On San Marino...

Allow me to assist you:

San Marino CIA Fact Sheet

Current constitution and established republican government has been in effect since 1600, making it the oldest functioning democratic republic on earth. Grand Council has existed since (roughly) 320 AD... and has been the primary instrument of government for the last 1100 years.

However, I'm the first to admit that it is not a nation that can be compared to the United States in a side-by-side glance. San Marino is a city-state, or microstate, and has a population of less than 32,000 people. The only sovereign state that is smaller is Vatican City (ironically, also completely surrounded by Italy). The US is the global superpower, and is well above 10,000 times larger than San Marino.

As I said, I was pushing buttons... trying to be ironic, I guess. Don't get bitchy, okay? We're actually posting here.

Oy...

I'll take a look at San Marino, but to "pick" back, Rome is immediately disqualified under my description. I clearly noted "in the world today." I did not say "of all time." As you noted, Rome's Republic ended when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I will also note that I sincerely doubt that San "the dan" Marino qualifies under the second of my US facts - existing under the same form of government / founding document that was put in place after its' original revolution (or emergence into liberty). So just throttle back there cheetoh.

Here's why Hitler Youth bounced around in my mind - the initial breaking reports were replete with descriptions of a man opening fire at "a political youth camp run by the ruling party." They kept repeating this phrase. Now I know good and well that their are "young Republican" groups on college, and even high school campuses across the nation, but when news reports spoke of "children" I assumed they meant K-5. So K-5, at a camp conducted by the ruling political party? THAT doesn't cause your mind to acess the Hitler Youth file, even in passing? Really?

No "youth camp" for elementary school aged children I've ever heard of is put on BY and for "the party" here. And trying to hold out 4H or the boy scouts as American examples seems rather lame to me.

Now, the press certainly could have got it wrong. These kids could have been doing arts & crafts and the Labor Party's association could have started and ended with merely cutting the check for expenses. But that's not how it was reported. I'm sorry, but I hear the words "political youth camp", & I see the little fair skinned boy in the black and white footage wearing an arm band & giving his buddies a Sig Heil-five.

But maybe that's just me ... and Beck.

On our facts...

Ryan wrote:

"... of believing in the notion that because the USA is the longest surviving democracy (as a Republic) in the world today..."

In my post immediately preceding yours, I gave an extant example of a republic more than 1,000 years older than the United States... San Marino. An elected, governing representative body for the city-state since the Fourth Century AD, with the only interruptions in rule being that of invasion by a foreign power (30 years of Venetian domination, and 17 by Napoleon). Add to this that I also listed Rome as having existed as a republic for more than 570 years before Caesar ended the Republic and Augustus brought about the Empire, and "both" facts fall apart quickly.

I'm picking on you, of course... but the point is valid. I agree that too many "pseudo-historians" look at the US as the one-and-only, and I agree that this isn't true. I'm just asking that you avoid being "that guy" as much as you can.

On Beck...

You're right, in a "round-about" sort of way, I guess...

Beck could have misspoken, or (more accurately) used a poor choice of words... Lord knows we've done that enough when it is the three of us together! Perhaps, after years of close association, Stu and Pat knew exactly what he meant and intended, while I did not.

As you pointed out, though... WE are not speaking before an audience of 1.5 million people, while HE is. It is incumbent on him to make sure his statements are accurate... otherwise, the errors and mistakes are going to be applied to him until he is either irrelevant in the mainstream or he learns the lesson and corrects the errors prior to air-time.

I did not make the automatic association between "youth camp" and "Hitler Youth". I belonged to several different political associations in my youth, especially in college... and in that mix I will even add that I was a frequent participant in gatherings and activities at the campus Newman Center (admittedly, a religious group... but politics was always a topic of discussion and debate). How much money comes from "political" groups and goes into such organizations as the Boy Scouts of America? The YM/WCA? 4H? Big Brother/Big Sister? All these organizations teach a multitude of society's facets to our youths and young adults... and none should be associated with the purely subversive and utterly immoral Hitler Youth of the 30s. Denying that such organizations as these face political associations (real or perceived) that are antithetical to their nature is simply idiotic. Just ask any mainstream liberal today what the purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is, and I'm sure you'll get an ear full of explanations centered on the anti-gay foundation and pro-Christian bias of the group... when, in point of fact, this is simply NOT the case at all. Perhaps the Young Democrats and the Young Republicans are as "questionable" in their makeup as this youth camp in Norway is?

Still, as you stated... media taint and poor word choices aside, nothing we say now can remove the culpability of the twisted young man for the actions he took last week. His violence and madness lashed out at the very society and people he was purporting to want to defend... and calling the man a "right-wing" Christian extremist is like calling the Final Solution a "failed policy of domestic restructuring". Nothing in his actions or intent can in any way be associated with or be defended by Christianity as any rational human being understands it. All that sort of association does is to "transfer" or "share" the culpability of his actions with Christianity at large, for the sole benefit of those that hate traditional Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.

Let me add...

I neglected to mention something. Probably because I felt it so glaringly obvious it didn't occur to me. No one is to blame for the Oslo slayings but the slayer himself.

Now, it is true that Norway is suffering the same fate as all of Western Europe, it's becoming Islamic at an incredible rate. And there's a rather simple mathematical reason. See, Natural born Western Europeans are not reproducing. They're turning out children at about 1.1. Demographers will tell you that a society, any society, requires a "sustainment" rate of 2.1. And Europe has a more lavish welfare state than anything Obama has yet to dream up, requiring equally lavish taxes and worker bees to produce those taxes. So if your indigenous population is literally not "producing", where do you get these bees? Europe's answer - North Africa. The vast migration of Mexican nationals into the US, & the various cultural & societal impact that carries, is similar to the events going on in Europe, regarding Muslims. Google it if you wish, but the #1 name in the UK for new born males is now Mohammed.

Now we are all familiar with the heated political debate around "push 9 for Spanish", & so on. But imagine how elevated that heat would become it were "push 9 for Arabic." That's the quandry Western Europe is in - cut back benefits or increase immigration, knowing that that immigration will take the form of Islam.

We here have more or less agreed that the only long term solution to Muslim intolerance & terror is an inter faith Reformation or evolution in interpretation. We could site the numbers endlessly... majority of Saudis think Bin Laiden a hero; Mein Kompf a best seller throughout the Mid East; more than half of Muslims believe 9/11 an inside job perpetrated by Zionists; clerics claiming they are "Muslim-fying" Europe; only 2 out of 47 maority Muslim nations are democratic, etc, etc. Yet Europe keeps importing this intolerance by the thousands. It is a very real quandry for them. But NONE of that justifies or excuses the Oslo killer's evil deeds. No more than it indicts white Christians whom raise questions about unchecked immigration policies.

And as a brief aside I'd wager that within the Oslo killers's home country he would find less than 1/10th of one percent support. Last I looked bin Laiden enjoyed a roughly 80% approval upon his home Saudi soil. I can only assume it's climbed since our SEAL got off the round heard round the world. And those are numbers that would make even Michael Savage happy to learn Spanish.

I'm curious ...

I have 3 points, but let me first say that unfortunately, and without warning, the local affiliate that carries Glenn Beck (720am KDWN) dropped him 2 weeks ago. They replaced him with Dennis Miller. I like Miller, but it is far and away not the type of historically oriented, politically based discussion I enjoy with Beck. To be honest, I was pretty pissed. Limbaugh is "ok," but then I'm out of options. Hannity? Are you kidding? Regis and Kathy Lee had less vapid banter. At least they had the occasional juggling bear or chimp that could cook (although I suppose that Muppet washed on hot Carville fits nicely into that category). I suppose I could access Beck's radio program online, but radio is my medium of choice precisely because it's accessible on the go. I don't have time to sit at my computer for 3 hours.

At any rate, your description of Beck's take on this youth camp piqued my interest, bringing me to Point #1 - Titus, when you heard that this "camp" was a "political youth camp", run by the ruling Labor Party, did your fertile mind not summon the phrase, if not the image, of Hitler Youth? Mine sure did. I'm not making any comparisons of the Third Reich and the Norwegian Labor Party, I'm simply saying that any person of our ilk, holding a particular fascination with the past and the penchant for studying it, would understandably race to the image of Hitler Youth. I really don't fault Beck for that, as my mind leaped to the same thing.

Point #2. When I run into political leftists, cordially at work or elsewhere, I often have one question for them regarding Glenn Beck. For example I spent the better part of 2 hours the other night, whilst dealing black jack, talking to a P.h.D graduate of Harvard. As a brief aside my first line out the chute was, "What, you couldn't get into Oxford?" ... hehe. He teaches st Florida State and his doctorate is on "American Civilization." He has a particular fascination with WWI. All good, good stuff to help me pass an otherwise torturous night of snapper. As I said, we were talking and at some point I mentioned that Goebbels, in his diaries, had a great deal of admiration for the Wilson propaganda machine. He agreed, and noted that the three worst offenders of Civil Liberties in US history (we're talking CIC's now) was Adams, Lincoln, and Wilson (whic told me that he didn't belong to the foaming at the mouth hate Bush crowd). These are fine choices, very defensible, don't get me wrong. But he went on to say that Beck is fond of linking Goebbels to Wilson, Wilson to Progressives, and Progressives to Obama. In essence he was arguing that Beck has found a tidy little way to tie Barak Obama to Nazism, without stating it directly. Look, it wasn't an altogether indefensible argument, but then he drops the, "Beck is the most dangerous man in America" line on me. Well, now he's lost me. Because as I told him, although I spend limited time at the Post Office these days, I still don't recall seeing Beck's image on the Most Wanted pin ups. This was all the long way, Titus, of posing to you the question I never quite got an answer for in my time with the good professor. Amongst the cacophony of voices peppering the political-talk landscape from cable news, to radio to the Internet, can't you at least credit Beck with spurring, inviting and even encouraging political discourse rooted in the study of history? Because I do. And I think that's worth noting and pausing long enough to give the man credit for. What other 5 day a week popular political talk show can invite a post here about 500 BC?

Point #3 - I agree with you on Beck's historical mistake. Two Millinea ago Athenians were selecting white stones and black stones. You can go to Greece, to this day, and stand on the spot where giant pots sat while each Athenian adult male walked up and cast a white stone for "yes" and a black stone for "no" into those pots. This was the sole invention of an Athenian general whom had tossed off the ruling family of Athens and pondered long and hard on how to give Athens back to the people. It is the literal Genesis for the phrase "Athenian Democracy." There are endless other examples. The most famous Western Monarchy (or at least the most media savvy one) is the English Throne. Yet not a single, not one, of Prince William's royal a forefathers or mothers were allowed to raise taxes on their subjects without the permission of Parliament. Now some American pseudo-historians often fall into the trap of believing in the notion that because the USA is the longest surviving democracy (as a Republic) in the world today, and due to our status as the only "free" nation on earth that exists under the same form of government that was put in place after its' Revolution (both factual statements), that we have cornered the market on self governance; and that same pseudo-historian will then without thought dismiss Europe as continent of absolute monarchs and failed democracies. Which, once again, was a long way of saying yes, Beck was wrong. But the essence of my third point wasn't only that I agree with you, but also this - when we error in our historical arguments only a handful of bloggers or family members hear of it. When Beck does, 15 million people bare witness. And even though he's a professional broadcaster and one steeped in historical text (compared to his colleagues at least), when you're spending 15+ hours a week essentially talking and arguing amongst your friends (Pat, Stu and various guests), the occasional mistake will undoubtedly occur ... as it did here.

By the way - we're really burning up the posts lately, aren't we? Sheeesh. Oh, I almost forgot, how did the Jambo trip to NEPA go? Or was that scheduled for August? I wasn't sure ... I'm pissed that I can't go, that I'm sure about that.

Glenn Beck... again...

Tough to deny this quote... made yesterday on his radio broadcast: "There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics. Disturbing,"

However, I could let this slide as a faux pas but for the comments that followed it (which none of the rags and media outlets cared to pick up on).

He rambled on about some kind of monologue that he had delivered last year predicting exactly this sort of attack in Europe. Why was he able to predict this attack so "precisely"? Because the Europeans had replaced kings and monarchs with "other" big-government organs... you know, like "communism" and "fascism". Thus, there is no difference between European "left wing" and European "right wing"... they both represent big government and are both wrong. The US, on the other hand, has the "left" longing for big, bloated government, and the "right" longing for small, almost non-existent government.

Honestly... this is a load of crap from beginning to end. Europe is replete with the history of representative government. It is the cradle of it, in fact. The oldest extant example of a republican nation is in Europe (San Marino), as is the first historical example (the Roman Republic) established in 500 BC. Every monarchy that still exists in Europe (and there are many... they are not all gone) is bound to the will and dictates of a popularly elected representative body and a constitution. Absolute monarchy does not exist in Europe... in fact, the only place it does exist is in the Muslim monarchies of the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Blaming this tragedy on "multiculturalism" is just as bad as blaming this tragedy on non-existent "commies" and "fascists" running things in Europe today. You can't point to the Norwegian monarchy and say "Here is the problem!", nor can you point to the current ruling party in Norway as the cause. The only cause for this sort of tragedy is the bent and twisted thinking of intolerant individuals bent on forcing THEIR will and wants on the rest a population or society... which is exactly what the crackpot responsible for this was trying to do. This crazy was hell-bent on following a path of violence and murder that was 100% antithetical to the very precepts of the society he was supposedly "defending" from Islamic and multicultural influences... and that is the failing of such movements each and every time.

Summer vacation...

So, Jambo's coming to visit the Northeast in a few weeks, and he'll be staying here in NEPA for the better part of a week. Everyone here is super excited... and it has led to some discussion about what to plan on.

There are old friends here that will want to try and get together with Jambo. Our old mentor and even older friend, Marshall, is only minutes from Gettysburg... but we've already been to Gettysburg as recently as 2008. Is touring Gettysburg again something Jambo will want to do, or would he rather hang closer to the farm? With enough notice, I'm sure Marshall can make it here for a visit (although sleeping arrangements will get tight). Cramey lives right down the road, and I'm sure he'll want to make it, too... just to say HI and relive a few old adventures.

I know the kids are stoked... especially Nolan. At least one night will have to be dedicated to hanging around the fire and letting the boy soak up some of the old "fellas" stories... he has better memories of that experience from the last visit then he does of the wedding.

Let's map out some ideas and make sure we're all on the same page for what is going to happen that week, okay? I don't want to miss a chance to let Jambo and Leona do what they want while they're here... but you are both too old to need a camp director, too.

So sad...

I'm reading the headlines this morning, after a late night and a (very) early morning (had a sleep-over for the teenagers that demanded doughnuts for breakfast), and I read something that really made me rather angry,

I won't link the article, but a rather prestigious professor at a very prestigious Catholic University wrote an article that was so filled with inaccurate and false statements that it really made me wonder what the state of Catholic education is in this country.

The article was about the important role that the Church can play in modern American life... secular as well as spiritual. However, I was so distracted by the mistakes in the details and facts that it became almost impossible for me to follow the thread of the idea.

So, as a member of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, I feel it my responsibility to give a lesson (although the author of the said article will never read this, I know) on the actual facts that were reported in the story.

#1 John Paul II was the longest reigning Pope in Church history.

Aside from the fact that Peter himself very probably reigned from 30 AD to at least 64/65 AD... maybe as late as 67 AD... which makes him the longest reigning Pope, we can look at the far (FAR) more recent Holy Father, Pope Pius IX, who reigned for 34 years and 8 months (1846-1878) as the longest papacy on record. In comparison, John Paul II sat on the See for only 26 and a half years (1978-2005).

#2 The "first" Church in Christendom is St Peter's in Rome.

Patently false!

The "first church" (chronologically speaking) would have to be the Cenacle, which is the "upper room" of the Gospel stories and is the place where Christ first established the Lord's Supper (Holy Eucharist) as a sacrament of the faith to be carried on forever. This portion of a larger building that was (at the time of Christ) a synagogue was incorporated into larger churches over the centuries, until in the 16th Century the Ottomans made it into a mosque and forbade Christian prayer within it, until the formation of the State of Israel in 1948... but it is not now, nor was it ever, a stand-alone church as we understand them today.

The oldest extant church is in Rome, but it is more than 120 years older than St Peter's... it is Santa Maria in Trastevere, which dates back to the reign of Pope St Callixtus I and the year 220 AD.

If the question is one of Catholic "primacy", the "first church" is the cathedral where the Pope sits as bishop... his primary "see" and the place where his "cathedra" (his official chair or throne) resides. This is NOT St Peter's... it is the Basilica of St John Lateran in the City of Rome, Italy. This is the "mother and head of all churches in the city and in the world" (Omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput). This is the church (basilica, actually, one of four designated "major" by the Pope) where the Pope's cathedra is found, and were he sits as bishop of the City of Rome.

There were other errors... but the kids are getting restless, and I have to play camp director now to keep the peace.

More later...

Ouch...

That last bit hurt. I know you meant it in jest but just a couple points. Angle was a weak candidate. Plus Harrahs & MGM (11 properties between them on the strip alone) set up bus loads for scores upon scores of employees. They ran non stop all day, shop stewards doing the loading, handing out literature (if you know what I mean). The non English speaking of those got a sack lunch, a card with Reid's name on it next to the banana. See Reid provided the funds that saved City Center from going under, & they paid him back. The voting tallies for precincts covering the strip were 800% the corresponding population. Angle didnt have near that sort of ground game.

But I voted against him...

And yes, your point about congress doing the literal spending is undeniable ... yet both Reid & Pelosi survived the 2010 purging.

One more... then I'm done.

You repeatedly said that the President "spends" too much, and I (of course) know what you mean... but it is just as false an assumption as anything Obama might say.

Congress spends the money... want to stop Obama's spending spree while he's still in office? Take both Houses of Congress in the hands of real fiscal conservatives, that's how. The President can only spend what Congress gives him, and in that light, the real problem for the last 8 years hasn't been Obama OR Bush... its been Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the liberal train-wreck we've called a Congress.

Tell me again which State re-elected Reid? And WHY?

And furthermore...

Speaking of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917...

What if someone ran for the White House on the promise of repealling that Act? Prior to 1917, all government debt was voted on by Congress annually, meaning it was determined what was needed, and that was balanced by what could be paid off in a single fiscal year. From 1787 to 1811, there were only two years with a "budget deficit"... and fourteen with a surplus. And THAT was at a time when the revenue base was 44% smaller than it is today (in proportion to GDP).

I would bet you your dollar to my paycheck that NO candidate (GOP or otherwise) would follow through on THAT promise. That kind of limitation would have crippled Bush Jr. just as quickly as it would have crippled Obama 8 years later, and no one in the GOP is going to forget that.

Thought that might get a response...

I can't deny your point on the President's stuborn stance... but that wasn't my point.

My point was that in holding the President's feet to the spending fire, we are less than 20 days from reaching the debt limit established in 1917 by the Second Liberty Bond Act, which created an aggregate limit on all government debt incurred by Congressional spending.

If no compromise is reached, no money can be spent... thus, the President cannot sign the check for the interest due on debt. In short, government stops... again.

However, my point doesn't negate yours: if the spending doesn't stop, nothing gets fixed.

I'm not looking forward to another two years of recession, and as long as the reasons for the shut down are legitimate and measurably shown to stem from a real attempt to reduce spending by "conservatives"... I'll do my best to grin and bear it. But if this is all a dance for the vote of confidence for Tea Party wannabes running for the White House in 2012, then I'm going to be pissed to no end.

As I have repeatedly pointed out (over and over again), NO President since Andrew Jackson... GOP or otherwise... has ever REDUCED spending while in office. In fact, no one did it before Jackson, either. Every other President we've ever had has spent more than the last... and while no one can hold a candle to Obama's spree, the last GOP President we had was every bit a spendthrift, too.

Who among today's candidates is going to CUT spending? And I don't mean just back to pre-Obama... I mean to pre-Bush, too. Is that going to happen even with a GOP victory in 2012?

In the words of the late, great Paul Harvey ...

And now, for the rest of the story.

Here's why I think your take on this looming "crisis" is wrong.

The only way we literally "default" on the debt is to refuse to pay the interest. Those interest payments amount to only 15% of Treasury receipts collected from taxes in 2010. If we do not pay the interest it will because the president chooses not to. In other words, if a deal is not struck there will be NO default. And for the President to say there will be, or that seniors won't get their SSI checks, is complete falderale. It's political scare tactics.

What's more is Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, stated flatly to the Press that the PoTUS' "last and best offer" was to cut $2 Billion in spending ... in a $1 Trillion budget. Obama ruled as "off the table" any cuts, or even altering, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Green Projects, the stimulus bill (of which less than 20% has been spent to date) his high speed rail projects, and a half dozen other large ticket items. The GOP has countered with a proposal that would match dollar for dollar spending cuts with a raise in the debt limit - the "McConnell Plan", look it up. It even grants the President the power to choose the cuts for crying out loud!!! Something I adamantly object to. Still, if we're talking who is willing to compromise and who's not, does that seem a "reasonable" proposal? And what's MORE, the president has not put forth ONE, not ONE single proposal. Let me repeat that - there is NO White House Plan on the table, he is refusing to submit specifics such as McConnell and the GOP have done. Why? The truth is that the Obama team, and their surrogates have said as much publicly, believes that the 1990's shutdown is the model for how this plays out. Clinton came out smelling like roses, Gingrich the fertilizer. They feel the same will happen to Obama and Beohner/McConnell. So WHO is playing partisan politics?

In addition, the Tea Party acolytes are standing on principle, yes, that's true. But they were sent their for a specific reason. Hell, the entire 2008 GOP sweep was sent to DC for this reason - get spending under control. Why is it that the side that is standing on principle, the side that has put forth a measurable and specific plan, the side whom did not walk out on the talks, the side that has not ruled which programs are and are not off the cutting table, is the one to blame? It's asinine. The failure to compromise is because the President will put forth no offer outside of saying he'll go up to, UP TO, two billion dollars in cuts. What is the GOP supposed to do? Simply cave so they can avoid the potential for bad PR? Is that what we sent them their for? Is THAT the mandate from the 2008 landslide? Cave? Honestly, the president is refusing to negotiate, period. He rejects their proposals out of hand and offers none of his own, only vagaries. And solely because he believes he can win the PR battle in a default. So what is the GOP to do?

And by the way - be it the stimulus, the bailouts, or name your "emergency legislation", I'm tired of being told by my government that if we don't spend "X Trillion Dollars" that my country will fall apart. I don't buy it. I'm not scared. You cited "some economists" noting the dire consequences. Well, "some economists" that I have listened to debunk the idea of a default at all, not to mention the "crisis" an actual default will cause. And they add that the bottom line is this - if we keep spending we will go the way of Greece. Will their be short term consequences? Of course. But it doesn't take an economic degree to realize that if SOMEBODY doesn't stand up and draw a line in the sand on spending we will end up like a wink link in the EU. To raise the debt limit with no spending curbs, as the President wants, is to fix the short term while sacrificing the long term. And there's no EU around to bail out America. So SOMEBODY has got to stand up to the tide of spending madness washing through that city.

To put it simply - the bigger threat to the US economy is to continue to let this President SPEND. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

I'll close with this - in 2008 a then senator from Chicago voted "Nay" on raising the debt limit. He had to cease campaigning for president to come back and cast that nay vote. The measure pased over his objections, but he used his Constititional authority as a member of the Senate to attempt to prevent then President George W. Bush from borrowing even one more dollar. In fact, he urged President Bush and the congress to do what American families across the country were doing, living within their means. And when pressed by the media about the doom and gloom consequences of not raising the debt ceiling he dismissed it out of hand, refusing to have the conversation stating, and I quote: "To even discuss raising our debt limit is a failure in leadership."

Make that 2 posts in a row in which a Bund member agrees with Barak H. Obama.

A banner month for the Bund, huh?

Four posts? Really?

{sigh}

Let's talk about the art of compromise.

Obama walked out of a debt negotiation meeting with Congressional GOP leadership, saying "Enough is enough." At this point, I'm afraid I have to agree with the President.

If no agreement is reached by Aug 2, the US defaults on as much as 20% of its $1.8 trillion debt load, and its credit rating will be reduced by global economists. This will mean an instant increase in the cost of borrowing money for every single American, not just the US Government. Interest rates on mortgages will go up between 5% and 15% within hours of the default. Interest return rates on government bonds and bills will fall by as much as 2%. Some economists predict that the bank failure rate will reach record levels by the end of 2011... bringing us right back to 2008 and its painful economic climate.

17 of the most "conservative" Tea Party favorites (including two prospective 2012 Presidential candidates) have vowed to NOT vote to increase the debt limit... standing on principle, I guess. Most of the rest of the GOP find that agreeing to increases in the debt limit that coincide with decreases in budgetary spending over the next decade is a viable alternative. In fact, many Democrats think that's a good idea, too.

The nation is in deep, no question, and hard choices will have to made in the near future... but refusing to increase the debt limit based on partisan political agendas does nothing to help the nation at all. I can't help but think that all the "doom and gloom" predictions about out-of-control spending in the US are about to come true because no compromise could be reached between conservatives and liberals in Congress.

Agreed...

I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that when the case involves a dead child - duct taped and in a car trunk no less - that an American jury would hold "someone" accountable, and that someone seemed to me to be Casey Anthony. Common sense tells me that in such a case the defense starts at a deficit, and even though jurors are instructed and required even to initiate the trial otherwise, they're only human. So I concur, this speaks to a prosecution lacking in its' presentation.

Very telling to me was when the verdict was read. Amidst the defense team's hugging and high fives the parents of Casey Anthony summarily left the court room, clearly displeased. Their daughter just dodged the potential for lethal injection, and they wanted no part in the celebration. Does that not strike anyone?

What Anthony clearly IS guilty of, beyond a reasonable doubt, is of being an atrocious mother. The woman obviously wanted no part in the blessing that is a child. And much like OJ I predict that her troubles with the law will not end here.

In the end, even if one were to believe in the "accidental" death theory, duct tape does not get placed on a child's mouth, nor chloroform in entered into her system, on "accident." So I can only assume the just verdict will one day be read out to Ms. Anthony by the ultimate foreman, St. Peter. And from that sentence their is no parole.

Travesty?

No one that has watched even a moment of TV news or listened to even a minute of talk radio has missed the Casey Anthony story, right? Mother of murdered toddler found "not guilty" by a jury of her peers, even though the media of most of the world had her convicted months ago.

I keep seeing the word "travesty" thrown up in regards to this story. In its modern form the word literally means "to ape" or to simulate in a degrading manner, whatever is being imitaded... in this case, justice.

Comparisons to OJ Simpson abound, of course... and rightly so. Both cases were high profile and followed obessively by the media and the public. Both cases ended in (basically) criminal aquitals for both of the accused. Both crimes were tragic and heartbreaking to those effected by them.

But was it a travesty? Was this an imitation of actual justice at work? Was this a sham?

The woman had her day in court, and the prosecuters had their opportunity to convince the jury that she was the sole and only hand that killed the poor child... and they failed to do so.

Like it or not, people... this is the "system" here in the United States. It wasn't the "system" that failed to find the guilty party and bring them to swift and sure justice... it was the team investigating, presenting and prosecuting the case against the mother that couldn't convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty.

The "system" works just fine... the District Attorney's office in Orange County Florida, however... they might need a little help.

Good news...

Jambo has a new computer, and I have two days off this week. Perhaps July will see some posts worth reading...

Honestly, mornings were always my "Bund" time... but our 8-year-old is in camp and I'm the one to take him to it 5 days a week. With work getting in the way three of those five, my Bund time is reduced. No excuse, just a mild explanation as to why I've been so quite lately.

Still, much has been happening in the world, and I'll have something to say about it all before week's end.

New Computer

A virus is no excuse for my absence... But I have to tell you my new computer is MAC DADDY! I never realized how old and slow a 2001 Dell was until I slap this 4 gig RAM one terabyte hard drive HD quality monitor onto the big red desk and fully enter the 21 century.

Damn.