankroll of black and purple OUT, and only one stack of orange left), and he looks at me and says... "Twelve to eight, same as you." How do people like this get jobs?
Oh, and yes, the stacked dice question. It's a no roll here, as is dice on the money, in the rail, off the game, shot by the wrong shooter, or if the fall is interfered with by another player (like caught and dropped). We all double checked, and a short roll is ALWAYS a roll.
To Ryan...
I've thought about this quite a bit, and if I had to name my dream ticket, I think it would be Jindal-Ryan. Bobby Jindal is a proven executive, a minority, comes from humble stock, is Southern (even has a nice accent), solidly conservative and he's Roman Catholic. Paul Ryan is from the Midwest, a lawyer, a Catholic, is just 40 years old, and if he isn't on top of the ticket I think his lack of Executive experience isn't a handicap. In fact, the only thing my dream ticket is missing is ANY military experience... and that is a big minus.
Now, I know Jindal said he wouldn't run... and that's fine. I'm just giving you my "dream" scenario. I'm not a fan of a Palin ticket... I don't like her chances after losing last time. Bachmann is a first-time Representative (GOP) from MN, and she is pretty controversial across the country. I think she's a bigger liability than a benefit... at least now. She'd have to win a bigger election than she has to get my vote for the general Presidential bid.
My fear is that Palin and Bachmann have so aligned themselves with the far right in this country that they are as unelectable as Ron Paul. Speaking of which, there is a new conservative host (from FOX I believe) on the Sirius Patriot channel, and she was on Beck's show last week. They asked her a bunch of questions geared to gauge whether or not she was more or less "libertarian" in her views, and one of the questions was who was a potential candidate in the 2012 election that was most like the Founding Fathers. The Beck crew all said Ron Paul, but all agreed that he had no chance of winning. I agreed with the latter, but had issues with the former.
Ron Paul is a libertarian... might even opitimse the term. However, it is a stretch to say that the first four Presidents were "libertarian" as well. They all seemed to shun active, aggressive foreign policy, and most were hesitant to over-step the perceived limits of their office, but all DID expand the scope and role of government and all took steps outside of what the Constitution specified as their "enumerated powers". All four faced huge deficits, all four raised existing taxes, and three of the four instituted new (and hugely unpopular) taxes as well. One fought a foreign war with no Congressional declaration (Jefferson's Quasi-War), one invaded a foreign country on executive order alone (Jefferson's Barbary War), one marched a standing army against US citizens (Washington's Whiskey Rebellion), and one completely reversed his "founding father" positions while in office during a declared war (Madison's War) by expanding executive authority far beyond the Constitutional boundries that had been recognized previously.
My point is that candidates that promise to return the role of President to a "constitutional" framework are promising the moon. There are engines in place that cannot be removed if the country wants to run... and all that can conceivably be done to fix what is broken is to put into place the means to eliminate the extreaneous over the course of a short decade or so. The bullets that will have to be bitten by BOTH sides of the aisle to fix what is wrong are so many and so big... the tasks seems impossible, but it isn't. The means simply cannot be "instant".
Let me give you an example of what I'm saying...
Implementing a flat tax is possible in the next four years, but its impact on the US economy and the government in supports will be huge and very far reaching. A flat tax would necessitate a budget that could accomodate slumps in the economy like we just experienced, because if the average tax rate is based on income, and the average income per taxpayer falls by even as much as 7% (and it has fallen by 8.1% since 2007, after inflation adjustments), then the government won't even be able to survive the cost of its own growth at the average rate since 1968 (6.9%).
A fair tax (one based on a sales tax-style of revenue) is better, because the years we'd need it the strongest are the ones that the tax base would still be spending money as always. In other words, we'd still not be used to buying things "used" as opposed to "new" in order to save on our tax bill. In fact, there is a strong argument that the implementation of such a tax system NOW would pay off all our debts and deficits in far shorter a length of time than any other means we know... because the US is the largest spending economy on the planet. The first years of the systems implementation would see tons of money rolling into the Federal coffers, and it would taper off as we all learned how best to spend our money and save on our tax bills. The down side is a fair tax would decimate industries like housing, new auto sales, commercial real estate, big-ticket items sales, and petroleum production. A fair tax would drive the cost of a gallon of gas UP at least another 4%... right off the bat. This would be a HUGE adjustment for the American economy to grow into... I'm not saying we couldn't, but it wouldn't be as easy as many make it out to be.
This has to be compared to the "cost" of simply reforming what we already have... and in my example it would mean lowering tax rates, reducing the cost to collect and manage the revenue (meaning the IRS), and slowing the rate at which government grows in scope and cost. Surely, THIS is easier than starting from scratch, right?
Do not think I am saying it all has to STAY in place... the DoE, the ED, the Interior, Agriculture... all these need to be MAJORLY reformed or eliminated entirely, and this is a doable deal if the STATES can pick up the slack where the Fed leaves off, but some "net" must remain in place until ALL the States can accomodate what the Fed is already doing. This is especially true in regards to Education and Agriculture/Interior... nothing more than guidelines and safety regulations should stem from a Federal level, in my opinion, in either of these realms... yet 9% of our Federal budget is taken up with these three departments alone (and most of THAT is probably payroll and operational expenses for Federal employees).
I'll say this for a ticket with Bachmann on it: It will probably be the ticket that gives the clearest, most in-your-face description of what the GOP will try and deliver if they win the White House. She is pretty good about spelling out what she wants to do, and she isn't too bad at getting that massage to the people (when given the opportunity).
Finally, to Baddboy:
I've played Modern Warfare, but don't own it. The maps on COD:BO are small, but they came out with much larger maps in the first expansion module (First Strike) and this has opened up a bit more of the game, in my opinion. Not being an expert gamer, I can't say how the play stacks up against other game names, but it is fast and smooth so far (which is far more than I can say for any PC game I've EVER played online).
I'm hoping that before summer hits, we'll have an opporunity to buy Modern Warfare since it is so much cheaper now that it is out so long... and that will give me a real chance to compare the two. It's a bit sad that the ONLY game we have for XBox is COD:BO, isn't it?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Call of Duty
Well I finally broke down and picked up Call of Duty: Black Ops for PS3. I have to say it is the worst edition of all of the franchise. My absolute favorite is the original Modern Warfare. The Black Ops story line is slow and the game play is very boring so far. The multi player game is ok but the maps are very small and bland in comparison to the earlier versions.
In my opinion I would rather play Battlefield in any of its renditions than Call of Duty, anything goes in that game. If there is a tank use it, a plane fly it, an anti-aircraft gun shoot it and if infantry is your thing have at.
Anyways I will give the rest of my opinion after I finish the final mission but unless something picks up I'll be back to Modern Warfare.
Just my 2 cents
In my opinion I would rather play Battlefield in any of its renditions than Call of Duty, anything goes in that game. If there is a tank use it, a plane fly it, an anti-aircraft gun shoot it and if infantry is your thing have at.
Anyways I will give the rest of my opinion after I finish the final mission but unless something picks up I'll be back to Modern Warfare.
Just my 2 cents
Running for President
Had an interesting talk yesterday that covered a couple of breaks.
This buddy of mine, Chad, pretty smart kid, a bit rough on the edge, he's reading the paper in the breakroom and they've got an article breaking down Republican contenders for 2012. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are at the top of the list, Palin in there somewhere, Haley Barbour a bit further down. Chad kind of laments this. Tells me he read another article about how Barbour has a personal trainer now because it's not presidential to be overweight.
I told Chad it's ok to be a Vice-President and be chunky though, and it is the best case scenario for Haley because the man will NEVER be president. Then the inevitable question was, who should head up the ticket?
Chad thought Sarah Palin, but I said Michelle Bachman.
My logic? Reverse Kennedy. Young, energetic, moderately attractive Presidential candidate with the older, experienced, Southern vote garnishing VP candidate. Whether that'll actually HAPPEN or not, well, I'm not holding my breath. I don't think Ron Paul or Mitt Romney have the charisma to make it in a general election.
And that list? Michelle Bachman was last, with 4%... Bobby Jindhal? Didn't even make it.
This buddy of mine, Chad, pretty smart kid, a bit rough on the edge, he's reading the paper in the breakroom and they've got an article breaking down Republican contenders for 2012. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are at the top of the list, Palin in there somewhere, Haley Barbour a bit further down. Chad kind of laments this. Tells me he read another article about how Barbour has a personal trainer now because it's not presidential to be overweight.
I told Chad it's ok to be a Vice-President and be chunky though, and it is the best case scenario for Haley because the man will NEVER be president. Then the inevitable question was, who should head up the ticket?
Chad thought Sarah Palin, but I said Michelle Bachman.
My logic? Reverse Kennedy. Young, energetic, moderately attractive Presidential candidate with the older, experienced, Southern vote garnishing VP candidate. Whether that'll actually HAPPEN or not, well, I'm not holding my breath. I don't think Ron Paul or Mitt Romney have the charisma to make it in a general election.
And that list? Michelle Bachman was last, with 4%... Bobby Jindhal? Didn't even make it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
