... to see you begin to embrace your Catholic heritage, and to watch you see the light of truth shining through in the One True Faith.
Not only is the letter to be read in every parish in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but it was mailed to me (and actually signed by) the Bishop of Scranton, PA, the Most Reverend Joseph Bambera. It is, in essence, exactly the same as what Ryan posted... so I won't post it again. If you choose to read it, you can do so HERE.
Archbishop Cardinal George of Chicago, however, was quite a bit more frustrated and spoke very strong words about where he saw this going:
"I will die in my bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in a public square."
Ryan is 100% right... this is a storm of epic proportions that is brewing up all along the President's campaign of "hope and change", and it is NOT going to go away quietly.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
First they came for the Catholics...
It is time that all sects of Christianity and Jews alike stand with the Catholic. After much debate in this ongoing battle, since the passing of Obamacare, the administration has decided to make only one concession - "give em' a year."
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This is what happens, this is the real life, tangible "slippery slope" effect. Millions of Catholics voted for Obama. Millions still, supported Obamacare. Legislation that at its' core was/is the "individual mandate." For the first time in American history it became law that I go purchase a product based on my having been born. Obama took the FDR ball of perverting the Interstate Commerce Clause and ran with it by arguing I - F. Ryan - am effecting commerce by NOT participating. Now its a step further, the slope angle increases ...
"The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception — including controversial abortifacients — be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans ... AP reports, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius conceded that nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul."
They are giving Catholic Hospitals (most prominently) one year to start offering contraception services. And as Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League stated yesterday, "Make no mistake. This is the nose of the camel. Their intention is to eventually require all hospitals and all health programs operating under Church affiliation to cover and provide for abortions."
The Church has drawn a line in the sand ... they will fight, and we should fight with them.
“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said Cardinal-designate Dolan. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” He added, "The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs.”
You can read the entire story HERE.
This is added to a SCOTUS descion in recent weeks on "Ministerial Exception." It was upheld in a 9-0 ruling. The long and short of it is the administration wanted to remove the exception which would allow, for example, the DOJ to go after the Catholic Church for discrimination against women for not allowing females to become priests.
I'm curious, Notre Dame. Are you guys regretting the award you gave the President now? Those Catholics who came out in favor of his health care plan, the Bishops whom are now "furious" (says the story), do you realize now that this guy is not your friend? That "making nice" with him doesn't work? That giving him awards doesn't abate his agenda? Get the picture NOW? I'm with you, make no mistake. I'm just sad that it took this long for you to realize that getting along with this man is not an option - he must be defeated.
The Catholic Bishops in America went even a step further this weekend, issuing a letter that from what I understand was to be read in every Parish across the nation (I'm curious if the two alter boys here had it read at their service). You can read a story about the unusually strong letter HERE. And although each Bishop personalized it slightly in their own way, I wanted it on "Bund Record." The following is from the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan):
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting usccb.org to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Bishop of Marquette
As I said, it's time to stand.
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This is what happens, this is the real life, tangible "slippery slope" effect. Millions of Catholics voted for Obama. Millions still, supported Obamacare. Legislation that at its' core was/is the "individual mandate." For the first time in American history it became law that I go purchase a product based on my having been born. Obama took the FDR ball of perverting the Interstate Commerce Clause and ran with it by arguing I - F. Ryan - am effecting commerce by NOT participating. Now its a step further, the slope angle increases ...
"The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception — including controversial abortifacients — be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans ... AP reports, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius conceded that nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul."
They are giving Catholic Hospitals (most prominently) one year to start offering contraception services. And as Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League stated yesterday, "Make no mistake. This is the nose of the camel. Their intention is to eventually require all hospitals and all health programs operating under Church affiliation to cover and provide for abortions."
The Church has drawn a line in the sand ... they will fight, and we should fight with them.
“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said Cardinal-designate Dolan. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” He added, "The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs.”
You can read the entire story HERE.
This is added to a SCOTUS descion in recent weeks on "Ministerial Exception." It was upheld in a 9-0 ruling. The long and short of it is the administration wanted to remove the exception which would allow, for example, the DOJ to go after the Catholic Church for discrimination against women for not allowing females to become priests.
I'm curious, Notre Dame. Are you guys regretting the award you gave the President now? Those Catholics who came out in favor of his health care plan, the Bishops whom are now "furious" (says the story), do you realize now that this guy is not your friend? That "making nice" with him doesn't work? That giving him awards doesn't abate his agenda? Get the picture NOW? I'm with you, make no mistake. I'm just sad that it took this long for you to realize that getting along with this man is not an option - he must be defeated.
The Catholic Bishops in America went even a step further this weekend, issuing a letter that from what I understand was to be read in every Parish across the nation (I'm curious if the two alter boys here had it read at their service). You can read a story about the unusually strong letter HERE. And although each Bishop personalized it slightly in their own way, I wanted it on "Bund Record." The following is from the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan):
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting usccb.org to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Bishop of Marquette
As I said, it's time to stand.
Marx's Funky Bunch...
{enough with the puns, please...}
So, you're elaboration on how far left the US has gone since its founding, and more specifically over the last 60 years, is clear and understood. This is neither news nor debatable, in my eyes.
I have a clear recollection of also discussing the propensity of such talking heads as Beck-Hannity-Levin-etc who repeatedly use a pseudo-historical perspective to forward their views and agendas. As I said then, and as I reaffirm now... it is neither accurate nor just to make these claims.
If you want my honest tally of how many of the "pillars" we have established here in the US, then I'd have to say only ONE... the progressive income tax. It was first imposed by Abraham Lincoln's administration and was repeatedly put up against other, alternative forms of taxation (property, flat rate, sale tax, etc) and has always come out (legislatively, that is) on top as the best means to pay for the organs of government. History has shown that it can be a fair and productive means of generating public revenue without hampering or stalling the national economic engine, when it is managed in a way that doesn't over-burden the tax paying citizens.
There are aspects of our society that I am not happy with... we do not need nor should we have a Federal-level Department of Education, dictating how, when and where monies will be spent on a national level. Education should remain a responsibility of the most local form of government available: no greater than a State level, I feel, and the bulk of THAT level functioning at the district or municipal level... period. The same is true for Federal welfare spending... that should be the sole responsibility of the States. Both exist, however... and to label both as "pillars" of Marxism is both inaccurate and unfair.
Free education is NOT a monopoly of the government, nor is welfare spending. The bulk of both still lies at a more local level, but any Federal level is too much for me. Even in countries where "socialism" is the norm, it is NEVER the free education institutions that give the best educations. England promises free education through the university level, and they have many fine "public schools"... but it is the graduates of Eton, Cambridge and Oxford that show the real value of private education, isn't it?
I do NOT equate Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as institutions that can be compared to the first "pillar". Both institutions were formed to allow prospective owners to purchase property with the guaranteed assistance and assurances of the Federal government. I'm not saying its a good thing... only that it was a means by which people could more easily "own" that which Marx said should never be "owned": property. Regardless of the means by which a person acquires property, that property is theirs... from the center of the earth to the top of the sky. It always has been and should remain a tenant of individual liberty in this country that the ownership of property is every citizen's inherent right, and that right should remain protected... which I feel it is. It is the burden of the guarantees made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are causing the problems and contributing to fiscal failures... mismanagement and poor planning... NOT the institution of ownership itself. I know you understand this... I'm not explaining it to you by any means. I am simply stating my understanding of the problem and why it is not an applicable comparison.
Now, to my final point.
If I understand your position, you are saying that using words like "marxism" in reference to any sort of socialist agenda (or supporter thereof) is acceptable because it is a term in common usage, and the specific details of that term no longer apply in the modern context. In short, I'm "nit-picking" when I say it isn't applicable.
I see that point, and I admit it is probably accurate and applicable.
I would counter with a reference back to another discussion we had, not all that long ago...
You made it very clear that images and symbols such as the letters "CCCP" are offensive in the extreme because of the specific and literal associations that are attached to them by history. I tried to make the case that a person could be justified in wearing a hockey jersey with the letters CCCP on it for no greater reason that that country fielded the best hockey team (professional or otherwise) for the better part of forty years in the middle of the last century... bar none until 1980. That team "owned" the very best players from the NHL, Europe and any other team skating on the face of the earth from 1954 to 1991... and I am quite sure that many fans of the game still say names like Mikhailov, Tretyak, Petrov, and Maltsev with a hushed and reverent tone very similar to that used by fans saying the names Gretsky, Orr, and Lemieux. BUT, to wear their jersey today is to risk giving offense because of the symbols on the front, not the name on the back.
Symbols matter... details matter... and a clear understanding of the historical context matters, per your past arguments. If that is NOT true, please let me know. To forget history is to doom ourselves to repeat it, and by allowing terms and ideologies such as Marxism, Lenninism, Trotskyism, Maoism and the differences between them and terms like "socialism", "communism", "collectivism" is to water-down our understanding of them all to the point where we risk facing them again in the future under another guise.
I'm not picking a fight... we don't have to debate this any further. You are correct when you say it is a term in common usage, and that the terms have become almost interchangeable. I'm not going to contribute to that trend, however...
So, you're elaboration on how far left the US has gone since its founding, and more specifically over the last 60 years, is clear and understood. This is neither news nor debatable, in my eyes.
I have a clear recollection of also discussing the propensity of such talking heads as Beck-Hannity-Levin-etc who repeatedly use a pseudo-historical perspective to forward their views and agendas. As I said then, and as I reaffirm now... it is neither accurate nor just to make these claims.
If you want my honest tally of how many of the "pillars" we have established here in the US, then I'd have to say only ONE... the progressive income tax. It was first imposed by Abraham Lincoln's administration and was repeatedly put up against other, alternative forms of taxation (property, flat rate, sale tax, etc) and has always come out (legislatively, that is) on top as the best means to pay for the organs of government. History has shown that it can be a fair and productive means of generating public revenue without hampering or stalling the national economic engine, when it is managed in a way that doesn't over-burden the tax paying citizens.
There are aspects of our society that I am not happy with... we do not need nor should we have a Federal-level Department of Education, dictating how, when and where monies will be spent on a national level. Education should remain a responsibility of the most local form of government available: no greater than a State level, I feel, and the bulk of THAT level functioning at the district or municipal level... period. The same is true for Federal welfare spending... that should be the sole responsibility of the States. Both exist, however... and to label both as "pillars" of Marxism is both inaccurate and unfair.
Free education is NOT a monopoly of the government, nor is welfare spending. The bulk of both still lies at a more local level, but any Federal level is too much for me. Even in countries where "socialism" is the norm, it is NEVER the free education institutions that give the best educations. England promises free education through the university level, and they have many fine "public schools"... but it is the graduates of Eton, Cambridge and Oxford that show the real value of private education, isn't it?
I do NOT equate Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as institutions that can be compared to the first "pillar". Both institutions were formed to allow prospective owners to purchase property with the guaranteed assistance and assurances of the Federal government. I'm not saying its a good thing... only that it was a means by which people could more easily "own" that which Marx said should never be "owned": property. Regardless of the means by which a person acquires property, that property is theirs... from the center of the earth to the top of the sky. It always has been and should remain a tenant of individual liberty in this country that the ownership of property is every citizen's inherent right, and that right should remain protected... which I feel it is. It is the burden of the guarantees made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are causing the problems and contributing to fiscal failures... mismanagement and poor planning... NOT the institution of ownership itself. I know you understand this... I'm not explaining it to you by any means. I am simply stating my understanding of the problem and why it is not an applicable comparison.
Now, to my final point.
If I understand your position, you are saying that using words like "marxism" in reference to any sort of socialist agenda (or supporter thereof) is acceptable because it is a term in common usage, and the specific details of that term no longer apply in the modern context. In short, I'm "nit-picking" when I say it isn't applicable.
I see that point, and I admit it is probably accurate and applicable.
I would counter with a reference back to another discussion we had, not all that long ago...
You made it very clear that images and symbols such as the letters "CCCP" are offensive in the extreme because of the specific and literal associations that are attached to them by history. I tried to make the case that a person could be justified in wearing a hockey jersey with the letters CCCP on it for no greater reason that that country fielded the best hockey team (professional or otherwise) for the better part of forty years in the middle of the last century... bar none until 1980. That team "owned" the very best players from the NHL, Europe and any other team skating on the face of the earth from 1954 to 1991... and I am quite sure that many fans of the game still say names like Mikhailov, Tretyak, Petrov, and Maltsev with a hushed and reverent tone very similar to that used by fans saying the names Gretsky, Orr, and Lemieux. BUT, to wear their jersey today is to risk giving offense because of the symbols on the front, not the name on the back.
Symbols matter... details matter... and a clear understanding of the historical context matters, per your past arguments. If that is NOT true, please let me know. To forget history is to doom ourselves to repeat it, and by allowing terms and ideologies such as Marxism, Lenninism, Trotskyism, Maoism and the differences between them and terms like "socialism", "communism", "collectivism" is to water-down our understanding of them all to the point where we risk facing them again in the future under another guise.
I'm not picking a fight... we don't have to debate this any further. You are correct when you say it is a term in common usage, and that the terms have become almost interchangeable. I'm not going to contribute to that trend, however...
Monday, January 30, 2012
On your Marx...get ready...set...go!
Of course Lenin didn't use a starters pistol when he leveled the Tsar's family and their white clad loyalists.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not responding so as to disagree with your last, for it was a well reasoned, level headed assessment as to why many a Leftist creedo applies to President Obama, just not Marxism. Particularly your mention of the 10 Pillars. But I wanted to briefly strike at the heart of all this confusion, on the Right in particular.
There are many innocent offenders, Beck being the least among them (due to his fascination with the ugly parts of history), all the way up to Hannity whom doesn't seem particularly concerned with technical definitions or subterranean arguments of any kind. But I call them "innocent" because none of them, from the water cooler conservative to Rush Limbaugh, mean to perpetrate any purposeful deception when tossing about proper nouns such as communism, socialism, Marxism, etc. The words have simply become interchangeable. Add to this lexicon a few more adjectives from the more historically oriented of the group (both Beck and Mark Levine spring to mind), such as "progressives" and "statists"; and add further my own descriptions such as "central planners" and "wealth redistributionists."
As Austin Powers said to his boss, "But what does it all mean Basil?"
Well of course we all mean to communicate a simple idea: using the apparatus of state to limit economic liberty. However the question here remains, is it important to discard any titles, any adjectives, that simply do not fit when referencing the headliners of the American Left? And even if we do, would the rank and file Right of center understand why, or be patient enough to hear the explanation? I am of course discarding any public relations concerns for the purposes of this discussion. I am not giving any weight to political convenience, i.e. refraining from using one label or another because it's "bad PR." I simply want to come to a consensus on what, if any, Leftist label from history represents the Leftist ideology present in President Obama and his acolytes.
To that end ...
You can Google the definition of Marxism all you want, but trust me when I write that the summary response will be: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrch Engels that served as the basis for communism in which class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classles society.
I heard a quiz question once in which the questioner asked the participant if he could "define responsibility without using the word responsible." This is the quandary we find ourselves in. One can scarcely examine the definitions of any of the above labels without finding within that definition a reference to the other.
So, is Marxism a brand of communism? Or is communism an outgrowth of Marxism? He did pen the "Communist Manifesto" after all. I have always tended to think of "Marxism" as the intellectual organization of communism. A "how to" book if you will. Marx, in this theory, would be akin to communism the way Jefferson is to our Republic. As such, using the phrase "Jeffersonian Democracy" is another way of identifying a particular way to organize a representative republic.
Also under this theory one must acknowledge that since Marx wrote a very specific manifesto, to call someone a "Marxist" they must meet a very specific criteria. And this is to your point Titus. If they do not, then a less specific more benign, if you will, label should be applied. Such as "central planner" or "statist." Even progressive, which works particularly well in America (its' birthplace), given the catch all aim of their movement, starting in the early 20th century, was to "progress past" the restraints on government provided under our Constitution.
However, lets be sure. Below are the dreaded "10 Pillars" as authored by Marx (& Engel). Play this game, as I did. See how many can be matched with the current administration. Either through deed, or word, or evident ideology, see how many of the ten "match up" with Barack Obama. But before doing so, you must decide for yourself - "how many make a Marxist?" Does 6 out of 10 qualify one as a Marxist? 8? Must it be all 10?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Source (a fellow blogger I might add): HERE
Here's my estimation:
#1 smacks of Fannie and Freddy. They now hold something on the order of 97% of all mortgages in America. Now you can argue this was true under Bush as well, however, that number hasn't just gone up, it has skyrocketed. To boot, the current PoTUS has gone much further. From mortgage bailouts, to "urging" private sector banks alter existing home loans, to demanding Judges alter set agreements, to flatly offering a complete mortgage bailout of all toxic assets. He proposed this in the campaign and there is word of a new TARP-like package working its' way through congress, mortgage specific. And let us not forget the PoTUS' backing of the SCOTUS' new interpretation of "eminent domain" - the state having the right to seize land and give it to another private entity under the auspices that the new owners will generate a tax revenue for the common good (in other words, take your land and give it to Wal Mart).
#2 speaks for itself. It is the essence of American progressive dogma. Instituted by FDR (if I remember correctly), they diametrically oppose, on principle, anything approaching a Flat Tax.
#3 The American Left defends the "Death Tax" as its called, to this day. A millionaire has no right to leave his already taxed money to his heirs without the government collecting a heavy taste, about half (to borrow a phrase).
I submit that in one form or another, Obama and his crowd are 3 for 3 at this point. Moving on ...
#4 Here I think we lose one. The property of "emigrants" is not being confiscated. And "rebels?" Well, I'm sure they would argue the Tea Party is a subversive group, but everyone's property rights are being threatened, per #1 above, not just these two groups.
#5 Say it with me - "The Fed!" The Federal Reserve, the incestuous relationship between this supposed private entity and the government (in particular the Executive Branch via the Treasury Dept) is clearly exercising the authority of a monopoly and, as Ron Paul supporters would legitimately argue, creating a fiat currency.
#6 Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars have been allotted for "infrastructure", and "green" requirements are imposed in every form of private travel, so there is a case to be made (the TSA included), but its grey at best, not black and white.
#7 I would argue here lies a much stronger case - GM, and the EPA in specific.
#8 The latter half of this one interests me (who here thinks the American Left feels "all should work" after all?). Ameri-Core is the domestic "army" that the PoTUS exclaimed should be "Just as well funded" as the US military. Does that constitute an "industrial army" such as Marx articulated? Not exactly. But between Ameri-Core and Labor Union support and organization for the President, I think there's a case to be made.
#9 This one is antiquated if you take it in its' literal terms, but again, the PoTUS spending billions of tax payer dollars to force or create out of whole cloth a "green economy" isn't that far off the mark(x).
#10 Clearly the PoTUS favors free schooling, up to the collegiate level. Occupy Wall Street would seem to agree. Not to mention, the president got legislation passed that makes ALL student loans now available only through the government. How long before he begins forgiving such debt?
So, by my tally he meets a clear 6 out 0f 10, with another three "ify", and one disqualified. And certainly I have missed many an argument, in both directions, with a government so massive in scope as ours, so I by no means think mine is the last word here.
But I would like to know, does 60% a Marxist make?
What's your tally?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not responding so as to disagree with your last, for it was a well reasoned, level headed assessment as to why many a Leftist creedo applies to President Obama, just not Marxism. Particularly your mention of the 10 Pillars. But I wanted to briefly strike at the heart of all this confusion, on the Right in particular.
There are many innocent offenders, Beck being the least among them (due to his fascination with the ugly parts of history), all the way up to Hannity whom doesn't seem particularly concerned with technical definitions or subterranean arguments of any kind. But I call them "innocent" because none of them, from the water cooler conservative to Rush Limbaugh, mean to perpetrate any purposeful deception when tossing about proper nouns such as communism, socialism, Marxism, etc. The words have simply become interchangeable. Add to this lexicon a few more adjectives from the more historically oriented of the group (both Beck and Mark Levine spring to mind), such as "progressives" and "statists"; and add further my own descriptions such as "central planners" and "wealth redistributionists."
As Austin Powers said to his boss, "But what does it all mean Basil?"
Well of course we all mean to communicate a simple idea: using the apparatus of state to limit economic liberty. However the question here remains, is it important to discard any titles, any adjectives, that simply do not fit when referencing the headliners of the American Left? And even if we do, would the rank and file Right of center understand why, or be patient enough to hear the explanation? I am of course discarding any public relations concerns for the purposes of this discussion. I am not giving any weight to political convenience, i.e. refraining from using one label or another because it's "bad PR." I simply want to come to a consensus on what, if any, Leftist label from history represents the Leftist ideology present in President Obama and his acolytes.
To that end ...
You can Google the definition of Marxism all you want, but trust me when I write that the summary response will be: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrch Engels that served as the basis for communism in which class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classles society.
I heard a quiz question once in which the questioner asked the participant if he could "define responsibility without using the word responsible." This is the quandary we find ourselves in. One can scarcely examine the definitions of any of the above labels without finding within that definition a reference to the other.
So, is Marxism a brand of communism? Or is communism an outgrowth of Marxism? He did pen the "Communist Manifesto" after all. I have always tended to think of "Marxism" as the intellectual organization of communism. A "how to" book if you will. Marx, in this theory, would be akin to communism the way Jefferson is to our Republic. As such, using the phrase "Jeffersonian Democracy" is another way of identifying a particular way to organize a representative republic.
Also under this theory one must acknowledge that since Marx wrote a very specific manifesto, to call someone a "Marxist" they must meet a very specific criteria. And this is to your point Titus. If they do not, then a less specific more benign, if you will, label should be applied. Such as "central planner" or "statist." Even progressive, which works particularly well in America (its' birthplace), given the catch all aim of their movement, starting in the early 20th century, was to "progress past" the restraints on government provided under our Constitution.
However, lets be sure. Below are the dreaded "10 Pillars" as authored by Marx (& Engel). Play this game, as I did. See how many can be matched with the current administration. Either through deed, or word, or evident ideology, see how many of the ten "match up" with Barack Obama. But before doing so, you must decide for yourself - "how many make a Marxist?" Does 6 out of 10 qualify one as a Marxist? 8? Must it be all 10?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Source (a fellow blogger I might add): HERE
Here's my estimation:
#1 smacks of Fannie and Freddy. They now hold something on the order of 97% of all mortgages in America. Now you can argue this was true under Bush as well, however, that number hasn't just gone up, it has skyrocketed. To boot, the current PoTUS has gone much further. From mortgage bailouts, to "urging" private sector banks alter existing home loans, to demanding Judges alter set agreements, to flatly offering a complete mortgage bailout of all toxic assets. He proposed this in the campaign and there is word of a new TARP-like package working its' way through congress, mortgage specific. And let us not forget the PoTUS' backing of the SCOTUS' new interpretation of "eminent domain" - the state having the right to seize land and give it to another private entity under the auspices that the new owners will generate a tax revenue for the common good (in other words, take your land and give it to Wal Mart).
#2 speaks for itself. It is the essence of American progressive dogma. Instituted by FDR (if I remember correctly), they diametrically oppose, on principle, anything approaching a Flat Tax.
#3 The American Left defends the "Death Tax" as its called, to this day. A millionaire has no right to leave his already taxed money to his heirs without the government collecting a heavy taste, about half (to borrow a phrase).
I submit that in one form or another, Obama and his crowd are 3 for 3 at this point. Moving on ...
#4 Here I think we lose one. The property of "emigrants" is not being confiscated. And "rebels?" Well, I'm sure they would argue the Tea Party is a subversive group, but everyone's property rights are being threatened, per #1 above, not just these two groups.
#5 Say it with me - "The Fed!" The Federal Reserve, the incestuous relationship between this supposed private entity and the government (in particular the Executive Branch via the Treasury Dept) is clearly exercising the authority of a monopoly and, as Ron Paul supporters would legitimately argue, creating a fiat currency.
#6 Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars have been allotted for "infrastructure", and "green" requirements are imposed in every form of private travel, so there is a case to be made (the TSA included), but its grey at best, not black and white.
#7 I would argue here lies a much stronger case - GM, and the EPA in specific.
#8 The latter half of this one interests me (who here thinks the American Left feels "all should work" after all?). Ameri-Core is the domestic "army" that the PoTUS exclaimed should be "Just as well funded" as the US military. Does that constitute an "industrial army" such as Marx articulated? Not exactly. But between Ameri-Core and Labor Union support and organization for the President, I think there's a case to be made.
#9 This one is antiquated if you take it in its' literal terms, but again, the PoTUS spending billions of tax payer dollars to force or create out of whole cloth a "green economy" isn't that far off the mark(x).
#10 Clearly the PoTUS favors free schooling, up to the collegiate level. Occupy Wall Street would seem to agree. Not to mention, the president got legislation passed that makes ALL student loans now available only through the government. How long before he begins forgiving such debt?
So, by my tally he meets a clear 6 out 0f 10, with another three "ify", and one disqualified. And certainly I have missed many an argument, in both directions, with a government so massive in scope as ours, so I by no means think mine is the last word here.
But I would like to know, does 60% a Marxist make?
What's your tally?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
On Shatner...
To respond briefly to Ryan's post:
I think you missed my point. Obama wants to make the "state" bigger, more controlling and more entrenched than it has ever been... that is the antithesis of what Marx was preaching. He saw the end of the State as the ultimate progression of human society, with only the functioning structure of the "proletariat" and its infrastructure left to keep society running smoothly for all eternity.
Mind you, I don't disagree that Obama wants to fundamentally reshape the USA from what it was envisaged to be into something he thinks it should be... that could very well be the truth, and it is certainly true of many that Obama once held close to him (Wright, Ayers, et al), many of whom were (and are) extreme socialists.
Marxism isn't Marxism without the "pillars" though... and Obama can't possibly be seen to want to institute or impose those while in Office. He is not going to encourage the violent overthrow of the established system, as Lenin and Trotsky understood Marx to be saying, nor is he going to seize and shut down the financial centers as Engels demanded happen before social progress could begin.
Liberal ideology says that with each gain made, the next gain is set in motion (politically speaking). The infamous "slippery slope" wherein once in place, it is impossible to remove the liberal agenda from society's structure. Social Security is a good example, in that it is NOT doing what it was intended to do in 1936, but is now so entrenched in the American society that to discuss removing it or revamping it is to flirt with utter loss of credibility. The more dependent the populous is on the government, the stronger the government's position in their lives is, and the harder it is to change.
No amount of socialist agenda functions, however, if there is no "class struggle"... period. If the conservative (read "classical liberal") agenda can focus on ending the imagined or exaggerated claims of class struggle in America (where even the poorest of American citizens has access to Internet, cellphones and the best healthcare on the face of the earth), and bring greater attention to the opportunity that exists as part of the very fabric this nation was made with, THEN the socialist, liberal agenda will have nothing to break against...
That's when things will start working again.
I think you missed my point. Obama wants to make the "state" bigger, more controlling and more entrenched than it has ever been... that is the antithesis of what Marx was preaching. He saw the end of the State as the ultimate progression of human society, with only the functioning structure of the "proletariat" and its infrastructure left to keep society running smoothly for all eternity.
Mind you, I don't disagree that Obama wants to fundamentally reshape the USA from what it was envisaged to be into something he thinks it should be... that could very well be the truth, and it is certainly true of many that Obama once held close to him (Wright, Ayers, et al), many of whom were (and are) extreme socialists.
Marxism isn't Marxism without the "pillars" though... and Obama can't possibly be seen to want to institute or impose those while in Office. He is not going to encourage the violent overthrow of the established system, as Lenin and Trotsky understood Marx to be saying, nor is he going to seize and shut down the financial centers as Engels demanded happen before social progress could begin.
Liberal ideology says that with each gain made, the next gain is set in motion (politically speaking). The infamous "slippery slope" wherein once in place, it is impossible to remove the liberal agenda from society's structure. Social Security is a good example, in that it is NOT doing what it was intended to do in 1936, but is now so entrenched in the American society that to discuss removing it or revamping it is to flirt with utter loss of credibility. The more dependent the populous is on the government, the stronger the government's position in their lives is, and the harder it is to change.
No amount of socialist agenda functions, however, if there is no "class struggle"... period. If the conservative (read "classical liberal") agenda can focus on ending the imagined or exaggerated claims of class struggle in America (where even the poorest of American citizens has access to Internet, cellphones and the best healthcare on the face of the earth), and bring greater attention to the opportunity that exists as part of the very fabric this nation was made with, THEN the socialist, liberal agenda will have nothing to break against...
That's when things will start working again.
Spartacus...
All I have to say is that... as sad and tragic as it is to know Andy is gone, they couldn't have found a better replacement than they did. Liam McIntyre not only resembles Andy as he played the role, but has captured that same Stoic attitude that Andy gave the Thracian in the first season.
If the first episode is any indicator... this is going to be a great season.
If the first episode is any indicator... this is going to be a great season.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Vengence
Just finished watching the season premier of Spartacus. If you've seen it, you know it is awesome beyond words. If you haven't... There's nothing I can do for you.
Watched all the way through thinking I'd get scenes from next week's episode, and at the end of the credits a pic of Andy Whitfield, smiling, with his birth and death years. (Kid was born the year after me... So terribly sad.) "Hero on the screen. Legend in our hearts." Lasted maybe ten seconds. I am still teary eyed and it's been over an hour.
And since everyone seems to be ranting about Kindles... Have you guys read either With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge or Helmet for my Pillow by Robert Lecke? Add those to your lists. Damn.
Watched all the way through thinking I'd get scenes from next week's episode, and at the end of the credits a pic of Andy Whitfield, smiling, with his birth and death years. (Kid was born the year after me... So terribly sad.) "Hero on the screen. Legend in our hearts." Lasted maybe ten seconds. I am still teary eyed and it's been over an hour.
And since everyone seems to be ranting about Kindles... Have you guys read either With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge or Helmet for my Pillow by Robert Lecke? Add those to your lists. Damn.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Holy Shatner!
Ok, ok. After much thought, debate, and soul searching I am willing to admit you have convinced me ... he's a fascist AND a Marxist.
Happy?
In college I took many a history course. And I soon realized that were I to ask 6 different professors the definition for terms like fascism; totalitarianism; despotism: communism; and Marxism, that I would get six different definitions. And each had different perspectives on what monsters from history qualified as a poster boy for each. Finally, I read a quote from a renowned professor (not one of mine) that summed up the state of these labels, for me (in this case he was discussing fascism): "We have all agreed to use the term without having agreed what it means." I came to the simple conclusion that each of these regimes from history had an overwhelming characteristic in common - they used the apparatus of government to oppress the individual for the "good" of the collective (whether that collective was defined as the proletariat, the state itself, a race, an ethnicity, the Party, or the Revolution). The only discernible difference was the economic model they chose to embrace, and the body count. However, I'm not saying making those two distinctions isn't a worth while endeavour. And in that vein ...
I could be cute about it and point out that Reverend Wright has proudly (and often) pronounced that his "Black Liberation Theology" is rooted in Marxist doctrine. And of course the PoTUS attended this doctrine instruction for 20 years (including having the good reverend baptize his daughters). But I'll just use your definition. And first things first: "Obama does not want to see the end of the "state" in America..."
Yes he does.
He's said as much. The entire premise of this nation, of American exceptionalism, is the idea that the rights of the individual trump those of the collective, because those rights are handed down from God, not man. It is what has made us special. It's why we have progressed the state of man more in the last 235 years than the previous 5,000 combined. Obama has plainly, blatantly announced over and over that he seeks to reverse this. From his musing on collective salvation (his depending on his neighbors and the nation as a whole), to wealth redistribution via ObamaCare, to Joe the Plumber, the man sees justice in putting the collective's good above the liberty of the individual. What do you think all his "fundemental transformation of America" talk was about? Shovel-ready jobs? Hence I think it plausible for me to posit that he does want to destroy this state, as founded. And "as founded" is the only caveat I will offer.
"A Marxist, by definition, believes that the State exists to exploit the masses, and that the evolution of society will bring the end of capitalism and usher in a classes utopia wherein there is no "state"... only the body politic of the proletarian people."
Yeah, and?
This IS Barack Obama. He feels that salvation (this is my interpretation), that salvation is possible in THIS life. That the "utopia" is achievable here, on earth. If only the right policies, administrators, and "fair" playing fields were to be implemented then we can do better than capitalism, free markets, and nationhood. You may not be convinced that an American president feels that way, you may not want to believe it (at least not as strongly as I do), but there has been ample clues, ample windows into his soul, his influences, fleeting moments of honesty, which certainly, at the very least, raise the question. So you can NOT tell me you aren't at least suspicious that this is what we have in the Oval Office.
So in short, I am satisfied that President Obama meets the label of "Marxist" as defined by that champion for gay rights, that Pink Warrior, His Royal Highness King Sweet Meat, the Rainbow Rasputin, the Caesar Pleezer, His Excellency of Spain Emperor Firmmaninhand ... Titus G. Puffn'Stuff!
Don't worry brother, I still love ya.' I'm straight ... not narrow.
Happy?
In college I took many a history course. And I soon realized that were I to ask 6 different professors the definition for terms like fascism; totalitarianism; despotism: communism; and Marxism, that I would get six different definitions. And each had different perspectives on what monsters from history qualified as a poster boy for each. Finally, I read a quote from a renowned professor (not one of mine) that summed up the state of these labels, for me (in this case he was discussing fascism): "We have all agreed to use the term without having agreed what it means." I came to the simple conclusion that each of these regimes from history had an overwhelming characteristic in common - they used the apparatus of government to oppress the individual for the "good" of the collective (whether that collective was defined as the proletariat, the state itself, a race, an ethnicity, the Party, or the Revolution). The only discernible difference was the economic model they chose to embrace, and the body count. However, I'm not saying making those two distinctions isn't a worth while endeavour. And in that vein ...
I could be cute about it and point out that Reverend Wright has proudly (and often) pronounced that his "Black Liberation Theology" is rooted in Marxist doctrine. And of course the PoTUS attended this doctrine instruction for 20 years (including having the good reverend baptize his daughters). But I'll just use your definition. And first things first: "Obama does not want to see the end of the "state" in America..."
Yes he does.
He's said as much. The entire premise of this nation, of American exceptionalism, is the idea that the rights of the individual trump those of the collective, because those rights are handed down from God, not man. It is what has made us special. It's why we have progressed the state of man more in the last 235 years than the previous 5,000 combined. Obama has plainly, blatantly announced over and over that he seeks to reverse this. From his musing on collective salvation (his depending on his neighbors and the nation as a whole), to wealth redistribution via ObamaCare, to Joe the Plumber, the man sees justice in putting the collective's good above the liberty of the individual. What do you think all his "fundemental transformation of America" talk was about? Shovel-ready jobs? Hence I think it plausible for me to posit that he does want to destroy this state, as founded. And "as founded" is the only caveat I will offer.
"A Marxist, by definition, believes that the State exists to exploit the masses, and that the evolution of society will bring the end of capitalism and usher in a classes utopia wherein there is no "state"... only the body politic of the proletarian people."
Yeah, and?
This IS Barack Obama. He feels that salvation (this is my interpretation), that salvation is possible in THIS life. That the "utopia" is achievable here, on earth. If only the right policies, administrators, and "fair" playing fields were to be implemented then we can do better than capitalism, free markets, and nationhood. You may not be convinced that an American president feels that way, you may not want to believe it (at least not as strongly as I do), but there has been ample clues, ample windows into his soul, his influences, fleeting moments of honesty, which certainly, at the very least, raise the question. So you can NOT tell me you aren't at least suspicious that this is what we have in the Oval Office.
So in short, I am satisfied that President Obama meets the label of "Marxist" as defined by that champion for gay rights, that Pink Warrior, His Royal Highness King Sweet Meat, the Rainbow Rasputin, the Caesar Pleezer, His Excellency of Spain Emperor Firmmaninhand ... Titus G. Puffn'Stuff!
Don't worry brother, I still love ya.' I'm straight ... not narrow.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Man... why do they insist on that word?
Dude... I know what you mean: Obama is a radical when compared to the Presidents that came before him. I get that, and I agree.
He's NOT a Marxist, though. Please... stop using that word.
A Marxist, by definition, believes that the State exists to exploit the masses, and that the evolution of society will bring the end of capitalism and usher in a classes utopia wherein there is no "state"... only the body politic of the proletarian people.
Obama does not want to see the end of the "state" in America, he wants to expand and grow that "state" so that it, and thus the controlling party, have greater and greater authority and control over the lives of its citizens. He wants (seemingly) to ensure that what the State deems needed from the affluent in our society (its difficult to use the word "rich" when the effort is to make them NOT rich) is taken without pause or conflict and distributed according to the dictates of the State (even more than the needs of the poor).
Honestly... the more I describe this, the more it smacks of fascism... hows that for giving pause to our complaints?
He's NOT a Marxist, though. Please... stop using that word.
A Marxist, by definition, believes that the State exists to exploit the masses, and that the evolution of society will bring the end of capitalism and usher in a classes utopia wherein there is no "state"... only the body politic of the proletarian people.
Obama does not want to see the end of the "state" in America, he wants to expand and grow that "state" so that it, and thus the controlling party, have greater and greater authority and control over the lives of its citizens. He wants (seemingly) to ensure that what the State deems needed from the affluent in our society (its difficult to use the word "rich" when the effort is to make them NOT rich) is taken without pause or conflict and distributed according to the dictates of the State (even more than the needs of the poor).
Honestly... the more I describe this, the more it smacks of fascism... hows that for giving pause to our complaints?
Hard Core Marxist!
I'm sorry, I don't care any more if it's politically incorrect, if it doesn't poll well, if it doesn't advance the conversation, if it's polarizing, I just don't care ... I watched the SoTU address (not live), and this guy is a hard core wealth redistributionist of the first order.
"Fair share", "shared responsibility", "shared sacrifice", "collective good", "even playing field" and on and on and on, these are ALL code words for wealth redistribution. If I hear one more comment about "the Buffet rule" and his friggin secretary, I'm gonna scream! It's a lie, an out and out LIE. And he knows it. Claiming the secretary of Warren Buffet pays 30% in taxes while her billionaire boss pays half that, at 15%. Crap, absolute crap. Titus has already parsed the difference between "labor income" and "investment income", and identified the reasons as to why the latter needs to be a lower rate, to spur on the economy. But even more than that, according to that rabid Right Wing source, the IRS, 97% of filers for 2010 paid 11.9% or lower in income taxes. And the bottom 47% of earners paid an average of 1.85% in income tax, a number made so low by so many that pay ZERO, or get monies back for a net gain. So if President Obama wants to REALLY make things "fair", then he has no choice but to ask congress to dramatically raise taxes on the poor.
And let me say the most controversial thing possible about an American president - he opposes the very premise of this nation, as founded. Period, end of story. He's on record as saying the Bill of Rights is inadequate, a quote: "charter of negative liberties, what the government can't do to you", when it should be a "charter of positive liberties of what the government must do on your behalf." Not to mention (although I will) that year 2000 Chicago NPR interview when he proposed that the Constitution is a fundamentally flawed document. Do you need know any more!? From that statement, to the Joe the Plumber moment of honesty, to Saul Alinsky, to Reverend Wright, IT IS ALL STARING US RIGHT IN THE FACE - this guy opposes the very premise of this nation. I can't stand the nice talk anymore (enter Newt's rising popularity). Barack Hussein Obama IS anti-American IF you believe in the idea of America as founded. Thus the desire, oft repeated by him, to "fundamentally transform the nation." The only logical conclusion one can reach is that he finds the nation fundamentally flawed - WHY ELSE SEEK TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE IT???
No thank you Mr. President, I'd prefer to fundamentally RESTORE it. That's the difference between the "change" you and I seek.
"Fair share", "shared responsibility", "shared sacrifice", "collective good", "even playing field" and on and on and on, these are ALL code words for wealth redistribution. If I hear one more comment about "the Buffet rule" and his friggin secretary, I'm gonna scream! It's a lie, an out and out LIE. And he knows it. Claiming the secretary of Warren Buffet pays 30% in taxes while her billionaire boss pays half that, at 15%. Crap, absolute crap. Titus has already parsed the difference between "labor income" and "investment income", and identified the reasons as to why the latter needs to be a lower rate, to spur on the economy. But even more than that, according to that rabid Right Wing source, the IRS, 97% of filers for 2010 paid 11.9% or lower in income taxes. And the bottom 47% of earners paid an average of 1.85% in income tax, a number made so low by so many that pay ZERO, or get monies back for a net gain. So if President Obama wants to REALLY make things "fair", then he has no choice but to ask congress to dramatically raise taxes on the poor.
And let me say the most controversial thing possible about an American president - he opposes the very premise of this nation, as founded. Period, end of story. He's on record as saying the Bill of Rights is inadequate, a quote: "charter of negative liberties, what the government can't do to you", when it should be a "charter of positive liberties of what the government must do on your behalf." Not to mention (although I will) that year 2000 Chicago NPR interview when he proposed that the Constitution is a fundamentally flawed document. Do you need know any more!? From that statement, to the Joe the Plumber moment of honesty, to Saul Alinsky, to Reverend Wright, IT IS ALL STARING US RIGHT IN THE FACE - this guy opposes the very premise of this nation. I can't stand the nice talk anymore (enter Newt's rising popularity). Barack Hussein Obama IS anti-American IF you believe in the idea of America as founded. Thus the desire, oft repeated by him, to "fundamentally transform the nation." The only logical conclusion one can reach is that he finds the nation fundamentally flawed - WHY ELSE SEEK TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE IT???
No thank you Mr. President, I'd prefer to fundamentally RESTORE it. That's the difference between the "change" you and I seek.
Just a word more...
Let's say I won $1.4 million in the Powerball Lottery tomorrow. After paying the requisite taxes, I'd have just over $1 million in the bank. If I could get a 7% return on that $1,000,000, I'd "earn" $70,000 per year in interest and never touch the principle balance. I've paid my taxes on the initial earnings of $1.4 million, and only owe on the earnings made from investing the balance... $70k per year.
That $70k will be taxed (at today's rate) 15%... or $10,500. Of my earnings, I'd keep $59,500.
Let's say you have a job that pays you an annual salary of $70,000. You'd be taxed at a rate of 27%, or $18,900 per year, leaving you $51,100 in spendable income. Not a huge disparity here, right?
However, your salary remains the same as long as you keep your job. My income depends on the rate of return my initial investment draws each year. If my investments do well, I might earn more... but if they tank, then I earn less. Add to that the simple fact that my money is fueling the very markets that determine your company's success or failure, and I do think a lower gains tax is justified over the rate applied to labor income.
To whom would the benefit fall if the tax rates were adjusted to remove or reduce the disparity?
Increase the gains tax, and investors across the board will hoard their earnings rather than reinvest them, thus reducing the rate at which the economy grows and your company does more business. Increasing the gains tax to 20% means $3,500 more in tax revenue, but it also means I will take less risk in my investments, simply to avoid the higher tax rate. More money doing less work, in other words.
Lower the income tax, and and you have more spendable income that gets pumped back into the very economy we are trying to grow, while I can continue to do the same. A top income tax rate of 20% would mean a tax burden of only $14,000, or roughly $4,900 in additional spending cash throughout the year for you to do with as you see fit. More money doing MORE work... and the key point in Keynes economic models.
THIS is the inevitable conclusion that will have to be reached should this topic be pursued any further in the mainstream media... and it is NOT what the liberals want to hear the masses talking about.
That $70k will be taxed (at today's rate) 15%... or $10,500. Of my earnings, I'd keep $59,500.
Let's say you have a job that pays you an annual salary of $70,000. You'd be taxed at a rate of 27%, or $18,900 per year, leaving you $51,100 in spendable income. Not a huge disparity here, right?
However, your salary remains the same as long as you keep your job. My income depends on the rate of return my initial investment draws each year. If my investments do well, I might earn more... but if they tank, then I earn less. Add to that the simple fact that my money is fueling the very markets that determine your company's success or failure, and I do think a lower gains tax is justified over the rate applied to labor income.
To whom would the benefit fall if the tax rates were adjusted to remove or reduce the disparity?
Increase the gains tax, and investors across the board will hoard their earnings rather than reinvest them, thus reducing the rate at which the economy grows and your company does more business. Increasing the gains tax to 20% means $3,500 more in tax revenue, but it also means I will take less risk in my investments, simply to avoid the higher tax rate. More money doing less work, in other words.
Lower the income tax, and and you have more spendable income that gets pumped back into the very economy we are trying to grow, while I can continue to do the same. A top income tax rate of 20% would mean a tax burden of only $14,000, or roughly $4,900 in additional spending cash throughout the year for you to do with as you see fit. More money doing MORE work... and the key point in Keynes economic models.
THIS is the inevitable conclusion that will have to be reached should this topic be pursued any further in the mainstream media... and it is NOT what the liberals want to hear the masses talking about.
On Romney...
Quote: " Mitt Romney doesn't pay an income tax, period. Mainly because he's not earning an income."
I paraphrased, I admit that. My point stands, however. The man is wealthy enough to not need to "work" to generate any additional income outside of the returns on investments made on past earnings. Kudos and high-fives for him... he worked hard early and is reaping the rewards now.
I do contend that the earnings made on investments IS, in fact, income... and should be taxed. I'm not convinced that it should be taxed at the same rate as traditional labor income, though. To do so will reduce the amount of private investment to almost nothing below the top 10% of wage earners in the country, and to ignore the risks inherent in investments, be they stocks, real estate, or commodity and business futures. To not tax it at all is removing a burden of responsibility from a fraction of the tax paying population that could only be seen as unfair, since I do feel it is income.
Somewhere in the middle is the perfect medium... and somewhere between 9% and 13% seems just right to me (given past historical examples). Even given the current capital gains rate, Romney paid less than 15%... undoubtedly utilizing legal, legitimate breaks and shelters... something I have no problem with.
As we both agreed, Romney is in no higher a tax bracket than Obama... and Obama utilized the same tax code to pay only what was owed that Romney used... and anyone else paying their taxes in this country. Furthermore, Romney's tax burden (the amount he actually paid in) will prove to be far greater than Obama's... meaning he PAID MORE in taxes than Obama did, because he EARNED MORE. That is the basis of our progressive tax code, and as long as that progressive tax is kept at the absolute LOWEST percentages that it can be at, I don't have an issue with allowing it to remain in place.
The area where I feel "discord" is most agitated is when the difference between labor income and return income is ignored. Romney has no labor income to declare, thus he does not fall into the top tax bracket of 27%. At least 29% of Obama's income stems from his $400,000 yearly salary, and the proceeds from his book sales, meaning he has a greater percentage of his total income being taxed at 27%. Obama's returns will show that he paid a larger percentage of his entire income than Romney did... but, as is clearly seen, this is an unfair comparison. "Apples and tangerines" as Ryan always says. This misrepresentation of an individual tax return is the basis upon which Warren Buffett makes his claim that ALL wage earners who make more than one million dollars need to pay 40% in taxes... and I think it is the wrong approach to take, unless Mr. Buffett is advocating a 40% flat tax across the board.
The upside to this debate is that it can go no further than it already has (in the mainstream media, I mean... not here), because pointing too fine a finger at Romney will only lead to a closer inspection of such liberal Democrats that ALSO file the same sort of returns as Romney. That isn't going to help their case one bit, is it?
I paraphrased, I admit that. My point stands, however. The man is wealthy enough to not need to "work" to generate any additional income outside of the returns on investments made on past earnings. Kudos and high-fives for him... he worked hard early and is reaping the rewards now.
I do contend that the earnings made on investments IS, in fact, income... and should be taxed. I'm not convinced that it should be taxed at the same rate as traditional labor income, though. To do so will reduce the amount of private investment to almost nothing below the top 10% of wage earners in the country, and to ignore the risks inherent in investments, be they stocks, real estate, or commodity and business futures. To not tax it at all is removing a burden of responsibility from a fraction of the tax paying population that could only be seen as unfair, since I do feel it is income.
Somewhere in the middle is the perfect medium... and somewhere between 9% and 13% seems just right to me (given past historical examples). Even given the current capital gains rate, Romney paid less than 15%... undoubtedly utilizing legal, legitimate breaks and shelters... something I have no problem with.
As we both agreed, Romney is in no higher a tax bracket than Obama... and Obama utilized the same tax code to pay only what was owed that Romney used... and anyone else paying their taxes in this country. Furthermore, Romney's tax burden (the amount he actually paid in) will prove to be far greater than Obama's... meaning he PAID MORE in taxes than Obama did, because he EARNED MORE. That is the basis of our progressive tax code, and as long as that progressive tax is kept at the absolute LOWEST percentages that it can be at, I don't have an issue with allowing it to remain in place.
The area where I feel "discord" is most agitated is when the difference between labor income and return income is ignored. Romney has no labor income to declare, thus he does not fall into the top tax bracket of 27%. At least 29% of Obama's income stems from his $400,000 yearly salary, and the proceeds from his book sales, meaning he has a greater percentage of his total income being taxed at 27%. Obama's returns will show that he paid a larger percentage of his entire income than Romney did... but, as is clearly seen, this is an unfair comparison. "Apples and tangerines" as Ryan always says. This misrepresentation of an individual tax return is the basis upon which Warren Buffett makes his claim that ALL wage earners who make more than one million dollars need to pay 40% in taxes... and I think it is the wrong approach to take, unless Mr. Buffett is advocating a 40% flat tax across the board.
The upside to this debate is that it can go no further than it already has (in the mainstream media, I mean... not here), because pointing too fine a finger at Romney will only lead to a closer inspection of such liberal Democrats that ALSO file the same sort of returns as Romney. That isn't going to help their case one bit, is it?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Can't say this enough...
The Kindle is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Seriously.
I have read more new stuff in the last month than I have in the previous four years. Not because I didn't want to read new stuff... it is simply too expensive, and fishing through all the crappy stuff to get to the good stuff is like flushing money down the toilet.
$8 for a paperback... anywhere from $12 to $30 for a hardcover... and only the reviews on the jackets to tell you if its any good or not.
Take this for example...
I read a short novella called Farmer One by Christian Cantrell... no more than a couple of hours to work through. It was the best thing I've read in that format and genre since King's The Mist came out in Skeleton Crew. The novella cost $0.99 to download... and he's hit more than 70,000 downloads since it was released in Sept of 2011. That's $7,000 if he's keeping 10% of the download price... in just four months! I paid $4.99 for Skeleton Crew back in 1986, for God's sake!
I have Dickens, Tolstoy, Sun Tzu, Stephen King, a bunch of nonfiction, dozens of brand-new authors... and I haven't spent as much in downloads as was spent on the Kindle itself yet... amazing!
Both F. Ryan and Jambo have written works that warrant publication (Jambo's is published, in fact). Ryan's is a screenplay, but with just a little effort, it could be turned into a short novel. Jambo has had me read a very good draft for a sci-fi novel that would be PERFECT for this sort of medium... easily serialized, fast paced and edgy with just enough hardcore science to keep even the most traditional sci-fi fan wrapped up.
I've got DOZENS of books like this in my Kindle! First time authors, up-and-coming writers, new takes on old stories... there is NO DOWN SIDE HERE!
You absolutely MUST look into this.
Seriously.
I have read more new stuff in the last month than I have in the previous four years. Not because I didn't want to read new stuff... it is simply too expensive, and fishing through all the crappy stuff to get to the good stuff is like flushing money down the toilet.
$8 for a paperback... anywhere from $12 to $30 for a hardcover... and only the reviews on the jackets to tell you if its any good or not.
Take this for example...
I read a short novella called Farmer One by Christian Cantrell... no more than a couple of hours to work through. It was the best thing I've read in that format and genre since King's The Mist came out in Skeleton Crew. The novella cost $0.99 to download... and he's hit more than 70,000 downloads since it was released in Sept of 2011. That's $7,000 if he's keeping 10% of the download price... in just four months! I paid $4.99 for Skeleton Crew back in 1986, for God's sake!
I have Dickens, Tolstoy, Sun Tzu, Stephen King, a bunch of nonfiction, dozens of brand-new authors... and I haven't spent as much in downloads as was spent on the Kindle itself yet... amazing!
Both F. Ryan and Jambo have written works that warrant publication (Jambo's is published, in fact). Ryan's is a screenplay, but with just a little effort, it could be turned into a short novel. Jambo has had me read a very good draft for a sci-fi novel that would be PERFECT for this sort of medium... easily serialized, fast paced and edgy with just enough hardcore science to keep even the most traditional sci-fi fan wrapped up.
I've got DOZENS of books like this in my Kindle! First time authors, up-and-coming writers, new takes on old stories... there is NO DOWN SIDE HERE!
You absolutely MUST look into this.
Amazing Grace
Be found my lost friend ...
I'm not sure how I lost you at "he doesn't work", given I never wrote that. Please, cut & paste the quote ... insert now appropriate irony symbol, here.
On the double tax - my understanding of it is as follows (as one example): if I invest 100k in a capital venture, say a start up dot com, existing company, etc, I now own a part of that company (shares, if its publicly traded). If I feel the investment has done well (enough) & I sell my shares and am paid out a TOTAL of $200k, do I not get taxed on all 200? Because if so, I'm essentially facing a double dip tax on half of that amount. The principle investment isn't in some lock box is it? Now if you're telling me they make an exemption on taxing profits up to the amount you invested, then fine, I take your point. As you noted, this element is not essential to defend the Romney tax rate.
I'm not sure how I lost you at "he doesn't work", given I never wrote that. Please, cut & paste the quote ... insert now appropriate irony symbol, here.
On the double tax - my understanding of it is as follows (as one example): if I invest 100k in a capital venture, say a start up dot com, existing company, etc, I now own a part of that company (shares, if its publicly traded). If I feel the investment has done well (enough) & I sell my shares and am paid out a TOTAL of $200k, do I not get taxed on all 200? Because if so, I'm essentially facing a double dip tax on half of that amount. The principle investment isn't in some lock box is it? Now if you're telling me they make an exemption on taxing profits up to the amount you invested, then fine, I take your point. As you noted, this element is not essential to defend the Romney tax rate.
Defending the masses...
Sure, he made his returns public. Sure, he pays all his taxes. Sure, he worked hard for that money. I get all that, and your point is valid.
But you lost me at "he doesn't work"...
If the day ever comes where you are asked to lend your voice to those cheering Romney on to victory in November, please leave that part out... no average American voter is going to want to try and relate to someone who not only doesn't have a "job" but doesn't even need one.
{insert irony symbol here}
Seriously... I applaud the man for doing what he did in showing the world his fiscal background. We certainly know more about Mitt Romney than we do about Barack Obama, don't we? But before we get too emotional and choked up over the injustice of Governor Romney's tax burden, please let me make one point of observation concerning your observations...
You wrote "What this means is Romney is effectively paying a double tax. The money he originally earned was taxed as income. He then invested that taxed income. When the investment pays off (which it doesn't always do) it is then taxed AGAIN, at 15%."
This is as much a "myth" as anything you are trying to "bust".
I'm not defending Capital Gains... but the gains tax is on what the investment (capital) earns (gains) between Jan 1 and Dec 31. It is that income that is taxed... not the original (principle) portion of the investment. Furthermore, since 1988, were the Honorable Mr. Romney to direct that the earnings on his investments be made part of the principle before the calendar year ends, he owes no taxes on those earnings. This is true of any income that might be Capital Gains eligible. Thus, he in NOT being taxed twice, ever. He's not even required to pay the gains tax unless he spends what he has gained.
The same is true of moneys made in real estate. You buy a house at $100,000 and pay it off in 12 years, at which time it is valued at $250,000. You sell the first house for $250,000 and buy another house for the whole amount... you owe no gains tax, because your "principle" investment is now $250,000 rather than the original $100,000.
All that said, I'm NOT arguing with your post. Romney paid what he owed... no one can ask more than that. What he paid and what he earned is no one's business but his and the IRS, and the IRS seems more than satisfied. If people want to piss and moan about Romney (or anyone else) being part of that "1%" please remind them that every Democratic member of the Senate, Obama and Biden are all, also, part of that top "1%".
But you lost me at "he doesn't work"...
If the day ever comes where you are asked to lend your voice to those cheering Romney on to victory in November, please leave that part out... no average American voter is going to want to try and relate to someone who not only doesn't have a "job" but doesn't even need one.
{insert irony symbol here}
Seriously... I applaud the man for doing what he did in showing the world his fiscal background. We certainly know more about Mitt Romney than we do about Barack Obama, don't we? But before we get too emotional and choked up over the injustice of Governor Romney's tax burden, please let me make one point of observation concerning your observations...
You wrote "What this means is Romney is effectively paying a double tax. The money he originally earned was taxed as income. He then invested that taxed income. When the investment pays off (which it doesn't always do) it is then taxed AGAIN, at 15%."
This is as much a "myth" as anything you are trying to "bust".
I'm not defending Capital Gains... but the gains tax is on what the investment (capital) earns (gains) between Jan 1 and Dec 31. It is that income that is taxed... not the original (principle) portion of the investment. Furthermore, since 1988, were the Honorable Mr. Romney to direct that the earnings on his investments be made part of the principle before the calendar year ends, he owes no taxes on those earnings. This is true of any income that might be Capital Gains eligible. Thus, he in NOT being taxed twice, ever. He's not even required to pay the gains tax unless he spends what he has gained.
The same is true of moneys made in real estate. You buy a house at $100,000 and pay it off in 12 years, at which time it is valued at $250,000. You sell the first house for $250,000 and buy another house for the whole amount... you owe no gains tax, because your "principle" investment is now $250,000 rather than the original $100,000.
All that said, I'm NOT arguing with your post. Romney paid what he owed... no one can ask more than that. What he paid and what he earned is no one's business but his and the IRS, and the IRS seems more than satisfied. If people want to piss and moan about Romney (or anyone else) being part of that "1%" please remind them that every Democratic member of the Senate, Obama and Biden are all, also, part of that top "1%".
Defending "the man" ...
I'm sure SoTU coverage will eclipse this today, but I wanted to make mention of Mitt Romney's tax returns, recently released, because they tie into the "fair" theme the President consistently echoed last night.
We all know Romney is rich. He's worth something on the order of $250 Million. And we all know why he has been reluctant (until yesterday) to release his tax returns - because he's worth something on the order of $250 Million. And in today's society, I should say in today's media world, that by definition makes him a bad guy. Part of the EVIL 1%. And young people, it occurs to me, are the most likely to buy into the argument/complaint that as a "rich guy" Romney pays an effective tax rate that's LESS than the average American (attention any young people within the households of the respective members Bund). And of course, that is so "unfair."
Lets put that to the "mythbuster" test:
1.) Mitt Romney doesn't pay an income tax, period. Mainly because he's not earning an income. He has been successful enough to live off the returns on his investments. That tax, the taxes levied on investment earnings, is called the "Capital Gains" tax. And it is currently at 15%. What this means is Romney is effectively paying a double tax. The money he originally earned was taxed as income. He then invested that taxed income. When the investment pays off (which it doesn't always do) it is then taxed AGAIN, at 15%. Does that seem "fair?" Furthermore, without exception, each and every time the Capital Gains tax has been lowered receipts (taxes) to the federal government have gone up. So if you are of the mind that government should do more, you want Romney paying even LESS so that government has increased monies to establish heaven on earth. So let me recap this apples and oranges "Romney pays less than the average American" argument with a simple illustration - if I do all my Christmas shopping in December, and Bill Gates does all his Christmas shopping in November, this would be like me arguing that it's not fair that in December I had a higher sales tax rate than Bill Gates. Never mind that Gates didn't make a single purchase in December and thus had no sale to tax, it's simply not "fair." Do you get how absurd this is? Moving on ...
2.) The "effective tax rate" argument.
Joe Trippy, a Democrat strategist, said yesterday "Mitt Romney makes more than 99% of us but pays less effective taxes than 99% of us." Really? Romney's "effective tax rate" (which is the phrase you'll hear as a caveat around the facts in point #1) is 13.9%. Let me repeat, Romney's personal effective tax rate (after the legal deductions, etc his personal situation allows for) is 13.9%. Now, according to the IRS' own web site 87% of Americans pay LESS in income tax than 13.9%. So even were you to make the case that capital gains and income tax are comparable, he still pays more in Capital Gains tax than 87% of Americans do in income tax (and remember, that's money he already paid an income tax on)! And just for kicks and giggles, John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat Party presidential nominee (and husband to the heiress of the Heinz fortune), pays an "effective tax rate" of 13.1% ... amazingly that wasn't a problem in media circles when he ran for president.
3.) Much is made about "fairness", even playing fields, and helping those less fortunate than a mega-millionaire like Romney. And the wide brush used to paint Mitt (and all GOP'ers) leaves one with the image of the Monopoly guy, monocle in hand, laughing at the poor (literally)slobs he's crushing beneath his fine Italian made boot heel. It may interest you to know that Romney gave away 15% of his earnings in charitable donations. In other words here's a man living buy what he preaches - that charity starts at home, and is done better in the hands of the individual than in the hands of government because he more than matched his "effective tax rate" in charity. And for a man whose investments earned him $40 million dollars last year, that's a considerable dollar amount. "Well F. Ryan he's rich, he can afford to be charitable." Ok. It may also interest you to know that President Obama is a millionaire. His book sales have seen to that. And the presidential salary he draws (on our dime) is $400,000.00 per year. More than enough to catapult him into the dreaded 1% of income earners. Mitt Romney's percentage (to make it fair), Mitt Romney's PERCENTAGE of earnings donated to charity is more than three times that of Obama's, and five times that of Biden's.
Now will you hear any of these points made in the press? I doubt it. By the way, the law is the law. And Obama's Party had control over both houses of congress and the White House for the first two years of his presidency. If they thought the rate people like Romney pay is "unfair", then why didn't they simply change that rate? Let me put it another way - who would want a presidential candidate dumb enough to pay MORE in taxes than what is legally required by law? Fortunately no American will face such a voting choice, because Obama didn't pay a cent more than he was required to either.
We all know Romney is rich. He's worth something on the order of $250 Million. And we all know why he has been reluctant (until yesterday) to release his tax returns - because he's worth something on the order of $250 Million. And in today's society, I should say in today's media world, that by definition makes him a bad guy. Part of the EVIL 1%. And young people, it occurs to me, are the most likely to buy into the argument/complaint that as a "rich guy" Romney pays an effective tax rate that's LESS than the average American (attention any young people within the households of the respective members Bund). And of course, that is so "unfair."
Lets put that to the "mythbuster" test:
1.) Mitt Romney doesn't pay an income tax, period. Mainly because he's not earning an income. He has been successful enough to live off the returns on his investments. That tax, the taxes levied on investment earnings, is called the "Capital Gains" tax. And it is currently at 15%. What this means is Romney is effectively paying a double tax. The money he originally earned was taxed as income. He then invested that taxed income. When the investment pays off (which it doesn't always do) it is then taxed AGAIN, at 15%. Does that seem "fair?" Furthermore, without exception, each and every time the Capital Gains tax has been lowered receipts (taxes) to the federal government have gone up. So if you are of the mind that government should do more, you want Romney paying even LESS so that government has increased monies to establish heaven on earth. So let me recap this apples and oranges "Romney pays less than the average American" argument with a simple illustration - if I do all my Christmas shopping in December, and Bill Gates does all his Christmas shopping in November, this would be like me arguing that it's not fair that in December I had a higher sales tax rate than Bill Gates. Never mind that Gates didn't make a single purchase in December and thus had no sale to tax, it's simply not "fair." Do you get how absurd this is? Moving on ...
2.) The "effective tax rate" argument.
Joe Trippy, a Democrat strategist, said yesterday "Mitt Romney makes more than 99% of us but pays less effective taxes than 99% of us." Really? Romney's "effective tax rate" (which is the phrase you'll hear as a caveat around the facts in point #1) is 13.9%. Let me repeat, Romney's personal effective tax rate (after the legal deductions, etc his personal situation allows for) is 13.9%. Now, according to the IRS' own web site 87% of Americans pay LESS in income tax than 13.9%. So even were you to make the case that capital gains and income tax are comparable, he still pays more in Capital Gains tax than 87% of Americans do in income tax (and remember, that's money he already paid an income tax on)! And just for kicks and giggles, John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat Party presidential nominee (and husband to the heiress of the Heinz fortune), pays an "effective tax rate" of 13.1% ... amazingly that wasn't a problem in media circles when he ran for president.
3.) Much is made about "fairness", even playing fields, and helping those less fortunate than a mega-millionaire like Romney. And the wide brush used to paint Mitt (and all GOP'ers) leaves one with the image of the Monopoly guy, monocle in hand, laughing at the poor (literally)slobs he's crushing beneath his fine Italian made boot heel. It may interest you to know that Romney gave away 15% of his earnings in charitable donations. In other words here's a man living buy what he preaches - that charity starts at home, and is done better in the hands of the individual than in the hands of government because he more than matched his "effective tax rate" in charity. And for a man whose investments earned him $40 million dollars last year, that's a considerable dollar amount. "Well F. Ryan he's rich, he can afford to be charitable." Ok. It may also interest you to know that President Obama is a millionaire. His book sales have seen to that. And the presidential salary he draws (on our dime) is $400,000.00 per year. More than enough to catapult him into the dreaded 1% of income earners. Mitt Romney's percentage (to make it fair), Mitt Romney's PERCENTAGE of earnings donated to charity is more than three times that of Obama's, and five times that of Biden's.
Now will you hear any of these points made in the press? I doubt it. By the way, the law is the law. And Obama's Party had control over both houses of congress and the White House for the first two years of his presidency. If they thought the rate people like Romney pay is "unfair", then why didn't they simply change that rate? Let me put it another way - who would want a presidential candidate dumb enough to pay MORE in taxes than what is legally required by law? Fortunately no American will face such a voting choice, because Obama didn't pay a cent more than he was required to either.
Tangible results...
Very recently, my two oldest were sitting around the living room and the 17-year-old asked why Wikipedia wasn't working. I told him it was shut down in protest to the SOPA/PIPA legislation that was being moved through Congress. He did his own research, shared what he learned with his 19-year-old sister, and they both signed a petition to stop the legislation. Now SOPA/PIPA is dead, and they both feel they contributed to the "cause". They raised their voices and see that they were heard.
Now, the 19-year-old is "facebooking" that she listened to the SotU Address and loved every minute of it.
I'm so proud of her!
Seriously, I'd rather have a young adult support a President (even Obama) by understanding (or trying to understand) the politics and policies they support than see someone simply shrug off the details and leave the decision making process to someone else. These kids don't have to agree with all... or even any... of my political views. I just want them to have a view of their own and to be able to defend it when asked to.
Seeing as this will be the 19-year-old's first general election and her first opportunity to vote for a President and the 17-year-old will be 18 by Nov of 2012, I want them to know what they are voting for and not simply pulling levers (even though that isn't done anymore, I know).
Maybe they'll even read this blog... hehe.
Now, the 19-year-old is "facebooking" that she listened to the SotU Address and loved every minute of it.
I'm so proud of her!
Seriously, I'd rather have a young adult support a President (even Obama) by understanding (or trying to understand) the politics and policies they support than see someone simply shrug off the details and leave the decision making process to someone else. These kids don't have to agree with all... or even any... of my political views. I just want them to have a view of their own and to be able to defend it when asked to.
Seeing as this will be the 19-year-old's first general election and her first opportunity to vote for a President and the 17-year-old will be 18 by Nov of 2012, I want them to know what they are voting for and not simply pulling levers (even though that isn't done anymore, I know).
Maybe they'll even read this blog... hehe.
The very name makes me shudder...
... and I don't know where you heard her, but I agree with her (and your) assessment of the Gingrich rise.
The man is so good at making his calm and eloquent statements bristle with passion and invective, but never raises his voice or loses his composure. He is a master at sarcasm and irony... and that can be a good thing in politics (as F. Ryan pointed out).
I'm no Gingrich supporter, as anyone who has EVER read any of this blog will know... but even I was a bit surprised by the ex-wife's comments. It smacked from beginning to end of sour grapes, and while it might have been indicative of the manner in which Newt manages his personal relationships (he's got a messy track record, as everyone knows), it does nothing to show his abilities and strengths (or lack thereof) as CIC.
I wanted to say that I was a bit surprised by one portion of your post, though...
Santorum is the Tea Party favorite? Almost everything I have read and understand to date says that Ron Paul's more than surprising showing in Iowa and NH was entirely due to his "huge" Tea Party support. Santorum (I think) is the closest we are going to get to a Reagan-like candidate in 2012... but he is far from a "constitutionalist" and his sole understanding of "smaller government" is almost identical to Ron Reagan's: smaller in cost, not so much in scope or size. I think Rick would be perfectly happy with a clear reduction in the rate at which government GREW, and could easily forgo the possibility that he could actually shrink government to something smaller than it was even in 2006.
If Santorum has Tea Party support, it is because he hasn't embraced the isolationist tones that Ron has concerning foreign policy. Otherwise, Ron is the runaway Tea Party favorite... and it amazes me that Ron Paul's advisers and speech writers haven't brought that fact home to him sooner.
The man is so good at making his calm and eloquent statements bristle with passion and invective, but never raises his voice or loses his composure. He is a master at sarcasm and irony... and that can be a good thing in politics (as F. Ryan pointed out).
I'm no Gingrich supporter, as anyone who has EVER read any of this blog will know... but even I was a bit surprised by the ex-wife's comments. It smacked from beginning to end of sour grapes, and while it might have been indicative of the manner in which Newt manages his personal relationships (he's got a messy track record, as everyone knows), it does nothing to show his abilities and strengths (or lack thereof) as CIC.
I wanted to say that I was a bit surprised by one portion of your post, though...
Santorum is the Tea Party favorite? Almost everything I have read and understand to date says that Ron Paul's more than surprising showing in Iowa and NH was entirely due to his "huge" Tea Party support. Santorum (I think) is the closest we are going to get to a Reagan-like candidate in 2012... but he is far from a "constitutionalist" and his sole understanding of "smaller government" is almost identical to Ron Reagan's: smaller in cost, not so much in scope or size. I think Rick would be perfectly happy with a clear reduction in the rate at which government GREW, and could easily forgo the possibility that he could actually shrink government to something smaller than it was even in 2006.
If Santorum has Tea Party support, it is because he hasn't embraced the isolationist tones that Ron has concerning foreign policy. Otherwise, Ron is the runaway Tea Party favorite... and it amazes me that Ron Paul's advisers and speech writers haven't brought that fact home to him sooner.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Coulter is right (this time)...
I couldn't, for the life of me, understand Gingrich's meteoric rise.
It's true that of all the "real" choices (excluding Ron-let Iran have a nuke-Paul), each of the three remaining candidates have won one state: Santorum in Iowa, Romney in New Hampshire, & Gingrich in South Carolina. However, Gingrich is now 9 points ahead of Romney in Florida & clearly it is his campaign that has the momentum.
Why?
If you're a Tea Partier, clearly Santorum is the solid choice given Romney has Romney-Care in Mass, and Gingrich has a 20 year record of supporting the insurance mandate (not to mention the FDR/Wilsonian Realpolitik mess I've discussed here before).
If you're voting on "who can win", then the most camera-friendly, the one most capable of rasing money, not to mention the only guy that in national polls consistently beats Obama, is Romney. Plain and simple.
So what hole, what "need" is Gingrich filling? The guy has the highest national negatives of any in the field at 27%. What is the deal here?
And then Coulter's recent comments made it make sense, for me.
No one is better at read meat for Conservatives than Gingrich. Let me put it another way - Gingrich is MEAN. I mean to say he's tough, he gets in your face. Have you seen him in these debates? He goes for the throat, every time. He leaves bodies in his verbal wake. He crushed CNN's John King for opening the debate with a question about his "open marriage" request (so says the ex misses Newt). He has the ability to give short, concise, glib, tough-talk answers, and turn the answer into a cutting attack. And I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying he's good at it (the best on stage to be sure).
So why is that attitude, that characteristic playing well with the GOP base right now? I mean, ol' Dubya couldn't do that.
Simple - the GOP base doesn't just want to beat Obama. They want him rhetorically b*tch-slapped. On stage, in from of the nation, at debates, in commercials, at town halls, during speeches, they don't just want him to lose, they want him to squirm. To sweat. For someone to finally rhetorically grab him by the lapels and say "what the hell's a matter with you?!" In short, they want to put the hurt on him.
Ok, I get that sentiment ... but it's a bad strategy (& Coulter agrees, she supports Romney).
You may end up getting the one guy that will routinely thrill you by going for the jugular, but still lose the race. Neither Romney nor Santorum will be as vicious, but I think they can win. Gingrich's preloaded baggage, his negative name I.D., his inability to be a consistent conservative, these will hurt more than servicing GOP blood lust will help ... at least I think so.
My advice to the GOP base is exactly what I told my undefeated 5th grade football team this year: "When they talk smack, answer them in the end zone."
I hope we don't send out the one guy up there with questionable hands just because he knows the best cheers ... ugh.
It's true that of all the "real" choices (excluding Ron-let Iran have a nuke-Paul), each of the three remaining candidates have won one state: Santorum in Iowa, Romney in New Hampshire, & Gingrich in South Carolina. However, Gingrich is now 9 points ahead of Romney in Florida & clearly it is his campaign that has the momentum.
Why?
If you're a Tea Partier, clearly Santorum is the solid choice given Romney has Romney-Care in Mass, and Gingrich has a 20 year record of supporting the insurance mandate (not to mention the FDR/Wilsonian Realpolitik mess I've discussed here before).
If you're voting on "who can win", then the most camera-friendly, the one most capable of rasing money, not to mention the only guy that in national polls consistently beats Obama, is Romney. Plain and simple.
So what hole, what "need" is Gingrich filling? The guy has the highest national negatives of any in the field at 27%. What is the deal here?
And then Coulter's recent comments made it make sense, for me.
No one is better at read meat for Conservatives than Gingrich. Let me put it another way - Gingrich is MEAN. I mean to say he's tough, he gets in your face. Have you seen him in these debates? He goes for the throat, every time. He leaves bodies in his verbal wake. He crushed CNN's John King for opening the debate with a question about his "open marriage" request (so says the ex misses Newt). He has the ability to give short, concise, glib, tough-talk answers, and turn the answer into a cutting attack. And I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying he's good at it (the best on stage to be sure).
So why is that attitude, that characteristic playing well with the GOP base right now? I mean, ol' Dubya couldn't do that.
Simple - the GOP base doesn't just want to beat Obama. They want him rhetorically b*tch-slapped. On stage, in from of the nation, at debates, in commercials, at town halls, during speeches, they don't just want him to lose, they want him to squirm. To sweat. For someone to finally rhetorically grab him by the lapels and say "what the hell's a matter with you?!" In short, they want to put the hurt on him.
Ok, I get that sentiment ... but it's a bad strategy (& Coulter agrees, she supports Romney).
You may end up getting the one guy that will routinely thrill you by going for the jugular, but still lose the race. Neither Romney nor Santorum will be as vicious, but I think they can win. Gingrich's preloaded baggage, his negative name I.D., his inability to be a consistent conservative, these will hurt more than servicing GOP blood lust will help ... at least I think so.
My advice to the GOP base is exactly what I told my undefeated 5th grade football team this year: "When they talk smack, answer them in the end zone."
I hope we don't send out the one guy up there with questionable hands just because he knows the best cheers ... ugh.
Monday, January 16, 2012
It physically hurts...
God... I was so disappointed last night. The 15-1 Packers simply did not come to play that game against the New York Giants.
Yes, Manning played a hell of a game. Kudos to him for his laser-accurate throws and his ability to shake off hit after hit in and out of the pocket. What I find so tough to swallow was Manning was the ONLY Giant getting knocked down on a regular basis.
The Packers had a weak defense all year, but last night was the worst I've seen in a long time. Missed tackle after missed tackle, dropped pass after dropped pass, fumble after fumble... and even two bad calls in favor of the Packers couldn't right the ship that was sinking faster and faster as the second half ticked away.
Well, as my wife says... "There is always next year."
Ouch.
Yes, Manning played a hell of a game. Kudos to him for his laser-accurate throws and his ability to shake off hit after hit in and out of the pocket. What I find so tough to swallow was Manning was the ONLY Giant getting knocked down on a regular basis.
The Packers had a weak defense all year, but last night was the worst I've seen in a long time. Missed tackle after missed tackle, dropped pass after dropped pass, fumble after fumble... and even two bad calls in favor of the Packers couldn't right the ship that was sinking faster and faster as the second half ticked away.
Well, as my wife says... "There is always next year."
Ouch.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Great minds ...
We're in nearly the same place regarding this field.
As it stands I would vote Santorum. Romney seems to be unstoppable, but that's not a demonstrable concern for as you pointed out, even then, "anything" is preferable to the ideology currently residing in the White House. I am encouraged in recent days with Romney's tone - drawing contrasts over the ideological battle, individual liberty versus state mandated collectivism. I would find it a terrible waste for the GOP to miss this historic opportunity to defeat the idea of collectivism (at least for a generation) in favor of only defeating a single candidate in Obama. Not to mention, if you do the former, the latter will take care of itself.
I hear that Senator Rubio, the young Cuban Tea Party favorite whom beat the then incumbent governor of Florida, is the odds on favorite for the VP spot. It makes sense - a trusted conservative, Hispanic, won state wide office in probably the most crucial/contested electoral rich state in the union. Its incredible how fast a figure can rise in this new media access ready age. Rubio was a state senator 2 years ago, and now Vice Presdient of the United States may be a reality within 3 (much like the current PoTUS). However, were Romney to win I wouldn't be surprised were he to pull a reverse Reagan move - unify the conservatives with Santorum as your pick.
And I just want to add... I was of course a proponent of Gingrich during the Clinton years. However, the contract with America was the beginning and end of what I knew of him. Since that time I have done some research and I find him utterly objectionable. Quotes that I've heard come from his own lips are disturbing in the extreme. Describing himself as a "Wilsonian realpolitik." This is a man whom claims to be a conservative? Forget Wilsonian for a moment, the latter phrase is in essence the politics of getting things done, period, despite obstacles such as the Constitution. And being a history professor he knows the meaning behind these phrases better than most. Add to this his "Green Movement" campaign which had him on a couch doing commercials with Nancy Pelosi, and his recent attack on Romney's venture capitalism years (which he vowed on live TV last month to not do), and you quickly see why I just do not trust this man to now be the champion of individual liberty. Oh, and I should note his favorite 20th Century president, as described by him: FDR. Yeah, that about cinches for me.
As it stands I would vote Santorum. Romney seems to be unstoppable, but that's not a demonstrable concern for as you pointed out, even then, "anything" is preferable to the ideology currently residing in the White House. I am encouraged in recent days with Romney's tone - drawing contrasts over the ideological battle, individual liberty versus state mandated collectivism. I would find it a terrible waste for the GOP to miss this historic opportunity to defeat the idea of collectivism (at least for a generation) in favor of only defeating a single candidate in Obama. Not to mention, if you do the former, the latter will take care of itself.
I hear that Senator Rubio, the young Cuban Tea Party favorite whom beat the then incumbent governor of Florida, is the odds on favorite for the VP spot. It makes sense - a trusted conservative, Hispanic, won state wide office in probably the most crucial/contested electoral rich state in the union. Its incredible how fast a figure can rise in this new media access ready age. Rubio was a state senator 2 years ago, and now Vice Presdient of the United States may be a reality within 3 (much like the current PoTUS). However, were Romney to win I wouldn't be surprised were he to pull a reverse Reagan move - unify the conservatives with Santorum as your pick.
And I just want to add... I was of course a proponent of Gingrich during the Clinton years. However, the contract with America was the beginning and end of what I knew of him. Since that time I have done some research and I find him utterly objectionable. Quotes that I've heard come from his own lips are disturbing in the extreme. Describing himself as a "Wilsonian realpolitik." This is a man whom claims to be a conservative? Forget Wilsonian for a moment, the latter phrase is in essence the politics of getting things done, period, despite obstacles such as the Constitution. And being a history professor he knows the meaning behind these phrases better than most. Add to this his "Green Movement" campaign which had him on a couch doing commercials with Nancy Pelosi, and his recent attack on Romney's venture capitalism years (which he vowed on live TV last month to not do), and you quickly see why I just do not trust this man to now be the champion of individual liberty. Oh, and I should note his favorite 20th Century president, as described by him: FDR. Yeah, that about cinches for me.
Primaries... thus far:
I'm just not impressed with ANY of the candidates yet... and that is not a good thing.
If I had to pick right now, I'd go with Santorum. He's a bit bland, but his message is clear and he has a spotless if un-spectacular record while in Congress. He has a surprising number of religious endorsements, and very few of them (that I know of anyway) are Catholic... he has an official endorsement from the Evangelical League in SC, a Family Faith group in MS, and the Faith Matters organization in the Midwest. I say this to point out that I am not blind to the fact that many Protestant mainstream leaders across the country see his agenda as parallel to theirs... despite his Catholic faith.
My concern is that he is a Bush Jr. sort of conservative... big spending, big ticket GOP compromiser willing to allow big spending if it gets him his agenda. The Bush years (2001 to 2009) are not my idea of the conservative ideal... but they are a far cry better than what we've had since.
Still, he has none of the "flip-flop" taint that Romney has, and no automatic label of "hypocrite" that Gingrich is carrying around. His understanding of American needs in foreign policy seem rooted in reality (unlike Ron Paul's) and he is MILES ahead of Buchannan, Perry and the rest in his ability to clearly spell out his ideas and goals as President.
He doesn't have a lot on his resume to sell him into the Oval Office... no executive experience, two terms in the House and two terms in the Senate, and almost no public exposure since losing his Senate seat in 2007. If he has any money in his coffers, he needs to spend it on a PR campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since 1980.
If I had to pick right now, I'd go with Santorum. He's a bit bland, but his message is clear and he has a spotless if un-spectacular record while in Congress. He has a surprising number of religious endorsements, and very few of them (that I know of anyway) are Catholic... he has an official endorsement from the Evangelical League in SC, a Family Faith group in MS, and the Faith Matters organization in the Midwest. I say this to point out that I am not blind to the fact that many Protestant mainstream leaders across the country see his agenda as parallel to theirs... despite his Catholic faith.
My concern is that he is a Bush Jr. sort of conservative... big spending, big ticket GOP compromiser willing to allow big spending if it gets him his agenda. The Bush years (2001 to 2009) are not my idea of the conservative ideal... but they are a far cry better than what we've had since.
Still, he has none of the "flip-flop" taint that Romney has, and no automatic label of "hypocrite" that Gingrich is carrying around. His understanding of American needs in foreign policy seem rooted in reality (unlike Ron Paul's) and he is MILES ahead of Buchannan, Perry and the rest in his ability to clearly spell out his ideas and goals as President.
He doesn't have a lot on his resume to sell him into the Oval Office... no executive experience, two terms in the House and two terms in the Senate, and almost no public exposure since losing his Senate seat in 2007. If he has any money in his coffers, he needs to spend it on a PR campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since 1980.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The only universal constant is change
Well after 24 years, 5 years in the Navy, 4 years in the Army and the rest in the Air Force Reserve for a total of 24 years I am finally hanging up my hat. I'm not sure I really want to but like the title says change is coming and I don't think I can go through that again. I did 8 years of that kind of change under Bill Clinton and it's time for the young guys to clean up the mess. The ceremony is in July so anyone who would like to attend let me know, I will be supplying the Barley Pops.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wish me luck...
Jake has a neurologist appointment tomorrow to test his sleeping patterns for problems like sleep apnea that might be keeping him from a full night's REM sleep. No problem, right?
Except that he has to stay up ALL NIGHT tonight until 8 AM tomorrow when he will sleep at the doctor's office.
That's right, friends... its UP ALL NIGHT with Jacob tonight! Aside from the fact that I simply don't function so well on zero sleep anymore, Jake suffers without a solid night himself... so its anybody's guess what tonight and tomorrow will bring us.
Forget wishing me luck... pray for us, please!
Except that he has to stay up ALL NIGHT tonight until 8 AM tomorrow when he will sleep at the doctor's office.
That's right, friends... its UP ALL NIGHT with Jacob tonight! Aside from the fact that I simply don't function so well on zero sleep anymore, Jake suffers without a solid night himself... so its anybody's guess what tonight and tomorrow will bring us.
Forget wishing me luck... pray for us, please!
Posting this right here so it doesn't get lost...
My book is available as an E book, and has been since it came out in 2005. Why Amazon doesn't sell it as an E book is a mystery, but if you go to the publisher, Red Lead Publishing, you can purchase it right there.
Claire has a Nook and loves it.
Enjoy!
Claire has a Nook and loves it.
Enjoy!
Friday, January 6, 2012
Fair enough...
I apologize for the crass and sarcastic manner in which I must have phrased my last post. I was trying to be ironic, not sarcastic.
That being said, I defend my position, if not my actual words.
"I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire."
First of all... that was some damn fine rebuttal right there. Touche! However, I was not insinuating that you thought Caesar did it all... I was pointing out that Caesar instigated the civil war by marching an army into territory where it was forbidden to march, with the sole purpose of overthrowing the existing and established order. In short, a coup d'etat. He did this knowingly and with intent, fully understanding what would result from his actions. I simply don't think the comparison is accurate.
Obama, even if he is trying to subvert the established order by usurping more authority than the Constitution gives his office, has not knowingly acted in a manner that would start a civil war. I'm still not convinced that the policy or legislation can even stand up to today's very liberal Supreme Court... as you said, it is a clear infringement on (if not violation of) nearly every aspect of our personal freedoms and liberties as defined in the founding documents.
States like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Virginia seizing and occupying Federal forts and harbors prior to April of 1861 is EXACTLY the sort of action your analogy describes: clear and thoughtfully planned acts that have no possible alternative result other than civil war. Some would argue that Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to "maintain the Union" did the same thing, but none of those troops (even if they had been on hand at the time, which they weren't) were encroaching on State lands (literally, the lands then claimed by the Confederacy)... so I don't agree.
Lincoln's arrest and detention of most of the Maryland legislature and the Mayor of Baltimore without charge or trial for more than 4 years IS a good example of what I am talking about. They remained detained at his direction until the end of hostilities... and the act was later determined by the SCotUS to be un-Constitutional, but it did not impede Lincoln during the crisis.
Andrew Jackson's actions in utilizing Federal troops to forcibly remove Indians from their legally ratified and recognized reservations in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina (and later Florida and Mississippi) was also determined to be "wrong"... but was justified by the then President as needed and necessary, and was NOT seen as something that could be allowed to remain a permanent part of Executive authority.
These were all actions taken against recognized US citizens, their property and their rights as defined by the Constitution. I don't mean "recognized now" either... people understood these individuals to be US CITIZENS, but that was inconvenient to the established authority and it was ignored by the White House and other elected leaders. Whatever the reasoning, it was (or is now) recognized that this was WRONG, and it was corrected or guarded against in the future.
Look, perhaps my saying that "every President since Washington" was trying to do what Obama was doing was taking it too far. What I meant by that was that every President since Washington (and I include Washington in this) has looked to expand, or at least redefine, the Powers allocated and allowed to the Executive Branch of Government. Few have succeeded, but some have, and some have only to have their efforts reversed later by calmer and wiser heads.
I simply cannot believe that this legislation will survive even minutes of debate between the Justices, should it ever reach the Supreme Court. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is un-Constitutional... how can this be?
That being said, I defend my position, if not my actual words.
"I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire."
First of all... that was some damn fine rebuttal right there. Touche! However, I was not insinuating that you thought Caesar did it all... I was pointing out that Caesar instigated the civil war by marching an army into territory where it was forbidden to march, with the sole purpose of overthrowing the existing and established order. In short, a coup d'etat. He did this knowingly and with intent, fully understanding what would result from his actions. I simply don't think the comparison is accurate.
Obama, even if he is trying to subvert the established order by usurping more authority than the Constitution gives his office, has not knowingly acted in a manner that would start a civil war. I'm still not convinced that the policy or legislation can even stand up to today's very liberal Supreme Court... as you said, it is a clear infringement on (if not violation of) nearly every aspect of our personal freedoms and liberties as defined in the founding documents.
States like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Virginia seizing and occupying Federal forts and harbors prior to April of 1861 is EXACTLY the sort of action your analogy describes: clear and thoughtfully planned acts that have no possible alternative result other than civil war. Some would argue that Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to "maintain the Union" did the same thing, but none of those troops (even if they had been on hand at the time, which they weren't) were encroaching on State lands (literally, the lands then claimed by the Confederacy)... so I don't agree.
Lincoln's arrest and detention of most of the Maryland legislature and the Mayor of Baltimore without charge or trial for more than 4 years IS a good example of what I am talking about. They remained detained at his direction until the end of hostilities... and the act was later determined by the SCotUS to be un-Constitutional, but it did not impede Lincoln during the crisis.
Andrew Jackson's actions in utilizing Federal troops to forcibly remove Indians from their legally ratified and recognized reservations in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina (and later Florida and Mississippi) was also determined to be "wrong"... but was justified by the then President as needed and necessary, and was NOT seen as something that could be allowed to remain a permanent part of Executive authority.
These were all actions taken against recognized US citizens, their property and their rights as defined by the Constitution. I don't mean "recognized now" either... people understood these individuals to be US CITIZENS, but that was inconvenient to the established authority and it was ignored by the White House and other elected leaders. Whatever the reasoning, it was (or is now) recognized that this was WRONG, and it was corrected or guarded against in the future.
Look, perhaps my saying that "every President since Washington" was trying to do what Obama was doing was taking it too far. What I meant by that was that every President since Washington (and I include Washington in this) has looked to expand, or at least redefine, the Powers allocated and allowed to the Executive Branch of Government. Few have succeeded, but some have, and some have only to have their efforts reversed later by calmer and wiser heads.
I simply cannot believe that this legislation will survive even minutes of debate between the Justices, should it ever reach the Supreme Court. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is un-Constitutional... how can this be?
20 paces and I'll stop along the way to pick up my second!
You couldn't be more wrong in your analysis, and I will lay out the specifics as to why.
But first ...
What sin could I possibly have committed to earn such an insult? Have I done so little to vindicate my intellect over these many years that you find it necessary to attempt a literal correction of what was clearly a creative hyperbole meant to accent a relevant point? So let me get this straight - you're telling me it wasn't ONE man that crossed the Rubicon? Thank you dear professor. Whatever would I do without such keen insight? I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire. Your clarity is crystal. But why stop the lesson there? Surely it occurred to you to enlighten me on the fact that President Obama himself will not literally be the arresting agent when an American is detained under his new authority. Nor will it be he, one man, who flies the plane when and if an American is subjected to Rendition. Nor will he lock the cell door, nor launder the clothing, nor cook the prison food for the never charged, never mirandized, indefinitely held American citizen. Perhaps the constraints of time prevented you from making this clear. I can only hope that I have properly addressed the issue to your exacting standards ... feel fortunate dear man that Western Civilization has evolved past the era when it was permissible to challenge a fellow gentleman to a duel, for I would demand satisfaction sir!
To my point, Bush never sought nor did he achieve this power by law (not that it was disclosed at least). Had he, his immediate successor would have no need of duplicate legislation. In addition, never once have I advocated indefinite detention of US citizens. Third, this I don't buy for a moment: "every chief executive" has sought this power. In fact, I would go so far as to say the vast majority have not.
Fourth - FDR and Lincoln / temporary versus permanent. There is a specific and measurable difference between they and Obama. Technically, this is peacetime. There is no formal declaration of war. Meaning unlike Lincoln & FDR these powers have not been assumed under the War Powers Act, which would as a matter of course naturally abate at the cessation of hostilities. In other words, this is a stand alone law. No return to peace (from wars declared or not declared) will withdraw the authority. Which leads me to my last point on the permanent nature of these powers - there will never be a cessation of hostilities in the war on terror. They (or at least a significant portion therein) have been converting by the sword since the time of Mohammad. Unlike what Lincoln and FDR faced, there is no single leader to kill or capture; no peace of real estate to win that eliminates the threat; no high command that can demand and receive the surrender of all enemy troops. In other words, unlike in the case of the two afore metioned chief executives, the very nature of this war neccessitates that these new powers not be temporary.
No, no my friend. This is unique. Even Adams' sedition acts provided for charge and trial. So unless you can demonstrate a case(s) in which a PoTUS sought and had codified into law, unaffected by peacetime status, the ability to suspend any and all applicable criminal justice Rights (and if you want me to rest easier, evidence the authority was successfully rebuffed and the law recalled), don't present section 1021 to me as something common to the annals of American history.
Oh, and of course you realize these powers would provide their ability to "disappear" the likes of Timothy McVeigh, right? Now personally, I wouldn't care if McVeigh were summarily thrown on the Rack then tossed in a shallow grave (although clearly our laws can not reflect such personal feelings). What I do care about is the idea that scores of radicals on the Left do not distinguish between Terry Nichols and the Tea Party. And the language on what constitutes a "terrorist" is just vague enough to be interpreted any which way they please.
But first ...
What sin could I possibly have committed to earn such an insult? Have I done so little to vindicate my intellect over these many years that you find it necessary to attempt a literal correction of what was clearly a creative hyperbole meant to accent a relevant point? So let me get this straight - you're telling me it wasn't ONE man that crossed the Rubicon? Thank you dear professor. Whatever would I do without such keen insight? I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire. Your clarity is crystal. But why stop the lesson there? Surely it occurred to you to enlighten me on the fact that President Obama himself will not literally be the arresting agent when an American is detained under his new authority. Nor will it be he, one man, who flies the plane when and if an American is subjected to Rendition. Nor will he lock the cell door, nor launder the clothing, nor cook the prison food for the never charged, never mirandized, indefinitely held American citizen. Perhaps the constraints of time prevented you from making this clear. I can only hope that I have properly addressed the issue to your exacting standards ... feel fortunate dear man that Western Civilization has evolved past the era when it was permissible to challenge a fellow gentleman to a duel, for I would demand satisfaction sir!
To my point, Bush never sought nor did he achieve this power by law (not that it was disclosed at least). Had he, his immediate successor would have no need of duplicate legislation. In addition, never once have I advocated indefinite detention of US citizens. Third, this I don't buy for a moment: "every chief executive" has sought this power. In fact, I would go so far as to say the vast majority have not.
Fourth - FDR and Lincoln / temporary versus permanent. There is a specific and measurable difference between they and Obama. Technically, this is peacetime. There is no formal declaration of war. Meaning unlike Lincoln & FDR these powers have not been assumed under the War Powers Act, which would as a matter of course naturally abate at the cessation of hostilities. In other words, this is a stand alone law. No return to peace (from wars declared or not declared) will withdraw the authority. Which leads me to my last point on the permanent nature of these powers - there will never be a cessation of hostilities in the war on terror. They (or at least a significant portion therein) have been converting by the sword since the time of Mohammad. Unlike what Lincoln and FDR faced, there is no single leader to kill or capture; no peace of real estate to win that eliminates the threat; no high command that can demand and receive the surrender of all enemy troops. In other words, unlike in the case of the two afore metioned chief executives, the very nature of this war neccessitates that these new powers not be temporary.
No, no my friend. This is unique. Even Adams' sedition acts provided for charge and trial. So unless you can demonstrate a case(s) in which a PoTUS sought and had codified into law, unaffected by peacetime status, the ability to suspend any and all applicable criminal justice Rights (and if you want me to rest easier, evidence the authority was successfully rebuffed and the law recalled), don't present section 1021 to me as something common to the annals of American history.
Oh, and of course you realize these powers would provide their ability to "disappear" the likes of Timothy McVeigh, right? Now personally, I wouldn't care if McVeigh were summarily thrown on the Rack then tossed in a shallow grave (although clearly our laws can not reflect such personal feelings). What I do care about is the idea that scores of radicals on the Left do not distinguish between Terry Nichols and the Tea Party. And the language on what constitutes a "terrorist" is just vague enough to be interpreted any which way they please.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
We should be ashamed of ourselves...
We've already surpassed the number of posts for the month of December...
Anyone for another New Year resolution?
Anyone for another New Year resolution?
The Greatest Christmas Gift... Ever...
Picture this:
All our kids, gathered under one of two trees in the house (neither real... so no bitching about deforestation, okay?) and looking over the expanse of wrapping paper, ribbons and tinsel that covers the floor. Liz and I enjoying the happy scene and drinking coffee. Then the kids give me my presents...
A tin of Boy Scout popcorn from Jacob (which I love and is already gone).
A small, book-sized package from Liz, Katey and Nolan.
I open the package and find a brand new Kindle. I know what they are, and I have seen them in operation both at work and through friends, but I have never owned one. I'm a bit old fashioned, I guess and I always wanted a real book in my hands.
Until now, that is.
This little miracle is the most FANTASTIC gift I have ever gotten! Barely a week into the New Year and I have more then 40 titles in the thing, with more than 1,500 to go before I actually need to sweat memory limits. Downloading the books is so easy its criminal... and I haven't paid for anything that cost more than $3.99 YET!
In fact, being able to sort titles by the "ratings" of other readers is one of the greatest perks to the whole thing! I find the most popular books, read a review or two, and decide if the effort is worth less than a buck. And I have found at least FOUR absolutely fantastic books already!!! Riveting reads, fantastic stories, and all by authors no one would have heard from in the traditional "paper" world.
In all honestly, if there is any way Jambo can get HIS title into Kindle-format (e-books), perhaps that is the key to making the book more widely read: all it would take is the initial formatting and a push to get people to rate it. Bingo... you are the next Kindle Best Seller!
All our kids, gathered under one of two trees in the house (neither real... so no bitching about deforestation, okay?) and looking over the expanse of wrapping paper, ribbons and tinsel that covers the floor. Liz and I enjoying the happy scene and drinking coffee. Then the kids give me my presents...
A tin of Boy Scout popcorn from Jacob (which I love and is already gone).
A small, book-sized package from Liz, Katey and Nolan.
I open the package and find a brand new Kindle. I know what they are, and I have seen them in operation both at work and through friends, but I have never owned one. I'm a bit old fashioned, I guess and I always wanted a real book in my hands.
Until now, that is.
This little miracle is the most FANTASTIC gift I have ever gotten! Barely a week into the New Year and I have more then 40 titles in the thing, with more than 1,500 to go before I actually need to sweat memory limits. Downloading the books is so easy its criminal... and I haven't paid for anything that cost more than $3.99 YET!
In fact, being able to sort titles by the "ratings" of other readers is one of the greatest perks to the whole thing! I find the most popular books, read a review or two, and decide if the effort is worth less than a buck. And I have found at least FOUR absolutely fantastic books already!!! Riveting reads, fantastic stories, and all by authors no one would have heard from in the traditional "paper" world.
In all honestly, if there is any way Jambo can get HIS title into Kindle-format (e-books), perhaps that is the key to making the book more widely read: all it would take is the initial formatting and a push to get people to rate it. Bingo... you are the next Kindle Best Seller!
Iacta alea est...
As distressed as I am to hear that you have become this upset at the prospect of a President exceeding his authority as defined by the Constitution, I feel it incumbent on me to remind you of two small points:
1) This is not the first time this has happened, nor (probably) will it be the last. Every President since Washington has fought for this kind of authority, and only in the rarest and most benign forms has it remained a prerogative of the Executive Branch as we know it today. Lincoln's policy during the Civil War was very similar, as was FDR's during WWII and Bush's during the post-911 crisis. It was my understanding that you approved of this sort of temporary measure to expand the authority of the Chief Executive in times of crisis and/or war... is this not the case anymore? As long as the final determination to end the authority rests with Congress (as it always does, and does again in this case) and as long as the Judicial Branch retains the authority to supersede this extension of Executive power... how is this different?
Frankly, it isn't YOU that I expected to have kittens over this... it was the radical Obamaniacs that elected him in the first place that are REALLY going to freak out. He ran (as you pointed out) 100% against this sort of executive authority even being granted, let alone exercised so they should find themselves sleepless and anxiety-ridden until it is repealed or another, more "liberal" President is sworn in.
2) In regards to your hyperbole, "it only takes one man to cross the Rubicon and your Republic is GONE, forever" I can't let this slip by...
It wasn't ONE man crossing that muddy little creek that ended the Republic... it was the 18,000 battle-hardened Legionaries he had following him, and the 20,000 more that were still on the way from Gaul. THAT was what ended the Republic... that and four years of bloody and destructive warfare that raged across the entire face of Europe and the Mediterranean once the river was waded.
We aren't there yet, my friend... we still have time.
1) This is not the first time this has happened, nor (probably) will it be the last. Every President since Washington has fought for this kind of authority, and only in the rarest and most benign forms has it remained a prerogative of the Executive Branch as we know it today. Lincoln's policy during the Civil War was very similar, as was FDR's during WWII and Bush's during the post-911 crisis. It was my understanding that you approved of this sort of temporary measure to expand the authority of the Chief Executive in times of crisis and/or war... is this not the case anymore? As long as the final determination to end the authority rests with Congress (as it always does, and does again in this case) and as long as the Judicial Branch retains the authority to supersede this extension of Executive power... how is this different?
Frankly, it isn't YOU that I expected to have kittens over this... it was the radical Obamaniacs that elected him in the first place that are REALLY going to freak out. He ran (as you pointed out) 100% against this sort of executive authority even being granted, let alone exercised so they should find themselves sleepless and anxiety-ridden until it is repealed or another, more "liberal" President is sworn in.
2) In regards to your hyperbole, "it only takes one man to cross the Rubicon and your Republic is GONE, forever" I can't let this slip by...
It wasn't ONE man crossing that muddy little creek that ended the Republic... it was the 18,000 battle-hardened Legionaries he had following him, and the 20,000 more that were still on the way from Gaul. THAT was what ended the Republic... that and four years of bloody and destructive warfare that raged across the entire face of Europe and the Mediterranean once the river was waded.
We aren't there yet, my friend... we still have time.
A Bund Buddy News Flash!
Please, read THIS ARTICLE and know that when we here at the Bund speak of "heroes" we are talking about people we know and love, not just an abstract notion, oft quoted but never understood.
Well done, Rick! Thanks for all you do, and stay safe!
Well done, Rick! Thanks for all you do, and stay safe!
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Section 1021
Years from now, when some great, great grandson or daughter is doing research on their brilliant ancestor "F. Ryan", and they stumble across this treasure trove of insight into his soul, and that of his dear friends, I don't want to be thought of as "asleep" when this bill was signed in the middle of the night (read: New Years Eve).
The new defense reauthorization bill, for fiscal year 2012, includes in it an expansion of the Executive's Branch's powers under Section 1021. It's in legalese, but it breaks down like this (and from the man whom announced the closure of GITMO on his first day in office): the PoTUS, via the military (and some argue the DOJ, the language seems to be purposely vague) can now hold those "suspected of terrorist acts against the United States", to be held indefinitely without trial or charge. Now you may say "ok, we've been doing that to battlefield combatants at GITMO (and surely other sites) since the initiation of hostilities Mr. brilliant F. Ryan." And you'd be right... However, the authority now extends to American citizens, detained on American soil.
Do I have your attention yet?
The President can now use the military (and presumably the DOJ) to "scoop people up in the middle of the night" (as he accused the Bush administration of), in violation of Posse Cumitatus. With no Miranda, no court, no Habeus Corpus, no lawyer, no anything ... just disappear you like a Mafia snitch. Oh, and it includes the authority to transport you to GITMO or a sovereign foreign power for interrogation ... say Egyptian Secret Police. And, if he deems it necessary, the ability to try civilians in a military tribunal. May I remind you, we're atlking about US citizens "detained" on US soil. And they did it by extending the definition of the "batlefield" to America herself. This is the very stuff of despotism. But don't worry, the PoTUS issued a signing statement noting that his administration will not hold any US citizen, "indefinitely." Whew! Thank goodness, we really dodged a bullet there ... I thought for a second this is the type of power that might be abused ... its good to know that ... ARE YOU MAD AMERICA??? This is insanity! And even if this guy doesn't "abuse" this new power, it only takes one man to cross the Rubicon and your Republic is GONE, forever.
And FYI, on that signing statement - Senator Lyndsey Graham told the press that it was the White House that insisted on the specific language within Section 1021. By the way, do we not control the House? Here's a better question, has anyone in either Party read a single history book? Where's the ACLU? To busy breaking crosses off tombstones at Arlington or monitoring Boy Scout prayer meetings?
We have effectively suspended the Bill of Rights, yet where are the stories? Where is the Press coverage? I wish, and I mean this sincerely, that Bush would have signed this Bill - at least then it would be widely covered.
Your country changed 4 days ago ... where were you? Watching Dancing With the Stars? My nation is asleep.
The new defense reauthorization bill, for fiscal year 2012, includes in it an expansion of the Executive's Branch's powers under Section 1021. It's in legalese, but it breaks down like this (and from the man whom announced the closure of GITMO on his first day in office): the PoTUS, via the military (and some argue the DOJ, the language seems to be purposely vague) can now hold those "suspected of terrorist acts against the United States", to be held indefinitely without trial or charge. Now you may say "ok, we've been doing that to battlefield combatants at GITMO (and surely other sites) since the initiation of hostilities Mr. brilliant F. Ryan." And you'd be right... However, the authority now extends to American citizens, detained on American soil.
Do I have your attention yet?
The President can now use the military (and presumably the DOJ) to "scoop people up in the middle of the night" (as he accused the Bush administration of), in violation of Posse Cumitatus. With no Miranda, no court, no Habeus Corpus, no lawyer, no anything ... just disappear you like a Mafia snitch. Oh, and it includes the authority to transport you to GITMO or a sovereign foreign power for interrogation ... say Egyptian Secret Police. And, if he deems it necessary, the ability to try civilians in a military tribunal. May I remind you, we're atlking about US citizens "detained" on US soil. And they did it by extending the definition of the "batlefield" to America herself. This is the very stuff of despotism. But don't worry, the PoTUS issued a signing statement noting that his administration will not hold any US citizen, "indefinitely." Whew! Thank goodness, we really dodged a bullet there ... I thought for a second this is the type of power that might be abused ... its good to know that ... ARE YOU MAD AMERICA??? This is insanity! And even if this guy doesn't "abuse" this new power, it only takes one man to cross the Rubicon and your Republic is GONE, forever.
And FYI, on that signing statement - Senator Lyndsey Graham told the press that it was the White House that insisted on the specific language within Section 1021. By the way, do we not control the House? Here's a better question, has anyone in either Party read a single history book? Where's the ACLU? To busy breaking crosses off tombstones at Arlington or monitoring Boy Scout prayer meetings?
We have effectively suspended the Bill of Rights, yet where are the stories? Where is the Press coverage? I wish, and I mean this sincerely, that Bush would have signed this Bill - at least then it would be widely covered.
Your country changed 4 days ago ... where were you? Watching Dancing With the Stars? My nation is asleep.
My man Rick ...
From polling at 7% to within 8 votes of first place/beating Romney, that's a huge win for Santorum.
And I want the irony noted - here I am pulling for the Roman Catholic underdog over the name brand Mormon. Sorry Mitt, but there's no "Santorum-Care", is there?
I'm confident J.S. would agree ...
And I want the irony noted - here I am pulling for the Roman Catholic underdog over the name brand Mormon. Sorry Mitt, but there's no "Santorum-Care", is there?
I'm confident J.S. would agree ...
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Sports Agony
New Year, new levels of pain.
My last hope for 2011 was the Wisconsin Badgers, the home college team. Two Hail Mary plays away from a National Championship game. One lost time out in the second half of the Rose Bowl away from overtime.
While 2012 looks much better on the American political landscape, (Presidential election and a glorious, perhaps that once in a generation opportunity at change in two branches of government) my sports forecast is dismal. Short of a serious amount of explosives and some moving vans, I don't see the Minnesota Vikings improving. (Bad joke. There is a chance the Vikings could end up in Los Angeles, even now. And that, my friends, severs my relationship with the NFL permanently.) Without the blue chip quarterback Russel Wilson returning to Wisconsin, we'll be lucky to see the field of the Raid Death to Cockroaches Bowl in Morgan City, LA. The Minnesota Twins have made no qualitative improvements to their roster and have seen the exodus of several key and much loved starters via free agency. (Kubel, Cuddyer, Nathan are just a few that leap to mind)
What do I have left? The Mississippi Surge? Our minor league hockey team in Biloxi? Spring training in baseball in six weeks. Three months and some change before the Vikings screw up their number 3 pick in the draft. Maybe Wisconsin basketball can right the ship but they're a Sweet 16 tournament team AT BEST.
sigh
My last hope for 2011 was the Wisconsin Badgers, the home college team. Two Hail Mary plays away from a National Championship game. One lost time out in the second half of the Rose Bowl away from overtime.
While 2012 looks much better on the American political landscape, (Presidential election and a glorious, perhaps that once in a generation opportunity at change in two branches of government) my sports forecast is dismal. Short of a serious amount of explosives and some moving vans, I don't see the Minnesota Vikings improving. (Bad joke. There is a chance the Vikings could end up in Los Angeles, even now. And that, my friends, severs my relationship with the NFL permanently.) Without the blue chip quarterback Russel Wilson returning to Wisconsin, we'll be lucky to see the field of the Raid Death to Cockroaches Bowl in Morgan City, LA. The Minnesota Twins have made no qualitative improvements to their roster and have seen the exodus of several key and much loved starters via free agency. (Kubel, Cuddyer, Nathan are just a few that leap to mind)
What do I have left? The Mississippi Surge? Our minor league hockey team in Biloxi? Spring training in baseball in six weeks. Three months and some change before the Vikings screw up their number 3 pick in the draft. Maybe Wisconsin basketball can right the ship but they're a Sweet 16 tournament team AT BEST.
sigh
Monday, January 2, 2012
Testing my mad phone skills
New phone. So it turns out that I can poat to the Bund now by phone. Which is beyond kick ass.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
